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

October 16, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Oct-16 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 16 October 2002 Mercredi 16 octobre 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CROP INSURANCE

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

MACULAR DEGENERATION

KYOTO PROTOCOL

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CLEAN WATER PROJECT

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

VISITORS

EVENTS IN NIPISSING

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN /

VIOLENCE FAITE AUX FEMMES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

STALKERS REGISTRY ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE REGISTRE

DES HARCELEURS

VISITORS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(EMERGENCY VEHICLE SAFETY), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LE CODE

DE LA ROUTE (SÉCURITÉ

DES VÉHICULES DE SECOURS)

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

EMERGENCY VEHICLE SAFETY

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

HAMILTON INCINERATOR

QUEEN ELIZABETH II

AIMING FOR THE TOP SCHOLARSHIPS

LONG-TERM CARE

KYOTO PROTOCOL

LONG-TERM CARE

ETHANOL PROJECT

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

MACULAR DEGENERATION

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 69

SCHOOL CLOSURES

LONG-TERM CARE

COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE CENTRES

EDUCATION FUNDING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

NATURAL GAS RATES

WATER EXTRACTION

LONG-TERM CARE

NATURAL GAS RATES

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Wednesday 16 October 2002 Mercredi 16 octobre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CROP INSURANCE

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I rise today to bring to the attention of this Legislature an issue of extreme importance and concern

to the cash croppers of this province, in particular, the soybean growers of Ontario.

For three straight years, Ontario has seen adverse weather conditions for growing grains and oilseeds. This crop year, 2002, we have witnessed an extreme lack of

rainfall, particularly in the southwest, the grain basket of this province.

Soybeans presently being harvested out of the fields are discoloured green. This is a result of the plant shutting itself down prematurely due to a lack of

moisture, trapping the chlorophyll in the seed. This is a weather-related issue.

Crop insurance, administered by Agricorp, is supposed to be a safety net that insures yields due to weather-related factors. Farmers attempting to sell these

beans are being discounted, though, up to $80 a tonne, with no coverage or compensation. Agricorp is dancing on this issue. They are insisting the farmers sell these beans at exorbitant discounts.

At an $80-per-tonne penalty, the crushers are stealing these beans.

In its press release last week, Agricorp continues to use the doublespeak that they cover insured perils. They refuse to recognize that the supposed grade

discount is not classified as an insurable peril.

I am calling on this government, and in particular the Minister of Agriculture, to recognize that this is solely due to adverse weather conditions. The minister

must demand that Agricorp act in the best interests of the farmers of this province who in good faith paid their crop insurance premiums, believing they had coverage for adverse crop results due to

weather.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Every year children's aid societies in Ontario provide substitute care to 29,000 abused and/or

neglected children. As well, over 7,000 foster families in Ontario have stepped forward to provide care. Just last year, the Children's Aid Society of Haldimand-Norfolk served 1,900 families, while

138 children were in care. In Brant, 260 children were under CAS care in the year 2001.

Protection of children has long been a concern in my area, as with other members of this assembly. The Children's Aid Society of Haldimand-Norfolk is a product

of the unification of both the Norfolk CAS and the Haldimand county CAS, drawing on a proud history dating back over 100 years. The Children's Aid Society of Brant celebrated its 109th year of

operation recently, while the native services branch of the children's aid society was established in 1977 to serve both the Six Nations and the New Credit communities.

October has been designated as Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Month, and Canadian Foster Family Week begins on the 20th. At this time, it would serve us well

to look to the motto of this year's 10th annual campaign, "It Shouldn't Hurt to be a Child." I ask all in the Legislature here and across the province to recognize the selfless efforts of our

children's aid societies.

MACULAR DEGENERATION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): "Drug fights blindness but Ontario won't pay." So screamed the headline of the Kingston

Whig-Standard this past Saturday.

Last May, health minister Tony Clement announced that the government would fund a new treatment for macular degeneration called Visudyne. Visudyne is very

costly. It costs $3,000 per treatment, but most people need about five treatments, so the cost is closer to $15,000.

What the minister failed to mention in his announcement was that a new Visudyne policy included strict eligibility criteria that effectively exclude 80% to 90%

of the patients who were candidates for treatment. As Gordon Currie found out: "It sounded so good on TV when Clement came out and said the government was going to cover it. It made them look

pretty good -- and it's a lie." That's a quote.

Sally Barnes, a former Harris Conservative candidate who's 88-year-old mother has received three treatments, at a cost of $9,000 to her, stated: "If you're going

blind and you don't have the money, you're screwed."

Dr Alan Cruess, a leading Kingston ophthalmologist actively involved in vision and seniors' organizations, says, "It's a real two-tier question. There's a group

of people who are falling through the cracks absolutely."

Sally Barnes summed it up when she said, "I don't go out of my way to embarrass the government, but the Visudyne policy is morally and politically stupid."

This is no way to treat our elderly, who are mainly struck with this condition. Minister, do the right thing and cover the treatment for all who need it. Surely

it's inexcusable for people to lose their vision because of your inadequate health care provisions.

KYOTO PROTOCOL

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I'm happy to report to this Legislature and Ontarians watching at home that the facts are

finally emerging about Kyoto. According to the federal government's own estimates released last week on their Web site, www.climatechange.gc.ca, the Liberals have finally admitted that Kyoto will

hurt Ontario families and kill jobs.

How many jobs, you ask? Well, according to the federal government's Web site, we will have between 61,000 and 244,000 fewer jobs because of Kyoto. Let there be

no doubt, Kyoto is a flawed accord. In addition to killing nearly a quarter of a million jobs, the federal government admitted that the Kyoto Protocol will cause our economy to shrink between 0.4%

and 0.7%.

As if killing jobs and shrinking the economy was not enough, last week we were told that hard-working families will have to bear the burden of Kyoto through

increased home heating bills. The government also acknowledged on their Web site that every household in Canada will have to pay between $1,300 and $1,700 in taxes each and every year to cover the

cost of implementing Kyoto.

The true impact of Kyoto is difficult and nearly impossible to accurately measure. This is compounded by a federal government that has shown itself incapable of

accurately projecting program costs.

I urge our members on both sides of this House to review the facts on Kyoto and join with me in working toward a made-in-Canada solution which will keep our

taxes low and our jobs right here in Ontario.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): It is one of the great frustrations of all northwestern Ontario residents that the Harris-Eves

government shows such a lack of support for desperately needed highway improvements in our part of the province.

Despite a huge increase in traffic volume, much of it commercial, and increased road closures that halt all traffic going across the country, we have seen no

commitment to moving forward on the four-laning of Highway 11/17 between Thunder Bay and Nipigon.

In the past week, we've experienced a number of serious accidents on that stretch of road, one that resulted in a fatality. I echo the comments of many of my

constituents when I wonder aloud how many tragedies it will take before the government recognizes the need to move ahead with this vital project.

What we do know is that the government continues to shortchange northwestern Ontario when funding allocations are announced each year. We simply do not get our

fair share of the capital funds for highway improvement that should be coming our way. As a result, even vital rehabilitation projects like the upgrading of Highway 584 between Geraldton and

Nakina, as well as crucially needed passing lanes, are being put on the back burner.

I say to the Premier, who publicly spoke about the importance of four-laning during his most recent visit to Thunder Bay, and to the Minister of Northern

Development and Mines, who we expect to advocate on our behalf, that our needs cannot continue to be ignored. By providing a fair share of the highways budget to our region we can move forward on

the four-laning, as well as our other vital needs. People in northwestern Ontario deserve a safe, first-class highway system, and it's a legitimately achievable goal if the province provides us

with our fair share of funds. We will not give up as we deserve nothing less than that.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): The government's recent decision to fully fund the operating deficit of the Sensenbrenner Hospital in

Kapuskasing is one that now must clearly apply to all other Ontario hospitals with operating deficits.

This includes the operating deficit of the Sudbury Regional Hospital. Our hospital has recently undergone an operating and capital review, and the report of the

steering committee is now in the hands of the government. It's important to note that the hospital board itself requested the operating review many months ago.

Our operating deficit is significant, and has been for some time, because we are not funded as we need to be to offer important health care services to residents

from Sudbury and across northeastern Ontario. The government must accept this fact and commit to increasing the operating budget of the Sudbury Regional Hospital from now on, but the government

also has a clear obligation to pay off the current operating deficit, just as the government has done in Kapuskasing.

Further, this obligation extends beyond northern hospitals because the money used to assist Sensenbrenner comes from the Ministry of Health. This means that the

119 other Ontario hospitals that currently have operating deficits must have these covered too. The Ontario Hospital Association says that the current deficits of these hospitals is in the order of

$500 million. They are waiting for relief too.

Given that the government made its announcement in Kapuskasing in mid-September, other Ontario hospitals should demand the Ministry of Health come to their aid

now. There is no excuse for the ministry not to.

CLEAN WATER PROJECT

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I rise today to tell the members of the House about the Clean Water Project tour in which I recently participated. It

was sponsored by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.

The Clean Water Project offers technical and financial assistance to improve and protect water quality on farms and other rural lands throughout Middlesex,

Oxford and Perth counties, the cities of London and Stratford, and the town of St Marys. These local municipalities, in partnership with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food's healthy

futures for Ontario agriculture program, are offering cost-sharing grants to qualified landowners for best management practices that improve ground and surface water quality. Financial assistance

ranges from 50% to 70% depending on the project.

Farmers must have an approved environmental farm plan in place in order to receive Clean Water Project funding. The farm plan helps landowners to assess their

farms' environmental strengths, identify areas of environmental concern and set realistic goals to improve conditions.

Since the Clean Water Project's launch in September 2001, over 400 projects have been approved. The project has so far been funded to 2004. The Clean Water

Project's investment of $1.4 million has generated $3.25 million worth of work in the local farming community. Applications have been received for each project area, but the greatest interest has

been in manure spreading equipment modification, septic system upgrades, fragile land retirement -- tree planting -- and clean water diversions. The healthy futures program is on track to achieve

the 10-year goal set out in their healthy future's submission.

I know all members will join with me in congratulating the authority, its steering committee and the administrative staff of the Clean Water Project for a job

being done well.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Medical students from across the province came to Queen's Park last week with a strong message:

Ontario needs 1,600 more physicians and yet this government is making it very difficult for students, particularly those from low and middle incomes, to attend medical school.

This is especially true for students from rural areas. Let me tell you about Anne Conlin. She is from the town of Ailsa Craig. There are no doctors in Anne's

town. Her family is not wealthy. Anne worked two full-time jobs to pay for her undergraduate tuition. At the same time, she achieved the competitive marks to get into medical school. She was

prepared to pay for her medical tuition until the Harris and Eves government came to power and deregulated tuition. It went up 175%. It is now $15,000 a year, and that's just tuition; room and

board, of course, are extra. Anne and other medical students now have excessive bank loans.

Other potential medical students in Anne's town ignored medical school altogether because of these high costs and went into other fields -- a town that has no

doctors. OSAP only allows for $4,500 a year for tuition even though tuition is now up to $15,000.

As well, medical students wanted me to correct a misperception about free tuition announced in this government's budget. There is no free tuition for medical

students agreeing to practise in rural and other under-serviced areas. The government offers a fraction of the cost of becoming a doctor. We need 1,600 more doctors in the province, particularly in

the rural areas. Instead of making it easier for students to go to medical school, this government is making it easy only for the rich to go to medical school.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): We'll wait until the government House leader is done.

VISITORS

Hon David Turnbull (Associate Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): On a point of order: I would like everybody to welcome

visitors from Gordon A. Brown school who are in the gallery today. One of our pages, Rachel Stark, is from that school.

EVENTS IN NIPISSING

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): Today I would like to bring to the attention of the Legislature a couple of events that took place in my riding of

Nipissing this past Thanksgiving weekend. The Krause Equestrian Centre and Sweet Hope therapeutic riding program had their official grand opening this past weekend and were very well received by

many people in Powassan, in particular the children.

The owners of this organization, Alvin and Ellen Krause, are truly amazing people. They mortgaged their farm to help children in need. This is truly a selfless

act. I was very impressed with the services that were offered to children in need and would like to congratulate Alvin and Ellen Krause.

Also, the Jocko Point volunteer fire department had its open house this past Saturday and it proved to be a very worthwhile event. It completed Fire Prevention

Week. Adults and children were invited to the fire station to meet the fire team, tour the facility, and watch films on fire safety.

This fire station has come a long way from when it first began. At one time all the firefighters had to work with was a portable pump and a trailer. They were

outfitted with used coats, boots and helmets. A pumper was loaned to their department courtesy of the First Nation band in return for fire protection of the native home on Jocko Point Road and

Margaret Drive. Currently the department has its own tanker and pumper and is outfitted with new uniforms.

I'd like to say hello to all those who volunteer at the Jocko Point fire department. They are: Norm, Barry, Ken, Leo, Chris, Andy, Joan, Pudge, Tom, Noreen, Pat,

Denise, Ed, Doug, Karen, Terry and Sharon. Well done.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Could I ask just the government benches, where there are a number of meetings going on with

members standing, to please take your seat or take the discussion outside. It would be much appreciated.

At the Speaker's discretion, I'll recognize the member for Ottawa-Vanier for a statement.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN /

VIOLENCE FAITE AUX FEMMES

Mrs Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier): Three weeks ago Stats Canada published recent statistics concerning violence toward women. In spite of the

fact that the crime rate in general has decreased, the number of homicides committed on women by men has increased considerably, especially in Ontario.

Je trouve que c'est une tache à la réputation de l'Ontario.

Violence towards women is still a major concern of those who strive to assist them. While it is true that this government recently announced $21.4 million in

this respect, that money is earmarked mostly for cosmetic uses, such as building repairs, ramps and many other things, for the too few existing shelters.

Real service is required. Women who leave violent spouses suffer from a lack of specialized services: no affordable housing, difficulty in obtaining legal aid

and ridiculously low social assistance. Consequently, they and their unfortunate children sink further and further into poverty and misery.

It is high time that this government takes appropriate measures in the prevention of violence towards women and gives real assistance to victims of violence by

adopting the recommendations of the coroner's reports following the horrible and preventable deaths of Arlene May and Gillian Hadley.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the sixth report of the standing

committee on government agencies.

Pursuant to standing order 106(e), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

STALKERS REGISTRY ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE REGISTRE

DES HARCELEURS

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 190,

An Act to provide greater protection to victims of stalking by providing for a stalkers registry / Projet de loi 190, Loi visant à mieux

protéger les victimes de harcèlement en prévoyant un registre des harceleurs.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Bartolucci for a short statement.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This bill is modelled on Christopher's Law (Sex Offender Registry), 2000. It establishes a registry containing

the names of persons who have been convicted of a stalking offence. Stalking offences are offences under

section 264 of the Criminal Code of Canada, under criminal harassment; subsection 35(2) of

the Children's Law Reform Act; and subsection 46(2) of the Family Law Act, which is contravening restraining orders.

This is a huge problem across the province. This bill will go a long way toward protecting those who are stalked.

VISITORS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With your indulgence, I'd like to introduce Stan and Bernice Baker, who are the

parents of Philip, one of the pages here, and to share with the House the fact that their other three children, Jared, Seth and Ava, have all been pages at this House. I'd like to welcome them here

today.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Welcome -- and that's not a point of order.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(EMERGENCY VEHICLE SAFETY), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LE CODE

DE LA ROUTE (SÉCURITÉ

DES VÉHICULES DE SECOURS)

Mr Runciman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 191,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to ensure the safety of emergency vehicles stopped on a highway and people who are outside a stopped

emergency vehicle / Projet de loi 191, Loi modifiant le Code de la route afin de garantir la sécurité des véhicules de secours arrêtés sur une voie publique et celle des

personnes qui se trouvent à l'extérieur de tels véhicules.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The minister for a short statement?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): I'll defer until ministerial statements.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I believe I have consent to move that notwithstanding standing

order 96(g), notice for ballot item 63 be waived.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Is there agreement? Agreed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

EMERGENCY VEHICLE SAFETY

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): Moments ago, I introduced the Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 2002,

legislation that is designed to enhance the safety of emergency personnel and to modify driver behaviour. The legislation, if passed, will require drivers to reduce their speed and move over when

approaching a stopped emergency or law enforcement vehicle with its red lights flashing.

Many of us don't recognize the high risk that front-line police officers and others can face during routine traffic stops. When an officer has pulled his or

her cruiser off to the side of the highway to issue a speeding ticket or warning, to provide help or to investigate an accident, we don't necessarily think of this as a dangerous part of a police

officer's job, but it is a deadly, dangerous part of the job.

In the past five years, four OPP officers have died in the line of duty because of collisions when their cruisers were stopped on the side of the road. Many

others have narrowly missed being run down. In the United States, more than 200 police officers have lost their lives in a similar fashion. This is clearly a dangerous, high-risk part of a

front-line officer's job, and the legislation tabled today is an initiative to lessen that risk.

Many of the people who actually take these risks, who put their lives on the line as part of their job, are with us today: front-line OPP officers from across

the province, representatives of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association and the Police Association of Ontario. Welcome all.

Applause.

Hon Mr Runciman: I think it's fair to say that the people who have to wear the shoes, the people who actually step out of a cruiser in close

proximity to vehicles travelling at extremely high speeds, support this legislation. They want this legislation. They believe it will improve their on-the-job safety, and this government agrees.

Similar legislation has been enacted in 16 US states and one province in Canada. The legislation tabled today, if passed, will see Ontario at the forefront of jurisdictions that make officer safety

a priority.

In closing, I want to acknowledge the support and assistance of several people involved in the development of the legislation: Frank Mazzilli, MPP for

London-Fanshawe, a former police officer whose private member's bill was the catalyst for this legislation; my predecessor the Honourable David Turnbull, who laid the groundwork for the legislation

during his time as Solicitor General; and finally, Brian Adkin, president of the Ontario Provincial Police Association, for his persistence in fighting for what's right -- the safety of the men and

women he so ably represents.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I know you and all members of this assembly recognize that we are living in a time when our police, firefighters and other

professionals who routinely respond to emergency situations have taken on a new and profound significance. We all stand to benefit if they do their job efficiently and safely. Because of the very

nature of what they do, they're often placed in harm's way, but there's no need to subject them to additional risk. They believe we can help their cause if this bill is passed. That's a view the

Eves government shares, and I urge all members to support this legislation and ensure its speedy passage.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals obviously support this bill. It is, frankly, revolting to think that

the men and women who at the very moment they are engaging in

an act to protect us and enforce the law would find themselves imperilled, not by someone they have pulled over, but by our neighbours,

by the people driving by them on the streets. Surely there's a duty upon all Ontarians to go out of their way to ensure that our police officers, who are engaging in

an act to protect and to serve,

are not in danger themselves, and so we will be supporting this bill.

We will also be fighting for, in this chamber and outside this chamber, the resources from this government to ensure that this bill is not a paper tiger, which

I know the minister wishes it not to be, but rather that the resources are provided to enforce this very important new law.

I would be remiss if I did not say, in the time that I have remaining, that there are many other areas in which, unlike this bill, on the matter of crime and

victims of crime, we have disagreements with this government. Right now across this province there are universities handing out amateur date rape drug tests. Date rape drugs are on the rise in this

province. In some areas, one in four sexual assaults involves date rape drugs, and yet, unbelievably, you can go into a hospital to get a cholesterol test, but a victim of sexual assault cannot go

into a hospital to get a date rape drug test.

We on this side of the House say that is wrong, and we believe in the right of Ontarians to have access to a date rape drug.

Identity theft: we say that the fastest growing crime in North America must not only see some consumer protections but must see protections for victims of

crime, victims of identity theft, who find themselves needing assistance from their government to get their identity back. In the midst of this horrific crime, we want to help victims of identity

theft, and we'll be fighting for that on this side of the House.

Lastly, if we are going to talk about crusaders for crime and the streets of Ontario, I would also be remiss if I did not share my time with a man who has

introduced yet another "Bartolucci bill" today, a true crusader on the subject of crime and the streets, the MPP for Sudbury, Rick Bartolucci.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Thank you very much, Michael, for letting me share some time with you. Listen, Minister of Public Safety, if you

are really, really committed to ensuring that our police officers have as safe an environment to operate within as possible, I suggest to you that you pass Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Highway

Traffic Act in respect of studded tires, so that in the north our police officers don't have to investigate or worry about being involved in accidents on very, very slippery roads.

I suggest that you pass Bill 47,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to increase the penalties for driving with a suspended licence. If you talk to these

people in the gallery today, they'll tell you that that's a very real problem that your government has ignored. These are two private members' bills that I've introduced over the course of the last

several years, and yet here is another one that I challenge you to pass: Bill 128,

An Act to permit the naming of highway bridges and other structures on the King's Highway in memory of police

officers who have died in the line of duty.

Today you make an announcement which Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals support. We -- we here, we in the gallery, those you refer to -- challenge you to

pass these laws and other laws that we have introduced so that indeed Ontario will be a safer place and, as importantly, so that the police officers who are mandated to serve and protect have a

safe environment in which to work.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Order. The government benches, I want to ask you to please bear in mind that you were shown a

great deal of respect by the opposition when the minister spoke. Response from the third party, member for Niagara-Centre.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): This is the process wherein the minister and his two critics like three old greying dogs lifting shaky rear

legs try to mark out their turf, one as being more law-and-order than the other. We've seen that demonstrated, however fecklessly, and I'm not going to participate in that. I want to tell the

minister and the government that New Democrats accept this legislation in principle, look forward to its prompt debate in the Legislature, are eager to participate in that debate, are eager to hear

submissions in some brief but critical public hearings --

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): It's an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr Kormos: Of course it's but an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act, but it was important enough for a ministerial statement. It was

important enough to invite leadership from our professional firefighters and policing communities in this province, both provincial and municipal. We think it's important enough to have debate and

modest committee hearings.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The next step is that I start naming members. Sorry for the interruption. Please continue.

Mr Kormos: It is somehow some sort of sport in this chamber to accuse opponents of being less interested in the security and welfare of our

police and firefighters than they are. Friends, it's naïve to suggest any member of this chamber would not commit themselves to ensuring that our front-line emergency personnel, be they

firefighters, medical personnel -- paramedics, among others -- or police officers -- there is no one here who isn't interested in letting those personnel, men and women across this province -- and

there's no region of this province, certainly not Niagara, that is immune to the tragedy of a police officer being struck. Niagara wasn't immune, nor is any other part of this province, and it's

the sort of remedy that's being proposed in this legislation.

There's no discussion, Minister, that ensuring our police officers, our firefighters and our paramedic frontline medical emergency personnel can do their jobs

safely and effectively unless it entails and includes a discussion about adequacy of staffing. Whether that's with respect to policing, ambulance and medical personnel, or professional

firefighters, it remains the case. No one is going to obstruct legislation like this that makes some modest improvement in ensuring police, firefighters and ambulance personnel can do their jobs a

little more safely.

But Minister, please, policing across this province is under stress in terms of personnel and staffing the likes of which haven't been seen. My leader, Howard

Hampton, just a couple of days ago raised in this House his serious concerns about the lack of OPP presence on some of the northern highways in the communities that are part of his constituency.

Members of this Legislature have raised over the course of literally years, since 1997 and the Bill 84 debate, concern about the adequacy of staffing when it comes to firefighting personnel in

communities across this province and the need for this province to participate with those communities.

Those concerns have been expressed by the member for Nickel Belt up in Sudbury. They have been expressed by far-north members. They have been expressed by Mr

Christopherson from Hamilton, by myself from Niagara and by Toronto members as well. Let's use every opportunity we have to advance the well-argued interests of those emergency personnel -- police,

firefighters and ambulance workers -- for the need for some standards that are not just created but reinforced with funding for minimum staffing. That's critical to letting them, permitting them

and enabling them to do their job effectively, and ensuring the safety and security not only of the communities they serve but of themselves and their own brothers and sisters.

We build monuments, as we should, to firefighters, as we will, and as we have to police officers whose lives are taken from them in the course of performing

their duty and in the pursuit of securing the safety of their communities. But I put to you, sir, that this remains but lip service if we aren't prepared to commit ourselves to the investments that

are critical if we're going to staff these forces across this province to adequate levels to let them do their jobs, and to give them the tools and resources that we call upon them to perform their

jobs with. I say to you we should not avoid any opportunity to engage in that debate.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Following these responses, I ask for unanimous consent to move second and

third reading of this bill right now.

The Deputy Speaker: There's a request for unanimous consent to allow second and third -- I hear a no. Therefore, we'll move on.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The House leader for the official opposition will come to order now.

There being no deferred votes today, it is now time for oral questions.

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I move unanimous consent for second and third reading of Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Highway

Traffic Act in respect of studded tires.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I heard a no.

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Speaker: I move unanimous consent for second and third reading of Bill 47, which is

An Act to amend the

Highway Traffic Act to increase the penalties for driving with a suspended licence.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Is there a no? Yes, I heard a no. Sorry.

Mr Bartolucci: Speaker, I move unanimous consent for second and third reading of Bill 128,

An Act to permit the naming of highway bridges and

other structures on the King's Highway in memory of police officers who have died in the line of duty.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I heard a no.

Are there any more points of order? Hearing none, then, we will move on to oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is for the Premier. During the estimates committee I asked the energy minister about when Ontarians

can expect to get their hydro rebate and he said, "I don't have a particular date." He also said, "It could be in August, it could be in April."

Ontarians cannot wait for a hydro rebate pre-election goody. Ontarians can't even wait for a hydro rebate as a Christmas present. Many Ontarians, particularly

those on a fixed income, do not just find the hydro rates obscenely high and unfair; they just simply can't afford them. They don't have the cash flow or the revenue stream. They need their hydro

rebate now. Will you agree to roll out the rebate to compensate Ontarians for Herculean hydro rates now?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): When the government has a long-term view of what hydro rates have done -- as

you know, hydro rates were lower than 4.3, which was the average before the free market came into being. They were lower in the months of May and June than they were previously, they were higher in

July, August and September, and in the month of October they are again considerably lower. So we will look at a long-term picture. We and OPG have indicated to the public that there will be a

rebate forthcoming on amounts over 3.8 cents per kilowatt hour, as the honourable member knows.

Mr Bryant: This is the kind of Ontarian who finds himself in a position where they just cannot pay their hydro bill. It is unaffordable. It's

a mom and pop shop, like many mom and pop shops across this province. This one is Marché A&B, in Embrun, Ontario. They saw their bill go up in August of last year $4,000; this year in

August, $5,700. A $1,700 hydro hike in one month is unaffordable to a mom and pop shop like this that doesn't have the revenue stream. It's a corner store. It doesn't have the kind of cash flow to

permit them to handle this. These stores are imperilled. Jobs will be lost. Businesses will go down. People on fixed incomes are in trouble. They can't wait for forthcoming. They need the hydro

rebate now. Why will you not agree to roll out the hydro rebate now?

Hon Mr Eves: It's important to get the entire picture before you decide what a rebate is going to be. You can't do it on the basis of a week

or a month or even a three-month period of time. So far, the market has been open for five months. For two of those months the average price was down, for three of those months the average price

was up, and now that we're into the sixth month, the average price is down again. So it will be important to look at this in a long-term perspective, and then I'm sure the Minister of Energy and

OPG will do the appropriate thing with respect to a rebate.

Mr Bryant: You want them to wait for the big picture, the whole picture. They're getting the picture: they're seeing hydro rates go up.

They're not just getting the picture, they're also getting the bill. They can't wait for that rebate. They can't wait until April; they can't wait until August; they can't wait for a pre-election

goodie. They can't afford their hydro bills now. We have people calling up our constituency offices saying that they cannot afford their hydro rates now. That's why they need their hydro rebate

now. Why won't you roll out the rebate to compensate Ontarians for this government's Herculean hydro rate hikes now?

Hon Mr Eves: Is the honourable member suggesting that if an individual's hydro bill is up three months and down for the other nine months,

that we give them a rebate because the cost of hydro was less for nine months of the year and more for three months of the year? Is that what he's suggesting? That wouldn't make any sense

whatsoever. You have to look at the long-term picture on what people are paying for hydro. If, in fact, they are paying more than what the average price was before deregulation came into effect,

then they will receive the rebate in a timely fashion.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I have a question for the Premier. Over the last seven years Floyd Laughren, Murray Elston and about

seven former opposition members have received government appointments from the Harris-Eves government. Like Brian Mulroney appointing Stephen Lewis to the United Nations, these appointments have

served as cover while your Tory friends sneak up to the Eves trough.

I hold in my hand a list of 55 Conservative candidates from the last two elections. That's one half of the 111 Conservatives defeated or retired in those

elections. Each received at least one patronage appointment or government job from the Harris-Eves government. Some are justices of the peace, some are on the rent tribunal and others are on the

alcohol and gaming commission.

Premier, can you tell me how giving half your defeated and retired candidates cushy government appointments isn't patronage of an unprecedented level?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): There are appointments made from time to time of people of all political

stripes and many more, I might add, of no political stripe whatsoever. I think the important thing is to have a qualified individual appointed to any appropriate position. I think he probably does

a disservice to some of the former opposition members whose names he rhymed off in the House by suggesting that they didn't have any credentials for the appointment, they were merely a cover for

Conservative appointments. You might want to think about retracting that.

Mr Duncan: In 1995 you promised you would be different. In the Common Sense Revolution you promised fewer politicians. The only reason there

are fewer politicians now is because there is more patronage. The Tories are out of the Legislature but are at the Eves trough. Instead of MPPs, now they are justices of the peace and chairs of

boards.

Some of them get very good remuneration. Defeated Tory Frank Sheehan gets $500 a day. Defeated Tory Lynn Beyak has had four separate appointments, including

the supposedly impartial Rozanski commission. We're aren't talking about one or two appointments; we're talking about half your defeated candidates at the Eves trough. We're not talking about

qualified individuals; we're talking about blatant patronage.

In light of the conditions in our hospitals, in our schools and in our environment, how can you justify patronage of this level at this time for these

people?

Hon Mr Eves: I repeat what I said in response to his first question. He certainly is doing disservice to a number of former members of this

Legislative Assembly of all three political stripes. Is he suggesting that they have no qualifications for their jobs other than the political party that they happen to have belonged to when they

were in this place?

He knows full well that the commitment with respect to reduction in number of members in the Legislature in the Common Sense Revolution refers to adopting the

federal boundaries, which we have done, and taking the number of members in this Legislature from 130, then to 127, down to 103. They will henceforth always be identical to the ridings that the

federal government decides so that people will know which riding they are in, it will save on expenses, and people will be able to know which riding they vote in from election to election, whether

it's provincial or federal. I might point out that your federal colleagues in Ottawa are the ones who actually determine those boundaries and the number of seats.

Mr Duncan: Peter Preston, Jack Carroll, Lillian Ross, Gary Leadston, Leo Jordan, Frank Sheehan, Dave Johnson, Annamarie Castrilli, Bill

Saunderson, Terence Young, Joyce Foster, Keith Currie, Jeff Slater, Keith Clingen, Gord Miller --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Take your seat, please. Sorry. The majority government members will not drown out questions.

Sorry for the interruption. Please continue.

Mr Duncan: -- Rick Brassard, Greg Reid, Michael Rohrer, Blaine Tyndall, David McCamon, Don Sheppard, Malcolm Mansfield, Pat O'Neil, George

Kennedy, Evelyn Dodds, Alain Lalonde, Paul Sutherland, Chris Thompson, Linda Thom, Lynn Beyak, Dan Callaghan, Rob Davis, Joyce Frustaglio and Mike Harris. I don't even have time to list them all,

and we haven't even begun to talk about former staff members like David Lindsay, Deb Hutton, Bill Farlinger and Bev Hammond, who you just recently appointed to the board of the LCBO.

Why is it that, like Brian Mulroney, you've been able to look after your friends but not our schools, not our hospitals and certainly not our environment?

Hon Mr Eves: I repeat what I said in response to the first two questions. He left out a few names, of course: Murray Elston, Bob Rae, Tony

Silipo, Frank Miclash, Bernard Grandmaître, Gilles Morin, Floyd Laughren, David Cooke, Marion Boyd and on and on. You could have read those out. I'm sure you just forgot to put those in your

list of former MPPs.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Your government is in denial when it comes to your hydro disaster.

Last week we told you the hydro Independent Market Operator's surveillance

section was investigating Enron-style manipulation of hydro rates this summer, and your government denied it.

Now it turns out one week later that the director of compliance at the Independent Market Operator is conducting not one investigation, not two investigations,

but a half-dozen investigations of potential price-fixing, which drove hydro rates through the roof this summer. This looks exactly like the price-fixing that happened in California.

Premier, how much consumer pain do you need before your government admits that your scheme of hydro privatization and deregulation isn't working very well?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): What the honourable member is talking about of course is what the IMO's job

and responsibility is. They are to look into anything that might even remotely be improper so that they can assure themselves that we are, in fact, getting an upfront, honest, open and transparent

price for electricity and power in the province of Ontario. That's what their function is.

Mr Hampton: Premier, it's not about their function, it's about your government's function: to protect the hydro consumers of this

province.

The IMO is saying very clearly that there's enough evidence here to warrant over six detailed investigations. Yet, when I listen to you and your Minister of

Energy, you would have the hydro consumers of this province believe that everything is working wonderfully, that a doubling of hydro bills is just a natural thing and people shouldn't worry about

it, that people and businesses not being able to pay their hydro bills is all fine and wonderful under your scheme of hydro privatization and deregulation.

My question is, and I'll say it again: how much pain do people have to endure out there? How many senior citizens have to phone in and say, "I can't afford to

pay the hydro bills," before your government admits something is wrong?

Hon Mr Eves: The IMO is doing its job. The honourable member over there is suggesting that because the IMO looks into a particular price or a

particular circumstance, therefore, guilty as charged. I certainly hope you're not planning a career in the judiciary when you leave this place.

Mr Hampton: Premier, do I need to remind you that what happened in California resulted in brownouts, blackouts and consumers being gauged out

of billions of dollars? These market surveillance people, the surveillance

section at the IMO, are concerned that exactly that kind of scenario can be happening here in Ontario. When you combine

that with the other report indicating we face further electricity shortages and the potential for more manipulation of the market, I think that ought to send out a warning bell if you care about

consumers.

Premier, we know how much your friends on Bay Street are benefiting from hydro privatization and deregulation, but when are you going to start worrying about

the consumers and do something to protect them from sky-high bills and from a situation that is not financially sustainable for them? When do you show some concern for consumers?

Hon Mr Eves: The very fact the government put in place upfront a rebate program to protect consumers from rises in future prices that might be

above --

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): But you're not paying.

Hon Mr Eves: Do you want them done on a minute's basis or an hourly basis? Don't be so ridiculous over there. You do have to take a long-term

point of view.

I would point out to the honourable member opposite that in the most recent report of the market surveillance panel, dated October 7, "The market assessment

unit did not report any instances of abuse of market power in the sense of collusive or predatory conduct or any other type of behaviour designed to restrain or prevent competition."

Mr Hampton: My next question is for the Premier --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): That's fine. New question. Go ahead.

Mr Hampton: Premier, one week after that statement was made, they indicate that investigations are now underway to ascertain why on so many

occasions transactions failed and the price of hydro went up by over 50%.

But my next question is about all those agricultural workers across this province --

The Deputy Speaker: The leader of the third party take his seat, please.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You're allowed one question, one

train of thought, one process, in question period. The supplementary must follow the question.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The government House leader is making a point of order.

Hon Mr Stockwell: My point of order, Mr Speaker, is he started his question off with respect to a hydro issue and completely shifted gears. I

ask you to place the standing orders and put them in place. Either you put a question about an issue or you don't, but you can't ask two ministries in one specific question.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Take your seat, please.

I agree with the government House leader. The point of order is in order. It's not unusual for there to be one quick sentence upon standing up, but I actually

thought you were getting on to the next question too. So I would ask you in the future to please ensure that when you rise for a new question, you go directly to the minister for that question.

With that, I look to the leader of the third party for a new question.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Premier, I'll put this as simply as I can for you. I wouldn't want you to get lost in the

preamble.

There are thousands of workers who work in agricultural processing plants across this province. They work in very dangerous jobs. In fact, over the last six or

seven years many of them have been killed. The Supreme Court of Canada said they should have the right to form unions and to bargain collectively, but you have put legislation before this House

that would not allow them to form a union, would not allow them to bargain over issues like health and safety, job security or anything else.

Can you tell those farm workers why they shouldn't have the right to form a union to bargain to protect their health and safety when, after all, they just work

in a different kind of factory than someone who works in a steel factory or an auto factory? Why shouldn't they have the right to bargain for their health and safety and protect themselves?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and Food would like to respond.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'd like to say that the Supreme Court was very clear. They said that agricultural workers

across the province had the right to associate. They did not say that they had the right to collectively bargain. We have talked to constitutional lawyers. We have worked with lawyers across the

province, and we have responded to the results of the Supreme Court decision. We have ensured that there is a right to associate. We have assured the people of the province that we will protect the

family farms across the province, because we believe on this side of the House that agriculture is an important part of Ontario. It's the second-largest business in the province, and we need to

make sure that we have the ability to allow that business to thrive in the province. We are very supportive of agriculture on this side of the House.

Mr Hampton: The question to the Premier was, why shouldn't these workers who work under very dangerous conditions have the right bargain

collectively to protect their health and safety? For workers who work in those factories, what's the difference between working in a mushroom-packing factory and working in an auto factory? Last

year the greenhouse industry in the Leamington-Kingsville area produced $300 million in crops, but the average annual income for workers there was $5,000.

You and the Liberals may think this is fair, but we believe that men and women who work in those greenhouses and packing plants deserve the same protection as

other workers. Will you amend your legislation so that these workers can be treated equally and they can bargain to protect their health and safety and for fairer wages just like other workers?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me say that this government has been very clear since 1995 that we are here to protect agriculture and to protect the

family farms in Ontario. We are very clear that we are going to answer the Supreme Court. We are going to ensure that family farms are competitive, that they can bring their product into

marketplace, because they have a very small window to get it there. We all know in this House and we all know across the province that we need to have product that is made in Ontario. We need food

that is made in Ontario, good quality food, and we are going to make sure that we protect agriculture in the province of Ontario.

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Premier. Two weeks ago I confronted you with the largesse expenses of your former

cabinet minister, Cam Jackson, who is here today. After his lifestyle --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Sorry to interrupt you, but I have had enough from the member from London-Fanshawe. You have

been interrupting since the moment you got into this place, and if you do it once more you are leaving.

I am sorry for that interruption, member. Please continue.

Mrs Pupatello: My question is for the Premier. Two weeks ago I confronted you with the information on Minister Jackson's expenses. After this

was exposed, Mr. Jackson left cabinet. You told the reporters that you fired him because he lied to you, that he didn't provide you with all of the information requested. I find it hard to believe

that the Minister of Tourism would supply me with all of the information and not his own Premier.

Yesterday Mr Jackson said that he did give you all the documents and he says you are the one who is not telling the truth. Premier, which is it? Are you

telling the truth, or is Mr Jackson?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, I did not say, nor have I ever said, that Minister Jackson lied

to me. I have never used those words. I have never said that. What I said was that my office staff asked for a complete list of all the expenses of Minister Jackson and his staff, as requested by

the freedom of information request from your party, and my staff tell me that they did not receive all the receipts for all of the expenses.

Mrs Pupatello: Premier, this is fairly serious, because your cabinet colleagues don't know what your standard is. Is it the fact of how he

spent the money, or is it the fact that you didn't seem to receive all the information and quite frankly must have double standards here?

What we need to know is the truth. Did you fire the cabinet minister because of what he spent the money on or how much he spent, or did you fire him because he

didn't give you all of the information? That's what the key is. What your government, and your leadership specifically, needs to be about is, what are the cabinet rules? When people ask you

questions about those rules, you have to be in a position to answer them and have that documentation, just like the rest of us.

So, Premier, I ask you again: did he follow those rules? Did you fire him because he lied to you? Did you fire him because of the information that he provided

to you?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, I didn't fire Minister Jackson; he resigned. Second of all, if you want to talk about double standards in this

place, I would have presumed that by now your leader would have filed his expenses and all those of his 47 staff members for the last seven years with the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Energy. During the spring, the select committee on alternative fuel

sources released its report on environmentally friendly sustainable alternatives to our existing fossil fuel sources. I had the pleasure of reading that last night in the Legislature. I know we

have members on all sides who are keenly interested in it, including Steve Gilchrist, who has been actively involved. I know that many people in Ontario are concerned about finding more clean,

renewable sources of energy. Can you tell me what the government is doing to act on the 141 recommendations of this report?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I would indicate that we're very pleased with the work

and the tremendous amount of effort that members from all three political parties made in terms of the preparation of the report and have indicated that we'll report back by the end of the year on

some strategies we can use to move forward on a number of the recommendations. We have accepted the report. We think we can do more with respect to alternative fuels in the province. The member

will recall that on behalf of the government, I have asked our colleague the member for Scarborough East, Steve Gilchrist, to report back on a fuel standard, and we look forward to receiving his

work.

We can do an awful lot more than we do. We realize renewable energy is something that's very important and that has got to go beyond the traditional

hydroelectric and nuclear power that we provide in the province. We need to look at more emerging new technologies.

Mr Miller: Thank you, Minister, for that response. I know you will report back on the government's progress by the end of the year, but in the

meantime, can you tell us about the government's efforts to encourage and support green energy?

Hon Mr Baird: In the June budget, the government introduced an exemption from the 14.3-cents-per-litre fuel tax for biodiesel fuels. This will

create a tax incentive for consumers to buy products that use renewable resources. The budget also extended the sales tax rebate for hybrid electricity automobiles to cover sport utility vehicles

and light utility trucks.

I am pleased that in Huron county the first of five massive wind turbines was put in place by Huron Wind, which will be Ontario's first commercial wind power.

This initiative is a joint partnership, which is exciting, and will have five 1.8-megawatt wind turbines to produce enough electricity by December to meet the average annual needs of about 3,000

homes in Ontario. Had a company wanted to build a wind farm in the province in years past, the Liberal Party would have made it illegal. Thank goodness we have strong leadership on behalf of this

government.

HAMILTON INCINERATOR

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. On Saturday morning, residents in the east end of

Hamilton woke up with a headline in the Spectator reading, "Toxic Emissions Double; Hamilton's aging waste incinerator worst in Canada in spewing deadly dioxins."

In the last 12 months, highly toxic mercury emissions have increased by 33% at the incinerator. Other hazardous emissions have increased by 44%. I raised this

issue in 1999 with your predecessors. I raised it in 2000. The Environmental Commissioner has raised this issue. Clearly, this particular site is now the largest source of toxic compounds in the

country, bar none. There isn't a plant of any type in Canada that spews more deadly dioxins than the SWARU incinerator. The time for talking, the time for changing standards, the time for trying to

fix it is over. The time has come to shut it down. Shut the SWARU down and ensure you no longer jeopardize the health of my residents of east Hamilton. I ask you today, Minister of the Environment,

will you undertake a full and immediate review to examine all options you have to immediately order a shutdown of the SWARU incinerator in Hamilton?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I'm surprised at the question because last Friday we issued a new

C of A. I don't know if he saw it or not, but that's exactly what we did; we actually did do a full review. The Ministry of the Environment staff did a bang-up job, I might add. Those standards

that were expected to be brought in were to be brought in by 2006. Do you realize that this plant is going to have to meet those standards by 2003? You know what? We did them one better. I can't

take much credit for this, I've got to give the credit to the Ministry of the Environment staff. They did that one better. As part of the C of A, they're saying that this incinerator has to close

by 2005, the first administration that took a positive step, forcing compliance, by 2003 and shutting that incinerator in 2005. I thought you were going to stand up and applaud this government for

that kind of environmental sensitivity.

Mr Agostino: Your screaming and yelling today doesn't really do much to help those residents who for 30 years have had put up with this

danger. This is not an issue that is trivial. You introduced standards days before this new information was released to show the seriousness of the problem. We've gone down this route. Previous

governments have issued new standards. Your government has issued new standards. This plant does not have the ability to meet these new standards. I'm not alone in this. Your Minister of Labour,

who's yapping in the background right now, was on board at a press conference two years ago with me to demand the shutdown of the facility. I wish he would stand up and do the same thing today on

behalf of the people of east Hamilton.

The reality is that it can't be fixed. They can't meet these standards. It's an incinerator that is 30 years old. They can't afford to make the retrofit so

they're not going to meet your standards you put in place. It doesn't matter whether it's 2003, 2004 or 2005. The time for this incinerator is over. I want you to work with me, with the city of

Hamilton, to find every way possible to immediately shut down this incinerator.

My residents cannot put up with another day of this. You find it humorous; I realize that. I realize you find cancer-causing dioxins in the air for the

residents of Hamilton funny. I don't. This is serious. I'm asking you today to demand an immediate shutdown of the incinerator in Hamilton, and to stop putting the health and lives of my residents

in jeopardy by these new rules, by these new supposed guidelines that they cannot meet.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Take you seat, please. Minister of the Environment

Hon Mr Stockwell: Let's be clear.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Number one, it's entirely unacceptable to ask a question, especially a passionate one like that, then sit down and start

heckling before the minister draws a breath. Secondly, you said something that I know you're going stand up and withdraw.

Mr Agostino: I withdraw. I apologize for that, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Thank you very much, to the member for Hamilton East, for withdrawing that comment.

There's no humour here. I'm not finding any humour at all, whatsoever in this. The fact of the matter is that it's been operating, you're right, for 30 years.

Every administration has had a kick at this can and every administration has dropped the ball. We agree. I went to the Ministry of the Environment and said, "We've got to shut this down, we've got

to close it." So we had the C of A and we put in tough restrictions that are set for 2006 that every province bought into. But I said, "That's not good enough. They've got to meet these

restrictions by 2003," and then I said, "You've got to close this thing." Part of the C of A is that we close it in 2006.

I honestly thought you were going to stand there and say, "Good, that's what should have been done 15 years ago when the Liberals were in office, or 10 years

ago when the NDP were in office." I realize it's late, but better late than never. The environmentally conscious Conservatives understood that, and that's why we're shutting it down.

QUEEN ELIZABETH II

AIMING FOR THE TOP SCHOLARSHIPS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. I'm sure we are all very pleased by

the recent visit of Queen Elizabeth II to Ontario and Canada. I think everyone in the House will agree about how Premier Eves handled himself and represented the province of Ontario last Wednesday

night.

At a luncheon at Seneca College, Premier Eves announced that Ontario would be honouring Her Majesty by dedicating the Queen Elizabeth II Aiming for the Top

scholarships program. Helping young people continue their education is a noble cause, and one that is a fitting honour for our special guest.

Minister, can you tell the House about these scholarships and the impact they will have on young people looking to attend college or university next fall?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): Next fall, the young people

who are considering going right now will be applying for the Aiming for the Top scholarship, which has been named the Queen Elizabeth II Aiming for the Top Scholarship.

There is a lot of information that is put out for them. They apply by using the OSAP forms. There is a box that they check off. We have a new publication

called Supporting Your Choice for Postsecondary Education that the young people will be able to look at for all programs of financial support. All students who are interested in applying for the

Aiming for the Top scholarship, which is as much as $3,500 for four years, should in fact use the OSAP forms and make sure they meet the deadline sometime in April.

Mr Dunlop: I thank the Minister for that answer. This is another initiative of our government that will support Ontario students in our

colleges and universities. There are many talented young people in my constituency who are looking to go on to college or university who will be very interested to know more about this program.

Minister, can you tell the young people in my riding and in other ridings across the province how they can apply for a Queen Elizabeth II Aiming for the Top

Scholarship and what they may be eligible to receive?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The first message I would like to get out to the students who are applying for our colleges and universities next year is

that there will be a place for every qualified and motivated student in our colleges and universities.

Their guidance counsellors are helping them in every way they can. There are ambassadors going to our secondary schools to talk to parents and students. Any

member of the Legislative Assembly who would like to have a meeting in their own riding, at a school or where they have been requested, please call the Ministry of Training, Colleges and

Universities and ask for the ambassador to go out and answer the questions of the students and their parents, along with representatives from the colleges and universities. At that time, I can

assure you that this program, the Aiming for the Top Queen Elizabeth scholarship, $35 million worth of scholarships, $3,500 for three or four years as long as they keep their marks -- I can tell

you right now that every single student. These are people who we ought to recognize and be proud of. Go to your high school graduations. Give them out on behalf of the people of Ontario.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Minister, when you hiked nursing home fees by 15%, you told the

elderly and their families that there would be more nurses and personal care aides to care for them.

We've been contacted by workers from three for-profit nursing homes in the Durham region. In one nursing home, a telephone receptionist was hired. In another,

a part-time social worker and two part-time personal care aides were hired; the aides are on a contract until the end of December. In the third nursing home, there are no plans to hire new staff at

all. You promised more nurses and personal care aides for seniors in nursing homes. Where are they?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): To the associate minister.

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Our government heard the concerns with respect to the nursing home copayment

fee. In fact, all those dollars are going toward more nursing and personal care in the province.

We made an announcement on July 31 of this year for $100 million in additional nursing and personal care investments across the province. What that translates

into for the average facility, a 100-bed facility, is 3.9 full-time-equivalent nurses and personal care workers being added to the system, so those staff are being hired. In some cases, some of the

part-time staff are being bumped up to full-time staff, so there are more hours being allocated to those staff members. In many instances, additional staff are being hired. I can tell you that in

each and every one of the long-term-care facilities in this province, there will be more nurses and personal care staff added. In fact, there will be some 2,400 in total: 600 registered nurses and

1,800 practical nursing assistants.

Ms Martel: Minister, I just gave you three examples from three for-profit homes in the Durham area which clearly show that nurses and personal

care aides are not being hired with this new money, and this despite your promise that there would be four additional full-time nurses, or personal care aides, for every 100 beds.

We do know that in each of the three nursing homes which contacted us, those monies are being used to buy diapers. They're doing so because those operators

have received a memo from your ministry which permits them to do so instead of continuing to pay for this out of their accommodation budget.

Minister, will you reverse the policy which lets operators use these dollars for diapers, and guarantee that this new money will only be used to hire the

nurses and personal care aides that you promised would be hired for seniors in long-term-care facilities?

Hon Mr Newman: The fact is that each and every dollar that the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care allocates for nursing and personal care,

and for programming and for support services and for food, must be spent exactly on those purposes. The money cannot be spent on anything else.

The $100 million in nursing and personal care that was announced on July 31 -- and that, I might add, began flowing on August 1 of this year -- must be spent

on nursing and personal care. That's why we made that decision. There's nothing else that money can be spent on; it must be spent on hiring additional nurses so that the 61,000 people who call a

long-term-care facility home can know they are going to have additional time spent with them because there's going to be additional staff hired in each and every one of those homes, whether it's a

for-profit home, whether it's a charitable home or whether it's a municipal home for the aged.

KYOTO PROTOCOL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier. It is reported that Ralph Klein is seeking a meeting with you, when he

comes to Ontario, to try to discredit the Kyoto Protocol. I was Minister of the Environment when Ralph Klein was environment minister in Alberta. No one took the man seriously; he has spent his

entire political career fighting every significant environmental program that would benefit our nation. He is considered to be nothing less than an environmental Neanderthal and a shill for

business interests who oppose environmental improvement.

You have a choice, Premier: you can either enter a coalition with Ralph Klein and stand side by side with the oil barons and their cohorts who are spending

millions of dollars to sabotage an international agreement that will meet the threat of global warming, or you can lead Ontario toward cleaner air and improved health.

Is it your intention to join Ralph Klein's posse, or do you intend to show bold leadership on behalf of the environment and support the ratification of the

Kyoto accord?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I thank the honourable member for that very objective question. In fact,

Premier Klein and I are meeting next Wednesday afternoon, in case you're interested. We will be discussing, undoubtedly, many matters of mutual interest and concern with respect to not only the

environment but other issues that the Premiers across the provinces are interested in, as I did with Premier Campbell when he was in Toronto two weeks ago.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Order.

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: Last night at a reception --

The Deputy Speaker: Wait just a minute, member for St Catharines.

You may continue.

Mr Bradley: Last night a reception was held at the Legislature by a group called the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental

Solutions. The title is always a dead giveaway for an anti-environment coalition. Their gang, or portions of it, have opposed every significant progressive measure that has been proposed, and,

along with the Klein government, is spending millions in an attempt to torpedo the Kyoto accord.

The chief organizer of this event was the former chief policy adviser of Mike Harris, Guy Giorno, and the chief government speaker was your energy minister,

John Baird. Many of your MPPs are now --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry to interrupt you again. I can't hear the member, and he's right there.

Please continue. Sorry for the interruption.

Mr Bradley: Many of your MPPs are now spouting the line suggested by the anti-environment gang word for word. Is it your intention to toe the

line of the Guy Giorno coalition, or are you prepared to show environmental leadership and abandon this anti-environment special interest group?

Hon Mr Eves: I'm going to resist the answer that I could give.

I'm on record in a scrum with Premier Campbell when he visited Toronto two weeks ago and I'm on record, as a matter of fact, for the last six months as saying

that the province of Ontario always has been at the forefront of reducing air emissions in several different categories, be they nitrous oxide or sulphur dioxide. We have led the way, we believe,

and we will continue to lead the way.

We are not going to sign on, as I said to people then, to any agreement, as Paul Martin is saying these days, unless we know what the effects of signing on to

such an agreement would be. There are many ways to effectively reduce emissions in the atmosphere other than just technically falling within the jurisdiction of the so-called Kyoto accord.

As a matter of fact, I'm sure the honourable member is aware that the Prime Minister of Canada has no intention of strictly following the rules of the Kyoto

accord.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. As every member of this

House is aware, Ontario's growing and aging population means that providing quality long-term-care services is becoming even more important for people throughout this province. I'm very pleased to

see that our government is working hard to provide even better services and better facilities for Ontario's seniors.

I would appreciate it if the associate minister could update this House on the ongoing developments in the long-term-care sector.

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'd like to thank the hard-working member from Scarborough Centre for her

question. I've had the opportunity over the past few months to attend several groundbreakings and official opening ceremonies of long-term-care facilities across our province. Each and every one of

these facilities is making a real difference in the quality of care for residents and for those who require long-term-care services. None of this would be possible without the Ernie Eves

government's unprecedented commitment to the long-term-care sector.

In fact, we've invested $1.2 billion to construct and to re-develop long-term-care beds in every region of our great province. We've also announced another

$100 million for nursing and personal care services throughout our province, and that's money that must be spent directly on nursing and personal care to hire additional staff in all the

facilities.

What this means is that the Ernie Eves government is indeed delivering on its promise to provide better long-term-care services across our great province.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you for that response, Minister. I'm particularly pleased to hear that our government is moving forward in these

long-term-care initiatives. I'm sure that this is truly making a big difference for residents of long-term-care facilities and their families and loved ones.

I'd like to follow up by asking the associate minister what the total number of beds in the ground in my riding of Scarborough Centre is and how many more are

expected this year. I know that my constituents would appreciate an update.

Hon Mr Newman: I'm pleased to respond to the honourable member for Scarborough Centre. I'm happy to report that in the riding of Scarborough

Centre and indeed in Scarborough in general 65 beds have been opened and an additional 1,500 beds are expected to open shortly.

This is an unprecedented feat since both my Liberal and NDP colleagues across the floor lacked the vision and the planning to foresee the future and to realize

that an aging and a growing population not only in Scarborough but across our province would obviously put additional demands on the long-term-care system.

The response of the opposition parties when they were in government was to simply put their heads into the sand, and worse, to close hospital beds, not only in

Scarborough but across Ontario.

We, the Ernie Eves government, on the other hand, have opened 6,800 new beds and have redeveloped 2,300 older beds. I think it's important to note that we

currently have an additional 12,200 beds under construction and scheduled to open in the immediate future.

I'm proud to be a member of a government that has stepped up to the plate and a government that is thinking about our seniors, and I appreciate the positive

feedback Ontarians have given us about our vision and our plan for long-term care in Ontario.

ETHANOL PROJECT

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Minister of Energy. On October 8, the Seaway Valley ethanol

co-operative had their annual meeting in Kemptville. The local agricultural community has raised $16,248,000 for this $48-million project. A commitment was made by former minister Elmer Buchanan

that they were going to be a partner in this project when the NDP government was in power. In 1995 the Conservative government came into power and cancelled their partnership in the project, only

to re-announce it.

Minister, when you were in our part of Ontario recently and were questioned on this project, you gave the residents a little bit of hope. I was just wondering

if you could update the House on the meetings that have taken place and what the position of the provincial government is.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): This is an important issue throughout the rural part of

eastern Ontario, in which part of my riding is located. I did want to correct the record on one part of what the member opposite said. He said that Elmer Buchanan, the NDP Minister of Agriculture,

wanted to fund this. Well, many of us on this team showed up in 1995, and Mother Hubbard told us the cupboard was bare; there was no money to meet the commitments the previous NDP government had

made.

There is some financial support that the previous Minister of Agriculture, Noble Villeneuve, made when he fought for this area, and that is indeed good news.

We on this side of the House have been very supportive of the agricultural industry. We've provided grants of $5 million and $3 million for ethanol projects in both Chatham and Cornwall. It's an

issue we're all concerned about, I'm tremendously concerned about, and we are following very closely.

Mr Cleary: I didn't know about Mother Hubbard. I was here. Anyway, my supplementary question: this is a 66-million litre project, 30 full-time

jobs, and I'm told that the ethanol is pre-sold for some 10 years once the plant is built.

I've been getting lots of faxes and e-mails. I'm sure the one that I'm going to read here is one the minister also got a copy of. I don't know who these people

are, but they say, "As shareholders in Seaway Valley Farmer's Energy Co-operative, it appals us ... that our government officials can remain so ignorant" on this project. It's signed "Sincerely" by

Ron Harrison, Margaret Harrison, Ian Harrison and Brian Harrison. I don't know these people. I'd like your comments.

Hon Mr Baird: As I said to the member opposite, I appreciate that he cares about this issue. So do I. I, along with my colleague the Minister

of Public Security, Bob Runciman, and my colleague the Minister of the Environment, Chris Stockwell, took the opportunity to sit down with the group this past Friday in Kemptville to learn more

about the specific nature of their requests and their concerns.

We made a number inquiries with respect to what kind of help they were needing, given that their financing through a European bank has fallen through. The fact

that we had three Conservative ministers come to Cornwall, together with representatives of the staff of the minister without portfolio and the former Chair of the alternative fuels committee, Doug

Galt, signalled that this is an important issue.

We had a few representatives from the federal government and we did ask a series of questions, asked for some more information, and the group has committed to

get back to Minister Runciman, Minister Galt, Minister Stockwell and I on this important initiative.

I share the interest of the member opposite, and I am certainly happy to work with him on it.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As we all know, the Oak Ridges Moraine

Protection Act protects the moraine's natural resources, including the quality and quantity of its water, maintains the integrity of a continuous natural system, fosters innovative ways to support

landowners, and encourages private land stewardship. Finally, it supports a clear, defined planning process that provides housing for a growing population.

Recently the Environmental Commissioner awarded the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing with the annual ECO Recognition Award for its work on the

legislation and the plan. I am interested in hearing if there have been any further accomplishments since that announcement.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I appreciate the question from the member for York North, who has been keenly

interested, as all members of the Legislature have been, in the Oak Ridges moraine. Yes, it's true, the Environmental Commissioner awarded his recognition award this year to our ministry. I would

like to personally thank the staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and also the staff of the Ministry of Natural Resources and of the Ministry of the Environment, who worked very

hard to make this legislation come into effect.

I think that Debbe Crandall, the head of Save the Oak Ridges Moraine, known as STORM, said it best when she said, "Ministry staff on the Oak Ridges moraine

project have done an outstanding job in meeting the challenges of developing the legislation and plan in such a tight time frame. The phenomenal technical support during last summer's panel

deliberations, subsequent panel consultations and development of the final legislative package is quite heartening. The commitment of ministry staff is highly deserving of recognition from the

Environmental Commissioner."

Mrs Munro: Thank you, Minister, for your response. I would also like to find out what steps are being taken to continue to protect the Oak

Ridges moraine and inform the constituents of my riding and the surrounding ridings of our government's plan.

Hon Mr Hodgson: The member for York North is quite right. This is an historic achievement. We want to make sure that the law is upheld. Inside

the law that was passed unanimously by this Legislature are penalties to make sure that enforcement is tough.

We're also bringing in watershed plans to make sure we protect the quality and quantity of the water. The conservation authorities have been given dollars by

the Ministry of the Environment to do that.

We've also set up a trust that we've put $15 million into. There's a panel set up that will be reporting back when they become permanent. We expect that money

to be matched by the federal government and environmental groups as we go forward to protect the land base.

We are also having public hearings conducted by David Crombie on the follow-up to the land exchange he recommended to keep the wide, robust corridor through

the Richmond Hill area. We're also sending out a householder brochure to all the residents around the moraine which helps explain why it is important to protect this area's natural features and

what steps we've taken to ensure that the moraine is protected for future generations to come.

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. This past weekend on the TransCanada Highway

between Dryden and Kenora, more than 40 transport trailers and trucks were involved in highway collisions following the first snowfall of the year. Thankfully, no one was killed, though many people

were hurt. This is the same stretch of the TransCanada Highway where 29 people have been killed in highway traffic accidents over the last three years. This past weekend, the highway was one big

sheet of ice because the private highway maintenance contractors hired by your government failed to clear the snow and ice.

Minister, people are angry and they're very upset. Is this how the Conservative government scheme of privatized highway maintenance is supposed to work?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Transportation): I cannot comment on the particular incident that occurred up north. Of course we're not

in control of the weather, and unfortunately, when there is ice on the roads, accidents will occur regardless of how fast maintenance is there.

Our private maintenance contractors have a very, very close monitoring system on them. We can tell when they are out on the road. This is electronically

controlled. In fact, the controls over exactly what happens out on the roads are greater today than they were when public servants were providing that maintenance.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Supplementary?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): If you as Minister of Transportation don't know, I guess we have something to be worried about in

northern Ontario. We had the exact same situation but a week and a half ago. The community of Hearst had their first snowfall, as did Kapuskasing and the areas around, with the same kind of problem

when it came to making sure those highways were kept open. In fact, they weren't, because the contractors didn't do their job.

But what makes the thing worse is that you have in place a program called the MTO road safety hotline, and when our staff called at 2 pm on Tuesday to find out

what the condition of the highway was, they were getting recordings about the conditions on the highways from four days earlier. That's not acceptable. People who took to the road and were at risk,

because not only did your highway contractors not do their job, but your own hotline was giving information that was four days old. Minister, the question is simply this: privatization doesn't

work; are you prepared to reverse it?

Hon Mr Sterling: Well, it is unacceptable, if in fact information is four days old. I will look into that and have it corrected if that's the

case.

In spite of the severe weather that we have in our province from time to time, we still have the safest driving records in all of Canada, second in all of

North America. So we must be doing some things right in terms of the kinds of roads we are building, the maintenance systems that we are placing and those kinds of things. One accident is one

accident too many so we will continue to work on improving the system that we have, but we have a pretty good system here in Ontario. Our Ministry of Transportation closely monitors our private

contractors in terms of the services they provide and the maintenance they provide. I will look into the matter and, of course, this matter is under investigation by the police at this time.

MACULAR DEGENERATION

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My question is for the Minister of Health. In May you held a press conference when you promised to

fully fund the Visudyne treatment for individuals with wet-type macular degeneration. You thrived on the applause, and then you betrayed them after. You brought in criteria that effectively

prevented the vast majority from having that treatment. Your criteria says they must be at least 50% blind before you will fund it. Don't blame the federal government. You're forcing these people

who are 40%, 30% and 20% blind, if they want to save their eyesight, to pay for it themselves. There is no cost savings to you. It's the same cost whether they're 30% or 50%.

Minister, I don't know why you are not funding the treatment after you make the promise, but I am begging you, I am imploring you for the thousands of seniors

in this province, to live up to your commitment. Will you fully fund the Visudyne treatment for macular degeneration for everyone who would benefit from that treatment?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Let me assure this House that we are, through that decision of this government,

affording a benefit to thousands of senior citizens. The honourable member is correct when he says that this is based on criteria that were developed by Health Canada, criteria that are clinical,

criteria that are objective, that are based on the best clinical evidence of efficacy. Those are the criteria that we have adopted, because they are the criteria that are clinical and effective and

objective. If the honourable member has a problem with the criteria, I'd be happy to intervene with the federal Minister of Health and perhaps we can get this issue solved from that end.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the

preamble to the question placed earlier

today to the Premier by the member for St Catharines. I don't know whether you heard what I heard and I'm not certain that I heard it clearly, but I suggest to you that if that terminology had been

used to describe a member of this House, you would have ruled it out of order. Indeed, if it was used to describe a former member of this House, you would have ruled it out of order. It was to

describe a Premier of a province in this country, one of the two provinces that contributes financially to the maintenance of this country. It is troubling, to say the least.

I don't honestly know without reference to the Bible whether or not it is out of order, but I do intend to deal with it. I ask you if you heard what I heard

and if you heard the comments in the manner in which I heard them and -- I also have to say this -- the applause that it drew from the members of his party in support thereof therefore attributes

those words to each and every member, including their leader. I don't really think, if they heard what I heard, that would be an appropriate and fair

interpretation.

Interjection.

Mr Guzzo: In my submission the comments being applied to a Premier of a province in this country are totally out of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): I don't recall the comment specifically. I will afford the member -- was it the member for St

Catharines? It's not possible for that to be addressed now. I'll take a look into it and get back to you. That's the best I can offer right now.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it deals with the multi-laning of Highway 69

between Sudbury and Parry Sound. I will be giving it to Philippe, who is a resident of Sudbury.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, I sign my signature to this petition.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have a petition in part generated by citizens concerned about the closure of Delhi District

Secondary School. It's entitled "Moratorium on High School Closures."

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas one high school has closed and several others are threatened by the Grand Erie District School Board; and

"Whereas the Education Equality Task Force led by Dr Mordechai Rozanski is reviewing the current funding formula for education in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Grand Erie District School Board is expected to issue additional high school closures; and

"Whereas parent groups and community volunteers feel the GEDSB has not set aside adequate time to review and explore all other viable options to keep area high

schools open;

"We, the undersigned, request the Grand Erie District School Board and the Ministry of Education declare a moratorium on secondary school closures until such

time recommendations from the Education Equality Task Force will have been implemented."

I have worked with this group and on behalf of this high school for a number of years, and it's my pleasure to also sign this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I have a petition with regard to the increased fees required of seniors and our most vulnerable living in

long-term-care facilities. It concludes with the words:

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

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

support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

In support of this petition, I sign my signature.

COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE CENTRES

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

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

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

cost-effective, efficient manner;

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

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I have a petition from the people in the community of Bancroft.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

years;

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

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

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

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

"To reassess the student-focused funding legislative grants and to provide additional funding for those areas where funding is insufficient and to adjust ...

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

I affix my signature because I support it wholeheartedly, and I will hand it to Rachel to take to the clerk.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have yet another set of petitions introducing a number of new ideas with respect to high school

closures.

"Whereas the education funding formula applied uniformly across the province of Ontario has forced many consolidated boards of education to move to close

schools, especially in rural areas; and

"Whereas the formula is now being reviewed by Dr Mordechai Rozanski, with a report to the provincial government anticipated by November 2002; now

"The undersigned petition Dr Rozanski, the boards of education and the province of Ontario as follows:

"(1) include in any future funding formula recognition of the importance of rural schools to their communities;

"(2) give communities the opportunity to directly support (by taxation, if necessary) their schools to ensure their continued existence; and

"(3) mandate an immediate moratorium on the consideration of the school closures until the new funding formula is in place."

These petitions are generated by people in the Delhi area of Norfolk county. I feel there are some ideas worth exploring, and I affix my signature to

these.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

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

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

their warning lights activated;

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

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

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

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

"Increased the fines for drivers identified breaking the school bus law to a range from $500 to $1,000 on a first conviction and $1,000 to $2,000 on a

subsequent conviction;

"It established a fine for identified vehicles breaking the school bus law of $1,000 to $2,000 on a first conviction and $2,000 to $3,000 on a subsequent

conviction; and

"We ask for the support of all members of the Legislature."

This is signed by a number of residents from Chatham and I too have signed it.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): The petitions, letters and protest continue to come in related to the Ontario Energy Board

approval of the Union Gas retroactive delivery charges, and I'm pleased to read some more. To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy Board Act disallowing the retroactive

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

further retroactive rate increases."

This was given to me by Robert Gashinski, an inspector with the Thunder Bay fire department. I am of course very pleased he's done so and I will add my name to

the petition.

WATER EXTRACTION

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

"Whereas we, the residents and cottagers of Bob's Lake, strenuously object to the permit issued by the Ministry of the Environment to OMYA Inc to remove 1.5

million litres of water per day from the Tay River, without adequate assessment of the consequences and without adequate consultation with the public and those people and groups who have expertise

and interest; and

"Whereas it is our belief that this water taking will drastically impact the environment and seriously affect the water levels in Bob's and Christie lakes.

This in turn would affect fish spawning beds as well as habitat....

"Whereas Bob's Lake and the Tay River watershed are already highly stressed by the historic responsibility of Parks Canada to use Bob's Lake as a reservoir for

the Rideau Canal; and

"Whereas the movement of water from the lake through the watershed for navigation purposes in the canal provides sufficient stress and problems for the

lake.

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

"We request that this permit be rescinded until a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of water taking by OMYA Inc on the environment, the water levels and

the water needs of these communities is complete. An independent non-partisan body should undertake this evaluation."

I shall affix my signature to this petition because I am in full agreement, and I will hand it to Kyle to take to the Clerk's table.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

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

effective August 1, 2002; and

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

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

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

and

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

nursing and personal care; and

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

and

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

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

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

"Therefore

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

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

support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

I have also signed the petition.

NATURAL GAS RATES

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy

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

that will protect consumers from further retroactive increases."

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

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Petitions related to the long-term-care increases continue to come in as well. A petition to

the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

effective August 1, 2002; and

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

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

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

and

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

nursing and personal care; and

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm happy to sign my name to this and I'll pass it off to Sam.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon David Turnbull (Associate Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and

notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 151,

An Act respecting the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation, when Bill 151 is next called as a

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

referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs; and

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

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

bill; and

That two days be allotted to hearings and one day allotted to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That, no later than 4 pm on the day the committee is scheduled for clause-by-clause consideration, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be

deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining

sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. The committee shall be authorized to meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment until completion of clause-by-clause consideration. Any division

required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a); and

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

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

reported to and received by the House; and

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

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

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

amendment; and

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

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

I believe that we have consent to allow the member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex the leadoff.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Turnbull has moved government notice of motion number 43. Minister.

Hon Mr Turnbull: I believe we have consent to allow the member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex to lead off debate.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Turnbull has asked that the member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex be able to lead off this time for the government.

Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I rise today to support the motion for time allocation on Bill 151, the Toronto Waterfront

Revitalization Corporation Act. As the members know, this bill provides for the creation of a permanent Toronto waterfront revitalization corporation. This permanent agency would replace the

interim corporation that was created last November. This is good legislation, and I believe it merits the support of all members. I would like to take a few minutes of your time here today to

outline why Bill 151 will bring significant benefits to the city of Toronto and to both Ontario and Canada.

As my honourable colleagues may know, the redevelopment of Toronto's waterfront is long overdue. The waterfront area is a sadly underutilized part of the city

that has been neglected for many years. One of the reasons for this neglect was the inability of the many different governments and agencies with responsibility for the waterfront to agree on its

future. In addition to the city of Toronto, for example, both the provincial and federal governments have interests and responsibilities in the waterfront area. Other stakeholders include the

Toronto Harbour Commission, scores of community and industry organizations, the International Joint Commission, the St Lawrence Seaway -- and the list goes on.

When we talk about many years of neglect, there was an

article in one of the local newspapers, the Toronto Sun, on October 15. The headline says, "The Selling

of Toronto." Then it says, "We're no longer the destination of choice." I quote from this article: "The folks from Tourism Toronto came to last week's economic development committee meeting armed

with more depressing news about the city's visitor slump.

"Last year -- while city council was busy deluding itself into thinking Toronto is a world-class city and tourist destination -- domestic visitors declined by

14%.

"Since visitors from Canada make up 70% of the city's total tourism and 45% of the spending ... that's a serious drop....

"The most significant decline has been in the business visitor market -- down a whopping 22% last year, a trend which continues this year. Hotel occupancy

rates in the GTA have dropped from an average of nearly 75% in 1998 to barely 65% so far this year.

"The city's own report showed visitors to Ontario from the US dropped 14% from January to June of this year compared to the same period last year. Overseas

visitors were down 18%. Since Toronto is Ontario's most visited destination, these decreases impact on the city's hotel occupancies and attraction attendance ... which notes the declines go well

beyond the impact of September 11."

I must point out that Toronto is not the only community in the province of Ontario that is probably experiencing these types of difficulties and challenges. I

have the St Clair Parkway Commission in my riding of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex. Certainly because of the post-September 11 situation and the decline of US tourists into southwestern Ontario, they are

faced with a $200,000 operational deficit this year.

Consequently, I think it's long overdue, and it certainly is timely that all levels of government realize that we must improve our waterfronts, not only in

Toronto but in many communities across the province.

There is no doubt that we all realize that Toronto may be the economic engine of the province of Ontario, but we have many other smaller communities that

attract tourists, that create economic activity for Ontario and for Canada. We must not forget about these communities, communities like Wallaceburg, Sault Ste Marie, Sarnia, Kingston. There are

many communities, and I'm sure I could go on naming them -- if we were to look in northwestern Ontario, for instance, Kenora. These communities must all be looked after by all levels of

government.

Fortunately, with Bill 151, we have found a way to break this impasse. We have found an approach that will clear the logjam that has been frustrating the

redevelopment of the Toronto waterfront for so long. In short, Bill 151 gives us a way to move forward and to realize our new vision of the future. Strictly speaking, Bill 151 does not propose a

new approach to waterfront development. In fact, it is based on a proven approach that has been successfully used in a number of major waterfront revitalization projects in other cities, including

the London docklands, the Melbourne docklands and Battery Park City, in New York. These three projects were undertaken in different parts of the world, in different countries, and in cities and

regions with different economies. In most of these projects, not only did the public sector play a major role but the private sector also played a major role.

I would like to refer to an

article that appeared recently in the Bluewater Business Magazine, a magazine in my area. There are successful stories with regard

to the private-public sector in smaller communities. This deals with a small -- well, it's no longer small, but it certainly is a small to medium-sized corporation in my riding that is managing

some properties for the city of Waterloo.

"On June 25, Steeves and Rozema Asset Management, which specializes in contract management services for all types of real estate and investment properties, was

honoured to receive the Building Owners and Managers Association International's Office Building of the Year Award. S&R and the Waterloo City Centre, the building with which it won, was

recognized for excellence in office building management and operations in the 100,000-square-foot category at the BOMA International's 95th annual convention awards gala in Chicago. With the award

comes the claim of top office building in the world for its size."

I think that speaks volumes. Here we have a small corporation in a mid-sized community in southwestern Ontario -- I guess Waterloo could be considered a

mid-sized community -- managing a facility, yet they have been recognized as the best-managed and -operated facility in the world for a building under 100,000 square feet.

So when we look at the potential for waterfront development, be it in Toronto, Sarnia, Wallaceburg or wherever in the province of Ontario, I think it's

important and I think we all realize that the private sector, along with the other levels of government, does have a major role to play.

In every case, the projects were implemented successfully -- and I refer to the three projects I just named -- and the redevelopment work was faithful to the

integrity of the original vision. In retrospect, the key factor in the projects' success was the common approach taken to redevelopment.

Again, it's interesting that an awful lot of items have been written in the newspapers recently. In the October 15 issue of the Toronto Star, the headline was

"Designers Seek Harbour Views." If I may quote, it says, "Top urban design experts from Europe and North America are m