Journal des débats 2003-juin-03 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I beg to inform the House that pursuant to section 30 of the Members' Integrity Act, 1994, I have today laid upon the table a request from the member for Scarborough Centre to the Honourable Coulter Osborne, Integrity Commissioner, for an opinion on whether the member for Brant has contravened the act or Ontario parliamentary convention.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VEHICLE INSURANCE

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): There are currently 100 independent professional pilot car operators in Ontario, four of which are in my riding of Brant. These pilot car operators escort wide loads on our highways. Since September 11, 2001, there has been an increasing problem in the pilot car industry in Ontario to obtain either automobile or business insurance. Rates prior to 9/11 were $3,000 to $5,000 annually. Now they are $9,000 to $15,000 annually, if an insurance company even accepts an application.

In the past two months, Ray Hauley, owner-operator of Rig Guard Oversize Load Specialists in Brantford and president of the association, has approached three different insurance brokers who have contacted 21 independent insurance companies. Although there has never been any charge of any violation by the 200 pilot car operators surveyed in Canada, all have refused to issue Mr Hauley insurance without reason.

Professional pilot car operators are being unjustly treated by the insurance industry and by the government of Ontario, which regulates that insurance industry. Unless the Ernie Eves government does something soon, 100 self-employed individuals will lose their jobs, resulting in a grave effect on even larger industries that cannot transport their wide loads on our highways within Ontario. I am urging the Ontario government to take immediate action to assist this highly skilled, extremely safe and important profession. Premier, do it now for the sake of those industries in my riding and ridings across Ontario. Please act as soon as you possibly can to get them insurance that keeps big business moving on our highways.

PARAMEDIC PROGRAM

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): Today I rise before the House to speak about the launch of a new primary care paramedic program through CTS Canadian Career College in my riding of Nipissing.

Canadian Career College is the first private career college in Ontario able to address the acute need for paramedics in the province, particularly in northern Ontario. After two years in development, the intensive 52-week paramedic program is now available in both Sudbury and North Bay. The launch of this new paramedic program by CTS is an example of the unique contribution Ontario's private career colleges make and are making in communities across the province and northern Ontario.

North Bay General Hospital and the base hospital are very pleased that CTS has launched this program this year. The Nipissing district is underserviced in the area of certified paramedics entering the workforce. This program will assist the hospital in the recruitment of locally trained paramedics who have the knowledge of local roads and waterways, which will be vital to providing emergency services to our citizens.

It's absolutely vital that we attract people with health care skills to the north, and this program certainly goes a long way to accomplishing that goal. I'd like to congratulate Carlos Carvalho, president of CTS Canadian Career College, and his team for taking this initiative in addressing the need for paramedics in northern Ontario. Mr Carvalho is a business leader, a community leader and a big booster of northern Ontario.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): David Crombie says, "It's not a credible policy." Hazel McCallion called it "ridiculous and irresponsible." Hamilton Mayor Bob Wade agreed: "It doesn't make any sense."

What are these municipal leaders talking about? Of course it's the Ernie Eves plan to punish our cities and towns. Rejected by mayors, reeves and councils, this proposal from the Tory re-election platform is a perfect illustration of just how out of touch the Eves government is with the challenges facing our municipal leaders, despite the fact that the provincial government can continue their downloading on municipalities without regard for their ability to pay. Whether it is for welfare, public health, policing or infrastructure, this government has the gall to insist that tying the hands of municipalities while piling on additional costs is a fair proposal.

I'm heartened to see our municipal leaders disagree with you, Mr Eves. Ken Boshcoff, mayor of Thunder Bay and president of AMO, was clear. He said, "It's a very bad idea. We've been approaching the province to help us with the tax situation and instead we're being made to look like the scapegoat. This idea has never been discussed with anyone in municipal government, ever" -- so much for your ballyhooed memo of understanding with local government partners. Even Bill Murdoch and AL McDonald are running away from their platform. Over 50 councils have passed resolutions asking you to do just that, and many more will do so at their June council meetings.

I want to reassure our municipal partners in Ontario that a Dalton McGuinty government will strike a real new deal with you, sharing our tax room and not tying your hands. You deserve better than what Ernie Eves wants to give you.

LITERACY TESTS

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I'd like to draw the attention and --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Order. I'd like to hear the member who has the floor. Usually one member has the floor. That means the rest of you shut up.

The Chair recognizes the member for Halton.

Mr Chudleigh: Mr Speaker, I wonder if I could have my minute and a half back on the clock.

The Deputy Speaker: I'll give you all the time you need.

1340

Mr Chudleigh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There seems to be a certain amount of frivolity in the House this afternoon.

I'd like to draw the attention of the Legislature to the success of the grade 10 students attending the Halton Catholic high school board. These students managed a 78% pass rate on the provincial literacy test -- a mark well above the provincial average, and in fact it's in the very top percentile of the provincial average. This is well above the provincial average, and the students and teachers in the Halton Catholic system certainly deserve a round of applause for that tremendous success.

This of course begs the question, why is there a discrepancy between the Halton Catholic system and the rest of Ontario? There are several reasons these tests were instituted. The first step was in making sure high school students who graduate can read and write and to establish a standard. That standard is successful completion of the test. Then we wanted to give students time to increase their level of literacy if they were struggling, and that's why the test is given in grade 10.

The tests also provide a snapshot into the success of various boards of education. While the results are by no means definitive, especially on a single-year basis, over time the results do paint a picture of the levels of success of various boards and the ability of students within those boards.

It is well known that students in some boards face significant issues such as wide income disparities and large numbers of non-native-English speakers through immigration and other issues. However, what is not as well known is how these issues affect literacy results and, more importantly, how teachers and boards can most effectively pull up the scores of their students.

I commend the Ministry of Education for instituting these tests. I implore the boards of education throughout Ontario to make use of the results, and I congratulate the students and teachers in Halton for their excellent showing.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My statement is to the Minister of Health. In the throne speech there is a sentence which says, "To increase the number of nurses practising in Ontario, your government will launch an aggressive nurse recruitment and retention program." That's a nice little philosophical statement. Let's look at reality. The reality out of last Friday's Belleville Intelligencer details the plans for Quinte Health Care: day surgery, eliminate one shift; emergency department, reduce registered nurse hours; operating room, eliminate one evening shift; post-anaesthetic care unit, eliminate evening shift; emergency department, reduce RN hours; combined medical, reduce RPN and ward clerk hours; special care unit, reduce RN hours. The reality is far, far different from that statement.

Your government spends $75,000 every minute of every day on consultants. That's seven days a week, 365 days a year that your government spends $75,000 per minute on consultants. My community says, "Give us 59 minutes of that consultant time." That will balance the $4.4 million in painful cuts that my hospital corporation has had to do. All we ask is for 59 minutes of time from your friends to be directed toward health care. Minister, stand up for health care. Do something for health care for the people in all of Ontario.

SUDBURY SOILS STUDY

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): On September 12, 2001, the Ministry of the Environment announced that it and the Sudbury and district medical officer of health were requiring Inco and Falconbridge to conduct a human health risk assessment in the greater Sudbury area. The mining companies would use the results of new MOE soil samples -- samples which have traditionally shown elevated levels of arsenic, nickel, copper and cobalt in our area.

The study is being managed by a technical committee of six partners, including Inco and Falconbridge. This is a clear conflict of interest. The study will determine if 125 years of mining has negatively affected the health of local residents. It will recommend what remedial action should be taken. How likely is it that Inco and Falconbridge will want evidence of significant problems made public? How likely is it they'll come forward with plans for remedial work if this is going to be costly?

A look at Inco's performance in Port Colborne is proof enough of why neither company should be on Sudbury's technical committee. Last week Inco finally released indoor air testing results from 31 Port Colborne homes, even though they'd been done since January. They were only released because an affected homeowner had serious respiratory problems and his doctor needed the information. The results showed that the air in the home contained enough nickel contamination to present a cancer risk 15 to 290 times greater than the MOE's tolerable risk level.

Inco is now pushing to have a study done by two researchers in North Carolina used to calculate cancer risks in Port Colborne. It's worth noting that one of the two authors of the North Carolina study is an employee of the Nickel Producers Environmental Research Association, which is partially funded by INCO.

The Minister of the Environment should take INCO and Falconbridge off the technical committee of the Sudbury soils study. The work is too important to be affected by any real or perceived conflicts of interest.

TRILLIUM HEALTH CENTRE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): For those of us who have been able to carry on with our normal daily lives during the SARS outbreak, it is hard to comprehend the severe stress that front-line health care workers have endured over the past three months.

On May 29, I had the opportunity to meet with and thank the staff at the Trillium Health Centre in Mississauga, which held a SARS "Maskerade" party in appreciation of the team's remarkable efforts during the SARS era.

What can we say about the amazing women and men who have helped us contain this new disease while putting their own health and personal lives at risk? Some of the words that come to my mind are courage, caring, compassion, endurance, commitment to their profession and work ethic.

Imagine having to wear a mask continuously for days at a time, or the fear of making even one mistake in infection control. Imagine the complexity of the screening operations and the strain of taking the overflow from other hospitals that had to close. Imagine surviving on little sleep and not being able to see one's family.

Whether they are hospital staff, public health professionals, paramedics, security guards or scientists, these workers have endured some of the most difficult months of their lives. There are simply no adequate words to commend their efforts, but there is one word that describes them all: heroes.

To all the players on our health care team at the Trillium Health Centre: we are extremely grateful, we salute your efforts and we are in awe of you, our real-life heroes. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.

IMMIGRANTS

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Just when I thought that this divisive government had run out of scapegoats, including welfare recipients, teachers and civil servants, a new political low was struck. They picked a new group of victims: immigrants. The Tories announced with grand fanfare that illegal immigrants will be ineligible for OHIP and welfare recipients will be prevented from sponsoring immigrants. Mr Speaker, welfare recipients are not allowed to sponsor immigrants now, and illegal immigrants are already prohibited from using OHIP. We on this side of the House do not believe that the government should be deliberately creating scapegoats out of new immigrants in the minds of Ontarians to try to win an election. Indeed, most Ontarians are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants.

The real bottom line is this: our economy will not grow if our labour market does not grow. We, the Ontario Liberals, appropriately address immigration under our economy platform, while the Tories shamelessly place immigration in their crime policy.

Immigrants in this province, including my late father, understood what this government suddenly, and for political purposes, ignores: as immigrants, along with former refugees, we always knew it was a privilege to live in this country, an enormous privilege, but we also understood the enormous contributions we made that made Canada the country it is and the envy of the world.

Shame on this Premier. Scapegoating should be beneath the Premier of the land. He should apologize to all Ontarians, because this is an insult to all Ontarians.

NEUSTADT CRAB STEAK LOBSTERFEST

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I am proud to let everyone in this House know about an event I recently attended in my riding called the Neustadt Crab Steak Lobsterfest. It included the efforts and hard work from the Neustadt and District Lions Club, who dedicated hours of their time to bring this annual affair to the local community and area.

The Neustadt and District Lions Club has been serving the crab and lobster dinners for over 20 years, and this year added the steak dinner to their menu, which was held at the Neustadt Arena. With the crabs imported from Alaska and a jam-packed hall, there were almost 900 meals served.

The evening also included live entertainment by The Westernaires. I would like to praise the band for their dedication. They played continuously for three hours. I would also like to recognize the presence of the Neustadt volunteer firefighters, who were raffling tickets, and the agricultural society for the many volunteers they provided.

The success of this event is due to the hard work of all the Neustadt and District Lions Club members, their spouses, friends and volunteers from the Neustadt-Normanby-Carrick Agricultural Society. Thank you to all the people who came to enjoy the tasty food, listen to some good old country music and partake in a memorable day. It was truly a community event. I congratulate those involved and wish them all the best in organizing Crab Steak Lobsterfest 2004.

1350

VISITOR

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Speaker: I'm sure you, with the rest of the House, want to join me in welcoming in the members' gallery west the longest-serving mayor in the history of the city of Hamilton, former Hamilton Mayor Bob Morrow.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Welcome.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALTH INSURANCE
AMENDMENT ACT (INSULIN PUMPS
FOR DIABETICS), 2003 /
LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI
SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ
(POMPES À INSULINE POUR DIABÉTIQUES)

Mr Duncan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 76, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act / Projet de loi 76, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-santé.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

Would the member care to make a brief statement?

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): The bill amends the Health Insurance Act by making the provision of insulin pumps and supplies for them an insured service under the act.

Diabetes is a leading cause of blindness, amputation, kidney failure and heart disease in Ontario. Type 1, or juvenile, diabetes is a life-altering condition. While people with diabetes only make up 6% of Ontario's population, they account for 32% of heart attacks, 43% of failure cases, 30% of strokes, 51% of new dialysis patients and 70% of amputations.

An insulin pump not only prevents complications for young people but in many cases reverses them by putting a regular amount of insulin into the body that closely matches what the body normally does. The cost of the pump prevents most Ontarians from having the use of it.

IRISH HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2003 /
LOI DE 2003 SUR LE JOUR
DU PATRIMOINE IRLANDAIS

Bill 77, An Act proclaiming Irish Heritage Day / Projet de loi 77, Loi proclamant le Jour du patrimoine irlandais.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

Would the member care to make a brief statement?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It is my pleasure to support, as I encourage all members to support, their own personal heritage by bringing forward legislation that would help to celebrate our heritage, whatever that might be.

On the many occasions I've had the chance to visit Ireland, and particularly county Wicklow, it reinforced and reaffirmed for me how important my own particular culture and heritage is. So I would like to see March 17 celebrated unanimously as Irish Heritage Day.

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT
(TRANSIENT TENANCIES), 2003 /
LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI
SUR LES CONDOMINIUMS
(LOCATIONS TEMPORAIRES)

Mr Smitherman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 78, An Act to amend the Condominium Act, 1998 to limit the use of condominiums by transient tenants / Projet de loi 78, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur les condominiums afin de limiter l'usage des condominiums par des locataires de passage.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

Would the member care to make a short statement?

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): This is a consumer protection bill. It amends the Condominium Act, 1998, to prevent owners of condominium units from leasing them or otherwise letting them for transient use unless the condominium declaration provides express authority for transient use.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SARS

Ms Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Health. Joining us in the gallery today are nurses from North York General Hospital. We're very pleased to welcome them here today. We are pleased to have them joining us here in the gallery because I would like you to address them directly. They have very serious concerns about how the SARS outbreak has been handled, and we need answers. These are the people who are on the front lines. These are the people who put their lives at risk every day on the job. What they have to say is scary. For example, your SARS notice dated May 28 says that masks should be fitted properly. Can you imagine? These nurses say that's simply not happening. There are front-line health workers walking around with gaping masks.

This is just one of the issues that needs to be looked at. We believe the only way that you will find the real answers behind what went wrong is through a full public inquiry. Will you stand, address our nurses from North York and tell them you will call --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Thank you. Minister.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I believe I can speak for every member of this House when I say to them and the people they represent that we are constantly impressed, and indeed awed, by our health workers' steadfastness, the amount of work they're doing and for putting themselves in harm's way to protect all of us in Ontario from the effects of this devastating disease. The term "hero" is sometimes overused in this day and age, but those in the audience today and the people they represent truly are heroes in the battle against SARS.

I would say to them that there are many questions that need to be answered and things that need to be investigated; as Minister of Health, I want those answers too. How did this happen? How did this happen a second time? Are there things we can learn? Are there ways in which we can improve for the future? Certainly our Premier and our government are absolutely committed to a full, fair, open and transparent process by which we can get to those very answers.

Ms Pupatello: The only way you will have a full, fair and open process is if you call a public inquiry. All those kind words that you and your colleagues on that side of the House continue to use, where nurses are concerned, will just be words if you don't back them up with action. For several weeks we have called for a full public inquiry. There are serious concerns: did government policy contribute to the spread; did government policy contribute to the second outbreak; did the individual lying unprotected in an ER hallway contribute to the spread; does the nursing casualization contribute to the spread? These are significant, tough questions for your government to have to answer. The only way that we will get to this is through a public inquiry. Will you stand in the House today and agree to a full public inquiry on SARS?

The Deputy Speaker: We expected these health care professionals to practise their profession at the very top elevation of the high respect you've given them, and I think I would ask that you practise yours the way you should too.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Health.

1400

Hon Mr Clement: I can only say that of course we want to learn as much as we can about the impact of this devastating disease and how best to transform our hospital system and our health care system so we can learn from the situation. But I will tell you that when we met with the RNAO, the Ontario Nurses' Association, the College of Nurses of Ontario, the CPSO, the OMA and the OHA, they were, to a person, absolutely convinced that the wrong way to go about this would be an exercise in finger pointing similar to the one the honourable member is suggesting. The best way to go about this is to find the answers to the very questions we are asking and to ensure that our health care system performs in a way that Ontarians expect it to perform. Quite frankly, we are focused on that goal.

Ms Pupatello: Let me say that when Ontario lost seven people in Walkerton, we called for a public inquiry, which you granted. It resulted in a report that was lauded all around as the way to go to protect water and the residents.

We've lost over 30 people because of SARS, and you can't stand in the House today and say that it won't happen again, that we'll have government policy to protect the people of Ontario and protect these front-line workers when they have serious questions about the handling. They raised alarm bells days ago and they were ignored. They were told by superiors that they were being paranoid.

Minister, seven people died in Walkerton. We were prepared for an inquiry, which resulted in a report. You didn't call that finger pointing. Over 30 people have died. It is incumbent on you as the Minister of Health to protect us today and in the future. We call on you again today, in the name of these people in the House, to please call a public inquiry.

Hon Mr Clement: In the name of the people in the House and in the name of the people of Ontario, I can assure you that we will have a full, independent, open and transparent process by which we get to the answers that all of us want to get to. The way to do that, however, is to ensure that we have the ability to get to the answers without the finger pointing that every single constituency we have talked to wants to avoid. Maybe the honourable member delights in finger pointing, but I can tell you that the health workers in the system want to get to the answers and want to ensure that they can continue to work in a health care system that is defined by collaboration, co-operation and integration, and thereby success.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Ms Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): We'd like to return to the issue of Donorgate with the Chair of the Management Board, and my question is addressed to him. Yesterday we revealed that your biggest fundraiser lent your biggest donor taxpayer-guaranteed pension funds. Experts who operate other pension funds have said that is very unusual.

Claude Lamoureux, head of the Ontario teachers' plan, said this is not something most pension plans do, as they lack the tools to administer them properly. That teachers' pension plan is six times larger than the pension plan we're talking about. Given Lamoureux's comments, do you still expect us to believe that the deal cooked up between your top fundraiser and your top donor was truly in the public interest?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): The first thing I'll do is give the honourable member an opportunity to correct the inaccuracies in her statement yesterday.

Ms Pupatello: I think it's important to note for this House that the details released in this Legislature yesterday were from items that are tabled in the Legislature. Those are data that are a record in the Legislature.

Minister, yesterday we revealed that your biggest fundraiser lent taxpayer-guaranteed pension money to your biggest donor. Today we learned that the biggest fundraiser only lent pension money to your biggest donor. This is from the Toronto Star: "Mark Fuller, executive vice-president and general counsel for the board, said in an interview the MCN group is the only developer that has received financing during the last 18 months when the pension fund started considering such deals." So the only developer your biggest fundraiser chose to invest in happened to be the PC Party's biggest donor. Just Mario Cortellucci got the deal, and he just happens to have donated more than $1 million to the Tories.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Let's return for a second here. I'm not arguing at all in terms of the accuracy of the documents tendered. What I am actually speaking about is the member's interpretation of the documents.

Let's look at the true facts here, if we can. First of all, the member yesterday indicated in the House that the fund lent Mr Cortellucci $150 million. The fact is the actual loan is for $36.3 million. However, in terms of accuracy --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Ready? The Chair recognizes the Chair of Management Board and Minister of Culture.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Unfortunately, what I hear from across the Liberal benches is that the facts are not necessary or relevant. They are, so let's look at the facts. The actual loan was $36.3 million. It's fully secured, and it's not only secured by a fixed rate of return, but it also has an additional return based on a participation amount in the profits, so between 27% and 45%. So what has happened is the mortgages that are registered on title secure the entire amounts of not only the fixed rate of return but also the amounts that would be secured by the participation in the profits. The mortgages are also --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'm trying to explain it to you folks.

The mortgages are also cross-collateralized, which means that all the properties are fully secured against each other. So obviously, if you add up all the registered numbers it's a big number, but in fact the real loan is $36.3 million, but secured by a far greater amount to ensure that security for the members of the pension plan.

Ms Pupatello: Minister, you're clearly missing the point of the question. Let me tell you what Mr Fuller at the Ontario Pension Board admitted yesterday. Mr Fuller said, "The MCN group is the only developer that has received financing during the last 18 months when the pension fund started to consider such deals." The board was not interested in these high-risks deals before these changes were made.

You have said repeatedly that the rules that govern the Ontario Pension Board have not changed since 1990. You said that yesterday. You're wrong; the policy did change. The executive vice-president confirmed that the policy changed after Mr Weiss arrived as chair, to allow loans to developers. Before Mr Weiss arrived, the OPB was only investing in low-risk real estate, like shopping malls. After your biggest fundraiser became the chair, he changed the policy and lent taxpayer-guaranteed pension funds to your biggest donor.

1410

Minister, will you now admit your top fundraiser changed the policies of the Ontario Pension Board to allow this deal with the top donor --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Let's put some real context again in terms of facts. First of all, the total assets of the fund are $11.5 billion, of which the mortgage investments represent 0.3%.

According to Benefits Canada's annual review of the top 100 pension funds, the average is 1.7% investment in mortgages. Having said that, the actual document in terms of the policy reads, "To reduce risk and enhance expected returns, equity and fixed income investments may be allocated among the following different asset classes." In that class list is mortgages. This is the policy that was brought in by the board effective November 6, 1991. I will correct my record yesterday. I said 1990. That's the date on which they had the authority to bring in the policy. However, the policy was brought in on November 6, 1991, and it has not changed since in terms of mortgage investments.

SARS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, nurses who have been dealing with the SARS crisis want a public inquiry which provides whistle-blower protection so that they can disclose to the public their concerns and their facts regarding why SARS has struck not once, but twice in Ontario. You and your Premier seem to want a backdoor review that will not have whistle-blower protection, that will not provide nurses with the guarantee they will not face discipline or some kind of recrimination when they come forward and tell their facts.

Thirty-two people have died. Hundreds have become ill. Thousands have been quarantined. Why are you so opposed to a public inquiry which provides nurses with whistle-blower protection so that they can tell the public of Ontario the real facts about what's happening?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm afraid the premise of the question is a bit incorrect. We on this side of the House do want a full, independent, open and transparent investigation of the facts to ensure we get information on the table. We believe in a publicly funded health care system that is accountable to the public. We think that's got to be one of the roots of the health care system, that makes it an accountable health care system.

When it comes to whistle-blower protection, I would say to any health worker, nurse or otherwise, that if there is evidence there is an employer who is intimidating or threatening a health worker, let us know because we will stop it right away. We will stop it. That is not to be allowed in our system. We will not allow it. Every health worker who is operating in the public interest should know that she or he has the protection of the government of Ontario when she or he is doing their job.

Mr Hampton: Nurses have raised the issue that we do not have adequate infection control in our hospitals. Nurses have raised the issue that you've been forced to recognize that because of cuts to the health care system, too many nurses are forced to work part-time jobs at two or three different hospitals. Hospitals, in trying to deal with SARS, have had to go out and hire temporary nurses at $100 an hour. The medical officer of health for Toronto has said, "Because of the cuts, both on the public health side and the hospital side, we do not have any surge capacity." In other words, when something like SARS comes at us unexpectedly, there isn't the reserve in the system to deal with the crisis.

I repeat, 32 people have died. Hundreds are sick. Thousands have been quarantined. Minister, why won't you provide nurses with whistle-blower protection? Why will you not agree to a public process so they can tell people what's really happening in the health care system?

Hon Mr Clement: The answer to the question is that we are and we are. We are seeking to protect our nurses and other medical practitioners when it comes to whistle-blower protection. We are creating a public system of investigation and review of the situation to ensure that we get to the very answers that the honourable member is speaking of. I, as health minister, want answers to these questions as well.

We, as the public, deserve answers to these questions, and there should be a means by which we get to those answers. As the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, I will tell you that is the government's intention. I know the honourable member doesn't want to take yes for an answer, but yes is the answer to his question.

Mr Hampton: Minister, what you're proposing and what you don't want to be honest about with the public is really a backroom review. It is not something that would be recorded in public. It would not provide whistle-blower protection for --

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The honourable member made mention of honesty with respect to the minister. I don't think that's appropriate, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I'm sorry. If there was, I didn't pick it up. If the member has something he would like to retract or apologize for, that's fine.

Mr Hampton: If the member over there has a problem, the issue is this: nurses want a public process that is on the record. We already know what happens in your government when a health care worker at the Sunnybrook cancer treatment centre goes public and mentions that there are some problems there. She's fired. And you did nothing.

We already saw what you tried to do around Walkerton. Your first proposal around Walkerton was to be not a public inquiry but a closed-door process there as well.

Minister, 32 people have died. Hundreds are ill. Thousands are in quarantine. Why will you and the Premier not agree to a public inquiry process that provides whistle-blower --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Clement: I don't know half of what the honourable member is talking about, but I do know this: the Premier and I met with representatives of physicians and hospitals and nurses yesterday. We agreed that we needed accountability in our health care system. We agreed that it should not be a finger-pointing exercise. There was unanimity amongst all of the nurses who were represented there, all of the physicians, all of the hospitals represented there. We did not want a finger-pointing exercise. We wanted to get to the facts. We wanted to get to the truth. We wanted to ensure that mistakes that occurred do not happen again. That is our commitment as the Premier and the leader, as the Minister of Health and as the government of Ontario. That is our commitment. That is what we're working toward so that we do learn, we do understand and we make our health care system the very best that it can be.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Minister of Energy: for eight and a half years your government has been telling the people of Ontario that the Enrons and the Brascans, your private sector corporate friends, will supply us with sufficient electricity for our needs. Eight and a half years later, here we are: hydro bills have skyrocketed. Industries and businesses are laying off workers and curtailing production because they can't afford electricity. We face the prospect of electricity shortages in southern Ontario this summer. And what is your answer? Your answer is to spend $100 million for temporary electricity generation. Minister, that amounts to a quarter of a million dollars per megawatt for this summer. Is this your idea of a good private sector hydro deal for consumers, a million and a half dollars a megawatt?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the Minister of Energy and chief government whip.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. No, I'm no longer that last one.

I think what the people of the province of Ontario would like us to do would be to take reasonable precautions with respect to the adequate supply of electricity in the province of Ontario. What we came forward with is an insurance policy -- and I think it's a prudent initiative -- to ensure that we have enough supply in the event of harsh weather, which from time to time we have in Ontario. The plan, the proposal we put forward today could reach as much as 1% of the cost of electricity in the province of Ontario. But it also has the opportunity to save money with respect to the high cost of importing electricity in Ontario.

1420

Mr Hampton: A quarter of a million dollars per megawatt is just for the capital costs. That doesn't include paying for the natural gas and then putting it into production. Even the Minister of Finance said today that $100 million is a lot of money. Even the Premier said he was surprised.

Do you know what, Minster? I looked at the fine print. The real problem we face is in the greater Toronto area this summer. There's not enough generation for the five million people in the greater Toronto area, and there's not enough transmission to get the generation in. What you announced today still doesn't answer that problem. This is your first touch on the panic button. I believe you're probably still going to have to put dirty diesel on line in the greater Toronto area.

The Deputy Speaker: Question?

Mr Hampton: Minister, when will you admit that your whole scheme of hydro privatization and deregulation that you and the Liberals welcomed so warmly is a disaster for Ontario, environmentally --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The Chair recognizes the Minister of Energy and deputy House leader.

Hon Mr Baird: Just because the leader of the third party stands in his place and says something doesn't mean it's true. If you look at what he's said day after day, he gets up on his feet and fearmongers and spreads fear across Ontario. He said just last week that these would be dirty diesel generators. That didn't happen. We're moving forward with a responsible, prudent initiative to ensure adequacy of supply in Ontario. I think the people of Ontario, whether they are residential customers, industrial customers or commercial customers, would expect the government to take reasonable precautions to ensure that we have adequacy of supply. But when this member sat in government, his response to backup generation was to bring in dirty diesel generation -- 500 megawatts of dirty diesel generation that he and his cabinet colleagues approved in residential neighbourhoods.

The Deputy Speaker: Answer?

Hon Mr Baird: Would he stand up and apologize to the people of Ontario for that?

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Ms Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): I return my questioning to the Chair of the Management Board. The relationship of Chair of the Ontario Pension Board, Mr Weiss, with Mario Cortellucci goes back more than a decade. They worked together on fundraisers for the PC Party. So close were they that Mr Weiss was able to get more than half a million dollars to the party. I'm sure the two of them would consider themselves friends.

I have here a copy of the conflict-of-interest guidelines from your own ministry. These are the guidelines that apply to Mr Weiss in his role with the Ontario Pension Board -- I don't know if you've read them since yesterday. They state: "A public servant shall not grant preferential treatment in relation to any official matter to any person, organization, family member or friend."

Mario Cortellucci was the only developer in the province to receive funds from the pension board. That's clearly preferential treatment. Can you tell me if Mr Weiss absented himself from any involvement in this deal?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I just want to remind you that after "Deferred Votes" it says "Oral Questions." It does not say "Conversation Period." We have a question, in case we forgot, from the member for Windsor West to the Chair of Management Board. For about a minute, we'd like to have an answer, if the rest of you can just put off those conversations until later on tonight.

The Chair recognizes the Chair of Management Board.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): Thank you, Speaker. I guess the key in all this is the fact that Mr Weiss used to be the executive director of the PC fund; I think that's key. "Ex" -- he's no longer there; he has no conflict.

I will remind the member again that Mr Weiss appeared twice -- not once, but twice -- in front of the standing committee on government agencies which, I'll remind the member again, is an all-party committee chaired by the official opposition.

When Mr Weiss appeared before the committee, the finance critic for the Liberal Party, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, said to him, "I have no doubts about your professional credentials." That's in Hansard, March 27, 2000. In fact, before going into the public service --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: No, no. That's exactly the way it should be done. You just keep on. That's not what I want to interrupt. It's the ones who are yelling back and forth that I'm trying to stop.

Is everybody ready?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I will remind the opposition that this policy is administered by a board. Also sitting on that board was a fellow by the name of William Fisher, who was appointed by the Peterson government. He just recently retired. However, he was there for three of the seven investments in question. Also on the board is Hugh Mackenzie, who was the active member of the United Steelworkers' union and former aide to former Premier Bob Rae, has been a member of the board since 1995 and continues to be there. So this is the board that administers it. If you want to make those allegations, step outside. I'm sure they'll be pleased to respond to those.

Ms Pupatello: Minister, the conflict-of-interest guidelines that apply to Don Weiss are quite clear. Let me read more.

"Public servants cannot fulfill this obligation simply by acting within the law," as suggested by the Minister of Finance yesterday. "The public servant must avoid being obligated or seeming to be obligated to any person or organization that might profit from special consideration."

Mr Weiss ran the PC Ontario fund while Mr Cortellucci was giving your party hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr Weiss would certainly seem to carry an obligation to Mario Cortellucci, who made Weiss a hero to the cabinet that appointed him to the pension board. Mario Cortellucci, as the only developer to get money from Mr Weiss, has certainly profited from special consideration.

Minister, your biggest fundraiser lent pension money to only one man, your largest donor. Why don't you admit that this special deal between your largest fundraiser and your largest donor is a blatant violation of the conflict-of-interest guidelines?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I will do no such thing. The heart of the matter here is not who was involved with the process but whether or not due process and due diligence were followed, and I'm assured that they were. That's the end of the story.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. There's a great deal of concern amongst my constituents in the riding of Halton about the mid-peninsula expressway. There's a concerned citizens group that suggests that Bill 25 will lessen the requirement for a full environmental assessment on the four proposed routes crossing the escarpment area, and further, that the only time an environmental assessment would happen was during the actual construction phase. Minister, could you please respond to the concerns of many of my constituents?

Hon Frank Klees (Minister of Transportation): I am pleased to respond, and I did so yesterday as well with regard to Bill 25. I'm pleased to reassert this again. In fact, whether Bill 25 passes or does not will not in any way change the environmental assessment process for the mid-peninsula corridor. In fact, if Bill 25 does pass, it will actually allow for more discussion of environmental issues than we have today. It does this by allowing the government to identify specific transportation corridors that would potentially be used, and these corridors can be miles in width. But what it allows the government to do is identify the potential transportation or transit corridors that could come under consideration. I made it very clear yesterday that in no way are environmental assessment processes compromised, and I want to say that I have instructed my staff to prepare an amendment that will make it very clear that this is in fact the case, so that even people like the member from across the way will be able to understand clearly and will not be able to mislead the people --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I would rather you didn't use that word.

Mr Klees: I will withdraw that.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I recognize the member for Halton.

1430

Mr Chudleigh: Thank you, Minister. The people of Halton will look forward to that.

The Niagara Escarpment is an important piece of Halton. It's a pristine piece of nature that runs through much of my riding. There is concern that Bill 25 will allow the mid-peninsula expressway to push through that Niagara Escarpment as opposed to going around it. Minister, could you comment as to whether there is any accuracy in these allegations?

Hon Mr Klees: Absolutely not one bit of accuracy in those statements whatsoever. In fact, my staff met with Mayor MacIsaac of Burlington earlier today, and he posed that question. We were able to clarify for the mayor that Bill 25 in no way affects the EA process that will be under consideration for the mid-peninsula corridor. We are, in fact, committed to the mid-pen -- I want to reassert that -- but I can also tell the member that any specific routing for that will be subject to a full environmental assessment process. The EA will be respected just as if Bill 25 had not been passed.

I want to say that we've arranged for a briefing for members of the opposition tomorrow morning.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Klees: I hope the member from Don Valley East is going to be in attendance, because he obviously does not understand this. So I trust that at tomorrow morning's briefing -- about 10 o'clock -- you'll be in attendance, along with any other member of the opposition who wants to learn the facts about the proposed Bill 25.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is to the Minister of Energy. "What's $100 million?" says the Premier of Ontario. This Premier's arrogance and incomprehension as to the value of a dollar is matched only by his government's incompetence when it comes to running the electricity system. You know that it is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to set up, sustain, dismantle and run these temporary generators during peak times at peak prices. You've had eight long years to manage the electricity supply crisis, and what do you have to show for it? An inquiry into your botch-up in the failed refurbishment of Pickering and a gaggle of temporary generators that will do nothing to deal with the long-term energy crisis in the province of Ontario.

I say to the minister: don't you think it's time to apologize to the people of Ontario for the crummy job you've done on electricity?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs): I'm often asked by constituents, "Do you get advance notice of questions during question period?" I say, generally speaking, we don't get advance notice, but with the member opposite, I can see his lips moving during the previous question, so I know to anticipate a question.

The member opposite's attribution of comments to the Premier is not the case. He said no such thing. The member opposite talked about our installation of generators on a temporary basis. I think it's a reasonable precaution -- an insurance policy, if you will, on behalf of enterprise, of hospitals, of residential customers in the province of Ontario.

The member opposite asked about the long-term issue. I did notice the Conference Board of Canada put forward a report today where it said, "The evidence demonstrates that overall net benefits are achieved in the long term." That's indeed what we're working on with respect to energy policy for the people of Ontario.

Mr Bryant: The minister says this is a prudent move. If this is so prudent, why wasn't this done last summer? You had the same forecast last summer. If this is so prudent, why didn't you do it last winter? We all know why in this House: because you have a political re-election campaign going on. It is bad enough that the people of Ontario have to pay for the government's incompetence with respect to managing the electricity system, but it is downright offensive that we have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in brownout insurance to make sure that Ernie Eves and the PC Party don't have a political blackout this summer.

I say to the Minister: you seem to be indignant about the question, but, seriously, if this is so prudent, and this insurance is so necessary, why didn't you do it last summer? The difference is that your political keister is on the line now and the taxpayers are stuck with the cost of this extraordinarily offensive political blackout insurance.

Hon Mr Baird: We're taking some reasonable precautions to ensure the adequacy of supply. We're pleased with the fact that there are 1,300 new megawatts that weren't available last summer that are already on-line today, all with no or low emission. That's good, clean energy for the people of the province of Ontario. We're pleased that in the coming weeks we'll see an additional 750, going to 1,500, megawatts of new, clean, non-emission electricity in the province of Ontario. That'll be good for prices and supply.

The member opposite talks about eight and a half years of energy policy. I was pleased that his party was able to support in principle our Bill 35, reorganizing the electricity system. I was pleased again that the Liberal Party was able to support Bill 210 last fall, endorsing the two major pieces of legislation of the energy policy of this government.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Every member of this House knows how important it is to meet the long-term-care needs of Ontario's growing and aging population. It's the Ernie Eves government, more than any other caucus on the floor of this House, that is truly committed to improving the quality of life for seniors across Ontario.

Just last week, Premier Eves reaffirmed our government's commitment in the 2003 budget speech to increase annual funding for long-term care in Ontario by $100 million. I understand that $100 million doesn't include one penny of federal Liberal money. I would appreciate it if you could inform my constituents in Simcoe North and Simcoe county and people across the province of Ontario about how this funding will mean even better care for Ontario seniors and others who require long-term care in our province.

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I want to thank the honourable member for Simcoe North for his question. The Ernie Eves government has made unprecedented investments for long-term care in Ontario. This includes $100 million in new annual funding for long-term care that was announced in this year's budget and reaffirmed by the Premier last Thursday.

I want to add that this funding is in addition to last year's $100-million investment in even better nursing and personal care. It means that we have delivered $200 million in new funding for long-term care in less than one year. These are real dollars that will make a real difference for residents in Ontario's long-term-care facilities.

Total funding for long-term care in Ontario for the year 2003-04 will be a staggering $2.1 billion. This is a level of funding for long-term care that has never, ever, been seen in our province's history -- certainly not under any Liberal government and certainly not under any NDP government. The Ernie Eves government takes our responsibility for Ontario's seniors seriously, and that's why we provide the resources to provide the care that our seniors deserve.

Mr Dunlop: I'd like to thank the associate minister for that response. I'm very pleased to hear that our government, unlike previous governments, has continued to invest in long-term care and to maintain a strong sense of commitment to seniors and others to meet long-term-care needs.

At this time I'd also like to thank the previous Ministers of Health for their commitments to long-term-care facilities. Right in the county of Simcoe we've got new facilities in Midland, Orillia, Barrie, Bradford, Alliston and Collingwood. We're very pleased at how those facilities have turned out to meet the needs of our seniors.

I'd like to ask the associate minister what the response of long-term-care stakeholders has been to date about the $100 million announcement in this year's budget. Long-term care matters to the people of Simcoe North. I know that my constituents would like to know what others are saying about this very significant investment.

Hon Mr Newman: I again want to thank the honourable member of Simcoe North for his question. I'm proud to say that our stakeholders have been very pleased with last week's $100-million announcement. In fact, the Ontario Long Term Care Association called the funding increase "an important step toward enhancing the quality of life for long-term-care residents," and that "homes will be better able to meet increasing resident dietary, care and programming needs."

Karen Sullivan, the executive director of the Ontario Long Term Care Association, said the $100 million in new funding means that the sector and the Ernie Eves government "can now continue to build on the momentum established in the past two years."

I say today that this is a momentum that was nonexistent under the Liberal and NDP governments.

The Ontario Association for Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors also expressed their support for the $100 million in new annual funding. Donna Rubin, the association's chief executive officer, said that OANHSS is "encouraged that the government is taking steps to address our funding issues, and we look forward to continuing to work with them to benefit residents."

The Ernie Eves government also --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Thank you.

1440

ONTARIO NORTHLAND RAILWAY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, we learned with interest just yesterday that the Canadian National Railway has now announced that it will not be moving forward with its intended purchase of the Ontario Northland Railway. Quite frankly, that's good news for northern Ontario. We believe, as New Democrats, that Ontario Northland should stay in public hands in order to serve the people of the north. Now that CN has backed out of the negotiations with Ontario Northland, would you categorically say in this House today that your government is retreating on its planned privatization of the ONR?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I think the news that this government fully lived up to the commitment that Premier Eves made in April 2002 and that my colleague AL McDonald made on behalf of the people of northeastern Ontario, that this government would fully protect the jobs of the workers at the ONR, was well received right across the north yesterday. In fact, there was a headline in the North Bay Nugget that the government kept its word. Phil Koning, president of the ONR General Chairpersons Association, said, "AL has kept his word, that preserving jobs was the number one issue."

We're very proud of how we negotiated on behalf of the people of northeastern Ontario and those jobs. It's a shame that CN, such a large multinational, couldn't find work in other parts of Canada or the United States and move that work to North Bay to keep those jobs and fulfill the government's commitment. This is a very valuable piece of real estate, and that multinational should have given us a better deal on behalf of the workers in northeastern Ontario.

Mr Bisson: Minister, we should call you the minister of confusion, because the people of northeastern Ontario are still where they were two years ago. We have no idea what your plans are for the ONR. I asked you a simple question: will your government retreat on the planned sale of the Ontario Northland Railway to whatever private sector entity? The question to you is very simple: will the government back down on its planned privatization of the ONR? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Wilson: I know the honourable member and the Liberals will be interested that North Bay councillor George Maroosis said the following about the news yesterday: "It's tremendous news ... they" -- the provincial government -- "did the right thing." Again, I quoted Phil Koning. Also, the North Bay Nugget reported yesterday that, "Councillors commended the province, particularly Nipissing MPP AL McDonald, for not wavering from the service improvement plan's six objectives, including protecting employment, fostering jobs growth and enhancing service levels."

The money that Ontario taxpayers put into this railway every year in terms of subsidy -- and, by the way, I can't name a railway in North America that doesn't receive some degree of subsidy from the taxpayers -- is worth every penny, northerners are worth every penny, and if the honourable member has a problem with that, I'll see you on the campaign trail, because we're standing by the workers of northeastern Ontario.

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I want to file a notice of dissatisfaction on --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): If you're going to do that, do it in the right way.

ADAMS MINE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I have a question for the Deputy Premier. It was 27 days ago that I asked you a question about the dirty land deal that your government struck with Mario Cortellucci to buy the crown lands surrounding the Adams mine. You were prepared to sell the land to Mr Cortellucci, the biggest contributor to the PC Party, for just about $22 an acre, without any tender or public notice.

Minister, 27 days ago you said there was a review of the deal underway and that the details of that review would be made public, in your words, in the very near future. This was about a public secret deal that benefited the biggest donor to your party. It has been a month and the review has not been released by anybody in your government. Why did you break your word, and why do you continue to cover up the details of this sleazy land deal?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I would refer the question to Minister Ouellette, who has always been prepared to share the information.

Hon Jerry J. Ouellette (Minister of Natural Resources): Quite clearly we receive requests for crown land annually, in the number of thousands. Each decision is made at a district level, where the decision is made upon the individual merits of each unique case. The MNR staff look at the social, environmental and economic factors in each of these decisions. This was done in 1998. There has been no backroom deal or anything. Everything was very clear at that specific time and well above board.

Mr Ramsay: In 1998, when the EA review was going on, the Adams mine was half the amount of land that you're discussing now.

The Premier wrote to one of my constituents on April 22 that he had passed on to you her letter to him to report back to her as to the status of the review. You still haven't done it, and it's a month and a half later.

Minister, you knew full well that this review was going to take some time since at least last April. It's at least two months now that you've been looking at this deal and still have not released the details. The fact is that you wanted to keep this deal secret and you still do. You didn't want the public to know that your government is making a secret land deal, another one, with your top donor, Mario Cortellucci. Like the other one, this deal stinks. Rather than looking out for Ontario taxpayers, you're looking out for yourselves and your friends, and your top donor, again, is getting a dirty-little-secret land deal.

Will you agree today to release the details of this deal so that we can see who you've been talking to, who you've been consulting with and whether you're going to go forward on this or not?

Hon Mr Ouellette: Very clearly, even in the member's own question, he mentioned the fact that the EA process took place in 1998. This is far above board. It's well within all the processes and guidelines, and the ministry is ensuring that it is in full compliance with all those specific details. This is clearly a standard process, and what the member is asking us to do is to not look at the individual cases but to start to make political decisions, which we will not do on this side of the House.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I have four people standing between me and the person who wanted to get my attention. We seem to be easy today, so we'll just wait until they get out of my way and then I'll recognize the member for Scarborough Centre

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minster of Consumer and Business Services. When our province was facing serious economic impact from the SARS outbreak, the Ernie Eves government took very strong action. The Premier developed an aggressive plan to tackle the impact of SARS on our economy, a plan that included a $118-million tourism recovery plan to rebuild confidence in Toronto and Ontario as world-class destinations -- I know that certain members across the way will appreciate that, especially in terms of certain parades -- $10 million for an international investment in a business confidence recovery strategy and a provincial tax exemption for all admissions and accommodations taxes throughout the province from May 1 to September 30, 2003.

Interjections.

Ms Mushinski: Mr Speaker, I do recognize that obviously the Liberals are not interested in economic recovery, but I know that we on this side of the House are.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member from Don Valley East, come to order.

Ms Mushinski: Unfortunately, while the government was working very hard to develop a strong plan to deal with the effects of SARS, shady characters were thinking up ways to take advantage of people's fears. Minister, can you please tell this House what the government has done -- I know the Liberals aren't interested.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair recognizes the member from Scarborough Centre.

Ms Mushinski: Minister, can you please tell me what this government has done to protect Ontarians from these types of scams?

1450

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I can assure the member and the House that the Ernie Eves government does not tolerate scam artists capitalizing on the public's fear about SARS. In fact, under provincial law it is illegal for companies to pitch miracle cures that they know are untrue. In these circumstances, to best enforce our laws, particularly when scam artists are using the Internet, we team up with other jurisdictions across North America that have similarly strong consumer protection laws.

During the first week of May, we partnered with the US Federal Trade Commission and the US Food and Drug Administration in a surf-and-sweep exercise and picked up 44 different Web sites that were making false and misleading claims. In fact, one Web site said that not only did it have a cure for SARS but it could also help to fight terrorism. Together with these other jurisdictions, we're shutting these scams down.

Ms Mushinski: I appreciate that response. I think it's particularly reassuring to see that we're taking a very thorough approach, in partnership with US authorities, to tackle the SARS outbreak we're facing. Clearly this is what you can expect from a government with the type of experienced leadership that Ernie Eves offers.

Minister, partnering in an international surf-and-sweep sounds like a very innovative way to crack down on these shady actors. There's no question we're seeing more and more on-line scam artists migrate to the Internet, because it's so easy to hide on the information highway. That must make it even tougher for law enforcement to put an end to these scams. I'm wondering if you can tell us what you are doing to shut down these scammers.

Hon Mr Hudak: Again, I appreciate the member's concern to help shut down these reprehensible tactics. As I mentioned, either through surf-and-sweep initiatives or being alerted by vigilant consumers, we contact these sites and tell them to stop. If they continue to mislead customers, they may be forced to shut down and could face serious fines and even jail time under provincial legislation. In fact, I'm pleased to say that the one Ontario site we found is no longer a problem.

Last September, we conducted a similar surf-and-sweep on credit repair and loan scams. We followed up investigations that resulted in two charges being laid under Ontario law. The Speaker probably knows that presently a company that engages in this type of misleading activity can be fined up to $100,000. Individuals can also receive up to one year in jail. Our new consumer protection legislation will more than double the fines to $250,000 and maximum jail sentences to two years less a day. To answer the question directly, we're shutting these scam artists down.

LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Your government is currently negotiating the largest land swap in Ontario history with developers who were speculating on land in the Oak Ridges moraine. One of these speculators, your top donor, Mario Cortellucci, made a surprise purchase of a huge swath of land on the moraine in Uxbridge in 2001. It was a surprise because the property he bought was mired in OMB hearings and had been unanimously rejected for development by Uxbridge council. Durham regional council says you can't develop it, and this land was also in a development freeze by your provincial government, yet Mr Cortellucci still bought the land.

Guess what? Do you know what's happening now? Mr Cortellucci, your biggest donor, is going to get thousands of acres of provincially owned land in Seaton for buying land that couldn't be developed in Uxbridge. How can you justify this, Minister?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I'm going to refer the question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon David Young (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for the question. I must say I am puzzled and disappointed by the premise. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, which received support from members on all sides of the assembly, quite frankly, will protect some of the most sensitive pieces of land in this province. It is true that what has occurred is really precedent-setting. Never before has anything even close to this happened in this province.

What's happened is that we have reached a meeting of the minds between environmentalists, between land developers, between municipal officials. There is an exchange of some of the most environmentally important and sensitive land in the province. The owners have agreed to that. It is being overseen by individuals, including, I should say, Mr Crombie, who viewed this, and a commissioner of fairness is looking at it. This is what the agreement specifies. This is what is going to happen.

Mr Colle: This is incredible. Your biggest campaign donor gives you guys a million bucks. All of a sudden the land is frozen, can't be developed at Uxbridge. He buys this land, and people said, "You're crazy, Mr Cortellucci. Why would you buy this land? It's frozen. You can't do anything with it. It's useless." Yet I guess Mr Cortellucci knew something, because after he buys the land, lo and behold, guess what happens? He's told he's going to get thousands of acres of public provincial land in Seaton given to him for buying land that was worthless. How is this fair to the taxpayers of Ontario? Justify that.

Hon Mr Young: The question would actually have more merit if it wasn't predicated upon fantasy.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Order.

Hon Mr Young: The question would actually be more interesting and worthy of more comment if it wasn't predicated on what one might describe as fanciful allegations. The lands that he refers to as being worthless are anything but. They were lands that were the subject of review by individuals -- impartial individuals, independent individuals. What was decided is that there would be an exchange of those environmentally sensitive lands.

In order to ensure that the Oak Ridges moraine deal -- a deal that, quite frankly, everyone in this Legislative Assembly approved of -- was done and done properly, we went so far recently as to pass a ministerial zoning order. I signed the order to make sure the land in Pickering that was agricultural land remained agricultural land. I note that the Liberal candidate in that very area suggests that we should not have done that, that that land should have been developed.

Interjections.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to limit the division bells to five minutes in the case of any division relating to government notice of motion number 28 and that the time for debate be apportioned as follows: 40 minutes for the government, 60 minutes each for the official opposition and the third party.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent? Agreed? It is agreed.

1500

PETITIONS

NEWBORN SCREENING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): "Whereas many infants and young children unknowingly suffer from medium chain ACYL-COA dehydrogenase deficiency MCAD, which may be the cause of one out of 100 infant deaths thought to be SIDS or Reye's;

"Whereas families in Ontario are aware of the importance of expanding their newborn screening of fatty oxidation disorders (FOD) and other metabolic disorders that can be detected through tandem mass spectrometry which is currently conducted in three other provinces in Canada;

"Whereas the sample taken at birth for PKU testing is the same sample that can be used for FOD and other disorders;

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

"To mandate supplemental newborn screening in the province of Ontario."

I am pleased to affix my signature along with those of 2,000 of my constituents who have signed this petition.

HIGHWAY 407

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for Durham.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Thank you, Speaker. It's a pleasure to see you in the House today and in the chair as well.

On behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham, I'm pleased to support a petition as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the timely and efficient movement of people and products is crucial to the success of the Ontario economy;

"Whereas the province of Ontario is meeting the challenge of traffic congestion in the greater Toronto area by improvements to our highway networks and by improved public transportation;

"Whereas the further construction of Highway 407 eastward into the Durham region would improve the flow of traffic in Durham region and throughout the GTA;

"Whereas the citizens and municipalities of Durham region have faced uncertainty over the final alignment of the proposed 407 highway for many years and are entitled to a timely resolution to this matter;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario take" the necessary "steps to fast-track the extension of Highway 407 eastward, into the regional municipality of Durham, while ensuring that all the necessary environmental assessments and public" consultation processes are followed to the letter.

I'm pleased to endorse and support this petition.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has mismanaged the electricity policy of the province of Ontario;

"Whereas last fall the McGuinty Liberal call for rebates, although fiercely rejected by the government, gained huge public support. With no options open, the government introduced and passed a plan to rebate $75 to customers and place a cap on electricity commodity prices at .043 per kilowatt hour;

"Whereas Mike Brown, MPP, has been fighting for rural rate assistance;

"Whereas the Ernie Eves government forces Great Lakes Power customers to pay into a fund for rural rate assistance; and

"Whereas rural rate assistance would reduce the distribution bills for customers by hundreds of dollars each year;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, support the efforts of Mike Brown, MPP, to have rural rate assistance extended into the GLP service area immediately."

This particular group of petitions is signed by many people from Dubreuilville and Wawa.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have a petition.

"To: The Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"From: Lakehead University Student Union, Local 32, Canadian Federation of Students.

"Whereas average tuition fees in Ontario are the second-highest in Canada; and

"Whereas average undergraduate tuition fees in Ontario have more than doubled in the past 10 years; and

"Whereas tuition fees for deregulated programs have, in certain cases, doubled and tripled; and

"Whereas Statistics Canada has documented a link between increasing tuition fees and diminishing access to post-secondary education; and

"Whereas four other provincial governments have taken a leadership role by freezing and reducing tuition fees;

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

"Freeze tuition fees for all programs at their current levels, and

"Take steps to reduce the tuition fees of all graduate programs, post-diploma programs and professional programs for which tuition fees have been deregulated since 1998."

I support this entirely and am very happy to add my name to the petition.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further petitions? The Chair recognizes the member for Durham.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Thank you, Mr Speaker. You weren't looking at me, so I wasn't aware. I wasn't paying attention, I suppose.

It's my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Oak Ridges moraine is an ecological treasure that warrants protection and careful stewardship now and into future generations; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario has recognized the importance of the moraine with the passage of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, to protect natural and water resources, preserve agricultural land and provide clarity on where development can and cannot occur; and

"Whereas the act has resulted in certain limitations on citizens' use of their own property within the moraine;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario take action to ensure there are no undue restrictions on Oak Ridges moraine residents making minor improvements to their homes and property; and

"That the province of Ontario work" co-operatively "with municipalities and landowners to ensure the interpretation and enforcement of the act continues to fully protect the moraine while also giving residents the right to fair and reasonable enjoyment of their" personal "property."

I'm pleased to support it by signing this petition.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

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

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

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

"Whereas the current school bus law is difficult to enforce, since not only is the licence plate number required but positive identification of the driver and vehicle as well, which makes it extremely difficult to obtain a conviction;

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

"That the measures contained in private member's bill An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to protect children while on school buses, presented by Pat Hoy, MPP, Chatham-Kent Essex, be immediately enacted....

"The bill would impose liability on the owner of a vehicle that fails to stop for a school bus that has its overhead red signal lights flashing....

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

I have signed this petitions, as have other persons from the region of Ottawa.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I have a further petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with respect to minimum wages, which I'd like to read.

"To the Ontario provincial Legislature:

"Because the minimum wage has been frozen at $6.85 since 1995 despite increases in the cost of living; and

"Because a full-time worker earning the current minimum wage ... is $5,904 below the poverty line, and to reach the poverty line would need an hourly wage of at least $10 an hour;

"Because the minimum wage should provide people" with their right to shelter and good food;

"Because typical minimum age earners are women, students and people of colour, groups who are already being impoverished in our economic system;

"We demand that the Ontario government immediately increase the minimum wage to at least the poverty line." That means $10 per hour.

It's signed by a number of petitioners, and I will affix my signature to it.

HOME CARE

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

"Whereas well-managed and adequately funded home health care is a growing need in our community; and

"Whereas the provincial government has frozen community care access centre budgets, which has meant dramatic cuts to service agency funding and services to vulnerable citizens as well as shortened visits by front-line workers; and

"Whereas these dramatic cuts, combined with the increased complexity of care for those who do qualify for home care, has led to an impossible cost burden to home care agencies; and

"Whereas the wages and benefits received by home care workers employed by home care agencies are well below the wages and benefits of workers doing comparable jobs in institutional settings; and

"Whereas front-line staff are also required to subsidize the home care program in our community by being responsible for paying for their own gas and for vehicle maintenance; and

"Whereas other CCACs and CCAC-funded agencies across the province compensate their staff between 29 cents and 42.7 cents per kilometre; and

"Whereas CCAC-funded agency staff in our own community are paid 26 cents per kilometre, with driving time considered `hours worked';

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to act now to increase funding to the CCAC of Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington in order for it to adequately fund service agencies so they can fairly compensate front-line workers."

I will affix my signature to this petition as I am in full agreement.

1510

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further petitions? The Chair recognizes the member for Timmins-James Bay.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Congratulations on your opportunity to preside over our question period today.

I have a petition here circulated again by Shirley Crispin, who has been all over our community with petitions on a number of issues. She's asked me to present this particular petition, which reads:

"To the Ontario provincial Legislature:

"Because social assistance rates were slashed by 21.6% in 1995 and, with the increases to the cost of living, that cut is worth about 34.4% today; and

"Because current social assistance rates do not allow recipients to meet their cost of living; and

"Because the people of Ontario deserve an adequate standard of living and are guaranteed such by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and

"Because the jury at the inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers recommended that social assistance rates be reviewed so that they reflect actual costs of living;

"We demand that the Ontario government immediately increase the shelter portion of Ontario Works and Ontario disability support program benefits to the average Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp rent levels and index social assistance to the cost of living."

I've signed that petition.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Health Canada approved Visudyne on June 1, 2000, as a therapy for the treatment of wet form age-related macular degeneration; and

"Whereas clinical trials have demonstrated that this treatment safely and effectively stabilizes vision loss in 67% of patients and improves visual acuity in 13% of patients; and

"Whereas patients requiring therapy using Visudyne face a cost of $1,750 for the drug and $750 for the clinician procedural fees each time therapy is administered, and to complete a full therapy cycle, a patient would be required to pay $15,000 to preserve his or her sight; and

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Health in May of 2002 announced a Visudyne funding criteria that is not retroactive to June 1, 2000, and effectively excludes 80% to 90% of all eligible patients who suffer from macular degeneration;

"Be it resolved that the Ontario Ministry of Health immediately change its unfair restrictions on macular degeneration patients and reimburse those patients who have used their own financial resources to receive this vital treatment."

I affix my signature. I am in complete agreement.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I have a further petition from the Ontario College of Arts and Design Student Union, Local 25 of the Canadian Federation of Students. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The petition is with respect to "Freeze Tuition Fees.