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

October 9, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Oct-09 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 9 October 2001 Mardi 9 octobre 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

CANADIAN FORCES

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

D&D AUTOMATION

EMERY ADULT LEARNING CENTRE

FIREFIGHTERS

CHINESE FREEMASONS

CANADIAN FORCES

VISITORS

CANADIAN FORCES

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO SECURITY

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

TAXATION

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

BEVERAGE ALCOHOL SALES

TAXATION

GOOD NEIGHBOURS WEEK

COLLÈGE DES GRANDS LACS

SEXUAL ABUSE OF STUDENTS

TOURISM

WATER QUALITY

NORTHERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS

BEAR CONTROL

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

OHIP SERVICES

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

NURSES

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

POVERTY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

HOME CARE

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FOOD SAFETY

AND QUALITY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA QUALITÉ

ET LA SALUBRITÉ DES ALIMENTS

Tuesday 9 October 2001 Mardi 9 octobre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise today to address a problem that has come to my attention regarding the Conservative government's hastily passed

Employment Standards Act. It appears that in the rush to pass this sweeping labour legislation, the government has created several problems that are adversely affecting Ontario's working

families.

One such person, Mr Don Guest, is in my riding. Don works 12-hour shifts in continuous operations and has no choice but to work on public holidays. Recent

changes to the Employment Standards Act allow for a formula to calculate public holiday pay. Public holiday pay now amounts to 8.4 hours' pay, which is hours worked over a four-week period divided

by 20. A business can choose to pay overtime for the day and substitute another working day off, but is only required to pay 8.4 hours of pay for holiday pay, a loss of 3.6 hours of holiday pay for

the employee working a 12-hour shift. A business can choose to pay overtime and public holiday pay of 8.4 hours and not give the alternative day off, again a loss of 3.6 hours of holiday pay for

the employee.

The problem is that the employee who works eight hours a day, 40 hours a week, receives full holiday pay, while a person who works 12-hour days with mandatory

overtime receives less than full holiday pay under the new Employment Standards Act.

I call on the minister to investigate this problem and correct it. Employees like my constituent Don Guest, working to meet production requirements for the type

of work that keeps Ontario's economy booming, should not be punished economically for doing so because of your flawed legislation.

CANADIAN FORCES

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): At this time, Canadian sailors are heading into harm's way to help defend all of us who

value freedom from those who practise terrorism.

Canada is not a neutral country. Canada was a warrior nation long before it became a peacekeeping nation. I'm glad to see that we are at last lining up alongside

our friends like Britain and the United States who believe in free speech, religious freedom and the rule of law.

I want to salute the fighting men and women aboard HMCS Halifax, who are already on their way to join the multinational force in the Arabian Sea. The Halifax is

the lead unit of a six-ship Canadian contingent to provide protection and logistical support to our allies. As well, they are tangible, concrete evidence of our commitment to the struggle against

terror.

I call on the federal government in this time of crisis to stop neglecting our fighting forces. Canadians are in a generous mood. We will forgive past mistakes

if the Liberals in Ottawa will begin funding the equipment, the recruits and the training dollars to let us carry our share of the load.

Canada's troops are second to none. Let us give them the tools they need to do their jobs. I urge all Canadians to give our sailors the support they deserve.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): This Thursday the Legislative Assembly committee will consider the Ombudsman's report on health travel

for cancer patients in Ontario. As members will know and remember, northern Ontarians became very incensed by the inequitable treatment of the Harris government between the two very differently

funded health travel programs when cancer patients in southern Ontario needed to be sent to northern Ontario for treatment of prostate and breast cancer. Northerners claimed this to be

discriminatory and the Ombudsman in his report also agreed.

The government has done nothing to bring fairness to the northern health travel grant since this opinion has been made and we've yet to see the Ministry of

Health's report that was dated August 2000, entitled Patient Travel Assistance Programs in Ontario. Why has this report not been tabled? Northern Ontarians and all Ontarians need to see this

report. Why has the Harris government not yet brought equity to the various programs that they have established for southern Ontario cancer patients versus those in northern Ontario?

For years northern Ontarians, thousands of them, have paid thousands of dollars to obtain the health services they require. To see the government bring in a

fully paid program for southern Ontario patients, as they did 18 months ago, while paying only one-way mileage for northern Ontarians is not only galling, it's insulting. And it is

discriminatory.

It's time the Harris government brought some equity to the programs in northern Ontario so that we would be treated fairly and that we'd have a northern health

travel grant program that treats all Ontarians fairly. Northern Ontarians should have good and affordable access to the health care treatment that they require and that they deserve. We have

greater distances to travel. We have lower incomes and greater costs. It is time the Harris government made those important changes.

D&D AUTOMATION

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise in the Legislature today to recognize a company in my riding. D&D Automation, located in

Stratford, was established in 1992. They design and provide industrial automation systems and training. Over the past few years D&D Automation has grown rapidly and has watched its client base

extend throughout North and South America. The company recently moved into a larger facility in Stratford to accommodate the additional employees it has hired and to showcase its knowledge and

expertise.

D&D Automation places a great deal of importance and value on their employees. The company's owners attribute much of their success to the dedication and

loyalty of their highly skilled employees, many of whom are graduates of Ontario's colleges.

D&D Automation is also interested in rural economic development initiatives. They are part of the Huron Perth Development Alliance, which is a group of 27

local companies and municipalities that have come together to help young people in my riding find good jobs close to home. Several months ago, this alliance received funding from our government's

rural youth job strategy fund to help the alliance create employment opportunities.

I want to congratulate the owners of D&D Automation -- Mike McCourt, Doug Biesinger and Jeff Smith -- and their 40 employees for their success and for

meeting the needs of companies in this fast-changing and technologically advanced world.

EMERY ADULT LEARNING CENTRE

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): The Emery Adult Learning Centre is facing potential closure in June of next year. As the member for York West, I

have been proud to be closely associated with the Emery Adult Learning Centre community and can attest to its excellent and vital role in the northwest quadrant of the city of Toronto.

The Emery Adult Learning Centre is a unique secondary school designed to help adult students get an education, prepare for post-secondary education and training

and improve technical skills and get on with their lives in the workplace. Cuts to adult education at Emery will hurt people striving to improve their lives. From an initial enrolment of just under

400 students two years ago, well over 1,100 students are currently attending as adult students.

Since 1996, Premier, we members of the opposition have continually raised the issue of erosion of funding levels for adult education. Ultimately, if Emery Adult

Learning Centre should close, it will be because of your cuts and your complete disregard of the needs of our adult students. It would be a shame, Premier. Programs such as the Emery Adult Learning

Centre improve people's quality of life, help them get off welfare, offer students better job prospects and teach the skills necessary to make a positive contribution to our society. I would only

hope that you understand what we are talking about.

FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): It's with great pride that I rise this week to speak once again about Ontario's firefighters, in this

instance, firefighters from Niagara region. A team of them left this past weekend for New York City at the request of New York City officials. Members of the Critical Incident Stress Management

team for Niagara, formed in 1999, are trained to assist other firefighters in responding to tragic incidents. These are firefighters from Niagara, as courageous as any could be, going there,

assisting their sister and brother firefighters in New York City.

You will want to know that among that group are Rick Honsberger of Thorold; you've heard of him before. As well, we've got Dan O'Hearn and Barry Norton of St

Catharines, Bruce Green of Niagara Falls and Sandy MacIntyre of Port Colborne. Captain Arnold Mackler and Bob Freemen are accompanying the eight others, as well as a long-time friend of

firefighters and people across Niagara region, Reverend Doug Aikman, who's the chaplain for the firefighters and a pastor, a preacher, a reverend in Niagara region who has been a source of great

strength for people in emergency services, including firefighters as well as numerous families. I praise these people, I salute them and I tell them that their concern and commitment is appreciated

by all.

CHINESE FREEMASONS

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I rise today to report that the 32nd National Convention of Chinese Freemasons in Canada is being held in London

between October 7 and 11, 2001. There are delegates from across Canada participating as well as representatives from the China Zhi Gong Party, the political party of the Freemasons in China. They

are led by Mr Wang Sougda, deputy leader of the party and a member of the standing committee of the Chinese National People's Congress.

The London branch of the Chinese Freemasons is also celebrating their 81st anniversary and the 20th anniversary of the Dart Coon Club, which was incorporated to

hold the properties of the Chinese Freemasons.

The spirit, traditions and values of the Chinese Freemasons are constant. Their goals are to support their motherland, to participate in social services in their

adopted country and to assist Chinese communities in Canada. The biggest challenge facing the national convention is how to promote these values in the 21st century.

The opening ceremony was held on Sunday, October 7, followed by a parade from the London Convention Centre to the Covent Garden Market Square, where lion dances

were performed. That evening, about 250 delegates, members and guests attended a banquet. Mrs Sun Shuxian, the Consul General of the People's Republic of China in Toronto, and other dignitaries

were in attendance.

I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome the delegates and invited dignitaries to the great city of London and to express our best wishes for a very fruitful

and successful convention. I know all members of this House will join with me in wishing the Chinese Freemasons a very successful 32nd national convention in London.

CANADIAN FORCES

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I'm sure I join all my colleagues in the House today in paying tribute to the men and women of the Canadian Armed

Forces. Over the Thanksgiving weekend, they received their mission: Operation Apollo, Canada's largest and latest contribution to the international fight against terrorism.

To the more than 2,000 families who have loved ones called to action, we offer our support and our prayers. We know that many of you had your Thanksgiving dinner

interrupted with the call to action. You may not know where your soldier is are going, how long they are going to be there or what they're going to do once they get there. What we do know is that

Canada's commitment to the overall campaign has been described as an integral component and has received praise from the US President and the Secretary-General to NATO.

The mission is called Operation Apollo. Apollo is the god, they say, that strikes from afar. To those men and women who will be voyaging to the Persian Gulf, our

Canadian Apollos, and to those who stand on guard for us here at home, we offer our humble gratitude. We are awestruck at your bravery and commitment to country. Understand, please, that there are

a thousand watts of prayers and thoughts emanating from every seat in this House and every corner of this land. Good luck and God speed.

VISITORS

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I'd like all members in the House to join with me in welcoming a group from Morse public school

who are with us in the gallery with their teacher, Ryan Ward. This grade 5 and 6 group is representative of the entire student body which recently raised $359.48 for the Canadian Red Cross USA

appeal. It's my honour to welcome them here today.

CANADIAN FORCES

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I would also like to extend my best wishes and prayers to those men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who

are headed overseas.

As we know, many other men and women in the history of Canada have gone into battle for this country. This year, in celebration of a place that many of those men

and women hold dear, the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 51 celebrated their 75th anniversary. A dinner dance with special presentations was held on Saturday, September 15, 2001. The program commenced

with the Rev Donald Glennie providing a blessing and two minutes of silence for the victims and their families of the September 11, 2001, US terrorist attacks. Retired Brigadier General Kevin

Troughton gave an informative speech on the peacekeeping medal and then presented it to Mr Robert Juteau. Other awardees included both Henry Grant and Jack Morrison who received 50-year legion

membership awards. Past executive members were presented with past officer medals and bars.

I'm very proud to say that my own Uncle Ike, Mr Reginald Maves, received the 60-year legion membership award. While my Uncle Bart and my father attended the

dinner, our whole family is very proud of Uncle Ike and all of his accomplishments. Closing ceremonies at the dinner were followed by live entertainment and dancing.

I stand in the House today to offer my congratulations to Branch 51 on their 75th anniversary and to all of the award recipients. Best wishes for the many years

ahead.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45

pm to 9:30 pm on Tuesday, October 9, and Wednesday, October 10, 2001, for the purpose of considering government business.

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.

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

The division bells rang from 1348 to 1353.

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

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Christopherson, David

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 78; the nays are 7.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): I rise in the House today to honour Mental Illness Awareness Week,

which takes place this year between October 7 and 13. As well, I appreciate this opportunity to highlight our government's reform of Ontario's mental health system.

Ten years ago today the Canadian Psychiatric Association, in collaboration with a number of national organizations, launched the first Mental Illness Awareness

Week campaign. Its slogan, "Let's Unmask Mental Illness," communicates the essential goal of this designated week. That goal is to remove the stigma of mental illness and create an environment

where it's acceptable to discuss and seek information and/or treatment and support for mental illness. Such openness is critical in helping to ensure efficient and timely access to the mental

health system, and this is central to our government's mental health reform.

Ontario's mental health system for the seriously mentally ill includes provincial and specific psychiatric hospitals, general hospital in-patient and

outpatient units, institutional long-term-care services, homes for special care, the mental health homeless initiative, assertive community treatment teams and public education, and hundreds of

community programs providing a wide range of services from crisis intervention to vocational and social rehabilitation.

Throughout this vast entity, the progressive thread of reform is taking mental health care out of the institution and moving it into the community. Supporting

that goal is our government's investment in the mental health system, and I'm proud to say that since 1995 we have committed an additional $377 million in mental health care services. In total,

Ontario spends $2.7 billion annually on mental health services.

Yet for all this, there is still much more to do. A mental health care system built to withstand the challenges of our time must be accessible, it must be

integrated, it must be coordinated and it must be accountable to the people it serves and the people of the province. It must deliver without fail a full range of care. It must be driven by

compassion and commitment. It must be available at every stage of life and as close to home as possible.

The urgency of such an initiative is based squarely on the recognition that millions of Canadians are directly or indirectly affected by mental illness, and

the cost of mental illness is far higher than often estimated -- far higher in our personal lives, with our extended families, in the workplace, in the health care system and in the economy as a

whole.

That's why Ontario is steadfast in its commitment to mental health reform; that's why previous ministers have established the mental health implementation task

force as a mechanism through which recommendations are being developed on provincial psychiatric hospital restructuring, community reinvestments and the implementation of mental health reform;

that's why the Premier of the province met with the joint task force in the last two weeks to discuss his vision for mental health reform and listened to the committee on their initial findings;

and that's why nine regional task forces have been formulated throughout the province, because all of this is important to ensuring that we have the services where and when we need them.

Each mental health task force in the province has the flexibility to effectively address the implementation requirements of the region it serves. The task

forces are working in collaboration with community providers, consumers, families, the business community and the ministry to identify local problems and blueprint an integrated, coordinated reform

of the province's mental health system.

One of the greatest assets is the spirit of partnership that exists within these nine task forces. I have to tell you, I've met with many of the task force

members, and the commitment they have to making a difference in Ontario is truly outstanding. Each task force is a collaboration of determined individuals who represent many facets of our society.

They represent people from the provincial psychiatric hospitals and facilities, consumers, families, community mental health agencies, community care access centres, district health centres and

other caring and committed agencies clear across Ontario's mental health system. To assemble such a breadth and depth of mental health treatment knowledge under a single umbrella, I'm proud to say,

is just a remarkable achievement.

Our principal goal is helping people with a serious mental illness and their families get the information and services they need in an efficient and effective

manner. We're determined to ensure that the right services, and the right number of them, are in place, and that the system is set up so people can have access to them when it is appropriate, and

to make sure that they have those services when and where they need them in Ontario.

The task force represents a golden opportunity to bring about change in the way mental health services are delivered in this great province. Once completed,

The mental health system that is in place today is complex. Mental health reform policies are unquestionably ambitious. And there is always resistance to

change.

The task forces not only represent and link these various sectors and stakeholders as they develop recommendations for change but also champion the notion of

change itself in the community. Reform automatically means a profound shift in moving the consumer to the centre of a people-oriented system. Mental health services will be tailored to consumer

needs with a view to increasing their quality of life. Consumer choice will also be improved, and access to services will be streamlined. Services will be linked and they will be coordinated so

that the consumer can move seamlessly from one part of the system to the other.

In our own lives, these actions translate into our loved ones receiving better, more appropriate care at a time of critical need. They translate as more

support and assistance from other consumers, families, employers, colleagues and the public at large.

That ultimately takes us back to the purpose of this week: Mental Illness Awareness Week. I want to urge every member of this House to stress the importance of

the goal of this week among their constituents specifically, to help raise awareness about the nature of mental illness, to help ensure that people are aware of the nature of mental illness and its

surrounding issues, treatment, care and support. We in this hallowed chamber today can ensure that we make a difference as we work toward ensuring an education so that Mental Illness Awareness Week

does not go unnoticed.

Thank you all in advance for your efforts. I look forward to working with everybody during this month.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I agree that it's important to recognize Mental Health Awareness Week to build public awareness of

mental health and to try and move mental health issues and concerns on to the front burner. I think it's even more important to move mental health issues on to the front burner for government

action, and I truly wish this government were serious about the kinds of reforms that are needed in our mental health system.

Our great concern, when Brian's Law was passed a little more than a year ago, was that the government would feel that it had responded to the concerns of those

who advocate for mental health services and would not feel it needed to do much more. In fact, over a year later very little more has been done, and the government's focus of reform continues to be

the closure of six of nine psychiatric hospitals.

There was an assurance from the previous Minister of Health, reiterated by the current Minister of Health, that there would be no closures, no loss of

psychiatric beds until community supports were in place. In fact, we find in the estimates this year that five of six of those psychiatric hospitals have been officially divested, are no longer

officially responsible for providing care. Yet we have not seen the community supports put in place.

We have had the reality. The implementation committees are set up, as the associate minister has just described, but they have not reported. We don't know when

the first committee is going to report, and in the meantime there are no significant resources because there have not been recommendations placed on the minister's desk.

We know that the serious gaps in the mental health system mean that more people are being discharged from psychiatric hospitals to go into jails than to go

into community support; 25% of the inmates in our correctional institutions have mental health problems. We keep raising the issues of specific individuals who have no place to go. I just signed a

letter today to the Minister of Health about a constituent named Timothy, severely brain-injured. He is sitting in a Thunder Bay district jail because nobody in the mental health system across this

province can find a place for Timothy to go. I consider that to be absolutely unconscionable.

There is so much that needs to be addressed. There was no mention of mental health in the budget -- $26 million for facilities. Let me correct that statement:

for facilities, but when you look at the estimates book, there is $13 million less for the operation of our mental health facilities. If you look at community housing, where a bulk of this

ministry's money has gone, and community support of housing for the mentally ill is absolutely crucial, we applauded the decision to put money into community support of mental health housing. But

if you talk to people who are supposed to be providing the housing out there, in communities from Toronto to Atikokan, my riding, the housing isn't getting provided because either the resources

aren't sufficient or there are bureaucratic rules put in place that make it impossible to meet the real needs in a particular community.

Talk about alcohol and drug addiction programs and ask the government why the $5.4 million in one-time funding for last year to enhance those programs is not

being renewed this year. Let's ask them why, at the same time, there is no mention here of children's mental health, because it isn't the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. I wonder who

takes responsibility for children's mental health. There are 700 children in Windsor alone on a waiting list for mental health services because the minimal increase in funding to children's mental

health has not kept pace with the cuts to education budgets, which has meant more and more children in need of care.

Let's indeed unmask the reality of mental illness, and let's unmask at the same time the gaps in our service to those who have mental illness.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): It's important that we recognize this week and pay tribute to the doctors, nurses and support staff

who work in caring for our mentally ill patients in this province. But I think it's important too that the associate minister and other members in southwestern Ontario recognize some of the damage

this government has done to the mental health system in southwestern Ontario.

I'm going to quote from the 2000-02 operating plan for St Joseph's Health Care, who are dealing with mental health:

"Our regional mental health care programs are facing significant cost pressures. To continue to provide these services into 2001-02 without interruption will

require an increase in ministry funding...." We are facing a $5.2-million shortfall. "Should we be required to realize savings to any extent to meet any shortfall then we would undertake an

extensive review of existing services," even to eliminate or balance. So I guess you're going to go through another scoping and sizing exercise.

PACT teams: they're not going to be able "by the end of the year ... to meet the demand for service."

The adult programs are experiencing waiting lists of 10 to 15 patients.

Geriatrics: "The decrease of hospital-based facilities may cause harm to this vulnerable population unless adequate and well-planned community services are

provided."

I could go on and on. The nursing plan: they talk about the need for nurses and the loss of nurses, all on the backs of this government. Did you read this

plan?

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I am pleased, on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus, to recognize Mental Illness Awareness Week this

week. I appreciate the goal of this week, which is to remove the stigma of mental illness and to try and create an environment where it is acceptable to discuss and seek information and treatment

and support for mental illness. I want to thank all those who will be involved in the campaign.

It's this very issue of support and treatment for mental illness which I want to focus on today, especially with respect to children's mental health. The fact

is that this government's record on funding children's mental health is abysmal.

I want to refer to a pre-budget consultation document we all received from Children's Mental Health Ontario, which is a non-profit, independent organization

that represents 90 children's mental health centres which serve about 150,000 people. They made this presentation to the Minister of Finance on March 19, 2001. To give you an idea of the extent of

the problem, the facts are:

One in five of Ontario's children has a mental health problem.

Canada's youth suicide rate increased 400% in the last 30 years.

In the last 10 years, StatsCan figures show an increase of 121% in the incidence of youth violence.

A recent study from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences reported an increase of 19% in Ontario's adolescents seeking help for mental health problems

over the last decade.

According to Ontario's office of child advocacy, 80% of young offenders have mental health needs and are incarcerated in our jails at a cost of $100,000 a

year.

The Canadian Institute of Child Health says in its most recent report that emotional and behavioural problems and early learning difficulties have the greatest

impact on lowering life quality and reducing the chances for Canadian youth and kids.

-- One in six children with mental health problems is receiving the help they need from the formal care and treatment system. We have 8,000 children with

critical needs who now remain on waiting lists in Ontario -- 8,000 children with critical mental health needs.

It's interesting that in the budget consultation this particular organization talked about the investment the government made last year and said the

following:

"Meeting the objectives of the four-point plan" -- which is the $20 million the government put in last year -- "has added to the already extraordinary pressure

on the basic infrastructure that supports all children's mental health services. Since 1993, government's investment in core funding for children's mental health services has declined by 8%. The

additional cost-of-living increase, plus unfunded pay equity and WSIB, means that children's mental health centres are facing a reduction of 20% to 25% in actual real dollars since 1990."

This is the legacy left by this government with respect to children's mental health.

The association made three recommendations to the Minister of Finance. The first was a need for $50 million to base funding to try to recruit and retain those

professionals who deal with children and their mental health problems. The government has done nothing about that issue.

The second recommendation they made was that this government needed to fund so that they could intervene early with children under the age of seven, and that

$30 million be allocated in this regard. What did the government do? The government allocated $6.9 million of federal dollars to this initiative in May. There has been no corresponding match of

funds from this province, certainly no provincial dollars invested in this regard.

The third recommendation was to allocate $30 million to help this organization work with the Ontario Public School Boards' Association and the Ontario Catholic

School Trustees' Association to keep our schools safe and to intervene with kids in the schools. Again, what has the government done in this regard? Nothing. The fact of the matter is that since

1990, funding in children's mental health has declined by 20% to 25% in real dollars. I know the government doesn't want to hear that, but that's a fact, that's the truth, and today the Minister of

Health should have been in here doing something about it.

Minister, if this government wanted to do two things, they could fund Family Solutions in Sarnia-Lambton, which operates at St Clair Child and Youth Services,

one-time funding to keep families who are at risk together. They met with the minister on April 28. They got a letter last week saying their funding has been cut. Why, Minister?

If the government wants to do something, they can do something for Essex county kids. This government has had a proposal before them since May -- all members

have received a copy -- to increase mental health dollars for kids in that area. Again, this government has done nothing.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO SECURITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Premier. Ontarians would have learned during the course of

the weekend about Canada having joined the battle against terrorists, and they would have awakened this morning to headlines which made ample reference to the word "war."

I think Ontarians understand that there is now an increased likelihood of terrorist retaliation, given the fact that we have joined this battle, and rightfully

so. I think the question that is weighing heavily on the minds of Ontario families today is, are we any safer today, four weeks after September 11, than we were on September 11 itself? We think

specifically of our water plants, our nuclear plants, public transit, tall buildings and so on.

So the question I have for you today, Premier, on behalf of Ontario families, is, what specific measures have you put in place since September 11? I'm not

talking about plans or things that are being contemplated or being reviewed. What specific measures have you put in place since September 11 to make Ontarians safer from a terrorist attack?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The whole issue of security and safety, of course, is one of concern to all Ontarians, indeed to all

Canadians, and I think to people around the world, not just for the actions of September 11 but the accelerated action, as you know, with countries that are involved in the action to strike back at

terrorists, at this particular moment in time in Afghanistan, but a stated goal wherever terrorists can be found.

We have taken a number of steps. As you know, we have asked our own Ontario Provincial Police to work with the municipal police forces. They are working with

the RCMP. As you know, we have stepped up security, for example, at nuclear plants and other facilities, and we have announced a number of other measures to continue to look at other areas where we

maybe should do even more. But I'm pleased to assure Ontarians that I believe they are safer today than they were before September 11.

Mr McGuinty: Ontario families will not be looking for platitudes; they'll be looking for evidence of specific, concrete actions.

Last week, three weeks after the terrorist attack, a man slipped in through the fence at the Bruce nuclear plant and entered a building. Fortunately, all he

had in mind was to make a phone call, and that's all he did.

I want to speak to you about the issue of nuclear safety. Coincidentally, just last week concerns were raised at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that

your government has been sitting on an updated emergency plan for our nuclear power plants for five years now. Five years is a long time. I would also add that in the minds of Ontario families,

four weeks since September 11 is a long, long time. My question is, why are you taking so long to put in place an updated and improved emergency plan for our nuclear plants?

Hon Mr Harris: The Minister of Energy can respond directly to that, if you like.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I wouldn't mind if the honourable member would repeat the question.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. If the leader of the official opposition would like to repeat it, he can.

Mr McGuinty: In passing, let me say that the people of Ontario are looking to the Premier for leadership on all security matters, and it's

unfortunate that he's deferring to the energy minister on this.

Nonetheless, for the benefit of the minister, my question has to do with nuclear safety in the province of Ontario and the fact that just last week a man

slipped through the fence at Bruce, and in addition to that, coincidentally last week the matter was raised at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that your government has been sitting on an

updated emergency plan for our nuclear power plants for five years now.

My question is, why is it taking this government so long to put in place a better and improved emergency plan when it comes to dealing with our nuclear

plants?

Hon Mr Wilson: We are up to date in our nuclear security measures. In fact, since the tragedy of September 11 we've taken another look at the

plans that are in place. There was a comment, which we take seriously, from one member of the Canadian nuclear safety authority who lives in Victoria, a criticism he made publicly that he had never

made to this government privately or through any communication with this government. However, I do take the matter seriously, and we are reviewing our safety and security measures in light of that

particular member's comments.

We have great confidence in the security at our plants. Everything humanly possible that can be done is being done with all local authorities, with federal

authorities and with police forces across the province. If the honourable member has any further suggestions to make, I'd like to hear them.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, the fact remains that last week, three weeks after September 11, a man entered the grounds of the Bruce nuclear plant

and actually got inside a building. Fortunately, all he wanted to do was make a phone call. That is an indisputable fact.

I'm asking you as well about the updated emergency plan for our nuclear power plants. This plan would coordinate the emergency response to a major nuclear

incident, including a terrorist attack. More than four million people live under the radioactive shadow of our three nuclear plants in the province of Ontario.

This delay in your acting on this updated plan means that you've deferred decisions like the following: how should we mark evacuation routes with signs; how

would we distribute radiation-protective doses of iodine; how wide an area should we give notification to after a major incident, including a terrorist attack?

I'm not sure why this was not a priority before, but surely it ought to be a priority in the post-September 11 world. I know it's a matter that has to be

approved by the cabinet. Will you finally act and make sure the new emergency plan is on the agenda and approved at tomorrow's cabinet meeting?

Hon Mr Wilson: We have good plans in place. We are working with our American counterparts, and they assure us, upon review of our plans, that

our plans are as good or better than many of the plans in place for US nuclear sites.

The honourable member has taken the tragedy of a man who fell into the water and was suffering from hypothermia and our staff were trying to help that

individual -- that's how the individual ended up in the plant.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Minister of Health. Parents in southwestern Ontario received some

frightening news last week. Responding to your directive to cut their budget, the London Health Sciences Centre announced the cancellation of 18 programs, many of which affect very sick

children.

These programs include specialized pediatric heart surgery, all lung and heart transplants and the treatment of babies who have been seriously burned. All

these kids will now have to travel to Toronto. Parents are afraid that travelling to Toronto will endanger their children, and they're also afraid there may very well be no room for them in Toronto

hospitals.

Minister, can you tell these parents now why you are making them travel so far for life-saving treatment for their children?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I think the honourable member is drawing some conclusions here. I can tell the

honourable member and this House that the programs that are proposed for scoping and sizing by the trustees of the hospital involve less than 1% of all the patient activity that occurs in that

hospital. So I'd like this House to put those decisions in that perspective.

I would also like to say to this House, in answer to the honourable member's question, that, as the Ministry of Health and as the government of Ontario, we

would of course ensure, for the reason of providing the best care in the best location rather than trying to be all things to all people, that those services are picked up by other excellent

institutions within the province of Ontario health system.

Mr McGuinty: If the minister is so quick to dismiss the concerns of parents, then maybe he'll listen to doctors. This is what pediatric

cardiologist Dr Gary Joubert said: "A child may die because of the decisions made this week." This is what Dr John Lee, a pediatric heart surgeon, said: "Parents across southwestern Ontario have a

right to be very worried for their children." Dr Lee said he is terrified for children, because he regularly receives urgent calls from Toronto asking for beds in London because they are full in

Toronto. He says: "It isn't unusual to wait weeks to send a patient from London to Toronto, or to be told that Toronto isn't accepting transfers." I quote again from Dr Lee: "This gets to be a

life-and-death situation, and it is a lie for them to say that lives won't be affected."

Minister, why are you proceeding with these cuts at the London Health Sciences Centre when parents, and now doctors, are saying these cuts will cause harm to

children?

Hon Mr Clement: I too am surprised that the honourable member seeks to dismiss out of hand the expert advice, the clinical advice, the advice

of the trustees of the community when it comes to delivering the best programs for the community in London and indeed throughout Ontario.

The honourable member mentions pediatric cardiac surgery. This is a particular procedure that is being done at 50% less than the ideal rate to ensure the best

clinical outcomes. If the honourable member wants to promote poorer clinical outcomes for kids who need heart surgery, that's his business, but that's not the business of the Ontario

government.

Interjection.

Mr McGuinty: If the member for London-Fanshawe wants to go on record in defence of his constituents, then I'm quite prepared to cede my time

to him. But until he does, we on this side of the House won't give up on those constituents.

It is bad enough that this minister is going to cut these life-saving programs and risk --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The Minister of Labour, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It's your leader's question. I'm trying to settle them down. It doesn't help when you yell across too.

Mr McGuinty: It's hard to believe, but this actually gets worse. It turns out that the minister doesn't even have a plan in place to manage

where he is going to send these critically ill kids now that he is slashing their services.

Here's what Dr Timothy Frewen, chief of pediatrics at Children's Hospital of Western Ontario, says. He's "concerned that there is no agreement between London

and other children's hospitals to provide the services being cut in London to these kids."

Interjection.

Mr McGuinty: If the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities wants to stand up for her constituents and fight for her hospital, then

I'm prepared to cede my ground to her.

My question to the minister is, how can you do this to these children? You are proceeding with cuts that are harmful to their health and you don't even have a

plan in place to help accommodate their needs.

Hon Mr Clement: Let me assure this House that we do have plans in place. We would always have plans in place before transferring specific

clinical responsibilities from one hospital to another. So the honourable member is quite simply wrong.

If he doesn't want to take my word for how it is important that we try to ensure that our hospitals deliver the best services to the community, then he can

take the word of the president of the Ontario Hospital Association, who said just last week, at the same time that he was complaining about this --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, please come to order, and while we're at it, the member for Windsor West as well.

Hon Mr Clement: The CEO of the Ontario Hospital Association said, "We should move toward more differentiation in the types of hospital

facilities we build. Hospitals don't need to be scaled-up or scaled-down versions of the same model in every community." That makes good sense. What the honourable member is offering is hospitals

trying to be all things to all people, and the clinical outcomes suffer and the people suffer. If the honourable member wants to be on that side of the debate, that's his business, but we're on the

side of helping people in --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

TAXATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Premier, a certain finance minister was quoted two weeks ago in the

Toronto Sun as saying that one way to fight the economic fallout is to go to the mall and spend. The same finance minister says that a provincial sales tax reduction could be in the cards if the

economic fallout from September 11 persists.

Ontario has lost 26,000 jobs since May, and new layoff announcements are coming fast and furious: Nortel, Boeing, de Havilland, the auto sector generally. All

of this has happened since this particular finance minister made the comment two weeks ago. Premier, will you admit that the time to reduce sales taxes, the time to say to consumers, "Go out and

start spending," the time to restore consumer confidence is now? Will you bring in a reduction in sales taxes?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the question from the Taxfighter, and I'll refer it to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the member opposite, I appreciate his conversion to reducing taxes as an economic

stimulus, which is certainly what the Premier has followed in Ontario since 1995, to the great economic benefit of this province.

We now have a situation across Canada where in budget after budget provincial governments -- including the federal government in the mini budget last October,

I believe it was -- reduced taxes. Indeed, personal income taxes have been shown to be the key instrument across Canada, and in the federal analysis, in Paul Martin's analysis, the key stimulus to

direct economic growth.

Mr Hampton: I can tell the Legislature that the finance minister who was saying that a reduction in sales taxes would be in order, the finance

minister who was saying that if bailouts continue, it might be the best way to restore consumer confidence, was none other than Jim Flaherty. Minister, in case it has missed you, there were 20,000

more layoffs at Nortel, thousands at Boeing and de Havilland, at least 2,000 in the auto parts sector, with more to come. How many more layoffs have to occur before you say to your Premier, "It's

now time to reduce the sales tax; it's now time to address the issue of consumer confidence"? How many more layoffs have to happen?

Hon Mr Flaherty: There's no question that we've experienced a time of slower economic growth in the third quarter. There's also no question

that that was anticipated. There's no question also that there are some quite significant short-term effects of the tragedies of September 11. Having said that, it's the duty of government to look

at all the tools we have at our disposal to address those issues.

The informed judgment of the government has been that the acceleration of corporate income tax cuts, the acceleration of the reduction of the capital tax and

the acceleration of personal income tax cuts ahead 90 days from January 1 are in the best interests of stimulating the Ontario economy in the short term.

Mr Hampton: I think the finance minister has his figures mixed up. There are 11 million consumers in this province, and they're asking for a

sales tax reduction. There are the Big Six banks that have $10 billion in profits, and they're the people you're giving the tax reduction to through your accelerated corporate tax cut. You've got

it backwards. If you want to stimulate consumer spending, if you want to restore consumer spending, the banks, and a tax cut for banks, isn't the place to go. The place to go is all those consumers

out there who want you to reduce sales taxes.

I ask you again -- you were very generous with your friends in the banking industry who already have lots of profit and who will benefit overwhelmingly from

the corporate tax cut -- how many thousands of layoffs have to occur before you recognize that consumers need a break in the sales tax at the cash register?

Hon Mr Flaherty: It's clear that the personal income tax cuts benefit all the people of Ontario who pay income tax. With respect to corporate

taxes, I had thought that even the leader of the third party would acknowledge by now that by reducing corporate taxes we leave more money in the hands of entrepreneurs who invest in plants, who

invest in equipment, who create the jobs that are needed by persons in Ontario in order to keep our economy going; in other words, an engine of economic growth for all of us in the province of

Ontario. It's of vital importance that we encourage entrepreneurs to reinvest in their businesses, give them the means to do so.

The Speaker: New question. The leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: I'm sure people across Ontario will be happy to know that the finance minister considers banks to be the entrepreneurs of

Ontario.

My next question is to the Premier. The other piece that's missing in your so-called economic plan is that the corporate tax cuts will only help those

companies that are making a profit. Companies only pay taxes when they make a profit, and they pay them on the profit. If they don't make a profit, they don't benefit from the corporate tax

reduction. That means that companies like Algoma, the dozens of sawmills in northern Ontario that aren't making a profit and a lot of companies in the auto parts sector will not benefit from your

accelerated corporate tax reduction.

My question to you is: as the layoffs pick up, what is your government prepared to do to help the very industries, the very jobs and the very communities that

are suffering and won't get one red cent from your corporate tax reduction?

Hon Mr Harris: I do want to say that I appreciate the member's new-found thirst for tax cuts.

For about the last 11 years, since I was elected leader of this party -- a little over 11 years -- I have campaigned for tax reductions from the massive tax

increases of Liberal and NDP governments. I campaigned in 1990. I fought from 1990 to 1995 while the current leader was a member of the government that unmercifully hiked taxes to consumers, hiked

taxes on incomes, hiked taxes on gas, hiked taxes on everything they could see. If it moved, they taxed it.

I want to say that I appreciate -- and I think it's part of the healing process in understanding the mistakes one has made, to admit you made mistakes, to come

to the party, to understand. I'm delighted that there are now two parties in the Legislature advocating for tax reduction.

The Speaker: The Premier's time is up. Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: This is wonderful certainty from a Premier who couldn't make up his mind on Thursday or Friday last week whether Ontario's economy

was in recession.

Premier, I just want to sort of round out the record. Since your government came to power, the taxes that hit the average working person -- sales taxes,

gasoline taxes -- haven't been reduced one bit, and you've added dozens upon dozens of user fees, copayment fees, management fees that all hit the average working person.

But the question was, Premier -- we see what you're prepared to do to help out your corporate friends the banks with a big corporate tax cut -- what are you

prepared to do to help those companies, those jobs, those communities that don't make a profit, that aren't going to show a profit, that won't benefit from the corporate tax cut? What are you going

to do to help them sustain those jobs and sustain those communities?

Hon Mr Harris: This of course is from the leader of the party that increased gas taxes twice in the five years they were in office.

Gas taxes, as you know, hit those in northern Ontario. They hit consumers. They hit drivers. They hit those involved in the lumber industry and all those

various companies he is now advocating that we assist.

Let me say that one of the most significant tax cuts for corporations is the capital tax, which we announced would start to kick in on January 1, 2002. We are

accelerating that tax. The capital tax will benefit every company, regardless of whether they make a profit or whether they do not. I believe that is what the member is asking us to do and I will

count on his support.

Perhaps I could have the Minister of Finance separate out the capital tax reduction so that you could have the opportunity to vote for that. I'd be interested

to know if we can count on your support for the capital tax reduction.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. A few days ago in the Legislature, Premier, you said in regard to

Ipperwash -- and I'm quoting exactly -- "The OPP had no communication with anyone from the government prior to the death of Dudley George." We also have an affidavit from you that you submitted to

the courts, an affidavit that says, "In response to your request to admit dated August 10, 2001, the defendant Michael D. Harris admits the truth." It goes on to say that on September 6, you met

with Scott Patrick. Then, your affidavit said, you met with Scott Patrick, then a sergeant with the OPP. That's what your sworn affidavit says.

The question is this: why would you say in the House that the OPP had no communication with anyone from the government, yet in your own personal court

affidavit it says that you met with Scott Patrick, then a sergeant with the OPP?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I stand by the affidavit and the sworn affidavits that we have given. There was a meeting, as you know, that

I indicated I attended. Mr Scott, whatever his name is -- at the time I wasn't aware that he was at the meeting. It was an informal meeting. He was not there in the capacity of a police officer,

didn't identify himself as a police officer and took no action as a police officer.

Mr Phillips: In the House, Premier -- this was just a few days ago -- you said, "The OPP had no communication with anyone from the government

prior to the death of Dudley George." I assume that you knew what you were talking about then, that you had been told that there was no communication. But this is your own affidavit, the one that

you supplied to the courts, the one that is a legal document. In that document you swear that you did meet on September 6 with Scott Patrick and your personal affidavit says, "then a sergeant with

the OPP."

We have two statements by you, one your sworn affidavit in court saying you met with Scott Patrick, then a sergeant with the OPP, and this, by the way, is an

affidavit that was submitted shortly after August 10, 2001. But in the Legislature you said something exactly opposite, there was no communication. Premier, which is the correct answer?

Hon Mr Harris: The correct answer is exactly as I've given. I have never given, nor has any minister, nor has any official of this government,

any direction to the OPP. The sworn affidavit, which is now a matter of public record, indicates, that there were, I believe, OPP members at a briefing meeting. They were not in a command capacity.

There were seconded to the Solicitor General's ministry to work as bureaucrats and they were at that meeting. I've given no direction and no official gave any direction to any member of the

OPP.

BEVERAGE ALCOHOL SALES

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. Minister, as a representative of a

rural riding and one that's very, very dependent on the tourist industry, I have some appreciation of the concerns that people have in their ability to sell and to purchase beverage alcohol. I've

been told that the access to beverage alcohol is inconvenient and is limited.

Minister, it's my understanding that you have some plans for change to modernize the beverage alcohol system. How will the system change, what will it do for

the people of my riding, and will it improve convenience for the Ontario consumer?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): We recently announced that we would put up to 150 franchise -- or what

are formally known as agency -- stores in small-town, rural Ontario to provide underserviced areas with access to alcohol beverages. This is in response to now over 600 requests from various

communities across Ontario for this kind of service.

I think it's a tremendous move for small-town Ontario because a lot of these small communities have difficulty in maintaining a commercial structure, and this

will allow a small retailer -- a small general store -- the ability to keep his or her doors open and will bring a little more traffic into that small store in rural Ontario. It's a tremendous

opportunity in terms of a win by the LCBO, because they cannot service these communities in an efficient manner.

Mr Galt: I know that people in my riding will certainly welcome that innovative project. However, with an initiative such as this there are

obvious concerns about the kind of social responsibility that would go with these new franchises. Can you assure this House that the same standards that now apply to the LCBO will in fact apply to

these new franchises?

Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, through you to Dr Galt, who has been a very, very strong supporter of this particular initiative, we have 107

agency stores presently in the province. We have, over a long period of time -- since 1962 -- not experienced any difficulty with service to minors from these different agency stores. However, we

are ensuring that all of the operators of these stores would undergo the same kind of training as LCBO staff. As well, district managers from the LCBO will be paying visits to these particular

stores to ensure that the standards are held up high and that underage people are not served.

As well, the franchisees have a double penalty. They not only would be charged under the law for serving minors, but they would lose their right to sell

alcohol in the future.

I think it's a great program.

TAXATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, as part of your plan to get Ontarians spending again,

you cut income taxes earlier than you had planned. You said it was important to get money into the pockets of Ontario families at the earliest possible opportunity. We said that a dollar a week for

the average family was nothing more than a sad joke and would do little, if anything, to get them to go out and spend.

We're now told by the Canadian Payroll Association that it could take as long as six weeks until Ontario families get their first loonie coming from your tax

cut. Will you now admit, Premier, that your tax cut stimulus plan was drawn up on the back of an envelope, it wasn't thought out, and it is not going to work?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): What I can tell you is that from day one, you personally and your party have been violently opposed to any

tax reduction for any Ontarian, rich or poor, large business or small business. We know that.

Now the New Democratic Party has come on side with an understanding that reducing taxes is a good thing to do, that leaving more money in the hands of

Ontarians is a good thing to do. This will help create jobs and help stimulate the economy. I guess they looked at your record and their record and saw all the jobs being lost, double-digit

unemployment, record deficits, and then they looked at the record over the last five years of declining taxes.

The Minister of Finance, when you ask your supplementary, can give you an update of the details. Some things take a little bit of time, but what we are saying

is that we are accelerating the tax cuts. We're not going to listen to you and your ilk, who say higher taxes are a good thing, big government is a good thing. I'm surprised you haven't got that

through your head yet.

Mr McGuinty: I can understand why the Premier is embarrassed. This thing has fallen completely flat. I can understand why the government

members are afraid to stare into the face of this, but the fact is that we have the slowest growth in the country. We lost 26,000 jobs since May, and this is the best that this government can come

up with? Putting together its most creative and innovative thinking, they come up with a loonie a week that won't kick in for another six to eight weeks? I ask you, Premier, how is a loonie a week

that won't kick in for another six to eight weeks going to act as a real stimulus and induce Ontario's working families to start spending? That's my question.

Hon Mr Harris: A loonie a week is more in their pocket than you would give them. You want to extract every last loonie, nickel, dime and penny

you can take out of Ontario's working people. You voted against tax cuts to take low-income people right off the tax rolls completely. You said, "No, tax the low-income people, tax the poor," on

voting against that. You voted against tax cuts for moderate-income people. You voted against tax cuts for every hard-working family member in this province. For you to stand in your place and say

that we should not cut taxes today is absolutely ludicrous.

You're out of sync with your federal counterparts. You're out of sync with the NDP, for gosh sake. You are left of the NDP, and that's why --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

GOOD NEIGHBOURS WEEK

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. October 8 to 14 is Good Neighbours Week. When I look out

of September 11, when terrorists killed more than 6,000 in the US, it confirms that the true quality of life is rooted in our capacity to care for each other and to respect diversity.

Minister, could you please tell us your perspective on what Good Neighbours Week is and how Ontarians can take

part in it.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): All members of this House have had occasion the last couple

of weeks to share expressions of the inspirational acts of caring that have been occurring not only across Ontario but across Canada. Being a good neighbour is all about understanding your

neighbours' needs and responding to them effectively.

Here in Ontario, our program of Good Neighbours has been very successful, and we encourage people to continue to extend their hands and their understanding to

seniors, persons with disabilities, persons with illness, loneliness and, yes, even people who suffered a catastrophe. The program has been very successful in Ontario, and I think that as our

entire nation is full of people who are caring for each other, we are reminded today that we are also here in Ontario good neighbours to our friends the Americans.

Mr Spina: There are a number of events. Minister Clement and I just the other day were participating in opening the new Knight's Table

Restaurant, which is a restaurant for homeless and needy people. We are very proud of that event and the opportunity to participate in such a reaching out to our community.

Continuing on that theme, Minister, what other programs can you talk about that would demonstrate the true character of the people of Ontario that really go

largely unreported?

Hon Mr Jackson: One of the most valued traditions in our province is that of volunteering and volunteerism. It's clear that in Ontario we

built caring communities, and because of that they are stronger, they are safer and volunteerism plays a vital

part in their prosperity.

This government recognizes that it is an important value. That's why since 1995 we've invested over $22 million in volunteerism initiatives. This year, in the

International Year of Volunteers, we have invested $15 million of taxpayers' money to support, encourage, enhance and expand that important infrastructure.

Finally, next week will be Citizenship Week. It's a chance for us to reflect on the importance of what it has meant to so many people who have come from so

many different countries to live in our province. Everyone here has the right to live with respect and dignity, to be free from fear and have equal opportunity. Being a good neighbour and being a

good volunteer are wonderful examples of good citizenship here in Ontario.

COLLÈGE DES GRANDS LACS

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James) : J'ai une question pour la ministre des Collèges et Universités, mais je ne la vois pas

ici à l'Assemblée.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): One moment. I believe she's just in the back.

Proceed.

M. Bisson : Ma question, madame la ministre, s'adresse directement à vous. Vous savez qu'on a appris il y a quelques jours que le

Collège des Grands Lacs allait fermer son seul dernier établissement ici à Toronto. Actuellement, on a une soixantaine d'étudiants qui fréquentent le Collège ici a

Toronto.

Pourtant, il y a eu une réunion le 27 septembre dernier. Le conseil d'administration du collège avait décidé à l'unanimité que

l'établissement allait demeurer ouvert jusqu'à l'an 2002, au mois d'avril. Mais depuis cette date, la direction du collège a laissé courir le bruit dans les médias que la

fermeture de l'établissement était immédiatement.

Êtes-vous au courant de cette volte-face de la direction et, plus important, est-ce que vous approuvez cette direction ?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): In response to my colleague,

we did receive a letter last Friday from the board at Grands Lacs that they in fact did decide to officially wind down the college. We support the board in its decision, as we do boards across the

province, to put the interests of students in the francophone community first.

I would describe our plan, or their plan, that the students will continue their classes until other arrangements can be made in the best interests of the

students.

M. Bisson : J'ai un peu peur, quand vous dites -- avez-vous en effet dit votre plan? Tout ce qu'on sait, c'est que le 27 septembre il y a

eu une rencontre avec l'établissement faisant affaire avec le conseil, et il y a eu une décision à l'unanimité de ne pas fermer le collège cette année. Là on

trouve, à peine une semaine après, que tout à coup la décision a été renversée.

Moi, je me demande, quand vous vous levez et que vous dites votre plan, est-ce vraiment votre plan, comme ministre responsable, de fermer cette

université, ou est-ce que c'était directement celui du collège lui-même ? Je commence à croire que c'était vous.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The member knows well enough that this is a decision for the board at the Collège des Grands Lacs. This board has

been working for a couple of years in trying to make this college a go. They've worked on their own and any decision is their decision.

The member is correct: there was a different decision a couple of weeks ago. But we did receive a letter, and obviously they had their proper meetings, which

says, "Last night the board of directors met to review the situation," and they've made a number of recommendations. I would be happy to share this with the member.

I think the member's concern is for the students, and I just want to say that I will spend time letting you know what I know. I understood that the students

were having some meetings beginning today. I share his concern. I think it's unfortunate, but the board has made its decision. I think he and I want to make sure, as does this Legislative Assembly,

that the students will receive a good education and have choices, and we will do that.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF STUDENTS

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My question is to the Minister of Education. Your government has known since 1995 of allegations of

physical and sexual abuse against students at Sir James Whitney School for the Deaf in Belleville. Let me remind you of the process you put in place to deal with them.

You paid out over $8 million, much of it to people who simply filled out forms. There was no investigation. The accused individuals had no opportunity

whatsoever to clear their names. On the other hand, claims from victims of convicted abusers were denied because they were not told of the arbitrary cut-off date of December 1999, even though there

is no statute of limitations on sexual abuse of children. You refused promised counselling, and you are ignoring claims from former students at the E.C. Drury school and the Robarts school even

though there have been convictions.

Minister, will you confirm for me that although you have misspent millions of dollars, there are still hundreds of claims outstanding for physical and sexual

abuse at provincial schools for the deaf?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): As the honourable member is no doubt aware, there has been considerable work

done by staff and by legal officials to make sure this case is dealt with appropriately and that those who require compensation are getting compensation. It's a difficult, complex issue. There has

been considerable work done to try to make sure those victims are helped and get appropriate support. It only underlines for me the importance of having in place the kind of legislation we brought

forward to this House this month to prevent sexual abuse of students in schools such as this and in all our schools.

Mr Parsons: Minister, this shows you have no moral authority to lead the issue on safety for students. You have refused to provide counselling

that you committed in writing to provide. You have refused to entertain claims from students who have been victimized by convicted abusers.

press release on this issue. You counted on word of mouth for the deaf community to find out that they were entitled to compensation. Your role is to ensure justice is done.

Minister, this has gone on long enough. Will you commit to reopening this entire issue and establishing a new, fair, open and well-publicized process to ensure

that justice is finally going to be served?

Hon Mrs Ecker: It will not be surprising that I disagree with the honourable member's characterization of this situation. I would be very

surprised if he would not support that there needs to be a process for determining claims. That process has been followed. There has been communication. I appreciate that the honourable member

disagrees with that, but there has been considerable effort taken to try to assist individuals who have been abused in this fashion. It is unacceptable. It is not tolerated.

There does need to be help and assistance to victims in such circumstances. The government, with the advice of many legal and other appropriate officials, has

taken great steps to try to provide that support. Again, it's one of the reasons the legislation is so important, so we can try to prevent this from ever happening again. It should not have

happened. It is something that is unacceptable, and work indeed has supported and continues to support victims of sexual abuse.

TOURISM

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. As the minister knows, tourism is vital to

the economy of Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake, and tourism everywhere in the world is down in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

Last month, representatives of your ministry's Ontario Tourism Marketing Partnership Corp came to my riding to present their 2002-03 marketing plan to my

tourism operators. Could you explain to the House just what this corporation does and how it can now help tourism businesses in my riding and throughout Ontario?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation): I thank the member from Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake for the question

and for his ongoing interest in tourism issues.

The Ontario marketing partnership is an agency of the province that receives a record $170-million investment over six years from the Mike Harris government

for tourism marketing, partnering with municipalities, the private sector and the industry. In previous governments, funding had been reduced substantially. We've built that back up with great

success. In fact, you will probably hear that the first two quarters were record quarters in the Niagara Falls area.

We had the meeting in the Falls to share our strategy for 2002-03, which was very well attended, one of 15 across the province, and I personally enjoyed my

opportunity to present the plan and participate in that meeting.

Mr Maves: Minister, tourism operators in my riding have told me that they need to market themselves aggressively in order to grow. Niagara

Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake are world-class tourist destinations, but not every tourism business has the budget to market itself internationally. How can your ministry help these businesses

market themselves to a broad audience throughout Canada, the United States and the world?

Hon Mr Hudak: There's no doubt that whether it's Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake, one of the leading areas in tourism in the province,

or smaller parts of the province that are positioning themselves to be major tourism operators down the road, they can benefit from the programs of the tourism marketing partnership, whether you're

a big operator in Niagara Falls or a more modest facility on Lundy's Lane or in Fort Erie, for example.

One of the new initiatives we launched this year is an e-marketing initiative to make sure that even the small operators can have an opportunity to benefit

from the latest in e-marketing strategies, Web sites, e-mail, tracing where the interest is coming from so they can help to adjust their marketing plans accordingly -- a great success of the Mike

Harris government. I'm confident that with the dynamic part of the industry, the great attractions we have, the great potential, we can weather the storm that's going on internationally today and

bounce back and have great tourism years in the future, as we did this summer.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. There's a serious crisis in rural Ontario that has been

created by your government through the downloading of water and sewage and the elimination of such programs as the Ontario water protection plan and Clean Up Rural Beaches.

Protecting our water right at the source is very important, and that is why I've written to you repeatedly, since your disastrous downloading exercises, on

behalf of numerous constituents in my riding who have pleaded with your government to introduce new funding to replace the water protection programs that you have previously axed.

Recently I've been inundated by calls from concerned citizens. Your new guidelines concerning communal wells will be costly and beyond the means of owners and

users. This government must understand the impact your legislation will have on the viability of rural communities across Ontario.

Rural Ontarians pay taxes and must be able to count on clean drinking water. Minister, will you provide immediate funding to assist them in complying with your

new legislation?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): I will refer that question to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs.

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Ensuring that rural and small-town Ontario communities remain viable,

healthy and sustainable is a priority for our government. Certainly the rural economic development and the sustainability of infrastructure in terms of water quality is important to those

communities.

In fact, we have already approved 210 option 1 study projects in terms of engineering analysis toward the solution of the water challenge that we have in

small-town and rural Ontario. It's a rigid process to meet the drinking water requirements and regulations in the province. That is something we're working aggressively on to be able to have these

communities work on their infrastructure and maintain them properly.

Mr Hoy: My question involves funding for these people who must comply with your legislation. Your government has done enough rehashing,

repeating and reannouncing of funding commitments. It is simply irresponsible for your government to continue to turn your back on rural Ontario while you spend millions on partisan government

advertising and millions more on consultants and spin doctors.

Communal well operators have only until December 31, 2002, to comply. Many of them will have no choice but to shut down, because they simply do not have the

financial resources to meet the new guidelines. Rates will significantly rise for users. There will be serious health implications from cutting off water to residents who cannot afford the

increased rates. Homeowners will have difficulty selling their homes. This will be a detrimental blow to rural Ontario. You must act now to ensure that everyone in this province has access to

clean, safe drinking water.

Minister, will you allow for direct funding to flow today?

Hon Mr Coburn: As I indicated in my previous answer, we have the applications in front of us now, and the process has started in terms of

approving these projects, the 210 projects we have in front of us now. We have approved the engineering study. That is a rigorous process so that we take advantage of new technology and the best

technology and find the best solutions. That is working in concert with the municipalities that have submitted the projects.

As we work through those, the funding will be announced and the projects will move ahead expeditiously.

NORTHERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question today is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I understand that last week the

Minister of Northern Development and Mines gave a videoconference address to the Emerging Technologies 2001 conference in Thunder Bay. I'd like the minister to tell my constituents in Parry

Sound-Muskoka and other members of this House more about this conference, the Emerging Technologies 2001 conference.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I'd like to thank the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for his question.

I want to congratulate the organizers of this event -- they were Thunder Bay Telephone and Contact North -- for their hard work and success in attracting an

estimated 300 to 400 registrants who travelled to Thunder Bay. I know too that my colleague the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology was supportive of this conference as well.

Emerging Technologies 2001 took place on October 3 and 4 and was made possible through the support of many sponsors, including Microsoft Canada. On October 1,

in my capacity as the chair of the heritage fund, I was pleased to announce a heritage fund contribution of $40,000 toward this conference. The heritage fund contribution helped make possible a

productive dialogue on emerging technologies that will ultimately lead to increased economic activity in the north.

This conference was truly an outstanding event to showcase wireless and cutting-edge technology.

Mr Miller: I'm proud that our government has shown leadership in supporting innovative telecommunications in northern Ontario. I know how

delighted the people in Parry Sound-Muskoka were in February of this year when the northern Ontario heritage fund was doubled from $30 million to $60 million, a $300-million investment over five

years.

I can also recall the Minister of Northern Development and Mines announcing new programs for the fund for infrastructure, including telecommunications.

Minister, could you please give us some examples of new initiatives to support telecommunications in northern Ontario.

Hon Mr Newman: I'd like to take this opportunity to highlight a new initiative that is in place under the heritage fund that supports the

expansion of cellular service along the northern highway corridors in our province. Already the Mike Harris team, through the heritage fund, has announced funding for three projects: $1.7 million

for the Atikokan-Fort Frances area, $1.5 million from Kenora south to Highway 11 and $2.5 million for the Greenstone to Constance Lake region.

We believe that more good news may be on the way, as we have funded projects to evaluate the requirements for improved cellular service in the Timmins and

Sault Ste Marie regions. I want to assure you that the heritage fund will continue to play an important role in promoting telecommunications opportunities across the north, because the Mike Harris

government remains committed to building strong communities in northern Ontario.

BEAR CONTROL

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. You know that ever since you abandoned the

responsibility for trapping and relocating bears and ever since you've downloaded to municipalities, nuisance bears have been endangering communities across northern Ontario. In fact, last month

there was a 600-pound bear in the community of Dryden, terrorizing the people within that community; they were wondering if they were going to be at risk.

Two weeks ago, a black bear badly mauled a woman taking a walk in Peterborough county. The woman survived the attack, but the only reason she survived the

attack is because her dog scared off the bear.

We're saying to you, Minister, a good safety policy when it comes to dealing with bears is not making sure that somebody has to keep their dog with them; it

has to do with you as the minister making sure that the ministry does what it's supposed to do, takes responsibility and re-uploads the responsibility for trapping nuisance bears. Minister, will

you do that?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member opposite for the question. Obviously, it's a matter of extreme

importance when the safety of anyone in the province is put in jeopardy because of a bear attack.

I might say there's a difference between nuisance bears as a general statement across communities in the province and those incidences which are truly a safety

issue. The authorities in all the municipalities, I believe, know how to deal with attack situations where a bear might put someone's life in jeopardy, and they do respond quite quickly to those

circumstances.

In the nuisance bear situation, obviously the reports of nuisance bears go up and down from year to year, depending on food supplies and other issues. We

continue to work very closely with municipalities. We have an extensive amount of information available on our Web site, and I would refer the member's constituents to that Web site, which might

help them avoid being irritated by nuisance bears.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): When the minister talks about Web sites, he obviously doesn't understand how serious this situation is.

Minister, in my community alone there have been over 1,000 calls to the bear hotline this year, far more than ever before. There have been over 350 calls that the Sudbury police have been forced to

respond to. That's five times more than last year. These are police resources that could be better used somewhere else. Police Chief Alex McCauley was correct when he recently said publicly, "This

is definitely an MNR responsibility. The MNR has to be persuaded in the strongest possible way to take responsibility for this."

Minister, are you going to continue to ignore the health and safety of my community, or are you finally going to fully assume your responsibility for the

trapping and relocating of bears?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I can quote from a letter on this very subject, funding for nuisance animals, to a municipality, in this case a letter from

the Minister of Natural Resources to the city clerk at the corporation of the city of Thunder Bay. It says, "In recent years, with reduced budgets, the level of this service has decreased and the

ministry is moving toward a facilitation and partnership role in establishing new arrangements to address such public requests for action." That letter was dated, I believe, back in 1994, and was

by the minister, Howard Hampton. Perhaps the member would like to talk to him about that subject.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. Across this province there are these

door-to-door energy marketers that are ripping off small business people, ripping off ordinary Ontarians, by making them sign five-year contracts for fixed rates when these five-year contracts

aren't worth the paper they're written on. The rate for their energy is going up. They basically have no protection from your government. In fact, one company, Direct Energy, has over 1,600

complaints.

What are you going to do to stop this ripoff of small business and ordinary consumers in Ontario?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): We've been working on, along with the Ministry of Energy, Science and

Technology, consumer protections with regard to electricity contracts in an unregulated market. We thought we were at an agreement to put into place a code of practice which would be enforceable by

the energy board. Unfortunately, one of the partners fell out of step with that, but we're hopeful to bring that particular partner, Toronto Hydro, into line in the very near future.

Our eye is on this particular problem. Of course, it is necessary for us to consult with all the partners that are involved in this, but the energy board is

quite willing to be engaged in this particular practice if necessary.

Mr Colle: Mr Minister, this has been going on with your government for the last five years. Your government has stood by while ordinary

Ontarians have been ripped off by these door-to-door energy marketers. They have no protection. In fact, these companies continue to misrepresent themselves, they continue to force people to hand

over their energy bills, and your government has done nothing.

I want you to assure this House that you will immediately put a halt to these door-to-door sales. Instead of putting these propaganda things on television, why

not give advice to consumers on what they should expect in deregulation? How are you going to protect them?

Hon Mr Sterling: Door-to-door sales, as you know, are part of our commercial transactions that go on from day to day. To say that our

government has done nothing is just not there because, as you know, in August and May of this year we extended the protection in terms of door-to-door sales significantly by allowing a 10-day

cooling-off period. Even if somebody signs a five-year contract at the door, they can negate that unilaterally within a 10-day period. So we have already started consumer protection in that regard

and, as I said in my previous answer, we are looking at other methods to deal with these kinds of consumer concerns that are going to be coming on the horizon with the deregulating of the

electricity market.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas 49 children are currently attending a JK/SK split class with two teachers; and

"Whereas the number of children, their respective ages and the physical restrictions of the classroom present enormous challenges to the educational well-being

of these children; and

"Whereas the parents are concerned about their children's health and safety, as well as their intellectual, social and emotional development;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to take immediate action to increase funding to school boards to adjust the funding formula

and to cap primary class size at 20 students."

I affix my signature on this petition.

OHIP SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly. It reads as follows:

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

"Whereas these restrictions will cut off access to diagnostic hearing tests, especially in geographic areas of the province already experiencing difficulties

due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

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

"Whereas services no longer covered by OHIP may include thermal therapy, ultrasound therapy, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, electrotherapy, magneto-therapy,

nerve therapy stimulation and biofeedback; and

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

and

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

industrial workers; and

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

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

This petition was sent to me by M. Glowaki of Hamilton. I'd like to thank the petitioner for gathering it, and I agree with these petitioners as well.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario,

"Whereas the Criminal Code of Canada considers animal cruelty to be a property offence; and

"Whereas those who commit crimes against animals currently face light sentences upon conviction; and

"Whereas those who operate puppy mills should, upon conviction, face sentences that are appropriate for the torture and inhumane treatment they have inflicted

on puppies under their so-called care;

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

"That the Ontario provincial government petition the federal government to move forward with amendments to the cruelty of animal provisions in the Criminal

Code as soon as possible."

I'll sign my name to that as well and present to Meg.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario,

"Whereas the Mike Harris government promised to institute patient-based budgeting for health care services in the 1995 Common Sense Revolution; and

"Whereas community care access centres now face a collective shortfall of $175 million due to a funding rollback by the provincial government; and

"Whereas due to this funding rollback, community care access centres have cut back on home care services affecting many sick and elderly Ontarians; and

"Whereas these cuts in services are forcing Ontarians into more expensive long-term-care facilities or back into hospital;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately lift the funding freeze for home care services, so as to ensure that

community care access centres can provide the services that Ontarian working families need."

This comes to us from the region of York, and I read this on behalf of those constituents.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas this year 130,000 Canadians will contract cancer and there are at minimum 17 funerals every day for Canadian workers who died from cancer caused by

workplace exposure to cancer-causing substances;

"Whereas the World Health Organization estimates that 80% of all cancers have environmental causes and the International Labour Organization estimates that one

million workers globally have cancer because of exposure at work to carcinogens;

"Whereas most cancers can be beaten if government had the political will to make industry replace toxic substances with non-toxic substances in work; and

"Whereas very few health organizations study the link between occupations and cancer, even though more study of this link is an important step to defeating

this dreadful disease;

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

"That it become a legal requirement that occupational history be recorded on a standard form when a patient presents at a physician for diagnosis or treatment

of cancer; and

"That the diagnosis and occupational history be forwarded to a central cancer registry for analysis as to the link between cancer and occupation."

I have signed that petition.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it's entitled "Listen: Our Hearing is

Important!"

"Whereas services delisted by the Harris government now exceed $100 million in total; and

"Whereas Ontarians depend on audiologists for the provision of qualified hearing assessments and hearing aid prescriptions;

"Whereas the new Harris government policy will virtually eliminate access to publicly funded audiology assessments across vast regions of Ontario;

"Whereas this new Harris government policy is virtually impossible to implement in underserviced areas across Ontario;

"Whereas this policy will lengthen waiting lists for patients and therefore have a detrimental effect on the health of these Ontarians;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to permanently fund

audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

I affix my signature to this petition.

NURSES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the nurses of Ontario are seeking relief from heavy workloads, which have contributed to unsafe conditions for patients and have increased the risk of

injury to nurses; and

"Whereas there is a chronic nursing shortage in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has failed to live up to its commitment to provide safe, high-quality care for patients;

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

"We demand the Ontario government take positive action to ensure that our communities have enough nursing staff to provide patients with the care they need.

The Ontario government must:

"Ensure wages and benefits are competitive and value all nurses for their dedication and commitment; ensure there are full-time and regular part-time jobs

available for nurses in hospitals, nursing homes and the community; ensure government revenues fund health care, not tax cuts; ensure front-line nurses play a key role in health reform

decisions."

This is signed in this case by a number of people from the Sudbury area. It adds to the over 10,000 people who have signed this petition, and I add my own

signature once again in agreement with their concern.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas services delisted by the Harris government now exceed $100 million in total;

"Whereas Ontarians depend on audiologists for the provision of qualified hearing assessments and hearing aid prescriptions;

"Whereas the new Harris government policy will virtually eliminate access to publicly funded audiology assessments across vast regions of Ontario;

"Whereas this new Harris government policy is virtually impossible to implement in underserviced areas across Ontario;

"Whereas this policy will lengthen waiting lists for patients and therefore have a detrimental effect on the health of these Ontarians;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to permanently fund

audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

I affix my signature. I'm in agreement.

POVERTY

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I have another petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we are seniors and low-income people finding it very hard to live and pay all expenses every day; and

"Whereas with all the increases in our utilities in the last several months, we no longer can afford to have a warm house, or buy enough of a variety of foods,

or buy some of the drugs that we desperately need; and

"Whereas we feel helpless, abandoned, and totally neglected by our own government; and

"Whereas, without some sort of assistance from our government, either in terms of subsidy or lowering the cost of utilities, especially the gas for heating, we

will have to seriously limit the quality and quantity of prescription drugs, or decide to buy food or pay the ever-increasing utility costs;

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to help us live in dignity and with compassion and care."

I will affix my signature to it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have yet another petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas this year 130,000 Canadians will contract cancer and there are at minimum 17 funerals every day for Canadian workers who died from cancer caused by

workplace exposure to cancer-causing substances known as carcinogens; and

"Whereas the World Health Organization estimates that 80% of all cancers have environmental causes and the International Labour Organization estimates that one

million workers globally have cancer because of exposure at work to carcinogens;

"Whereas most cancers can be beaten if government had the political will to make industry replace toxic substances with non-toxic substances in work;

"Whereas very few health organizations study the link between occupations and cancer, even though more study of this link is an important step to defeating

this dreadful disease;

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

"That it become a legal requirement that occupational history be recorded on a standard form when a patient presents at a physician for diagnosis or treatment

of cancer; and

"That the diagnosis and occupational history be forwarded to a central cancer registry for analysis as to the link between cancer and occupation."

I've signed that petition as well.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

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

"Whereas the November 2000 announcement of massive privatization of Ministry of Transportation services will have a significant detrimental effect on citizen

road safety, confidentiality of citizens' information and on the economy of Ontario; and

"Whereas the employees of the Ministry of Transportation are recognized in writing by the provincial government to have provided excellent service on the

government's behalf; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is taking away the livelihood and decreasing the standard of living of thousands of employees and families by its actions

both directly and indirectly through spinoff effects; and

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are entitled to safe roads, consistency in driver testing, and competent truck inspection, school buses and vehicles carrying

dangerous goods; and

"Whereas communities continue to need to retain decent-paying jobs if they are to maintain viability and vibrancy; and

"Whereas we taxpayers have entrusted the provincial government with the maintenance of public safety with an apolitical and efficient public service, a service

free of profiteering and protected from conflicts of interests; and

"Whereas privatization is an abdication of such public trust;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to place a moratorium on any further privatization and to restore and promote public service

as being of significant value in our society."

I sign this petition.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): "Whereas services delisted by the Harris government now exceed $100 million in total;

"Whereas Ontarians depend on audiologists for the provision of qualified hearing assessments and hearing aid prescriptions;

"Whereas a new Harris government policy will virtually eliminate access to publicly funded audiology assessments across vast regions of Ontario;

"Whereas this new Harris government policy is virtually impossible to implement in underserviced across Ontario;

"Whereas this policy will lengthen waiting lists for patients and therefore have a detrimental effect on the health of all Ontarians;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Harris government move immediately to permanently fund

audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

This is signed by over 200 constituents of Elgin-Middlesex-London and I will sign my signature in full support.

REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a petition that's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's a local petition

and it states:

"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. It's also been signed by about 13 individuals. I'm handing to Emma McGuire, our page from Kingston.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I have a further petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Mike Harris government promised to institute patient-based budgeting for health care services in the 1995 Common Sense Revolution; and

"Whereas community care access centres now face a collective shortfall of $175 million due to a funding rollback by the provincial government; and

"Whereas due to this funding rollback, community care access centres have cut back on home care services affecting many sick and elderly Ontarians; and

"Whereas these cuts in services are forcing Ontarians into more expensive long-term-care facilities or back into hospital;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately lift the funding freeze for home care services, so as to ensure that

community care access centres provide the services to Ontario's working families."

I will affix my signature to it.

HOME CARE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is 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 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 months before the commencement of this fiscal year."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement.

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): We've worked out unanimous consent as to how we would like to proceed with a

bill this evening. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to move a motion regarding the terms of this evening's debate on Bill 30, on organized crime.

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

Hon Mrs Ecker: I move that, notwithstanding the motion dated October 1, 2001, G30 be called as the first order of the day this evening; that

the Speaker shall recognize no further speakers from the government caucus or from the official opposition; that the Speaker shall recognize up to two members of the third party to speak to the

second reading stage of the bill, after which time the question shall be put and the vote may be deferred; that, at the conclusion of the second reading stage of the bill, the bill shall be

referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy; that the standing committee on justice and social policy shall be authorized to meet in Toronto for one day of clause-by-clause

consideration of the bill.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FOOD SAFETY

AND QUALITY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA QUALITÉ

ET LA SALUBRITÉ DES ALIMENTS

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 2, 2001, on the motion for second reading of Bill 87,

An Act to regulate food quality and safety and to make

complementary amendments and repeals to other Acts / Projet de loi 87, Loi visant à réglementer la qualité et la salubrité des aliments, à apporter des modifications

complémentaires à d'autres lois et à en abroger d'autres.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I'll be sharing my time with the member for Hamilton Mountain.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I rise to debate Bill 87, the food safety bill. The Ontario Liberals support the idea behind this

bill. Of course everybody supports the idea behind food safety. But we oppose this bill because there is no commitment of additional funds to implement it. OMAFRA's food inspection budget has been

cut by 45% by this government, and the number of food inspectors has been cut by 38%. Even before these new responsibilities are added, it's obvious that Ontario's food inspection service is

overstretched.

Secondly, almost all the important details in Bill 87 are in the regulations. We haven't seen these regulations on any side of the House. An overarching theme

of the entire bill, however, is that food safety will be delivered, and I quote, "as much as possible through alternative delivery mechanisms." We believe this is Toryspeak for privatization,

downloading or dumping responsibility on to farm commodity groups.

You would think after Walkerton that we would have learned that government does have a role in safety, environment and food regulation. As well, as my

colleague Steve Peters has pointed out, there isn't any coordination with the Ministry of the Environment. There should very well be coordination and communication with that very important ministry

with respect to this bill.

The budget for food inspection and food safety has declined by 45%, from $12.5 million to $7 million this fiscal year. The number of inspectors has declined

from 130 to 80. There are now only five enforcement officers for the entire province. This sounds very familiar. It really reminds me of the debates after the fact after Walkerton.

Another important food safety resource that is drastically underfunded is the animal health lab at the University of Guelph. Millions of dollars in cuts have

let the animal health lab's ability to monitor antibiotic resistance drop. It has also seen its ability to conduct surveillance on emergency animal diseases drop. The government's response to these

vital concerns has been to say that farmers and the public should rely more on farm organizations and the private sector to perform these vital food safety services.

The province is looking to repeal the Edible Oil Products Act within this new Food Safety Act. This is a drastic change of policy for the province of Ontario.

The blending of oil products with dairy has been forbidden in both Ontario and Quebec. To contain any of the following words or labels, a product may not contain any vegetable-based oil like

butter, cream, milk or cheese -- up until this point in time, consumers were assured that the contents of the dairy case were truly dairy products. Not any more; not with this bill.

Both the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have vigorously defended in the courts their prohibition of blending. The government did not consult with the industry

before making this particular decision. This came as a complete surprise to the industry, and the minister did not seem prepared to discuss it with the dairy industry earlier at the launch of

Agriculture Week. The government is using the political excuse of interprovincial trade and not wanting trade challenges from other provinces. This is an interesting argument, considering Ontario

and Quebec make up 80% of the consumer market and production. Perhaps rather than worry about the other 20% of the market challenging us, we should be challenging them.

The ultimate goal of the Food Safety Act is to have across-the-board national standards. We support this. For most provinces, this means raising the bar up to

national standards. But the question we need to ask ourselves is whether or not we are moving down to national standards in Ontario.

The soybean growers are endorsing this proposal, but research has shown that companies that market these products do not tend to use soy. Most often used are

the cheaper offshore oils, like coconut and palm oils, and they require less, if any, hydrogenising. The dairy farmers of Ontario have some valid concerns about the health and nutrition of

Ontarians if the repeal of the Edible Oil Products Act goes through without proper consultation. Considering the minister does not appear to want to speak with them, it is on their behalf that we,

the Liberal Party, raise these concerns.

The change this government is pursuing will allow the mixture of hydrogenated vegetable oils with dairy products, sneaking these products into the dairy case

under such guises as I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! or spray cheese. This will increase the consumption of trans fatty acids and the risk of heart disease. The Ontario dairy industry has

extensive information about how the government's food safety plans can proceed while eliminating or minimizing the proven risk to the health of Canadians.

The minister must demonstrate that this government is committed to the health of Ontarians and properly and extensively consult with all stakeholders and, as

they said earlier in the Legislature, work with them in partnership. This is a very drastic change in food policy, and to just arbitrarily repeal the Edible Oil Products Act is unacceptable.

I want to bring attention to an

article of October 2001 from the paper The Grower. The headline of the

article is "Food Safety Enabling Legislation: Growing

Concerns over Bill 87." The

article reads:

"The bill is causing some concern for industry stakeholders as it moves closer to ratification.

"At a recent information session in Guelph, industry leaders had a chance to learn more about Bill 87, its intent and its probable impact on food producers. At

the close of the session, guests were invited to ask questions and provide feedback."

Michael Mazur, who is the executive secretary to the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association, "took the opportunity to question the government's

commitment to protecting the horticultural industry. He asked if officials would comment on the ministry's position with respect to including provisions to protect the economic competitiveness of

producers within the legislation." Because there isn't any money committed to this, some mom-and-pop operations that have been going on generationally are at risk. They have to foot the bill for

implementing this new policy.

"`Where is the government's social conscience in terms of this issue, and what is the government providing in terms of a backup so that producers can retain

their competitiveness?' he asked." Beverly Alder, coordinator of legislation and regulation for the food safety system development branch of the agriculture ministry responded to the concerns "with

assurances that the food safety legislation will increase the marketability of Ontario-grown produce," but did not add any details as to how this would be done.

"Other interested parties reiterated Mazur's concerns throughout the question and answer period. Several criticisms focused more on the exclusion of provisions

to protect primary producers from the biohazards that are associated with visiting inspectors. `I hear some serious problems in here with respect to biosecurity,' said one gentleman. `I don't like

what I see and I suspect that the people overseeing this legislation have very little agricultural experience. From what I see here, the costs and risks of this are all going to be dumped on to the

producers.'"

I want to refer back to my colleague Pat Hoy who, in an earlier debate on this bill, basically talked about the many, many smaller organizations -- not the

large conglomerates, but the smaller organizations. The picklers, the people who jar jams and so forth are extremely concerned. One of his constituents estimated that it would cost her tens of

thousands of dollars to implement this without additional resources. Perhaps in the regulations that will magically appear. We're waiting for that, but at this point, there's a great deal of

concern out there in the rural communities as well as in smaller towns.

Mr Hoy referred to the "mom-and-pop small businesses that are across rural Ontario," that have worked "hard to maintain that family name" -- quite often that

family name appears on the jars and on the packages -- "the pride of ownership and the trust that they have earned from their clientele, which is repeated over and over again with their visits to

their market. They have developed a long-time, loyal and confident consumer base." It's this consumer base which has these concerns and which we're representing today in this debate. As I mentioned

earlier, a lot of these are generational. Kids have inherited these businesses from their parents or their grandparents; they've been there for almost a century and they are extremely concerned

that they will lose their heritage if proper funding of this bill isn't in place.

Who are these people? These are people who have created new wealth and jobs for rural Ontario. They hire people to come in and help them during the rush

season, sell the product and pick the fruits or vegetables, along with their family members. They've developed name recognition within their own communities that is identifiable by all and they've

also cre