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

September 30, 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 Transcript 2002-Sept-30 vol. A (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 30 September 2002 Lundi 30 septembre 2002

WEARING OF RIBBONS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CARDIAC CARE

BILL COHOON

NATURAL GAS RATES

VISITORS

GLEN COCHRANE

GOLDEN JUBILEE

OF QUEEN ELIZABETH

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

JEFF ADAMS

EDUCATION

KYOTO PROTOCOL

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGAL AID SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES D'AIDE JURIDIQUE

TOWN OF ERIN ACT, 2002

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT

(NORTHERN ONTARIO), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA REPRÉSENTATION ÉLECTORALE

(NORD DE L'ONTARIO)

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO ONE

CHILD CARE

NANTICOKE GENERATING STATION

ACADEMIC TESTING

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

EDUCATION

NANTICOKE GENERATING STATION

TRANSPORTATION

CHILD POVERTY

NORTHERN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

SLOT MACHINES

MOOSE POACHING

HYDRO RATES

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 69

LONG-TERM CARE

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

NATURAL GAS RATES

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

NATURAL GAS RATES

LONG-TERM CARE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

LONG-TERM CARE

HIGHWAY 69

LONG-TERM CARE

OHIP SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Monday 30 September 2002 Lundi 30 septembre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise today to seek unanimous consent. October is Child Abuse Prevention Month. During the month of October, the children's aid societies in Ontario will be distributing purple ribbons in an effort to raise awareness of child abuse and neglect and to encourage people to become involved in the efforts to prevent child abuse and neglect.

The year 2002 marks the 10th anniversary of the purple ribbon campaign. I seek unanimous consent, for the month of October, to wear the purple ribbon.

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

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CARDIAC CARE

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): It is inconceivable that the Minister of Health has advised West Park Healthcare Centre in my riding that he will terminate funding of the Ontario cardiac rehabilitation pilot program. At the time the program was announced, one of the goals was to provide services to cardiac patients as close to home as possible. Cardiac rehabilitation services not only extend a patient's life, but also greatly improve the quality of life. It allows patients to return to work while reducing the risk of repeat heart attacks.

Minister, over the past few weeks I, along with my colleague the member for York West, Mr Mario Sergio, have received numerous phone calls, letters and e-mails from concerned constituents. They believe this program is very vital and that it must be granted permanent funding.

Our York South-Weston community is already severely underserviced when it comes to health care. In July 2001, the Toronto District Health Council identified northwest Toronto as an underserviced area -- not surprising given that this government is directly responsible for the closure of Northwestern hospital. If that wasn't enough, Humber River Regional Hospital in my area is already on critical care bypass, on average, more than any other hospital in Toronto.

I say to the minister, it is unconscionable that you are thinking of not granting permanent funding. Do the right thing and grant that permanent funding to West Park hospital.

BILL COHOON

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to salute a distinguished resident of Scugog township on the occasion of his retirement.

Dr Bill Cohoon was recently quoted in the Port Perry Star as saying he has never seen so much hype over someone's retirement. However, the attention is well deserved. It's a tribute to the high esteem in which he is held by his colleagues, his patients, and indeed the entire community. I trust that the good doctor will not object to a few words of congratulations from his MPP.

The September 10 Port Perry Star notes that Dr Cohoon has been one of Scugog township's most recognizable figures. Since moving to Port Perry in 1968, he has served as a family physician, general surgeon and leader of several local organizations. In addition to his professional obligations, his community involvement includes serving as president of Scugog Chamber of Commerce and the Port Perry Agricultural Society.

I know Scugog township residents will be delighted to hear that Dr Cohoon plans to continue to serve as an obstetrical consultant and will continue to serve on the physician recruitment and retention committee. I have worked with Dr Cohoon on this committee and know that Dr Cohoon is committed to encouraging young doctors to move to Scugog and carry on the high standard of care he and his colleagues have set.

Dr Cohoon also plans to devote time to his farming operation. With his son, Zac, and his wife, Whitney, Mr Cohoon runs a broiler chicken business, feedlot and cow-calf operations -- very diversified individuals.

I'd like to extend my best wishes and congratulations to Dr Cohoon for a happy and productive retirement.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My office has received hundreds of calls and e-mails from individuals and businesses that are irate about the natural gas retroactive billing. Residents, businesses, municipalities, hospitals and schools will all be receiving a retroactive bill for natural gas. This cost is for the winter of 2000-01. People who have spoken to me are incredulous that they will have to pay for this cost and, to add insult to injury, they will have to pay the interest on this cost. Even those who are not Union Gas customers have been given notice. It's unbelievable that there's no protection for the consumer in this case.

The Minister of Energy and the Harris-Eves government gave themselves the authority back in 1998 to review the decisions of the Ontario Energy Board. Does the minister actually believe this is acceptable? Consumers feel they are being held hostage by this retroactive billing. To boot, Duke Energy reported an operating profit of US$1.8 billion last year. The year in question, their profits were approaching US$500 million.

This smacks of nothing less than corporate greed, and the Ernie Eves government seems to approve of this type of business practice by the private sector, which leaves ordinary people hostage to cost increases.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we continue with members' statements, we have some guests who may have to leave.

We have with us today in the Speaker's gallery the chairman of the Armenian National Assembly, who is accompanied by the Armenian ambassador to Canada and a delegation from Parliament, along with Sarkis Assadourian, the member of Parliament for Brampton Centre, who is chairman of the Canada-Armenia Parliamentary Friendship Group. He is being joined today as well by the Speaker of the Parliament. Would you please welcome our honoured guests.

GLEN COCHRANE

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): It is indeed my honour today to rise and pay tribute to Glen Cochrane, the Beaches Person of the Year. He was inducted on Saturday. This award was developed by Beaches Metro News. Each year they choose a new person in the Beach to showcase the many people who do wonderful things in our community. Last year the winner was Gene Domagala. This year the winner is Glen Cochrane.

You may remember him best when he worked for years for CFTO News. He was the guy at the end of the newscast who went around telling you happy things that were happening. Since his retirement from CFTO News he has done a great deal of work in our community, everything from saving the Leuty lighthouse to the annual Lions Club Christmas do, and he's the chair of the Centre 55, which does much great work in our community.

On Saturday he was inducted at the Millennium Peace Gardens. There was an assembly of politicians and people from the community there to see him and to salute him. We salute and commend Glen Cochrane for his invaluable and continuing contribution to the people of the Beach, the people in our community whom he strives every day to help.

We also saw some senior citizens down there today who are doing everything they can to help everyone in Ontario. We salute Glen Cochrane for being part of that very great group of people who give of their time, their money and their expertise to make sure our communities are better places to live.

GOLDEN JUBILEE

OF QUEEN ELIZABETH

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): In celebration of the Queen's Golden Jubilee, and with her visit to Canada soon approaching, I would like to take this opportunity today to highlight some local events in which I have recently had the privilege of participating.

Last night, I attended a service of commemoration and thanksgiving for the Golden Jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. The ecumenical service was organized by and held at St Mark's Anglican Church in Niagara-on-the-Lake. Reverend Aikman from St Saviour's Anglican Church and Reverend Ford from St Andrew's United Church were also in attendance with St Mark's own Reverend Wright. These three gentlemen conducted a wonderful service. The traditional festal evensong service was sung by the PCVS women's choir from Peterborough, under the direction of Christine Van Der Bank, with guest organist Giles Bryant. The Right Reverend D. Ralph Spence, bishop of Niagara, was also in attendance.

Prior to this weekend's event, the Monarchist League of Canada also held a Queen's Golden Jubilee service on both Sunday, April 21, and, even more recently, on Sunday, September 22, in Niagara-on-the-Lake. Both celebrations featured bands of the Salvation Army, Thorold pipe and drums and Fort George fife and drums.

I'd like to congratulate all of the organizations across Ontario which have held and those which are in the midst of preparing celebrations for the Queen's Golden Jubilee.

I know we all look forward to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth's visit to Ontario in the near future, and we appreciate her many years of dignified service to the Commonwealth.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): When this government proclaimed Brian's Law, making it easier legally to get those with mental illness into treatment programs, it promised to back up that legislation with adequate mental health facilities and community support services. That has simply not happened. Community mental health agencies have not had an increase to their base budgets in 10 years, and the last budget ignored the requests from these agencies for funding just to maintain their programs.

This government is still focused on shutting down psychiatric hospitals and closing mental health beds, despite an earlier promise that no beds would be closed until community support services were in place. The mental health reform implementation teams are finally starting to bring in reports with recommendations that the government clearly is not ready to fund, and in the meantime, the mentally ill are still on our streets and in our jails.

A study released last week showed that the amount of time that police in London are spending to deal with people who have mental health problems has doubled in the last four years, even though the number of people considered violent has actually decreased. Shockingly, the study shows that 81% of people with mental illness who are involved with the police will be involved with them again within two years -- a direct, predictable and tragic result of this government's failure to provide adequate treatment services and supportive housing.

Brian's Law was supposed to be about decriminalizing mental illness. In fact, we are criminalizing the mentally ill more than ever. When will the Ernie Eves government make good on its promise to those with mental illness? Shame on this government for pretending to care and then doing nothing.

JEFF ADAMS

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I rise today to report on an amazing event that Citizenship Minister Carl DeFaria and I attended on September 26, 2002.

Jeff Adams is a two-time Olympian, three-time Paralympian, six-time world champion and prior world record holder in the 1,500-metre men's wheelchair event.

I know that all members of this House will join with me in congratulating this remarkable young man on accomplishing this amazing feat and, most important, creating public awareness to the barriers faced by those with disabilities.

EDUCATION

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): On Friday, my leader, Dalton McGuinty, announced the Liberal platform for education. Dalton McGuinty's Liberals will reduce all class sizes to 20 for the all-important early years of kindergarten to grade 3. We will launch Best Start, an ambitious early childhood education program, and Dalton will ensure three quarters of all households with children under four are eligible for assistance.

The Liberal platform will ensure that students stay in school by raising the dropout age to 18. We will increase resources in the classroom by cancelling the Conservatives' handout to private schools and corporations.

Dalton guaranteed his plan will get results. Seventy-five per cent of all children will be able to pass the government's reading, writing and math province-wide tests or the voters will hold us accountable.

What is the response from Ernie Eves? "Nope, can't be done." "Nope, that's too much ambition." "Nope, no way, no how."

We've just got to say that Ernie Eves has become Dr No: negative, contrarian and unable to recognize any vision because his dried up years ago.

We just want to say once again that Dalton McGuinty guarantees results.

KYOTO PROTOCOL

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Many businesses and ordinary citizens are beginning to realize that the Liberal Party of Dalton McGuinty and Jean Chrétien has a secret agenda to kill jobs in Ontario. Dalton McGuinty's support of the Kyoto accord fails to take into consideration the fact that no other country in North or South America has signed on to this scheme.

Without consulting businesses or taxpayers, the Liberals are rushing ahead with the Kyoto accord, which many agree will cause our taxes to rise and increase our hydro bills dramatically. Most importantly, they agree the accord will kill over 100,000 jobs in Ontario and hurt many Ontario families.

When asked about the impact of the Kyoto accord, Len Crispino, president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, said, "Ratifying the Kyoto accord ... will result in significant job loss."

Businesses and residents in my great riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale have also expressed to me that they have very serious concerns about this accord.

Without concern for Ontario working families, Dalton McGuinty continues to support this job-killing scheme. Members on this side of the House know that sending 100,000 Ontario jobs to America and Mexico is a dumb idea. That is why Premier Eves has said that he will not support a plan that will kill jobs in our province.

Many Ontarians want to know: will Dalton McGuinty follow Premier Eves's lead, or will the Liberal Party continue to hide their job-killing agenda from the people of this province?

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to put a motion to allow the House to sit tonight until midnight so the Liberals can debate their policy on Kyoto and we can have a debate with the Conservatives on their apparent opposition to Kyoto.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As a matter of fact, just by luck, we do have a late sitting motion here today.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You will note that I called to sit until midnight tonight. That motion doesn't call for it, nor does that motion call for us to deal with Kyoto.

Mr Speaker, again, I can clarify. I'd like to have the opportunity for the Liberals, the Conservatives and New Democrats to debate their position on Kyoto tonight --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Until midnight.

Mr Duncan: I'd seek unanimous consent of the House to do that.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? No.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGAL AID SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES D'AIDE JURIDIQUE

Mr Young moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 181,

An Act to amend the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 181, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur les services d'aide juridique.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

The Attorney General for a short statement?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): This bill, if passed, will allow Legal Aid Ontario to greatly expand its use of staff lawyers, enter into fee-for-service agreements with qualified lawyers and law firms to provide legal aid services in a given community, and expand the functions of existing family and criminal law duty counsel. This bill is vital to the proper functioning of Ontario's justice system, and I hope the House will consider it and approve it as soon as possible.

TOWN OF ERIN ACT, 2002

Mr Arnott, on behalf of Mr Eves, moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr11,

An Act respecting the Town of Erin.

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

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

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT

(NORTHERN ONTARIO), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA REPRÉSENTATION ÉLECTORALE

(NORD DE L'ONTARIO)

Mr Brown moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 182,

An act to amend the Representation Act, 1996, to prohibit the reduction of electoral districts in Northern Ontario / Projet de loi 182, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur la représentation électorale pour interdire la réduction du nombre de circonscriptions électorales du Nord de l'Ontario.

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 A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): This bill amends the Representation Act of 1996 by prohibiting the reduction of the number of electoral districts in northern Ontario below the number of districts that existed on June 3, 1999.

As the House would know, the north lost over one third of its seat in the 1999 redistribution. The north deserves more representation.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): With agreement from the Liberal and NDP House leaders, I believe we have all-party consent to move a motion regarding the Queen's visit in Toronto.

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

Hon Mr Stockwell: I move that on Wednesday, October 9, 2002, this House adjourn after routine proceedings and its committees not sit in the afternoon of that day in order that the members and guests may attend the Queen's visit to Toronto.

The Speaker: Mr Stockwell moves that on Wednesday --

Hon Mr Stockwell: Dispense.

The Speaker: Dispense. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, September 30, Tuesday, October 1, and Wednesday, October 2, 2002, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1355 to 1400.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Kormos, Peter

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 71; the nays are four.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO ONE

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I have a question for the Minister of Energy about the activities of the chief executive officer and other executives and board members of a government enterprise corporation in your ministry.

According to published reports, Eleanor Clitheroe engaged in fundraising activities -- solicited donations -- for a leadership candidate, the Premier of Ontario. Will you confirm whether this took place by a CEO in your ministerial purview? Will you disclose the names of all other executives and board members of hydro corporations, government enterprise corporations and crown corporations who engaged in similar fundraising activities?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Like him, I read a media report over the weekend where such a claim was made about a former CEO. I'd be happy to discuss the Ernie Eves leadership campaign and the more than 18,000 donations that were received. Obviously many thousands of people around the province of Ontario were raising funds for that individual.

If the member opposite has any allegations of wrongdoing, he's obviously got Elections Ontario, which he can launch that complaint with, or he can launch it with the Integrity Commissioner.

Mr Bryant: I think it's a lot more serious than that. We don't have deputy ministers canvassing door-to-door for ministers, for the very obvious reason that they have to serve their political masters in the interests of the public. The problem with a CEO of a government enterprise corporation fundraising on behalf of a leadership candidate is that it looks to Joe Q. Public like they are shilling on behalf of their political masters; it looks to Joe Q. Public like they are trying to acquiesce to their ministerial masters; it looks to Joe Q. Public that they are trying to tollgate, that they are trying to buy their reappointments.

We cannot have that, so we need a code of conduct, obviously, and we have to say, "No, you can't buy yachts; no, you can't buy yachting club memberships; and no, you cannot solicit funds on behalf of the Premier." Will you agree to this, and can we clean up this mess once and for all?

Hon Mr Baird: Within the public service there are certain rules which are laid out. The allegation of the member opposite of course does not cover the public service. I've had a number of deputy ministers, most of whom probably wouldn't have agreed to go door to door for me.

Mr Bryant: Here's the problem: right now, under the Hydro One code of conduct, believe it or not, the CEO is supposed to police himself or herself. So of course the CEOs follow their own code of conduct. They wrote the code of conduct. We obviously need something to rein in this kind of activity, because it dilutes the public's confidence in our public corporations. They think that instead of Hydro working on behalf of them, they're working on behalf of you. Meanwhile, according to published reports, Hydro One bills are going to go up 40%. That's even dumber than buying another yacht, Minister.

I think it's time for your folks to start getting on to the side of consumers and get off the fundraising circuit. What do you say to all those Ontarians who have always had access to reliable and affordable electricity no matter where they lived in Ontario? You could live in northern Ontario, eastern Ontario, southwestern Ontario and you'd all have the same access to Hydro One transmission. Now you're raising the bills. What do you say to those Ontarians whose bills are going up still further? You're not lowering rates; you're making them go up further. What are you doing on behalf of Ontario consumers?

Hon Mr Baird: Hydro One is currently consulting stakeholders and groups around Ontario about a rate application which all utilities make every two or three years. In that consultation they have made no specific proposal; they've made no specific issue. They have raised the issue of harmonization, something that has been done in utilities around the province. The member opposite represents a constituency in the city of Toronto. They would have done that there. They certainly did it in my constituency, where they harmonized rates between the five utilities that form the new Hydro Ottawa.

They have had no specific proposal with respect to it. I did receive a letter from the current chief operating officer and president of Hydro One, where he says, "I am writing you regarding a media report this morning that indicated that Hydro One was proposing a 40% increase for some of its electricity distribution rates. I want to assure you that this report is categorically false."

CHILD CARE

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My question is for the Deputy Premier. The Harris-Eves government's failure to give our children the help they need to succeed is being felt right across Ontario. The experts have been telling you that the system is broken, but you refuse to fix it.

One of those experts is Margaret McCain, the co-author of the Early Years report. McCain has been so distressed with the way your government treats children that in her follow-up report to the Early Years Study, she writes that your programs will have a relatively small impact on Ontario's children. She was so disenchanted with your lack of action that she quit the board of Ontario's Promise. Upon her departure, McCain stated, "I felt that if I was going to be a spokesman, an advocate for children, I could not maintain any credibility and stay on that board."

McCain and other Ontario parents want to know why your government has ignored the recommendations of the Early Years Study and why you continue to fail our children.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I'm going to refer the question to the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): I think my colleague across the way first needs to acknowledge that it was in fact our government that first drew attention to the issue of early years, under former Premier Harris.

Interjections.

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

The minister may continue.

Hon Mrs Elliott: Under the former Liberal and NDP governments, the words "early years" were never heard. It's only under our government that people have come to understand how very important it is to make investments in the early years from infancy -- and even before infancy -- up until preschool age.

Our government has made tremendous investments in this particular area. We've done it through very focused programs, and we've done it through broad programs that speak not only to the children's needs but also to those of the parents. We believe it's an unprecedented investment. It's the right thing to do, and we're very proud of it.

Mrs Dombrowsky: I would suggest that with the minister's background in history, she should well know that it was John Sweeney and the New Directions document that first focused on early years in this province.

Minister, your programs are centrally controlled, they exclude community involvement and they completely ignore child care. Your programs are the antithesis of everything the Early Years Study stood for. Families who are struggling to find child care for their children are waiting for help.

On Friday my leader, Dalton McGuinty, announced the Best Start plan for child care in Ontario. Our plan provides that 75% of all households with children under four will be eligible for assistance. A Liberal government will help 300,000 families and will ensure that child care providers are regulated and standards are met.

Minister, we have a plan for Ontario's children. What is your plan?

Hon Mrs Elliott: To my colleague's comment that this is a centrally focused program, I have to say to her that nothing could be further from the truth. The Early Years centres, for instance -- half of them are up and running, just over 42, with another 60 to follow this year -- are strategically placed throughout the province. They are being built on the foundation of community advice all across this province and in fact respond in many different ways. I have visited many of them personally, and they are very much, each one, individually designed to meet needs locally.

As far as the Dalton McGuinty plan that was released last week, there has been some attention paid to it. Mostly people are trying to figure out how much this thing is actually going to cost the taxpayers should it ever unfortunately have the opportunity to be implemented. The last sum I saw was something on the order of over $3 billion and the costs still hadn't been added up.

We do believe that child care is an important thing for the people of Ontario. That's why we've invested over $700 million in programs that are both the complement of the subsidized child care and the tax credit programs.

Mrs Dombrowsky: Your government has not increased what you spend on child care since you came to office. Your programs are not working. Your own experts are abandoning ship. Last Friday, Margaret McCain attended the unveiling of the Liberal Best Start plan. She said, "Child care is not on the Tories' radar screen, and they don't seem to understand the importance."

Dalton has understood the message. Minister, you refer to child care as babysitting. You really don't get it. It is what thousands of Ontario parents want and need. Child care must be on your radar screen.

Minister, our plan sets us apart. You are the government that broke the system. We will be the government that fixes it. Ontario Liberals have a plan to put children first. What is your plan?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I find it interesting, hearing comments like this coming from across the floor, when this government is spending over $2.2 billion on services for children in this program. We have spent money on programs that are very focused and that are broadly based.

I ask my colleague across the way what programs she is going to cut in order to provide the over $3 billion worth of programs. Is she going to cut the program for autistic children? Is she going to cut the program for children's mental health? Just what programs --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: You're right; there was an opening there.

Minister?

Hon Mrs Elliott: We understand that parents are looking for flexible child care. Some want home-based solutions; some want a more institutional child care program. Our government is one that believes in balance: balance for the parents, balance for the children, and balance for the variety of programs that need to be provided to the most vulnerable people all across this province -- something, quite frankly, you will never understand.

NANTICOKE GENERATING STATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Deputy Premier. There is now a great deal of doubt and concern about your government's real plans for Nanticoke, the coal-fired generating station that pollutes Ontario's air. The Premier says he'll close it by 2015. That's not soon enough, but it's better than nothing. Now we learn that your energy minister, John Baird, has a completely different plan. He told MPP Toby Barrett that the plant will stay open.

Whom are we to believe, Minister: John Baird or Ernie Eves? Are you shutting down Nanticoke in 2015 or are you not?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I'll refer that to the Minister of Energy. He can speak for himself.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): In the leadoff question from the Liberals, I was talking about Ernie Eves's leadership campaign. Now the Deputy Premier is sloughing her questions off to me. I would have liked to hear her answer to this issue. I'm sure it would have been more engaging.

We obviously have a mix of fossil fuels, nuclear power and hydroelectric power in the province of Ontario. We're working hard to bring new, greener power on-line, such as wind and alternative fuels, and I think that's good news. I think it's important that we work to address some of the environmental issues. That's why substantial investments are being made at Nanticoke and at Lambton to try to reduce emissions and to try to improve the air quality within our air shed.

I'm a big supporter of Kyoto if there was a common desire to bring reductions down on both sides of the border. What causes me concern is that the 200 coal-fired plants on the American side won't be required to do anything under Kyoto, regardless of the future of Nanticoke. That is a concern. We want to ensure that the lights stay on in our hospitals and in our assembly lines and for working families in Ontario.

Ms Churley: I believe that was the answer to my question, that you're not any more planning to shut it down, and that's a disgrace. Children's asthma will continue to get worse.

But back to you, Deputy Premier. Today the reeve of Michipicoten, Doug Woods, was here. He held a news conference with our leader, Howard Hampton, to talk about the hydro rate increases of over 40% in his community. The two major employers have taken major hits and are now talking about cutting back production. Jobs will be lost -- all of this because of your privatization and deregulation.

Deputy Premier, when are you going to stop this sell-off of our electricity and stop this gouging of Ontario consumers?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): With great respect to the member opposite, how is this a supplementary to closing coal-fired plants at Nanticoke?

Ms Churley: It's to do with energy.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I'm not going to tell -- you know the rules. Maybe you can make the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Thank you. The member for St Catharines and I were just wondering that very point. It's funny how it came across. We're working together, all three sides.

It is a bit of a stretch, but I will allow the minister to answer the question.

Hon Mr Baird: The member opposite talks about higher electricity rates in the province. We went through what was the hottest summer in more than 50 years. That put a tremendous strain on the amount of resources available. That was certainly one of the reasons we had higher rates in July and August. Rates did go down in May and June. I think the member opposite would be wise to look at it in the broader context of 12 months, when we can get a full impact once a full year has been experienced.

I have said that, as have a good number of others. There are a good number of issues in Wawa; there are a good number of issues in parts of the province which have contributed to that. I could talk about the cross-subsidization that went on in Wawa which was now changed as a result of an OEB ruling.

Ms Churley: Minister, get with the program here. Don't you see what is going on? Jobs will be lost, and that is not a laughing matter for the people in Michipicoten. Deputy Minister, Michipicoten is served by Great Lakes Power, a private power company that is owned by Brascan. Brascan gave $100,000 to the Ernie Eves leadership bid. If you live in Major Woods's community, it's pretty clear who is benefiting from your policies and who's losing. If you have the money to give to the Premier, you do just fine. If you don't, you lose.

Deputy Premier, I'm asking you again: what are you going to do to stop the 44% rate increases for the people of Michipicoten?

Hon Mr Baird: In that question the member opposite raises a number of issues. I've certainly stood in my place on a number of occasions and explained why we saw some higher rates in Ontario in both July and August. The member opposite, though, stood in her place and talked about a possible relationship between financial contributions and government policy.

I did notice in the last election that one of the NDP's largest donors in 1999, for $7,500, was Cameco, one of the owners and operators of Bruce Power. So I wonder if the member opposite would like to stand in her place and say she'll want to send back that dirty money, that she wouldn't have any part of it. I'd be interested to see if she would do that.

ACADEMIC TESTING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I have a question to the Minister of Education. Your grade 10 literacy test shows how testing is really about playing politics with so many of our students in Ontario. Teachers have contacted us because they're concerned that there's absolutely no transparency in the results of these tests.

We have called your ministry to verify whether you have lowered the passing grade. We can't get an answer because your staff say they can't explain it.

Minister, can you tell us what a passing grade is, or are you cheating on your own tests?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I'm not quite sure where the member of the third party is going. However, I can tell you that today is a day where we should be acknowledging, congratulating and recognizing the students and teachers in Ontario who today have achieved tremendous success on the EQAO test.

Mr Marchese: Minister, we called your ministry to verify whether you lowered the passing grade. That's the question I'm asking you. They can't verify it and we're asking you, "What is the passing grade?" One in four students is not going to get a high school diploma and you can't explain their failing grade. What's to stop you from manipulating the standards every year?

My question is, why is there no accountability when you are playing with students' futures? Give us the answer: what is the passing grade? Do you know?

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I have a question for the Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. A very disturbing thing is happening east of Toronto in north Pickering. Over 6,000 acres of publicly owned land are on the verge of being given away by your government without any due process. Not only are these lands which are about to be swapped, known as Seaton, environmentally sensitive, but they're worth hundreds of millions of dollars -- again, publicly owned.

The people and elected officials of Pickering are very concerned that this is a done deal and are afraid you are going to do to Pickering what your government did to Richmond Hill this past summer, where your government issued an unprecedented ministerial order which ordered the town of Richmond Hill to allow the building of 7,000 homes right in the middle of the moraine near Yonge Street. Now the same developers who were allowed to build 7,000 homes on the moraine on Yonge Street are going to get this land in Seaton free.

Minister, will you commit before this House that not one acre of land in Seaton will be sold or swapped unless there's a full environmental assessment and until the town of Pickering does all the studies to ensure these lands that are being sold and given away are not environmentally sensitive?

Hon Brian Coburn (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): This is about protecting some of the most ecologically sensitive areas in the Oak Ridges moraine. The development of the Seaton lands takes development away from the disputed lands in the Oak Ridges moraine and puts it in an area that is already designated for some urban development.

These lands that are being protected make up the best remaining linkages across the Yonge Street area. Agreements reached to date with developers are simply that lands in Richmond Hill and Uxbridge in the Oak Ridges moraine will be exchanged for the Seaton lands. These are ongoing discussions that are taking place as we speak.

Mr Colle: What is incredible is that their government ordered the town of Richmond Hill to allow 7,000 homes to be built by developers right in the middle of the moraine and the Jefferson forest near Bond Lake. These same developers who were ordered by this minister to build on the moraine are now going to be given free land in Seaton. They already got 7,000 homes on the moraine. Now this government's going to allow up to 30,000 homes to be built by the same people in Seaton, which is environmentally sensitive, which has all kinds of watercourses and which the town of Pickering doesn't want to be built upon until they finish their study.

The question again, Mr Minister: are you going to allow these same developers, who are very influential in your party and who got all these freebies in Richmond Hill, to get the same freebies in Pickering? Are you going to allow that?

Hon Mr Coburn: Whatever the panel has established when the chair met with Mr Crombie to provide advice and guidance to the province and the affected landowners in this particular area -- the principles were important in terms of guiding the development of these lands and the evaluation of them. Those principles are used as the benchmark of fairness, openness and accountability. Certainly discussion is ongoing with the mayor and council of the city of Pickering, taking those principles into account. Those discussions continue with the city and the other stakeholders on how to develop the lands in the Pickering area.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member has had two questions.

EDUCATION

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question is for the Deputy Premier and Minister of Education. As a parent of two children, one in the last year of high school and one just entering university, the education system is of great importance to me, as it is to so many parents across this province. Last week, Dalton McGuinty unveiled his plan for education. In it, he implied that Ontario's students are not meeting the basic standards in reading, writing and arithmetic.

Minister, is he confused again? It is my understanding that this government has made considerable strides in education for the children of this province. Can you share with us and with the parents and students of Ontario what our government has done and is continuing to do to improve our education system?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I'm pleased to share with members of this House what we have undertaken. In response to the public request for a tough new curriculum, and also that we would introduce new standards, our government has done exactly that.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister, take your seat. Order. There are conversations going back and forth. I would ask all members, if you want to speak to each other, go outside. We don't need clarifications of questions and clarifications of answers. Go outside if you want to do that. We're on to the next question.

Supplementary. The member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale.

Mr Gill: Thank you, Minister. That's wonderful. I knew Mr McGuinty had his facts wrong. Maybe it's Mr McGuinty who needs some remediation himself.

Ensuring our students meet the challenge of this tough new curriculum must be a priority, especially as we head into the 21st century. Success must be encouraged, supported and, most of all, nurtured. How is our government ensuring that students rise to this new challenge and how do we know they're succeeding?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The test is certainly an assurance to students that they're doing well. It's also an assurance to the employers, who know that these students have basic literacy skills.

I think I'd just like to share with you some of the results of the test: the Thames Valley board is up 10% over last year; in Sarnia, St Clair Catholic is up 8% -- students have scored 74% this year; Lambton Kent, up 15%; Peel District, up 9%; London, 74% of the students passed.

I think you can see that the programs that have been put in place are helping students, but I think we also need to realize there are some students who are going to need additional help, and our government will continue to provide remediation programs in order to help those students achieve these targets.

Wonderful results for students, teachers and parents.

NANTICOKE GENERATING STATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Energy. It's the minister who on June 6 during a debate said, "Ontarians want to receive their electricity from sources that don't damage their natural environment. We heard this back in the hearings on Bill 35. My constituents have spoken to me about this a good amount."

The same minister said, "Ontarians will not tolerate and should not have to suffer the consequences of those people who, whether for commercial or private or personal needs, want to abuse our environment." He said, "This bill we're debating is important to the environment. Ontarians have made it clear that they want to receive their electrical power in a manner that ensures that their environment is not damaged."

In light of what the minister said in that debate on June 6, could he tell us how it is, then, that a Tory MPP says that Ontario Energy Minister John Baird is opposed to the government's plan to close the Nanticoke coal-fired plant to combat air pollution?

Who is right? Is Toby Barrett right or is John Baird right?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I strongly supported Bill 35 when it was introduced in this House back in 1998. It's something different. I voted for Bill 35 on second and third reading. The member opposite and his caucus colleagues voted for the bill on second reading and against the bill on third reading. They flip-flopped.

If someone wanted to set up a windmill to generate power and put it on the grid, the member opposite would make that illegal, by his vote. If someone wanted to expand green power to put on the grid, like capping methane at a dump, the member opposite would make it illegal. That's why we brought in Bill 35: to give consumers a choice to purchase green power.

I strongly support the measures to reduce emissions at Nanticoke. Some of it will be reduced by as much as 80%. I think that's good for Ontario and good for the environment.

Mr Bradley: I see I'm having the same problem with you that the news media was having. The news media said, "Baird ... did not respond to requests for an interview this week. `He's just not around,' said his press secretary, Dan Miles."

I know why he wasn't around. It was because he's in disagreement, or in agreement behind closed doors, with Mr Toby Barrett, a parliamentary assistant.

So I ask you the question again: it says in this

article in the Spectator, "Barrett said this week Baird was supportive of his stand that the Lake Erie plant ... should remain open....

"`I very much appreciated the support I got from Minister Baird,' Barrett added.

"Barrett said he spoke to Baird about 10 days ago at a Sarnia caucus meeting ... and there was no mention by him about the 2015 closing date."

Who is providing accurate information? Is it the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant who is providing accurate information when he says that you oppose the closing of the coal-fired plant at Nanticoke, or is the Minister of the Environment providing accurate information when he says that's government policy? Who is telling the truth?

Hon Mr Baird: The member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant is a wise and articulate member who works hard for his constituents.

I say to the member opposite, he is the one who both voted for and against Bill 35. But it gets worse, because he disagreed with Dalton McGuinty. He said "2015" when he was a member of the alternative fuels committee, and Mr McGuinty says "2007." I don't know who's on first and who's on second over there.

I do know it's important that we reduce emissions. I do believe it's important that we continue to provide electricity to meet the needs of the people of the province of Ontario. I do believe it's important to provide enough electricity so that the General Motors plant in St Catharines can continue to operate. I do think it's important that we continue to have enough electricity in the province to supply working families and to provide hospitals with enough power.

As Minister of Energy, I can't take supply for granted. It's an important responsibility.

TRANSPORTATION

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, as you well know, Ontario relies fundamentally on the export of goods and services. They bring in over $190 billion a year to our province's economy, which is fully 51%, and they support more than 1.6 million Ontario jobs.

Clearly, Ontario's economy is dependent on the competitive success of our goods and services in the international marketplace. To maintain our competitiveness, Ontario needs a safe and efficient transportation network to keep that trade flowing. Traffic congestion in the greater Toronto area has certainly come to hinder that flow of trade and must be addressed. That's why the Red Tape Commission, as you know, is gearing up to help you with something we call highway incident management.

What other actions has your ministry taken to combat GTA congestion and improve the efficiency of the region's transportation network?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Transportation): We have done a great, great deal in this province to address GTA congestion. Since 1995, our government has spent $3.5 billion on the transportation systems right here in the GTA.

Presently, we're rebuilding Highway 401. A lot of people don't realize you spend a lot of money on rebuilding it. We're spending $401 million to build, rebuild, expand the 401, all the way in the west from Renforth Drive to the east at the Don Valley Parkway.

We are investing in GTA transit: $1.25 billion in transit investment partnerships.

No government has ever spent this much money on transportation in this area. We will continue to do it because we recognize --

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

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you for that response. Clearly, one way to ease traffic congestion is to encourage people to leave their cars at home and take public transit. An increase in the use of public transit has the added benefit of improving our air quality by cutting down on harmful vehicle emissions, as long as you don't have situations like we have in the city of Toronto where they're taking the money and buying 1960s vintage diesel buses from Montreal -- Montreal's hand-me-downs.

Notwithstanding the problem in Toronto, to accomplish the movement to public transit, obviously we have to make it more efficient and more accessible. Minister, this is going to require investment from both of the senior levels of government. What is the government's plan for improving public transit in this province and in the GTA?

Hon Mr Sterling: Again, we have made a tremendous commitment towards public transit in this province, $3.25 billion over the next 10 years to spend on public transit alone. A couple of examples: $12.8 million this year to spend in the city of Ottawa, 70 brand new buses. Earlier this morning my colleague Dianne Cunningham announced $912,000 for the city of London to fund buses, bus services, a bus station and operational improvements.

The TTC here in Toronto received more than $62 million in provincial funding for aging buses and subway cars. The Sheppard subway: this government has put $800 million to $900 million on the table to improve that. When you add these all together they far exceed the two cents per litre of gasoline that the Leader of the Opposition talks about.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): The fed hand giveth and the Tory hand claweth away.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services. Your policies continue to hurt the children who need our help the most. Nearly a decade ago, the federal NDP obtained a commitment from the Liberals and Conservatives in Ottawa to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Now, two years after that deadline, Jean Chrétien is hoping to play some catch-up. Rumours suggest that the federal government's speech from the throne will promise an infusion of new money into the national child benefit.

But that benefit will never reach Ontario's poorest children as long as your government continues to claw that money back. It is 2002 and more children in Ontario are living in poverty than ever before. These children deserve a chance. Will you stop the clawback and give children on social assistance the money that is rightfully theirs?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): Mr Speaker, I want to be very clear in answering the question to my colleague from the third party across the way. We want to do everything we can here in Ontario to make children thrive and grow. We don't want to see children or adults in poverty. We've undertaken a number of initiatives to address the issue of poverty and try and reduce poverty in so many ways.

One of the things we have done is reform welfare to a jobs and opportunity strategy. Through the Ontario child care supplement we try to reinvest funding, as a result of the national child benefit program. I would remind my colleague across the way that the money from the national child benefit does go into municipal programs -- they choose how those will be reinvested within their communities -- and support programs such as Healthy Babies, Healthy Children, the Ontario Works child care and Learning, Earning and Parenting programs.

Mr Martin: So the answer is no. Clearly, you've been spending too much time at the Holiday Inn. Empty rhetoric won't fill the stomachs of hungry children.

Last week, Michael Prue, Marilyn Churley and I agreed to live the way your government expects people on social assistance to live. Like people living on social assistance, I had to find enough to eat with less than $2 a day. Like people living on social assistance, hunger often drove me to distraction. How do you expect families to get back on their feet when they spend their days scrounging to find enough food to survive? How do you expect children to learn in school when they are too hungry to think?

Minister, we challenged the Premier last week, and I challenge you today. It is impossible for children to thrive on this income. I ask you again, will you please stop the clawback?

Hon Mrs Elliott: We have undertaken a number of strategies to try to reduce poverty in Ontario, some of them very strategic. You referenced the federal Liberal government. It is our government that has 375,000 families in Ontario who pay no income tax, yet the federal government taxes them. It is our government that has the lowest threshold for personal income tax. You forget to mention those issues.

To my colleague across the way in the New Democratic Party, in his riding the national child benefit clawback was reinvested in $800,000 worth of programs in 1999 and 2000: child care centres for Ontario Works participants, community kitchens, breakfast programs for children, Healthy Babies, Healthy Children programs -- the kinds of programs that benefit a broad number of children, not just individuals. Surely that's the goal for all of us.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, and I ask it on behalf of at least three of my constituents who are in the gallery today. Marie, Ken and Doreen joined me and about 40 other folks earlier today at a Pizza Pizza store on Parliament Street, of which I provided you with a picture.

My question is, how is it that after the Ontarians with Disabilities Act has been passed, Pizza Pizza can spend over half a million dollars to open a new store which is basically at grade with three entrances, each of them allowing a six-inch lip to remain? When we approached Pizza Pizza and asked them why they didn't make it accessible, their answer was clear: it's because the law didn't make them do it.

This highlights the extent to which your bill is a scam, Mr Minister. In front of my constituents and all Ontarians, 1.9 million of whom have some disability, will you tell me and this House how in good faith you can continue to defend that bill, and will you bring in a bill that deals meaningfully with the challenges people are facing?

We are working with the private sector to ensure they understand their responsibilities and will continue to do so.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My question is also to the minister. Please don't read back the standard answer; I want to hear what you really believe. You have the power to improve the quality of life of so many people in Ontario who have a disability. Please use that power positively.

Your government pledged during the ODA debate that there would be no new barriers, yet you condoned the firing of over 50 special education teachers in Ottawa. You pledged it would apply to private industry. These people don't get the $2.1 million a year that the Premier's fundraiser gets. They can't do something as simple as go in and purchase a pizza. They don't even have the ability to do that, Minister.

You put in place an advisory committee. Good for you. Quoted in the paper Friday, one of them said, "I'm on this to try to make the government pass a meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act."

I urge you to follow the 13 principles. Minister, please listen to your heart, listen to your sense. There are no second-class citizens in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario; evidently there are in yours. You have the chance to change it now. Will you bring forth amendments that make a meaningful OD act that will improve the lives of these and thousands of others of our --

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

Hon Mr DeFaria: Making Ontario more accessible is everyone's responsibility. It's the responsibility of the municipal sector, the responsibility of provincial government and the responsibility of the private sector.

Our government has invested $209,000 toward the development of customer service standards with the Canadian Standards Association. For the first time, the business community has a resource for providing voluntary quality customer service for the disabled community.

Our government is the government that passed the ODA. When the other government was in power, they did not pass any legislation to protect Ontarians with disabilities. The federal government has not done anything in this area. We have acted and you have not.

NORTHERN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Coming from a northern riding myself, I know the vital role a well-maintained northern highway system plays in the economy of our area. As the MPP for Nipissing, I drive Highway 11 every weekend. There are only about 50 kilometres left to complete the four-laning and I understand our government's commitment to finish that as soon as possible. Minister, what other good news can you share with us regarding our northern highway system?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I thank the honourable member for the question. In August I had the pleasure of travelling to Timmins, Sioux Lookout and Hudson to announce this year's funding under the northern Ontario highways program. This year our government will invest more than $255 million in northern highway infrastructure. When combined with over $1.5 billion spent from 1995 to 2001, our government's total spending on northern highways has risen to over $1.63 billion, an unprecedented amount. This impressive record will continue.

These investments reflect the priority this government has placed on improving northern highways after years of underfunding by the Liberals and the NDP.

While I appreciate that there are demands to build new highways in certain areas of the north, our current priority is to upgrade the existing highway system, like Highways 69 and 11. The Ministry of Transportation will continue to monitor patters on our highways, and we're always prepared to review situations should the circumstances change.

Mr McDonald: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I applaud the good work our government is doing to foster long-term stability and prosperity in the north. Minister Wilson, you've been a great friend to northern Ontario.

Over the summer I noticed the issue of four-laning was on the minds of people across the north. What are our government's plans for four-laning in the north?

Hon Mr Wilson: As the Premier has stated, our government is committed to four-laning Highway 69 north of Parry Sound. The engineering and property acquisition phase is now underway for the new 20-kilometre, four-lane Highway 69 corridor south of Sudbury. Once this process is complete, we will be better able to set a timeline for the actual construction of the project.

The entire Sudbury region also benefits from the unprecedented progress that is underway toward four-laning Highway 69 south of Parry Sound where traffic volumes are greatest. Last year, about $106 million was spent on four-laning Highway 69 south of Parry Sound, and we were pleased to open the $72-million Parry Sound bypass last November.

Work is underway on four contracts valued at over $140 million to complete the remaining 30 kilometres of construction between MacTier and the new Parry Sound bypass. Once again, it's a record amount of money spent on northern highways, something that should put the Liberals and NDP to shame for the paltry amounts of money they spent for northerners and to make sure our roads are safe and efficient for transportation in northern Ontario.

SLOT MACHINES

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): My question is for the Attorney General. Minister, I'd like to return to the Picov Downs issue. Last week, we learned that a decision has been made to allow Picov Downs to have slot machines. On April 10, 2002, that decision was communicated to Picov Downs by Minister Hudak. Shortly afterwards, Minister Ecker announced the decision to citizens in her riding.

The only decision that is not yet to be announced is the number of slot machines they will be allocated. Last week you stated that they may get none, one, two, or 799. Industry sources say that less than 100 machines is not viable. Given that the only viable option you have is to give Picov Downs none or a number between 100 and 800, could you tell us what is going to influence that decision?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Indeed the member did ask some questions last week. He prefaced his question last week by saying the government announced our three-year plan for gaming in Ontario. He went on to say -- and this is quoting from a time in April 2000 -- that it was a three-year moratorium that would apply to new slot machines at horse tracks. That's what he said. At the time, I assumed the member perhaps was well informed; I've since been advised otherwise. Indeed, it was a two-year moratorium.

If there is any doubt about that, he should look at the horse racing association's correspondence with reference to this issue. I would refer him in particular to a letter dated July 21, 2000, in which Jane Holmes clearly indicates that it is a two-year pause. That's straight from the horse's mouth.

Mr Kwinter: The minister went to great pains not to answer my question. The racetrack slot machine initiative was reached in consultation with the Ontario Horse Racing Industry Association, and that association wrote to the government -- the same Jane Holmes -- saying that it seems incomprehensible that Picov Downs may be allocated 800 slot machines. Dresden, Clinton, Hanover, the smallest standard-bred tracks in Ontario, have been allocated 100 machines each and they are all many times greater in size and economic activity than Picov Downs. Industry sources also state that 100 slot machines is about 10 times the number warranted, given the level of betting activity at Picov Downs.

Mr Minister, could you assure us today that allocations of slot machines to Picov Downs will be based on the same criteria as other tracks in Ontario and that the process will not be perverted by political influence or campaign contributions?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The Attorney General has the floor.

Hon Mr Young: Yes.

MOOSE POACHING

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Earlier this month you announced the launch of Moose Watch, the annual enforcement program here in Ontario. Minister, in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant -- and I'm sure it is the case in your riding as well -- we have a long tradition of hunters heading north. Friends of mine are heading up in the next few weeks. Could you explain to us in the House today and, further, to hunters in my riding what Moose Watch is and why we have initiated it?

Hon Jerry J. Ouellette (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant for the question. Here in Ontario I and the ministry take moose poaching very seriously. That's why I was pleased to announce earlier this month the 2002 continuation of Moose Watch.

Moose Watch is a high-profile enforcement program to assist conservation officers in dealing with and reducing the number of illegally killed moose. The program was designed to increase public awareness, to provide a toll-free, 24-hour violation reporting system and to enhance enforcement efforts.

The reason the program was initiated was that during the period from 1997 to 1999, conservation officers in the northeast region found 416 illegally killed moose, which we at the ministry find completely unacceptable. So a proactive public education and enforcement program began in 2000 and was immediately successful in reducing the number of illegally hunted moose.

Mr Barrett: Thank you for the explanation, Minister. I've had a chance to speak with the conservation officers involved with Moose Watch. I understand the need for and the value of this program. Moose poaching is a serious issue, and protecting the resource is a responsibility of all of us.

There are hunters in my riding who may be concerned about the impact of this on the sport and on the perception of hunting in general. Will this program in any way portray hunters as poachers? I'm concerned about the perception this may put on good, law-abiding hunters in the province of Ontario.

Hon Mr Ouellette: Clearly the answer is no. One of our main goals is to work closely with our stakeholders to make the program run as smoothly and as effectively as possible. A lot of these individuals are the individuals participating in the Moose Watch program. The outdoor community wants to see an end to the illegal hunting, the same as all others throughout the province. Our top priority is to have a strong working relationship with them.

The success of the program to date relies largely on their support, and I'm happy to report that with the great support of our partners and the public, hundreds of calls are made each year to the violation reporting lines, and all indications suggest that our clients and the public have enthusiastically accepted the program. In the northeast region alone, we have seen declines in illegally killed moose from 168 in 1999 to 137 in 2000, and down to 102 in 2001. With results like that, we are moving in the right direction.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Energy. It is reported in today's paper that the hydro rate is going to be dumped in 17 rural and northern communities. You have stated today in this House that that may not be correct. My question to you is, is it correct? If it is not correct, are you going to assuage the fears of those communities and tell them that in fact the rate is not coming? And if it is correct, why are you letting these communities shoulder yet another hydro rate increase?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): The member opposite referred to a letter that I read into the record with respect to distribution rates. Hydro One, as do all distribution companies, has to make from time to time, as a course of regular business, application to the Ontario Energy Board. Prior to doing that, they thought it was best to consult with stakeholders, to consult with affected communities and to consult with customers. That's what they are doing. Nowhere in that proposal have they proposed a specific rate or timetable with respect to harmonization.

There are more than 87 different rate categories across that company's local distribution rates, something that it would seem to me it would only make good sense to look at and consult on before any proposals were even developed.

Mr Prue: The reeve of Michipicoten was here this morning talking to people in the Legislature. He has complained about a 44% increase in hydro costs in his community, but he has also talked about the 47% reduction in his tax base because the right to levy taxes on hydroelectric plants was taken away by your government. I grant you that some provincial help went back, but not enough, because in that community last year there was a 5% tax increase; this year there is a 6% local tax increase just to bring them back to the same level.

Why are you hammering these small communities as you pursue your privatization-of-hydro dirty deal?

Hon Mr Baird: There was a policy, as the member knows, with respect to taxation of hydroelectric. I suppose it's difficult; you can't win. You can't use nuclear. The NDP is now suggesting you can't use hydroelectric. You can't use coal. If we followed the consistent line of that policy, we'd have no electricity in the province.

Hydro One is going out to consult. They have no proposal on the table. Before they make a rate application, as do all other local distribution companies -- Tom Parkinson, the president and chief operating officer, wrote to me earlier today saying, "I am writing to you regarding a media report this morning that indicated that Hydro One was proposing a 40% increase for some of its customers' distribution rates. I want to assure you that this report is categorically false."

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

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

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

Whereas 46 people have been killed on that highway in the last three years; and

Whereas 10 people have died on Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound so far this year alone; and

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

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

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

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

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Eves government to begin construction immediately and four-lane Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound so that the carnage on Death Road North will cease."

I sign this petition. I give it to Kevin to bring to the table as part of the 20,000-name petition I will be submitting on this stretch of highway.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a number of petitions that were sent to me this summer from the following organizations: the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations; Stella Mostacci of Timmins; and Tony Giovinazzo of Welland. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We demand the Conservative government eliminate the 15% fee increase for residents of long-term-care facilities, increase the number of nursing hours for each resident to a minimum of 3.5 hours per day, and provide stable, increased funding to ensure quality care is there for Ontario residents of long-term-care facilities."

I agree with the petitioners and I've affixed my signature to this.

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

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

"Therefore we, the undersigned people of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to remove the cap on the disability support program."

This petition is signed by large numbers of people from across northwestern Ontario who share this concern.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario Energy Board has consented to allow Union Gas to retroactively charge $40 per month for a three-month period to recover additional system operation costs that occurred during the winter of 2000-01 totalling approximately $150 million; and

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

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

"Therefore,

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

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy Board Act disallowing the retroactive hike granted to Union Gas; and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes that will protect consumers from further retroactive rate increases."

I'm in full agreement and have signed my name to this petition.

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "Whereas one in five children in Ontario live in poverty; and

"Whereas, as part of the national child tax benefit program, the federal government gives a supplement to low-income families across the country to begin to address child poverty; and

"Whereas that money, up to approximately $100 a month per child, is meant to give our poorest and most vulnerable children a better chance in life;

"Whereas in Ontario the Conservative government deducts the child benefit supplement dollar for dollar from those living on social assistance;

"Whereas this is leaving our province's neediest children without extra money they desperately need to begin their climb out of poverty;

"Whereas all children are entitled to a fair chance at life;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand that the government of Ontario stop the clawback of the national child tax benefit supplement and ensure this federal money reaches all low-income families in Ontario."

These over 500 names are added to the over 7,000 I've already submitted, and I add my name to it.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On behalf of CAW local 444 and its president, Ken Lewenza, I present the following petition that was taken up at a rally they had this afternoon.

"Whereas the Ontario Energy Board has consented to allow Union Gas to retroactively charge $40 per month for a three-month period to recover additional system operation costs that occurred during the winter of 2000-01 totalling approximately $150 million; and

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

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

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

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy Board Act disallowing the retroactive rate hike granted to Union Gas, and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes that will protect consumers from further retroactive increases."

I'm pleased, as I have in the past, to affix my signature to this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition sent to me this summer from Foyer Richelieu in Welland, the Association of Jewish Seniors in Toronto, and Woodingford Lodge Family Council in Woodstock. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We demand the Conservative government eliminate the 15% fee increase for residents of long-term-care facilities, increase the number of nursing care hours for residents to a minimum of 3.5 hours per day and provide stable, increased funding to ensure quality care is there for Ontario residents of long-term-care facilities."

I agree with the petitioners, and I've affixed my signature to it.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a petition entitled Fair Rent Increase Now.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the number of tenants receiving above-guideline increases is growing exponentially; and

"Whereas many of these increases are for increases in utility costs, many of which have gone down since; and

"Whereas tenants should not have to pay for improvements forever, even when the costs have been realized by these rent increases; and

"Whereas the Tenant Protection Act does not give a tenant relief due to the costs being realized or a drop in utility costs; and

"Whereas tenants should not be receiving rent increases where there are work orders" outstanding "for the building" they live in;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to immediately pass MPP David Caplan's Bill 134 entitled the Fair Rent Increases Act at the earliest possible opportunity so that tenants can get relief from above-guideline increases once the bills have been paid."

I agree with the petition, and I have signed my name to it.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that's been sent to me by Betty Gurland of North York. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the daily increase of $7.02 starting August 1, 2002, for residents in long-term-care facilities is not in keeping with the increases of prior years;

"Whereas this large increase in rates is a severe financial burden to residents and to family caregivers to maintain a loved one in a long-term-care facility and maintain themselves in order not to ask the government for financial assistance;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to repeal this large increase and reduce the rates to a nominal increase as in prior years."

I agree with the petitioners, and I've affixed my signature to it.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It was submitted to me by Alex McCauley from Nickel Belt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Eves government to begin construction immediately and four-lane Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound so that the carnage on Death Road North will cease."

I affix my signature and give it Rachel to bring to the front desk.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have some petitions that were sent to me by Tom and Opal Zaitz of Hillsdale Crescent in Sudbury and Muriel Mogensen of RoseMarie Street in Sudbury. They read as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We demand "the Conservative government eliminate the 15% fee increase for residents of long-term-care facilities, increase the number of nursing care hours for each resident to a minimum of 3.5 hours per day, and provide stable, increased funding to ensure quality care is there for Ontario residents of long-term care facilities."

I agree with the petitioners and I've affixed my signature to it.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): 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% over three years ...; and

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

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

"Whereas, according to the government's own funded study, Ontario will still rank last amongst comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a resident for nursing and personal care; and

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

"Whereas government needs to increase long-term-care funding ... over the next three years to raise the level of service for ... long-term-care residents to those in Saskatchewan ...; and

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

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

"Demand that" -- the Eves government -- "reduce the 15% increase ... to no more than the cost of living increase annually and that the provincial government provide adequate funding for nursing and personal care to a level that is at least at the average standard for nursing and personal care in those 10 jurisdictions included in the government's own study."

I'm in full agreement and have signed this petition.

OHIP SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a final petition sent to me from Newmarket, Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Harris government's decision to delist hearing aid evaluation and re-evaluation from OHIP coverage will lead to untreated hearing loss; and

"Whereas these restrictions will cut off access to diagnostic hearing tests, especially in geographic regions of the province already experiencing difficulties due to shortages of specialty physicians;

"Whereas OHIP will no longer cover the cost of miscellaneous therapeutic procedures, including physical therapy and therapeutic exercise; and

"Whereas services no longer covered by OHIP may include thermal therapy, ultrasound therapy, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, electrotherapy, magnetotherapy and biofeedback; and

"Whereas one of the few publicly covered alternatives includes hospital outpatient clinics where waiting lists for such services are up to six months long; and

"Whereas delisting these services will have a detrimental effect on the health of all Ontarians, especially seniors, children, hearing-impaired people and industrial workers; and

"Whereas the government has already delisted $100 million worth of OHIP services,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately restore OHIP coverage for these delisted services."

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Doug Galt (Minister without Portfolio): Government notice of motion 37.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Where's the quorum?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'll ask the Clerk to see if there's a quorum.

Deputy Clerk (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Deputy Clerk: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Speaker: The chief government whip.

Hon Mr Galt: That pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 131,

An Act to facilitate the making, recognition and variation of interjurisdictional support orders, when Bill 131 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill, without further debate or amendment, at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called on that same day; and

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

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

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

The Speaker: Mr Galt has moved that pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 131, --

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

The Speaker: Dispense?

Mr Kormos: No.

The Speaker: No? No dispense --

An Act to facilitate the making, recognition and variation of interjurisdictional support orders, when Bill 131 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill, without further debate or amendment, at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called on that same day; and

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

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

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

Debate?

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): In speaking to this bill and this particular time allocation motion -- guillotine motion -- I want to say that the announcement today, which was not brought to the floor of the House, with respect to the Legal Aid Services Amendment Act directly impacts upon this bill in this sense: as we've said before, and we're in agreement, we support this bill. Of course we support this bill, but we cannot -- the bill I'm referring to that we support is the bill that's before the House, not the Legal Aid Services Amendment Act --

Mr Kormos: And not this motion.

Mr Bryant: And not this motion. This is a guillotine motion. We want more debate, not less debate.

And along those lines, I would just say, with respect to the Legal Aid Services Amendment Act, with respect to this public defender's office bill, I would urge the Attorney General to take this to committee now.

This is one of those bills, particularly in the circumstances, which needs to be taken to committee now -- not after second reading, after first reading, because this announcement comes right out of right field. There were negotiations and efforts being undertaken between the law society and various other partners in the government of Ontario. There were discussions underway to try and resolve the impasse, and out of nowhere this announcement is made.

This is, I would respectfully submit to the Attorney General, a far more radical departure from our current system of criminal justice and family law representation than may have been originally envisioned. In fact under this bill, with everything handed off to regulation, we may have the Americanization of our legal defence system. That just means one thing: the American experience has been that caseloads are so high that they become a plea-bargain factory.

Similarly, the purpose of the bill before us right now, the interjurisdictional support bill, is in fact to give legal remedies to those who could not otherwise enforce a bill because the deadbeat dad or the deadbeat spouse has moved out of the jurisdiction, but you need assistance in order to enforce those orders. If a family cannot afford assistance, where are they going to go? If they have to go off to an office that is so overburdened that the scales of justice are tipped in favour of, in this case, the deadbeat dad or the deadbeat spouse, that's no justice at all.

This new bill, I fear, makes it official. The public defender's office bill makes it official. A justice system, once the envy of the nation, is now institutionalizing a two-tier system. The politics of crime and justice right now are really that the elected devote most of their energies toward protecting our electors from crime, criminals and injustice. That's the politics of crime and justice in Ontario today, and we do so in the name of livable communities. But we do so on the working assumption that we have an impartial justice system that is protecting the vulnerable from injustice.

We fight for livable communities assuming that those facing the criminal justice system are going to get a fair trial. They're going to be treated as innocents until proven guilty. They'll get due process; that is, process due to a citizenry in a just democracy.

Those assumptions that we base our fight for livable communities on, those assumptions about our impartial justice system, have been rocked as of late. Our justice system in Ontario appears to be on its knees, with criminal cases thrown out because of chronic delays; families who cannot afford legal representation over custody battles and support payments getting no help at all; judges seeking to lend order to the chaos of legal aid shortages with random results obtaining across the province; in short, a two-tier justice system, brutally unaffordable for the vast majority of citizens.

Let's not fool ourselves. The two-tier justice system is in existence. If you have the resources, you can get the legal dream team, get the representation and, in some cases, get off. If you don't have the resources, then in the civil courts there's nowhere to go. There really is no legal aid other than for family law matters in the civil courts.

One remedy is the legalization and regulation of contingency fees, which I'll speak upon in a moment, the subject of a private member's bill I introduced that's coming up for debate in a couple of weeks.

But when it comes to the criminal law system and our family law system, when it comes to the right to a fair hearing for family matters of custody and support, the right to a fair trial, these are rights we hold sacred. We take these rights for granted in our democracy; we do, because for years, governments past ensured that the resources were there so that those who simply cannot afford any representation will get the assistance they need. That's no longer so. After seven years of governance by Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, our system of justice is the worse for wear.

Rather than delivering more for less, as promised, we just get less for less and I am concerned that the public defender's office bill will legislate that reality.

The legal aid certificate system permitted the poor to access legal representation that they could not otherwise possibly afford. That was the purpose of the system. Sixty per cent of lawyers offering legal aid have more than a decade's experience. The economics of the legal aid system was that those experienced lawyers could offer in one hour what an inexperienced lawyer could not offer in 10 hours. Those are the economics of the system. Two hours of their time to the system, in many cases, was like 20 hours from a junior lawyer who had no experience. All that is being thrown out today, we fear.

The government is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, abandoning a system that needs reforms but not the obliteration of the certificate system.

This new, diluted system of a public defender's office -- again, our concern is that it may end up actually costing more at the end of the day. The economics of tossing out the efficiencies of experienced representation in exchange for inexperienced staff lawyers with an enormous caseload is precarious at best, and we'll obviously be looking for answers from the government in this regard.

Unworkable caseloads also mean that our public defender's office could become a plea-bargain factory. Those on the edge of a criminal underclass who cannot afford counsel will be tossed into the revolving door of the criminal justice system, and then we've lost them.

The public's confidence in our criminal justice system also inevitably is going to be shaken in terms of the independence of the system. With the government now paying the salaries of both the prosecutors and the defenders, the appearance may be that the public defender won't want to bite the hand that feeds him or her. When it comes to matters of the criminal justice system, it is necessary not only that justice be done but that it be seen to be done. We'll be looking to the government for answers to ensure this independence.

As members of this House will know, the principle upon which the legal aid certificate system was based was the principle of equal access to justice. The scales of justice for criminal justice matters and family law matters were considered just too important to leave to the marketplace alone. You can't just let those who have money have access to justice on matters as critical as one's liberty, custody and other family law matters.

So while we obviously needed a robust and appropriately funded prosecution office, we had to balance the scales of justice and ensure that we didn't have, in effect, the Canadian Olympic hockey team taking on the junior varsity team. We needed to ensure that on the other side there were people with experience. But many, many Ontarians just can't afford those people with experience -- like it or not, cannot afford it. So we created a system of legal aid certificates, some duty counsel, to try and right that imbalance. It remains an imbalance.

How are we going to fix it? Many experts have recommended what they call "alternative service delivery systems," which is a nice way of saying, "experimenting with different ways of providing that representation." The experience in the United Kingdom is very positive on that front. But in the UK, there was an overwhelming focus on quality of representation, an overwhelming focus on ensuring that the people in public defenders' offices and duty counsel and otherwise were meeting a certain level of service.

The American experience has been the opposite. Because it is purely a bottom-line-driven process, it is inevitably the more underfunded office. The caseload is unworkable and the plea bargains abound.

Again, the politics of this is obvious. I understand that nobody wants public dollars going off to lawyers. We get that. We all get that. But we operate and fight for livable communities based on the assumption that we do have a system of democracy, protected by a constitution that ensures that our fundamental freedoms are protected. Those rights are worthless without remedies. Those remedies for the indigent mean a right to fair trial with counsel. It means you're not on your own. And it is that principle that is at stake here.

It may be unpopular to say that we need to protect those liberties. It may be unfashionable to say that we need to protect those liberties. It may be easy to look at the budget that's involved here and say, "Oh well, this is just about trying to get more for less."

But these are the principles that ground any system of justice. It is a given that you are not going to have a system as we did, really, centuries ago, where only the wealthy used the courts. In this case, for years governments have committed themselves, whether it was politically popular or not, to protect the rights of those who cannot afford access to justice. That's the principle at stake here today. That's why the government needs to spend as much time as possible -- I wish it had before it introduced this bill, but in any event it has; that is done -- consulting with all of the stakeholders, with people who are working in this system and can tell you what is going on.

The minister says the system is in a state that, in some ways, cannot get any worse, and he's right. In areas like Brockville, it can't get much worse. But let's be clear. If that is the case, then he has to be held to account for the damage that's been done. If our justice system is on its knees, the Attorney General cannot show up today as if the Harris-Eves government has not been in power for the last seven years.

The government has to remedy this without crushing the system even further. We can't have even more cases being thrown out. We can't have even more people getting inadequate representation. The principles at stake are just too important.

On the civil side there's, as I've said, no access to justice, except in the very few instances in which a family law matter is covered by legal aid. One remedy for that has been undertaken by every single province in the country: contingency fees, the idea that an unaffordable case will become affordable because the lawyer will bear the burden of the risk. That, up until now, has not been permitted in Ontario. The Ontario Court of Appeal recently ruled that, in fact, the common law does not prohibit contingency fees.

Interestingly, the Attorney General's position at the time that my private member's bill was introduced regulating and legalizing contingency fees was that it would be, I think he said, foolhardy to take a position on that bill until it went to the courts. I actually agree that my private member's bill ought not to have, and therefore I did not bring it forward for debate until the Ontario Court of Appeal had ruled on the matter.

So I'm looking forward to working with the Attorney General on the issue of contingency fees, because those will provide access to justice not only to the indigent or those who simply cannot afford our legal system; they will provide access to justice for all Ontarians -- all Ontarians -- on civil matters, doing justice that would otherwise be unaffordable and getting the job done.

I will just say again in closing that we support the interjurisdictional support orders bill; of course we do. We regret that we have another guillotine motion in front of us.

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): On a point of order, Speaker: I've been trying to get some water, but it smells so awful. It's so fishy smelling. Am I the only one here noticing this in the water? I wonder if we can look into it and get some decent water in here. I would appreciate it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): I'll ask the table to look into it, and we'll get back to you. I'm not hearing anybody else having a problem, but we'll take a look at it.

Please continue.

Mr Bryant: Can you blame him?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Something's fishy about the speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I caught the last part.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Not you, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Oh, I see. That speaker. The member for St Paul's.

Mr Bryant: Right now in areas all over Ontario, we have counsel, accused, those seeking relief from our family law courts, in the midst of a chaotic dialogue -- a nice way of putting it; debate, perhaps -- on exactly what we do about somebody who is before the court unrepresented. They are facing a situation where counsel is expressing the concern about lack of funding for access to justice by saying, "We cannot proceed under the status quo." In many cases, judges are agreeing with counsel and making orders in this chaos to try to lend order to the matter.

In the midst of all that, we have stoppages in parts all over the province. Many of the people participating in these stoppages are doing so in support of their colleagues and in support of the principle that we have to provide access to justice to those who cannot afford our system, who find themselves either before the criminal justice system or before our family law system without any representation. It is difficult to say which is more important; it really is.

To think that people are appearing before the courts on matters that fundamentally affect the future of their families -- custodial support, custody, spousal support -- and they carry with them for the rest of their lives, for the rest of their lives, decisions that are made at that time. These hearings have such an impact on their lives that they desperately need representation and assistance, because almost all of them are appearing before the court unaware of exactly how the family law system works.

On the other side, often they find themselves against Goliath: robust, heavily funded counsel for the other side in family law matters, who are able not so much to take advantage of the system, but to exact a result that is in the best interests of their client. But we also need to provide representation for those who cannot currently afford our system, so that they can obtain the best result in the interests of their client.

I have much more to say on this, but I will cease and desist now.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, Speaker. There's a time allocation motion. We've been here but a week, a mere --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): How's the water?

Mr Kormos: My water's fine. I suggest to the member who complained about the water that it may not be water. The examination should be not as to whether or not the water is fishy, but as to whether or not it's water. I'm simply indicating it's one of the things that should be considered. My water's fine.

There's another time allocation motion. You know, all of us were back home in our ridings on the weekend. Yesterday I was over at the Hungarian Presbyterian Church down on Second Street, and one Reverend Maria Papp. The place was packed because it was the end of their 75th anniversary celebrations, and the one most frequent query put to me by folks in that church basement was their hydro rates. The second was, why is this Conservative government doing everything it can to frustrate and curb and indeed not only inhibit but block debate? Folks over at the Hungarian Presbyterian Church.

On Saturday -- Jim Bradley was there too -- we were at the grape and wine festival parade. Thousands of folks lining the streets of downtown St Catharines. I made a point of trying to say hello to as many of them as possible before the parade started. The single most frequent comment to me -- and I think Mr Bradley is going to speak to this time allocation motion; he can either confirm that that was his experience as well -- was about electricity rates. The second most frequent was, why is this Conservative government so hell bent on eliminating debate in the chamber?

I'm telling you, retirees, students, factory workers, truckers, mariners, were saying, "Why does this Conservative government dislike bills being debated as much as it clearly does? Why does it introduce a time allocation motion on" -- not virtually, but I put to you, when we take a look at the record, darn near literally -- "every bill this House has had put before it?"

What's interesting about 131, as you heard from both opposition parties, is that there's general support for Bill 131. Let's understand this. I've listened to some of the government members' speeches, and I understand that they aren't inclined to read the legislation they debate. I understand that. But let's make it perfectly clear: we've had reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders legislation in this province since at least 1948. We have. There's nothing novel here. The Tories aren't introducing some bold, new approach. This bill is an effort to harmonize with other jurisdictions across Canada.

We're in favour of that, yet somehow this Attorney General -- and you heard him stand up and refer to this bill -- expects that we're sort of supposed to just pass this without considering it, without debating it, without considering the prospect of a need to fine-tune this bill in the course of a committee hearing. Look what this time allocation motion does: this time allocation motion blocks this bill from going to committee.

As well, this bill begs the question as to how litigants seeking extrajurisdictional maintenance orders or enforcement of an order made in another jurisdiction access the courts to facilitate that.

You heard the previous speaker make reference to the Attorney General's rather lame announcement this morning. This government has perpetuated the underfunding of legal aid to the point where -- and, again, in the criminal sphere it's a crisis; in the family law arena it's beyond crisis. And mostly women, although men too, can't retain counsel; unless they've got really deep pockets, really fat wallets and really enriched bank accounts, they can't get into family courts with legal representation.

So all of the Bill 131s in the world -- and I acknowledge that Bill 131 streamlines the process just a little bit more because it eliminates the need for the provisional order, and that's why we support it in principle, but we so dearly wanted it to go to committee -- ain't going to help if these mothers of little kids who are seeking support can't get into the courts and, if they can get into the courts, don't have competent representation once they're there.

On Saturday, I was over at the plaza at the corner of Prince Charles Drive and Lincoln Street in Welland. It was a little ribbon-cutting to open a new business. Jack Huard and his daughter, Jackie Jaroslawski, were opening up Huard Heating. Jack used to own the Mr Furnace down there in Niagara. He sold it a few years ago, thought he was going to retire and then found himself back into the heating, ventilating and air conditioning business. I was there with Jack Huard, his wife Betty, his daughter Jackie -- Jackie and he are sort of partners in the business -- and some of their staff.

It's a very impressive operation. I indicated that with Jack Huard and others like him in the Welland, Pelham, Thorold and St Catharines area, there is no need for people to go outside of those communities to get those kinds of services.

Of the huge number of friends and supporters of Jack Huard who were present there for the opening of Huard Heating, the single most frequent query put to me was about hydro rates and then the question, "Why does the Conservative government so energetically block any debate?"

Why is the government afraid of committees? Why is the government afraid of committee hearings? Why is the government afraid of exposure to the public and public input into their legislation?

I can see it. I understand some of the answers because this government's experience with the public when it comes to committee hearings has not been particularly pleasant, going all the way back to 1995. Remember the omnibus bill, Bill 26? All hell broke loose in community after community when the government tried to trot that one out before the public. The public was shutting them down.

The public was so outraged at what Bill 26 was doing to health care and education, how Bill 26 was paving the way for the orgy of privatization that has indeed flowed from it, and the de-democratization of democratic institutions. All the way back to 1995, this government has had a far less than pleasant experience with public committee hearings. So perhaps there is a reason why the government doesn't want its bills to go to public hearings any more.

I remember when a former Minister of Energy was trotting his hydro deregulation stuff across the province. Remember that, friends? He fled a committee room -- was it in London? -- and Howard Hampton had to carry on and run the committee.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): He didn't show up in Sudbury.

Mr Kormos: You've got that right.

The former Minister of Energy: "We've got to go and sell this deregulation and privatization of hydro to the public. Oh, yeah, we're going to be so slick. We've got the spin lines all down, got it all tuned up and fine-tuned. We've got the spin doctors and the $1,000-per-day people working on the scripts. We've got the backdrops, the film crew and the makeup people." He was going to trot that out and market it. Oh, yeah, sure. He fled the committee hearings in London. He didn't show up in Sudbury. Howard Hampton took that one over, too.

Hon Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Speaker: That was not the case in Sudbury. The member knows that.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. Member, please continue.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Sault Ste Marie and the government House leader. We'll start naming people. You're not even in your seat, member for Durham. The member for Niagara Centre, please continue.

Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, Speaker. I'm sorry about the interruption. I apologize on behalf of that member for being so rude. I tell you, Speaker, I appreciate your patience with all of us and your wise ruling with respect to that unsubstantiated point of order. Please.

This government's experience with public hearings has not been pleasant. They've been given a rough ride. So I understand their disinterest in going on the road. I understand the government's disinterest in having public scrutiny of its legislation. You see, one of the jobs we have here, especially in opposition, is to make sure that we give profile to legislation before us and to make sure we do our very best to prevent this government from just ramming stuff through before the press gallery even has a chance to understand that it's there. Our job is to let folks know what this government is doing to them here at Queen's Park, and I tell you, it's not a pretty picture, is it?

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): Just like the social contract.

Mr Kormos: What this government is doing to the people of Ontario here at Queen's Park, I tell you, is a triple-X-rated movie, any day of the week. The brutality of what this --

Mr Spina: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think that the member's comments are impugning my character as a member of this House, sir. I would ask you to rule on that.

The Deputy Speaker: I didn't hear that. What I did hear were your interjections. I'll pay particular attention to see if there's any further reference to you. In the meantime, I know you'll pay particular attention to the member from Niagara Centre's comments. Member for Niagara Centre, please continue.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Speaker. I apologize for that member's abuse of the rules. I regret that those sorts of things happen. I recommend to members to read the standing orders. They're in the book; it's in your desk. Read them and they'll be of some modest assistance to you in the course of raising points, because sometimes you can get a point of order in through the back door where you can't through the front door.

But what this government is doing to the people of Ontario is indeed brutal and obscene. The folks down where I come from, the folks I met, thousands over the course of this past couple of days, over the weekend, know it. The other night -- once again, it was Jim Bradley's riding -- I was with Jim Bradley over at the Queen Street Baptist Church. The Niagara community male chorus was performing to raise money for young Sarah. Sarah's four years old. Her folks are as loving and as caring and as committed as any two parents I've ever met -- and her grandfolks. Sarah was there.

She's a beautiful, beautiful child, a real jewel, with a sparkle to her eye and a lively presence. Bright -- bright as a whip. But, you see, Sarah has autism. This government has abandoned kids with autism, because this government won't fund the treatment and therapy that Sarah and other kids with autism need if they're going to get a fair shake, if they're going to be able to develop that incredible intelligence that was so obvious in that little girl, the incredible vitality that generated that sparkle in her eyes.

So Sarah's parents -- and they can't afford it; I know these folks, and they're hard-working working people -- have embarked on a privately retained treatment program, because it's not available to them through the government's autism program, that is costing them tens of thousands of dollars a year. It was so nice to be a part of that community, the Queen Street Baptist Church, which tried to help take care of one of its own. I was there and I tried to make my modest contribution -- I did make it, and I know other folks did. I was there when they were counting the money.

I'm sorry to say, although it was a whole lot of money, at the end of the day, the money that was raised last night at the Queen Street Baptist Church in St Catharines is only going to pay for but a few weeks of the therapy and treatment that Sarah deserves.

You see, those folks know that this government has betrayed Sarah and others like her. It was interesting, because as I was leaving the church, a couple of people followed me out into the parking lot. The two things that were raised with me were, one, hydro rates -- they had already expressed their anger over the lack of support for Sarah and kids with autism -- and interestingly, remarkably, the query of, "What's going on at Queen's Park? Why is debate always being stifled? Why is it being cut off? Why is it being terminated?"

Mr Bradley: Why is it on channel 67 now?

Mr Kormos: One moment, Mr Bradley.

That's what folks in St Catharines were saying to me over the weekend, be it the thousands upon thousands at the grape and wine festival -- of course we celebrate the great vintners and growth of the wine industry, but we also celebrate -- I am so pleased -- the tradition and history of grape growing the