36th Parliament, 2nd Session

L032a - Wed 24 Jun 1998 / Mer 24 Jun 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ITALIAN CANADIAN COMMUNITY

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

SEWAGE AND WATER TREATMENT

NATIONAL UNITY

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

NORFOLK CO-OPERATIVE

SCHOOL CLOSURES

AIR QUALITY

ICE CREAM FESTIVAL

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT (IMPROVED FAMILY COURT), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES (AMÉLIORATION DE LA COUR DE LA FAMILLE)

GORDIE KIRWAN EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (EXCEPTIONAL PUPILS), 1998 / LOI GORDIE KIRWAN DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION (ÉLÈVES EN DIFFICULTÉ)

HEALTH CARE ACCOUNTABILITY AND PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'OBLIGATION DE RENDRE DES COMPTES À L'ÉGARD DES SOINS DE SANTÉ ET SUR LA DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DES PATIENTS

SUNNYBROOK AND WOMEN'S COLLEGE HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE CENTRE APPELÉ SUNNYBROOK AND WOMEN'S COLLEGE HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

PETERBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT, 1998

JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT (ONTARIO), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES JEUNES DÉLINQUANTS (ONTARIO)

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

SENIOR ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

SENIOR ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE / SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE DAY

DEFERRED VOTES

ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

POVERTY

ONTARIO HYDRO

VOLUNTEER CHILDREN'S SERVICES

ICE STORM

EDUCATION FUNDING

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

PETITIONS

CHARITABLE GAMING

YOUNG OFFENDERS

ABORTION

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

NURSES' BILL OF RIGHTS

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

ABORTION

LINHAVEN HOME FOR THE AGED

FIREARMS CONTROL

CHARITABLE GAMING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

NURSES' BILL OF RIGHTS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION


The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ITALIAN CANADIAN COMMUNITY

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Today marks a double celebration for Canada. We commemorate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, but we also remember the landfall on this day 501 years ago of an enterprising explorer off the coast of what we now know as Canada.

Giovanni Caboto, citizen of Venice in the service of England's King Henry II, is said to have landed off the coast of Newfoundland where the town of Bonavista now stands. In fact, the town is said to owe its name to a phrase uttered by Caboto. On seeing land he exclaimed, "O bona vista," Italian for, "Oh, what a beautiful sight." He then planted the flags of Venice and England.

Today we reflect on the fact that Canada was discovered neither by the French nor by the English. It was an Italian who laid the foundation for French and English in this country. It also gives us an opportunity to reflect on the deep roots and long history of Italians in Canada, a people who through this century have greatly enriched this country.

Canadians of Italian origin have been builders of roads, buildings, railways and businesses. They have contributed to the artistic and professional life of Canada. And they have built bridges of tolerance and respect among all peoples in this country.

That is why a former Liberal leader, David Peterson, some 10 years ago declared today Giovanni Caboto Day, and it is why today we pay tribute not just to an Italian explorer, but to the significant contributions and legacy through the centuries of a vibrant Canadian community of Italian origin.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): With less than a week to go in the month of June, the Minister of Health has yet to make good on her promise to give more money to the northern community care centres. In a radio interview on June 10, Minister Witmer said, "We are going to be indicating this month what initial amount of money is going to be available...and obviously the CCACs in the north, as elsewhere, will be receiving additional money."

This contrasts greatly with what the Sudbury-Manitoulin CCAC has already been told by ministry staff in Sudbury. On three separate occasions the executive director and the chair of the board have been told they will not receive additional money this year or next year. In fact, they won't see any more money added to the base budget until the year 2000. No wonder the Minister of Health still has not released the details of funding for northern CCACs.

The fact is, since elected, the Harris government has cut $8.6 million from Sudbury hospitals, with more cuts coming this year. People are being discharged faster than ever before and they need community health services to get well again. In Sudbury-Manitoulin, nursing visits increased 25% and homemaking services 14%. Between October 1997 and April 1998 the entire budget of $20.1 million was spent. That is why the Sudbury-Manitoulin CCAC has requested an additional $2.1 million to meet its needs.

It's time for the minister to come clean on this issue. She made a promise. Release the budget numbers so we know if our CCAC will be getting additional -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

SEWAGE AND WATER TREATMENT

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I want to speak today about water and the importance of clean water to Ontarians and to the people of Muskoka-Georgian Bay, who are blessed with the richest fresh water resources in the province.

While some would suggest that the environment is suffering, in fact our government has been able, through strong fiscal management, to invest significantly in the restoration of our water resources.

A week and a half ago, I participated in a ceremony in Midland marking the completion of an $8.4-million upgrade of the town's waste water treatment facility. The provincial government contributed $3.3 million to this project, which includes a state-of-the-art primary digester, a large egg-shaped device that uses heat treatment to eliminate organics and bacteria in waste water.

Other recent funding announcements include a provincial commitment to provide assistance for the construction of a communal sewage collection and treatment system for the community of Port Severn. Approximately $3.8 million has been advanced for this project.

Earlier this month, the provincial water protection fund announced that Tay township will benefit from two grants totalling more than $5 million to construct a new sewage treatment plant to serve the residents of these communities.

The list of provincially assisted environmental improvement projects since 1995 which have been funded to clean up the Severn sound area alone totals over $23 million.

Port Carling will benefit from a grant of up to $3.5 million to construct a new water treatment plant.

These announcements are a good indication of the commitment this government has to protect the environment and ensure a safe drinking water supply -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

NATIONAL UNITY

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): As part of the Canadian unity parade on July 1, representatives of national congresses of ethnocultural Canadians have taken a giant historic step to foster national unity.

This evening they will sign a letter and a petition to the people of Quebec and their leaders, part of which reads "to express our best wishes to the people of Quebec for a joyous Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. We further call upon the people of Quebec and their political leaders to continue the dialogue with the other Canadian provinces and the government of Canada on issues of national unity in order to continue to celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in one country."

A second step in terms of the rapprochement with Quebec is the national unity parade on July 1. I might remind members, all of you are invited to come with us. There will be signs which will say, "We need you, Quebec, because you are part of our indivisible family."

I simply say to this assembly, I hope that many of you will participate so that together we can say with one voice to this country, "Long live Canada and long live Quebec."

I remind all the members that together we can have one strong voice and together we can make a difference.

1340

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I rise to address the loss of timely and effective government service for my constituents and for the people of Ontario.

Ombudsman Roberta Jamieson reports that the drastic financial cutbacks facing ministries and related agencies have resulted in increased public frustration with many government services. According to the Ombudsman's report, there have been unacceptable delays in services provided by several key agencies, including the Human Rights Commission, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal and the adoption disclosure registry.

One of my constituents, Gillian McCrostie, has been searching for her birth mother through the ADR, the adoption disclosure register, and has waited eight years for some information. Her birth mother is 80 years old now and delays like this are potentially cruel. The financial inability to secure consistent staff has opened many agencies up to what the Ombudsman has called the "possibility of public or private influence," something the Tory agenda exposes us all to.

These far-reaching cutbacks to key services threaten the credibility of the whole public service. As the Ombudsman's report shows, Ontarians are frustrated. The loss of equitable and timely public service is a consequence of heavy-handed Tory cuts.

People are very slowly but surely feeling the disastrous effects of Tory cutbacks.

NORFOLK CO-OPERATIVE

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I wish to congratulate my friends and neighbours in Norfolk who are members of the Norfolk Co-operative in celebrating the founding of their organization.

It has been 80 years since J. "Alex" Wallace met with two of his farming neighbours following a Sunday church service and took the first step towards establishing a farmers' cooperative on January 18, 1918. Our farm also joined the co-op in that year.

The first directors included Horace Kellam, Windham; W.A. Bowyer, North Walsingham; Herschel Glover and Harry Hall, Townsend; and Perry Sowden from Woodhouse. The dream of these early founders has come to embody the spirit of hardworking people in Norfolk.

From its founding as a feed mill providing lower-priced feed to farmer members, emphasis at the co-op shifted to grain marketing, and later machinery, fertilizer and lumber, a division where I worked a number of years ago.

The cooperative, centred in Simcoe, expanded to Jarvis in 1943, Courtland in 1946 and Waterford in 1949.

For 80 years, dedicated and professional members and employees have been rising to the challenges of good and not-so-good times to ensure that the ideals of the Norfolk co-op are maintained.

I'm proud of my friends and neighbours who support the Norfolk Co-operative and I wish to congratulate them on the 80th anniversary of this organization.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Today in our local newspaper, reporting on the deliberations that occurred at the Windsor-Essex district school board, we in our community learned that at least four high schools are on the block, threatened to be closed by September 1999. Two of those schools happen to be in my riding: W.D. Lowe and Walkerville collegiate institute.

The members of the government opposite understand what the people at the Windsor and Essex public school board -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do you know what? I think we need a little order, actually. It's a little disruptive in here. I understand that you're getting together for a couple of meetings, but it's important that we have those meetings outside rather than in here when a member has the floor. Okay? Don't even go there.

Mr Duncan: What the Windsor and Essex public school board said is that these schools will have to be closed as a direct result of the government's funding formula. The school board does not have the money to supply heat, electricity and other essential items that this government didn't consider important to classroom education. What we're left with is the downtown core of our city being robbed of two high schools; two schools that are well-populated, two schools that offer unique programs, two schools that serve special needs populations, two schools that have a deep and ingrained history in our province. Indeed, just last year the Premier sent a congratulatory note to one of those schools on its 75th anniversary. It's truly a shame that this has to happen.

I say to the Minister of Education and I say to the government, the people of my community know who is responsible and who will be responsible for those closings. It's you and your cuts to education.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Today is another one of those bad-air days. There are high levels of smog, high humidity and dangerously high levels of low-level ozone.

In Windsor-Riverside the weather is warm and the sun is shining, but unfortunately the air stinks, and it's going to get worse. Across the Detroit River there is a dirty, coal-fired power generation plant called Conners Creek. It's been dormant for over 10 years, but now Detroit Edison has decided that because of Michigan residents requiring more power, Conners Creek should be reopened. This is despite the fact that the plant's air pollution control equipment was last upgraded in the 1970s.

I don't need to remind the Minister of the Environment that Windsor's air cannot tolerate any more pollution from the United States. The Ontario Medical Association has identified Windsor's air as the worst in the country. We know it's going to lead to the premature deaths of over 1,800 people in Ontario. The Environmental Commissioner has requested that the Ministry of the Environment take steps to deal with this, but to date nothing has been done.

I know the minister is scheduled to meet with Michigan representatives on July 8, but that's too late. The plant is set to open on July 1. We need a commitment from the Minister of the Environment to prevent this plant from reopening.

ICE CREAM FESTIVAL

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Preparations are well under way for an exciting event to be held soon in my riding. Oxford county has long been known as the Dairy Capital of Canada. In celebration of our progressive dairy industry, we plan to host Canada's first Ice Cream Festival on July 4 and July 5, the weekend following Canada Day.

I believe this is the first ice cream festival that has ever been held in Canada. This unique event is being organized by the Oxford County Tourist Association with the support of the Dairy Farmers of Canada and Ontario and the city of Woodstock.

A Grow Ontario grant from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the participation of eight private sector ice cream manufacturers have also been instrumental in the planning and promotion of the event.

Thousands of Ontarians are expected to visit Southside Park, Museum Square and the theatre in the Market Centre in Woodstock, where events will include free ice cream sampling, ice cream contests and demonstrations. Whether your favourite is an ice cream cone, sundae, float, shake or banana split, Canada's Ice Cream Festival will offer treats for all tastes. Creative ice cream connoisseurs will be able to build their own exotic desserts in the Signature Sundae or the Giant Banana Boat contests.

Visitors to the festival will enjoy a crafters' market, Village Militia Muster, military demonstrations, midway rides, live entertainment and more. Admission is free and the festival will operate during the hours of 11 am to 6 pm.

I would like to extend an invitation to all Ontarians to join me in Woodstock, the Dairy Capital of Canada, on July 4 and 5, for Canada's first Ice Cream Festival.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: At a late hour yesterday evening, the Chair failed to recognize me. Unfortunately, I showed my annoyance and I regret that.

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I thank the chief government whip for that statement. It kind of leads into a statement I was prepared to make today.

I beg the indulgence of the House to address a state of affairs which has become very concerning to all the presiding officers, and in fact to many other members.

There can be no doubt that the fundamental prerequisite for this assembly to function is that all members conduct themselves in a way that demonstrates a basic acceptance of the dignity of this chamber. We all are honoured to have been chosen by our electors to represent them in this, their House. To conduct ourselves, as the public's temporary delegates, in a way that brings disrepute to the proceedings of the assembly is disrespectful to them, and to the traditions of Parliament.

Aside from matters of general order and decorum, perhaps the most important manifestation of this respect is the quality of our response to the Chair. Your Speaker, and any Speaker, chosen by you, is charged with the responsibility of upholding the many noble traditions of our parliamentary democracy. When the Chair is treated with disrespect, then disrespect falls upon each of us, and the rightful expectations of the public can only be undermined. Challenges to the Chair are challenges upon the rules and traditions that we must collectively agree to be governed by.

I can understand - and I can understand - that in some situations emotions may run rather high. Members may be inclined to disagree with rulings, and I accept the fact that they disagree with the rulings, and may do or say things that on second thought may be considered unwise, and I understand that as well. I would think that all honourable members would have an interest in maintaining the respect due to this place and later apologize, as the chief government whip has done today, and I appreciate that.

Members must realize that this state of affairs puts the presiding officers - and I speak, I think, for all presiding officers here - in an untenable position, and makes impossible their duty to enforce the observance of all rules for preserving order in our proceedings.

To paraphrase Erskine May, the Speaker, and in turn the presiding officers, are the representatives of this House itself in its powers, proceedings and dignity.

Such attacks on the Chair as we have seen recently will not in future be tolerated. Members will be called upon in these situations to immediately apologize. Refusal may result in naming.

The responsibility - and I want to be very clear with the members. The responsibility for preserving the dignity and respect of this House deserves to fall upon all of us. I appeal to the House to honour this call to heed and uphold the fine traditions of this place.

1350

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting Canadian Information Processing Society of Ontario.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Pr18, An Act respecting Eastern Pentecostal Bible College.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT (IMPROVED FAMILY COURT), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES (AMÉLIORATION DE LA COUR DE LA FAMILLE)

Mr Harnick moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 48, An Act to Improve Court Services for Families by Facilitating Expansion of the Family Court and to make other amendments to the Courts of Justice Act / Projet de loi 48, Loi visant à améliorer les services fournis aux familles par les tribunaux en facilitant l'expansion de la Cour de la famille et apportant d'autres modifications à la Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires.

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

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): These amendments will confirm the overall authority of the Chief Justice for the Unified Family Court and will fully integrate the Unified Family Court within the General Division to accommodate its future expansion while maintaining its distinct and unique characteristics.

GORDIE KIRWAN EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (EXCEPTIONAL PUPILS), 1998 / LOI GORDIE KIRWAN DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION (ÉLÈVES EN DIFFICULTÉ)

Mr McGuinty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 49, An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to exceptional pupils to allow the Premier to keep his promise to Gordie Kirwan / Projet de loi 49, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne les élèves en difficulté pour permettre au premier ministre de tenir la promesse qu'il a faite à Gordie Kirwan.

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

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Under the Education Act, all students are required to leave the regular school system, regardless of their progress, once they reach the age of 21. The act does not have the flexibility to address the needs of adult special needs students like Gordie Kirwan.

In February 1995, Mike Harris promised Gordie's father, Rob, that if you formed the next government, he would amend the Education Act to remedy this problem. He has not done so. My bill will do so.

HEALTH CARE ACCOUNTABILITY AND PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'OBLIGATION DE RENDRE DES COMPTES À L'ÉGARD DES SOINS DE SANTÉ ET SUR LA DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DES PATIENTS

Mrs Boyd moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 50, An Act to promote patients' rights and to increase accountability in Ontario's health care system / Projet de loi 50, Loi visant à promouvoir les droits des patients et à accroître l'obligation de rendre des comptes dans le système de soins de santé de l'Ontario.

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

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): This bill codifies the rights of residents of Ontario who receive health care services in the form of a Patients' Bill of Rights. The bill provides for the appointment of a health care standards commissioner as an officer of this Legislature who will perform functions such as participating in the setting of health care standards and the development of complaints procedures, monitoring health care standards, and making recommendations to the Minister of Health and to the Legislature.

The bill establishes whistle blowing protection for employees of providers of health care services and the bill requires conspicuous posting of the Patients' Bill of Rights and of the whistle blower protection provisions.

SUNNYBROOK AND WOMEN'S COLLEGE HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE CENTRE APPELÉ SUNNYBROOK AND WOMEN'S COLLEGE HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

Mrs Witmer moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 51, An Act to amalgamate Sunnybrook Hospital and Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital and to transfer all assets and liabilities of Women's College Hospital to the amalgamated hospital / Projet de loi 51, Loi fusionnant les hôpitaux nommés Sunnybrook Hospital et Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital et transférant l'actif et le passif de l'hôpital nommé Women's College Hospital à l'hôpital issu de la fusion.

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

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): This is a bill that will enable the three hospitals to proceed with the directives of the Health Services Restructuring Commission, and it does have the support of all of the three hospitals.

PETERBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT, 1998

Mr Stewart moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr20, An Act representing Peterborough General Hospital.

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

JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT (ONTARIO), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES JEUNES DÉLINQUANTS (ONTARIO)

Mr Jim Brown moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 52, An Act to curtail Repeat Offences by Juvenile Delinquents / Projet de loi 52, Loi visant à inciter les jeunes délinquants à ne pas récidiver.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg leave to inform the House that today the Clerk received the fifth report of the standing committee on government agencies.

Pursuant to standing order 105(g)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by this House.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I am pleased to announce that I have tabled the government's 1998-99 business plans for all the ministries. These documents demonstrate our commitment to open and accountable public service and a businesslike approach to managing public resources.

This is the third year that all ministries have produced business plans. In conjunction with the Ontario budget and the printed estimates, they provide more disclosure than ever before to the Legislature and to the public on how taxpayers' money is being spent.

This year we focused on improving our performance measures to allow the public to see more clearly how we are meeting our objectives. I want to thank my colleagues Bill Grimmett, John Baird, Harry Danford, Dan Newman, Lillian Ross and Bruce Smith, who served on a special review committee of parliamentary assistants, for their hard work in reviewing and refining performance measures for each ministry.

The ministries have included an annual report on significant achievements over the past year and a summary of expenditures. The business plans set ambitious targets for improvements, and we'll be holding the ministries accountable for achieving results.

1400

Priority initiatives for this year are building on the progress that has been made in the areas that mean the most to people: education, health care, social services and personal safety. For example:

The Ministry of Health will begin implementing an eight-year expansion of long-term-care services. It will also continue the expansion of mental health services. These strategic investments will support health care restructuring and ensure Ontarians have access to quality services, when they need them and close to home.

The community policing partnership program in the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services is committed to helping municipalities hire up to 1,000 new front-line officers to enhance public safety in communities.

And we will be continuing to focus on improving the lives of children by bringing together services from several different ministries that support Ontario families.

I want to reaffirm our government's intention to continue to move forward towards achieving all the goals that it promised the people of Ontario three years ago: a strong and prosperous economy, good jobs for Ontario's workers, safe communities, high-quality education for our children, a first-class health care system and an innovative, accountable public service.

We recognize that the dollars we spend belong to taxpayers, and we are accountable for spending this money wisely.

SENIOR ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): It is a great honour to announce today that the province is recognizing the outstanding volunteer efforts of 22 very special Ontario seniors through the presentation of the Ontario Senior Achievement Awards.

Our theme for this, the fourth and final week of Seniors' Month, is volunteerism, and we are celebrating all of the efforts of Ontario's 1.4 million seniors. In fact, 80% of all the volunteer work done in this province is done by our senior citizens.

Today's seniors are showing real leadership in their efforts on behalf of communities all across our province. Throughout their lives, they have displayed that special community spirit that builds and maintains the high quality of life we've come to appreciate in Ontario.

This year's Senior Achievement Awards recipients have seen what needed to be done in their communities. They responded by taking on a number of very special and important volunteer efforts in their senior years. One such recipient this evening founded a library in her community. Several have organized seniors' groups where none previously existed, creating new recreational opportunities and becoming stronger voices for seniors. Others volunteer in schools, lead fund-raising efforts and support multiculturalism in our province.

I'm pleased to announce this year's recipients to the members of the House. They are Helen Bell of Nepean, George Blyth of Colborne, Sam Bowman of Markham, Cheng Wan To of Toronto, Margaret Crawford of St Catharines, Duncan Crone of Barrie, Robert Darragh of Campbellford, Leila Ann Gordon of Kagawong on Manitoulin Island, Eileen Hamilton of Wroxeter, Fred and Nancy Joudrey of Peterborough, J. David Kennedy of Guelph, Laurence King of Eganville, Terry and Betty O'Brien of Eganville, Mary Packard of Haliburton, Lucienne Prévost of Sudbury, Don Slinger of Port Rowan, Frederick Speed of Toronto, Robert Tardif of Windsor, Sivasambo Thiagaraja of Toronto, and Stella Yule of Toronto as well.

The Honourable Hilary Weston, the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, will be joining me in officially recognizing the recipients tonight on the grand staircase of this historic building, commencing at 6 o'clock. All members of the House are invited.

Following our Intergenerational Week, our Caregivers Week and its symposium, and our third week, Safety and Security Week, the ceremony will be a wonderful finale to our Seniors' Month activities. This year's events have been especially exciting as we prepare for 1999, which the United Nations has declared as the International Year of Older Persons.

Across Ontario our seniors are making a real difference in their local communities. I know that all members of this House will join me in offering all seniors in this province our congratulations, and especially those special individuals we are acknowledging this evening for their outstanding contributions to making Ontario one of the greatest places in the world to live, to work and to raise and care for a family.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to request unanimous consent of the entire assembly to allow the Minister of Health an opportunity to tell the House how much these full-page ads in the newspapers cost the taxpayers of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? I heard a no.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I am pleased to comment on the remarks dealing with seniors. I think everybody in this province appreciates the tremendous asset we have in our seniors. It points out that 80% of the volunteer work is now done by seniors. Certainly, I don't think Ontario could function without the resources of our seniors who are doing so much good work in virtually every organization. We salute them and salute the 21 who will be recognized.

When I heard the minister was making an announcement, I thought perhaps he was going to revisit a commitment the government made before the election, and that was that seniors would not be paying user fees on drugs. The document they still keep and talk to me about - I will be visiting some of them this week - said that they would use the fair share health levy to fund it. I am quoting here: "Under this plan there will be no new user fees."

The seniors in my community have not forgotten that pledge. They are now paying a substantial amount in user fees and they will hold Mike Harris accountable for that.

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I am responding to the statement by the Chairman of Management Board with respect to the tabling of the government's business plans for 1998-99.

I have to say it is a plan that is not working for the ordinary taxpayer in Ontario. This is a government that likes to boast that it does more for less, but the taxpayers of Ontario are receiving less service at more cost.

With the gutting of the civil service, within the departments there is less service. We have government by 1-800 number. It is very difficult for any ordinary resident in Ontario to contact - whether it's the Family Responsibility Office, Workers' Compensation Board or what have you.

Even more frightening is the vision that is contained in here with respect to health care. Here we are dealing with a government that is in the process of closing some 36 hospitals in Ontario, despite the Premier's promise not to close any hospitals in Ontario. Here we're dealing with growing waiting lists and less service in our hospitals because this government has forced the layoff of over 10,000 nurses.

Here we're dealing with a government that talks about long-term care, but can't even get its act organized to give money for home care needed in our communities. One quarter of the way through the fiscal year, three months into the fiscal year, CCACs still don't know what they're getting from this government.

Here is a government that promises money for long-term care, yet in Ottawa-Carleton they are going to be providing, over eight years, 1,280 beds. The waiting list today is over 1,400 beds. What's going to happen in eight years' time?

This sad and sorry litany continues within these so-called business plans, where we find tuition being raised in education by over 60% and yet there is no plan here to help the students of ordinary working families, middle-class families, here in Ontario to get the education to help them further their lives and become contributing members of our community.

We also find that in terms of developmental services, services for the developmentally disabled, this government is saying, "Make more with less funds." Yet we have crying needs in the area of the developmentally delayed in terms of dyslexic, in terms of autistic homes, and yet we find this government wanting to close down beds, remove programs, use existing funds to try to meet a need it cannot cope with within existing resources.

This is not a government that's listening. This is a government that likes to spend taxpayers' dollars on promoting its fine achievements, whereas those moneys could be better spent making sure we have adequate health care and adequate services to serve the taxpayers in Ontario.

The list goes on. In here we find the plan for the Attorney General, while at the same time, through the cuts, through municipal downloading, we find there's less money for police services to do their jobs. The list goes on. I can speak in terms of environmental protection, where we've had organization after organization coming up and talking about the decline of ability to protect the very air we breathe, the very water we drink, yet it's not there because this government's plan is to gut environmental protection.

1410

I could go on. The government has been so kind as to give me many more. When we talk about the Ministry of Transportation, anyone seeking to deal with their licence again has to go through the rubric of 1-800 numbers, long distance calls, the inability to get an adequate response from this government that says it's trying to do more with less. It is doing less with less. The taxpayers of Ontario are expecting to find value for their money and they're not getting it here.

SENIOR ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm pleased to have an opportunity to respond to the statement by the minister responsible for seniors. He is certainly right that we all owe a lot to the seniors of this province.

It is quite fitting during Seniors' Month that we recognize their very special abilities, their special contributions to our community. Every one of us here knows of seniors who contribute heavily to their communities today and all of us know that the seniors of today were the taxpayers of yesterday who created the services that this government is tearing apart. While we recognize the efforts and the abilities and the contributions of seniors, we must also recognize that many of them are very disappointed at seeing the work of their lifetime eroded by this government.

I want to say very clearly to the minister responsible for seniors that while we all appreciate the truly volunteer activities that seniors undertake in our communities, there are thousands of unsung heroes out there who are volunteering in a very different sense, looking after their aged partners, their aged relatives, looking after their disabled children with no recognition at all - no recognition in terms of service provision, no recognition in terms of support, no recognition in terms of respite. So while I join the minister absolutely in his celebration of the award winners and their very fine contribution, I want us in this Legislature to clearly recognize the efforts of those unsung heroes who are the providers of long-term care within their homes.

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): The government has indeed presented its business plans for 1998-99. Unfortunately, the business plans that have been presented today bear absolutely no relationship to reality. For example, I turn to the section on children and it says that "the government is very proud of its agenda with respect to children and the implementation of early intervention and prevention initiatives."

Is this the same government that took $37 a month out of the mouths of pregnant mothers and said that it was doing it because it had evidence that pregnant mothers were spending the money on beer? Is this the same government that has cut 22% from social assistance, when we know that over half of the social assistance recipients in this province are children? Is this the same government that through its cuts to education has ensured that boards of education have had to lay off speech therapists, that boards of education have had to lay off many of the other workers who work in the system to ensure that children who had learning disabilities were diagnosed at an early age? My God, a ghostwriter must have written this section on children, because he certainly isn't in touch with what's happening in Ontario today as a result of the cuts of the Harris government.

Then I turn to education. The minister talks about a tremendous year of progress. When you put up the tuition fees for university students by $1,100 a year, I guess Conservatives call that progress. And when you put up tuition fees for college students by $600 a year, I guess Conservatives call that progress. And when students who want to go to university now have to face the prospect of a $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 debt, I guess this government calls that progress. And when boards of education - the Niagara board is looking at having to close 37 schools. I guess this government calls that progress. The Toronto board of education has to lay off 600 teachers and put 8,000 adult learners out in the street. This government calls that progress.

It gets better. The environment: The government talks about building on a better, stronger, clearer environmental agenda. It's very clear. The second report in a week came out saying:

"Environment Report Savages Queen's Park

"A scathing report card on the Ontario government's environmental performance during its third year in office says the province has shown an almost total lack of action on protecting the environment."

I know what this is, this is more taxpayer-paid-for propaganda. It has nothing to do with the reality of what's happening in the province - nothing.

FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE / SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE DAY

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: May we have unanimous consent to mark Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

M. Morin : En ce 24 juin, Fête de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste, Patron des canadiens-français, j'ai le plaisir de transmettre mes voeux, ceux de tous mes collègues siégeant à Queen's Park ainsi que de la population de l'Ontario à tous les Québécois à l'occasion de leur Fête nationale.

Les Canadiens et les Canadiennes d'expression française trouvent en ce jour l'occasion de réaffirmer les liens et les valeurs qui les unissent d'un bout à l'autre du pays. Au fil des ans, la Saint-Jean est devenu la fête de tous les Québécois qui se rassemblent au cours de diverses manifestation visant à célébrer une société qui évolue dans la générosité, l'entraide et le respect de sa diversité.

La Fête de la Saint-Jean trouve son origine dans la coutume fort répandue dans plusieurs pays de célébrer le solstice d'été par des feux de joie. Les premiers feux de la Saint-Jean au Canada datent de 1638. Cette pratique fut amenée sur les rives du Saint-Laurent par les premiers colons venus de France. Ce rituel millénaire a inspiré l'éditeur de journaux Ludger Duvernay qui, le 24 juin 1834, convia un soixantaine de personnes à un banquet champêtre pour discuter de l'avenir du peuple canadien-français. Duvernay voulait unir les Canadiens français dans un même sentiment national. Ainsi naquit la Fête de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste qui prendra au fil des ans de plus en plus d'envergure. Elle est célébrée avec éclat à Montréal et à Québec et on organise des défilés de la Saint-Jean dans certaines localités du Nouveau-Brunswick.

In 1925, the Quebec Legislature declared June 24 an official holiday. It was originally a day for French Canadians to come together and celebrate as one big family, a day to affirm and promote patriotic unity. It is in this spirit that I ask all my compatriots to reflect on the future of our beautiful country, Canada, whose birthday we will celebrate next week. At both the constitutional level and in the area of national unity, Canada still seems to be evolving. In other words, we still have a tremendous amount of work to do. Our ancestors paved the way for us. They managed to overcome the obstacles that confronted them and to keep our country as one.

Like our ancestors, we too have been confronted by forces that have threatened to tear our country apart. It is important to remember that twice Quebeckers rejected separation, twice they chose an undivided Canada. Ontario has always played a key role within Canada and has earned the respect of Quebec. As the country's richest, most populated province, it is Ontario's duty to set an example of true understanding and generosity. In this light, let us go out and show the world that Canada is more than a country; it is a state of mind, one that is open to taking a fresh, new outlook on the present and the future.

1420

Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day is also symbolic of the strength and dynamism of the francophone presence in North America and of the pride Quebeckers so rightly have in their culture and their tradition.

Il m'est agréable d'offrir à tous mes compatriotes canadiens-français, ainsi qu'à tous les Québécois, mes meilleurs souhaits à l'occasion de cette grande fête de la concorde, de l'unité du Canada retrouvée et de la fraternité entre tous les Canadiens. Heureuse Saint-Jean-Baptiste à tous.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Avec fierté aujourd'hui, comme Franco-Ontarien, j'aimerais signaler de la part du NPD ce que c'est d'être Franco-Ontarien ici dans notre belle province et ce que ça veut dire pour moi.

Je veux vous donner un peu mon histoire, parce que je pense que beaucoup de monde, quand on regarde la Saint-Jean-Baptiste, ont l'habitude de le faire un peu à travers les yeux d'autres personnes qui ne vivent pas en Ontario, une vie très différente. On regarde la province de Québec qui, comme on le sait, a une histoire qui est très réelle et très fort envers tout ce qui s'est passé envers la francophonie canadienne. Mais une autre réalité au Canada, c'est celle des Franco-Ontariens. Moi, je me trouve un petit gars du nord de l'Ontario qui a un père qui vient de Ville-Marie au Québec. Lui a décidé - pas lui, il n'avait pas le choix, c'est son père qui l'a emmené. Ils partaient du Québec pour venir en Ontario pour s'établir et commencer un commerce.

Dans le commencement des années 1900, mon grand-père est venu dans le bout de Timmins comme bûcheron, comme «jobber», pour défricher la terre de notre coin de la province, pour être capable de gagner le pain pour sa famille, et avec ça, l'autre bord de la famille, les Leroux qui sont venus une génération avant ça, la troisième génération du côté de mon grand-père Leroux, qui est venue dans le nord de l'Ontario pour travailler dans les mines. C'est comme ça que l'on a vu comment le monde, les Franco-Ontariens, s'est rendu dans notre partie de la province. Ils sont venus pour l'ouvrage, ils sont venus pour être capables de gagner leur pain pour leur famille.

Mais en venant ici, cette génération-là était des francophones qui ne parlaient pas l'anglais au commencement, des francophones qui venaient du Québec, qui avaient une expérience très difficile qui aussi ont élevé leur famille, leurs enfants - mon père, ma mère - dans un environnement qui était francophone à la maison mais anglophone hors de la maison.

Je peux dire avec fierté que, aujourd'hui dans la troisième génération, ma famille, et dans la quatrième génération mes filles, parlent tous le français. C'est le langage de la maison. Mais plus important, c'est devenu le langage de notre rue. Les francophones avant moi ont commencé à réaliser que c'était important que les francophones ne parlaient pas le français seulement à la maison mais que l'on commençait à vivre en français dans notre province, dans la nouvelle province, comme on appelle l'Ontario.

Je ne suis pas Québécois, je suis Ontarien et j'en suis fier. Mais je dis aussi que je suis Franco-Ontarien, quelque chose que certaines personnes ne comprennent pas. Si aujourd'hui je parle encore le français et que mes enfants le parlent et, je l'espère, leurs enfants aussi, c'est parce qu'avant nous il y a eu certains dans notre communauté qui ont oeuvré très fort pour mettre en place les services qui étaient nécessaires pour permettre à la communauté francophone de vivre en français ici en Ontario. On regarde dans nos écoles, on regarde les services qui ont été mis en place, à cette heure avec le Collège Boréal, le Collège des Grands Lacs, la Cité collégiale. On regarde les services en français qui sont disponibles à travers notre gouvernement provincial, à travers le gouvernement fédéral, parce que dans l'évolution des francophones ici on s'est rendu compte, comme communauté, qu'il était important d'avoir ces services qui nous touchaient directement, où que l'on vit, que l'on ait la chance d'être capable de vivre en français dans cette province.

Je regarde aujourd'hui et je peux vous dire que, et je veux donner cette idée au gouvernement sans être trop partisan, comme Franco-Ontarien je commence d'avoir peur. Je regarde le recul qui commence à se voir plus ici en Ontario. Par exemple, demain apparemment on va attendre la possibilité que le gouvernement de M. Harris commence à faire des changement à TFO qui vont affecter notre habilité en tant que francophones de communiquer à travers cette province et d'être capables de nous informer de ce qui se passe en Ontario pour les Franco-Ontariens. On regarde ce qui arrive avec la dévolution des services dans les municipalités et on demande : est-ce que, quand les services seront transférés de la province aux municipalités, le gouvernement de M. Harris va accepter la Loi 17 pour s'assurer que les droits aux services en français seront respectés une fois qu'ils seront transférés ?Je veux finir sur ce point et dire que je suis Franco-Ontarien et je veux avoir l'habilité de ne parler que le français à la maison, mais je veux avoir l'habilité de le vivre dans ma province. Pour ce faire, j'ai besoin d'un gouvernement qui m'appuie et qui s'assure que ces services-là sont en place pas seulement pour moi, mais pour la génération de ma fille et après les autres.

En somme, bâtissons un meilleur Ontario pour tous.

M. Marcel Beaubien (Lambton) : C'est très intéressant d'entendre les commentaires de mon collègue de Cochrane-Sud, parce que vraiment moi aussi je suis venu au monde au Québec et j'ai déménagé en Ontario comme mon confrère.

Aujourd'hui, les Canadiens français à travers le pays célèbrent la Saint-Jean-Baptiste. Plusieurs communautés francophones à travers la province ont organisé des activités pour célébrer le 24 juin. Que l'on soit francophone à Toronto, à Ottawa, à Petrolia, à North Bay ou à Timmins, les gens se réunissent pour fêter en français.

Récemment mon collègue le ministre des Affaires francophones, lors de son allocution au congrès de l'ACFO, a réitéré l'importance des services en français qu'accorde le gouvernement de l'Ontario envers la communauté franco-ontarienne.

Une des plus grandes réussites de ce gouvernement c'est la création des 12 conseils scolaires de langue française à travers la province, la gestion autonome de nos écoles françaises par des Franco-Ontariens. En plus, nous avons accordé un financement juste et équitable afin que tous les élèves de la province aient accès à la même qualité d'enseignement. Que l'enfant demeure à Hearst, à Orléans, à Cornwall ou à Paincourt, le financement sera juste et équitable. Il faut reconnaître que c'est un geste important, un geste qui n'a pas seulement un effet symbolique pour les francophones, mais un geste qui a un impact positif sur toute la communauté ontarienne.

La Loi sur les services en français permet de désigner des agences gouvernementales qui peuvent desservir et garantir des services en français à leur communauté. Maintenant, la communauté francophone peut avoir accès à plus de 184 agences désignées à travers la province, dont 54, soit le tiers, ont été désignées depuis 1995.

Nous établirons des protocoles d'entente avec les municipalités qui accepteront d'offrir des programmes au nom du gouvernement à leur communauté tout en respectant l'obligation de fournir des services en français au même niveau que ceux qui existent présentement.

En plus, ce gouvernement a entrepris plusieurs initiatives depuis 1995 pour stimuler l'économie ontarienne, réduire les impôts afin que toute la population ontarienne, incluant les francophones, puisse en bénéficier.

Voici notre vision de l'avenir pour les francophones de l'Ontario : leur participation pleine et entière à la croissance de notre province. Je souhaite à toute la communauté francophone de l'Ontario une bonne Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

DEFERRED VOTES

ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 36, An Act to amend the Election Act and the Election Finances Act, and to make related amendments to other statutes / Projet de loi 36, Loi modifiant la Loi électorale et la Loi sur le financement des élections et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Call in the members; there will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1429 to 1434.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

Doyle, Ed

Eves, Ernie L.

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Grimmett, Bill

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Pettit, Trevor

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 63; the nays are 36.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): There's the money. Buy me an election.

The Speaker: Order. Members, please take your seats. You're out of order. I'm not going to warn the members. Members for Ottawa West and Hamilton East.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I name the members for Ottawa West and Hamilton East. They're both named. Please, you've been named.

Mr Cullen and Mr Agostino were escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, you know we've spent a lot of time in this House bringing to the attention of yourself and the government the consequences of your cuts to hospitals, and we have focused largely on the human cost. We've talked about patients being stacked up in hospital corridors, we've talked about patients being turned away from emergency wards and we've talked about what happens when there aren't enough nurses to provide basic nursing care inside our hospitals.

Today I want to talk about something else. I want to talk about the financial cost, and in particular I want to talk about the Mike Harris hospital-closing tax. We have learned that communities in this province are about to pay for the privilege of having you close their hospitals against their wishes. They are about to pay, for part of your restructuring plans, $400 million. My question to you is quite simple: How does it feel to be the first Premier in Ontario who is charging communities $400 million to close their hospitals against their will?

1440

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Like most of the questions concerning health care, the preamble and the allegations are simply not true and have about as much veracity as your critic for the Ministry of Health, who has been discredited now all across the province by virtually every case he's raised dealing with hospitals.

If you are referring to the fact that we have for the first time in the history of this province increased the capital funding for new facilities so that the local share is only $400 million instead of $500 million, $600 million or $700 million, as it would have been under your government or the previous administration, for new facilities, for new capital, for new equipment, if you're referring to the fact that we increased the provincial share to record high levels, why don't you tell the public that?

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you specifically said during the course of the campaign that you were not going to close any hospitals. You now have plans to close 35 and, to make matters worse, to make it obscene, you're charging communities to close their hospitals. And we're not talking pennies here.

In Kingston, where you're closing the Hotel Dieu Hospital, you're leaving the community with a $33-million bill. In Hamilton, you're shutting down three hospitals against the wishes of the community. Your hospital-closing tax is going to cost people there $23 million. In my home town, Ottawa, your hospital-closing tax amounts to $38 million. It's bad enough that you broke your promise, but now you're going to charge people for the privilege of closing their hospitals against their will.

I want a straight answer from you: What do you tell the people out there? What do you tell them after you promised not to close hospitals but now you're going to charge them for the privilege of closing their hospitals against their will?

Hon Mr Harris: I tell them that when I was in Thunder Bay, they all came to me and said: "Thank you, Premier. Thank you for giving us the new dollars for a brand-new hospital. Thank you for 70% dollars. Thank you for allowing us to restructure. Thank you for new wings" -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order, order. Final supplementary. I'm sorry. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: The member specifically mentioned Kingston. Here's what Kingston said - nothing about closing: "We're moving 10 blocks to the west and expanding, and it's even better than we thought because the commission listened to our concerns." Major General Frank Norman, chairman of the board of directors of Kingston General Hospital, said, "They've given us an opportunity to take a vision which we had in Kingston 30 years ago." Finally after 30 years some government had the courage to let them move and expand and grow.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Perhaps the Premier should pay a visit to Kingston. Seventy thousand people signed a petition in Kingston against the closure of the Hotel Dieu Hospital. Seventy thousand people asked you to keep your promise, Premier, when you said you wouldn't close hospitals in the province of Ontario. Seventy thousand people are now asking why it is that they're going to be saddled with a $33-million bill for the privilege of complying with your demand that the Hotel Dieu Hospital be closed.

You tell me: Where do you get off on this stuff? You make a promise not to close hospitals and you then close 35, and then you charge Ontarians $400 million for the privilege of closing their hospitals against their will. How do you do that?

Hon Mr Harris: Seventy thousand people were opposed to your plans or your plan. But Kingston and Kingston hospital said, "We're in favour of the relocation, we're in favour of the new expansion, we're in favour of the new facilities," and they're saying that all across this province. I'll tell you something else they're saying: "Thank goodness somebody, some leader, some minister, some party, some caucus, after 30 years had the courage to stand up and do what's right so we can have massive expansion and massive new investment into health care."

1450

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): This question is for the Premier. On May 7 you attended a fund-raiser attended by 700 people in St Catharines. At that time there was a specific reference contained within your speech to Ian Strathern and his parents. Ian Strathern is 22 years of age. He broke his neck as a result of a hockey injury in 1995 that has left him quadriplegic. You were very sympathetic to him in the course of your speech. You said you would not rest until you got him all the help he needed.

His parents are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. They're paying $1,500 a week, $6,000 a month; they've invested $100,000 in renovations in their home and they have purchased a new van. You said you would not rest until you helped Ian and his parents. That was nearly eight weeks ago. He has applied for special funding. He has been turned down. You said you would not rest until you helped Ian. What are you going to do about it?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): You're right. I will not rest until we have resolved concerns. Due to the privacy act, I can't deal with specific actions or specific files. But I was in St Catharines. There was a record turnout of enthusiastic supporters donating to our party and our cause and wanted to see that extended, including a gentleman whom I don't want to name; you have. Certainly he was enthusiastically there, supportive of our agenda as well. I can assure you of this.

The local member has had a number of meetings. I know the Ministry of Health has as well. I'm satisfied that at the end of the day, while I can't get into specifics, his concerns will be able to be addressed, with insurance, with the community and through programs and assistance from our government.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, clearly you don't understand what you did that night. You took advantage of a political opportunity to score some cheap political points to create the impression that you had a genuine interest in this man and that you could do something for him.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister, you must withdraw that comment. That's out of order.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I withdraw "sleazy."

The Speaker: Minister, you know what? That's not the way it's done, and that isn't parliamentary either.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It's a hot day today, I understand that and I understand that it's going to be a rather difficult question period. But please, I caution the members. We know the parliamentary language that's acceptable and what isn't. Please refrain from using it, because it's only going to raise the temperature of this debate.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): What about the air-conditioning?

The Speaker: There isn't any air-conditioning; it's broken. I'm doing my best, member for St Catharines-Brock. If you want to jump in if you've got your Phillips handy, we'll take advantage of that as well.

Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: The article that appeared the following day in the St Catharines Standard was entitled, "Family Finds Hope."

"`We're still reeling from the good news,' Dave Strathern, Ian's father, said Friday. `It was a shock and a major breakthrough, as far as I'm concerned.'"

Wallace Pidgeon, deputy press secretary to the Premier, said: "The Premier wanted to assure the Stratherns and Ian that he was in their corner. We're going to do what we can to ensure that Ian can get the best services possible."

That was eight weeks ago. This family is about to go bankrupt. They've got a son who's on a ventilator. He requires round-the-clock care. You stood up in a public forum and you said, "This man is my genuine concern and I'm going to do something about it." That was eight weeks ago. You took advantage of a situation. Stand up now and tell us that you're going to fix this today.

Hon Mr Harris: The allegations are about the most silly I've ever heard in 17 years of politics.

Without naming names, there was an individual who was a supporter who came to the fund-raising dinner in support of the Premier of the province of Ontario. I agreed to meet with him. I met with an individual there that evening. I acknowledged that for 100-odd years of Ontario government, under Conservative and Liberal and NDP governments, there was not a program available that would meet all the needs of that individual's son.

I said at that time and I repeat today: "I am on your side. The Liberals may not have found one in five years, the NDP may not have found one in five years, but we will make sure that we do everything we can. You have the Premier of the province of Ontario in your corner." And I can assure you they still do.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, it seems to me if you want to close hospitals, you can close them like that. If you want to deal with striking school teachers, you can deal with them instantly. If you want to shut down schools, you can do it just like that. This is one young man, 22 years of age, hooked up to a ventilator for life. You took advantage of a situation. This was a public forum. You stood up and said: "I can care for this young man. I'm going to help him. I'm going to fix it." It has been eight weeks. You have let the family down. You haven't spoken with them recently. They will tell you that you have let him down. They are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. They asked for your help and you said you were going to give it. Obviously you had no intention whatsoever to do that.

How can you claim to be compassionate? How can you claim to be listening? How can you claim to have the interests of Ian at heart if eight weeks have gone by? He's been shut down. He's been told he has no right of appeal for funding, he's been told that's the end of the story, he's been told they're on their own. How can you let that happen?

Hon Mr Harris: If there was one shred of truth in the allegations, I would agree with the member, but there is not.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. It concerns another round of your government's advertising, this time full-page advertising paid for by taxpayers, in the Toronto Star, the Toronto Globe and Mail and the Toronto Sun. I suppose if we wait out the rest of the week, we'll find it in other places.

You're trying to tell people that the health care system is wonderful, that it's going to be a great thing, but just in the Toronto area we know you're closing, literally, over 10 hospitals. We know the budget cuts to hospitals just in the city of Toronto come to at least $300 million since you've become the government. The layoff of nurses is such that surgery is being delayed, treatment cannot be gained, emergency rooms can't be staffed and patients are being turned away.

How can your government justify spending the tens upon tens of thousands of dollars for this kind of nonsensical advertising when people out there know that the opposite is true, that more and more people are being turned away, that more and more people can't get the treatment they deserve? How can you justify this kind of stuff when your government is in fact doing the opposite?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the ad the member is referring to is one by the Health Services Restructuring Commission. As everyone knows, it's an arm's-length agency from the ministry and they decide their own priorities.

As you know, hospital restructuring is all about building, expanding and improving services for patients and, if there are any savings, reinvesting those dollars, and more that were wasted, in the system that you presided over.

The HSRC, if that's the ad you're referring to, obviously felt it was important to inform people about what their goals and objectives were and make sure people knew how to contact them for further information.

Mr Hampton: It's a very good script you're reading from, Premier, but you should ask someone to rewrite it.

We checked the language, the choice of words in these ads, with the propaganda that you've been turning out, your very partisan propaganda. Whoever is writing this is also writing your partisan propaganda. In fact, there is a 1-800 number they ask you to call, and when you call the number what you get is your Ministry of Health, Premier. As far as your arm's length, that is nonsense.

The point is this: You make a lot of boasts in these ads. My colleague the member for London Centre put forward a private member's bill today which will bring some accountability to the system, which will hold you accountable for the kinds of statements you are making in these ads.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Hampton: I want to ask you, Premier, are you prepared to support that kind of patients' rights accountability bill to ensure that they -

The Speaker: Thank you. Premier?

1500

Hon Mr Harris: Let me deal specifically with the allegations of advertising because, as you know, we've cut the advertising budgets from when you were in office. I think all political parties and all governments have felt it important that the public know what's going on. I know you criticized us that we weren't communicating enough, we weren't consulting enough. One headline said, "Hey, Mikey, Talk To Us." They wanted to know more about what was going on.

We have done some advertising directly. If the language is the same as the Health Services Restructuring Commission, it's because we've taken our cue from them and we are supportive of the efforts that they are doing. But I would certainly ask you to contrast that with what the Toronto Star said about your $6.6-million advertising. I think they called it "Smile Ontario." This was, as I understand it, a 34-page glossy brochure -

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: It's obvious that the Premier has given up on the arm's-length argument. He now acknowledges that this is just as partisan a political advertising as the nonsense you're churning out of your offices. It's exactly the same thing. In fact, the 1-800 number is a Ministry of Health number.

My question to the Premier was this: We introduced a private member's bill today, a patients' rights bill, a health care accountability bill, which would ensure that there is a commissioner created to oversee the health care system and to report on the health care system and to hold you accountable for cuts to hospitals, cuts to home care and cuts across the health care budget.

I want to know, Premier, if you're interested in ensuring that people receive the health care that they're due, will you support that patients' rights bill? Will you support that health care accountability bill to hold you accountable for the kinds of statements that you make in these ads?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Look, we need some order here, minister and members from the opposition. We need some order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Ottawa Centre, come to order. Thank you.

Hon Mr Harris: With reference to the ads placed by the Health Services Restructuring Commission, of course they're arm's-length and non-partisan. If our ads look like theirs, it just confirms ours are non-partisan as well, which of course is what government advertising should be. It's for sharing information, it's for getting input, it's consulting and informing.

With regard to a specific bill, which I understand has been introduced today, we would be happy, when we get a chance, to review it and take a look at it, even though, if you were serious, you wouldn't have waited until the second-last day of the House to introduce it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, come to order, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, I'm warning you to come order. Beaches-Woodbine, Sudbury East, Sudbury and St Catharines, I'm not going to warn you again. You're out of order. If I have to warn you again, I'll have to name you. There needs to be some decorum in these proceedings.

New question, leader of the third party.

POVERTY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Also a question to the Premier: You might want to know that when nurses and other health care advocates have raised the kinds of questions we raise in this bill with your minister and with your bureaucrats, they say they've just begun to think about them. You might take a lesson from some of the work we've done, and you might want to read it very carefully if you really are interested in health care accountability.

My second question is about people who are homeless. The city of Toronto homelessness task force is about ready to report, but they've already raised a very serious issue. It's about the increasing number of single mothers who are living with their children in poverty. More and more of these mothers and their children are in fact forced to use shelters for the homeless as a place to live. Food banks tell us that 70% of these women go hungry more than one day a month and their children also go hungry.

Premier, you are broadcasting and boasting about your $5.5-billion tax scheme, saying how good it is. How come you can't afford a little money to help these people who are being forced into poverty?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me first of all refer to the preamble. You've talked about a bill introduced. I said I'd look at it. I haven't seen it yet. It's just been introduced today.

You made allegations that too bad the minister wasn't in the House. She made an announcement in April responding to the nurses' concerns, very positively received, I might add, by the RNAO, which was quite supportive. That was following a meeting that both the minister and I had with the nurses' association. They've been very complimentary of the immediate action. In April, the minister responded.

If your bill picks up some of those areas - I've heard from media reports there was no accountability or funding or the rest of it, and I think they were quite critical, none the less we'll still be happy to take a look at it. I may have more time in supplementaries to respond to the other question and anything else you raise.

Mr Hampton: It appears the Premier didn't want to answer the first question and now he doesn't want to answer the second question either.

Here's the problem: Under your government, while you brag about giving the wealthiest people in this province a $5.5-billion tax gift, while day after day you put out this kind of scandalous advertising, paid for at taxpayers' expense, the people who are out there looking at the homeless and poverty issues tell us your government is forcing more and more children to live in poverty, forcing more and more families to live in poverty.

I want to give you an example. This comes as a result of some of your rules. A young woman named Debbie Wasylenki - she happens to live in my riding - went out and tried to start up her own health food store to escape the impoverished situation she was living in. Your rules about workfare closed her down. Your rules about workfare shut down her operation and forced her back on to social assistance.

I want to ask you again: You can afford a $5.5-billion tax scheme that will benefit the wealthiest people in the province; why are you forcing people like Debbie Wasylenki into poverty?

Hon Mr Harris: Before I get into a litany of about 40 things we've done for children and for those on low incomes, which was one part of your question, I have to correct the record on the tax cut, which has been so successful in creating jobs and taking 270,000 people right off the welfare rolls.

First of all, let's get the facts straight. When the tax cut is fully implemented, the top 10% of taxpayers, that's the wealthy ones, will pay more than when we took office, than under the NDP. They'll pay 45% of their revenues instead of 42%. The top 1% will pay even more. The tax cut actually benefits the low-income earners and the working class and the middle class of this province. Those are the facts.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

1510

Mr Hampton: Premier, you left out something from that equation: The modest- and middle-income families you say are going to get more are paying $1,100 a year more now for their children's tuition fees or $700 a year more if they go to college, or they're paying prescription medicine co-payment fees, or they're paying a student activity fee at a high school, or they're paying higher property taxes. The question is about all of those children and the number of single mothers whom your government has no time for.

I want to ask you about Julianne Robar. Thanks to your workfare program, you took away from her $500 a month. She and her two children, as a result of your government, are now trying to survive on $210 a month. It works out to about $2.33 a day for her for food and $2.33 a day for each of her children for food. Premier, it's a $5.5-billion tax scheme to benefit your wealthy friends, but Julianne and her children are supposed to get by on $2.33 a day. How do you do that?

Hon Mr Harris: Contrary to the allegations that are made by the member, Ontario's welfare rates are, for children, among the highest in the country, about 16% higher than the average of the other nine provinces. Low-income earners, under one of the most generous, in fact I'm sure the most generous, student assistance program pay no tuition, nothing for books, no cost at all for their children's education. That is funded by the taxpayers. Then, if upon graduation they have difficulty repaying it, it will be covered under the Liberal millennium scholarship fund and other areas. So they pay none of that.

Of course, what is most significant gets to what you're talking about: the massive tax cuts at the low-income level, the 40% of low-income earners - 64% of all the real dollars go to those earning $25,000 to $75,000 a year, and the biggest cut is at the low end. What that means is, not only are our welfare programs more generous than in any other province, but the incentive to get out and work and keep money has led to 270,000 fewer people dependent upon welfare.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is also to the Premier and it concerns the recent appointment of your good friend William Farlinger to the board of Newcourt Credit Group.

Bill Farlinger, your friend and appointee to the chairmanship of Ontario Hydro, where he's paid, according to the most recent government of Ontario documentation, $350,000 to provide leadership to the board of that multibillion-dollar corporation, has this week apparently accepted an appointment to the board of Newcourt Credit Group, which is a large investment banking company with growing interests in the electricity and power business.

My question is simply this: How is it that Mr Farlinger on the one hand can serve the interests of a very large utility like Ontario Hydro as it prepares for the competitive marketplace, and serve on the board of directors of an investment banking house which, according to its own literature, has an increasing interest in the power business?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): When I think of the opposition launching a personal attack on a man of rare integrity, it really saddens me. Mr Farlinger is on a number of boards. Mr Farlinger in fact resigned from the Hongkong Bank of Canada to take this particular board position. He's on a number of other boards. That has been fully disclosed. Of course, this is nothing new, because you want the very best and brightest in business people.

For example, the NDP appointed Donald Fullerton, former chair and CEO of the CIBC, to be on the board, also on the board of Amoco Canada Petroleum; David Kerr, Brascan, Carena Developments; Arthur Sawchuk, Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, Avenor Inc and Manufacturers Life. So that's normal practice. We want people who are active, who are out there in the community. We make sure, and Mr Farlinger, a man of integrity makes sure -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr Conway: Premier, this is all about conflict of interest and public morality. What we have here is the chairman of a major power utility that is about to be broken up. We have Mr Farlinger, on the one hand, being paid $350,000 to head Ontario Hydro at the very time it is about to be broken up in preparation for the competitive marketplace, and at the very time that he's heading Ontario Hydro with that prospect, he joins the board of an investment banking house that according to its own literature this past month is increasingly interested in getting into the electricity and power business.

How is that not a flaming conflict of interest? Do you not think so, and will you, if for no other reason than the protection of Ontarians' shareholder value in the multibillion-dollar corporation that is Ontario Hydro, direct Mr Farlinger not to accept that specific appointment to the board of that investment banking house?

Hon Mr Harris: Under your rules nobody would be eligible - if I look over the board of directors under the Liberals or the NDP - to serve on the board of Ontario Hydro. Clearly you want people who understand business and who are active and current. What is significant, though, is that we have asked Mr Farlinger, unlike when the Liberals were in office, to comply with all conflict rules. You guys didn't do that. We have done that. Mr Farlinger has done that. He will also have to comply with any potential conflicts, as will all the other members who are on the board. Too bad you didn't have those rules when you were in office.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also for the Premier. The Premier tried very hard to miss the point, so I'll restate it for him. Premier, it's Mr Farlinger who as chair of Ontario Hydro has said that the people who buy power from Hydro may be stuck with stranded debt as high as $30 billion as a result of your government's changes. If we proceed down this direction you're going in, if we have this competitive market, the ratepayers will have to pick that up.

We understand that part of Mr Farlinger's job is to look after Ontario Hydro for the people of Ontario and ensure the lowest cost. If Mr Farlinger is also working at Newcourt, which is financing new private competitors who will want to get as much of the market as possible but not have to take on any of the stranded debt, I want to know, who is Mr Farlinger working for, the private interests that don't want to handle any of that stranded debt or the ratepayers of Ontario who are going to get stuck with that debt?

Hon Mr Harris: It's very clear under the conflict-of-interest rules and under the guidelines, and much clearer now that we've come into office and clarified them, that Mr Farlinger's first priority will be to Ontario Hydro, to hydro consumers and to the taxpayers of the province of Ontario. Any conflict between that and any of the boards that he serves on - I might add it's the same for all the directors, a number who are still there that you appointed who also have potential conflicts. That's why we have conflict legislation. That's why we have the rules. That's why they have to be declared. I can tell you I think all members of the Hydro board, including the ones you appointed who are in those potential conflict situations, are honourable people and no one in the province is more honourable than Bill Farlinger.

Mr Hampton: Again the Premier tries to confuse the issue. I'm not concerned about whether Mr Farlinger is honourable or not. I'm concerned about who here is protecting the public interest, who has their eye on the public interest.

We've already seen with your casino fiascos that the very people who advised you on setting up casinos then went over and worked for the other side, worked for the people who were going to benefit from those casinos. I don't see where the public interest has been protected there at all. I see a bunch of your friends getting rich as the result of a policy decision by your government.

I'm very worried here that the very person who is supposed to be protecting the public interest at Ontario Hydro is now over as one of the operating minds of private sector companies that want to get into competition and want to stick Ontario Hydro and the ratepayers of Ontario Hydro with $30 billion of stranded debt. The question is this: Who is looking after the public interest here? Mr Farlinger can't work both sides of the fence at the same time and your government can't either.

Hon Mr Harris: Here is a member of a government and a cabinet that took this province to the brink of bankruptcy. Who was looking after the interests of the taxpayers of the province? Who took tax rates so high that investment and jobs fled the province? Who has a five-year record of minus 10,000 jobs total in the province of Ontario? Who has the record of protecting the taxpayers' money with an $11.2-billion annual deficit? Who has the record of taking that total debt from $40 billion to about $95 billion in a record four-and-a-half-year period?

1520

I'll tell you who's protecting the taxpayers. This new government, this new caucus, this cabinet, this Premier and this administration are fighting for and protecting the taxpayers of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: A point of order?

Hon Mr Harris: I think it's important. There was a phone number, I think, that was read out into the record and it was alleged that you could get the Ministry of Health at that number. You can't. That phone number answers -

The Speaker: Premier, come to order, please. You can't correct someone else's record.

VOLUNTEER CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for children. Recently you visited my riding of Oshawa and met with a large number of local organizations such as the Eastview Boys' and Girls' Club, the YWCA, the Rose of Durham, Kids on the Block, Boy Scouts and Girl Guides, just to name a few. I might add that I'm very thankful we have representatives who are so knowledgeable on the issues of children and how they affect our communities.

Minister, can you tell me how this meeting helped you in your role as minister responsible for children?

Interjections.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): I would hope the members of the opposition would appreciate the work that is done by volunteer organizations throughout this province.

During my meeting in Oshawa, which incidentally was one of over 90 groups that I met with in that four-month period, we did meet with the traditional organizations like the YWCA, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides and the Eastview Boys' and Girls' Club, but we also had the opportunity of hearing from representatives of newer organizations like the Rose of Durham, Kids on the Block and Simcoe Hall.

This was a very valuable opportunity to find out first hand from these front-line volunteers what policies and perspectives they have in terms of relating with children. This actually helped me in the responsibility that I have to advocate on behalf of children and be their voice at the cabinet table.

Mr Ouellette: I agree, Minister, that there are a great many volunteers who make up these organizations. I know very well that they appreciated the opportunity to meet with you.

One of the groups you met with was Kids on the Block. This group sends volunteers from the program to local schools with life-sized puppets -

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Like the Tory caucus.

Mr Ouellette: - designed to assist children to become aware of, understand, respect and cope with differences in each other. The puppets tackle subjects such as racism, cultural differences, physical and sexual abuse, diabetes, leukaemia, fire safety, divorce and street-proofing, and help the children to understand difficult situations should they arise for them. I think one of the outstanding aspects of this program was that organizations such as Kids on the Block are self-sufficient and not dependent on government funding.

Can you tell me if you've seen other, similar programs throughout Ontario, Minister?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister?

Hon Mrs Marland: I'm sure the member for Hamilton Centre doesn't intend to put down a group like Kids on the Block. This is an excellent program that is running in this province totally without a single dollar of government money. They are helping children in the schools understand problems that children in those schools are facing on a daily basis.

Mr Christopherson: Queen Margaret: All rise.

Hon Mrs Marland: If the opposition don't understand what problems those children do face in school today in terms of the subject areas that the Kids on the Block address, then I feel sorry for them. I congratulate organizations like -

Mr Christopherson: You haven't done anything -

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, I'm not warning you again. Come to order or I'm going to name you.

Hon Mrs Marland: I congratulate organizations like Kids on the Block, because they are rendering a very important service to children in our schools today who face tremendous difficulties in terms of understanding those subject areas that have just been referred to. I encourage more communities to pull together to support their children in these excellent programs that are generated -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question, leader of the official opposition.

ICE STORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. I was led to understand that he would be here throughout the day, the only day of the week that he would be available for question period.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I would request that you just stand the question down. The Premier had to step out for one minute.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Stand it down?

Third party, member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the minister -

Interjection.

The Speaker: He's not going to stand it down. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: The ice storm that hit eastern Ontario this past winter was the worst natural disaster in the history of this country. The Premier made a great show, did all the photo ops, did everything that was necessary to make himself physically present at the time, but he assured the people of eastern Ontario that he would be there when the time came to deliver a cheque.

There are now over 22,000 claims for compensation. It's 30 degrees outside; the ice is long gone. Farms have experienced severe losses; businesses have experienced losses; homeowners have suffered property damage. What they're looking for is money. Why is it that when this damage was sustained in January, we find ourselves nearly in the month of July and no money is flowing?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I personally, in the days after the ice storm, delivered cheques to the municipalities so they could provide assistance to the individuals who needed it. Any individual who needed assistance during that ice storm received the funding they needed. Any emergency funding that was required was paid. Every municipality that was affected by the ice storm received funding.

The member is right: At the present time there are 22,000 applications for assistance to fix damage that requires long-term repair. That's tree planting - that's pretty tough to do in March; it can be done in July - and many things that require repairs where we were after the individuals involved to get their claims in as quickly as possible. We had a deadline of June 15. Thousands of those applications came in at the last minute and are being dealt with now as quickly as they possibly can.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): On January 21, at a meeting in Smiths Falls attended by media and municipal reps, you made a statement that your government would not wait two or three months for compensation to the ice storm victims like the Manitoba government did during the last rain storm.

Five months later, nobody has received any compensation yet. The Cayer family of St-Albert, over $80,000 loss; the Kaisan family, over $75,000; the St François Senior Citizens' Home in Casselman, over $72,000; the Villa St Luc in Curran, over $12,000. Mrs Bernadette Larivé of Limoges, whose eight-year-old son is on a special diet, has lost everything that she had in supplies. Mrs Campbell in Lefaivre had to sell her home because she could not afford to fix her home.

Minister, will we have -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I must say that I am extremely disappointed in that member who asked the question because he was there, he was present when we went down to eastern Ontario to help the people who were affected by that ice storm. He personally came while we delivered cheques to his community, and he has the audacity to stand up there and say we haven't compensated anybody. You should be ashamed of yourself.

We reacted faster than any government in history in getting assistance to people who needed assistance during that ice storm. Thousands, tens of thousands of people were provided with emergency assistance when they needed it. Certainly there are claims that are yet to be settled on severe damage that is yet to be repaired, but any individual who needed help during that ice storm received that help from this government, and that particular member knows it.

1530

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training. Could the minister explain why he continues to blame the school boards across the province for the cuts to programs for students, for layoffs, and for the labour unrest facing the public education system as, under Bill 160, all collective agreements come due at the beginning of the fall term, when in fact it's the minister with his cutting formula, or so-called funding formula, which has forced the school boards into a position where they are unable to meet the needs of students in the province or their commitments to teachers and support staff?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I am happy to rise and assure the member opposite, the critic for the NDP, that this government has introduced a funding formula, which will be implemented this fall, that will ensure more money goes into the classroom, more money goes towards programs, more money goes towards teachers, more money goes towards textbooks and computers for our kids, more money goes to all the programs within the classroom. The government has introduced that formula, which will be in effect. It's up to school boards to take those moneys and put them to the most appropriate use within their classrooms in their schools.

I might also say that the school boards, of course, have the responsibility as well to negotiate with the teachers' unions and they're in the process of doing that.

Mr Wildman: How can the minister continue to state that there is more money under the funding formula going into the classroom when thousands of teachers, special education assistants, custodians, clerical staff and support workers are being laid off, despite the fact that they provide essential services to students? What's he going to do to resolve the labour relations crisis that is afflicting our public education system now because of the inadequacy of the funding formula and the fact that the boards have absolutely no flexibility under Bill 160 in order to collectively bargain with their staff? What is the minister going to do to resolve the impending labour crisis we face in September?

Hon David Johnson: Number one, not contribute to the hysteria that may come from the third party.

We need to allow the school boards the opportunity to negotiate with the teachers' unions. This government has provided more money in the classroom, more money for teachers. Each and every school board across Ontario will have more classroom money, and within the classroom money, they have flexibility in terms of how they divvy up that money according to teachers or books or computers or that sort of thing.

I think we need to allow the school boards to go through this process, to go through the negotiating process, and have the confidence that with more money invested in our classrooms, if boards are able to sit down and put the students first, we will have a better quality of education. There is no reason on earth why school boards can't come to a suitable contract with the teachers and have the teachers in the classroom this fall.

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. I wonder if you could provide the House with a summary of the forest fire situation in northern Ontario. As you know, in my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay there's a lot of valuable forest land, and on behalf of my constituents I'd like to know what the forest fire situation is throughout the province and particularly in northern Ontario.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to thank the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay for the question today. As I've previously reported to this House, obviously the weather conditions this year - the early spring, the dry conditions in much of the forests in Ontario - have caused us to have an extremely early deployment of the people and the resources that are dedicated to protecting Ontario's natural resources.

At this date there are 41 active fires burning in the province, and I'm happy to report that good suppression progress has been made on the project fires that concern us so much. We are expecting a little more rain and some thunderstorm activity in those areas of the province over the next 48 hours, and hopefully this will diminish the concern we might have about those 41 active fires.

So far this season there have been 853 fires in the province, virtually all of which were acted on in some way by the ministry, including using the new 415 water bombers that we purchased this year to help us protect those very valuable assets and also human life, particularly in the north.

Mr Grimmett: You mentioned the new water bombers, Minister. I wonder if you could provide us with a report on how the ministry has raised its ability to fight these fires, particularly in the area of manpower, and also in regard to the new water bombers.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I know the water bombers have received a lot of attention, particularly in northern Ontario. We have spent about $200 million to acquire the most modern equipment available, new CL-415 water bombers, to help us suppress fires in the province, but I'm sure the member would agree with me that the most important asset in responding to fires is the courageous and dedicated people who put those fires out on the ground: our firefighters, our fire rangers in Ontario.

This year we have 676 fire rangers, some of the most trained people in the world, to respond to those fire situations, an increase of 100 people over previous years - more than we had in 1993, more than we had in 1994 and more than we had in 1995. We have the best firefighters and more of them, and I know, like others in this chamber, I'm very proud of what they do.

This has been noted, I think, in the press, particularly in northern Ontario. I'd like to inform the member of a quote from the Northern Daily News, an editorial this year, that said, "With 100 firefighters added to the normal complement and extra air transport available to move personnel and equipment, the MNR is doing everything possible to be ready." I agree with that.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. On January 19 you announced an overhaul of our apprenticeship system. It's now six months later and we have no new legislation; we have no announcement on tuition policy; we have no announcement on student assistance. That's not a surprise to the hundreds of thousands of college and university students who are waiting for this government to fulfil its promises on tuition and student assistance.

Minister, you will know that Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus extensively consulted with young people across this province. They told us that they want access and opportunities in the trades. Your own consultation survey shows that fewer people will go into the apprenticeships if tuitions are charged. Will you commit today to this House that at a minimum you will reverse your position and commit that you will not be charging apprentices tuition fees?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm not charging any tuition fees. I hope that by this time the member opposite knows that the Minister of Education and the Ministry of Education do not charge tuition fees. It's up to the colleges and universities what tuition fees they charge within a structure.

This whole area has been made more difficult by the reductions in support from the federal government - I think it is some $2.7 billion now - over a period of time. This is a general reduction in terms of support for education and health. Even in that light, this government has instituted the opportunity trust fund, over $600 million now, to help our post-secondary students. We have required that if any post-secondary institution does put up its tuitions, it must set aside 30% of that to assist the students who are in need.

We have announced the Canada-Ontario millennium fund, some $9 billion to assist our post-secondary institutions. Never has any government come forward with the kind of support that we have for our post-secondary students.

1540

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could I ask for unanimous consent to revert to motions?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is there unanimous consent to revert to motions? Agreed.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that the standing committee on regulations and private bills be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 25, 1998, from 10 am to 12 pm for the purpose of considering Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the Municipality of Chatham-Kent.

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

PETITIONS

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the residents of Gloucester and the surrounding area, wish to express our firm opposition to the establishment of a gambling casino in this residential community, in close proximity to two local high schools. We wish to communicate to the Legislature the widespread opposition which this has generated in the community.

"We also wish to communicate our disappointment in the total lack of democratic consultation on the part of our local city council. Decisions were made and voted on prior to any meaningful public input. We are also hereby expressing our concern for those families who will be hurt through gambling addiction, with the resulting problems of suicide, divorce, family violence and impoverishment.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose the establishment of a charity casino in Gloucester, Ontario."

There are hundreds of names on this petition. I affix my name as I'm in agreement with its contents.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition signed by about 1,200 people from the London area. It reads as follows:

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Honourable Janet Ecker, has announced that she will sell the services and programs at Ontario's secure custody facilities for high-risk young offenders to the private sector; and

"Whereas this decision will move these important services away from the government's responsibility to ensure the safety and security of the public, the young people in their charge and the workers who supervise and provide treatment to young offenders; and

"Whereas we believe strongly that elected officials should be directly accountable and responsible for all children and adults who are in custody as ordered by the courts of Ontario and that no private company should profit from crime;

"We urge the minister to keep our secure and treatment facilities for young offenders professional and public."

I agree with this and am proud to sign this petition.

ABORTION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition from the Hanover Knights of Columbus and Harriet McCracken from the CWL. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury, or illness, and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): People in northwestern Ontario - Thunder Bay - are very concerned about the mental health care crisis in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario. I have a petition that continues to come in; hundreds of names are coming in.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proper mental health care is essential to all Ontarians; and

"Whereas mental health care is severely underfunded in northwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has called for the closure of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital with no replacement services in its place; and

"Whereas appropriate community mental health treatment is so lacking in northwestern Ontario that those who need treatment, support and rehabilitation are incarcerated in district jails; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has not delivered on its commitment to set up the Northwestern Ontario Mental Health Agency over one year after it promised to do so; and

"Whereas there is a dramatic shortage of psychiatrists in northwestern Ontario, to the point where the doctors are severely overworked; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health promised a 12-bed adolescent treatment centre and has failed to deliver on that promise;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to commit those funds necessary to provide full and proper mental health care to those in need in northwestern Ontario and call on the Minister of Health to cancel the closure of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital."

It's signed by hundreds of constituents who are very concerned. I'm happy to sign it.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): "Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral; and

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

NURSES' BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas nursing is key to quality health care; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to provide high-quality care; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to be heard and consulted on health care issues; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to be recognized and treated as equals in the health care system; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to have meaningful participation in all aspects of health care reform; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to be advocates for their communities and the people they care for without fear of reprisal; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to work in settings that are free from harassment and discrimination and that nurture learning, diversity, personal growth, job satisfaction and mutual support; and

"Whereas nurses want the right work in conditions that promote and foster professionalism and teamwork; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to deliver care in an integrated, publicly funded, not-for-profit health care system that is grounded in the principles of the Canada Health Act;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to honour, promote and respect the nurses' bill of rights as outlined above and to ensure that these rights are enshrined in all aspects of health care."

I'm pleased to sign my name to that petition.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions forwarded to me by Margaret Purcell and Mike Izzotti from the Coalition for Conscience. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral; and

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

1550

ABORTION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 216 people.

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

LINHAVEN HOME FOR THE AGED

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The petition is to the government of Ontario.

"Whereas Linhaven Home for the Aged has provided excellent service to seniors in St Catharines for many years;

"Whereas the staff and volunteers at Linhaven have endeavoured to enhance the quality of life of residents of the home through their kind and compassionate care;

"Whereas cuts in funding to Linhaven will result in a reduction of staff and resources available to meet the needs of seniors who reside in the home;

"Whereas the discharging of acute care patients from active treatment hospitals results in medical staff at homes for the aged being required to provide more extensive and intensive care to patients who are discharged from hospitals;

"Whereas Linhaven and other homes for the aged have among the residents more individuals afflicted with Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and other medical conditions which require an appropriate complement of staff and necessary equipment to meet their medical needs;

"Be it resolved that the government of Ontario increase funding to Linhaven Home for the Aged in St Catharines so that the medical requirements of Linhaven residents may be properly addressed and seniors may live in dignity in our community."

I affix my signature as I'm in full agreement with this petition.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Liberal government of Canada has passed Bill C-68, An Act Respecting Firearms and Other Weapons; and

"Whereas" - there are a number of conditions in this petition.

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Parliament of Ontario to continue to urge the government of Canada to repeal from Bill C-68 those provisions for a compulsory registration of all firearms."

I present it on behalf of my constituency and apply my signature as well.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from people opposed to casinos. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is trying to impose so-called charity casinos on 44 communities across Ontario as a vehicle to make profits from gambling for government coffers; and

"Whereas these gambling halls will bleed from the communities on which they are imposed the discretionary dollars which might otherwise be spent on goods and services; and

"Whereas the Harris government is attempting to bribe cash-strapped municipalities to accept the new gambling halls by promising to pay so-called administration fees to operate slot machines in the casinos; and

"Whereas the Harris government is attempting to coerce municipalities into accepting the new 24-hour-a-day, seven-days-a-week gambling halls by suggesting that charities may not receive funding;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the Mike Harris government to halt the imposition of new gambling halls, so-called charity casinos, on communities across Ontario."

I affix my signature as I'm in full agreement with this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition forwarded to me by Wayne Samuelson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, on behalf of the 600,000 members of the OFL.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas each year in Ontario approximately 300 workers are killed on the job, several thousand die of occupational diseases and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas during the past decade the Workers' Health and Safety Centre proved to be the most cost-effective WCB-funded prevention organization dedicated to worker health and safety concerns; and

"Whereas the WCB provides over 80% of its legislated prevention funding to several employer-controlled safety associations and less than 20% to the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre recently lost several million dollars in funding and course revenue due to government changes to legislated training requirements; and

"Whereas 30% of Workers' Health and Safety Centre staff were laid off due to these lost training funds; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre now faces an additional 25% cut to its 1998 budget, which will be used to augment new funding for employer safety associations in the health, education and services sector; and

"Whereas the WCB's 1998 planned baseline budget cuts for safety associations and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre will be disproportionately against the workers' centre and reduce its 1998 budget allocation to less than 15% of the WCB prevention funding;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the WCB's proposed cuts and direct the WCB to increase the Workers' Health and Safety Centre's funding to at least 50% of the WCB's legislated prevention funding; and

"Further we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the WCB to significantly increase its legislated prevention funding in order to eliminate workplace illness, injury and death."

I can tell you that the workers' centre has been advised that cuts are taking place.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I submit petitions in support of chiropractic services signed by people from Jarvis, Hagersville, Fisherville and points east. In the interest of time, I'll just read the concluding summary:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize the contribution made by chiropractors to the good health of the people of Ontario, to recognize the taxpayer dollars saved by the use of low-cost preventive care such as that provided by chiropractors and to recognize that to restrict funding for chiropractic health care only serves to limit access to a needed health care service."

I sign this petition.

NURSES' BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas nursing is key to quality health care; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to provide high-quality care; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to be heard and consulted on health care issues; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to be recognized and treated as equals in the health care system; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to have meaningful participation in all aspects of health care reform; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to be advocates for their communities and the people they care for without fear of reprisal; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to work in settings that are free from harassment and discrimination and that nurture learning, diversity, personal growth, job satisfaction and mutual support; and

"Whereas nurses want the right work in conditions that promote and foster professionalism and teamwork; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to deliver care in an integrated, publicly funded, not-for-profit health care system that is grounded in the principles of the Canada Health Act;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to honour, promote and respect the nurses' bill of rights as outlined above and to ensure that these rights are enshrined in all aspects of health care."

I've signed my name to that petition as well.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 35, An Act to create jobs and protect consumers by promoting low-cost energy through competition, to protect the environment, to provide for pensions and to make related amendments to certain Acts, when Bill 35 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill, without further debate or amendment; and at such time, the bill shall be referred to the standing committee on resources development;

That the standing committee on resources development shall be authorized to meet for eight days during the summer recess for the purpose of conducting public hearings;

That, pursuant to standing order 74(d), the Chair of the standing committee on resources development shall establish the deadline for the tabling of amendments or for filing them with the clerk of the committee;

That the committee shall be authorized to meet for four days at its regularly scheduled meeting times for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill beginning at its first regularly scheduled meeting time following the said recess;

That the committee be authorized to meet for a fifth day of clause-by-clause consideration from 9 am to 12 pm and following routine proceedings until completion of clause-by-clause consideration.

1600

At 4:30 pm on the fifth day of clause-by-clause consideration, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto;

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

That the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following completion of clause-by-clause consideration. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on resources development, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That one sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5:55 pm or 9:25 pm, as the case may be, on such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That the vote on third reading of the bill may, at the request of any chief whip of a recognized party in the House, be deferred until the next sessional day during the routine proceeding "deferred votes"; and

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

Mr Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Huron and the member for Peterborough, but prior to turning over that time to those members, I would like to indicate that it's unfortunate that time allocation was necessary with regard to this bill, because I believe that in general the parties in the House are somewhat supportive of this legislation, recognizing that the restructuring of the electricity sector is a necessary matter.

I think it should be known that we offered to pass this on second reading, to have whatever committee - we were quite willing to negotiate committee hearings and were quite flexible on whatever those hearings might be etc. It is unfortunate that the government is once again pushed to this particular time closure motion, but this cuts two ways. Unfortunately, what it will do is create a precedent, as it has in the federal House, for being the norm with regard to legislation that's carried through.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): No pun intended.

Hon Mr Sterling: No pun intended.

I just say that I hope in the future there will be some possibility of negotiating fairly substantial bills where there isn't a lot of dispute over the principle of it, but I can understand that being the case. However, that's where we are.

With that, I'd like to say one other thing with regard to the environmental parts of this bill. I have not had the opportunity to talk about the environmental sections in this bill.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): There aren't any.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): We will give you the 30 seconds to do that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

Hon Mr Sterling: If one looks at this bill with regard to the environmental conditions required to sell electricity in Ontario, one will find that the Ontario Energy Board will be requiring of any generator that it live to certain standards. That kind of precondition is not contained in any other legislation that I'm aware of North America, save one, and that is in the state of Massachusetts, where, before you get the opportunity to sell in, you must meet some environmental criteria.

How those environmental criteria will be set will be very interesting, but it was important for the generators in our province to have that section in, not only for their concern over the environment with regard to what a foreign generator might do in terms of creating air quality problems which will eventually drift over on to us, but also to create a level playing field with regard to generators both inside the borders of Ontario and outside the borders of Ontario.

Another very interesting part of the legislation with regard to environmental requirements is the whole notion of disclosure. We will see, as competition enters into this field, that there will be many different companies offering electricity and ancillary services. What we require in this legislation is that there be a disclosure of the environmental record of that particular company to the customer so that the customer can understand what the environmental record of that company is.

We are also introducing the notion of sector emission caps. This is very important in setting up the framework for emission trading to take place. A lot of people have talked about emission trading. That is very important in terms of keeping our sectors very competitive in this field and ensuring that we get the best bang for our bucks, in terms of the expenditures we make to reduce the emissions, to make certain that they occur in the places where you can get the greatest environmental effect. The legislation also sets up the framework for the possibility of the government setting forward an emission trading system.

So you have the ticket-to-play concept in this legislation in terms of environmental concerns, you have the emission caps and trading system, and you have the disclosure. There is no jurisdiction in North America which contains those three elements for environmental protection. I'm very hopeful that we'll be able not only to be concerned with what happens in Ontario but to force neighbouring states like Ohio, Illinois and Indiana, which have a great effect on our air quality in Ontario - encourage them to meet environmental standards which they are not meeting at the present time. We suffer as a result of the fact that a lot of the plants in Ohio, the coal-fired generating stations, are emitting very serious air quality problems, and those air quality problems carry over to Ontario.

It's interesting to know that the poorest air in the province of Ontario is in a small community of only 1,000 people. People might say that in the city of Toronto we live in a big urban society and therefore we have the worst air in the province of Ontario. It's a small community called Long Point, and it's right on the northern shore of Lake Erie. The reason they have the poorest air quality in the province of Ontario is not because the local people are driving bad cars or there's a factory down the street that's emitting anything. It's because of the air that is coming from the Ohio Valley, across Lake Ontario and is dumping on them.

That is the most patent example of the problem we face in this province with regard to air quality that we have to have some influence outside. This legislation gives us some glimmer of hope that we can have some control over generating stations in Ohio and Illinois, because if they don't meet the standards they can't sell here. I believe this will be encouragement for them to clean up some of their plants which have been grandfathered in the United States by their legislation, where they don't have to live to current standards, and we will have better air here as a result.

I'm sorry to cut into my colleagues' debating time. The member for Huron, who was my parliamentary assistant when I was the Minister of Energy, has been extremely active in this whole restructuring, along with Minister Wilson. I'm looking forward to hearing her remarks.

What I suggest, Mr Speaker, is that because I had not had the opportunity to speak before, the remaining time left between now and 6 o'clock be divided equally among the parties. Is that what -

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Agreed.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Do you want us to agree, Norm, or are you just playing a trick?

Hon Mr Sterling: I never play tricks. I'm asking if the other parties want to split the time.

Mr Bradley: Only if the NDP doesn't attack us.

Hon Mr Sterling: Okay. So, Mr Speaker, there are about 110 minutes which would be divided equally.

The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed? Agreed.

1610

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): As the Minister of the Environment said earlier, I'm going to be sharing my time with the member for Peterborough.

I want to say first off that this time allocation motion is not how I would have liked to have seen the legislation go forward. There has been a great deal of consultation between the Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology and its stakeholders, and it is unfortunate that we can't move out to committee and start to talk to the people. I am saddened by this.

We have offered eight days of committee and five days of clause-by-clause, and because this bill is very specialized, I think it's important that we hear from the people it affects most: the people of Ontario and the stakeholders associated with it. I'm looking forward to that time and I think we have a lot of time to be out there and hear from the people who have comments and want to talk to us.

This bill is in some ways a very important bill in this House, I think to all three parties, because it breaks up a Hydro monopoly that has been in existence for 92 years. What we have had in the past is Ontario Hydro, which has had a monopoly service, and we have had municipal electric utilities that have had quasi-monopoly services. This breaks that up and says we need to look at different ways to bring electricity and gas to Ontario.

We're trying in this bill, and I think we've succeeded, to ensure that we have safe, reliable energy. That's really what the focus was and why we started with this bill. When many of us from this House were on the select committee, we recognized that although Hydro had done a good job in the early stages of moving us into the electricity age, there was more that could be done with hydro and gas and there were more regulations that were needed, more consumer protection needed.

So we came forward with another bill. This of course was outlined in the Common Sense Revolution, so this isn't a new concept that we thought up in the last week or two. This is a concept we have been thinking about for three years. I guess this weekend it's three years that the Conservatives have held power and it was a year before that that the Common Sense Revolution came out, so it's four years that we have been talking about this process and working on it. I've been lucky enough to work with both the Minister of the Environment, Norm Sterling, and the Minister of Energy, Jim Wilson, on this bill, and they've been thinking about this and working it and consulting with people for all of those three years.

What we need to do in this province is to ensure that we get the best cost for power for the consumers. Right now the average household in Ontario pays about $1,000 in electricity bills a year. They have gas on top of that - at least in our family we do - and we have other costs, but that's a very high cost to negotiate when you have a young family like I do, and you have to be concerned about that. We believe that the best way to keep the cost of electricity low in this province is to introduce competition into the system. We've seen that work with gas. I've seen in my telephone bills, now that I'm on this 10-cents-a-minute thing that Bell has, that my phone bills are coming down also. So we have seen some successes with bringing competition into the system.

We also need to create jobs and stimulate investment in this province. This isn't our only concern, there is no question, but when we look at other jurisdictions which have gone through this kind of change, we have seen 80,000 to 100,000 new jobs being created in those jurisdiction where that happens.

In the Common Sense Revolution the Premier promised that we would create 725,000 private sector jobs, and this will go a long way to help the creation of those jobs in the province of Ontario. We're very optimistic and we need this to move forward.

It also enhances consumer protection. When many of us sat in the select committee, we heard many times that the Atomic Energy Control Board or the Ontario Energy Board would give some recommendations to people in the industry and they could take them or they couldn't take them; they did some of the things that were recommended and they didn't do others. It's time to give the Ontario Energy Board some teeth. It's time to give the Ontario Energy Board some power. That's what we're trying to do in this bill: We're trying to increase the protection for consumers and increase the safety and the reliability of power in Ontario.

Another thing that really affects my riding - that's the beautiful riding of Huron county, which is north of London, for those of you who don't know - is that it also retains and lets people know about the government's commitment to rural and remote assistance. What's happening in that particular case is that in the past we've had 600,000 residential customers and 100,000 people with farms getting a rate that's fair and equitable so they too can have power. This confirms the government's desire to maintain that.

As much as we have heard differently from the opposition members, it also gives us a chance to be forerunners in environmental areas. In the past, we have had America going into emissions trading credits. We've had other areas looking at how they can better protect their environment. As a mother of young children, I believe that's very important. We have to protect the environment.

This bill gives us the opportunities to start to look at how we can better utilize clean power. Of course, clean power comes from a number of sources. There's green energy, which is our windmills and solar power. Also, nuclear power, in its form as it's producing, gives us clean power. What we have to consider very carefully when we talk about nuclear power is what we do with the waste at the end. That's a concern we have to deal with.

I look forward to looking at the environmental issues to try to decide how we can best leave our province in the best shape for our young people, for my children coming forward and for the children of all the viewers and people at home.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is there a quorum present?

The Acting Speaker: Would you please check if we have a quorum.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Huron.

Mrs Johns: I think this bill offers some very good opportunities for us in this House to review the energy segment of legislation. It's unfortunate that we're going to time allocation today. I think we really could have done better by having further discussion, second reading and then going out to talk to the individuals and the stakeholders in the province who have a lot to say about this bill.

One of the things I should say is that there has been a lot of consultation on this bill. I think all of us in the House recognize that there has been great stakeholder approval. I don't think ever in our history have we seen so many people come together in the energy portion and say, "Yes, we think this is the right way to go."

We have had the help, I would say, of Ontario Hydro, both at the management level and at the staff level. I would like to say to the people across the province who work for Ontario Hydro that it certainly is a difficult time as the corporation goes through change, but I think they recognize, as we do in the House, that to maintain a viable workforce at Ontario Hydro, some change has to happen.

1620

In the past couple of years, the nuclear facilities have not been working to maximum capacity. I read an article this morning in the Financial Post that said we have the capacity to produce about 14,000 megawatts of power in the province. Right now we're reduced by 5,000 megawatts because we are not working at capacity.

When we're reduced by that kind of wattage, that means jobs. The people at Ontario Hydro need to have more security with their jobs. I'm pleased that they have been part of the process, along with their unions and their associations. They've come to the table and they've said: "We're happy to work with the government because we need to have change at Ontario Hydro. It needs to be a viable business so that we can all prosper and do well."

To them today I want to say thank you for their cooperation, thank you for working with us to go through this change, thank you for bringing us safe, reliable power. It's certainly the intention of the government to work with those employees to make sure that Hydro continues as a viable entity.

We talked to those people. We also talked to a number of different stakeholders and brought them together to talk about the changes that needed to happen in Hydro. In fact, we formed two committees. We formed the Market Design Committee, headed by Ron Daniels, who is a professor at the University of Toronto. We have 10 to 15 different stakeholders coming together there, sharing how they think the market should go in the future and working towards a system that brings us safe, reliable and cost-effective power. That's been happening and I'm pleased by that.

I'm also pleased by the Minister's Electricity Transition Committee, as we work to go through this process up until 2000 when competition is introduced. What is important is that we're able to react quickly to any of the transitional issues that might happen and we're able to ensure that the system is working so that it produces that safe, reliable power, so that it produces jobs in Ontario, so that it's cost-effective. That transition committee is going to help us with all of those things and we look forward to those discussions as we move forward.

Minister Wilson brought all these people together and has been talking to them throughout the whole year and a half that he's been at the Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology. I think we need to (a) recognize the work he's done, and (b) feel comfortable at home that a number of people are working to ensure that Ontario Hydro maintains viability and that we have good power in the province.

Another group that's been involved in this is our local MEUs. We all have faith that the municipal electric utilities are working for us in our communities and doing the best they can to bring power from the generating station through to our homes.

I think the most important thing here is that we all know that when we go to the light switch, the light's going to come on and we're going to have electricity in our homes. We needed to ensure that they were on side. They have some issues, and we're going to work with them through the process with the committee that we're going to be on for eight days, all through July and the beginning part of August, to ensure that we try to address their concerns. So we're working with that.

One of the things I talked about earlier, which I think is really important to focus back on, is the issue of consumer protection. I want people to be cognizant that we needed things to change. We needed the Ontario Energy Board to have more teeth and we needed that for a couple of reasons.

In the past, gas companies have gone through a deregulation, and we've had some complaints about the marketers in that particular case. There have been great marketers out there and there have been some who have not been up to snuff. That happened not only since 1995, it happened all throughout the 1990s and I believe the late 1980s. What we need to do is to ensure that those people are licensed, that we have confidence in their financial abilities, that we have confidence in the way they're training their staff, that we have confidence in them as people who sell energy and electricity and gas to us and the people of Ontario.

We look forward to the Ontario Energy Board's role in this. I look forward to having the former member for Nickel Belt, Floyd Laughren, come to committee and talk about his role with the Ontario Energy Board and where he sees his role as being. I think that will give everyone in Ontario confidence that we're going to truly have a board that protects consumers. I think we can only get that kind of confidence by getting out to committee and talking to people like Mr Laughren.

The stakeholders have been saying that they're confident, that this is the right move, that we have to move in this direction, we have to introduce competition if we're ever going to move towards better pricing, if we're ever going to move to a marketplace where we're ensured a supply, because if we keep going at the same decreasing megawatts, we're going to have trouble in the future. So we need to be very creative in how we move forward.

There have been a couple of news articles which I think bear a little bit of discussion, and the first one revolves around the rates. Everyone's got an opinion about where the rates are going. People are saying the costs are going up; people are saying they're going down. We've looked at other jurisdictions and we believe that if competition comes forward and we set up the stranded debt correctly, there's an opportunity for people to see rate reduction throughout the province. But we have to work very hard to ensure that happens. We need to get out there and talk to people about how stranded debt has worked in other countries, in other jurisdictions. We need to ensure that we get this right, and again we need to get out to committee and talk to some of the experts in this industry so that we can add to the knowledge we have and hear what people have to say.

The NDP is talking that this is our move to privatize Ontario Hydro. Believe me, if it was our move to privatize Ontario Hydro, we probably would have done that in the past. But the corporation is so undervalued that we would be fire-selling an asset that's an integral asset to Ontario. We need to make this asset something we're proud of, as we were in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. We need to work towards strengthening this asset because we have incredible amounts of power - hydro-electric, nuclear and fossil fuel - and we need to restore the generation part of the business to its former self. It is not our intention to privatize, and in fact in the legislation you won't see the word "privatize."

What I think has happened in this particular area is the union and the people in Bruce, which is very close to me, and some of the people who actually live in my riding, are concerned about Bruce A being down at this particular point. They suggested that we should look at public-private partnerships to get Bruce up quicker. Since many of my people are affected in my riding with respect to this, I believe we should look at some creative ways to bring Bruce A back up, because people deserve to have jobs in Bruce. I would like to do that as quickly as we can. But this is not a fire sale. We have no offers at all on Bruce A at this particular point. We're looking to restore Ontario Hydro, not to pull it apart. From that standpoint, when my colleague from across the way says this is the big step to privatization, it is just truly not correct. It is just not correct.

The big issue that we're all going to be looking at over the next few months is stranded debt - how many assets we have, where we're going to allocate those within Ontario Hydro, whether to the generation side or the distribution side - and we're going to be looking at how we can put liability against that to keep Ontario Hydro viable, but at the same time to start to pay back the debt that unfortunately we have all guaranteed. There's no getting around that debt. We all signed that, because the province of Ontario was the guarantor on all the debt that's associated with Ontario Hydro.

Their argument is that somehow there's going to be new debt and that's going to jack the price of electricity up in the province. I'd like the viewers at home to know that even though there is debt, and there will be debt that we have to pay off, we're paying that off now. It's in the price of our power as we speak. Ontario Hydro has paid $600 million this year off the debt charges of the province, and they have said that they intend to do that over the next three years. They have done that, and we do not believe that is going to increase the price of power or that consumers are going to see any hardship with respect to that.

1630

But I agree that all of us in this House have to work together to ensure that we get this company balanced so that it can compete in the marketplace and the price of power is reasonable. There's no question that's the dilemma we're all going to work on.

I'd like to say that this legislation is enabling, and as you move through the process today you're going to hear, "You didn't say you were actually going to do that, or that you were going to do it when." What this bill does is allow us to put together the fundamentals. We have committees and groups and members from the opposition working with us, hopefully, to ensure that we get this right. Yes, it is enabling legislation, and we believe that's the way to go so that as we move through the process, because we've never done this before in Ontario, we have the tools to make Ontario Hydro a viable company and to make sure that when people in Ontario turn on the light switch there's safe, reliable power there for all of us to use and for all of us to grow with in our communities.

I look forward to the committee. As I said before, I also look forward to people who have an interest in this writing to the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. I look forward to people coming to committee, calling us and talking to us within our ministry, within the minister's office and my office. I look forward to valuable input from the stakeholders and opposition members as we go through the process.

I certainly hope we can work together on this bill. I think it's important for the future of Ontario and it's especially important for the future of our children. I look forward to this cohesive way of working through this process to make sure that energy is where it should be in Ontario.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): It is indeed a pleasure for me today to speak to Bill 35, An Act to create jobs and protect consumers by promoting low-cost energy through competition, to protect the environment, to provide for pensions and to make related amendments to certain Acts. I believe the title of this bill is most explicit and truly explains the contents of the bill. This bill promises to ensure a reliable, affordable and safe supply of electricity for the residents of this province, as well as increased opportunities for investment and job creation for Ontarians.

The short name, the Energy Competition Act, I believe again is very explicit. I want to emphasize the words "energy competition." Competition as seen in the business community is very positive to what can happen regarding keeping the prices of commodities lower. It keeps everybody honest. Without competition, I suggest that prices keep increasing, which is exactly what has happened in this province over the last many years. It is long overdue that competition is introduced in energy or in Ontario Hydro in this province.

Under schedule A, as you know, the Electricity Act, 1998, replaces the Power Corporation Act. Under schedule B, the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, amends the present act and the natural gas act. One that I think is very important to certain members of society and certain Ontarians is schedule C, which amends the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act and creates a new category of employers who are eligible to participate in OMERS. Many of us who were in the municipal field know how good a retirement plan OMERS is. This act will give the opportunity to a number of Ontarians to be part of that retirement system.

This legislation would reorganize Ontario Hydro into two commercial corporations, the Ontario Electricity Generation Corp and the Ontario Electric Services Corp, and in addition will set up a new non-profit crown corporation, known as the Independent Electricity Market Operator, that covers the provincial supply for Ontario, controlled by 10 to 20 appointed board members.

I believe this type of new structure will create competition within the system. What was once a huge monopoly with virtually no accountability to the people of this province will no longer exist. When you look at the growing world population, and it is suggested that it will probably double in the next half-century or so, indeed there will be a great increase in the demand for electricity, not only in this province but around the world.

The proposed legislation would allow the electricity generation business to be open to power producers, but only those producers who meet the provincial environmental standards and who also qualify for a licence. I believe that part of the bill is one of the most important. I want to emphasize the word "only." Only those producers who meet the provincial environmental standards qualify to receive a licence. Our government, as in many other bills that we have done, will not jeopardize the environment.

There are in this bill proposed amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act which would provide continuing rate protection for rural and remote electricity consumers, something that has been long-standing in Ontario. The agri industry, the agri communities, must have this type of protection due to the continuing change and fluctuation of their products. Northern Ontario residents or those in remote areas having rate protection is again no exception. I believe that is a most important part of this bill.

It also ensures that distribution companies fulfil their obligation to connect and serve their customers. Customer service is something very unique, now that we have finally introduced it in a number of bills, in a number of ministries, since our government took over. What we are looking at is that when monopolies prevail - and this is not only in government, but in business, whatever it might be - customer service slips drastically and deteriorates. The funny part of it is that the people who are paying are the ones who are getting the short end of the stick.

The Ontario Energy Board would license companies participating in the new electric market, and all marketers selling electricity or natural gas to residential consumers will require a licence. Probably one of the most important aspects of this bill will ensure that the standards and regulations within the industry are met. I suggest again to you that the public, the people of this province, will be protected.

If approved, the proposed Energy Competition Act would ensure strong environmental protection measures are built into the electricity market. This would maintain existing limits on emissions, maintain and enforce standards for environmental protection, and meet national and international commitments. We will not allow greater competition to threaten environmental protection, and again, standards and regulations must be and will be protected in this industry.

1640

As has been mentioned, the legislation closely follows the direction of the white paper, which was called Direction for Change: Charting a Course for Competitive Electricity and Jobs in Ontario. I would like to suggest that that white paper was created after consultation with the people of Ontario, input from the MEUs. Certainly in my own riding I met with them very regularly to make sure I knew what their concerns were and what their wishes were, and was able to pass them on to the ministry. They also met with the business community, in both the public and the private sector, but most importantly they met and received consultation and direction from the ordinary Ontarian, which is what this is all about.

The Ontario Energy Board report, advising on the needed legislative change, assisted with the natural gas portion of this bill. Needed legislation: It's been said and it's been talked about for many years. We, as ordinary Ontarians, knew there was needed change in Ontario Hydro. As I have said, there has been a great deal of consultation on this bill.

As the minister recently said, "This will allow access to Ontario's transmission grid, will open up investment opportunities for new generators, cogenerations and renewable forms of energy production." This is one of the ones suggested, that capital spending on generation capacity to serve new demands, to replace older equipment, could amount to $8 billion to $10 billion. That's job creation in its best form.

Electricity prices are currently set according to provisions in the Power Corporation Act which require that the price be determined on the basis of cost. Hydro's average wholesale price for electricity has been frozen until the end of the year 2000 in order to provide cost relief to customers. Let me emphasize the fact that this was in our government's Common Sense Revolution. It's another indication that we made a promise and we have kept that promise to the people of this province.

In the past 10 years the cost of electricity in Ontario has helped erode the previous advantage Ontario had as an attractive place to live and invest. Electricity costs rose by over 30% in the early 1990s. It's unfortunate that there are not more members of the previous government sitting here to remember that during their term of office Ontario Hydro rose some 30%.

In the United States, the United States Energy Information Administration estimated that the introduction of competition in the electricity sector would result in reductions between 8% and 15%. You know, Mr Speaker, and I know that when competition is introduced into any market, prices go down and customer service comes up.

The Ontario Electricity Generation Corp would take ownership of Ontario Hydro's generation assets and be responsible for generating and selling electricity. It would be owned by the province. It would be financed by the province. It would be flexible to making operating and investment decisions. It would be open to power producers who meet environmental standards and receive a licence to generate electricity. The transmission grid and wires of the province's local distribution systems would become common carriers, allowing power companies to market and sell electricity to customers. Again, the key in any business is to market the product you are trying to sell.

The Ontario Electric Services Corp would be the holding company for the transmission, distribution and retail services side of the electric business. The great empire of Ontario Hydro will be reduced to become a productive, accountable, efficient and effective business in Ontario, responsible to conduct business in a businesslike fashion. I emphasize that: conducting business in a businesslike fashion.

As mentioned, we are looking at standards. They are looking at licensing, and presently there is not mandatory licensing of energy marketers in Ontario. That is unbelievable. There will be. If this bill is passed, it will move Ontario from a monopoly-based market to a competitive wholesale and retail electricity market some time in the year 2000. This would give customers greater choice and help produce a competitive market for the industry which will create jobs.

The future of the electricity industry will change, but this change will not short-circuit Ontarians in any way. The business of energy will change: It will charge, it will power-surge us into the future in a productive manner.

I am extremely proud finally to be able to support a bill that is long overdue, Bill 35.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to indicate at the outset that I will be dividing my time with at least Mr Phillips and perhaps Mr Bradley, if he returns from the onerous responsibility that is attached to House leadership.

Let me say at the outset that I am very disappointed that we have the time allocation motion we're currently debating. I had hoped, I think like other members, that we would be able to negotiate an arrangement but that apparently did not happen. I was not privy to any of those negotiations. I am personally prepared to see the debate on second reading conclude in a timely fashion. My concern, quite frankly, is with the mandate here for but eight days of hearings this summer. I think that is potentially a very serious problem.

I can't imagine a bill more serious in its implications for the economic and social wellbeing than Bill 35. I have to imagine that once people across the province have had an opportunity to read and digest the bill and all of the regulatory possibilities the bill contains, there will be a very real interest in people coming to the committee, not just here in Toronto but I would expect in Thunder Bay, in London, in Ottawa, in Kingston. It may not be the case, but I have to say as a legislator and as a citizen of this province that I find it very troubling that we would get a bill of such complexity and such import introduced in mid-June for debate on second reading in late June, sent out to a committee a couple of weeks later in the middle of summer, and basically reported back to the House potentially by Labour Day weekend, perhaps by Thanksgiving weekend.

That is, in my view, a shoddy way to do business. All of us talk about accountability; I'll tell you, I suspect there will be people out in north Perth or in south Renfrew who will just be tuning in to this debate some weeks from now, only to find out that the bill has long passed through the various stages of parliamentary consideration. I'm deeply troubled by that, and for that reason alone I will be voting in the negative on the motion standing in the name of Mr Sterling, the government House leader. I had hoped, and still do, that we could have negotiated some kind of more reasonable approach, particularly around the committee stage.

1650

I must say it's been a process and an attitude around here in recent years, where you take the really complicated stuff and you drop it right on the edge of the recess, usually the summer recess, and then in the peak of the summer tourist season you put some ads in the Jawbone Tribune and say, "Come out and talk to us tonight at 7 o'clock in the Thurlow township hall," and most of Thurlow township is of course properly on holidays in the last week of July.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I just simply say, we wonder why our currency is as low as it is. I'm telling you that we will not, probably in this Parliament and maybe in this decade, pass a bill with more significance economic and social ramifications than this Bill 35.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Pardon me?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Order.

Mr Conway: It has nothing to do with the dollar. It is giving people a chance to understand and speak to an enormously important and very complex piece of legislation. That's just my view. If other people differ, then that's fine, but I'll tell you that as a citizen I would be pretty annoyed by this kind of process.

I want to turn to a couple of the other issues. Much has been said about this policy and its attractiveness, and I am supporting in principle the ingredient aspects of this, which are competition, particularly on generation, and a more transparent and rigorous regulatory framework. I agree with previous speakers on those issues.

But I want to report today a conversation I had a few moments ago with my colleague Mrs McLeod who phoned from Fort William to report a circumstance from Thunder Bay. The third-largest direct consumer of Ontario Hydro in this province is Avenor, the old Great Lakes Paper Co. They were told last night that their interruptible power rate, which had been approximately 2.5 cents a kilowatt-hour, would be going up today because, as one of the previous speakers indicated, we have a system now that is stretched. As the press reported a couple of days ago, because the system is so stressed, we had a voltage reduction of some 3% on or about May 15 because one of the nuclear plants went down unexpectedly.

Last night Avenor was told that because of the exceptionally hot weather across southern Ontario, and because, I believe, the Lambton station was under some pressure or stress and was either underperforming or not available in whole or in part, Avenor's interruptible power rate would be going up from about, I think it is, 2.5 cents a kilowatt-hour to 12 cents a kilowatt-hour, they were told last night. By midday today they were told that they are paying a rate that is now apparently $1.47 a kilowatt-hour. That means for that one Ontario company, a very large employer in Thunder Bay, their hydro bill for today is $1 million more than they would have expected yesterday.

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): It doesn't make sense.

Mr Conway: The member from Lanark shakes his head. I'm telling you the plant manager just got off the phone with my colleague. It is a plant I visited not very long ago, and I say to the member from Lanark, he might want to read the Financial Post of June 19, 1998, where it is headlined, "Ontario Hydro Prays for a Cold, Wet Summer."

Mr Jordan: Which has been going on for years.

Mr Conway: I'm going to tell you, you can tell Avenor that. It comes as a great shock to them to find out today that their bill today is $1 million more than they had budgeted yesterday. God knows what it's going to be for tomorrow or the rest of the week. It is quite clearly indicated in the Financial Post article of June 19, 1998, quoting Mr Patrick McNeil, Ontario Hydro's vice-president for corporate planning. McNeil warns in this article that "voltage reductions are possible if there is an extended period of hot weather coupled with high demand throughout the northeastern part of the North American grid." That was seven or eight days ago and we certainly have been getting hot weather.

Mr Jordan: You've got it for 20 years.

Mr Conway: The fact of the matter is that today of course the situation is aggravated because we've got about 4,000, 5,000 megawatts from the nuclear division that are not available.

I'm just simply pointing out that it is a cost to those people today of approximately $1 million and they are understandably very concerned at Avenor because they're not going to shoulder those costs, I can't imagine, for very many more days.

I want to correct my own record. I just have a note that the actual cost has gone to $1.07, not $1.47, but that's over the course of 12 hours.

Mr Jordan: You had better get the whole thing in writing.

Mr Conway: I will be happy to do it for my colleague. Boy, Hydro's certainly got an apologist in the superannuate from Lanark; the Hydro superannuate from Lanark, I might add.

The data from the plant manager at Avenor is that their rate has gone from 2.5 cents to $1.07 per kilowatt-hour. I will be happy to share with my colleague the evidence, but I'll tell you, they are very concerned about what that suggests, and others quoted in the Financial Post article of some days ago were also concerned that we have a system that is very much at the edge.

We talk about reliability and we talk about price competitiveness, but the fact of the matter is we've got some very serious pressures in the system. Of course we all want, as the member for Peterborough rightly observed, the most attractive power rate possible, but not just for the big industrial and commercial consumers, equally for residential and farm consumers. The real test of this policy, I say to my friend from Peterborough, is going to be, as I said on second reading, an equity of benefit at approximately the same time.

If General Electric, and I would certainly be happy for them, gets a good break in the city of Peterborough, I don't need to tell my friend from Peterborough that the farmer out in Otonabee township is going to expect that he or she is going to get an equal benefit at approximately the same time. If people pick up the Peterborough Examiner or the Pembroke Observer or the Sudbury Star and find out that big industrial-commercial customers are getting the big benefits and the residential and farm customers are getting something quite different, this is a policy that's going to be in some very real trouble.

I want to take my few other moments this afternoon to deal with an issue that I raised in question period. I am very troubled, as a member of the Legislature, about what I read in the financial press yesterday, namely, that the chairman of Ontario Hydro is apparently accepting an appointment to the board of the Newcourt capital group. I say it simply for these reasons.

Ontario Hydro is at a critical juncture in its long and controversial history. These are not, as just about every speaker to this debate has properly made plain, regular times at Ontario Hydro. The utility stands at the cusp of major change. There is going to be, as the experts like to say, a disaggregation of the monopoly. We're going to have the breakup of this gargantuan public utility into successor companies that are going to be in the generation business and they're going to be into the services business. There is going to be, as previous speakers have said, the critical question of stranded debt: how much, who will carry it, how much will attach to the general ratepayer, how much will attach to the Ontario taxpayer and how much will be carried by Servco and Genco, the so-called successor companies to Ontario Hydro.

What all of you should know is that as we break up the Hydro monopoly, as we prepare for competition - and competition will mean many new players in this business, and there had better be new players, as Mr Stewart from Peterborough said, because I'll tell you, people on Main Street will not be impressed if a public monopoly is replaced by an oligopoly, and that has happened. The major government in Britain was forced to use the executive power of the British cabinet to intervene in the market early on to break up some very obvious oligopolistic tendencies in that marketplace.

We will be very interested, those of us on Main Street, to see whether or not we get genuine competition. Do we get a number of very good competitive players in this business producing genuine competition? In this age of global capital we see some very large multinational, transnational corporations that exercise enormous market power. For the average person to go up against Archer Daniels Midland, for the average farmer to confront Cargill, for the average small business person to meet Bill Gates and Microsoft on Main Street, America, is to learn something about the competitive marketplace. So we had better see a true marketplace, and it's going to be very important for our old friend Floyd Laughren and the government to ensure that there is not a replacement of the public sector monopoly with a private sector oligopoly.

1700

I come back to my other point. For Bill Farlinger, as the chair of Ontario Hydro, with enormously important responsibilities at this critical juncture, as he is giving general direction to one of the largest public companies in the country, to accept at one and the same time an appointment to a board of a company that is an investment banking concern, with stated interests in getting into this new electricity and power business, is by any objective standard, I would submit, a conflict of interest.

I'm not here to disparage Mr Farlinger, but I am here to say that the public has a right to expect a public executive, being paid $350,000 at last report to chair Ontario Hydro, to say no to an offer like that. As was said in the House today, if you're chair of Ontario Hydro, as it prepares for its breakup, as it looks for new capital, as it faces all kinds of new reality -

Mr Jordan: The sky is falling.

Mr Conway: I say to my favourite Hydro apologist, by any objective standard, you cannot serve both masters. Mr Farlinger has a duty to serve the public interest at Ontario Hydro. He cannot, in my view, serve at the same time on a board that has said it is going to be getting more active in the power and electricity sector. There is a clear conflict of interest there. He's the chair of Ontario Hydro. He's not just a line worker from Montague township, he's not the assistant director in the accounting office; he is the chair of Ontario Hydro and at the same time he's now going to sit on the board of an investment banking company that is going to get into this very business. You can't serve both masters. You can't do it. By any objective standard, he has to make a choice.

I do not quarrel with the government's right to appoint a good friend like Mr Farlinger to the chairmanship of Ontario Hydro, I accept that, but I strongly object -

Interjections.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, will you -

The Acting Speaker: There are some conversations going on that would be better outside the House.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): My Costa Rican friend's talking about Maurice Strong.

The Acting Speaker: I'd like to address the member for Lake Nipigon for a moment, who is sitting in an incorrect seat. It won't be a yellow card, it'll be red one. When the Speaker is standing and he has asked for order, he will not tolerate - I'll not warn you again.

Mr Conway: My point is that you cannot serve both interests, particularly when the interests are in many cases potentially contradictory. The whole point of Newcourt, as a banking house with keen interests in financing and owning these kinds of businesses, their interest is potentially quite contradictory to the interests of Ontario Hydro. If you submitted that question to 10 individuals or laypersons, I think the majority would clearly agree with my position.

The question remains, not just in this case but in so many related questions, as we head down the road of this enormously important and complicated policy, who will be protecting the public interest? Ontarians have built up enormous shareholder value in this utility over nearly a century and there are going to be very real pressures on that shareholder value in the coming weeks and months, particularly if you look at the British experience. The reality of deregulating the British electrical monopoly was that Her Majesty's taxpayers and citizens got a very bad deal as assets were sold off, in many cases at 15% or 20% of their real value.

It is inconceivable to me that Mr Farlinger would want to do this, and should he want to do it, that Premier Harris, his government or this assembly would allow it to happen. This is a conflict of interest. It creates a very serious problem in the public mind as to whether or not there is anybody at the head of this corporation or in the government who is truly and really interested in protecting the public interest.

The Acting Speaker: There's a conversation up in the corner. I'd ask you to tone the volume down or move it outside the House, please.

Mr Conway: My question remains: What mechanisms are there to protect the public interest at every turn, to ensure, particularly when we look at the assets - and of course what do we know about Newcourt? Newcourt capital is advertised everywhere as an asset-based financial corporation. Let me tell you, I'm sure Newcourt has some very interesting plans for some of the assets of Ontario Hydro, if you look at their business elsewhere. I don't fault them for that, but I do fault the government for allowing Mr Farlinger, the chair of Ontario Hydro, paid by the ratepayers to the tune of $350,000 a year - stay there. Say no to this board directorship, stay at Hydro, protect the public interest, ensure that public shareholder value is not undermined or squandered in these months and years ahead because, in conclusion, as I turn it over the Mr Phillips, the real test of this policy is: Is the public interest recognized and protected and do the benefits of this policy of competition and regulation bear fruit for Main Street? I can guarantee you they will certainly bear fruit, and significant fruit, soon for Bay Street and Wall Street.

Mr Phillips: I'm pleased to continue the debate on what we'd call a time allocation motion designed to end debate at second reading on the Hydro bill and move it on to committee, and to say what others have said, obviously, that this is a bill that will impact in a very significant way on all of Ontario. It will shape a totally different electrical service delivery in Ontario for the next century and it has the potential to cause a fair bit of conflict in the province.

Along with my colleague Mr Conway, I think we're making a mistake. The Legislature is making a mistake. I think the government is making a mistake to limit the hearings to eight days and to order third reading on the bill before we've even gone through the process of those eight days of hearings.

What's taken place so far - and my colleague Mr Conway mentioned it - is that this is the biggest business deal in North America for the next 10 years. This is it. This is a huge business deal. There's not a financial house in Ontario that hasn't over the last two to three years commissioned major studies on this. Hundreds of millions of dollars are going to be made on this business decision that we're going to make, and so far it's been dealt with, frankly, and understandably, behind closed doors, preparing this bill. But on something this fundamental we should not be limiting ourselves to eight days of public hearings. It is not in the public interest to do that and I frankly don't think it's in the government's interest to limit public hearings to eight days.

Mr Conway mentioned the first kind of evidence of concern. Mr Farlinger, the chair of Hydro, is a well-respected business person, there's no question about that. He has a very distinguished business career in Ontario and is well regarded, as is Newcourt financial services. They're one of the huge success stories in Ontario, grown in the last five years almost, one of the real successful businesses in Ontario. But here is the problem: You can see, with so much money at stake - as I say, this will be the biggest business deal in North America over the next 10 years.

We see the first concern. Mr Farlinger has agreed to sit on the board of Newcourt. He now is a board member. A board of directors has responsibilities to the shareholders to look out for the interests of the shareholders, and Newcourt has to participate. It has to participate in the future business dealings that will fall out from Hydro. That is their business. They have to. So he's gone on to a board where his responsibility is to be a director representing the shareholders, and in representing the shareholders he has to provide direction on the biggest business opportunity over the next 10 years.

The reason we raise this is that it gets back to the need for the public to be assured that as we go forward dealing with their asset - the public own this. The public have invested billions and billions of dollars. There is a debt at Hydro of somewhere around $35 billion, I gather. The public are on the hook for that. It is the taxpayers who are obligated to pay that. As a matter of fact, Hydro pays the government of Ontario, the people of Ontario, $200 million a year so that the public will guarantee the debt of Hydro. That's why none of the credit rating agencies are worried about Hydro's debt, because they say Hydro has got and pays for a guarantee from the taxpayers of Ontario to meet the debt.

1710

As a Legislature, we're going to try to deal with this huge business deal in eight days of public hearings. I think the public will be shaking their heads and saying, "Do you really have the time to look out for our interests?" I would say to the members that there are some concerns.

Hydro has frozen rates. How did they do that? How have they frozen rates for 1998? They did it, in my opinion, by playing a game with the numbers. If you read the 1997 annual report that just came out recently, they wrote off $6 billion of expenses that should have been incurred in 1998, 1999 and the year 2000. They used a little-known authority called the rate-setting authority. What the auditors say about this is that they would not be allowed to do this under generally accepted accounting principles. They did not follow generally accepted accounting principles.

In the annual report, when he's commenting on the rate freeze, Mr Farlinger says, "So, since these costs I've just mentioned will not be recovered through rates, they represent a loss that should be provided for now." So they wrote them off. The effect of all of this, ie, the writing off of that $6 billion, is that Ontario Hydro will be able to maintain its commitment to a rate freeze until the end of the decade, by essentially writing off expenses that should have been, under general accounting principles, written off in 1998, 1999 and 2000.

Why do I mention that? Because, as I say, the government is giving us a total of eight days for public hearings. I can guarantee that something this complicated cannot be dealt with in eight days of public hearings. We owe it to the taxpayers, dealing with a debt of $35 billion - the credit rating agencies, by the way, have said to Mike Harris, "We are giving you the same credit rating that we gave Bob Rae." Three years into the mandate, Mike Harris has exactly the same credit rating as Bob Rae had. By the way, at one time Ontario had a AAA credit rating. We've had three credit downgrades, and we still are there. Why? Partially because of the tax cut, but heavily because of Hydro. Here we are being asked to deal with something this fundamental in a total of eight days.

I want to comment briefly on a point that others have made, and that is that there is merit in the thrust of the bill. My colleague Mr Conway, who knows this area well, has expressed on our behalf conditional support for it, subject to the public hearings, but on finding a way that we separate the generation aspects of electrical power from the transmission aspects of electrical power. That may very well be a sound business idea. But I repeat, what we're being asked to do - my colleague Mr Conway used the comparison that it's like going to a bank and getting a mortgage without ever knowing what the interest rates are on it. We're being asked to approve today in second reading a bill that we know we'll only have eight days of hearings on, and we know the government is going to force through third reading on it. It's not unlike what we've seen in the last few days.

The labour bill, which will fundamentally change the way collective bargaining takes place in Ontario, was introduced two weeks ago, was rammed through, and the government got away with it. But for the employees in Ontario, to fundamentally change the way they do collective bargaining, never give them a chance to come to their duly elected Legislature and have their views expressed, we're asking people to get angry and to rebel. I mean it in a figurative sense, Mr Speaker.

It's like the election financing bill. Frankly, it is obscene that that bill is being rammed through. Mike Harris has got more money than he knows what to do with in his elections, because he's got lots of well-to-do people who are quite prepared to line the Conservative pocket, but for the other parties it clearly is a disadvantage. Clearly it is the advantage of the privileged party, but it's being rammed through. It is being rammed through with virtually no debate, no agreement, as is tradition, by the other parties. Believe me, it will Americanize politics in the province of Ontario.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: There's Judge Guzzo again, complaining. I would just say to him that it is clearly Americanizing politics in Ontario. We have had a history in this country and in this province where whether you get elected or not does not depend on how much money you spend or how much money you can raise and how many people will give you money but rather on your ideas. We are changing that with that bill.

The reason I mention that is that we've now got another example, and the public should be aware of this. We are being asked to approve a motion tonight that will limit the public hearings on Hydro to eight days, something that is clearly the biggest business deal in North America for the next 10 years. Furthermore, we're not only being ordered to do that; we are then being ordered to approve the bill for third reading when it returns here, with virtually no debate.

As I prepare to turn it over to my colleague from St Catharines, I wanted to get on the record our concerns. I think the people of Ontario are owed substantially more time for involvement in this. I believe, as others have expressed, that this is not just a Toronto issue. We should be giving people across the province an opportunity to participate in this debate. This is not something that should be dependent on whether you have the time to come down to Toronto. We should be giving all the people of this province an opportunity to participate in something that is so fundamental to that.

Those are our concerns and the reason we object to this particular motion.

Mr Bradley: I'd like to add to the words of wisdom from the member for Renfrew North and the member for Scarborough-Agincourt just a couple of additional comments about a time allocation motion.

If you calculate the amount of time spent on time allocation motions - those are motions, by the way, which choke off any further debate on significant government issues, issues before this House. If you calculate how much it costs, I wonder if it would cost as much - and you have seen this, Mr Speaker, yourself - as the full-page ads, which I hope Hydro doesn't embark upon. I've seen these full-page ads -

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thought we were debating a certain bill here. I thought that was what we were talking about. I would like to see that information if we want to continue that debate.

The Acting Speaker: That is a point of order, but I'm just trying to listen to the member get started.

Mr Bradley: Mr Speaker, I've noted with you in the chair that you have always been willing to give a chance to members to get to the point, to bring in all these matters together. What I am concerned about, what I know you would be concerned about, is that under the provisions of this bill which is being forced through with this time allocation motion, Ontario Hydro will not be putting out material such as this.

This of course is the pamphlet put out to all households in Ontario by the Ministry of Health at a cost of $1.270 million, so every time somebody sees this arrive at the house, that's what they think of. I've seen Hydro do that from time to time, but what happens with Hydro is that it's usually some factual information on, for instance, how to save electricity, how to be involved in conservation, and I hope that the government remembers that. I've even seen - I consider the ads by the so-called hospital restructuring committee to be just a waste of taxpayers' money. But Ontario Hydro, and where this comes in this bill, has the opportunity to promote conservation. What I'm concerned about environmentally is that many of the conservation measures appear to be falling by the wayside. Some of the cheaper and cleaner ways of producing electricity are being shoved aside as Hydro heads in one specific direction.

1720

That is why I wanted to see more hearings take place during the summer, and an opportunity to place amendments, if people had that chance to place amendments. But just as Bill 36, the bill which will allow the Conservative Party to spend massive amounts of money on election campaigns and collect massive amounts from people making contributions, was pushed through this House, without an opportunity for any public hearings in that case, without an opportunity even to have amendments placed - in case my friend from Quinte had an amendment he wanted to place, I wanted him to have that opportunity.

The door was shut on amendments on Bill 36. Where I want to say there's a difference in this one is that I hope there's at least, in this bill dealing with Hydro an opportunity to place an amendment for this House to consider, not to have the door slammed shut by Mike Harris, who says: "I don't care what anybody else wants. I'm not even going to entertain or think of or allow an amendment to what Guy Giorno and the whiz kids have put in this bill. To heck with you people." We're not even going to have public hearings, they said in that bill. I think a bill as massive as the Hydro bill deserves far more than eight days of hearings in this province, because its ramifications are great for many years to come.

Mr Lessard: I want to outline at the beginning that I will splitting my time with the member for Lake Nipigon and also the member for Sudbury East if she is inclined to participate in this debate.

It's unfortunate that once again we're debating a time allocation motion. I think I've spoken three times this week on three separate time allocation motions and it's only Wednesday. This is a government that says they're good managers but seem to be constantly relying on having to bully their way through to get their agenda taken care of. I really consider it an abuse of their position as a majority government.

This week we saw them ramming through a bill dealing with campaign financing, changes to how elections are going to take place in Ontario. They did that in an unprecedented way, without the consensus of all three parties. They rammed that through, no chance for any amendments to be put, no public hearings, just rammed it through.

They also did the same thing with Bill 31, a very anti-labour, anti-union piece of legislation. I received a number of letters from constituents about this, who said, "Let's have public hearings." The government once again said: "No, we're not going to have public hearings on Bill 31. We're going to ram that through." They rammed through another of their pieces of legislation to attack working people in the province. It's a troubling pattern, of introducing legislation, having a couple days of debate, bringing in a time allocation motion, and shutting off that debate and any opportunity for the public to participate and for amendments to be placed.

This is a government for which, clearly, a huge majority isn't enough. What they did was to extend the sittings of the Legislature into the evening, so that instead of just sitting from 1:30 until 6 o'clock at night, we have another day of sitting from 6:30 until 9:30, another day of sitting but without question period, I might add, which is really the time that we as opposition members get to hold this government accountable. That is eliminated during the second sitting, but that's not enough either, they had to change the rules of how we conduct debates here in the Legislature.

You would think that all of those things would be enough, but not even that is enough. They still can't manage their agenda. They still demonstrate a pattern of incompetence and poor management in dealing with their agenda and once again are forced to bring in a time allocation motion to limit debate and ram this piece of legislation through.

What does this time allocation motion do? It says that we are going to have only eight days of hearings with respect to Bill 35, the bill to deregulate, to break up Ontario Hydro, a bill that has some 161 pages of very technical provisions. The public is only going to have eight days to have any input into this bill.

We've seen pieces of legislation that have been rammed through by this government before. Even though they like to say that they're great managers and run government like a business, there have been numerous examples of terribly flawed legislation that have been introduced in this House and rammed through because we haven't had the opportunity to have the appropriate amount of debate.

A recent example is the property assessment act, where four or five attempts were made to get that right, and that bill was rammed through again. I have no doubt that a year or two from now there are going to be all kinds of mistakes and shortcomings that will be determined, as a result of the implementation of that bill, by people like municipal clerks and treasurers throughout Ontario. That's something the next government's going to have to deal with.

I found a few mistakes in this bill as well. There's a provision in here that sets up the Independent Market Operator, the IMO. The provisions that deal with that talk about how many people are on the board of directors, how they're going to be appointed. It also has a very important provision - this is section 9 - that says, "The directors and officers...shall comply with the provisions of the governance and structure bylaw relating to conflict of interest." I think that's a pretty important provision to have with respect to any of the new agencies that are being set up under Bill 35.

Another two that are being set up are the Generation Corp and the Services Corp. That's being set up in part IV of schedule A. However, in that section of the bill, it doesn't say anything about how many people are going to be on the board of directors or how they're going to be appointed. I would think the government would probably want to try to address this through some amendments. It's just a clear oversight that a bill that has been given such wide consultation, as we've been led to believe, and that has had so many consultants working on it and so much advice provided to the government in preparing - that mistakes like that wouldn't happen.

Part V sets up the Financial Corp. It's interesting that this section doesn't have any provision in it with respect to the members of the corporation having to comply with the conflict-of-interest guidelines. That may be an oversight, but I'd like to address that a little bit in a couple of minutes when I talk about Mr Farlinger and his relationship with Newcourt financial corporation.

This is a government that says: "Trust us. We're great business managers. What we're doing with Ontario Hydro is without reproach. It's a great idea. Trust us. Promised lower rates, increased protection for the environment? No problem, don't worry about it." In fact, this government went to great lengths today by providing the Ontario government business plans that say what a great job they're doing. The Chair of Management Board stood up to say that the government's a great manager, but we know what he's really saying. He's saying, "Don't worry, be happy, everything is fine." But do you know what the people I represent in Windsor-Riverside are telling me? They're saying that everything isn't fine. It's not fine. This is just a smokescreen to cover up a pattern of consistent and disastrous cuts to fund this government's phoney tax scheme.

1730

That's what it's all about. It's a tax scheme that benefits those who are the most well off. They claim it's leading to job creation, but our healthy economy has little to do with what is in this business plan. It has a whole lot to do with the health of the American economy, and we'd better all hope the health of that economy continues to be very robust, because if something happens in the United States like happened in Asia or Japan, we're all going to be in trouble in the province of Ontario.

People in Ontario really know what this business plan means. It means more cuts to education, more hospital closings, the closing of more schools. Today it was announced in the newspaper in my area that four schools in Windsor and Essex county could be faced with closure next year. It means the end of many programs we have come to rely on here in Ontario as well. As the Minister of Health is running around the province distributing money for capital funding and trying to establish how health care in the province is actually improving - in fact, they distributed this fancy glossy pamphlet to everybody in the province at a cost of who knows how many millions of dollars to tell us all about how great the health care system is in the province.

The minister is out there handing out dollars to try and bolster the government's attempts to be successful in the next election, which we expect to be very soon, but at the same time she's slashing the operating budgets of hospitals. We've experienced that in our own area and I'm sure other members have experienced that in their areas. People say, "Capital funding is all well and good, but what are we going to do with these fancy buildings and this fancy equipment if we don't have people in the hospitals to provide the services?"

We've seen cuts to environmental protection as well. The Chair of Management Board said today that they need to run government like a business, but I would submit that no business would run like this government. People have no idea how they're going to deal with this government's slash-and-burn agenda. They don't know who is going to be hit next or how they're going to deal with it. That is the context within which we have this time allocation motion dealing with Bill 35.

Basically, the government is saying: "We know what's best for Ontario Hydro. It's all in Bill 35. Trust us. All we need to do is ram this bill through and everything will be fine for consumers, for the environment and for all the taxpayers of Ontario." But I have some real scepticism about the claims of this government when they say, "Trust us," and I see plenty of things here in Bill 35 that cause me concern.

The government says, "Trust us," when they say: "We don't have a privatization agenda. The break-up of Ontario Hydro has got nothing to do with privatization." The member for Huron in her remarks said, "You won't see the word `privatization' in the bill at all so that's not what we're trying to do here." But meanwhile, they've appointed Sir Graham Day, who's known as the serial privatizer of Great Britain, to come and be on the board of directors of Ontario Hydro. What gives here? If they really and truly don't have an agenda to privatize Ontario Hydro, put it in the bill. Let's have an amendment that says the privatization of Ontario Hydro isn't going to happen in this legislation. Just put it in there.

We also have heard the news with respect to Mr Farlinger and his recent appointment to Newcourt Credit Group, a corporate finance company that deals with the development of major capital projects such as power facilities. The Premier was asked today whether this sounds like a conflict of interest to him. Mr Farlinger is on the board of Ontario Hydro and he's also on the board at Newcourt financial services. The Premier says he doesn't think that that is a conflict, and if Mr Farlinger thinks there's a conflict and he tells me that there isn't one, well, that's good enough for me.

But it's clearly a conflict, because one of the most important issues that Ontario Hydro is going to have to deal with is the issue of the stranded debt. If Ontario Hydro guesses wrong with respect to the stranded debt, we're going to be in big trouble. What is going to happen is that if Ontario Hydro is not competitive in this new competitive market, they are going to fold up. If they can't compete, what's going to happen to them?

What is going to happen to the stranded debt in that case? What is going to happen to the assets of Ontario Hydro in the case that they fail?

Well, companies like Newcourt are going to be able to move in to help provide that financing, to take advantage of the opportunities there, and there are tremendous opportunities for millions of dollars of profit to be made through the breakup of Ontario Hydro. Investors are salivating down on Bay Street and Wall Street and in other parts of the world about the opportunities that are going to be opened up through the breakup of Ontario Hydro.

None of us wants to see the new Ontario Hydro Financial Corp fail. We want to see it continue and to ensure that the stranded debt gets paid by consumers of electricity. We don't want to see that debt stuck on taxpayers, which is a very real threat. We also don't want to see that some large power consumers are going to be able to wriggle out of their obligations to pay the stranded debt.

Who is going to be involved in determining what the stranded debt is and how it's going to be paid off? No other than Mr Farlinger. I would imagine he would have a lot to say, and has already had a lot to say, about what the stranded debt for Ontario Hydro is. Whether he is right or whether he is wrong is going to provide opportunities, in my submission, for financial services companies like Newcourt. That's why it's clearly a conflict. If the Premier doesn't understand that, it's unfathomable to me.

Stranded debt is something that is defined in the legislation, of course. It's defined as "the amount of the debts and other liabilities of the financial corporation" - that's Ontario Hydro Financial Corp - "that...cannot reasonably be serviced and retired in a competitive electricity market."

What does that mean? We have absolutely no idea. It's another one of these cases where the government is saying: "Trust us. Just let us pass this legislation. We're going to have a discussion paper some time in July that explains how the stranded debt will be determined" - it won't say what the stranded debt is, just how it's going to be determined - "and we'll just carry on."

The key to the success of Bill 35 and the competitiveness of Ontario Hydro in the future and also the ability to lower rates for consumers is all going to be based on the estimate of the stranded debt.

1740

We all know how that stranded debt got there. It got there because of huge cost overruns for the Darlington nuclear power plant, another one of those cases where a Progressive Conservative government said, "Trust us, it's only going to cost a few billion dollars," but it turned out that it cost $14 billion. This is a government that says: "We have a great business plan. We should run government like a business."

I'm sure they would not want to use that as an example of how they would want people to run their businesses, because that was one of the hugest boondoggles that we ever saw in the province of Ontario, and we're all paying for it now. We're all going to continue to pay for it well into the future. We're going to pay for it, hopefully, as consumers of electricity, but if the government is wrong in their estimates, we're going to get stuck with it as taxpayers and large consumers of electrical power in Ontario are going to be able to get out of their responsibilities to deal with the stranded debt, and that is my real concern here.

It also is a concern because it's Mr Farlinger who was making these wild predictions about what the stranded debt is going to be, whether it's going to be $15 billion, $20 billion, $30 billion. Who knows what it's going to be? But if that guess is wrong, then Mr Farlinger is going to be able to benefit from his association with this Newcourt financial corporation. He can't have it both ways. He's playing both sides of the fence. It's an obvious conflict of interest. He has to make up his mind: Is he going to protect the interests of the public, the taxpayers of the province, the consumers of electric power in Ontario, or is he going to be pursuing his private sector interests that are going to be directly in conflict with the objectives of Ontario Hydro? He needs to make up his mind.

The carrot that the government is holding out in all of this is that rates are going to be reduced. Everybody is going to get lower power rates. All I can say is that if the government really believes that, they should put it in the bill. That's not in there. There is no rate protection in the bill; there is no protection that says rates are going to go down or they're guaranteed to even stay the same. There's no protection in there whatsoever. I'd like to see those amendments moved and put in the bill, because once again, if the government's wrong in how they determine what the stranded debt is going to be, it's likely that it's going to be decades, if ever, before consumers ever see a reduction in their rates for hydro in Ontario.

This is a government that likes to say: "Consumers will have more choice. They'll be able to look to different suppliers of electrical energy and work out a deal." This is a government that made past legislation that said tenants should be able to work out a deal with landlords. They want to remove the protection of unions as well, because they think employees should be able to work out a fair deal with employers. It just doesn't happen when people are in such an unfair bargaining position.

It's not going to happen to John and Mary Public, people like myself, small residential consumers. We're not going to go to some company like Pacific Gas and Electric and say, "Please give us a good deal on our electrical power." It's just not going to happen. The people who are going to make the good deals are large energy consumers, big corporate friends of this government. Those are the people who are going to end up with the good deals. What's going to happen to the rest of us is that we're all going to get stuck holding the bag. That's my big concern in this bill: Who is going to benefit and who is going to pay the bills? I'm concerned about the impact this is going to have on small consumers and I'm concerned about the impact it's going to have on our environment because there aren't the protections for the environment that this government is saying are in there.

There's a lot of regulation-making power that says the government may do this, it may do that, but none of it says they shall do it. We need some of those guarantees with respect to protection of the environment because right across the Detroit River from my riding is a power plant that's called the Conners Creek generating station. It hasn't been operating in about 10 years. It's a dirty coal-fired power plant. They want to start that up in July. It's going to increase smog in Ontario. It's going to increase the number of premature deaths because of bad air.

This government needs to take steps to ensure that power plants like Conners Creek aren't able to start up without proper environmental technologies to reduce emissions, and I don't see that in this bill. That's something that we need to see in the bill. The government says, "Trust us, we have this regulation-making power in here," but the Environmental Commissioner has released a scathing report about this government's dealing with the protection of the environment and I don't trust them, frankly, when they say, "Trust us." This is a government that, when it comes to protection of consumers and protection of the environment, is not to be trusted.

I don't support this time allocation motion. I think it's an inappropriate way for this government to deal with their agenda. I don't think eight days of public hearings are going to be enough to give people public input and to get proper scrutiny of this bill. I have serious concerns about how this bill is going to protect consumers and the environment. Until we get answers to those questions, we're not going to be able to support Bill 35.

Mr Pouliot: I have in front of me our House agenda and it says Bill 35, Hydro, a most important issue - we're all consumers - and it says time allocation motion. This tactic has been evoked more than 20 times in this session alone. Well, 82 members as a majority does not suffice this regime. It's not enough to have 82 members out of a House of 130.

First they change the rules and then they wish to limit debate further, and over 20 times they come up with a time allocation motion which is in essence a move to silence the opposition and, yes, one more time the opposition is being silenced. It's a padlock law. It's like coming here in this context with a pair of handcuffs and trying to do your job. Not only do they use their majority muscle at every opportunity, they literally silence the opposition. They rule by decree.

Hydro is so important, inevitably so. What are we confronted with, Mr Speaker? I want you to share with me a day in the life of chairman of the board, chief executive officer, Mr Farlinger. He's the top electricity person in the province of Ontario.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): How much does he make?

Mr Pouliot: He's the big boss and he gets well compensated, about $350,000 per annum. But that's not all and we don't begrudge him. But a day in the life of Mr Farlinger brings us on the board of directors of Cara, of Manulife, of Laidlaw. He's a very talented person. A critic would ask, how does he have time to run Ontario Hydro, the largest corporation in the province, while sitting on all these boards? But I compliment him. He is a gifted person. Of course he is a serial director collector. He collects directorships like some people might collect stamps. There's nothing wrong with that. We have no objection whatsoever; in fact we want to wish him well. It's a recognition of his talents. This person is very much in demand.

Where we draw the line is when Mr Farlinger becomes a director of Newcourt Credit Group. Newcourt Credit Group are moneylenders. They're facilitators. They lend money. Well, you might ask quizzically, "What does that have to do with Ontario Hydro?" There is a connection here. Contact is being made.

Ontario Hydro will change its makeup. It will go from public to private. It will be dismantled. And they will need money, because Ontario Hydro has this huge debt, a mountain of debt. At present the debt is exceeding $32 billion, and they're going to borrow another $10 billion to $15 billion to fix the nuclear plants so we don't end up with brownouts and we are still able to get some electricity.

It's been established that that's what they refer to as the stranded debt, that big pool of red spread out over 30, 40 years. You know, the stranded debt - well, we're stranded. Ontarians are stranded. They'll have to pick up the bill. There is no secret here. The debt will not vanish. We will have to fork over or shell out over $30 billion. That is a lot of money, so we'll have to borrow. What they will set the corporation at we don't know. Surely they're not going to go bankrupt. We're not going to come to junk bonds.

1750

When this move takes place, when you watch the chess game, we will keep our eyes on the Ontario Securities Commission, because if we don't keep our eyes wide open and warn the OSC of what's taking place, maybe there will be life after Bre-X. Maybe Bre-X will live again, or maybe Mr Milken will propose to us that we come up with junk bonds. And those coupons get more and more expensive.

Why is it that when we're talking about Ontario Hydro, a utility so important that it touches the very life of everyone from morning till night - no one escapes Ontario Hydro; we need it - someone should have the audacity to rule by decree, to come up with the padlock motion one more time. Eighty-two members are not enough. They don't want any opposition.

It means they cannot manage the shop. If anyone believes that a Progressive Conservative government is a good manager of prosperity, they'd better think, and think again, because it is not so. They couldn't manage the simplest of boutiques. They're not the least bit sophisticated when it comes to money management. In fact, the debt at Ontario Hydro will almost double in their term of office. Imagine that. Yet they'll say: "We'll go for a tax break. The provincial debt's going to $115 billion, but that's okay. We'll throw a big party, where mostly the rich people, the well-to-do" - the name is the address - "are invited. It makes a lot more sense."

We, the opposition, are here to cooperate and, as an alternative, until we form the government after the next election, to offer positive alternatives. One of them is that you pay your debt first. You've gone too far with the plastico, with the credit cards. You've had your limit raised one time too many. Now it consumes your revenue. So why don't you stop partying? Stop giving a tax break to the very rich and go home and render your obligations. Pay your debt first. We will be watching very closely.

It was my leader, Mr Hampton, yesterday in this House who broke the story. Since this has happened, it has taken on extraordinary proportions. Again, we see no conflict, we see no relationship between directorship and chairmanship; Mike Harris says he doesn't see any. But when we bring in Newcourt Credit Group, the money lenders, we see the emergence of a one-stop shop. All you have to do is talk to one person, the director, the chief executive officer of Hydro and a director with the money lenders. It's too close for comfort. We see this thing as a real conflict, and it's not enough for Mike Harris to say that we're trying to be honestly dishonest. It doesn't work here, Mr Premier.

People care about Hydro. We shouldn't be under a gag order. We shouldn't be shackled. We should be able to debate until we see every issue resolved, addressed. The public will not have that chance. The public has one responsibility: They will be asked to pay, pay and pay again, and to do so in silence. The consumers are being asked to say little. The opposition is being silenced. Decree is the order of the day in Ontario at present. Eighty-two members: not good enough. Change the rules: not good enough. Time closure: not good enough.

It's getting increasingly difficult to represent your constituents in this House because you are not given the tools to do your job. They have been taken away. The toolbox has been stolen and peddled somepalce else. It is with great regret, but we shall be watching very, very carefully. We will be at our post when we see the manoeuvring that takes place between Ontario Hydro and one money lender credit corporation named Newcourt.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Sterling has moved government notice of motion number 25. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, 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 1758 to 1803.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Danford, Harry

Doyle, Ed

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Murdoch, Bill

Newman, Dan

Parker, John L.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Christopherson, David

Conway, Sean G.

Duncan, Dwight

Lankin, Frances

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Miclash, Frank

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 50; the nays are 19.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

It now being just after 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 of the clock later on.

The House adjourned at 1806.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.