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

November 27, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Nov-27 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 27 November 2002 Mercredi 27 novembre 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SAVE THE MASKINONGE

ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL

FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

TOM NOBLES

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS LEGISLATION

OMERS PENSION FUND

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS LEGISLATION

FOOD DRIVE

ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL FIRE

FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

LIBERAL COMMUNITY STRATEGY

VISITOR

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TORONTO ATMOSPHERIC

FUND ACT, 2002

RENT FREEZE

AND RENT CONTROL ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE GEL

ET LE CONTRÔLE DES LOYERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PENSION PLANS

ONTARIO STUDENT

ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

TORONTO YOUTH ASSESSMENT CENTRE

PENSION PLANS

INNOVATION INITIATIVES

CRIMINAL INJURIES

COMPENSATION BOARD

GREEN ENERGY AND CONSERVATION

HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION

HYDRO RATES

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

EDUCATION FUNDING

FOREIGN-TRAINED PROFESSIONALS

EDUCATION FUNDING

PETITIONS

ALUMINIUM SMELTER

EDUCATION FUNDING

COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE CENTRE

HYDRO RATES

EDUCATION FUNDING

EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAMS

LONG-TERM CARE

EDUCATION FUNDING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

SCHOOL CLOSURES

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FUNERAL, BURIAL AND

CREMATION SERVICES ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES SERVICES FUNÉRAIRES

ET LES SERVICES D'ENTERREMENT

ET DE CRÉMATION

Wednesday 27 November 2002 Mercredi 27 novembre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SAVE THE MASKINONGE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In the summer of this year, I met with representatives of the Save the Maskinonge committee, along with

York North Liberal candidate John Taylor, to discuss contamination of the abandoned Thane Aluminum Smelter site on Warden Avenue in Georgina Township.

On Monday of this week, I visited the site and again, along with the Save the Maskinonge committee and Mr Taylor, toured the property and observed personally the

visual mess and evidence of contamination on the smelter site and on wetlands adjacent to the smelter property. It is unacceptable that after ministry studies concluded that toxic materials at the

site should be removed and that contamination of adjacent wetlands should be mitigated, the Minister of the Environment informed me in a letter dated September 6, 2002, in reply to my letter to him

concerning this subject, that "there is not sufficient evidence of off-site adverse effects that would justify the expenditure of provincial funds to clean up this site."

Once again, I call upon the Minister of the Environment to comply with the request of the Save the Maskinonge committee, and the request which is contained in

their petitions, read by me in this House, to conduct a thorough environmental assessment of the Thane property and adjacent lands and to ensure that a complete cleanup of the contaminated lands

takes place at the very earliest opportunity. The adjacent wetlands, the Maskinonge River and Lake Simcoe are all in danger of contamination if this government fails to take timely and complete

action.

ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL

FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Today I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome members of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters

Association to Queen's Park. They've been spending a lot of time with us here today, ensuring that their voices are heard on issues that are most important to them. I believe that the president of

the association, Fred LeBlanc, and the first vice-president, Ron Gorrie, are in the chamber with us right now, along with many of the other folks.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order.

Mr Dunlop: That's too bad, isn't it? Sad, isn't it?

The OPFFA represents about 8,500 professional firefighters through 74 local organizations. Our government recognizes, values and supports the work these

individuals accomplish every day in the name of public safety.

Firefighters are first on the scene during emergencies, at times putting their own lives at risk to save the lives of others. They go quietly about their

business, not looking to be recognized for heroic acts. Pictures of the September 11 tragedy that are forever etched in our memories include such acts by firefighters.

Following the events of September 11, the government launched a number of initiatives to support firefighters, including an investment of $3 million to create a

centre of excellence at the Ontario Fire College.

The centre will provide specialized training and educational resources for firefighters in responding to chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological

emergencies. They will offer interagency training for fire, ambulance, police and other front-line personnel who must work together to provide a coordinated, effective response to disasters.

Again, I welcome the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association to the Legislature and hope their day is very productive.

TOM NOBLES

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): Our community lost a great person two weeks ago with the passing of Tom Nobles. Tom was an individual

who loved everything he did. He loved his family with a passion that words can't describe. He loved his church. He loved being reeve of Sidney township. He brought an energy to it that was

unmatched. He loved being a councillor in the city of Quinte West and he loved working for muscular dystrophy. Jerry Lewis may think they're his kids, but they're Tom's kids. Particularly, Tom

loved being a professional firefighter.

Firefighters don't become heroes for what they do at the scene of a fire. Firefighters become heroes the day they join the fire department, for they know that

every time they go to work, they may be asked and called upon to make a sacrifice.

Tom was off work for some years with an illness that could not be diagnosed. We now know what it is that killed Tom. Tom went into a fire some years ago in a

chemical plant and breathed some chemicals that ultimately caused his death. Tom died in the line of duty just as much as if he had died at that fire. I don't believe it ever occurred to Tom to not

go into the fire that day. He was prepared to make any sacrifice he had to make.

I would like to express our sincerest condolences to his wife Barbara and to his children. Tom made a very real and positive contribution to our community and we

will miss him.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS LEGISLATION

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): As was pointed out, today Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association representatives are at Queen's

Park lobbying MPPs. While I respect all firefighters and appreciate their dedication and bravery, I continue to speak out in favour of my Bill 30.

Bill 30 is intended to stop tactics of harassment and intimidation used by firefighters' union leadership to threaten their members who also serve as volunteers

in their home communities. The damage is done as these double-hatters succumb to the threats and quit their volunteer posts.

Tim Lee, who is here in the gallery today, a firefighter who works in Whitby and volunteers in Kawartha Lakes, was recently convicted by his union for the

so-called offence of volunteering. Mr Lee's courage is also an inspiration. He isn't quitting, and every member of this House should agree that Tim Lee and hundreds of others like him should have

the right to volunteer on their own free time. Bill 30 would preserve that right.

The fire marshal has stated that this type of legislation is needed to avoid putting public safety at risk. The

Association of Municipalities supports swift passage of my bill and has said so repeatedly. The Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs last week called a general meeting to discuss Bill 30 and urged

the government "to

schedule third reading and passage of Bill 30, as amended, in as timely a fashion possible."

I have been encouraged by the Minister of Public Safety and Security and the Premier and the interest they have shown, but without action, public safety is left

at risk. We can't turn a blind eye to this issue of public safety. That is why we need to call this bill for third reading and passage into law right now.

OMERS PENSION FUND

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I want to speak about an issue that's important to firefighters in this province. That's the issue of the

autonomy of the OMERS pension.

Earlier this fall my leader, Dalton McGuinty, wrote a letter to the government, which was passed on to the government House leader, indicating our support for

the autonomy of OMERS. What we said was this: we believe the legislation must provide for a dispute resolution mechanism similar to the teachers' plan, a single-base plan with additional

supplemental plans for all members and employers, the exclusion of OMERS from the Municipal Act and the ability to override the Pension Benefits Act to allow monies to be taken from pension funds

to pay for the start-up and ongoing costs during the transition period.

We believe this should be a stand-alone, clean bill to allow its speedy passage through the Legislature prior to adjourning for the winter, so that it can be

dealt with presumably in advance of an election. It's our belief that allowing the autonomy for OMERS and the ability to operate within these guidelines will provide the compromise that is needed

between all the groups involved. We on this side of the House believe in compromise. We're not wedded to just beating people up and harming them.

So if this government really cares about firefighters and it really wants to do the right thing, do what they've been telling each and every one of you to do:

support the autonomy of OMERS. That's what you ought to be doing for our professional firefighters from across the province of Ontario.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS LEGISLATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I too, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, want to thank the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters

Association for being here today as part of their yearly lobby of all members of this Legislature.

I want to say to the member from Wellington, as he speaks about Bill 30 and the need to pass that bill, he knows full well that the association that is here

today do not support passing that bill. To stand up in this House today when the firefighters are here, who have very serious concerns about that bill, and urge his government to pass it -- I think

it is just incredible that he would do that today.

I would also say to him that if the members of his government, including the Premier, are so confident about that bill, why don't they call it for third reading?

-- not that I'm recommending they do. But yesterday, when I asked the Premier about my adoption bill, the Premier, after he said my bill was non-partisan and a moral issue, linked it with your bill

and said that we, as the House, should deal with all those bills at the same time. He knows full well how our party, the New Democratic Party in its entirety, feels about Bill 30. To stand and say

that we should start negotiating such bills to get to Bill 77, which right now, by not being passed, is causing unnecessary deaths in this province, is a travesty.

FOOD DRIVE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'd also like to welcome the professional firefighters.

On behalf of the members on this side of the House, I'm pleased to announce that the province-wide door-to-door food drive was held this past Tuesday, November

26, and was a tremendous success. Rental property managers and owners joined forces with residents across Ontario to collect over 75,000 pounds of food. All food collected will remain in the

respective communities.

The Fair Rental Policy Organization, the Greater Toronto Apartment Association, Bonnie Hoy and Associates, and residents across the province organized over 430

apartment buildings to make this holiday season a good one for all Ontarians. That's over 150,000 suites across Ontario. This event is no doubt the largest multi-unit food drive not only in Ontario

but indeed across Canada.

I commend the associations and the residents of Ontario for the difference they have made in ordinary people's lives, especially at this time of year when

generosity should greet everyone and everyone should be generous to those who are less fortunate.

ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL FIRE

FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

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

Professional Fire Fighters Association Day here at Queen's Park. We want to recognize the OPFFA and all its members for their dedication to fire services in Ontario. The OPFFA represents more than

10,000 full-time firefighters and provides expertise and support to professional firefighters so they can continue to keep our communities safe and secure. The Ontario Liberals value the

contribution all firefighters make to keep Ontarians safe and secure in their communities -- all firefighters.

Dalton McGuinty announced in our plan, Growing Strong Communities, that we will be providing a thermal imager to each fire service in Ontario and have pledged

right-to-know legislation and OMERS autonomy and to discuss with municipalities further ways to support our fire services regarding staff and equipment.

I commend the OPFFA for continuing to come back to the table to discuss solutions and offer alternatives to the ill-advised Bill 30. They have shown their true

dedication to fire services by doing so, and I thank them for doing that.

On November 28, 2001, I introduced private member's Bill 141, which would require that any reduction or reorganization of fire services be approved by the fire

marshal's office and that the fire marshal report to the ministry to ensure that our communities are safe and secure.

We thank them for the work they do in this province. We want to thank you and your families for your dedication.

LIBERAL COMMUNITY STRATEGY

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I rose the other day to speak of a poll that demonstrates that the people of Ontario simply don't

trust Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We'll give the member full time. Come to order, please. We'll give you your time to begin again.

Ms Mushinski: A good example of why this is the case is the so-called Liberal community strategy released by Dalton on Monday. Dalton says that

he will protect victims' rights. Well, where has he been? How could he miss that this Legislature, during this session, has already passed Bill 60, the first bill to protect victims' rights? If he

doesn't know this, how can he possibly ever expect people to trust him to be the Premier? Dalton also wants to hire 1,000 more police officers. Again, where was he when we put 1,000 new cops in

place in 2000 and, more to the point, why did he vote against 1,000 new cops in 1998 and in the 2000 budget? More flip-flops.

In fact, a close look at the Liberal community strategy shows that the government has already taken action on most of the various elements. Safe drinking water?

Well, we've already enacted the toughest drinking water standards anywhere. Nutrient management? The Legislature already passed Bill 81, and get this: Dalton voted against the bill. This Liberal

plan has more flip-flops than a pancake breakfast. It represents one more example of why the people of this province simply don't trust Dalton and his Liberals.

VISITOR

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to welcome Charlotte Van Leeuwen, who is in the members' gallery,

the mother of Lauren, who is a page. I hope she won't be too disillusioned here today.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today the clerk received the 11th report of the standing committee on government

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr9,

An Act respecting The Elliott.

Bill Pr12,

An Act respecting the Municipality of Chatham-Kent.

You committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr11,

An Act respecting the Town of Erin.

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

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order: I know that today is a special day, so I want to take a moment to introduce, in the west gallery,

the president of the Brantford Firefighters' Association, Mr Ed Glover, and with him, Gene Nesiol, the secretary and recording secretary. I'd like to welcome them and thank them for being here.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion that the House move to committee of the whole

following question period in order to separate the offending sections of Bill 198 and that the official opposition will not put forward any amendments or seek debate.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TORONTO ATMOSPHERIC

FUND ACT, 2002

Mr Gilchrist moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr15,

An Act respecting the Toronto Atmospheric Fund.

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

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

RENT FREEZE

AND RENT CONTROL ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE GEL

ET LE CONTRÔLE DES LOYERS

Mr Prue moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 215,

An Act to amend the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 215, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la protection des locataires.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): This bill is introduced because rents continue to rise all over Ontario. For example, in Toronto they

have risen in the last few years by $226 per month; in Ottawa by $201; in Hamilton by $129; in Oshawa by $128; and in Kitchener by $120. It is beyond the ability of many tenants to pay.

We have a choice here, and that choice is, do we allow people to make millions of dollars off this or do we ask the taxpayers to pay? We believe there is a

need for a rent freeze until rent controls are restored.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: We have questions today for a number of ministers who have not yet

arrived, including the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. We all know what time question period --

Interjection.

Mr Duncan: Yes.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): There are only six junior ministers there.

Mr Duncan: We're looking for ministers.

The Speaker: They are coming. The minister is now here.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PENSION PLANS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Finance. I want to draw your attention to the people sitting

up in the public gallery behind me. There are several people who have come here today. They are very concerned and angry about your proposed changes to Ontario pension laws.

Several of those here today are from Peterborough. They are former employees of Johnson & Johnson Medical Products. Some 200 of those employees were laid

off in 1998 and they are still waiting for their fair share of the pension surplus. They were awaiting the Monsanto decision, which came down last Friday, as you know. That decision said that

employees are entitled to share in their pension surplus. Their employer is fighting them, and in a letter to the employees earlier this year said that they will hold out until you pass your

legislation, which obviously is going to give them a decidedly unfair advantage.

These people, Madam Minister, want to know whether or not you are going to do the right thing, stand up for fairness and ensure that you withdraw the pension

portion of Bill 198.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): Equitable treatment between employers and employees, making sure that employees have the pension they

are entitled to, is extremely important. That's why, as you heard in my commitment on Monday and the Premier's commitment on Tuesday, this is not being proclaimed until consultations have occurred.

If things need to be fixed, they will be fixed, because we need to ensure that pensioners understand and know that their pension rights are protected.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, the people who are here today and the people whom you have angered around the province do not trust you.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Stop the clock, please. I would ask all the members in the gallery kindly to respect our rules. The

members of the gallery are not allowed to speak out. I know you've come a long way to watch the questions and answers. I would appreciate your co-operation so that we can run smoothly.

The leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, here's a comment made by a member of your own caucus: "We made a mistake and let's admit it.... People think

we're letting companies steal the surplus from their pensions and we can't ... explain convincingly that we're not."

That member is right, and you are wrong. These people sitting behind me are right, as are their counterparts throughout the province of Ontario. They don't

trust you. They don't trust you to somehow take this over and under cover of darkness maybe do what you did when you gave that sweetheart deal to professional sports teams in the province of

Ontario.

What we're asking you to do is the only honourable and fair thing: to withdraw the pension portion of your bill, set it aside and kill it.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The opposition has raised concerns that people felt that they weren't consulted and that a process and time were not taken. So

the Premier's commitment is very clear: we need to do further consultation; we need to ensure that pensioners are satisfied that their rights are protected. If changes need to be made, those

changes will be made.

Mr McGuinty: What are you talking about? First you pass the bill, and then you consult? Is that the new rule around the Ontario Legislature?

We're supposed to do it the other way around.

You never properly consulted. You never listened to these people. Had you bothered to stop and listen, you would have received the kind of information, the

kind of anger and upset that these people are obviously expressing, not only here today but right around the province.

The only acceptable thing to do in these circumstances, the right thing to do, the fair thing to do, is for you to stop standing up for employers and to start

standing up for fairness and to reject this portion of the bill that you're trying to sneak through and somehow have us believe that we're going to trust you. Reject this portion.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I think it's important to stress for the pensioners here in the gallery and for those who may be listening that there is

nothing -- there is nothing -- that is proposed or under consideration that affects the earned benefits of pension plan members or --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order. If the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale does that again, he's out. We're not going to put up with that.

Sorry, Minister of Finance.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I think it deserves repeating that there is nothing on the table that is affecting the earned benefits of pension plan members,

of retirees, of employees at all. The Premier's commitment is very, very clear: there needs to be further consultation. We need to ensure that those rights are protected. If changes need to be

made, they will be.

The Speaker: New question?

Interjection.

The Speaker: We'll stand the question down and go on to the next one. The member for Timmins-James Bay.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, the issue is very simple: people don't trust you.

It comes down to simply that. They've looked at what you've done over the litany of seven years when it comes to attacking every worker across this province. Whether it's the Employment Standards

Act, the Workers' Compensation Board or working over professional firefighters under Bill 30, everybody knows what side you're going to fall on. You're going to fall on the side of the employer. So

I say to you very simply, are you going to do the right thing at least for once in the last seven years and withdraw this legislation once and for all so people know they're not going to get

shystered when it comes to their pensions?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, there is already legislation on the books that very clearly protects the rights of pensioners in terms of their

earned benefits, as it should. No one wishes to tamper with that. Pensioners depend very much on the pensions they've worked for throughout their lives, and we do not wish to tamper with that.

On the particular issue of employers versus employees on distribution of surpluses in certain circumstances, the Premier has been very clear: consultation

needs to occur, and if changes need to be made, we will make those changes.

Mr Bisson: It's clear. There was a decision about a week ago on the Monsanto case that upheld what has been happening in this province since

1991; that is, employers don't have the unilateral right, on their own, to either take a pension holiday or take withdrawals from the pensions. What you're proposing to do is turn the clock back to

the Conrad Black days, and that's not acceptable. Minister, people don't trust you. The question is really simple: will you do the right thing and withdraw this from the legislation?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I agree that employers do not have unilateral rights in these circumstances; they should not. The government would not wish to

put anything in place that would do that. The Premier's commitment, as I've said, is very clear. He respects the rights of pensioners. He's been very clear that consultation will occur to ensure

that pensioners' rights are protected. And if changes need to be made, we are quite prepared to make those, as we should. We think it's the responsible thing to do, and we have the Premier's

commitment that that indeed will be the case.

Mr Bisson: That doesn't cut it. We don't have a problem now. That's the part you don't understand. The rules that have existed since 1991 have

expressly forbade employers from being able to unilaterally withdraw surpluses from pension funds. In addition to that, the Monsanto ruling is saying, in fact, that the 1991 and 1988 changes that

were made do exactly that. If there isn't a problem now, and you don't have a situation where employers are raiding pension surpluses or taking pension contribution holidays unilaterally, why do

you need to make these changes? It's a very simple question.

I come back to you again on the premise of the first question: if there isn't a problem now and pensions are solvent and not in danger of growing broke and we

don't have a problem with employers taking out surpluses, then why are you bringing in these changes through this legislation? It could be just for one thing; that is, withdrawing pension

surpluses. I ask you again, on behalf of the people in the gallery, on behalf of the people I've met in Chatham-Kent on Monday and on behalf of all pensioners and future pensioners, will you do the

right thing and withdraw this legislation?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member says there are no problems now. Well, there are some significant issues that need to be dealt with.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): The courts did that.

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, the courts did not deal with some of those issues. For example, they did not deal --

Interjection.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Are you interested in hearing the answer or not? They did not deal with cases where pension plans may not be in surplus

situations today. They did not deal with cases where an employer is not providing the surplus they should be putting out for employees in a timely fashion. That has been something pensioners have

complained about to us.

There are a number of issues. We have pension plans in this province where the employer and the employees have come to agreements about surplus sharing, and

because of court rulings they're not allowed to put that forward. So there are some significant issues that need to be dealt with. Consultation will ensure it is done correctly. If changes need to

be made, we're prepared to make them.

The Speaker: We will now go back to the stand-down question, if the minister is here.

ONTARIO STUDENT

ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. While your government

has been busy enabling tuition fees in Ontario to skyrocket, we learned this morning that you were actually spending less on student assistance today than you did in 1997. In fact, every single

year for the past five years you have spent less and less on those students who cannot, by virtue of their financial circumstances, get into Ontario colleges and universities. Can you explain to

parents and students who need financial assistance why you have abandoned them?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): I'm very happy to answer the

first question I've had in this whole sitting from the leader and from, of course, my colleague -- I think she's asked me one -- probably because of the answer I'm going to give, quite frankly.

I think what I'd like to share with the leader of the official opposition is that there are a lot of reasons for this number to be lower, but the first one is

that over the last five years many fewer students actually have applied for OSAP. The reason they haven't is because there are so many more programs we offer to students. I will tell you that in

2001-02, 152,575 students in fact applied, and in 1997, 263,550 students applied. We have so many --

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

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, I'm not sure how you can say that with a straight face. The reason there are fewer students in Ontario today

applying for student assistance is because you changed the rules on them. You've narrowed the grounds for eligibility. We have the toughest eligibility rules in all of Canada because of changes

that you brought in on your watch.

Listen to one of these: " ... parental income is now taken into account ... for all single students who have been out of high school for five years, regardless

of whether they are dependents" and living at home with their parents. That means if somebody left high school at 18, they've been out there working for five years, maybe they're 23 -- you're now

telling them that as far as you're concerned, they're dependent upon their parents. I think that's unreasonable. That's the reason why you're having fewer people who are eligible even to apply in

Ontario.

I ask you again: in a knowledge-based economy, how can you possibly justify giving out less student assistance?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: This opposition leader can quote the press. I'm going to quote the federal Millennium Scholarship Foundation. A study

released on September 16, 2002, noted that over the past decade the government --

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: You know, Mr Speaker, I can't -- I shouted last --

The Speaker: Member for Windsor-St Clair, come to order, please. This is his last warning as well.

Interjection.

The Speaker: This is your last warning. If you want to go out, we can do it right now. This is his last warning. If I get up again for the

member for Windsor-St Clair, he's out for the day. Minister, continue, please.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: A study released on September 16, 2002, by the federal Millennium Scholarship Foundation, with which we work closely,

noted that over the past decade the government of Ontario has greatly increased annual expenditures on student financial assistance.

We have in fact introduced many other options for students. We have a set-aside at our universities. There's $126 million every year for students who may in

fact have approached OSAP and have OSAP or have not got OSAP; there is another alternative. The Aiming for the Top scholarships: $26 million to students this year; it will grow to $35 million. The

Ontario student opportunity trust fund: $600 million in endowments. The list goes on.

I will say right now --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, it doesn't matter how you slice it or dice it; the reason that Ontario students are not getting student

assistance is because you've tightened up the eligibility criteria.

Here's something else you have done that exists nowhere else in Canada. A "family of four with a net income of $40,000 is expected to contribute toward their

child's post-secondary education." That would never have happened under the old rules: a family of four, $40,000. Take into account rent or mortgage and car payments and groceries and taxes and the

like and you're saying that in those circumstances those families are not entitled to any student assistance whatsoever.

You tell us now about your Ontario student opportunity trust fund, some special supplementary assistance you've created. In the last two years, you had $120

million allocated for this fund, but you only spent $46.5 million. That's less than 40% of the extra money you have apparently put in place to help students. Madam Minister, why not stand up and

admit that the reason you're spending less money on student assistance in the province of Ontario is that you have deliberately narrowed the eligibility criteria?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: With regard to OSAP, it's true that in Ontario less students are applying. It's also true that across the country for the

Canada student loans, less students are applying. The reason less students are applying is that governments are working together across the country. The students have opportunities for OSAP; they

have opportunities for the millennium fund. They therefore have opportunities for loan forgiveness. They have numbers of opportunities. But the key point is that less are applying because people

have jobs. Parents are better off than ever before. They are borrowing less money and they are paying down their student loans.

Last year alone, $1.1 billion in loan assistance was delivered to students through OSAP alone. I will say that we are working with the students --

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

TORONTO YOUTH ASSESSMENT CENTRE

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): A question to the Minister of Public Safety: Minister, you've created a crisis in both our adult and youth

correctional and detention facilities. Just last week, Judge Weagant imposed an absolute discharge on a 17-year-old young offender who pled guilty to multiple counts of theft and mischief because

of the 10 hellish days -- "hellish" is the language of the judge -- that young person spent in your Toronto Youth Assessment Centre under conditions the judge described as "Dickensian," among other

things. The judge talked about the youth sleeping on a mattress on the floor with no pillow in a range that was festering with vermin crawling across the floor and across those beds. The judge

spoke of frequent beatings administered upon this youth and presumably upon others because of your overcrowding and because of your understaffing and underresourcing of the Toronto Youth Assessment

Centre and other, similar provincial facilities.

What are you going to do about it, Minister?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): I am unable to talk about the specific case, but I can tell you that the

ministry has launched an investigation into the allegations. The child advocate, whose responsibility it is to ensure that treatment is appropriate within our institutions, was in the facility this

month, and as far as I am aware as of today, she had no concerns with respect to the operations of the facility.

Mr Kormos: Minister, you'd better have some concerns, because the judges in this community and across this province sure as heck do, and they

are releasing young offenders out on to the street as some modest restitution for the conditions in your facilities.

This isn't new to you. Back in October, reporter Victor Malarek wrote about the beatings that were being administered by gangs of young offenders in the back

of police vans as young offenders were being transported from facilities like the Toronto Youth Assessment Centre to provincial courts. You appear to have done nothing about that either.

You were invited to go to Mimico. I was one of the people in this Legislature who, at the request of the staff there, asked you to go to that facility and

examine it. You say the advocate took a look. Why haven't you taken a look? Is the judge wrong, or are you irresponsible?

Hon Mr Runciman: As is frequently the case, the member opposite is wrong. The Toronto Police provide court transportation for offenders. We've

spoken with the police with respect to the problem in transportation and the violence that apparently has occurred within some of the vehicles transporting young offenders to the courts. They are

in the process of putting video cameras into the back of these court vehicles.

I think all of us appreciate that many of the youth who show up at this centre have behaviour problems. They're not happy to be there. They're often quite

violent and that's why we have a staff psychiatrist on duty.

It's a busy remand centre. Our long-term plan is to close down this facility, to renovate Vanier Centre for Women to serve as a 300-bed youth jail for Toronto

and the GTA. As indicated in my initial response with respect to this specific matter, the ministry has launched an investigation into the allegations.

PENSION PLANS

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Madam Minister, for something like the tenth

occasion in less than a week I'm asking you a question about a bill that you don't seem to understand. People from Stratford and Barrie and Peterborough and places all over southern Ontario have

come here today to demand of you that you stop suggesting that this Legislature should pass a piece of legislation that is admittedly flawed. So I'd like you to stand, Madam Minister, and take your

eyes up just to the front row of the galleries and talk to the people there and explain to them why it is that in this Legislature you should ask members of this place to pass a piece of

legislation that you have come awfully close to admitting is deeply flawed.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): I don't think theatrics help this situation at all. I think it's important that pensioners understand,

that they know their pensions are safe, that they know the viability of their pensions is going to be protected. The Premier has made a very clear commitment. We do wish to continue to consult on

this. We do wish to ensure that the problems employee groups have told us about are fixed as well, because there are issues that they, in the consultations over the last year and a half, have

raised. They had problems they wanted fixed as well.

So I think there are some legitimate issues. Obviously people have not been satisfied with either the information they have or the positions that have been

taken, are not satisfied that their pensions are protected adequately. We will consult to find the right resolution for that, and if changes need to be made, we will make them.

Mr Smitherman: It's interesting that you'd characterize my passion as theatrics. The real theatrics we're seeing are from you because you're a

bad actor. You're a bad actor trying to play a role as a senior minister who doesn't even understand the implications of her own legislation.

So don't tell me one more time when I put the facts before you, when I have clearly demonstrated the points in the bill that will strip the rights of these

employees to gain access to the surpluses in their pension funds -- don't talk to me about theatrics, Madam Minister. Stand in your place this one time and tell me why it's appropriate to ask this

Legislature to pass a piece of badly flawed legislation. Stand in your place.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member likes to say that he understands the legislation. If he does, then why is it that he objects to something

that talks about respecting surplus sharing agreements between employers and employees? I'm sure that he would agree that the chosen way to deal with questions around surplus sharing is with an

agreement between the employer and the employees. That is the preferred option. That is what we think should be part of what happens in all circumstances.

Again, we recognize that pensioners are concerned. We recognize there are issues that need to be dealt with, and we are taking steps to do that.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Speaker: I'm seeking unanimous consent to ask the seniors in this gallery if

they're feeling better after that answer.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We're not going to do unanimous consents with theatrics like that. If you wonder why we don't get down to your

question, it's doing things like that that take the time away from question period. When you don't get down to your question, you'll know why.

INNOVATION INITIATIVES

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): It's hard to follow the comedy act of the member for Timmins-James Bay and the member for Toronto

Centre-Rosedale, but I will do my very best.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): You think it's a comedy act? You think it's funny?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Take your seat. The member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale is named. I'm going to have to ask Mr Smitherman to

leave the chamber.

Mr Smitherman left the chamber.

The Speaker: The member for Waterloo-Wellington has the floor for the question.

Mr Arnott: My question is for the Associate Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation. Minister, our government recognized long ago

that innovation is the driving force in our new economy. We were all pleased and appreciative, therefore, when the minister announced $22.8 million for research and development programs recently at

the University of Guelph. This funding will not only provide critical innovation infrastructure but also help to put Guelph and our area on the map as important players within Ontario's innovation

strategy.

Will the minister inform the House about some of the other initiatives our government is undertaking to promote innovation in the province of Ontario?

Hon David Turnbull (Associate Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): I thank the member for Waterloo-Wellington for this

important question. The Ontario Innovation Trust announcement at the University of Guelph last week was just part of our government's drive to create a culture of innovation.

Our government has invested in a very wide range of initiatives: $750 million in the Ontario research and development challenge fund, $1 billion in the Ontario

Innovation Trust and $32 million in the Ontario research performance fund.

Just last June, we announced a $51-million biotech strategy, and our goal is to make Ontario one of the three main biotech centres in North America.

The Premier's research excellence awards have a total commitment of $85 million.

The Speaker: The associate minister's time is up.

Mr Arnott: Our province has certainly led the way in terms of taking initiatives to support science, technology and innovation. I know an

important component of our government's innovation strategy lies in our centres of excellence. As the members of the House know, we recently announced the creation of two new centres of excellence

for electricity and alternative fuels. With our focus on these hubs of innovation, will the minister elaborate on the role of centres of excellence as part of our overall innovation strategy?

Hon Mr Turnbull: The centres of excellence program helps us to strengthen the R&D links between industry and academia and it helps to

accelerate the process between the lab bench and the marketplace.

We have four existing centres: Communications and Information Technology Ontario, the Centre for Research in Earth and Space Technology, Materials and

Manufacturing Ontario, and Photonics Research Ontario. In 2002, we made a budget commitment of $161 million over the next five years to support these centres. In addition to this, we're adding two

new centres: the Centre of Excellence for Alternative Fuels and the Centre of Excellence for Electricity. This is all part of our government's priority of promoting innovation in this province.

Our government has invested a record amount of $3.2 billion since we became the government.

CRIMINAL INJURIES

COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Attorney General. Attorney General, you will be familiar with the case of

Jonathan Wamback. In June 1999 he was savagely beaten by a gang at the age of 15 years. He was on life support for 16 days, in a coma for three months and suffered permanent brain damage.

After three years of fighting with your Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, his parents have withdrawn their application in disgust. They have been asking

for $8,000 to pay for medical expenses related to their son's brutal assault. They were looking for help with ambulance fees, physiotherapy and pharmaceutical supplies, all the kinds of things you

hope you never have to buy for one of your kids.

This is what Jonathan's dad said about your Criminal Injuries Compensation Board: "Victims of crime are innocent people thrust into a nightmare without end.

They need immediate assistance, not bureaucracy and revictimization. This province continually makes people beg on their knees for help that never, ever comes."

Minister, why have you failed the Wamback family?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member opposite for raising this important issue.

Certainly no government has done more than our government when it comes to supporting victims across this province, but as the honourable member knows -- or I believe he knows, because he is a

lawyer -- when matters are in front of the court -- and this matter is still in front of the court -- there are some things that can be done and some things that can't be done.

I understand that Mr Wamback has some concerns. Quite frankly, I'm very concerned myself by his experience. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that we are

prepared to look into the matter. We are prepared to do whatever we can to improve the system, understanding, of course, that there are certain principles we cannot modify in this system, and one

of those is that until a matter has made its way through the courts, there are certain things that politicians cannot do.

Mr McGuinty: That's not good enough, Mr Attorney General. This is the party that holds itself out as the defender and champion of victims of

crime. This is one of the most notorious and infamous cases in all Canada. Jonathan's dad collected a million signatures and went to the federal government to bring about changes in federal young

offenders legislation.

What I am asking you today, Mr Attorney General, on behalf of the Wamback family, is why you have not done anything to step up to the plate to help this

family. This father wasn't even entitled to interim compensation. He gave up his job and they sold their cottage and depleted their RRSPs because your Criminal Injuries Compensation Board would not

step up to the plate and help this family, even on an interim basis.

I ask you again, on behalf of this family, why have you been missing in action when it comes to supporting this family?

Hon Mr Young: Let's talk about missing --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Young: I think this is important enough that the members of the opposition should sit and listen to the answer, as I listened to the

question. Let's talk about missing in action. The Ernie Eves government has been fighting the Young Offenders Act, has been fighting its successor legislation, which is more costly, which is more

cumbersome, which is more complicated, and we have been calling on the opposition Liberals to phone their federal cousins and stop --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Come to order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Enough is enough. The Attorney General has the floor.

Hon Mr Young: Here's what I know: we have called on the provincial Liberals over and over again to talk to the federal Liberals. We've called

upon them to have the guts to say something, to fight --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If I get up again, people are going out. We'll name a couple at a time; we can do it in groups. I'll get them all out.

We're not going to continue to shout across.

We've lost track of time. I believe the Attorney General has about 10 seconds to wrap up.

Hon Mr Young: Not only have they not opposed the federal legislation dealing with young offenders, what they have done recently, and Dalton

McGuinty led the charge, is he said he's going to hire 50 more crown attorneys in the next four years -- 50 more crown attorneys. We hire 36 a year. That means you're going to hire 12 a year;

you're going to slash the number of crown attorneys in our courts. You're not going to allow criminals to be prosecuted; you're not going to let victims have their day in court.

GREEN ENERGY AND CONSERVATION

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Minister of Energy. We've heard from people across the province that the government's

recent announcement to lower electricity rates and provide rebates for consumers is exactly the kind of relief they were looking for. Obviously, this has been the focus of a great deal of media

attention. But people may be less familiar with some of the other important aspects of the government's action plan.

Minister, could you please tell us what the government is going to do to promote green energy and conservation?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): The government is firmly committed --

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I distinctly heard our most eminent Attorney General call my

colleague a moron. I ask that he stand up and withdraw that, now.

Interjections.

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I apologize for the use of that

word. I know the deputy leader of the Liberal Party will want to apologize for using the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. It's not going to do anybody any good to be yelling insults across.

Interjections: Withdraw.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. He did withdraw it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. OK, you know what you can do? The government House leader is named. Mr Stockwell is out. The member for Windsor West is

out too. You can carry this on outside, both of you. Mr Stockwell, leave right now, and Mrs Pupatello. You can carry it on outside.

Mr Stockwell and Mrs Pupatello were escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: If you want to yell across when I'm standing up, continue. You can do it all afternoon for all I care. You're an embarrassment,

all of you; a disgraceful performance in here.

While we're at it, do we want to throw anybody else out right now? Because you can all leave, as far as I'm concerned. There are kids sitting up there; an

absolutely disgraceful performance by all of you. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Who has the floor? The Minister of Energy.

Hon Mr Baird: Our government is committed to the promotion of green energy and conservation. This Friday I'll be in Huron county with my

colleague Helen Johns, the Minister of Agriculture, where we'll open the first commercial wind farm in Ontario. This wind farm will generate enough electricity in the province to meet the annual

needs of about 3,000 homes with green electricity. That's good news for Ontario and good news for the environment.

We all believe we should have a commitment to promoting green energy. That's why the government has accepted the challenge and a set of targets to show

provincial leadership by targeting to buy 20% of its electricity from green sources. I think that's good news. We've also introduced some really substantial tax incentives to try to promote both

energy conservation and clean, green and renewable energy in Ontario.

Mrs Munro: The government is clearly providing incentives that will encourage new green energy supply in the province, but individuals also

have a role to play. Can you tell us what people can do to conserve energy and what the government is doing to help them?

Hon Mr Baird: It will be in Bruce county, not in Huron county, though the wind comes from Huron county on the way to Bruce county, I say to my

colleague from Huron-Bruce. She is a strong supporter of the Bruce nuclear facility and Bruce Power, I should add as well.

One of the principles this government stands by is that the more electricity used, the more you should pay. In fact, if we look at the summer months of July,

August and September, we saw electricity demand across Ontario go up by about 7%. That just shows there were huge demands on the system with the warm weather we had. We believe the government can

lead by example and we've set a target of reducing the amount of electricity we use as a government by 10%, and already some specific initiatives are underway to help us meet that goal.

We also have in place a number of incentives to encourage the people of the province to purchase energy-efficient appliances. Consumers who buy an eligible

appliance between November 25, 2002, and November 26, 2003, will have their retail sales tax rebated once the Legislature passes the bill we introduced this week.

HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question to the Minister of Health. Tonight you're holding a meeting to promote your scheme of

for-profit hospital construction in Brampton. What's clear about this scheme is that a for-profit company is going to build and own the hospital, but the public is going to pay for it, and the

public is going to pay dearly because the for-profit owner will of course demand a huge profit as part of any construction loan or leaseback scheme. Frankly, once the for-profit owner has a foot in

the hospital door, it's not going to be very hard to move to the next step of letting that same for-profit owner also run direct hospital health services.

Minister, I think you're heading in the wrong direction, and the experience in Britain shows that. Will you cancel your scheme of for-profit construction and

ownership of our hospitals?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Let me say to this House that nothing could be further from the truth. If the

honourable member is asking what prevents the extension of contracted-out or P3 services to clinical services, the answer is quite simple: the Public Hospitals Act of Ontario and the Canada Health

Act, which is a federally inspired bill. So the fact of the matter is, that is not possible. It is not contemplated; it is not part of the solution. We are simply ensuring that the hospital can

concentrate on what it does best, which is to deliver excellent and universally accessible, high-quality health care services, and the private sector can contribute what it does best, namely,

building and maintaining expensive buildings at, quite frankly, a measurable saving to the taxpayer. If that is not the case, then we simply won't award the contract.

Ms Martel: There is no place for for-profit hospital construction in Ontario, and a look at what happened in Britain would show that. The

first 18 P3 hospital projects in Britain cost ₤53 million for consulting fees alone -- C$110 million. The first P3 hospital that was built in Cumberland had serious structural defects. Two of

the ceilings collapsed because of cheap plastic joints and piping and other plumbing faults. The sewage system did not have enough capacity and the operating rooms were flooded with raw sewage. A

roof design flaw and no air conditioning meant that on sunny days the temperature inside the wards was over 33 degrees Celsius.

For-profit hospital construction did not work in Britain and it's not going to work in Ontario either. Will you cancel your scheme of for-profit hospital

construction and ownership in Ontario?

Hon Mr Clement: The answer is no, I will not do that. If the honourable member says this is unprecedented, I invite her to walk outside of her

office and go down University Avenue, because right in front of you, at Toronto General Hospital, UHN, is a privately financed building going on right now; a brand new hospital wing for downtown

Torontonians. This has been something that has been applied in the past in Ontario. It is not contrary to the Canada Health Act; it is not contrary to the Public Hospitals Act.

The honourable member seems to be aware of certain accusations in Britain. I commend her to look at the national auditor in Britain, who suggests that, through

the PFI -- private finance initiative -- of that neo-Conservative, Tony Blair, they have actually saved 17% of the cost to taxpayers, to go into actual clinical services and health care services. I

would be a happy man as Minister of Health if all of my construction projects saved 17% rather than adding to the bill for the taxpayers. That would be a good day for Ontarians.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Energy. Lynn is a single mom who lives in Cochrane. She is

the mother of two children who are two and five years of age. She's on Ontario Works. This fall, Lynn's bills were double the usual so she scraped together as much as she could to make as great a

payment as she could. In November, her bill was $179. She also got a letter saying that she had to pay by the 26th of this month or her power would be cut off. She told her utility that she thought

she would be able to get the necessary money by the 29th. Her hydro was cut off yesterday. It was minus 16 degrees in Cochrane last night.

Three weeks ago, your Premier made a very specific promise that nobody's power would be cut off for failure to pay. Why is it, Minister, three weeks after the

Premier made that very specific promise, people like Lynn are still having their hydro cut off?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): We feel very strongly that, given the uncertainty we've

had with respect to electricity prices and the effect that has had on working families around Ontario, it was important we come forward with relief to provide support to people to recoup some of

the funds they spent on electricity since May 1, and also to deal with the go-forward basis, to provide some stability in the early running of the market.

The Premier directed me some weeks ago to direct Hydro One -- which I did both in writing and directly on the telephone to Hydro One -- that we, as a

distribution company that's owned by the taxpayers of Ontario, wouldn't cut people off. If the member opposite wants to provide me with specific details of that, I'll look into it personally and

right away. If I might have the address and the account number, that might be helpful as well, I say to the member opposite.

This is a concern. You and I both know from living in Ottawa about the problems you can have when electricity is not available, particularly in the cold winter

months. We take that responsibility incredibly seriously, and later today I'll be moving second reading of a piece of legislation to provide some stability to people in the province of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: It was minus 16 degrees in Cochrane. I'll repeat: her children are two and five years of age, respectively. This is a single mom.

She's on Ontario Works. She relied on your Premier to keep his word that her power would not be cut off. Her power was cut off. I'll ask you the same question that I asked the Premier before: am I

going to bring these cases here on an individual basis now? At what point in time are the people of Ontario going to be able to rely on you and your promises?

It's one thing for your bungling to hit them in the wallet, but now you're jeopardizing their health and safety. I ask you again: with respect to this

particular case, this particular woman and these particular children, what are you going to do to ensure that this woman's power gets back on and that nobody finds themselves in these circumstances

ever again?

Hon Mr Baird: That situation is unacceptable. We -- you and I and the members of the third party -- have the power to change this today. We

can pass the legislation we introduced this week that would make it illegal for that to happen between now and the end of March.

You and I have the power to solve this problem right here, right now, today. If the member opposite wants -- don't shake your head. I'll call your bet. If you

want to pass our legislation right here, right now, our government will allow speedy passage and we'll ensure this never happens again.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. As an Ontarian, I'm very proud of our

world-class, award-winning grape and wine industry. To help this important industry grow, this government announced the Ontario wine strategy last year.

As you know, that strategy set some very ambitious goals for our wine industry, such as strengthening the VQA brand, creating thousands of new jobs and

increasing both domestic and international sales of our wines. An important part of reaching these goals is increasing sales through the LCBO. Minister, could you please update the House on what

the LCBO has done to increase sales of Ontario wines?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I appreciate the member from Peterborough's question on this very important

industry in Ontario. Coming from the Niagara region and being proud to represent much of that area, it's certainly of interest to me and to the people I represent.

Since Minister Norm Sterling announced the Ontario wine strategy, great strides have been made to help promote Ontario wine, and particularly VQA wine, which

is 100% Ontario product. I'll give you some examples comparing this quarter to the same quarter last year. VQA wine sales are up over 15% year over year. This is partly due to the craft winery

program as well as the Taste the Quality campaign, the largest promotion in the history of the LCBO for Ontario wines.

The craft winery program, which I'm particularly proud of, helps the up-and-comers like EastDell, Strewn and Lakeview, to name but three, and saw sales jump

23% in this period over the previous period.

Mr Stewart: I'm pleased to hear there has been a dramatic increase in the sales of Ontario wines, again through the LCBO.

I believe it's important for us to build on these successes in the future, to ensure this industry continues to grow and create jobs in our local communities.

But there is still some work to do before we reach our ambitious goals of seeing one of every two bottles of wine sold in this province made in this province, and the creation of thousands of new

jobs in this industry. I believe that if we make the right decisions now and continue to aggressively market Ontario wines, sales can continue to grow for many years in the future.

Minister, what is being done to build on that momentum of strong sales of Ontario wines?

Hon Mr Hudak: The member is right. We have to keep moving forward. As I mentioned, the October promotion, the largest in the history of the

province for Ontario wine, saw VQA product increase 20% from the previous year. Those promoted wines were up over 30% in their sales. Obviously, as we increase sales, we're increasing shelf space

for Ontario wine, VQA product, at the LCBO. In fact, we'll have seen an increase in shelf space by almost 25% by the end of the year.

Similarly, to help support this culturally, they've hired a new Ontario wine category manager as well as VQA advocates as champions within the store system to

help promote the great Ontario wine products made in Niagara, Lake Erie North Shore and Pelee Island, and we look forward down the road to Prince Edward county as well.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question to the Minister of Education. You sent your hand-picked supervisor into the

city of Ottawa to assume responsibility for the Ottawa public board of education. You did that because you claimed the trustees didn't know what they were doing and they couldn't see their way

through to doing what you call the right thing, which was to balance the budget. Now, after several weeks, and all kinds of money being spent on this very expensive charade -- over half a million

dollars -- your hand-picked supervisor tells us that he can't balance the budget.

Will you now finally admit, Madam Minister -- and of course we just saw this movie earlier in the week with the situation here in Toronto -- that the issue

here is not one of trustees who are not acting in a fiscally irresponsible way; the issue is really that we don't have enough money in public education because you took too much out?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I'm very surprised at the question that has just been asked by the member of the

opposition. I'm surprised that he didn't mention the number of new investments in textbooks and teachers. I am surprised that he didn't mention that the supervisor has addressed an issue regarding

the accommodation of students in the Ottawa area that has long been neglected by the trustees.

In fact, I think we have to congratulate the supervisor for developing a three-year plan for putting the Ottawa-Carlton District School Board back on the road

to sustainable financial health and at the same time reinvesting in teachers, reinvesting in textbooks and identifying that the needs of all of the students, when it comes to accommodation, whether

you live downtown or in the suburbs, can be accommodated. He has actually addressed decisions that these trustees, a small majority, have refused to tackle in the past four years.

Mr McGuinty: Everybody sees through this. You've taken $2 billion out of public education. Our public schools are on their knees. You have

compromised our children's education. The reason that the supervisor couldn't balance the budget in Ottawa and couldn't balance the budget in Toronto is because there's not enough money to get the

job done.

Your Premier said that these cuts wouldn't compromise what went on in the classroom in Ottawa. One of the first things you did was to remove 50 special

education teachers. You also said that the budget would indeed be balanced; that, in fact, has not proven to be the case. Everybody knows that there is a shortage of money in public education. Why

don't you start by doing two things here and now: (1) admit that there's a desperate shortage of money in public education; and (2) tell us you're no longer going to put half a billion public tax

dollars in private schools?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The Leader of the Opposition needs to understand, and I would think he would know this already, that the trouble of the Ottawa

board didn't start overnight. They were given transition funding by the province. In fact, they got over $128 million. Instead of using the money, as other boards did, to go about restructuring,

they simply avoided making the decisions that were going to be necessary. Unfortunately, the transition funding has now run out and the board finds itself in a deficit. I can tell you, these

problems didn't start overnight. For example, last year they didn't spend their money as they should. They simply refused to make the decisions, when they had the transition funding, that were

necessary to provide for the needs of the students.

FOREIGN-TRAINED PROFESSIONALS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. I was delighted, last week, in your

announcement of the three new initiatives to help foreign-trained professionals. I know my constituents in Durham commented, and they were pleased.

You know that most newcomers to Canada choose to live in Ontario and it's no mystery why: we offer a strong and diverse economy, as well as strong social

programs and of course a very high standard of living. This issue is really all about fairness and it's also about our economy. As you understand, we have a shortage of certain skills in our

economy, and a large part of the solution can be found in those newcomers who choose to locate in Ontario but want to practise in their trained field.

Minister, can you tell this House, and the members who may be listening, your three new initiatives and how they will fit the foreign-trained professionals and

allow them to work in Ontario?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): We have a focus within our

ministry of helping our foreign-trained professionals, and we've been making significant gains in the last couple of years.

Last week we announced a partnership with the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers that will create a new program called Pathways. This is employment

experience for people who are already qualified to be engineers in their own country, but must pass the test and be qualified here with the regulatory body. This is an opportunity for me to thank

about 150 companies that have given these people an opportunity to work for about a year and to learn Ontario standards and experience.

There's also a partnership with the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, and we'll be continuing to work with them as well. These are just two of many

programs.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you for that answer, Madam Minister. I'm very impressed with this whole integration of foreign-trained professionals to

allow them to work in their field of training. I know I've worked with constituents -- I could mention Lilian Lockyear and others. I'm delighted you're moving forward to provide for foreign-trained

engineers and others to work and be licensed in Ontario.

I know you've worked to create other new bridge training programs. For the members who don't know, these are programs to allow newcomers to learn what they

need to meet Ontario standards without duplicating what they already know.

Working in partnership with regulatory bodies in Ontario has produced several new programs in high-demand fields like nursing, pharmacy, carpentry, medical

radiology, medical labs -- and the list goes on. It was our government that took action to create these opportunities. I congratulate you.

Perhaps you could continue to share what work lies ahead to provide opportunities --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The programs we have in Ontario are fairly new in the country. We refer to them as bridge training programs. We're working

across the country with other provinces. We've actually been told that we have some very excellent models.

One I would like to talk about is the CARE program, which I shared with this House last year. It's quite emotional when you have nurses who come to you who are

not working in their chosen field. The CARE program we started last year -- 300 internationally trained nurses will have completed the CARE pilot program. The goal is to double the previous pass

rate of 33%. To date, 288 internationally educated nurses have been recruited to participate, of whom 51 have secured employment as registered nurses or registered practical nurses. Of the 128

participants who have written the licensing exam, 70% have passed. This exceeds our goal, and this --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, I want to tell you that your school budget sham

is over in Ottawa. You congratulate the supervisor on his three-year plan, but what this really means, in case you don't know, is that you're allowing the supervisor to carry over a $14-million

deficit, just like you're allowing the Toronto supervisor to carry over a $16-million deficit, something that trustees were not allowed to do. You also said the books could be balanced without

cutting, but you know that in Toronto and Ottawa they have cut millions.

I am saying to you, don't try to fix the trustees. They're not the problem. Fix your flawed funding formula. And while you're at it, why don't you try to

reinstate the Ottawa trustees now that your board takeover has clearly failed?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I would just say to the member that I believe the supervisor is to be commended,

because one of the things the supervisor has actually done is he has developed a three-year plan to put the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board back on the path to financial health. The other

thing the supervisor has done is he is going to be speaking further to the whole issue of accommodation. In the city of Ottawa, we have many schools in the downtown area that are underutilized. We

have hundreds and hundreds of students in the suburban areas of Ottawa. As a result of the work that's going to be undertaken, this will mean that these new students will have new schools, and

they're going to actually have accommodation which has been long needed. A good example is Stittsville. These people who have been neglected by the trustees are now going to get the schools they

need.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker, and this is a very

serious point of order: The leader of the official opposition raised a very serious case with respect to a woman in Cochrane, where it was below minus 15, who was cut off her hydro. We do have

legislation before the House to deal specifically with that problem -- Lynn in Cochrane. I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to move it, second and third reading and to pass without debate Bill

210,

An Act to amend various acts in respect to pricing, conservation, supply of electricity and in respect of other matters related to electricity, so we can solve this problem for Lynn today.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): If people can be quiet, I can hear whether there is a yes or no. Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard

some noes.

PETITIONS

ALUMINIUM SMELTER

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is to clean up the abandoned aluminium smelter in Georgina. It's addressed to the

Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the abandoned aluminium smelter located on Warden Avenue in the town of Georgina has been deemed to have heavy metals exceeding the Ministry of the

Environment guidelines; and

"Whereas the site is adjacent to a wetland that leads to the Maskinonge River feeding into Lake Simcoe;

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

"The Ministry of the Environment should immediately conduct a full environmental assessment and cleanup of the site."

I affix my signature, as I am in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed in it.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have a petition here to the Ontario Legislature that reads as follows:

"Whereas the government has cut over $2 billion from public education over the past seven years;

"Whereas the provincial funding formula does not provide sufficient funds for local district school board trustees to meet the needs of students;

"Whereas district school boards around the province have had to cut needed programs and services, including library, music, physical education and special

education;

"Whereas the district school boards in Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Toronto refused to make further cuts and were summarily replaced with

government-appointed supervisors;

"Whereas these supervisors are undermining classroom education for hundreds of thousands of children;

"We, the undersigned members of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, call on the government to restore local democracy by removing the supervisors

in the Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Toronto district school boards."

It is signed by some 25 people from the Toronto area. I am in complete agreement and affix my signature thereto.

COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE CENTRE

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I have a petition to address to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas Sarnia-Point Edward and area is experienceing 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 and 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."

As I strongly support this type of delivery for primary health care services, I will endorse the petition.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (Vaughan-King-Aurora): It's not often that I get to introduce petitions, but I have an extremely important petition here

signed by hundreds of residents from the riding of Vaughan-King-Aurora. I won't read all of the

preambles, or the resolution, but it deals with the incredible mismanagement of Ontario's

hydroelectric system under the Harris-Eves government, and I will affix my signature and I support the contents of the petition.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have a similar petition. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the government has cut over $2 billion from public education over the past seven years;

"Whereas the provincial funding formula does not provide sufficient funds for local district school board trustees to meet the needs of students;

"Whereas district school boards around the province have had to cut needed programs and services, including library, music, physical education and special

education;

"Whereas the district school boards in Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Toronto refused to make further cuts and were summarily replaced with

government-appointed supervisors;

"Whereas these supervisors are undermining classroom education for hundreds of thousands of children;

"We, the undersigned members of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, call on the government to restore local democracy by removing the supervisors

in the Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Toronto district school boards."

It is signed by 33 teachers in the Mississauga area. I am in agreement and will affix my signature thereto.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAMS

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I wish to read in a petition under the title "Honour Emergency Workers Who Lose Their Lives in the

Line of Duty.

"Whereas the Ontario Legislature has debated a private member's bill titled the Flags at Half-Mast Act, 2002, requiring flags at all provincial government

buildings be flown at half-mast for a period of mourning to honour police officers, correctional service officers, firefighters and ambulance workers in Ontario who lose their lives in the line of

duty; and

"Whereas our emergency response personnel deserve our thanks and respect for their efforts to ensure the safety and security of all Ontarians; and

"Whereas MPP Toby Barrett has spoken and voted in favour of this legislation;

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

"That the government of Ontario support Halton MPP Chudleigh's Flags at Half-Mast Act, 2002, and require all Ontario government buildings to lower their flags

for a period of mourning to pay respect to dedicated men and women who lose their lives in the line of duty."

I affix my signature to this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

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

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

and

"Whereas this fee increase will cost seniors and our most vulnerable ... $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...; 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 ... 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...;

"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."

This is signed by my constituents and constituents of Prescott and Russell, and I sign the petition also.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): The third and final instalment on this comes from teachers who live and work outside of the greater

Toronto area, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the government has cut over $2 billion from public education over the past seven years;

"Whereas the provincial funding formula does not provide sufficient funds for local district school board trustees to meet the needs of students;

"Whereas district school boards around the province have had to cut needed programs and services, including library, music, physical education and special

education;

"Whereas the district school boards in Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Toronto refused to make further cuts and were summarily replaced with

government-appointed supervisors;

"Whereas these supervisors are undermining classroom education for hundreds of thousands of children;

"We, the undersigned members of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, call on the government to restore local democracy by removing the supervisors

in the Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Toronto district school boards."

There are some 80 signatures from outside of the GTA, and I am pleased to affix my signature thereto.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have a petition calling for a moratorium on high school closures. It's signed by students and

parents from Windham Centre, Teeterville, La Salette, Delhi, Norwich, and other communities.

"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 Grand Erie District School Board 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 support this petition and affix my signature.

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"The unreasonable and inhumane restrictions that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources is placing on wildlife rehabilitators with respect to the release of

orphaned animals will eliminate their ability to help wildlife; and

"Whereas wildlife rehabilitators provide an essential public service for many thousands of people seeking help on behalf of orphaned and injured" young

"wildlife in Ontario; and

"Whereas the unreasonable release restrictions imposed on wildlife rehabilitators by the ministry will prevent responsible wildlife rehabilitation, not only

compromising wildlife and frustrating the public but forcing it underground and jeopardizing public safety; and

"Whereas this will incur significant new costs for local governments with respect to bylaw and public health and safety interventions while creating an

emotional and volatile climate because the majority of people in Ontario are simply unwilling to see healthy young animals" killed;

"We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that the release restrictions imposed by this ministry will eliminate the provision of responsible wildlife services

in our community; and

"We petition the government of Ontario to work with wildlife rehabilitators to ensure that progressive, humane and responsible regulations with respect to

release criteria for rehabilitated orphaned wildlife are put in place in Ontario."

I have hundreds and hundreds of petitions and I am signing my name too.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have another set of petitions. These are also concerned with high school closures, signed by

people from Delhi, Courtland, Wilsonville, Otterville, Port Dover --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): If you would like to read it, we'll hear it now, or else we'll go on.

Mr Barrett: "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."

I agree with this additional petition and affix my signature.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): "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....

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

This petition is signed by a number of residents from Mattawa, Sturgeon Falls and North Bay, and I too have signed this petition.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have a series of petitions signed by people from Townsend, Courtland, La Salette, Port Dover,

Tillsonburg, Vittoria and Turkey Point, all members of what's referred to as the Family Fund, concerned with their local hospital:

"We, the undersigned, endorse the following petition:

"Our community has raised its share of funds, over $7 million, toward the redevelopment and expansion project at Norfolk General Hospital. We call on the

Ontario government to declare its support for quality health care in Norfolk county by authorizing the Norfolk General Hospital to proceed to tender at this time and then to construction on this

project with 50% capital funding from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care."

Residents are also encouraged to fax letters of support directly to Minister Tony Clement.

I sign my signature to this.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I have petitions here that came from the citizens of Vankleek Hill:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

traumatic time; and

"Whereas there is a waiting list for cardiac surgery in Toronto but not at CHEO; and

"Whereas the people of eastern Ontario demand accessible, quality health care for their children;

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

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

I gladly affix my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FUNERAL, BURIAL AND

CREMATION SERVICES ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES SERVICES FUNÉRAIRES

ET LES SERVICES D'ENTERREMENT

ET DE CRÉMATION

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 26, 2002 on the motion for second reading of Bill 209,

An Act respecting funerals, burials, cremations and related

services and providing for the amendment of other statutes / Projet de loi 209, Loi traitant des funérailles, des enterrements, des crémations et des services connexes et prévoyant

la modification d'autres lois.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Hudak has moved second reading and now we're going to debate. I'm looking to my right, to the

government benches.

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to join in this debate to speak in support of this very important bill, the Funeral,

Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002.

The government of Ontario recognizes the vulnerability of people coping with the loss of a loved one, especially when they have to make funeral arrangements.

Unfortunately, I had to go to England this summer to help my sister, who lost her husband, and I know first- hand the challenges, issues and personal stress that are involved in having to make

funeral arrangements. I think it's extremely important to address this particular issue, and certainly that's what this particular act does. It serves to better protect consumers, and in order to

do that, the government has brought forward this proposed legislation that would, we believe, strengthen consumer protection for people who are seeking bereavement services. It's an issue that I

know has been under discussion for quite some time.

The Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, will provide enormous advantages to consumers across the province when they purchase bereavement

services. It would make more information available so that they could make more informed choices and it would also help to protect consumers from any unscrupulous suppliers that might try to take

advantage of them at a time when they are most vulnerable.

There are a number of consumer protection provisions contained within the legislation, including the prohibition of falsifying information, false advertising,

and furnishing false information. Under the proposed legislation, all service providers would be required to maintain standardized price lists of the supplies and services they sell and would be

prohibited from selling at a higher price than indicated. These rules are intended to be strict where consumer protection is concerned, yet flexible enough to allow the orderly development of new

business models in the sector.

Our consultation with sector stakeholders was very extensive. The proposed legislation has been developed through a long-term and diligent consultation

process. I was personally involved in that, not only as a member of the Scarborough Centre constituency but also as a member of the Red Tape Commission, and I know that it involved many stakeholder

and consumer groups to ensure that this particular piece of legislation is both responsive and indeed responsible.

I'd like to take a few minutes to explain how the consultation process was developed and what we believe it has achieved.

Ontario's bereavement services sector consists of some 5,500 participants and businesses, and that's pretty substantial. Among the services, of course, are

funeral homes, cemeteries, marker and casket retailers, and transfer services. Within that sector are diverse participants, including funeral establishments, which are often private businesses

working for profit, and cemeteries which may be run by religious non-profit organizations or even municipalities.

For some time, government, consumer groups, and sector stakeholders have recognized that current legislation that covers the bereavement sector needed to be

updated. The marketplace has evolved, and the needs of the participants, consumers and, indeed, the community at large have changed, although Ontario's standards for the operation of funeral,

transfer services and cemeteries continue to be among the highest in North America.

Four years ago, the government began consideration that a full review of changes in legislation was needed for consumers and practitioners in the bereavement

sector. In 1998, the then Minister of Consumer and Business Services -- my colleague the Honourable David Tsubouchi -- became involved with the issues around bereavement legislation. Convinced of

the need for detailed consultation on the important issues that affect consumer groups and sector stakeholders in very personal, as well as financial, ways, the minister asked the Red Tape

Commission, and I've already alluded to that, to meet with stakeholders and to ensure that Ontario's standards and regulatory framework were current and relevant to the marketplace. This request

was based on the Red Tape Commission's proven track record of consulting with businesses and consumers to improve regulations and, of course, to cut red tape.

The Red Tape Commission struck a working group of MPPs, consumers and service providers which met on a number of occasions from the autumn of 1998 through to

the spring of 1999. The group looked at and worked on issues critical to the sector and to its consumers. Membership was voluntary and was designed to represent service providers and consumers from

across the province. Interested parties who were not part of the working group were kept informed of the group's activities. Their efforts and those of Minister Tsubouchi set the stage for the

development of the proposed legislation before this House today, and all are owed a debt of gratitude for their perseverance and determination in helping to set the stage for this most important

proposed legislation before us today.

In February 2002, the Red Tape Commission shared its work with Minister Bob Runciman, who had assumed the consumer portfolio. Minister Runciman determined that

the importance of increased consumer protection, and providing a level playing field -- and that's important because that's what the Red Tape Commission is all about -- and future flexibility for

service providers, warranted moving toward the development of proposed bereavement sector legislation. Minister Runicman knew that there were many challenges to be faced in arriving at proposed

legislation and sought out a mediation strategy to resolve a lot of stakeholder issues that are related to this very complex subject.

The resulting mediation methodology he pursued has been recognized, we believe, across the Ontario public service for its very innovative leadership.

First, Minister Runciman sought out an experienced mediator who would help the diverse sector participants arrive at a consensus, because I think it can be

agreed that there was considerable dissent within this sector initially and it was really necessary to make substantial changes to the current legislation.

The man the minister asked to guide the consensus was the Honourable George Adams, QC. I don't know how many people outside legal circles are fully aware of

the extraordinary expertise and experience of this facilitator, mediator, arbitrator, lawyer, teacher and former Superior Court judge. His experience relative to facilitation and mediation is

formidable and most impressive. The Honourable George Adams, QC, was a member of the advisory committee which designed and managed the project that gave rise to Ontario's mandatory mediation system

and has written extensively on mediation, arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution procedures. His assistance was extremely important in bringing together the diverse groups that make

up the bereavement sector.

From one consumer's point of view, the purchase of bereavement services involves a conscious decision to prepare for an eventuality that none of us escape.

Another consumer may make similar purchases at a time of shock or profound personal sorrow when a loved one passes.

The majority of service providers in this sector are responsible professionals who provide empathy as well as understanding of each consumer's personal

situation. They are, as I've already said, also a diverse group of professionals who may work for profit or not, and may operate internationally or in one small Ontario town to supply funeral,

transfer and cemetery services as well as markers and caskets to Ontario's consumers.

Their interests are equally diverse, and while most share the government's view that current legislation should be updated to provide greater advantages to

consumers and service providers, there was little consensus as to the direction the legislation should take.

In February 2001, the Honourable George Adams, QC, met individually with industry and consumer representatives. The significant pre-consultation period

provided both a look into the concerns of individual groups and a basis for establishing the agenda of the meetings.

The Honourable Adams's conclusion that an intensive two-day session to discuss central areas of interest should be scheduled was reported to the new minister,

Norm Sterling, who strongly encouraged the parties to participate.

On the first day of the meeting, information was exchanged and goals were set. On the second day, a detailed review of common challenges was completed. Issues

related to consumer protection and changes within the industry were also discussed and carefully considered.

Following the successful meetings, in May 2002, Minister Sterling invited interested parties to participate in the Bereavement Sector Advisory Committee to

advise the government on matters of interest to the sector and to consumers. I won't go into the lengthy list of that committee, but believe me, it represented a wide cross-section of the

sector.

In the course of the meetings, the diverse group of stakeholders committed to support legislation founded on four basic tenets and committed to working

together with the Honourable George Adams, QC, to advise the government. The committee's advice, achieved through consensus, has informed many areas, but especially provisions to strengthen

consumer protection, measures to foster a level playing field for industry participants, options to create a single regulatory regime, and clear rules setting out the conditions under which

combinations would be permitted.

The last two points are of greatest interest within the sector, and public awareness of them is also important to making informed decisions in the

marketplace.

By proposing to create a single regulatory regime by combining the Cemeteries Act (Revised) with the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act, 1990, into one

piece of modern legislation, the government is working toward providing a legislative framework that's easier for consumers and businesses alike to understand and follow.

Under a single piece of legislation, consumers would be protected in a system where inspections, investigations and penalties would be more consistent and

effective. Legitimate sector participants and consumers alike, we believe, need clear, consistent standards that minimize loopholes for unscrupulous businesses to exploit and that competitors can

follow quite equally.

The few bad apples who might try to take advantage of bereaved customers would be dealt with on a basis similar to that proposed in other consumer protection

legislation already introduced in this session of the Legislature.

Compliance is best achieved through a range of activities, from educating service providers about their responsibilities and advising consumers of their

rights, to continuing to provide civil remedies and rules to guide the resolution of contract disputes, to establishing administrative remedies as alternatives to prosecution.

Under the proposed Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, maximum fines for misdeeds, such as falsifying information or false advertising, would

parallel those proposed in other government consumer protection initiatives, increasing to $50,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a corporation. Courts would be able to order restitution paid

to consumers in appropriate cases.

As the various sectors are licensed, the proposed legislation would give the regulator the authority to establish and maintain discipline committees to deal

with infractions of the code of ethics. Consumers who deal with services that become insolvent would be protected by a compensation fund similar to the one that currently exists under the Funeral

Directors and Establishments Act, but is also geared to the needs of the specific group of providers.

The other major service issue pursued by the Bereavement Sector Advisory Committee is known as the combination of services. Under current Ontario law,

cemeteries must operate as separate corporate entities from funeral homes and all crematoria must be located on cemetery grounds. Funeral homes, on the other hand, may not be located on cemetery

grounds. At the time the legislation was passed, this type of regulation was appropriate. Cemeteries were, for the most part, community operations frequently staffed entirely by volunteers. Funeral

homes, on the other hand, were led and operated by professionally trained service providers. There was little overlap between the supplies and services offered by the two groups.

Today, bereavement services include a wide variety of options, including non-traditional and very simple funeral arrangements. Consumers want the ability to

choose the services that they consider appropriate and to choose from one supplier or from specialists. Providers wish to offer the services that consumers want.

The proposed legislation would provide for the licensing of all service providers. The proposed licensing system would be developed with input from the

stakeholder groups to maintain and increase the current high standards of Ontario practitioners in each service area.

Time doesn't allow me to continue for much longer, but what I can say is that I believe this particular legislation has come about as a result of a very

strong, co-operative effort between the various stakeholders within the sector. The government received 15 major submissions from consumer groups and service providers, and if the proposed

legislation passes, the government is committed to further consultation with the Bereavement Sector Advisory Committee on potential regulations that are fair, effective, clear, flexible, and would

minimize the burden of red tape on consumers and businesses -- all with the goal of ensuring that an appropriate range of bereavement services is available for consumers within a reasonable

legislative framework that meets the needs of both consumers and service providers in Ontario.

The consultation process has been truly extensive and productive in the development of the proposed legislation that we have before us today, and I want to

thank everyone involved with the development of this piece of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: We are now open for comments and questions, up to four, and we'll start to my immediate left, the member of

Elgin-Middlesex-London.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): This is very important piece of legislation that we are dealing with here, but I do take some

exception to some of the comments that the honourable member made.

She talks about consumer protection and she talks about a few bad apples, and it troubles me that she's impugning this industry. This is an industry that last

year performed over 80,000 burials. Out of those 80,000 burials, there were 26 complaints. And out of those 26 complaints, maybe about 13 of them were actually from consumers. So we're dealing with

an industry that already recognizes that they're dealing with individuals at a difficult time. We're dealing with an industry that recognizes the importance of customer service, and it troubles me

that she impugns -- that there are bad apples out there that are in some way are hurting this industry.

You know, she talks about the services and supplies, and one of the areas that I have some real trouble with is the creation of monopolies within the whole

bereavement sector. By allowing cemeteries to get into the funeral home business, they are creating a concept of one-stop shopping. They're creating a true monopoly, where the public is going to go

into that cemetery, they're going to pay for their funeral service there, they're going to have to buy their grave, they're going to have to pay for the opening and closing charges in that

cemetery, they're going to have to pay for the cost of the monument in that cemetery. I think we need to have consumer choice, and this isn't allowing for consumer choice.

This opening up of the large cemeteries is going to seriously threaten the viability of a number of private funeral homes that have spent countless dollars

improving their facilities and are going to see that thrown out the window because this government is prepared to allow monopolies within the funeral services industry.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I'm pleased to speak following the speech by the member for Scarborough Centre. I thought she put forward a

fairly detailed and effective argument for the bill that's before us. The only thing I would challenge her on is the contention that they consulted widely. They may have consulted widely, as they

usually do, but mostly with the business side of the industry.

We've had a number of groups come before us, as a caucus, concerned about this bill, that there hasn't been enough consultation and there haven't been enough

guarantees given that their interests are going to be recognized and looked after. These are the faith groups who, in many instances, run small rural cemeteries that are already struggling in many

ways and who fear an imposition of new fees and taxes that may cause them financial hardship that they won't be able to respond to and deal with. They may, in fact, have to turn over their

operations to some business interest that may then bring a corporate culture and approach to the way funerals are dealt with in those parts of the province, and stand the chance of losing many

long-standing and important traditions in this very important area of public life: how we celebrate and work with families around the death of loved ones.

I also would contend that her suggestion that there will be further consultation as the regulations are put in place -- it hasn't been the track record of the

government to consult on regulations, but simply to make the regulation and show them to us after they're done. I hope the member would be willing to stand and give us further assurances on that

front.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I think the member set out very well the history and purpose of this legislation. I think she quite rightly pointed

out there's been a long consultative process that has led to this legislation. All the stakeholders and the general public have had ample opportunity for input, and as a result of that there seems

to be considerable consensus around this legislation.

This legislation is in fact 21st-century regulation. The regulation of this industry was badly outdated, and there was consensus around that from virtually

everyone who made submissions on the legislation. There certainly are differences of view as to how to get to what was generally desired as a result, but I think we have a good example of

consultation, application of good regulatory policy and a very good result. I think the member made that quite clear in her speech.

I think as well of the question not just of process but of substance: what is good 21st-century regulation? I think she dealt with that very well in her speech

as well. What we are doing is offering informed consumer choice, achieved through appropriate competition. In achieving informed consumer choice, we are also giving a lot of consumer protections,

which are necessary. There are unique features in an industry of this nature that indicate there have to be certain areas of regulation that might not be present in a different form of

endeavour.

I thought the member covered the subject very well. I think she touched on the key points and made it quite clear why this is indeed a good piece of

legislation.

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I'd like to add some comments on the presentation by the member for Scarborough Centre. Indeed, she went into

some detail explaining not only the history but the content of the present bill as it has been introduced.

I think the introduction of this bill is a good beginning. It is, I would say, a modest step in addressing some of the concerns surrounding the bereavement

business, if you want to call it that, and they need to be addressed. I think the public in general needs to have alleviated some of those concerns that have been spoken of not only in the bill,

but in the various agencies and the community.

It will never be 100% acceptable to both sides, but if we really want to see a more complete bill, I think this is the time that the minister should say, "You

know what? Let's have some public hearings and let's have some input from those individuals, groups, agencies, either people who may have an interest in the legislation the way it has been drafted

and are wanting to make it better or who are part of the industry and have some concern with the legislation." I think we owe it to those people who have a concern. As I said, yes, it does improve

the situation, but there is still a lot of concern out there. This is an area that I think we have to address, and only once we expose the legislation to the general public, those who have a

concern, can we say that indeed this will go a long way in offering protection to the general public.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre has two minutes to respond.

Ms Mushinski: I'd certainly like to thank the members for Elgin-Middlesex-London, Sault Ste Marie, York West and London West for their

contribution to this debate.

I would in response say to the member for Elgin-Middlesex-London that the whole issue around developing a code of ethics to address what I refer to as "bad

apples" was actually raised by the Bereavement Sector Advisory Committee itself. It was members who expressed serious concern about ensuring that consumers are protected from high-pressure sales

tactics, misrepresentation and unconscionable consumer representations. It was for that reason that the development of a code of ethics to help protect individuals, as I said earlier, who perhaps

are at one of the most vulnerable times of their lives, having lost a loved one -- they would actually be facilitated by the proposed legislation. We believe higher maximum penalties for offences

under the legislation would act as a deterrent, and that is actually in direct response to that serious issue that was itself raised by the Bereavement Sector Advisory Committee.

To the member for Sault Ste Marie, I would reiterate that the government received 15 major submissions from consumer groups and, as I have already said, if the

proposed legislation passes, this government will consult further.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Peters: As has oft been said, there are only two sure things in life, and that's death and taxes. For the most part, this Legislature deals

with the tax end of things. It's not too often that we're dealing with death or the bereavement industry.

It's an important piece of legislation that we are dealing with in front of us today. Having been associated in numerous ways with the bereavement industry,

from having served on a couple of cemetery boards to having family members who are in the business -- and yes, I've already written to the Integrity Commissioner and I'm free to comment and to vote

on this bill. There are a number of really positive things in this bill. There are some areas, though, that we do have some grave concern about. I want to go through the bill and point out some of

the areas where I think we as government -- and I heard the Minister of Transportation say this past Monday that he had no problem with this bill going to committee. I think it's imperative that

this piece of legislation go to committee. I think, as much as we've heard that there's consensus out there, that there is a lot of concern that is being expressed by some individuals within the

bereavement industry. I think we need to give them that opportunity to express their concerns.

You talk about

section 47(3), which talks about speculating on cemetery plots. I can understand the rationale in here for talking about this, but on the flip

side of it, when you talk about a refund, this could have a real burden on a number of cemeteries -- a non-profit cemetery or a municipally run cemetery. In days of old, many plots were sold for

$10, $25, but the value today could be $400 or $500 or substantially higher. The refund, though: if somebody bought a plot years ago and then came forward to a cemetery and said, "We're not going

to use this plot. We would like a refund," this legislation says that they are going to have to pay market value. That could be an extreme burden. I know the St Thomas Cemetery Co, as an example,

just struggles to make ends meet. If there was a flood of individuals who came forward and said, "We would like to resell our plots," this could cause a serious financial burden on cemeteries.

Section 49 talks about declaration of abandonment. I think this is a good piece of the bill, because after 20 years a cemetery can apply to the registrar to

have the rights abandoned. There are hundreds and hundreds of plots in cemeteries across this province where the cemeteries could look for new sources of revenue. So

section 49 of this bill I think

can have a positive impact and help out cemeteries.

I think we need to look at some concern as well, though, under

section 53(12), which talks about the perpetual care fund. One of the important things with

cemeteries has been the establishment of the perpetual care fund, but they're leaving it open here that a capital portion could be accessed and could be permitted under regulation. I think we are

going to have to watch this very closely, because these care funds are meant to look after a cemetery in perpetuity. If we start allowing cemeteries the opportunity to get in and remove the capital

from these funds, down the road that could have a detrimental effect on the cemeteries.

This is another area in the legislation, sections 102 and 103, that I think needs to be strengthened. It talks about prohibition of interfering with the

cemetery and liability. One of the most despicable crimes that we see around this province, and it happens all the time, is vandalism of cemeteries. Every cemetery in this province has experienced

it. Do you know, for committing most of those crimes, unfortunately it's just a slap on the wrist or some community service that an individual has to undertake? I think it's incumbent on the

government and every one of us in this Legislature that we strengthen sections 102 and 103, that we send a message to these idiots who are vandalizing cemeteries that this is not acceptable, that

we ensure that it's right in the legislation so that the message is sent out to those individuals, and that we put strong fines in place for those idiots who vandalize cemeteries. I would ask that

we work toward strengthening this legislation.

The other aspect of the legislation that I think we need to be concerned about is

section 112. This in the area of dealing with abandoned cemeteries, and this

is a real problem in this province. We have a lot of cemeteries in this province that are run by small rural boards, boards made up of volunteers who may only conduct one or two interments a year.

They often find that they don't have adequate perpetual care funds. The graves have been sold for a much lower price, and many cemeteries find that they can't look after them. The burden then lies

with municipalities, which then