Ontario Hansard — 27 June 2001 (37th Parliament, 2nd Session)
2001-06-27
Ontario — Debates (Hansard)
role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">
June 27, 2001
37th Parliament, 2nd Session
< Previous sitting day
Next sitting day >
Hansard Transcripts
Votes and Proceedings
Orders and Notices
Hansard Transcripts 2001-Jun-27 (PDF)
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO
Wednesday 27 June 2001 Mercredi 27 juin 2001
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
HOME CARE
CANADA DAY
SHARON REYNOLDS
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
SOINS HOSPITALIERS
PHARMACARE
PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
STAN DARLING
MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES REPORT
SPEAKER'S RULING
VISITORS
REPORTS BY COMMITTEES
STANDING COMMITTEE
ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT
(FAIRNESS IN MUNICIPAL
FINANCES), 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI
SUR LA VÉRIFICATION
DES COMPTES PUBLICS
(ÉQUITÉ DANS LES
FINANCES MUNICIPALES)
NEIGHBOURHOODS
AND AFFORDABLE RENTAL
HOUSING PROTECTION
AND PRESERVATION ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 SUR LA PROTECTION
ET LA CONSERVATION DES QUARTIERS
ET DES LOGEMENTS LOCATIFS
À PRIX ABORDABLES
ETHICS AND TRANSPARENCY
IN PUBLIC MATTERS ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 SUR L'ÉTHIQUE
ET LA TRANSPARENCE
DES QUESTIONS
D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC
VISITORS
MOTIONS
CONSIDERATION OF BILL 81
CONSIDERATION OF BILL 90
ONTARIO STUDENT LOAN HARMONIZATION ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 SUR L'HARMONISATION
DES PRÊTS D'ÉTUDES DE L'ONTARIO
ONTARIO STUDENT LOAN HARMONIZATION ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 SUR L'HARMONISATION
DES PRÊTS D'ÉTUDES DE L'ONTARIO
PATIENT RESTRAINTS
MINIMIZATION ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 SUR LA RÉDUCTION
AU MINIMUM DE L'UTILISATION
DE LA CONTENTION SUR LES MALADES
PATIENT RESTRAINTS
MINIMIZATION ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 SUR LA RÉDUCTION
AU MINIMUM DE L'UTILISATION
DE LA CONTENTION SUR LES MALADES
DEFERRED VOTES
RESPONSIBLE CHOICES FOR GROWTH
AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
(2001 BUDGET), 2001 /
LOI DE 2001
SUR DES CHOIX RÉFLÉCHIS
FAVORISANT LA CROISSANCE
ET LA RESPONSABILISATION
(BUDGET DE 2001)
AMBULANCE SERVICES COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001
SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE
DANS LES SERVICES D'AMBULANCE
ORAL QUESTIONS
WALKERTON TRAGEDY
YOUNG OFFENDERS
HOSPITAL FUNDING
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AIR QUALITY
CARIBANA
PRIMARY CARE REFORM
STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
INVESTIGATION INTO CHILD ABUSE
DOCTOR SHORTAGE
EDUCATION FUNDING
HOME CARE
MOTIONS
HOUSE SITTINGS
COMMITTEE
SCHEDULE
PETITIONS
EDUCATION FUNDING
DOCTOR SHORTAGE
HOME CARE
PROTECTION OF MINORS
HOME CARE
SHARON REYNOLDS
HOME CARE
PROTECTION OF MINORS
EDUCATION TAX CREDIT
EDUCATION FUNDING
EDUCATION TAX CREDIT
PROPOSED INDUSTRY SITE
ORDERS OF THE DAY
TIME ALLOCATION
Wednesday 27 June 2001 Mercredi 27 juin 2001
The House met at 1330.
Prayers.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
HOME CARE
Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): It is nothing less than heartbreaking to speak to constituents whose access to vitally needed
home care is either being cut back or simply turned down as a result of this government's freeze in funding to the Thunder Bay Community Care Access Centre. How the Premier and the health minister
can justify this cruel attack on people who are fighting to stay in their homes is absolutely beyond any of us who care for the well-being of our constituents.
Recently I spoke to a 75-year-old woman living on a fixed income who was struck down by an impaired driver this past January and has been able to stay in her
apartment only because of three visits a day from her home care provider. But as a result of the cutbacks, she will now receive only one visit per day, which will make it difficult for her to stay
in her home.
Also, a gentleman I spoke to who had serious back surgery and has since lost his sight has had his allotted time cut back to such a degree that he feels bereft
of hope. He has in fact told me that he often thinks he'd be better off dead than alive.
Another constituent is a blind, diabetic, 84-year-old woman whose family is desperate for respite care but have been told that because of the funding freeze, new
cases like hers cannot be accommodated.
These are but a few of the tragic cases I have heard over the past week. Clearly the horror stories will only get worse unless this government provides increased
funding to our home care sector. As we prepare to rise for the summer, I want to make a last-gasp plea to the Minister of Health: Please, Minister, provide the needed funds so that people in my
riding can count on the support and help they need to live their lives with dignity. People's lives are simply hanging in the balance.
CANADA DAY
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): Once again we are going to celebrate the birthday of our great country. In my riding of Cambridge, the Canada
Day committee has been busy organizing a spectacular lineup of activities in celebration of Canada's birthday.
The fun will start early in the morning on July 1 with a children's fishing derby followed by games and races, a midway running all day and night, a seniors'
bingo, and entertainment by local bands and artists. The highlight of this day is the 21st annual Cambridge Canada Day parade, one of the largest parades in Canada on that day. Over 140 groups will
be represented with an impressive lineup of marching bands, floats and much more. We finish the daylong birthday party with a huge fireworks display at Riverside Park in Cambridge-Preston at
dusk.
I would like to thank the many volunteers who worked very hard all year to make this celebration a success, and in particular, parade chairman Lee Tiggelman, her
daughter Laura, Millie Baker, Kathy Murphy and Kelly Killoran, to name but a few.
On behalf of Cambridge, I invite everyone in this great province to bring the family to Cambridge on July 1 to celebrate Canada's birthday.
SHARON REYNOLDS
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): On June 12, 1997, a young girl by the name of Sharon Reynolds was found dead in the basement of
her house in Kingston. Her mother, Louise Reynolds, was subsequently charged with the murder of her seven-year-old daughter. On January 25 of this year, less than two months before the trial was
scheduled to start, the crown attorney, on what I understand were instructions from the Attorney General's office, withdrew the murder charge.
A five-page feature
article in Maclean's on May 14, 2001, raised serious questions about the involvement of Dr Charles Randall Smith, the government's chief
pathologist, in the investigation of the death of this little girl and other murder cases in which he was involved in his professional capacity.
In a series of seven feature articles carried in the Whig-Standard this past week, investigative reporters Arthur Milnes and Rob Tripp also raise serious issues
and concerns about the facts surrounding her death.
Letters to the editors and petitions signed by hundreds of people are demanding a full and open inquiry. Both the chief of police for Kingston, Bill Closs, and I
have repeatedly requested that the Premier and the Attorney General authorize a full and impartial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Sharon Reynolds. Last week I was informed
by the Attorney General that a public inquiry would not be authorized by him because of a pending court action initiated by her mother, who has been in custody for over three years. How can a civil
court action that may never come to court interfere with a full, impartial and open inquiry for this little girl lost?
I plead with the Premier and the Attorney General that pursuant to
section 2 of the Public Inquiries Act, you authorize a full and independent inquiry into the
death of Sharon Reynolds so that we can truly find out what happened in this horrific death. The people of Ontario and the life and memory of this seven-year-old girl demand nothing less.
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I am proud to stand here today with letters from hundreds of members of the United Steelworkers of America,
and I join them in their condemnation of this government's assault, this government's attack, on workers' workplace health and safety rights by virtue of this government ramming Bill 57 through the
Legislature.
These working women and men, members of the United Steelworkers, are adamant and make it very clear that this government's attack on the right to on-site
inspections by Ministry of Labour inspectors when there is a lawful refusal of work as a result of an unsafe workplace, the denial of an on-site inspection, is going to lead to more injuries and
more deaths.
As well, these members of the United Steelworkers know that the changes to the reporting of injuries, the abandonment of the requirement to report injuries, will
indeed make workplaces more dangerous and increase the number of workplace accidents and deaths.
As well, the government's repeal of
section 34, which no longer requires that there be a report to the minister prior to the introduction of new chemicals or
biological agents, again increases the exposure of workers to accident, disease and death.
We join with the United Steelworkers of America, other working women and men in this province, other trade unions and their leaders in condemning this government
and calling upon this government to use its opportunity in committee today to abandon Bill 57 and restore workplace health and safety.
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to highlight a project in my riding that is helping rural young people find good jobs close to
home.
The Huron and Perth Youth Development Alliance is comprised of 27 businesses and organizations in Perth and Huron counties, and indeed the north part of
Wellington as well, that contribute to various sectors of the local economy, including science and technology, agribusiness, manufacturing, distribution and service.
These companies were concerned with the number of youth in the area who were migrating to urban centres to obtain job experience and skills training. With the
help of a grant from OMAFRA's rural jobs strategy fund, this youth development alliance has designed a project that will invest about $2.5 million in technical training, skills development and
practical work experience for 152 youth in Perth and Huron counties interested in beginning and continuing their careers in local communities -- about 25% from the ministry.
I want to commend Ben Cornell and Norm McLennan of Ward and Uptigrove Consulting in Listowel for their dedication and commitment to this project. I also want to
applaud the 27 companies and organizations that make up the alliance who are doing their part for rural economic renewal and for youth in rural Ontario.
Highly skilled youth and more investment opportunities will result in stronger rural communities in Ontario for generations to come.
SOINS HOSPITALIERS
M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) : Hier matin, je recevais un appel suivi d'une lettre d'une de mes commettantes,
M me Raymonde Lemay de Rockland. Jeudi dernier, le 21 juin, cette dame a été admise à l'hôpital générale d'Ottawa, après une longue période
d'attente, pour une double intervention chirurgicale qui a eu lieu le jour même de son admission.
J'ai été stupéfié d'apprendre jusqu'à quel point les coupures du gouvernement Harris face aux centres d'accès aux soins
communautaires sont menaçantes. Ce sont surtout nos personnes âgées qui vivent seules à la maison qui sont victimes de ces coupures malsaines.
Le vendredi 22 juin dernier, un jour après sa double intervention chirurgicale, le D r Brunet, son orthopédiste, lui annonçait que son
congé de l'hôpital devrait avoir lieu le samedi 23 juin et qu'il était douteux qu'elle puisse recevoir des soins à domicile, dû au manque de financement du CASC.
Cette dame a reçu son congé de l'hôpital tel que prévu le samedi 23 juin et a été informée par la suite qu'il lui sera
impossible de recevoir des soins à domicile avant le 26 juin, et ça pour seulement une heure par jour pour les huit prochains jours.
Ceci est inacceptable. Encore une fois, ce sont nos personnes âgées qui souffrent à cause des coupures du gouvernement Harris.
PHARMACARE
Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): On May 3, I raised a question with the Minister of Health regarding the federal Liberals' 1997 red book
promise to introduce a national pharmacare program, or universal coverage for medically necessary drugs. There have been two federal elections since this promise was made and there has been no
I wrote to the Prime Minister on this subject about four months ago, and I have received no meaningful reply to my request for a status report, just an
acknowledgement from an assistant that my letter had been received.
Meanwhile, the Ontario government has been busy making a wide range of prescription drugs available to meet the needs of patients in this province. Since 1995,
the Ontario drug benefit program has been expanded to offer 1,216 more drug products, bringing the total to 3,100 products, helping seniors and people on social assistance obtain the medicine
prescribed by their doctors. Spending on the Ontario drug benefit program has risen by almost 70% since 1995, up from $1 billion to $1.8 billion this year.
Ontario has managed to put these resources where they're needed, despite federal cutbacks to our health care funding. Federal support for health care has slipped
from 18 cents on the dollar in 1994-95 to a mere 13 cents now. The need to reverse the federal cuts and introduce an escalator clause to increase federal support to keep pace with rising costs for
health care was supported by members from all three parties in this House when my private member's resolution passed unanimously last year.
costs for health care. I hope all members will continue to support this initiative.
PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I listened with great interest to the Premier's
summary of the session that ends tomorrow. Interestingly
enough, in my mail the day before, on a piece of letterhead called "Seizing Tomorrow's Opportunities," I received this:
"When did we choose incompetence? When did we decide to screw up like the NDP? The taxpayer federation criticizes our priorities. Seniors' groups, our core
voters, attack Tony Clement for musing about taking away their free drug coverage. The Premier breaks our campaign promise on education funding. Janet Ecker says there's no plan for MPP pay raises
and two days later she introduces a bill for it. The Premier tells seniors, our core voters, they should thank God they live in Ontario, with the best services in the world."
This one was interesting:
"We nominate an incompetent candidate for a key by-election. The Premier calls problems with seniors, our core voters, getting home care a shoddy ploy for more
money."
Was this a Liberal who wrote this? No way. Was this a New Democrat? No. It was a Tory expressing her frustration at a government that's clearly under siege and a
Premier who's showing no leadership and isn't capable any more of leading this province. I do agree with one thing it says here: "It's time to seize tomorrow's opportunities." The real leadership's
coming from Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party in this province.
STAN DARLING
Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I rise in the House today to honour a remarkable gentleman from our riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. He is
an outstanding citizen, a wonderful family man and a great friend. I think I can speak for all members in bringing the warmest greetings and best wishes to Mr Stan Darling as he celebrates his 90th
birthday on July 15, 2001.
It is pretty impressive when you reflect back on the number of lives Stan has touched. In such a short time I can't possibly mention all of the boards and
organizations that Stan Darling served on. But to name a few, he served as reeve of Burk's Falls, president of the Georgian Bay development council and was a member of the Burk's Falls Lions Club,
where he has had an exceptional attendance for 62 years.
Stan was the PC federal member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for 21 years, from 1972 to 1993, retiring at age 82. He is the best representative in and outside of
politics we have ever seen. Stan made a point of attending every social function and taking care of as many people as he possibly could. He's still doing that today as he nears 90 years old.
One of the highlights of his political career was the signing of the treaty on acid rain in 1991. His leadership, involvement and devotion to environmental
issues have proven invaluable to us today and for future generations.
It is a great honour for me to be a friend of Stan Darling. He will serve as a role model for me as I make my way in the world of politics.
Few will come close to Stan Darling's outstanding record of service to his constituents, his family, his friends and his riding. He's an inspiration to all of us
in public office.
I would like to call on all members of the House to join me in congratulating Mr Stan Darling on the occasion of his 90th birthday.
MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES REPORT
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that I today have laid upon the table the individual members' expenditures for the fiscal
year 2000-01.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On Thursday, June 14, the chief government whip, Mr Klees, rose on a point of privilege concerning security
incidents that occurred on June 12 at the constituency office of the Minister of Finance and on June 14 outside the Premier's office in the Legislative Building. The member for Windsor-St Clair,
the member for Beaches-East York, the government House leader and the Minister of Labour also made submissions. I've had the opportunity to review the Hansard of that day, the written submissions
of the chief government whip and the relevant authorities and precedents.
Before dealing with the question of privilege, I want to reflect on -- not reconsider -- a point of order raised by the member for Beaches-East York and dealt
with by the Acting Speaker. The member for Beaches-East York indicated that the submission of the chief government whip reflecting on the alleged silence of members of the third party about
security incidents offended standing order 23(
h) and standing order 23(i). These standing orders require the Speaker to call a member to order if he or she, and I quote, "makes allegations against
another member" or "imputes false or unavowed motives to another member" in debate.
At the time the member for Beaches-East York raised her point of order, the chief government whip had not specifically identified which member or members were
the subject of his remarks. Had that been done, it would have been open to the Chair to intervene and call the member to order. In any event, looking back on the incident I cannot emphasize enough
that members should exercise restraint in making personal allegations against another member. Members should understand that such allegations can cause disorder, that the Chair takes seriously its
responsibility to maintain order and decorum in the chamber and that the Chair will continue to be vigilant in this regard.
After the Chair's ruling on the point of order raised by the member for Beaches-East York, the chief government whip resumed making oral submissions on his point
of privilege. Toward the end of these submissions, he informed the House that the purpose of that part of his remarks reflecting on the alleged silence of members of the third party concerning the
security incidents was, to quote him, "to get the third party publicly on record" on the issue. This was an unfortunate choice of words, because it detracted from the seriousness of the safety and
security issue raised by the member and from the rationale for rising on a point of privilege. In other words, when members rise on a point of privilege, they should do so in order to vindicate the
individual privileges of all members and the collective privileges of this House.
I also want the House to know that I take all security incidents very seriously, given the jurisdiction over security that has been given to the Speaker by
virtue of
section 103 of the Legislative Assembly Act. Therefore, I want to inform the House about the following measures being taken in light of the latest incidents. Firstly, I have taken steps
to enhance security in the Legislative Building. Secondly, the Sergeant at Arms, whose security responsibilities are primarily focused on the legislative precinct, will continue visiting members'
constituency offices to advise on security issues. Finally, the Speaker's all-party advisory committee on security will review the incidents with a view to assisting me to determine what else
should be done to prevent or deal with future incidents. I ask for the co-operation of all members to ensure that the working environment is safe and secure not only for members but for their
staff, their clients and their constituents.
I will now speak directly to the point raised by the member for Etobicoke Centre, Mr Stockwell, regarding the demonstration that occurred on June 14 in the
Legislative Building in front of the Premier's office. The member recounted the difficulty he had that day in navigating the hallways of the Legislative Building and the precautions that were taken
to ensure he was escorted safely to those places in the building he wished to go. In reviewing his comments, the member did not make it clear that he was in fact prevented from getting to and from
a specific place in the Legislative Building or was prevented from carrying out his parliamentary duties.
It would appear that, to the contrary, with appropriate assistance, the minister was able to come and go safely. While I acknowledge that ideally members should
not have to encounter even the inconvenience that the member experienced, the nature of a public building that is also the seat of Parliament sometimes works against this. I therefore find that he
did not make out a prima facie case of privilege. In so finding, I nevertheless reiterate my determination to ensure that all members have confidence in the safety and the security of this
building.
Returning now to the point of privilege raised by the chief government whip, I wish to advise the House that
section 46(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act
confers, and the Speaker claims, an absolute and unfettered right to deal with all questions of privilege, regardless of other circumstances. I have nevertheless in this case made the decision to
defer my ruling until such time as charges against individuals in relation to the events at the constituency office of the Minister of Finance have been fully dealt with.
It is not typical for a matter of privilege to come before this House while either criminal or civil charges related to the very serious incident or incidents
complained of in that matter of privilege are pending. For this reason, and to fully observe the principle that the Legislature and judicial branches of government ought to refrain from encroaching
upon proper jurisdictions of each other, I feel prudence requires me to set this matter aside until the judicial system has disposed of it.
Therefore, and regardless of the outcome of the matter -- and I want to make it very clear, regardless of the outcome in the court -- at the appropriate time I
will rule on the point of privilege of the member for Oak Ridges on its merit, and I thank the House for their patience in this regard.
VISITORS
Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to welcome here a delegation from beautiful Victoria county, led
by councillor Faye McGee: Lynne Boldt, Corky Swartman, and Grant Dewar. Welcome to the Legislature.
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): On a point of order, Speaker: I'd like to welcome to the House my son, who graduated from grade 8
last night, Alexander Tsanis.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It's not a point of order, but my daughter graduated from grade 8 last night as well.
Mrs Bountrogianni: It's not a point of order, but I would also like to welcome Yani Alexopoulos from Runnymede Secondary.
Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): On a point of order, Speaker: I would like to welcome members from the Canadian Jewish Congress; people from
the Islamic Society of North America, Canadian chapter; Jewish Parents for Equality in Education; Ontario Parents for Equality in Education Funding; United Jewish Appeal; Canadian Association of
Jewish Day Schools; and the Canadian Association of Islamic Relations who are in the gallery today.
Mr Colle: Mr Speaker, I'd like to welcome senior citizens from my riding who are fighting to save their homes from demolition of their
apartments, and I'd like to welcome here the citizens from Cheritan Court and Rosewell Court.
Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Mr Speaker, I do have a point of order: We have the privilege
today of having with us in the gallery the family of one of our pages who has worked so hard over the last short while. I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce Becky Codd-Downey's mother,
Judi Codd; Bob Downey, her father; Frank Codd, her grandfather; uncle Frank Codd; Doris Galloway, a great-aunt; and David Galloway, a great-uncle, who are here today.
The Speaker: All the parents can be very proud of the great job the pages are doing.
REPORTS BY COMMITTEES
STANDING COMMITTEE
ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the ninth report of the standing committee on government
agencies.
Pursuant to standing order 106(e), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY
Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice and social policy and move
its adoption.
I also mention my daughter graduated from grade 8 last night.
Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:
Bill 82,
An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act to provide an arm's length process to determine members' compensation / Projet de loi 82, Loi modifiant
la
Loi sur l'Assemblée législative pour établir un processus sans lien de dépendance permettant de fixer la rétribution des députés.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1355 to 1400.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
Agostino, Dominic
Arnott, Ted
Baird, John R.
Barrett, Toby
Bartolucci, Rick
Beaubien, Marcel
Bountrogianni, Marie
Boyer, Claudette
Brown, Michael A.
Bryant, Michael
Caplan, David
Chudleigh, Ted
Clark, Brad
Cleary, John C.
Clement, Tony
Colle, Mike
Conway, Sean G.
Crozier, Bruce
Cunningham, Dianne
Curling, Alvin
Di Cocco, Caroline
Dombrowsky, Leona
Duncan, Dwight
Dunlop, Garfield
Ecker, Janet
Elliott, Brenda
Flaherty, Jim
Galt, Doug
Gerretsen, John
Gilchrist, Steve
Gill, Raminder
Gravelle, Michael
Guzzo, Garry J.
Hardeman, Ernie
Hastings, John
Hoy, Pat
Hudak, Tim
Jackson, Cameron
Johns, Helen
Johnson, Bert
Kells, Morley
Kennedy, Gerard
Kwinter, Monte
Lalonde, Jean-Marc
Marland, Margaret
Martiniuk, Gerry
Maves, Bart
Mazzilli, Frank
McLeod, Lyn
McMeekin, Ted
Miller, Norm
Molinari, Tina R.
Munro, Julia
Mushinski, Marilyn
Newman, Dan
O'Toole, John
Ouellette, Jerry J.
Patten, Richard
Phillips, Gerry
Runciman, Robert W.
Ruprecht, Tony
Sampson, Rob
Smitherman, George
Snobelen, John
Spina, Joseph
Stewart, R. Gary
Stockwell, Chris
Tascona, Joseph N.
Tilson, David
Tsubouchi, David H.
Turnbull, David
Wettlaufer, Wayne
Wilson, Jim
Witmer, Elizabeth
Wood, Bob
Young, David
The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
Bisson, Gilles
Kormos, Peter
Marchese, Rosario
Martel, Shelley
Martin, Tony
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 76; the nays are 5.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 26, 2001, the bill is ordered for third reading.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its
adoption.
Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:
Bill Pr12,
An Act respecting Master's College and Seminary (formerly Eastern Pentecostal Bible College);
Bill Pr18,
An Act respecting Conrad Grebel University College;
Bill Pr 20,
An Act respecting the City of Toronto.
Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:
Bill Pr13,
An Act respecting The Boys' Home.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT
(FAIRNESS IN MUNICIPAL
FINANCES), 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI
SUR LA VÉRIFICATION
DES COMPTES PUBLICS
(ÉQUITÉ DANS LES
FINANCES MUNICIPALES)
Mr McMeekin moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 93,
An Act to amend the Audit Act and to ensure that municipal restructuring and the reallocation of responsibilities between Ontario and its
municipalities do not have an adverse effect on municipal finances / Projet de loi 93, Loi modifiant la
Loi sur la vérification des comptes publics et visant à assurer que la
restructuration municipale et la nouvelle répartition des responsabilités entre l'Ontario et ses municipalités n'ont pas des conséquences préjudiciables sur les finances
municipales.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
The member for a short statement.
Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): This bill will give the auditor the power to investigate and report to the
Legislature the financial effects of municipal restructuring and the reallocation of responsibilities between Ontario and its municipalities since 1995. It will also give the Provincial Auditor the
ability to make the recommendations needed to ensure the financial resources of Ontario's municipalities are proportional to their responsibilities.
This is a bill that municipal leaders across the province have been asking for. We've contacted dozens of mayors across Ontario, and to date every single one
of them has been in support of this legislation, as is the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
NEIGHBOURHOODS
AND AFFORDABLE RENTAL
HOUSING PROTECTION
AND PRESERVATION ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 SUR LA PROTECTION
ET LA CONSERVATION DES QUARTIERS
ET DES LOGEMENTS LOCATIFS
À PRIX ABORDABLES
Mr Colle moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 94,
An Act to stop the demolition of affordable rental housing and the conversion of affordable rental housing into condominiums and to protect and
preserve existing neighbourhoods / Projet de loi 94, Loi visant à empêcher la démolition des logements locatifs à prix abordables et leur reconversion en condominiums ainsi
qu'à protéger et à conserver les quartiers existants.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.
The member for a short statement.
Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): The Neighbourhoods and Rental Housing Protection Act which I've introduced would prohibit the demolition of
affordable rental housing and protect neighbourhoods by establishing neighbourhood preservation areas.
This act dramatically curtails the extraordinarily arbitrary powers of the province through its appointed Ontario Municipal Board and restores the democratic
rights of citizens to enjoy their homes and neighbourhoods without the fear of being disenfranchised, ignored and overruled by a most undemocratic and arbitrary arm of this government, the Ontario
Municipal Board.
ETHICS AND TRANSPARENCY
IN PUBLIC MATTERS ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 SUR L'ÉTHIQUE
ET LA TRANSPARENCE
DES QUESTIONS
D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC
Ms Di Cocco moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 95,
An Act to require open meetings and more stringent conflict rules for provincial and municipal boards, commissions and other public bodies /
Projet de loi 95, Loi exigeant des réunions publiques et des règles plus strictes de règlement de conflit pour les commissions et conseils provinciaux et municipaux ainsi que les
autres organismes publics.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.
The member for a short statement.
Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): This bill would require specified provincial and municipal councils, boards, commissions and other
public bodies, as listed in the
schedule of the bill, to hold meetings which are open to the public. The public could only be excluded from meetings of the body if certain types of matters were
going to be discussed by the body. Minutes of meetings open to the public would have to be made available to the public in a timely fashion and would have to contain sufficient details.
The body would also be required to set rules respecting public notice of its meetings and meetings of its committees, the availability of minutes to the public
and the availability of the body rules. The body would be required to appoint a person responsible for compliance with the rules.
Section 8 would impose a penalty for failure to comply with
requirements for notice, minutes and rules.
This bill would also impose conflict-of-interest rules on members of the specific public body.
Section 12 would impose a penalty for contravention of the
conflict-of-interest provisions.
It is the open process through public scrutiny that ensures accountability.
VISITORS
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask the House to welcome Annie Kidder, from People for
Education; Phyllis Benedict, president of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario; Liz Sandals, president of the Ontario Public School Boards Association; and a variety of other parent,
school and education groups concerned about the future of publicly funded education.
MOTIONS
CONSIDERATION OF BILL 81
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I have several routine motions, which I'd just like to go through.
I move that the order for second reading of Bill 81,
An Act to provide standards with respect to the management of materials containing nutrients used on
lands, to provide for the making of regulations with respect to farm animals and lands to which nutrients are applied, and to make related amendments to other acts, be discharged and the bill be
referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
CONSIDERATION OF BILL 90
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I move that the order for second reading of Bill 90,
An Act to promote the
reduction, reuse and recycling of waste, be discharged and the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Hon Mrs Ecker: Hopefully these are the copies you're supposed to get.
There are a couple of committees that we talked about between House leaders: the legislative subcommittee on alternative fuel sources and also the Legislative
Assembly committee, which will be looking into parliamentary reform. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to move motions relating to committee business on those. We'll take it one at a
time.
There will also be some other committees -- the ones we just said yes to -- authorized to sit through the summer adjournment. We will do it a step at a time so
that everyone can be very clear what is happening on them, if that is OK.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.
Hon Mrs Ecker: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is my understanding, subject to the advice of the Clerk, that the routine motions we just
put -- there are some other routine motions on these committees that we have to put forward. I can double-check that if you like, but that was part of this motion as I understood it.
The Speaker: We'll take a moment to confer.
Government House leader.
Hon Mrs Ecker: This is another matter on which we've had discussions between the House leaders. We're just sharing wording on that. I
understand it's coming to them. I'll read this slowly so we're all clear on what we're attempting to do here. If this proceeds, I should point out that this would mean we would not be sitting here
this evening in the heat.
Notwithstanding standing order 59(e), I would like to seek unanimous consent to allow the estimates committee to meet to review the 2001-02 estimates of the
Ministry of Education scheduled for today while we debate the motion on Bill 80; and
I seek unanimous consent to call second and third readings of Bill 19,
An Act to amend the Training, Colleges and Universities Act, and Bill 85,
An Act to
minimize the use of restraints on patients in hospitals and on patients of facilities, and to have the question put immediately thereon without further debate or amendment.
The Speaker: Is there consent? Agreed.
Hon Mrs Ecker: We'll be taking this one step at a time as I understand the process here.
ONTARIO STUDENT LOAN HARMONIZATION ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 SUR L'HARMONISATION
DES PRÊTS D'ÉTUDES DE L'ONTARIO
Mrs Ecker, on behalf of Mrs Cunningham, moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 19,
An Act to amend the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act / Projet de loi 19, Loi modifiant la
Loi sur le ministère de la
Formation et des Collèges et Universités.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
ONTARIO STUDENT LOAN HARMONIZATION ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 SUR L'HARMONISATION
DES PRÊTS D'ÉTUDES DE L'ONTARIO
Mrs Ecker, on behalf of Mrs Cunningham, moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 19,
An Act to amend the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act / Projet de loi 19, Loi modifiant la
Loi sur le ministère de la
Formation et des Collèges et Universités.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
PATIENT RESTRAINTS
MINIMIZATION ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 SUR LA RÉDUCTION
AU MINIMUM DE L'UTILISATION
DE LA CONTENTION SUR LES MALADES
Mrs Ecker, on behalf of Ms Lankin, moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 85,
An Act to minimize the use of restraints on patients in hospitals and on patients of facilities / Projet de loi 85, Loi visant à réduire au
minimum l'utilisation des moyens de contention sur les malades des hôpitaux et des établissements.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
PATIENT RESTRAINTS
MINIMIZATION ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 SUR LA RÉDUCTION
AU MINIMUM DE L'UTILISATION
DE LA CONTENTION SUR LES MALADES
Mrs Ecker, on behalf of Ms Lankin, moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 85,
An Act to minimize the use of restraints on patients in hospitals and on patients of facilities / Projet de loi 85, Loi visant à réduire au
minimum l'utilisation des moyens de contention sur les malades des hôpitaux et des établissements.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I would just like to thank the Speaker, the clerks and the members for their
co-operation today in making this happen.
The Speaker: We should have breaks more often. Things seem to work very well when we do that.
Back to reality.
DEFERRED VOTES
RESPONSIBLE CHOICES FOR GROWTH
AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
(2001 BUDGET), 2001 /
LOI DE 2001
SUR DES CHOIX RÉFLÉCHIS
FAVORISANT LA CROISSANCE
ET LA RESPONSABILISATION
(BUDGET DE 2001)
Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 45,
An Act to implement measures contained in the 2001 Budget and to amend various statutes / Projet de
loi 45, Loi mettant en oeuvre des mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 2001 et modifiant diverses lois.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members; this will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1422 to 1427.
The Speaker: All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
Arnott, Ted
Baird, John R.
Barrett, Toby
Beaubien, Marcel
Chudleigh, Ted
Clark, Brad
Clement, Tony
Cunningham, Dianne
DeFaria, Carl
Dunlop, Garfield
Ecker, Janet
Elliott, Brenda
Flaherty, Jim
Galt, Doug
Gilchrist, Steve
Gill, Raminder
Guzzo, Garry J.
Hardeman, Ernie
Hastings, John
Hudak, Tim
Jackson, Cameron
Johns, Helen
Johnson, Bert
Kells, Morley
Marland, Margaret
Martiniuk, Gerry
Maves, Bart
Mazzilli, Frank
Miller, Norm
Molinari, Tina R.
Munro, Julia
Mushinski, Marilyn
Newman, Dan
O'Toole, John
Ouellette, Jerry J.
Runciman, Robert W.
Sampson, Rob
Snobelen, John
Spina, Joseph
Stewart, R. Gary
Stockwell, Chris
Tascona, Joseph N.
Tilson, David
Tsubouchi, David H.
Turnbull, David
Wettlaufer, Wayne
Wilson, Jim
Witmer, Elizabeth
Wood, Bob
Young, David
The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
Agostino, Dominic
Bartolucci, Rick
Bisson, Gilles
Bountrogianni, Marie
Bradley, James J.
Brown, Michael A.
Bryant, Michael
Caplan, David
Cleary, John C.
Colle, Mike
Conway, Sean G.
Crozier, Bruce
Curling, Alvin
Di Cocco, Caroline
Dombrowsky, Leona
Duncan, Dwight
Gerretsen, John
Gravelle, Michael
Hoy, Pat
Kennedy, Gerard
Kormos, Peter
Kwinter, Monte
Lalonde, Jean-Marc
Lankin, Frances
Marchese, Rosario
Martel, Shelley
Martin, Tony
McLeod, Lyn
McMeekin, Ted
Patten, Richard
Peters, Steve
Phillips, Gerry
Pupatello, Sandra
Ruprecht, Tony
Smitherman, George
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 50; the nays are 35.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
AMBULANCE SERVICES COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001
SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE
DANS LES SERVICES D'AMBULANCE
Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 58,
An Act to ensure the provision of essential ambulance services in the event of a strike or lock-out
of ambulance workers / Projet de loi 58, Loi visant à assurer la fourniture des services d'ambulance essentiels dans l'éventualité d'une grève ou d'un lock-out de
préposés aux services d'ambulance.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1432 to 1437.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
Arnott, Ted
Baird, John R.
Barrett, Toby
Beaubien, Marcel
Chudleigh, Ted
Clark, Brad
Clement, Tony
Cunningham, Dianne
DeFaria, Carl
Dunlop, Garfield
Ecker, Janet
Elliott, Brenda
Flaherty, Jim
Galt, Doug
Gilchrist, Steve
Gill, Raminder
Guzzo, Garry J.
Hardeman, Ernie
Hastings, John
Hudak, Tim
Johns, Helen
Johnson, Bert
Kells, Morley
Marland, Margaret
Martiniuk, Gerry
Maves, Bart
Mazzilli, Frank
Miller, Norm
Molinari, Tina R.
Munro, Julia
Mushinski, Marilyn
Newman, Dan
O'Toole, John
Ouellette, Jerry J.
Runciman, Robert W.
Sampson, Rob
Snobelen, John
Spina, Joseph
Stewart, R. Gary
Stockwell, Chris
Tascona, Joseph N.
Tilson, David
Tsubouchi, David H.
Turnbull, David
Wettlaufer, Wayne
Wilson, Jim
Witmer, Elizabeth
Wood, Bob
Young, David
The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
Agostino, Dominic
Bartolucci, Rick
Bisson, Gilles
Bountrogianni, Marie
Bradley, James J.
Brown, Michael A.
Bryant, Michael
Caplan, David
Cleary, John C.
Colle, Mike
Conway, Sean G.
Crozier, Bruce
Curling, Alvin
Di Cocco, Caroline
Dombrowsky, Leona
Duncan, Dwight
Gerretsen, John
Gravelle, Michael
Hoy, Pat
Kennedy, Gerard
Kormos, Peter
Kwinter, Monte
Lalonde, Jean-Marc
Lankin, Frances
Marchese, Rosario
Martel, Shelley
Martin, Tony
McLeod, Lyn
McMeekin, Ted
Patten, Richard
Peters, Steve
Phillips, Gerry
Pupatello, Sandra
Ruprecht, Tony
Smitherman, George
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 49; the nays are 35.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
ORAL QUESTIONS
WALKERTON TRAGEDY
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Acting Premier. Yesterday on the witness stand, former Minister of the Environment
Brenda Elliott said "I don't recall" 41 times.
Today Norm Sterling picked up where she left off. The former Minister of the Environment, Norm Sterling, was asked about a letter he received from the Minister
of Health citing major concerns around loopholes in drinking water notification. Norm Sterling said the letter was "no big deal." It's hard to believe it was no big deal.
The letter he received and responded to caused yet another letter to be received by him from the next Minister of Health.
I'm asking, how do we get to the bottom of this at the Walkerton inquiry when it's very difficult to be constantly hearing, "I don't recall," and "It's no big
deal"? To the Deputy Premier: how are we going to get to the bottom of the Walkerton inquiry?
Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the Minister of the Environment.
Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): I think the member opposite can appreciate the fact that the inquiry and the investigation
are still ongoing. Obviously all of the information that is being presented by individuals appearing will be very carefully considered. As a result of the information that is received by the
inquiry, recommendations will be made, and it's those recommendations that we look forward to seeing and implementing.
Mrs Pupatello: Today, Norm Sterling talked about the loopholes on the witness stand, loopholes that were brought to his attention repeatedly.
He said about those loopholes that his own ministry officials told him not to worry about the loopholes. He said he couldn't recall which officials said that. That's hard to believe.
I have in my hand, and we are now sending over, a confidential government document that shows very clearly that his own officials were very worried. In fact,
they said in writing the exact opposite of what Norm Sterling said on the stand today. Minister, given this evidence, how can we believe anything Norm Sterling says on the witness stand?
Hon Mrs Witmer: Again, I would hasten to add to what I've just said in response to the statement and the question that has been asked by the
member opposite that I would just remind her that this is an inquiry that is taking place at the present time. Obviously there are people who are very carefully considering all of the information
and all of the testimony that's being provided. It's not our job to prejudge the investigation. It's not our job to prejudge what the recommendations may be. But again I would hasten to add that we
do look forward to the recommendations.
Mrs Pupatello: Minister, it's your job to tell the truth. The inquiry is about the truth. Minister, it's about the truth. Today, Norm Sterling
said that he was told not to worry by officials, officials he refused to name.
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Please take your seat. Order.
The member can continue.
Mrs Pupatello: His own ministry officials reported to him documented concerns since 1997 raised by the operations division of the Ministry of
the Environment dated August 21, 1997. It said, "The main points centre on non-reporting of drinking water quality." It said the main concerns were on the notification protocol being obsolete.
Those are very powerful words and they are the words that led to the Walkerton tragedy.
Today you expect the world to believe, the public of Ontario to believe, Norm Sterling citing phantom ministry officials, when these officials said in writing
the exact opposite to what he said on the stand today. Minister, how can we expect to believe anything he says on the stand today?
Hon Mrs Witmer: We all agreed that a very comprehensive review would be undertaken by Justice O'Connor regarding the tragic events that
occurred in Walkerton. It's up to the inquiry to come to conclusions. I don't believe we should be prejudging or making some statements that would not take into consideration their final
recommendations. That is the job of the inquiry.
The Speaker: New question.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Deputy Premier. So far at the Walkerton inquiry we've heard from a former
highly respected medical officer of health for the province of Ontario and from two ministers who have amnesia, whose answers can best be described as extremely evasive. Dr Schabas, the former
medical officer of health of Ontario, prodded then Health Minister Jim Wilson to fire a warning rocket at Norm Sterling about the dangers of the drinking water cuts in the Ministry of the
Environment.
You have been a minister of several portfolios. Can you believe a minister could possibly feel that such a letter was not of the utmost importance and should
not be followed up thoroughly by that minister?
Hon Mr Flaherty: To the Minister of the Environment.
Hon Mrs Witmer: In response to the information and the question that has been raised by the member opposite, again I would hasten to encourage
all members in this House to remember that there has been a commission set up to thoroughly look at and examine all of the issues related to Walkerton. It would be inappropriate for us to prejudge
the recommendations, to prejudge the outcome without all of the information being very, very carefully considered.
Mr Bradley: Minister, we know that the government kept two sets of books when it came to the situation of cutting the budget and the staff of
the Ministry of the Environment, two different versions of the consequences of the mindless cuts to the budget of the ministry of which you are now minister, the Ministry of the Environment, one
for the public and one for yourselves.
Norm Sterling says there was some phantom bureaucrat out there, some phantom official or officials in his ministry, who said, "There was no need to worry," yet
I have a leaked document that says the following: "Concerns regarding the ODWOs" -- Ontario drinking water objectives -- "were raised by operations division, Ministry of the Environment in a memo
sent to program development branch dated August 21, 1997. A number of issues were brought forward, with the main points centring on the non-reporting of drinking water quality by smaller"
communities, "the cost to smaller" communities.
Who should I believe, Norm Sterling on the stand or the author of the document that says there's a real danger to drinking water in this province?
Hon Mrs Witmer: I would remind the member opposite that the inquiry is carefully reviewing millions of documents. There is a tremendous amount
of information related to the tragedy that occurred in Walkerton. I would encourage him to allow the members of the commission to carefully consider all the documentation, to listen to all those
people who have been asked to appear and to not prejudge the outcome or the recommendation.
Mr Bradley: We have a former Minister of the Environment on the stand who has been contradicted by information found in a government document,
totally contradicted. We have the former Ontario medical officer of health, Dr Richard Schabas, who says that the Premier of this province turned his back on public health in this province. Isn't
it true, Minister, that the whole bunch of you in the cabinet knew what was going on and that you decided to ignore the warnings of Dr Schabas and others and that as a result seven people died in
Walkerton and 2,000 people were sick?
Hon Mrs Witmer: I would again remind the member opposite --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. We need to be able to hear. Sorry, Minister.
Hon Mrs Witmer: I would again remind the member opposite that it is very, very important that Justice O'Connor hear all of the evidence. We
also certainly are aware of the fact that there are millions of pieces of evidence. I would just encourage the member opposite to not prejudge the outcome but to allow Justice O'Connor to take a
look at what has been said, what has been presented, and to come forward with recommendations. Those are recommendations that we on this side of the House look forward to seeing.
The Speaker: New question.
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a question to the Deputy Premier. Today has been another day of, quite frankly, stunning revelations
at the Walkerton inquiry, yet another Conservative environment minister who stood by and did nothing while safe water was sacrificed on your altar of tax cuts. Your former environment minister Norm
Sterling was asked about one of the many smoking guns in this affair. We're talking about the letter, you see, to Mr Sterling from the health minister, as he was then, James Wilson, saying that
when the water testing labs were privatized, changes were needed to ensure health officials would be notified of any life-threatening results. This was the letter from the then Minister of Health
to Minister of Environment Norm Sterling. Sterling admitted that he never read the letter, a letter that could have prevented the Walkerton tragedy if it had been acted on.
So tell us, please, sir, is this the legacy of the Harris government, a minister who doesn't read his mail and seven people die?
Hon Mr Flaherty: To the Minister of the Environment.
Hon Mrs Witmer: It's very interesting that the member of the third party talks about a legacy, because we are very proud of the fact that we
announced the drinking water protection regulation in August 2000. Certainly we're very pleased that we have taken measures to ensure the safety of the water. Unlike the NDP, which in their throne
speech of November 1990 said, "We will act to protect our supply of clean water.... As a first step we will introduce a safe drinking water act to set standards for water treatment and protect our
people's health and safety," we took that action.
Mr Kormos: Notwithstanding that Sterling didn't read the letter of warning from Health Minister James Wilson, he wrote a reply nonetheless.
His letter responding to Wilson was one that said basically, "Don't worry, be happy." The letter said that the existing voluntary drinking water objectives were fine and there was no need to change
the law. We all know that turned out to be tragically wrong. But, you see, somehow Sterling can't remember a thing about this crucial decision. Just like Brenda Elliott yesterday, there seems to be
a collective cabinet amnesia around Walkerton.
A letter from a minister to another minister about a life-and-death matter, and it looks like the minister didn't even read it before signing it. Is this how
your government does business? Is this how your government protects the public?
Hon Mrs Witmer: If there was
an act of omission, it was certainly something that obviously your government omitted, because again I come back
to the fact that in your throne speech of 1990, you said that you were going to protect water, that you were going to introduce a safe drinking water act, and that never, ever happened.
We can all talk about acts of omission, and certainly I think all governments have omissions.
Mr Kormos: It was your Minister of Health who sent the letter of warning to Minister of Environment Sterling, and it was Minister of
Environment Sterling who never read the letter, but then nonetheless replied, saying, "Don't worry, be happy."
In addition, you should know the evidence today revealed that although Sterling has no recollection of this, his letter to Health Minister Witmer said he would
welcome a review of the drinking water objectives. Witmer wrote back and said she was gratified by his response.
What happened then? There was still time to take action and prevent the tragedy, but this is what Sterling told the inquiry: he doesn't recall reading Health
Minister Witmer's letter. He never followed up on the drinking water objectives. In fact, and this is stunning, this is shocking, Sterling never even read the drinking water objectives until two
weeks ago, when he was being prepared, woodsheded, for this inquiry.
My question is to the Acting Premier. Your minister in this government, Brenda Elliott, told the inquiry yesterday that you're all responsible for Walkerton.
When you get letters from other ministers, when you send letters to other ministers, do any of you bother reading them?
Hon Mrs Witmer: The member opposite needs to remember that all the evidence needs to be presented to the inquiry, to Justice O'Connor. There
are currently presentations being made and there is information -- thousands and thousands of documents -- that is being considered. Again, I would encourage the member opposite not to prejudge and
to ensure that we await the recommendations after they have been very carefully considered by the commission.
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): My question once again is to the Deputy Premier, and it's about young offenders. We've just learned that
you're playing fast and loose with public safety in a cynical attempt to break the union at Kennedy House in Uxbridge, Ontario. Over the past few weeks your government, through its ministry, has
either granted early release or transferred out to open custody about 60 young offenders from the secure Uxbridge facility. You're sending these young offenders from a secure facility to open
custody facilities that are already overflowing with offenders and don't have the staff to handle them.
This is a high-stakes game you're playing with public safety. Many of these young offenders that you're moving into open custody are highly dangerous and very
likely to reoffend. How can you justify giving dangerous young offenders a free pass to go out and reoffend?
Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I'm not familiar with the Kennedy House issue which the honourable raises. I'll
undertake to look into it and get back to him about the particular questions he may have. If he has additional concerns about that issue, other questions he'd like to ask, he can put them and I'll
look into it. I have not heard about the issue he has raised.
Mr Kormos: Deputy Premier, I suggest that you look to your Minister of Community and Social Services and, in view of your unfamiliarity with
this issue, refer this matter to him.
You see, for a government that talks a big game about getting tough on crime -- and, boy, you guys have -- you're awfully quick to throw public safety out the
window when it comes to serving your union-bashing agenda.
Your ministry is actively jeopardizing public safety by authorizing early releases and the transfer of these young offenders into less secure spaces. Many of
these inmates would be serving up to five years in jail if they were adults. Some of them were in open custody before they went to Kennedy House, but they caused so much trouble that they were
transferred back to Kennedy in Uxbridge, which is a secure facility. Between sending them into open custody and simply sending them back on to the streets -- you're doing both -- you're flirting
with disaster. Is it worth putting public safety at risk just to beat down and beat up on a union?
Hon Mr Flaherty: The member for Niagara chose to ask the question of me. I'm not familiar with the subject matter. He now suggests that
another minister would be familiar with the subject matter. We'll look into it and get back to him to try to respond to the questions he has raised.
HOSPITAL FUNDING
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. You know that Ontario hospitals are underfunded. They need
$700 million this year if they're going to keep their doors and their beds open for patients. You've promised hospitals there will be more money, but you haven't said how much and you won't say
when the money is coming.
On Monday you presided at the opening of a new wing of Toronto East General Hospital. Maybe for the first time ever, people who came to see you cut the ribbon
were told this multimillion-dollar facility would never actually open unless you come up with some money to run it. On Monday you seemed to want to assure Toronto East General that money would
indeed be coming. So we have a lot of promises, but so far we have no delivery.
My question today is, how are you going to keep these promises of more funding to hospitals when you are actually planning to spend $250 million less on
hospitals this year than you did last year?
Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): To quote the honourable member's colleague from Windsor West, it's your job to tell
the truth. And the truth of the matter is we're not spending less this year; we're spending more this year on hospitals. That has been the case over the last three to four years. Indeed, spending
for hospitals since the 1998 year has gone up. We are proud of that record. We are proud of the fact we're putting in more money for doctors' services, $375 million a year for nursing services.
Indeed that is our practice.
Do the hospitals have to be accountable for the dollars they're spending? Of course they do. But are they places where citizens expect excellent health care
from the deliverers of those services? Of course they are. We are reviewing the operating plans of all the hospitals, which is why we cannot make an announcement on Toronto East General, just as we
cannot make an announcement for 164 other hospitals, until we have reviewed all the operating plans to ensure they can deliver the most excellent services at a cost that is acceptable.
Mrs McLeod: That's fine, Mr Speaker -- something that is so far from the truth. It seems they've been having difficulties today establishing a
standard for truth.
Minister, I claimed after the budget --
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Quiet down over there right now. I let you guys go, and typically, you push and you push and you push. So now I'm
going to have to crack down on you. The language gets worse and worse and worse. Then the minister gets up and repeats what's on this side. So now I'm going to crack down. Be very careful what you
say or I'll throw you out.
Sorry. Proceed.
Mrs McLeod: I wasn't sure, Mr Speaker, whether that was directed at me in my attempt to establish a basis for understanding what is
reality.
Minister, I claimed after you presented your budget that you were going to cut a million dollars from hospital budgets -- not my figures but the Ontario
Hospital Association's figures. It turns out I shortchanged your willingness to hack away at hospital budgets even more. What I have here today, Minister, is the only recourse I have for what is
fact. It's your estimates book, tabled this week. Your estimates book says you spent $8.7 billion on hospitals last year and says equally clearly that you plan to spend $8.4 billion on hospitals
this year.
Minister, I ask you again, when hospitals are facing deficits of $700 million, when they're going to have to lay off nurses and close beds, how can you be
planning to cut --
The Speaker: The member's time is up.
Minister of Health?
Hon Mr Clement: The answer to her question is that she's incorrect. Estimates are called estimates for a reason: they're estimates. Her
assumptions are incorrect, her analysis is incorrect, her conclusions are incorrect -- she's incorrect. We are going to be spending more money for hospitals this year than last year, which was more
money than the year before and more money than the year before that. That is our commitment.
Now, part of our job is to review all the operating plans to make sure the dollars that are spent on behalf of the taxpayers actually achieve better results
for the patients of those hospitals. That is why we are reviewing the operating plans.
If the honourable member wants to be helpful, call your local MP so that they can be part of the solution as well, because the Liberal MPs from Ontario aren't
doing their job to ensure we have better health care for the citizens of Ontario. That's the problem.
The Speaker: Point of order. Stop the clock.
Mrs McLeod: -- Minister of Health to table the obviously second set of books which are being kept on health care --
Interjections.
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. I believe the people of Ontario have a right to
participate and be well informed about environmental decision-making. This is why there is an Environmental Bill of Rights registry, and why the government posts many such items on the Internet for
all to see.
Last week the Environmental Commissioner brought to the attention of the House the issue of some remaining instruments at MNR that needed to be regulated.
Minister, can you tell this House what action you have taken to respond to the concerns raised in last week's report?
Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member from Peterborough for the question. I know it's one that's on the minds
of many people in this chamber.
Last week the Environmental Commissioner did come out and talk about some instruments that were lacking. At the time, I expressed great regret in an apology to
the Environmental Commissioner for not having those instruments in place. I made the statement that all the members of this chamber agree with the EBR and the EBR registry.
I also committed to report back this week on what steps have been taken to correct the situation. I am pleased to announce today that the EBR instrument
regulation will be filed very shortly and will posted for all to see before July 16 of this year.
Mr Stewart: Minister, thank you for taking quick action. As we all have the same intention in mind, it's a good thing this omission was
brought to our attention and is now being rectified.
For people who don't know what we are talking about, and there are lots of them -- God, there are lots of them in this House, especially the ones over there
who don't pay any attention whatsoever -- can you tell us a little bit about the EBR registry and the kinds of MNR items currently being posted there?
Hon Mr Snobelen: The vast majority of the items that come before the Ministry of Natural Resources are now posted on the EBR. They include
matters that relate to forestry, water management, parks and new protected areas, fish and wildlife, fire and prescribed burns and of course Niagara Escarpment decisions. A vast majority of the
policy issues that come before the ministry are posted on the registry because we invite the opinions of the public. It's particularly useful to know what the ramifications of various policy
decisions and certifications might be. We have used the EBR extensively and we look forward to using it even more extensively in the future.
AIR QUALITY
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. I believe she is here. She should be here shortly. Oh, there she is coming the other way. The
member for St Catharines.
Mr Bradley: Minister, this morning I attended a media conference held by the Ontario Medical Association, a highly credible, highly respected
organization -- not radical, not anti-government -- that does its research very well. At the press conference they said you're making absolutely no progress in dealing with air quality problems in
this province. They said in fact that sulphur dioxide emissions from former Ontario Hydro thermal plants have increased about 15% to 20% since 1997. While levels have decreased for some pollutants,
they say that most of this decrease occurred in the early 1990s. Recently, most pollutants show no change or an increase in ambient concentrations.
In other words, they presented a very credible case today that you're making no progress in dealing with smog, and we have our sixth smog alert today.
Minister, do you not agree with the Ontario Medical Association that in fact you have abandoned any attempts to significantly improve the quality of air in this province?
Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): If the member had truly been listening to the presentation made by the OMA, as certainly
we did -- in fact, I want to just compliment the OMA for the efforts they're making to continue to focus on the adverse effects of smog, the adverse effects it has on the health of people in this
province.
I have to tell the member opposite that I welcome their report card and I also continue to take their recommendations seriously. But I just want to quote from
what the OMA said today, which was, "Together, we must all take action, and by `we' I mean all levels of our community, whether it be as governments, corporations or individuals." That's exactly
what we plan to do. We plan to be part of the solution to the problem along with other governments, corporations and individuals.
Mr Bradley: According to the medical association, the best they could give you was a C minus in dealing with air quality. I've got some
suggestions for you on some things you might do that could improve the environment in this province.
First of all we have Dr Schabas, a former medical officer of health of Ontario, saying that you've turned your back on public health in Ontario. You have the
OMA saying that you're not doing sufficient to deal with air quality in this province. Minister, when are you going to bring in a comprehensive, mandatory -- not voluntary -- set of regulations and
legislation to force polluting industries to significantly reduce the number of pollutants they're putting into the atmosphere? When are you going to invest in public transit, something your
government completely abandoned? When are you going to convert the largest single source of pollution in this province, the Nanticoke generating station, which belches out coal, which belches out
sulphur dioxide, NO x and 30 other contaminants, to natural gas?
Hon Mrs Witmer: If we take a look at the OMA's 1998 recommendations coming out of their report, there were recommendations to this government,
the United States, the federal Liberal government, the city of Toronto and physicians. I'm very pleased to say that they asked for more stringent caps on SO 2 and NO x
emissions. We introduced those caps on March 26 of this year.
They asked for disclosure provisions to provide public reports showing emissions data. We did that. We finalized the regulation on May 2, 2001, that requires
the mandatory tracking and public reporting of 358 air pollutants.
They asked Ontario to petition the US EPA to require sulphur dioxide and NO x emission reductions in the United States. I'm glad to say we did
respond. We supported the United States' EPA in their defence and we successfully intervened.
They asked us --
The Speaker: Order. I'm afraid the minister's time is up.
CARIBANA
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): My question is for Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Last week our government announced that
this year's Caribana festival will receive $353,000 in provincial funding. I was pleased to represent you at the media launch of the Caribana festival just earlier this week. I'm going to tell you
that the organizers were very pleased and recognized that were it not for the provincial grant, there would have been no Caribana this year.
Torontonians look forward to the Caribana parade every year. As you know, it is not only a key tourist attraction for the city of Toronto; it is also a
celebration of Toronto's and Ontario's rich cultural diversity.
I'm delighted that this funding has guaranteed that the organizers will be able to stage the Caribana parade this August. But I'm more concerned about the
long-term future. Can you tell me if you have a long-term plan so that Torontonians can count on a successful parade in years to come?
Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation): Thank you, member for Scarborough East, for the question. I want to thank him too
for being at the launch of Caribana earlier this week. I want to thank the Toronto members for their advice on the Caribana festival, particularly Scarborough East, Scarborough Centre and
Scarborough Southwest for their commitment to ensuring that Caribana is a success not only this year but for the next years. Yes, we do have a plan to work with Caribana to make sure this largest
cultural celebration that attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors, bringing business to our hotels, our shops and our attractions and millions of dollars to businesses here in the city of
Toronto, will not only continue but flourish in the long run. We want to engage in a long-term planning process. One example: we want to help Caribana access corporate donations to ensure that they
are strong and flourish in the long run.
Mr Gilchrist: I know that the funding you've given is in stark contrast to what was done by the previous two governments. They were always
very supportive in words, but their deeds did not exactly match their rhetoric. I couldn't agree with you more that the festival needs to attract strong corporate partnerships in order to become
independent and to have a sustainable future. How does the government precisely plan to help the Caribana board develop those partnerships and achieve that goal?
Hon Mr Hudak: Again I want to thank the members for Scarborough East, Scarborough Southwest and Scarborough Centre for their advice on what is
a three-point plan in particular. First of all, we want to work with Caribana's organizing committee to develop a marketing plan to promote the event not only this year but into the future. We also
want to work with the committee to make sure we can access corporate donations to show business support on a sustainable basis. Also, I look forward to the province of Ontario having a seat, with
the city of Toronto, on an advisory committee established by the city to help Caribana ensure it has efficient operations and manages the funding for this year's parade as well as into the
future.
I'm pleased to say the committee has already had some progress and is proceeding with the restructuring plan to help them better manage resources, funds and
volunteers. We look forward to working with them to ensure Caribana in 2001 is a success and builds for a long-term sustainable parade into the future.
PRIMARY CARE REFORM
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Health. Your government has been in office for six years now and for
six years we have been asking you to make progress on primary care reform. For six years you've been spinning a communications line about the pilot projects you have out there and telling us that
you have promised targets. In fact, specifically you have told us that 80% of family doctors are going to be enrolled in the Family Health Network by March 2004. Now we find out that of the seven
pilot projects you have touted as being highly successful, two have been cancelled and the other five are in trouble.
Minister, primary care reform is an absolute centrepiece to health care reform. For six years you have not delivered. For six years you have promised us and
that promise has gone unfulfilled. Are you really committed to doing this, and what are you going to do to make that promise come to a reality?
Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): May I be the first to officially congratulate the honourable member for the passage
of the patient restraint bill, which we on this side of the House think is an excellent bill as it has been reworked by the honourable member. She spent a lot of time on it and certainly I think
it'll assist us in providing better health care for Ontarians.
I want to update this House because other people might have read the same
article she did. There are some inaccuracies in the article. The Parry Sound pilot
project is in fact ongoing; it has not been cancelled. The Thunder Bay project actually never was followed through on; it was not cancelled because it was never started.
I can tell the honourable member --
Interjections.
Hon Mr Clement: That's an inaccuracy in the article. So from our perspective, I can assure the honourable member that from our side of the
House --
Interjections.
Hon Mr Clement: They're not serious on the opposition Liberal side. Clearly they've got to spend more time lobbying the federal MPs, but from
our side of the House, family health networks, primary care reforms --
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister's time is up. Supplementary.
Ms Lankin: I'll have an opportunity to give my thanks on the record for the minister's support on the bill at another time.
I'm not sure what you're saying about these seven pilot projects, because for a number of years you and previous ministers of health have been standing in this
House and telling us that there are seven successful pilot projects. Now we find out that one of them never got going. I guess it was an estimate of a pilot project, just like now you tell us
you're going to spend more on hospitals than what you've tabled in your estimates, which of course you can't do without supplementary estimates being brought forward to this House.
Minister, it's very hard to pin your government down on real progress on health care reforms that are going to build a sustainable system of medicare. Without
primary care reform, without community based primary care reform, it won't succeed. At times I am of the suspicion that you really don't want it to succeed. Do you believe in the sustainability of
medicare? When will you deliver on primary care reform in this province?
Hon Mr Clement: We do believe in the sustainability of medicare and we are delivering on primary care reform. The honourable members laugh and
think it's jolly on the other side of the House, on the Liberal side, but I can tell this House that we didn't have seven pilot projects, we had 14 pilot projects, so we can say that Thunder Bay
was replaced by seven -- in Hamilton, Chatham, Paris, rural Kingston, Ottawa, Parry Sound -- 175 physicians, 225,000 patients.
This is on track, it's ongoing and it's going to be a success. This side of the House, the NDP, have supported us all the way. All that side of the House can
do, the Liberal side, is laugh. Laugh if you will, but we believe in primary care reform, we believe in medicare and we believe in a better standard of health care for the citizens of Ontario.
Laugh if you will, because you can laugh on that side but you don't know how to govern.
STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): Would that there was some way we could laugh along with the minister. This minister, the Minister of
Education, whom I have a question for, I hope will do better.
I want to ask the Minister of Education about her cuts and her funding figures, but what's happened isn't funny at all. Yesterday in the House there were nine
parents and they came with me to the estimates committee. They listened to the Minister of Education not answer what she is going to do, this Minister of Education, for their children, who because
of the cuts coming from this House are not going to be able to have their kids in school next year.
Their education assistants have been taken away from them, Minister. You've heard from boards that have been faced with two bad choices. Either they remove
essential learning services or, as in Kawartha Pine Ridge and Ottawa, they don't pass budgets. This is a direct result of your inability to secure the funds we need in this province to educate our
children.
I wonder if you will stand up in the House today and finally answer those parents of special-needs children, answer the people around the province who are
finding out in their communities that education is being cut, and tell them you will do something to change that circumstance.
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): As I answered the honourable member yesterday in committee, we recognize the
need to continue to improve special education in this province. That's why we have continued to increase funding. There was a 12% increase alone last year for special-needs education.
Second, we are putting standards in place and clear accountability measures so that school boards are quite clear about the programming they should be
providing and so that parents are quite clear about the programming their students should be able to receive. Those steps are underway right now.
I met with several of those parents yesterday to talk about the individual circumstances of their particular children. I also should say that one of the
parents the honourable member brought into the House yesterday called me over to talk about the improvement in services that her child had received.
I recognize there are improvements that need to be made. The parents who are taking care of special-needs children advocate very hard on their behalf. Any one
of us would do the same in their place.
Mr Kennedy: These parents have said, clearly and in writing, that they hold this minister responsible. They accept none of that misdirection.
They know, Minister, that independent figures have shown that you have cut funding to schools this year. They can see it in their communities and these families can see it in their households.
They've got kids that they've struggled to try and get treated with decency and respect and you have said nothing so far about what you will do for the school boards across the province that are
having to make these painful cuts. They have carried these programs for years and the minister knows that the funding has not been there.
There are textbooks missing, there are teachers missing, there are special education assistants gone missing. I want to know very simply, to the parents and
soon to this province, will you be working right away to help put back what students need: for these to go to school and everyone else to get a decent education in this province?
Hon Mrs Ecker: There is nothing to put back because we are spending more on education, on the public education system -- in this coming school
year, $13.8 billion. That is an increase above enrolment.
Mr Kennedy: Seventy-five million less.
Hon Mrs Ecker: If the honourable critic would be quiet for a minute he might be able to listen to this. That is more.
Second, we also recognize that more needs to be done in special education. But again, I would like to point out to this House that one of the changes in rules
we brought in was a law that said school boards were accountable for special-needs funding. They couldn't spend special-needs funding outside that envelope. We thought that was an appropriate
accountability measure. The honourable members of the Liberal Party voted against that. They voted against an accountability measure that said school boards have to use special-ed money for
special-needs children.
We know there need to be improvements. These parents need the continued support, they need more help, and that's why we are taking these steps to do --
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.
INVESTIGATION INTO CHILD ABUSE
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): I have a question for the Solicitor General. During its investigation at Cornwall, the Ontario
Provincial Police entered the home of an Ontario probation officer pursuant to a search warrant authorizing the seizure of arms and narcotics. None were found. But without a warrant for the
next-door neighbour's home, they entered the home of the neighbour of the probation officer and again found no trace of arms or narcotics in that home. They did, however, seize a suitcase
containing 24 or more pornographic movies. Some of these were commercially edited and sold and some were homemade, some from a camera mounted at the foot of the probation officer's bed. That
suitcase and contents have been identified as the property of the probation officer, who committed suicide before his trial.
Mr Minister, this evidence, these films, have been in the hands of the OPP for over six years. The evidence has never been tendered in court proceedings and
indeed many of the predators in these movies, both the commercial movies and the homemade movies, have never been charged. I'd like to ask you, sir, where those films are located at this time, and
when will this evidence be returned to the estate of the probation officer, which it should be by law?
Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): Let's be very clear: our government does not tolerate the abuse of children in any manner. Our
thoughts are certainly with the entire community of Cornwall.
The member knows that it is inappropriate for me to comment on specific investigations. As Solicitor General, I cannot and I will not direct the day-to-day
operations of any police service.
As you are aware, the Harris government is committed to protecting children from abuse of all kinds, particularly sexual abuse. I was extremely proud to bring
in Christopher's Law, the first sex offender registry in this country.
The OPP's child pornography
section is the largest such unit in Canada and is looked upon by other police services as the lead agency for investigations of
this type of crime.
Mr Guzzo: Mr Minister, I'm not asking you to comment on any investigation; there's no investigation going on.
I want to tell you this: on November 22 of last year, when I was debriefed by the OPP, visited by Detective Inspector Hall, the lead investigator for Project
Truth, and one of his superiors from Orillia, I put that same question to Detective Inspector Hall. Here was his answer. He said, "Mr Guzzo, we don't have those tapes. We don't have those films any
more. We destroyed them."
I said, "No, no, you can't destroy evidence in this province. That's against the law." He said, "The man was dead; he wasn't going to be charged."
I said, "What about the other people in the movies? What about the kingpins of this organization who were also seen in those movies?" He shrugged his
shoulders, the same way he did when he couldn't explain the 115 charges that were missed three times.
But here's the good news: copies of some of those movies have been found. My question to you is, what should we do with those? The citizens' group has them.
What should they do? The Premier has said, "Give them to the OPP," but the citizens' group says, "They may destroy these ones too." They've been very expensive. What would you recommend that these
people do with the copies of these films that they found, sir?
Hon Mr Turnbull: Clearly, any evidence that is in the hands of citizens should be handed over to the OPP. It's very clear that the integrity
of the justice system rests on our ability to proceed without interference.
I want to mention that since July 1997, when Project Truth was initiated, 115 charges have been laid against 15 people. I've mentioned in this House before
that charges may still be pending, and the book has not been fully closed on whether further charges are to be laid. Any further comment by me would be inappropriate.
DOCTOR SHORTAGE
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Health and it concerns the press conference he held last week
regarding foreign-trained physicians. Minister, I'd like to know how you continue to make announcement after announcement so that it appears as though you are actually doing something in very
crisis situations like physician-underserviced areas, when in fact after you make announcements, there is no information available to any of us to try to get foreign-trained physicians to access
the system to become licensed to practise in Ontario.
Following your announcement last week, you now have the College of Physicians and Surgeons acting as a receptionist for thousands of people who are making
calls of inquiry to enlist themselves to become licensed to practise in Ontario.
Why do you continue to make announcements outside of this House or in this House when you have no details, no plans and no information to actually process
people who have been waiting and have pinned their hopes on the announcement that you made last week and to which there is no further information?
Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm happy to inform this House, as I have done in response to a question from the
member for Durham earlier last week, that in fact we are moving ahead with 140 physicians a year, 90 new positions a year for international medical graduates. That is up from 36 positions a year.
We indicated it would start in the fall of this year, which is on track. We are moving toward additional details for the fall.
I can tell you that the College of Physicians and Surgeons by law is the place through which these international medical graduates would be processed and
assessed. By law, that would be the place you would have the interaction between the potential graduate and our society. I have been informed that the CPSO is getting 50 calls a day, which is
wonderful. It shows there's a lot of interest for new medical graduates to go to underserviced areas and practise their profession in underserviced areas like the honourable member's.
Mrs Pupatello: You have thousands of people who are waiting for information about your new six-month assessment program. That's what you
announced last week. We ask the most basic of questions: can they continue to work? What does the assessment consist of? Is it of their medical training? Is it of the individuals themselves? Do
they do it in Windsor or do they move to Toronto? What cost? There are all these very basic questions, which would change these people's lives, in order to become licensed to practise in Ontario,
and those most basic questions could not be answered, not by you -- you didn't know and you said so -- not by the college itself -- they haven't sorted it out yet. All you did was hold a press
conference to make an announcement to say that now you might consider what you might do about the problem.
We are tired on this side of the House of your making announcement after announcement but nothing ever comes to fruition. You want to put on a big show, but
you don't want to do the work that's involved to get these people practising in Ontario. We have a desperate situation in Windsor with a shortage of physicians and it's incumbent on you to do
something about this. We don't expect just announcements; we expect the Minister of Health to do the work before he makes such announcements.
Hon Mr Clement: We were happy to announce that government policy has improved as a result of the George report recommendations. We not only
accepted the George report recommendations, we improved on the George report recommendations, because we felt that international medical graduates are an immediate source of medical expertise that
can be shared with underserviced areas in Ontario, including the honourable member's constituency. The announcement was that government policy has improved, government policy has changed for the
better and this is good for the people of Ontario.
The honourable member wants to know the answers. There are answers to all those questions, if not now then certainly in the weeks ahead as we move toward the
September date at which this policy becomes operative. I'd be happy to send the honourable member more information if she's confused about or doesn't understand the government announcement. I want
to educate her because her area is going to be one of the main beneficiaries, an underserviced area that is going to have international medical graduates willing to practise, willing to serve the
people of Ontario. Her area, as a result of this government, is going to be improved and we are very proud of that.
EDUCATION FUNDING
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): My question is for the Minister of Education. Unlike the member from Parkdale-High Park who has
grandstanding parades of sympathizers, I usually base it on my gut instinct and look at the realities. In Peel I know of very few schools with swimming pools, but the Toronto District School Board
has been engaging in a very public debate about its budget allocation for the next school year. Can you assure me and the House, Minister, that the government's student-focused funding policy is
meeting students' educational needs in Toronto?
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): All the school boards are very familiar with the criteria they are eligible
for. They recognize the unique needs of board circumstances. The Toronto board gets significant monies for their inner-city needs; for example, for their ESL needs. Toronto District School Board
funding this year is projected to increase by $43 million and that's a 2.3% increase over last year's spending. That's an increase when you look at their enrolment. Their enrolment is virtually
stable at about 0.2%, so it has gone up.
Secondly, we recognized the challenges the Toronto board had in amalgamation and the steps they had to take. They've received over $900 million specifically
for the Toronto board. I know other boards see that as special treatment for Toronto, but we thought the over $900 million was important, and $248 million of that was a one-time disbursement last
year, money that is to help them make the difficult decisions about living within their budget.
Mr Spina: Minister, it's clear from your answer that the government seems to have provided the appropriate amount of funding to the board, but
it's apparent the board still needs help in controlling its spending. I wonder whether any of the half-dozen board offices from the previous boards are still around. They recently made some cuts to
a variety of programs that would negatively affect students in board schools. Minister, as the board prepares to vote on its budget tonight, can you assure us that the taxpayers of Toronto and the
parents of students have explored all the appropriate cost-saving options? Are some of those board offices still standing? I don't know.
Hon Mrs Ecker: Many school boards have asked for assistance in preparing their budget. Staff certainly have attempted to give what advice and
information they can to boards. The Toronto board has been no different. There have also been studies that have offered the board guidance on where they can find administrative savings. By their
own estimates, they can find savings and still provide programs.
As a matter of fact, some of their own trustees have come up with other alternatives. If you look at some of their own figures over the past three years, they
could have had $190 million worth of savings in administration if they had made those decisions. We believe they must continue to focus on reducing administrative costs, so that we can keep the
focus on classrooms, and recognize that living within a budget, whether it's for trustees or any level of government or someone's own household budget -- it's a challenge to set those priorities
and do it, but it's something all school boards have been asked to do, as this government does and other governments and organizations do.
HOME CARE
Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Minister of Health. I want to bring to your attention the case of a constituent in
my riding, Judy Dubeau. Her mother, unfortunately, is terminally ill. With the care she was receiving at her chronic care facility, the family felt that because the minimal level of care she was
getting was not enough to meet the needs of the mother, the daughter and the rest of the family decided to bring the mother home. The reason they did so was they felt they'd be able to provide the
best level of care by caring for her themselves at home. As a result, Judy has had to quit her job in order to stay at her place. They're trying to get services from the CCAC. Unfortunately,
they're not able to get the level of care they need. Why? Because your government refuses to give the money necessary to CCACs to provide the type of care these patients need.
Minister, I ask you, for the rest of the family and our community, are you prepared to provide the level of service needed to Judy Dubeau's mother so that she
can stay at home with dignity in her final days?
Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Of course I don't know the details of the case or the individuals involved that the
honourable member has mentioned. I can tell you that your local CCAC, when your government was in power, received $7,683,367; this year they're receiving $9,035,796. That's an increase of almost $2
million, close to 20% by my calculation. There is some population growth presumably in your area, but a lot of that goes to greater care, greater home care, in your community. So if there's a
particular problem of management or inability to deliver excellent services that are experienced by your CCAC, please share the details with me and I would be happy to get to the bottom of it.
Mr Bisson: Minister, the problem is not the management of the CCAC. Those people are working hard to provide the level of care they need to
provide to citizens who need to stay at home. As they say, Minister, you stand in this House and you play with figures. You know, liars figure and figures lie. The reality is this woman needs
Interjections.
Mr Bisson: It's a saying.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): You get into that stuff and then the other side does it. I've asked you to try and watch what you say. When you
start to do that, you borderline on it. I would ask you to withdraw that, please.
Mr Bisson: I withdraw, Mr Speaker.
The point I make is simply this: the woman wants to stay at home. The best level of care she can get, according to her choice, is to stay at home and be with
her family in her final days. I ask you to intervene on behalf of the Ministry of Health to make sure the CCAC gets the financial commitment it needs to provide the service necessary for this woman
so she can stay at home in her final days with dignity.
Hon Mr Clement: Again, I'm unaware of the details. I certainly have a lot of sympathy for the family you mention. Of course we want excellent
health care to be delivered either at the home or in providers of health care services. I apologize to the honourable member for citing the facts, but the facts are that there has been close to a
20% increase in the budget of the local CCAC. If there's a particular problem in their ability to make sure that money goes to the right people for the right resources, we'd be happy to work with
the honourable member directly and with the CCAC to make sure that happens.
Perhaps the honourable member recalls that when he was in power it was the same as it is now: 100% of those dollars, 100 cents on every dollar we spend on home
care, is spent by Ontario; zero dollars by the federal Liberal government, that proclaims it is the saviour of medicare. So maybe the honourable member and I can work together to convince the
federal Liberal MPs and the MPPs in this House who are in the Liberal Party to do their bit to ensure that we have the resources necessary for people such as the person in your riding.
MOTIONS
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to seek unanimous consent to
revert to motions for the purpose of moving a motion to adjourn this evening's sitting, and a motion respecting the committee
schedule for the adjournment, which I had discussed with the House
leaders previously.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. The government House leader would like to do another unanimous consent.
Hon Mrs Ecker: If they would be quiet for a minute, I will attempt to explain so that we can get this resolved. In order to not sit tonight --
as you know, we had unanimous consent to not have Bill 19 this evening -- we need to move a motion to that effect. I did discuss it with the House leaders and I can move that motion separately if
it would assist in easing the transition here of getting through this.
The Speaker: On a further point of order, for some help in clarification.
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Mr Speaker, did I understand that you seek unanimous consent for a motion that permits the House to not sit
this evening?
The Speaker: Yes. Is there consent? Agreed.
HOUSE SITTINGS
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I move that notwithstanding the order of the House dated Monday,
June 25, 2001, the House shall not sit this evening.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Agreed? Agreed.
COMMITTEE
SCHEDULE
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I will ask for the consideration of the House: earlier today we passed
motions to send Bill 90 to the general government committee and to send Bill 81 to the justice committee. If there is consent, I would like to move that motion as well.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Agreed? Agreed.
Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Speaker, I move that the following committees be authorized to meet during the summer adjournment to examine and inquire
into the following matters:
Standing committee on general government, for up to two week, to consider Bill 90,
An Act to promote the reduction, reuse and recycling of waste; and
Standing committee on justice and social policy, for up to three weeks, to consider Bill 81,
An Act to provide standards with respect to the management of
materials containing nutrients used on lands, to provide for the making of regulations with respect to farm animals and lands to which nutrients are applied, and to make related amendments to other
Acts.
The Speaker: Mrs Ecker moves -- dispense? No. You'd like me to read it.
Mrs Ecker moves that the following committees be authorized to meet during the summer --
Interjection: Dispense.
The Speaker: We tried to dispense. The member would like to hear it -- adjournment to examine and inquire into the following matters:
Standing committee on general government, for up to two weeks, to consider Bill 90,
An Act to promote the reduction, reuse and recycling of waste; and
Standing committee on justice and social policy, for up to three weeks, to consider Bill 81,
An Act to provide standards with respect to the management of
materials containing nutrients used on lands, to provide for the making of regulations with respect to farm animals and lands to which nutrients are applied, and to make related amendments to other
Acts.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
PETITIONS
EDUCATION FUNDING
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas we believe that all education resources should be directed to our public schools, not private schools;
"Whereas Mike Harris has been attacking public education for six years, chopping $1.8 billion from the classroom and now wants to pay parents to leave public
education for private schools;
"Whereas we believe that a voucher plan for private schools is wrong, unfair and steals money from public education;
"Whereas we believe that these funds being invested in private schools would be better spent on rebuilding public education through such measures as bringing
class sizes down to 20 students per class in the early years;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:
"Do not turn your back on Ontario's working families. Fight Mike Harris's voucher system for private schools; fight for smaller class sizes; fight for public
education."
I have here variants on this petition in the number of some 6,000 and I ask them to be submitted.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I've got thousands of names here on these petitions of people concerned about the tax credit that
you've just passed for private schools.
"Whereas the announced tax credit for private school tuition will lead to government funds being directed to private education rather than the underfunded
public school system that is mandated to educate all children, regardless of cultural, religious or socio-economic status;
"Whereas the education tax credit of up to $3,500 per child, when fully implemented, will lead to an increase of students being enrolled in private schools to
the detriment of the public schools;
"Whereas there will be no accountability for the use of public funds allocated through the education tuition tax credit; and
"Whereas the advocates for religious schools have indicated they will continue to seek full funding for religious education with the potential result of more
public funding being diverted to private schools;
"We, the undersigned, call on the Ontario Legislature to vote to remove the education tuition tax credit from Bill 45, the Ontario 2001 budget
legislation."
This has my full support.
DOCTOR SHORTAGE
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
"Whereas on September 27, 1997, Cambridge was legally designated underserviced, having an insufficient number of family doctors for its citizens; and
"Whereas thousands of men, women and children in Cambridge are not cared for by their own family physician and this unfortunate situation exists in other
Ontario communities;
"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"That the Ontario government substantially increase the number of family doctors in Cambridge and other underserviced areas by:
"1. Permitting substantial numbers of qualified and highly competent foreign-trained family doctors the right to practise in Cambridge and other underserviced
areas in Ontario; and
"2. Substantially increase the number of available student spaces in Ontario medical schools and require new graduates to serve in Cambridge and other
underserviced areas in Ontario."
This petition is signed by over 1,500 good citizens of Cambridge and I affix my name thereto.
HOME CARE
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have a petition from the community care access centre people who need home care services in Timiskaming,
Cochrane and Sudbury, and it says:
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the need for home care services is rapidly growing in Ontario due to the aging of the population and hospital restructuring; and
"Whereas the prices paid by community care access centres to purchase home care services for their clients are rising due to factors beyond the control...;
and
"Whereas the funding provided by the Ontario government through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is inadequate to meet the growing need for home care
services; and
"Whereas the funding shortfall, coupled with the implications of Bill 46, the Public Sector Accountability Act, currently before the Legislature are forcing
CCACs to make deep cuts in home care services without any policy direction from the provincial government;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"
(1) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to take control of policy-setting for home care services through rational, population-based
health care planning rather than simply by underfunding the system; and
"
(2) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to provide sufficient funding to CCACs to support the home care services that are the
mandate of community care access centres in the volumes needed to meet their communities' rapidly growing needs; and
"
(3) That the Legislative Assembly make it necessary for the provincial government to notify its agencies about the amount of funding they will be given by the
government in a fiscal year at least three months" in advance of that commitment.
I proudly give this petition to Anthony Gras from Sudbury to present to the table.
PROTECTION OF MINORS
Mr Bob Wood (London West): I have a petition signed by 4,834 people.
"Whereas children are being exposed to sexually explicit materials in many commercial establishments;
"Whereas many municipalities do not have bylaws in place to protect minors and those that do vary from place to place and have failed to protect minors from
unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials;
"Whereas uniform standards are needed in Ontario that would make it illegal to sell, rent, loan or display sexually explicit materials to minors;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"To pass Bill 95, Protection of Minors from Sexually Explicit Goods and Services Act, 2000, as soon as possible."
HOME CARE
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the Ontario community care access centres deliver vital home care services to seniors, the disabled and those discharged from hospital so they can
remain in their own homes; and
"Whereas Ontario community care access centres need an additional $175 million from the Ministry of Health this fiscal year just to deliver their current level
of health care services; and
"Whereas the Ministry of Health has refused to fund this necessary increase and has further failed to provide the CCACs with equity funding last year and this
year, despite a 1998 promise by the former Minister of Long-Term Care, Cam Jackson, to do so; and
"Whereas this deliberate underfunding by the government of CCACs has forced the CCAC boards to adopt a deficit-reduction plan which severely reduces the home
care services they provide; and
"Whereas this reduction has a drastic impact on clients who cannot afford to pay for these services and will be forced to go without necessary home care;
"Therefore,
be it resolved that the Conservative government immediately fund the additional $175 million requested by the Ontario CCACs this year and, further,
provide the equity funding that was promised in 1998."
I sign my signature to this petition.
SHARON REYNOLDS
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it relates to a statement I made
earlier in the House today.
"Whereas Sharon Reynolds, a seven-year-old young girl, died tragically; and
"Whereas the crown's case against Louise Reynolds was not proceeded with; and
"Whereas there are many unanswered questions relating to the circumstances surrounding the death of Sharon Reynolds;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"That the Premier of Ontario and his cabinet colleagues call upon the Lieutenant Governor in Council, pursuant to
section 2 of the Public Inquiries Act, to
order a full and independent inquiry into the death of Sharon Reynolds."
I agree with the petition and have signed it accordingly.
HOME CARE
Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:
"Whereas the need for home care services is rapidly growing in Ontario due to the aging of the population and hospital restructuring; and
"Whereas the prices paid by community care access centres to purchase home care services for their clients are rising due to factors beyond the control of
community care access centres; and
"Whereas the funding provided by the Ontario government through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is inadequate to meet the growing need for home care
services; and
"Whereas the funding shortfall, coupled with the implications of Bill 46, the Public Sector Accountability Act, currently before the Legislature are forcing
CCACs to make deep cuts in home care services without any policy direction from the provincial government;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"
(1) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to take control of policy-setting for home care services through rational, population-based
health care planning rather than simply by underfunding the system; and
"
(2) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to provide sufficient funding to CCACs to support the home care services that are the
mandate of CCACs in the volumes needed to meet their communities' rapidly growing needs; and
"
(3) That the Legislative Assembly make it necessary for the provincial government to notify the agencies it funds of the amount of funding they will be given
by the government in a fiscal year at least three (3) months before the commencement of this fiscal year."
This is signed by 45 members of my riding, and I have signed my signature to it.
PROTECTION OF MINORS
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:
"Whereas children are being exposed to sexually explicit materials in many commercial establishments; and
"Whereas many municipalities do not have bylaws in place to protect minors and those that do vary from place to place and have failed to protect minors from
unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials; and
"Whereas uniform standards are needed in Ontario that would make it illegal to sell, rent, loan or display sexually explicit materials to minors;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"To pass Bill 95, Protection of Minors from Sexually Explicit Goods and Services Act, 2000, as soon as possible."
EDUCATION TAX CREDIT
Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a petition here from the Chatham Christian School parents in support of the tax voucher. Though I'm in
complete disagreement with the sentiments of this petition, as the elected representative for Chatham-Kent who represents all the good citizens of that riding, I've committed to the parents to read
it. It reads, in part:
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible."
Again, I support public education and oppose the tax credit.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas tax credits for private schools will create two-tier education;
"Whereas the government's plan is to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools;
"Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society of narrowly focused interests;
"Whereas tax credits for private schools will steal money from an already cash-starved public system and deliver public money to special interests who do not
have to account for its use;
"Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario;
"Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure,
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"We call on the government of Ontario to withdraw its plan for two-tiered education and properly fund public education in Ontario."
I've attached my signature to the petition.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I have a petition from Orangeville, Shelburne, Palgrave and Grand Valley. It is addressed to
the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
"Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and
"Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or another religion, is best for their
children; and
"Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children;
and
"Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and
"Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and
"Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of the tuition fees paid for that
education;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible."
I've signed this petition.
EDUCATION FUNDING
Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas we believe that all education resources should be directed to our public schools, not private schools;
"Whereas Mike Harris has been attacking public education for six years, chopping $1.8 billion from the classroom and now wants to pay parents to leave public
education for private schools;
"Whereas we believe that a voucher plan for private schools is wrong, unfair and steals money from public education;
"Whereas we believe that these funds being invested in private schools would be better spent on rebuilding public education through such measures as bringing
class sizes down to 20 students per class in the early years;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"Do not turn your back on Ontario's working families. Fight Mike Harris's voucher system for private schools; fight for smaller class sizes and fight for
public education."
I affix my signature to this petition.
EDUCATION TAX CREDIT
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "Whereas the Harris government is planning to take funds that our public schools desperately need and funnel
them to private schools through tax credits; and
"Whereas the government's plan is to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools;
"Whereas this initiative is, in effect, a voucher system and is the beginning of