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

November 28, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Nov-28 vol. A (PDF)

L109A - Tue 28 Nov 2000 / Mar 28 nov 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AGRICORP

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE SERVICES

KITCHENER-WATERLOO ECONOMY

DIANE HAMRE

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

NEWMARKET CIVIC SERVICE AWARDS

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

SCHOOL TEACHERS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

DEFERRED VOTES

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT (CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL (INDUSTRIE DE LA CONSTRUCTION)

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

NURSING STAFF

PROPERTY TAXATION

TENANT PROTECTION

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

LABOUR LEGISLATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HIV/AIDS AWARENESS AND PREVENTION

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

PROPERTY TAXATION

WINTER HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

PROTECTION OF MINORS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

HUNTING AND FISHING LEGISLATION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PROTECTION OF MINORS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

HUNTING IN WILDERNESS PARKS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

SPECIAL EDUCATION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AGRICORP

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I rise today to address misconceptions about Agricorp and the Ontario whole farm relief program. The Minister of Agriculture has stated that at no time was any Agricorp money used for illegal purposes. The Provincial Auditor disagrees. The law was broken. The Agricorp Act is very clear. The OPP must be called in.

On October 2 the minister stated that "at no time was any money that was designated for the farm assistance program or the farm safety net program in danger." Who is he trying to fool? The whole farm relief program is a safety net and it was put at risk. There are no ifs, ands or buts about this. It doesn't matter whether the money was put back, because it should never have been touched in the first place.

Add to this sorry state of affairs the ongoing debacle with the whole farm relief program, a bungled program racked with confusion and mismanagement. Now, suddenly there are a series of focus groups being held, behind closed doors and by invitation only. Do they address the real issues here? No. They only look at operational changes, ignoring funding levels and other problems that led to this mess in the first place.

This must be dealt with immediately. Programs for both 1998 and 1999 must be reopened and reassessed before any more damage is done. Based on past actions, this suggestion apparently contains too much common sense for this minister, this ministry or this government to ever consider. How sad.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It gives me great pleasure to rise this afternoon and speak about a private member's bill I will soon introduce to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the Environmental Protection Act, entitled

An Act to regulate the spreading and storage of sewage sludge and biosolids.

Over the past five years, the people of Ontario have told us clearly not only to protect the environment but to stand up and do the responsible thing. They want healthy food to eat, clean water to drink and fresh air to breathe. In short, Ontarians want to know their environment is safe.

The same is true of my constituents in Durham. A group of residents have formed an organization known as Protect the Ridges, an organization deeply concerned about the integrity of the Oak Ridges moraine and the potential impact of the storage of paper sludge on this delicate ecosystem.

I share their concerns. This legislation is intended to establish a uniform system of testing, recording and reporting of the spreading and storage of sewage sludge and other biosolids, including paper sludge. Its purpose is simple and very clear. It will allow the government to determine which materials may be introduced safely into our natural environment, and how and which will be introduced at all.

I want to thank all the members of the Protect the Ridges group for keeping me informed of their hard work, including Deb Vice, Tony Pratt, Kevin Campbell, John London and of course Jane Rowe, who is a councillor, and Troy Young, who is a councillor as well. There are others.

I trust that the lines of communication will remain open. I encourage all of us to remain vigilant about protecting and putting our environment first. It is in fact our living legacy.

IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): It always puzzles me why the Harris government is slashing, cutting and cancelling services for newcomers, especially those services designed to bring and make immigrants into productive citizens who contribute to our economy.

We're stacking the odds against these kids. We want Ontario to be global. We need people who are bilingual and even trilingual. If these children aren't successful in school, they are going to weigh on our society and be failures.

To the Minister of Citizenship, I simply say you have received $35 million from the federal government for newcomer services and you've sat silently on your hands and done nothing while other ministers have taken away that money from you. The Treasurer has folded $35 million into general revenues.

I say to the minister, shame on you. It is about time we have to invest in newcomer services.

KITCHENER-WATERLOO ECONOMY

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): In a recent report, the governor of the Bank of Canada, Gordon Thiessen, predicted that the Canadian economy will grow at a rate of 5% this year. This is good news for all Canadians.

What Mr Thiessen might have added to his report is that the Ontario economy is not only the fastest-growing and strongest in Canada, but it is also recognized as being the fastest-growing and strongest among all jurisdictions within the G7.

The best indicator of just how strong the Ontario economy is is the fact that Ontario accounts for over 40% of all new jobs being created in the country, a fact the federal Liberals have managed to overlook as they clamour to take the credit for many of the accomplishments of this government.

I am very pleased to advise you that the Kitchener-Waterloo region is one of the strongest regional economies in the province and in the country. Ironically, the success of our region's economic growth has brought with it a number of problems, the major one being serious skilled labour shortages. The shortages are not limited to just high-tech companies but have also affected other sectors such as construction, truck transportation, engineering, food services and accommodation.

However, the most surprising to me is the fact that the labour shortage in our region is also causing problems in the recruitment drive of the Waterloo regional police department. Sergeant Greg Lamport, who oversees the Waterloo regional forces recruitment drive, has stated that the recruitment shortage is not limited to our region, but that overall in Ontario there's a shortage of applicants for police jobs. This must be a first, and it is a sign of our prosperous times. The Waterloo region should be congratulated for its excellence and its respect, but I also encourage many young women and men to respond to the career of police.

DIANE HAMRE

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Today I wanted to stand and pay tribute to a public servant, the mayor of Clarington, who recently retired after nine years of service in that position. Diane Hamre has had a distinguished career in working on behalf of the people of Clarington and of Durham region.

I wanted to stand to recognize that last Thursday I had the opportunity, on behalf of Dalton McGuinty, the leader of the Liberal Party, and members of our party to be there in Clarington, along with about 400 local residents, to recognize the efforts that this member has made on behalf of that very progressive community in Durham region. Diane Hamre has not only made a contribution during her nine years as mayor there, but she has also made significant contributions as a member of Durham regional council at the Greater Toronto Services Board and as a member of the GTA mayors and chairs.

I had the opportunity in a past life, when I served as chief of staff to Toronto Mayor Barbara Hall, to meet that mayor, and she worked very hard, alongside other mayors, to begin to develop more progressive policies with respect to the development of the greater Toronto area.

While her service to that community will no doubt be missed, she looks forward to having the opportunity to spend more time with her family. I hope that all members would join with me in passing on our warmest regards to her as she moves along.

Clarington has the motto, "A city with a future." We can only hope that the work she has done will live on, if this government opposite doesn't choose to amalgamate that municipality.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): For many years, we have had a desperate shortage of doctors in communities across northern Ontario. In fact, in the communities of Timmins and Kapuskasing we now find ourselves with over 10,000 patients without doctors. Hearst is in a similar situation, although the numbers are not as grave.

The part that really bothers all of us in northern Ontario, as most people, is that the government back in 1995, when Mike Harris was running, said they had a solution to finally solve the issue of bringing doctors to northern Ontario. We're six years later and we have fewer doctors now than we did six years ago.

I say to the government across the way, obviously what you're doing is not working, so why don't you for once listen to somebody else, listen to what we in the NDP are saying, listen to what doctors and district health councils are saying when it comes to creating a northern medical school in order to train people in northern Ontario in the discipline of medicine?

We know that the best way of keeping doctors in communities is by being able to promote people within in order to go into the profession, where they can come back to their own communities and provide much-needed health care as doctors in communities like Kapuskasing, Kenora, Iroquois Falls and other communities that are looking for doctors.

I say to the government across the way, what you've done hasn't worked. Admit it. It hasn't worked; it's been a failure. Why don't you listen to the people of northern Ontario for once and start working toward the implementation of a northern medical school to finally find a solution to what is happening in northern Ontario?

NEWMARKET CIVIC SERVICE AWARDS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to honour the recipients of the town of Newmarket's Civic Awards 2000. I had the privilege of attending the awards ceremony last Tuesday. This annual event honours volunteerism in the town of Newmarket. I would also like to take the time to mention the recipients by name in recognition of their service to their communities.

The five-year volunteer service award winners: Kirk Kelly, Rita Stones and Chris Kalan Tidmad. The 10-year volunteer service award winners: Kelly Anderson, Cheryl Aslett, Jim Greco and Beverly Verwey. The 15-year volunteer service award winners: Jean Crossland, Gail Desveaux, Debbie Nurse and Ted Williams.

The chair's award went to Ken and Fran Hill. The youth volunteer award went to April Pezzaniti. The visual arts and culture award winner was Garry Gatti. The recipient of the Herb Cain Memorial Sports Award was Jim Wells Sr. For outstanding achievement the award went to Ildiko Luxemberger. Our outstanding team sports recognition awards went to the Newmarket Redmen Minor Atom AA, the Newmarket Minor Softball Senior Mite Boys rep team and the Newmarket Redmen Midget AA team.

The seniors' award went to Herb Mays. The music award went to Donna Waterworth. Police Officer of the Year is Constable Stephan Pleskina. The Raymond J. Twinney Memorial Award is Jamie Suderman. Lawrence Lassaline won the Citizen of the Year Award.

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Sarnia-Lambton had no history of problems regarding extracurricular activities, but now, thanks to the mismanagement of education by the Harris Tories, we're having some real problems. I want to read an excerpt from one of the students. He says:

"I am a grade 12 student at SCI&TS. I am active in school music department activities..., drama, and also sports activities. The coming cancellation of the activities that I choose to participate in has upset me great1y."

He goes on to say: "Also, because of these cessations and cutbacks in school activities the morale at my school is at an all-time low. The teachers are upset that they can't run the activities" and "the students are upset because they can't participate in the activities....

"Teachers do not try to force propaganda on us like certain government officials who, wasting several million dollars in the process, tried to....

"The government assumes that youth are not intelligent enough to know what is happening in the schools or in politics.... We are smart enough to know when people are unhappy at school and we know why everyone is unhappy. I hope voting adults would take a serious look ... at what is happening in the schools and try to rise above the ... `tax breaks' which the Harris government has bribed you with."

This student wrote this

article in the paper, he felt so strongly about the issue.

SCHOOL TEACHERS

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I'd like to share with you an editorial which appeared in the Sarnia paper yesterday. The title is, "Teachers Show Who Comes First."

"Four hours and 10 minutes a day in the classroom, and it's too much. That's what local public high school teachers are saying.

"To make their point, they're offering their students-the ones they claim they are so committed to-a winter term without extracurriculars. They're also planning not to cover classes for absent teachers, provide assignment supervision, participate in bureaucratic requirements that take time away from teaching, use ministry programs that don't work, or complete forms required by the provincial government.

"There are few professionals, unionized or not, who would publicly balk at spending four hours and 10 minutes a day on the primary function of their work.

"As a whole, society recognizes and appreciates that teachers must do more than their required hours of teaching, but that appreciation is wearing thin.

"We have heard that teachers put in at least as many hours doing non-teaching duties as they spend in the classroom. Unless our math is wrong, that would be eight hours and 20 minutes a day when school is in. The other half of the year, school is out.

"Other people who are frustrated by their career choice or workplace situation leave it. How many teachers have actually left the profession?"

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I beg leave to present a report on the Family Responsibility Office from the standing committee on public accounts and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Gerretsen: Yes. The report contains nine very useful recommendations that the committee hopes the Family Responsibility Office will take note of and implement so that they will benefit all those people who have anything to do with the office, whether they're recipients or whether they're payers into the system. Only with the implementation of the nine recommendations will the office truly work for the benefit of all Ontarians.

I move adjournment of the debate.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

Mr O'Toole moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 149,

An Act to regulate the spreading and storage of sewage sludge and biosolids / Projet de loi 149, Loi réglementant l'épandage et le stockage des boues d'épuration et des matières sèches biologiques.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I've been working with the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Dan Newman, as well as the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the Honourable Ernie Hardeman, to find a solution to establishing a uniform system of testing, recording and reporting for the spreading and storage of sewage sludge and other biosolids, including paper sludge.

Its purpose is simple and very clear. It will allow government to determine which materials may be introduced safely into our natural environment and how, and which will not be introduced at all.

I wanted to thank all the members of the Protect the Ridges group for keeping me informed and for their hard work, including Deb Vice, Tony Pratt, Kevin Campbell, John London, Jane Rowe and Troy Young, to name a few.

I trust that the lines of communication will remain open and I encourage all of us to remain vigilant in protecting the environment. It's the right thing to do. It is our living legacy.

DEFERRED VOTES

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT (CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL (INDUSTRIE DE LA CONSTRUCTION)

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We now have a deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 69. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1349 to 1354.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 47; the nays are 40.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin question period, I bring the members' attention to the east gallery, where we have a former member, Mr Doug Rollins, the member for Quinte in the 36th Parliament.

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I want to inform the House that we have the pleasure of being joined today in the west gallery by a wonderful class from Daystrom Public School in the wonderful riding of York West.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In light of the bill presented today by the member from Durham, I would like to request unanimous consent for the Minister of the Environment to explain why he's allowing Dombind to be used for two more years, contrary to what Norm Sterling said.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I heard some noes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. You are now in your sixth year of government, and despite all your promises and all your very expensive TV ads, your government is still failing to provide Ontarians with the emergency health care that I feel they deserve and are entitled to. Doctors and nurses on the front lines are telling us that the mess in our emergency rooms is worse today that it's ever been before in the history of this province. During this time of crisis, your Minister of Health has appeared dazed and confused, and she said it's all some kind of mystery to her.

Premier, it's clear that neither you nor your Minister of Health have a clue as to how to bring about some kind of conclusion to this terrible mess we find ourselves in when it comes to emergency care in Ontario today. As I said, you've been on the job for six years, and things are worse today than they've ever been before. How much longer are Ontarians going to have to wait before you clean up the mess you've created in our emergency rooms?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Health can answer.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'd like to indicate to the member opposite that we have a plan in place to deal with the situation. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, these pressures in emergency rooms are a long-standing problem. In fact, as the Fleuelling inquest pointed out, this situation is not unique to Ontario or Canada; it is worldwide. It is a systemic problem. It is a problem of long standing.

In 1998 we brought a group together, and we have been moving forward. We have been hiring additional nurses, we have been putting in place alternative payment plans for doctors, we have started the construction of 20,000 beds, we have expanded home care services and we have introduced preventive measures such as the flu vaccination program.

Mr McGuinty: I want to remind you, Minister, that it's been six long years. We are tired of your excuses, and we expect and demand some solutions.

Let's take a look at what has been happening recently in my home town of Ottawa. On Wednesday of last week 50 patients were left waiting in the emergency room at the Ottawa General Hospital because no hospital beds were available. On Sunday, in what is becoming a regular event in Ottawa, seven more surgeries were cancelled because no hospital beds were available.

Minister, if you don't believe the doctors and nurses who are telling us these kinds of things, then listen to these facts: the amount of time the Ottawa Civic emergency room was closed to ambulances has doubled in the past year. At the Ottawa General, emergency room patients in desperate need of a bed are now forced to wait 11 hours and 12 minutes. That's up 31% from last year. At the Ottawa Civic Hospital, patients are now waiting 10 hours. That's up 15% from last year.

I want to ask you the question I put to the Premier: why, after six long years of Mike Harris Conservative government in Ontario, have you not been able to get a grasp of the problem and come up with a solution in the interests of Ontarians?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I might put the question back to the Leader of the Opposition: why, when you knew of this problem in the late 1980s, did you not develop a solution to deal with it? Maybe we need to remind you of the quotes in the newspapers. The Toronto Star, November 10, 1986: "One of the major reasons for bed shortages is the number of beds being taken up by chronic patients who should be in special long-term-care facilities and not occupying active care beds."

Why did your government, in 1988, stop constructing long-term-care beds? If you had continued, we'd be in a position today where we had additional long-term-care beds. You had to wait for us to make a commitment and build 20,000 additional long-term-care beds, which we are doing.

Mr McGuinty: Maybe we should gather the children together, because Aunt Liz is going to tell us some stories about the 1980s. Let's jump forward to the 21st century, Minister, and talk about what's happening here today, since you've now been on the job through your government for six years.

As dangerous as the hospital situation is in Ottawa, what's happening in Hamilton is nothing short of a death waiting to happen. Here's what the local paper had to say: "The emergency room crisis got so bad in Hamilton last month that there were no more beds, no more heart monitors, no more nurses to call in for help and no more hallways to put the overflowing patients in. On October 18 and 19, all four Hamilton hospitals declared it would be unsafe for ambulances to bring any more patients into their emergency rooms." The situation stayed that way for nearly 48 hours.

Need I remind you, Minister, that Joshua Fleuelling died because there was no room in a hospital. Kyle Martyn died because he had to wait too long for treatment. I ask you again, on behalf of Ontario's sick and their families: your government has been on the job for six long years. You've created a mess. It's going to get worse. When are you going to get a handle on it, and when are you going to fix the mess your government created?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Unfortunately, again I remind the leader of the opposition that it's a long-standing issue. If you had had a plan and if you had developed solutions, we would be further along to moving forward. We have a plan. We have moved forward. We have invested over $700 million. We have hired additional nurses. We have opened additional beds. We are opening 20,000 long-term-care beds.

I would just like to share with you that in Ottawa we have invested more than $100 million to improve access to hospital emergency services. This includes funding for 115 flex beds, 17 discharge planners and one regional coordinator to accommodate additional patient needs for beds and to facilitate and expedite hospital discharge.

When it comes to the Hamilton hospitals, I want to again assure you that in Hamilton they have indicated that they have taken the steps necessary to buy more heart monitors, open more beds and create-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

NURSING STAFF

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question to the same minister. If there's been one clear and consistent plan during the course of the past six years when it comes to our health care system, yours has been to blame previous provincial governments or to blame the federal government or to blame anybody rather than take responsibility for dealing with the situation. That's been your clear and consistent plan for six years.

I want to talk now about an essential part of the solution to this mess that you've created, and those are our nurses. After spending over $400 million on severance costs prior to the election to fire thousands of nurses, just before the election you had a change of heart. Your Premier made a very specific commitment. He said he was going to rehire the thousands of nurses he fired and he specifically committed to hiring 12,000 nurses by the end of this year. Minister, we are 33 days short of the end of this year. Where are those 12,000 nurses?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): To the Leader of the Opposition: we are not blaming anyone. We are acknowledging that there are pressures within the system and we are also stating that we are prepared to deal with the pressures, unlike your government, which saw problems and took no action. We have a plan. We recognize there are pressures. That's why we set up the Nursing Task Force in 1998. The task force was comprised of the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, the union-the Ontario Nurses Association-and it was that task force-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister take her seat. I would appreciate it if it members wouldn't sing in unison like that, please.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Throw them out.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. I'll deal with it, I say to the Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I'm two seats away and I can't hear her.

The Speaker: I say to the Premier, I'll deal with it. I thank him to stay out of it. I will deal with it.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that these are long-standing problems. We are taking steps to move forward and ensure that our system continues to have the resources necessary to meet the needs of a population that is rapidly growing and also aging, and as a result the pressures continue to increase. But I would say to you we have hired over 6,000 nurses to date.

Mr McGuinty: You didn't promise to hire 6,000 by the end of the year 2000. You promised to hire 12,000 by the end of the year 2000. I'll tell you why I'm raising this with you today, Minister. Just late last week a document came across my desk, The Ontario PC Daily Bulletin. It says, "To date, we have created almost 6,000 new nursing positions in Ontario, which will ultimately add 12,000 nurses to the system in the next three years." You specifically promised that you were going to give us 12,000 by 2000.

Now you're saying 6,000 by 2000, "and then we'll come up with the other 6,000 by the end of the year 2003." The Premier made a specific commitment for 12,000 by the end of the year 2000. I ask you the same question again, Minister: where are the 12,000 nurses you promised to have on the job by the end of this year?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Our government has made available the $375 million that we have committed in response to the recommendations of the task force. The money has flowed. The Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario is working on a plan of recruitment and retention of nurses with the government. I'm pleased to say that everyone is redoubling their efforts in order to ensure that we do have the nurses in place.

As you know, recently we have provided additional money to our hospitals. We're funding hospitals today at the number of about $8.2 billion. That is the highest amount of funding ever given to hospitals in this province. We are providing more funding than ever before for community access centres, long-term care and primary care, and for the first time in the history of this province we now have nurse practitioners, and other provinces are following our lead.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, let's go over this one more time. We have an emergency room crisis in Ontario because of your own doing. We are short of nurses because you fired nurses. We're short of beds because you closed beds. We can't reopen the beds until we get the nurses. You said you were going to hire nurses. In fact, your Premier made a specific commitment prior to the last election and he said, "We will hire 12,000 by the end of the year 2000." Now you are telling us this is no longer true, that he has no intention whatsoever of keeping his promise. You're buying into this and you're telling us "No, it's OK as long as we get 12,000 by the end of the year 2003."

You know what? The busy season is just around the corner when it comes to our emergency rooms. They are already plunged into a state of crisis this very day. Because this Premier is breaking his promise, Ontarians are going to be placed at even further risk at the Christmas season and just after that.

I ask you, Minister: as an advocate for Ontario patients and for their families, as the advocate for our health care system, how are you going to tolerate this Premier breaking his specific commitment to hire 12,000 nurses by the end of this year?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition wants to consider and remember the tremendous negative impact on the health system, not only in this province but throughout Canada, because the federal Liberal government decreased the-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister, take a seat. The member for Kingston and the Islands, last warning to him. We're not going to have you shouting out and yelling like that.

Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Perhaps you've forgotten it was your federal cousins that decreased the amount of funding. In fact, it is so unfortunate that despite the huge federal surplus, when the agreement was reached with the provinces and territories in September of this year, they elected not to flow the money until next April. Every health minister at the last meeting talked about the shortage of nurses, the shortage of doctors, the shortage of radiation therapists, and said we need a plan. We're still waiting for the federal government to work with us on a human resources plan.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. It is about the Premier's latest property tax bill, Bill 140, and how much it will penalize homeowners across the province. You know that when you read the fine print of your legislation, what it does is move massive property tax increases on to homeowners and away from business properties. You know that you are all set up to ram this legislation through this Legislature with no public hearings and with no opportunity for the property taxpayers across the province to know what's in it and what's going to hit them.

Before you force massive property tax increases on to homeowners, don't you think you at least ought to hold public hearings so people will have a chance to comment and know what you're doing to them?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I am quite surprised at a leader of a party that, when they were in government, had nothing but massive tax increases provincially and the kind of downloading that let to massive tax increases on the property tax, in addition to the largest education property taxes that we'd seen since the Liberals were in office. I admit their tax increases were even larger than your tax increases.

Now you're talking about my tax increases. Since we have been in office, we have had nothing but tax freezes or cuts on every provincial tax that we inherited. Secondly, the only thing that we have done on property taxes is to take $2.5 billion off the property tax of all the taxes across Ontario. In addition, the only thing we have done with the remaining portion of education property tax is to have tax cuts both residentially and in commercial-industrial. So don't talk to us about your abysmal record on tax hikes and our record on tax cuts, because the facts are out there for everybody to see.

Mr Hampton: It was a simple question. I asked the Premier to hold public hearings before he rams this legislation through the House.

Premier, everyone out there knows that you've downloaded the cost of seniors' housing and social housing on to municipalities, and it's going to be a huge cost for them. We know that you're downloading the cost of ambulances on to municipalities, and that's going to be an additional $100 million, given the standard they're going to be held to. We all know that if municipalities are going to meet that, they're going to have to do something at the property tax level. What your bill is going to do is force all of those downloading costs on to the homeowners.

It's a simple question. Will you hold public hearings on your legislation before you stick it to the homeowners across the province with higher property taxes? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Harris: I guess if my government were taking any action that would cause a tax to increase by any level of government, including the municipal government, that would be a cause for concern. Fortunately, unlike you and the Liberals, we're not doing that.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Final supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): What hogwash. Let me remind you that we live in a democracy, or at least we used to.

Many homeowners across Toronto will be shocked by your new property tax bill. They will be crushed. Thousands of homeowners in cities across Ontario are going to be upset when they get that property tax bill, yet you have denied them an opportunity to be heard.

But, Premier, listen to this: not only that, but your time allocation motion does not allow for clause-by-clause consideration so that we can make amendments. I have amendments to make on behalf of homeowners and small business and on behalf of city of Toronto councillors, yet you are denying us that opportunity. Will you at least allow clause-by-clause examination of this bill so we can make amendments?

Hon Mr Harris: When I think of the massive tax increases under this party and the significant tax cuts as a result of our policies, both at the municipal level and at the provincial level, I find it hard to fathom that you are not in full support of a bill that in fact extends protections to homeowners, extends protections, tax relief, to low-income seniors and disabled homeowners, extends an exemption for portions of homes built for people with disabilities, extends tax relief for people in hardship, that brings in fairness to the tax system that your government didn't have the courage to do and the Liberal government didn't have the courage to do, which is why the problem was magnified when we took over.

This is a bill that simply extends these protections.

I don't know why you're opposed to that. I don't know why you want to hold up a bill that offers further tax reductions and protections for taxpayers in the province. I don't understand that logic, other than that you're tax hikers, you like governments to have more money, and we don't.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): This is also to the Premier, and isn't it interesting that the Premier is afraid to hold public hearings on a tax bill?

Premier, another part of the story is that the Ontario Property Assessment Corp, OPAC, has released new figures on property assessment values. They show that your gutting of rent control has been a financial bonanza for landlords. In the city of Toronto alone, landlords have seen the value of their rental properties increase by $5.3 billion. That's how much the increase has been.

Premier, since you are so generous to the landlords, since the gutting of rent control and the massive increase in rents-

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): That's called prosperity.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the member take his seat? Minister of Labour, come to order. Sorry for the interruption.

Mr Hampton: Since your gutting of rent control and the massive increases in rents have increased the value of the landlords' property so much, don't you think it would be a good idea to impose a rent freeze now, so that maybe the tenants could get some benefit out of this?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Since our extension of rent controls, actually using the same formula that was developed by the New Democratic Party to ensure that every tenant is extended the full protection of rent controls, and since we combined that policy with a policy of growth and prosperity, where people's property does go up-the properties of homeowners in Toronto have gone up an average of 21% since we took office. I think this is a great thing. Isn't it marvellous that people's property is now worth more than it was?

When your government was in power their properties devalued, commercial properties devalued, people were unemployed, we had record unemployment, record numbers of people were on welfare. Why do you want to go back to those depressing old days? I don't understand that.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): The Minister of Labour was laughing hysterically at the question and the Premier didn't answer it very well, but I'm going to try it again. Multi-unit residential rental property values went up 40%-that's true-and the value is $5.2 billion. That's fine. OPAC, the Ontario Property Assessment Corp, attributes this increase to higher rents-yes, Minister of Labour, higher rents-and to a low vacancy rate. That's what they said. I didn't say it; they said it. So I don't know why you're laughing hysterically.

The Minister of Labour and the Premier should know that in Toronto alone, and many other areas, rents have increased by 1,000 bucks for a two-bedroom apartment. You should know that, or ought to know that. Meanwhile, evictions are up everywhere across Ontario and many more people are having a hell of a time making those payments.

Premier, doesn't it bother you just a little bit that landlords have made $5.2 billion in value off your rent decontrol while tenants are being thrown out in the street? Doesn't it bother you just a little bit?

Hon Mr Harris: When we extended full rent protection to every tenant in the province when we took office, we also extended the formula to that extension of full rent protection for every tenant in the province, and that has led last year, for example, to the lowest increase allowed in 25 years.

Residential properties are going up in value, business is making more money, more people are being employed and last year we had the lowest rent increase allowable under law under our full rent protection for all the tenants than we've had in 25 years. I thought you'd be standing up and saying, "Is this a great province, or what?"

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. Scott McLennan is 35 years old and has suffered from schizophrenia for the last 16 years. Last January, presumably in the throes of delusion, Scott attacked his mother, stabbing her several times.

He was admitted briefly to an assessment centre but was later transferred to jail. The judge ordered a treatment program for Scott, but he was released from jail on to the streets and the treatment never happened. Since then he has been briefly in and out of a psychiatric hospital and in and out of jail three more times. He has spent far more time in jail than in a hospital bed.

Last month, Scott was released from the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. He was released into the community once again with no supervision, no support and no place to go. No one knew where he was until last weekend, when a cousin found him in a hospital, held once again for assessment.

Minister, Scott's mother is in the gallery today and she's afraid. She's afraid for her son, and she's afraid for others who might be endangered if Scott becomes violent again. Bernice McLennan wants to know why there has never been anything for her son but a jail cell.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the member knows, we have been very committed to creating a modern, accessible mental health care system that responds to the needs of all Ontarians. We have been moving forward in that regard now for the last number of years. What we've been endeavouring to do is to ensure we have a system that is integrated, that provides hospital beds when necessary, but that we also give people the opportunity to live in the community because this is certainly what has been asked for.

As you know, as recently as last week I made an announcement, and that announcement involved an additional $72 million to help house and support people suffering from severe mental illness. That announcement means that more than 2,600 people who are homeless or at risk of being homeless will have the opportunity for the immediate and needed housing that is so necessary. The people, as well, who are living in the community are supported by ACT teams, 24-hour support teams-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

Mrs McLeod: It's important to know that Scott's not alone in his experience with our mental health system. I had another case very much like his in my constituency office just last Friday, and there were three other cases in my office alone in Thunder Bay last week, where people with mental illness could not get the help they needed.

Brian's Law is to be proclaimed on December 1. It's a law that holds out hope to the families of schizophrenics but causes extreme concern for those who don't believe there will be the community supports in place that will make it work. You held off proclamation of that law until December to ensure there would be adequate community resources in place, and it hasn't happened. You have invested some $150 million in the mental health system; at least $600 million is needed. The money you announced last week was announced two years ago. You are just now getting this year's program underway.

Scott McLennan and others like him are still falling through what is not a crack but a huge gap, yet you are moving ahead with the closure of psychiatric hospitals. The judge said last spring in sentencing Scott that he was going to give him another month in jail to let the health system catch up and be ready for him. It hasn't caught up yet. I ask what you will do to make sure that Scott McLennan and the people around him are kept safe.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have been moving forward. In 1998, under the parliamentary assistant I had at that time, we undertook a review of the mental health system. As you know, this is a group of individuals who suffer from severe mental illness. I think all of us in the province wish to ensure that the services these individuals need will be provided. I would also remind you that we put a moratorium on the closure of psychiatric hospital beds to ensure the community services would be there for all people in this province who needed them.

We have been moving forward with new ACT teams that are providing the 24-hour support that those who are severely mentally ill require. We will continue to make the significant investments in the mental health system that we have been doing.

I would remind you there has been significant new funding. There have been significant new supports put in place, new homes for these individuals. As you know, the community organizations that have received this money are working as hard as they can.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Labour. As Bill 139 works its way through the legislative process, constituents in my riding of Guelph-Wellington are being bombarded by news reports focusing on misleading spins from union bosses who are wrongly suggesting our government is somehow imposing a 60-hour workweek. This is in spite of your many statements to the contrary.

I'd like to turn your attention to the Blueprint, in particular to the

section called "Jobs, Growth and Opportunity," and to page 14, where under the

section called "Expanding Workers' Rights," we've promised the people of Ontario, "Whether you're in a union or not, we think the focus should be on protecting your individual rights. That's why we've worked to restore the balance of power between unions and employers while strengthening the rights of individual workers."

A little further down: "With the way the workplace is changing, more workers and companies want to set up arrangements other than the traditional Monday-to-Friday workweek. We'll give workers and employers more flexibility in designing work arrangements to meet their needs, such as flex-time and four-day weeks."

Minister, the people of Ontario have come to expect the Harris government to be a government that makes promises and, more importantly, keeps their promises. In Bill 139, are we or are we not keeping our promises to the Ontario voters?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): Thank you for the question. Yes, we are. You're absolutely right.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I understand why the Liberals would snicker. It's a foreign thought to you guys.

In Bill 139 and in Bill 147, we're bringing forward changes to the legislation that talks about a flex workweek, that talks about a four-day workweek, in fact. It does. Today, if you wanted to have a four-day workweek, working 10 hours a day and 40 hours a week, you couldn't do it. You've got to seek a permit. It's against the law. We want to create flex workweeks. We want to create opportunities for employees to create their own workweek because the workplace has changed. It's a different place than it was in the 1960s when this bill was originally passed.

When we campaigned in 1999, we talked about these specific issues in the Blueprint. These issues were addressed. We dealt with them here in the House. We've introduced legislation. We made a commitment to make these changes.

Another good example is the 10-day crisis leave. We made a commitment to create 10 unpaid days for crisis leave for employees who work in businesses of 50 employees or more. We've done that, and I think we should be proud of the fact that we're delivering on our promises.

Mrs Elliott: I actually want to refer to the Blueprint again. On page 35, I refer to a

section called "A Better Future." On page 37, an entitlement is "Family Crisis Leave," and I quote: "We've all been in situations where sudden family crisis makes it impossible to go to work- a child is suddenly hospitalized or an aging parent is diagnosed as being terminally ill. We think families deserve our support in helping teach other through these kinds of emergencies.

"In order to help people care for their children and other family members in medical emergencies, we'll allow employees of companies with 50 or more workers to take up to 10 days a year of unpaid, job-protected family crisis leave for recognized family and medical reasons."

I understand that is in this bill, Minister. I would like you to reiterate to my constituents who are being given false information about this bill that this is indeed in there in its entirety. Today we are again completing another promise that we made to the voters during our election campaign.

Hon Mr Stockwell: The difficulty is that a lot of information is being sent out that is just flat out inaccurate. The simple fact is that the-

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Look, I can understand why the Liberals would be very upset about this question simply because when we make a commitment, we live by it and we're doing it.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Here we go. There's Mr McGuinty. It's lucky I just happen to have this quote that Mr McGuinty made in the past. We talked about the teachers, ordering them back to work, just last week. Remember? On the Monday, Mr McGuinty said his party would support speedy passage of the bill. Now on the next day-you know, that's code language to Liberals.

All of us would think, "Hey, I support that bill," but in code language to a Liberal when they say to you his party would support speedy passage of the bill, it means, "I'm against it and I'm voting no." That's the Liberal definition of "speedy passage" to a bill. And not to be outdone, the member for Hamilton East could even make Mr McGuinty look straightforward.

The fact is, we have kept our commitment. There will be 10 days of unpaid leave. We said we'd do it. We're carrying forward doing it for the workers and employers in the province-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The minister's time is up. New question.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, I want to ask you about health and safety in the workplace.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Start the clock. Sorry for the interruption.

Mr Agostino: I find it interesting that as I get up to ask a question about injury and death in the workplace, the Tory government finds it humorous and starts cracking jokes.

Minister, let me ask you about your ongoing attack on working men and women. You've passed legislation today and in the next week or two you're going to pass further legislation in this House that all leads to the same end result: that it is harder for working men and women to unionize, more difficult for working men and women to have safe working conditions, whether it's in construction or on general work sites, whether it's in workplaces across Ontario.

Minister, you know the stats-whether it's construction, whether it's factory work, anywhere you want to look at-that sites or places that are non-unionized have a greater risk of death and injury to working men and women than sites protected by unions. Your legislation continues to take us down that path of less safe workplaces, more injury and more death to working men and women. The stats are clear. Unfortunately, it is going to happen. Minister, how are you and your government going to deal with the increase of injuries and deaths in the workplace as a result of your legislation?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I do consider this a very important issue and I don't think the Liberals should laugh about it either. I think it's a very, very important issue that faces the province of Ontario.

I don't think the broad assumption you make is too accurate. Simply put, the assumption you make is that there are more deaths in non-union construction sites than there are on union construction sites. The whole number's true, but there are more non-union construction sites than there are union construction sites. So when you work it out on a percentage basis, the simple fact, considering that there are significantly more non-union sites, is that there are more accidents per ratio. It's like making the argument that more male bus drivers get into accidents than female bus drivers. That's probably true; there are more male bus drivers out there.

Your argument isn't fair. Of course there are more accidents on non-union sites simply because there are significantly more non-union sites. It's a slam against the non-union construction sites to say that they're not safe, that they're unsafe, that you go to work and you're going to die. Simply put, you're telling the people of this province that if you run a non-union workplace, you're somehow an unreasonable, unfair employer who doesn't care about your employees. That's crazy. You shouldn't say that.

Mr Agostino: Unfortunately, the minister doesn't know his stats. The sheer numbers aside, when you look at the percentage of accidents, there is a 2.5 times greater chance of death or injury on a non-unionized construction site than on a unionized one, Minister. Those stats are clear, and you're wrong.

An inquest was recently held in Hamilton into the death of Donald Crawley, killed on the job at Dofasco. That inquest has recommended more visits by inspectors and an increase in inspectors to visit work sites.

Over the last five years, your ministry has slashed the health and safety operations division by $8.2 million and a staff reduction of 20%. Those are the cuts you have made to the division that is supposed to inspect health and safety in workplaces. The division's supposed to be in charge of preventing death and injury in the workplace. Your track record, Minister, is atrocious when it comes to protecting workers on the job, frankly, whether they're unionized or non-unionized. Your cuts have shown that.

This inquest in Hamilton has asked for a greater increase here. You've gone the other way. Again, why do you continue to bring in legislation and make cuts that risk the lives of working men and women every single day on the work site in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Stockwell: In typical form, the member stands up and says "2.5." Where do you get the number? You won't tell us where the number comes from. You just stand up and say "2.5." He doesn't cite the author, doesn't site the-

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Hamilton East, last warning. Once more and you're out. Minister of Labour.

Hon Mr Stockwell: The member stands up and makes this charge. You want to analyze-

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): They are your own numbers.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Windsor West, please. I just sit down and you start yelling; one takes over. I'd appreciate the co-operation.

Hon Mr Stockwell: If you want to provide an actual comprehensive review of the situation, you're more than entitled to. The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board is beginning to compile these kinds of statistics. They don't exist. So making this argument that somehow non-union sites are not as safe, or, simply put, that if you go to work at a non-union site you're going to get injured or die on the job, is really reprehensible. You're slandering, in my opinion, good, honest, hard-working Ontarians who provide good, honest work for non-union construction sites.

We're not suggesting that there shouldn't be union and non-union sites, but we don't have it in our head, we don't make it part of our policy, that anyone who doesn't belong to the union is bad and anybody who does is good. That's Liberal-NDP philosophy.

HIV/AIDS AWARENESS AND PREVENTION

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, I'm aware that the World AIDS Day is quickly approaching. If you walk up to anyone on the street and ask them about AIDS, you'll probably get a pretty good response. People really understand that particular condition, and that's probably because during this last decade or so the problem of AIDS has grown on a global basis. Also, a great number of people around the world have been promoting AIDS awareness and prevention. Minister, can you please tell the members of this House what our government in Ontario is doing to help to promote AIDS awareness and its prevention?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I would like to take this opportunity to officially recognize that Friday, December 1, is World AIDS Day. I can assure the member and all members of this House that HIV/AIDS prevention, care, treatment and support remains a top priority for the government.

Our government this year, 2000-01, will be spending over $53 million for HIV/AIDS-related programs. This figure does not include the doctor billings to OHIP. Also, in March 1998 we announced $10 million to establish the Ontario HIV Treatment Network, the community-based services evaluation unit and the intravenous drug user outreach program.

I'd also like to share with you a letter from David Hoe, the co-chair of the Ontario Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS, of April 30, 1998:

"On behalf of the members of the committee, we'd like to express our appreciation for the significant shifts that have supported and steered into health policy and programs related to HIV/AIDS during your time of office.

"Many of the recommendations that have come from your advisory committee have been facilitated"-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I'm afraid the minister's time is up. Supplementary?

Mr Galt: Thank you very much, Minister, for that very informative response. From your comments, I can see that our government is indeed very serious about HIV and AIDS awareness, as well as prevention and care.

There's no question that AIDS has become a global epidemic, one of very significant international concern. I would hope that our federal government is putting just as many resources into HIV and AIDS as our government. Can you enlighten us as to what the federal government's commitment is to AIDS awareness and prevention?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I say, the advisory committee that we have set up in this province certainly has been beneficial in helping us move forward with programs committed to prevention and the care and treatment of people who live with HIV/AIDS. We take a look at the fact that we're spending over $53 million this year for HIV/AIDS-related programs, plus the OHIP billings on top of that. On the other hand, the federal Liberal government today is spending $10 million less in order to provide funding for all of Canada. That's all the provinces and the territories. So obviously the federal contribution to HIV/AIDS is considerably less than what we're spending in the province of Ontario.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I've got a question to the Premier. I'm telling you, sir, that the people in this province want to know why you're putting private profits ahead of safer highways. You've decided to priva tize drivers' tests here in the province, a function that the Ministry of Transportation has handled now for almost four decades. You're going to fire skilled, professional examiners and let the private sector turn another piece of the public safety net into a profit centre, just as you did, with those tragic results, with the Ministry of the Environment.

Premier, why are you putting the lives of motorists at risk? Will you do the right thing, the safe thing, and keep the government in the business of testing new drivers?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The Minister of Transportation can respond.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): We have always committed to better customer service delivery. Last fall, MTO committed to review driver examination services, and indeed this is a continuation of this. A request for qualifications will determine the level of interest of external organizations in driver examination businesses. But let me emphasize to the member that MTO will continue to set and enforce standards. We will continue to review our programs to find efficiencies to improve customer service.

Mr Kormos: Minister, you're rolling the clock back. You should know that in 1961 the then Conservative government made a major breakthrough in highway safety when they abolished the private fee examiners and introduced a universal, province-wide, single-standard, government-operated driver examination system. Testing new drivers is a matter of life and death. You know that. You're prepared to turn that responsibility over to the private sector. You're turning getting a driver's licence into the equivalent of going to the corner store to buy a long-distance calling card.

The people of Ontario deserve safe highways. They want new drivers to be government tested by properly trained professionals. You're abandoning the government testing; you're firing the trained professionals. Why don't you put the red light to your dangerous proposal, or is it acceptable to you that the system loses its integrity and becomes corruptible, and that drivers' licences are available to anybody who can pay the appropriate fee?

Hon Mr Turnbull: I fundamentally disagree with the premise of the question. Our government fought in the last election on a Blueprint commitment to look at improving customer service and alternate service delivery systems. In the time since we became the government, we have moved to make Ontario roads the fourth-safest in the whole of North America, a better safety record than when you were the government. We will continue along that line, because we will enforce tough safety standards. But we will continue to look at better ways to serve the public.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Minister of Health. The amount of time that hospitals close their doors to ambulances in Ontario is the highest it has been since the critical call registry started collecting statistics in 1989. On October 18 and 19 in my community of Hamilton, all emergency rooms were too busy to take any more patients well in excess of 90% of the time. Dr Baillie, medical director for the Ontario CritiCall Resource Registry, blames the shortage of long-term-care beds on an ongoing home care strike by workers of the local CCAC.

To add to this crisis, the Minister of Colleges and Universities recently announced in London, Ontario, that the new initiatives to enhance nursing education commitments need to be revisited, which basically means "need to be slowed down."

Clearly the measures your government has implemented aren't sufficient. We've had our warning from a credible source, Dr Baillie, saying things are going to get worse. Now is the time to act. Can you commit today to additional measures to deal with this impending catastrophe?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I would advise the member to read very carefully the report by the medical director. I would also encourage her to take a look at the responses that have been made by the hospitals in Hamilton. As you know, the executive vice-president of St Joe's, Kevin Smith, was quoted as saying he did not believe care was compromised. He believed they were meeting the needs of critical care patients. Also, the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp and St Joe's have vowed that all patients will get good emergency care.

As you know, they have moved forward to purchase more heart monitors, they have opened temporary beds and they have created a task force to ensure they can deal with the emergency room backlogs. Again, the flu shots are being provided. They predict that these measures will reduce the amount of time that hospitals are in that particular circumstance.

The chief of emergency at the superhospital says, "I remain optimistic"-

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

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): My supplementary is for the Minister of Health. I've had the privilege of serving in this House for two months as of today.

Applause.

Mr McMeekin: Thank you.

During that time, I've heard some great questions and some not-so-great questions, and to be fair, there have been some great answers and some not-so-great answers. I'm a pretty simple guy, and I want to ask a simple, straightforward question and hope we can get a simple, straightforward answer.

Last week the government-appointed supervisor talked about changes to the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp that would cost approximately $250 million. He suggested that $125 million of that should come from the property tax base. I'm concerned that our already beleaguered property taxpayers are going to get hammered some more, and I'm wondering if his comments reflect govern ment policy. Is this the thin edge of a new downloading wedge?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I appreciate the points that have been raised by the member opposite. What I would like to respond in return is simply that at the present time we're reviewing the information that was provided for us. Obviously at such time as we've done a thorough review of what may or may not happen in Hamilton-at this time we're not in a position to make a response to the request. We didn't receive the information until it was made available last week to the public and the media in Hamilton. So our staff haven't had an opportunity to review it.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, I have a question for you that directly affects many people in my riding. Last May you travelled to Europe to try to improve trade relations with the European Union to facilitate the export of Ontario wines to that region.

I remember that when you returned you were optimistic that the wine trade between Ontario and Europe, specifically Italy and France, would improve. Unfortunately, this does not seem to have happened. Could you please update us on what has happened since your trip to Europe?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I want to thank the member for Niagara Falls for his strong interest in the health of the Ontario wine industry.

I have to tell him, regrettably, that there has been very little progress since Mr Brandt and I and some representatives of the Wine Council of Ontario visited a number of the European Union countries earlier this year to deliver the message that we are very unhappy with the current situation, where the Europeans are selling through the Liquor Control Board of Ontario approximately $390 million worth of product on an annual basis and allowing virtually nothing through their borders. Last year France and Italy accepted not one bottle of world-class, award-winning Ontario wine.

That's a situation we will not allow to continue.

Mr Maves: This is becoming an increasingly frustrating situation for both myself and of course my constituents. The very countries denying access to our wines are the same countries giving international awards to our wines for quality.

Three questions: What are your plans now that the progress you made overseas seems to have been forgotten? How do you plan on reminding them that Ontario's product is worthy of their attention? Finally, is there any chance that our newly elected, do-nothing federal Liberal government will eventually do their job and take up this trade fight with the European Union?

Hon Mr Runciman: The federal Liberal government has failed Ontario producers and grape growers miserably. When we travelled through Europe, they were not aware of the situation in Ontario and the disparities in terms of trade volumes and dollars.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): I know what you should do. You should disband the task force.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Will the member take his seat. Member for Windsor West, this is your last warning. I can't continue on with you screaming across. Minister.

Hon Mr Runciman: We've certainly delivered the message. The Minister of Economic Development and Trade is travelling to the European Union in the next couple of weeks to redeliver the message, but I want to say that we indicated strongly during our visit that we are not going to sit still for this to continue. All other New World producers are allowed access to the European Union. Canada is the exception.

We are, as I said, making an announcement hopefully in the next couple of weeks with respect to a first step. I want to ask consumers in Ontario to join with us in this fight for fairness in terms of their purchase decisions around wines this holiday season. Send the European Union a message in a bottle: buy Ontario.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a question for the Premier. As you know, Bill 140 relates to property taxes and assessment, and you also would know that shortly we will have a time allocation motion, or closure, on that bill and there will be no opportunity for public input.

Right now I want to bring to you the situation in one of my municipalities. According to notes from their treasurer, if the town was to move to the recommended range of fairness in this bill, the commercial tax class will see a 19% increase, with the residential class seeing a 62% increase in taxes this year.

Premier, do you think that's fair?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Then the municipality doesn't have to do anything. If it has no tax increases, nobody's tax will go up one cent-commercial, industrial or residential. That's their option, and I encourage them to take it.

Mr Brown: If you don't know you're wrong, you should. Last year I wrote to the Minister of Finance on behalf of constituents. This constituent paid $4,070.31 more in taxes than the same business across the road, which, by the way, was assessed for more money. Your minister said to my constituent by way of letter that it was the municipality's fault, exactly what you just told me. The fact is, in this situation you're the municipality. It is an unorganized area. You did this. It isn't the municipality.

Premier, will you understand that this property tax bill will attack residential taxpayers and will attack small business people dramatically? Will you not recognize that, slow down, take your time, and maybe this time we could get it right?

Hon Mr Harris: Since we are only decreasing taxes, for which we are responsible in unorganized areas, tax decreases for both commercial and industrial, as has already been announced by the minister with the introduction of Bill 140, we will be accelerating the tax reductions for commercial and industrial as well. That leaves the option in organized and unorganized areas to help ensure that that poor business whose taxes are significantly higher than in a neighbouring municipality or area-that we can start to slowly correct that problem without impacting on residential taxes.

WINTER HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. As we enter into the winter season, the people of Ontario are preparing for the upcoming months of cold and snow. Boats and other watercraft have been put in dry dock, winter road maintenance vehicles are ready to work this winter, and snow tires are being installed on the family car. What initiatives is your ministry undertaking to promote safe winter driving in our province?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): Excellent question. Ontario's snow and ice control standards are among the best in North America. MTO has produced an information booklet called Snow and Ice Control on Ontario's Highways. It's being distributed free of charge. This booklet provides driving tips and a 1-800 number for the most recent road conditions for your region, as well as MTO maintenance standards and practices. The booklet, as I've said, is available free of charge.

It will be available through government information offices-MPP constituency offices will be receiving it-government bookstores, and driver and vehicle licensing examination centres. Also, MTO provides a winter driving conditions update on a Web site, www.mto.gov.on.ca.

Mr Dunlop: Those sound like some effective initiatives from which all Ontarians will benefit. It strikes me that it would be a good idea if a lot more people in Ontario could be informed of how to drive more safely in winter conditions. As Minister of Transportation, what suggestions and advice do you have for the motorists of our province about how they can adjust to driving to suit winter road conditions?

Hon Mr Turnbull: Above all, it's important that everybody using our roads take the time to make sure their vehicle is well prepared. Plan ahead. Check weather forecasts and road conditions before you leave. Top up your gas tank in case there must be a change of your route or even the need to turn back during a storm. If a storm is expected, consider delaying or cancelling your trip, and respect, above all, road closures. Despite the best efforts of our ministry-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Sorry to interrupt the minister. We've got conversations going back and forth. We're almost over. If you have conversations, please take them outside. The minister is wrapping up. Sorry, Minister.

Hon Mr Turnbull: Despite the best efforts of both our ministry workers and municipal workers to remove snow and ice, extreme weather conditions may prevent roads from being reopened quickly. Please don't pass snow plows and don't go between snow plows as they are laying down salt. These are important. Of course, obviously, adjust your speed accordingly, and get this booklet.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Petitions keep coming forward to us related to the northern health travel grant.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On a point of order, the Minister of Labour. Sorry to interrupt the member.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): During the interchange I had with the member for Hamilton East, he cited some numbers. He said he would provide me with those numbers. He still hasn't done that. I'm waiting.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Sorry for the interruption. We will start all over.

Mr Gravelle: Petitions keep coming forward by many northerners very upset by the gross discrimination being faced related to the northern health travel grant. I'd like to read this petition.

"Whereas the northern health travel grant offers a reimbursement of partial travel costs at a rate of 30.4 cents per kilometre one way for northerners forced to travel for cancer care while travel policy for southerners who travel for cancer care features full reimbursement costs for travel, meals and accommodation; and

"Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location; and

"Whereas a recently released Oracle research poll confirms that 92% of Ontarians support equal health travel funding; and

"Whereas northern Ontario residents pay the same amount of taxes and are entitled to the same access to health care and all government services and inherent civil rights as residents living elsewhere in the province; and

"Whereas we support the efforts of the newly formed OSECC (Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care), founded by Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario, Northeast Region, to correct this injustice against northerners travelling for cancer treatment;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to fund full travel expenses for northern Ontario cancer patients and elim inate the health care apartheid which exists presently in the province of Ontario."

They keep coming in. I'm pleased to once again add my name to this petition. We will not give up the fight.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I've got a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas children are exposed to sexually explicit material in variety stores and video rental outlets;

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials;

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

"To enact legislation which will:

"Create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to sexually explicit material in retail establishments;

"Make it illegal to sell, rent, or loan sexually explicit materials to minors."

Since I agree with it, I affix my name to it.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have another 1,000-name petition. It is a petition to the Ontario Legislature. It is northerners demanding the Mike Harris government eliminate the health care apartheid and the discrimination being practised in Ontario.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That's not eliminated yet.

Mr Bartolucci: It is not eliminated yet.

"Whereas the northern health travel grant offers a reimbursement of partial travel costs at a rate of 30.4 cents per kilometre one way for northerners forced to travel for cancer care while travel policy for southerners who travel for cancer care features full reimbursement costs for travel, meals and accommodation;"-and that's discrimination-"and

"Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location;"-and that's a fact-"and

"Whereas a recently released Oracle research poll confirms that 92% of Ontarians support equal health travel funding;"-and that's fairness-"and

"Whereas northern Ontario residents pay the same amount of taxes and are entitled to the same access to health care and all government services and inherent civil rights as residents living elsewhere in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas we support the efforts of ... OSECC (Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care), founded by Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario, Northeast Region, to correct this injustice against northerners travelling for cancer treatment;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to fund full travel expenses for northern Ontario cancer patients and eliminate the health care apartheid and the discrimination which exists presently in the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition because I'm in full agreement and give it to Katherine to bring to the table.

HUNTING AND FISHING LEGISLATION

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

"Whereas Premier Mike Harris committed in August of this year at the International Symposium in Ottawa to see hunting and fishing legislation introduced at Queen's Park;

"Whereas the Minister of Natural Resources, the Hon John Snobelen, has vowed on several occasions to bring forth legislation pertaining to hunting and fishing;

"Whereas hunting and fishing continues to be an important industry in Ontario because of its recreational, economic and humane benefits to the province of Ontario;

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

"That the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources bring forward as soon as possible

an act entrenching hunting and fishing in the province of Ontario."

I'll affix my name to that too.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas it has been determined that recent funding allocations to the developmental services sector in the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent and Windsor-Essex have been determined to be grossly inadequate to meet critical and urgent needs;

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

"That the Ministry of Community and Social Services immediately review the funding allocations to the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent and Windsor-Essex, and provide funding in keeping with the requests made by families or their agents."

I affix my signature to this petition as I agree with its contents.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas children are exposed to sexually explicit material in variety stores and video rental outlets; and

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to sexually explicit material;

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

"To enact legislation which will:

"Create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to sexually explicit material in retail establishments;

"Make it illegal to sell, rent, or loan sexually explicit materials to minors."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas cancer patients in Ontario requiring radiation treatment face unacceptable delays and are often forced to travel to the United States to receive medical attention;

"Whereas many prescription drugs which would help patients with a variety of medical conditions such as macular degeneration, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, diabetes and heart failure are not covered by OHIP;

"Whereas many residents of St Catharines and other communities in Ontario are unable to find a family doctor as a result of the growing doctor shortage we have experienced during the tenure of the Harris government;

Whereas many assistive devices that could aid patients in Ontario are not eligible for funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health;

"Whereas community care access centres have inadequate funding to carry out their responsibilities for long-term and home care;

"Whereas the Harris government has now spent over $185 million on blatantly partisan government advertising in the form of glossy brochures and television and radio ads;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Conservative government of Mike Harris to immediately end their abuse of public office and terminate any further expenditure on political advertising."

Of course I sign this petition as I'm in complete agreement with its content.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to present a petition. A lot of work has been put into this by Dave Boyd, who's one of my constituents, and others who are antique car collectors and restorers.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there are many Ontarians who have a passion for perfection in the restoration of vintage vehicles; and

"Whereas unlike many other jurisdictions, Ontario vintage automobile enthusiasts are unable to register their vehicles using the original year of manufacture licence plates; and

"Whereas Durham MPP John R. O'Toole and former MPP John Parker have worked together to recognize the desire of vintage car collectors to register their vehicles using vintage plates; and

"Whereas the Honourable David Turnbull as Minister of Transportation has the power to change the existing regulation;

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

"To pass Bill 99 or to amend the Highway Traffic Act to allow vintage auto enthusiasts to use year of manufacture plates."

I'm pleased to support this on behalf of thousands of antique car enthusiasts in Ontario.

HUNTING IN WILDERNESS PARKS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I've received many petitions relating to this issue and I hope we get a formal response from the ministry soon.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Natural Resources has confirmed that the province is considering allowing hunting in Ontario's wilderness parks, including Quetico, Killarney, Wabakimi and Woodland Caribou;

"Whereas the provincial government made no mention of opening up wilderness parks to hunting when it came up with the Ontario Living Legacy policy last year for a vast area of publicly owned land across northern Ontario;

"Whereas the province's wilderness parks were originally established to be sanctuaries where the forces of nature would be permitted to function freely and where visitors could travel by non-mechanized means and experience solitude, challenge and personal enjoyment of that protected area;

"Whereas opening wilderness parks to hunters undermines the principles the parks were established to fulfil, threatens animals and exposes the public to risk;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Ministry of Natural Resources renew and reconfirm its ban on hunting in all of Ontario's wilderness parks."

I support this petition and I'm pleased to add my name to it.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a petition forwarded to me by UAW local 251 in Wallaceburg. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed changes to the Employment Standards Act would take us back to the late 1800s' standards; and

"Whereas most jurisdictions in the world are reducing the level of overtime required; and

"Whereas these changes would allow companies to force overtime up to 60 hours per week; and

"Whereas the proposed changes will allow companies the right to average overtime over three weeks to escape paying the appropriate level of overtime pay;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that the Ontario government implement the following improvements to the Employment Standards Act:

"Tough, proactive policing of standards.

"A living wage to ensure no one lives in poverty.

"Overtime pay after an eight-hour day, 40-hour week.

"Three weeks' vacation after five years of service.

"More paid holidays.

"Paid breaks. We need a guarantee of rest breaks in each half-shift;

"Above all, we're calling for the right of all non-union workers to vote to join a union."

I'm proud to add my name to this petition.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to present another group of petitions from not just my riding of Durham but on behalf of all the people of Ontario: a resolution to prohibit the use of hand-held cell phones while operating a motorized vehicle.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death in North America; and

"Whereas studies conducted in the city of Toronto, the United States and Great Britain have reported that drivers using cellular phones while operating a vehicle significantly increase the risk of collision; and

"Whereas people talking on cellular phones while driving may cause a 34% higher risk of having an accident;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ban the use of hand-held cellphones, portable computers and fax machines while operating a motor vehicle."

"We further respectfully request that" Bill 1-O'Toole

-pardon me, "Bill 102,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of phones and other equipment while driving on a highway, be passed unanimously by all members of the provincial Legislature."

This could be passed immediately. I'm pleased to sign and endorse this petition.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

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

"Whereas this government has reduced funding for Ontario's special education programs without regard to the impact these changes are having on some of the province's most vulnerable children; and

"Whereas these special-needs students are now struggling with reductions in the amount of support they require with respect to special education teachers, education assistants and classroom resources; and

"Whereas these high-need children thrive on consistency and routine and these disruptions in their educational support are negatively affecting their progress and self-esteem;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore fair and equitable funding to special education so that parents and teachers can provide the best future for our children."

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I have a number of petitions here from Joan Lonergan, who is a convenor for the St Joseph the Worker council of the Catholic Women's League. I present this on their behalf. It's to myself and to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death in North America; and

"Whereas studies conducted in the city of Toronto, the United States and Great Britain have reported that drivers using cellular phones while operating a vehicle significantly increases the risk of collisions; and

"Whereas people talking on cellular phones while driving may cause a 34% higher risk of having an accident;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ban the use of hand-held cellular phones, portable computers and fax machines while operating a motor vehicle. We further respectfully request that Bill 102," by member John O'Toole, "An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of phones and other equipment while driving on a highway, be passed unanimously by all members of provincial Parliament of Ontario," and that this be passed immediately.

I'm pleased to endorse and submit this.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Hamilton East has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer given by the Minister of Labour to his question concerning workplace health and safety. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): I request unanimous consent to move a motion relating to the justice and social policy committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Klees: I move that the committee be authorized to meet beyond their normal hour of adjournment this afternoon, in order to complete clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 128.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): I move that pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 140,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act, Municipal Act and other Acts with respect to property taxes, when Bill 140 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That no deferral of the second reading vote pursuant to standing order 28(

h) shall be permitted; and

That the order for third reading of the bill may then immediately be called. When the order for third reading is called, the remainder of the sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, the debate time being divided equally among the three caucuses, after which time the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That, pursuant to standing order 28(h), the vote on third reading may be deferred until the next sessional day during the routine proceeding "Deferred Votes"; and

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Mr Klees moves government notice of motion number 76.

Hon Mr Klees: With the permission of the House, I would like to turn over the floor to my colleague from Willowdale.

Mr David Young (Willowdale): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this matter, a matter of some importance for a number of reasons. It is essential that this Legislature consider the contents of this very important bill so that our municipal partners will have appropriate legislation in place for the year 2001. Many in this Legislature will recall that the current legislation and some of the provisions contained therein will expire on December 31 of this year. For that reason in and of itself, it is of the utmost importance that this legislation be considered with all the haste that is reasonable.

In order to fully consider whether or not time allocation is appropriate in this instance, I would suggest to you that it is necessary not only to consider the contents of this bill, but to consider the history of the matter with which this bill deals. It is important to consider the number of years-not weeks, not months, but years and, in fact, decades-over which the contents of this bill have been debated. I'm going to talk about that in the time I have this afternoon, because it's of some importance that we consider this is not a new initiative.

This is not a matter that was introduced and discussed a matter of days or weeks ago. It was a matter of considerable debate within this province as early as 1963.

I will over the next short time discuss what was involved in that debate and what numerous independent third parties had to say should be done and what governments of all political stripes did or did not do, and frankly most of it relates to the latter. Most governments simply chose to ignore the issue of property tax assessment because it was a difficult one, and it remains a difficult one. There should be no doubt about that. So government after government, regardless of their party affiliation, over the years chose to ignore this problem.

As a result, the problem continued and it festered and it grew worse and worse to the point where we, when we embarked upon this endeavour a number of years ago following the Who Does What panel, were faced with a situation in this province where in some municipalities there had not been a reassessment, a calculation of the worth of properties, for in excess of five decades, almost 60 years in some instances. So what you had was properties on the same street, similar or identical properties on the same street, in the same municipality, receiving the same services, paying markedly different taxes.

This was a problem, as I said, Mr Speaker, that did not arise over the last year or two. It's a problem that has been present for many decades. So, with your permission, what I would like to do is talk a little bit about the level of consultation, the level of investigation that has been undertaken with reference to this initiative as far back as 1963, and then talk a little bit about what has been done over the last short while and about discussions leading up to the actual bill in front of this assembly this day.

I mentioned 1963 because that is when then-Premier Robarts asked for a committee to look into this matter. It was called at the time the Ontario Committee on Taxation. This process began in 1963 and came to a conclusion of sorts on August 31, 1967, at 1 pm that afternoon. The Ontario Committee on Taxation prepared a report and provided it to the then government, a Conservative government.

To the credit of some of the members opposite, and in particular the member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, partly because he has experienced some of this history himself but also because he is a student of the activities of this Legislature, he in his remarks last week acknowledged the long history, the long set of difficulties that have been wrestled with by government after government. He acknowledged that the government of the day some 25 or 30 years ago tried to do the right thing and because of political pressure had to back away.

Other governments, as I'll explain in a moment, didn't even head down this road. Even though the evidence was very clear in front of them that something had to be done, other governments didn't even head down this road because they knew it would be a bumpy one; they knew it would be a dangerous one. But it was the right thing to do. They knew that, as did the government of Mr Robarts when this report was put in front of them.

The report said a great many things, but let me summarize one of its first conclusions by saying that it clearly indicated that in 1967 business taxes in this province were far too high. I'm quoting from that report: "Local business taxes that arbitrarily add from 10% to 150% to the property taxes of business would be replaced by a uniform occupancy tax." It goes on to talk about how that may take place.

The report also talks about property assessment reform, and this is particularly relevant to the contents of the current legislation that we've been debating over the last week or so. It says, "Province-wide reassessment of property to reflect current values is a must. This too will be a matter of some years, but is indispensable because existing assessments are completely outdated and inequitable." That was in 1967, and no one who seriously considers this matter would suggest that things got better over the next 30 years.

That's where the Robarts government was, and they made some movement forward but chose not to proceed with any major reform. In 1977, approximately 10 years after the issuance of the report I previously referenced, Premier William Davis said that something had to be done and he too commissioned a report. The report, as was the case with the earlier report, the Smith report of 1967, and the subsequent report prepared by Willis Blair, were compiled by individuals who had no particular political affiliation but were in fact independent experts who could fairly view and assess and opine about what needed to be done.

I will take a moment and quote from what the second report, Mr Blair's report, suggested.

It said in its earliest recommendations, at the very front of the recommendations portion of this document, "That all real property be assessed at market value." It also said, and made a point of highlighting, "That similar property used for similar purposes be treated in the same manner, irrespective of the status of the owner or its location." Of course, that's exactly what the current legislation in the year 2000 will do, if passed. But for various reasons, and many of them were political realities, no significant action was taken after the issuance of that report.

More time went by, in this instance approximately another eight years. At that point in time, in 1985, we in this province found ourselves with a Liberal government, that I believe was elected on June 25, 1985, and was in place for approximately five years in one form or another. To the credit of then-Premier David Peterson, he wasted no time to deal with what was clearly an issue of some importance. He wasted no time in commissioning another report. He wasted no time in asking the Minister of Revenue at that time, his parliamentary assistant, who was Herb Epp, to opine about this.

They got a gentleman by the name of David Goyette to assist in this regard. Mr Goyette by all reasonable assessments would be considered a fairly independent and forthright individual who at that juncture had considerable expertise to offer. That's undoubtedly why then-Premier Peterson engaged Mr Goyette to report to the minister what needed to be done in order to redress the enormous inequities that existed within this province, dealing with property tax.

In August 1985, the Minister of Revenue initiated this process and, to the credit of those involved, in October of that very same year a report was tabled. The report said a lot of things. One of the first things it said was, "The assessment and taxation of improvements to property and residential taxes in particular needed to be considered." There was a rather extensive discussion about what should be done in order to ensure that similar properties were taxed in a similar way. They consulted with in excess of 60 parties before coming to their conclusions.

I might add that our consultation process was considerably more extensive; there were a great many more individuals consulted in the year 2000 by our government before bringing forward this bill, which some of my friends may wish to consider as they decide how to vote on the time allocation motion.

Let's go back to the report that Mr Goyette prepared, the one from October 1985. Here is what he said: "Assessment practice must proceed to an end state where similar properties are consistently assessed in a similar manner." Mr Speaker, I would encourage you, I would encourage my colleagues in this Legislature and I would encourage those watching, including our municipal partners, to consider the bill we have tabled, to consider Bill 140, and they will find that is exactly what we have done.

The Liberal government was told that "assessment practice must proceed to an end-state where similar properties are consistently assessed in a similar manner."

Let me go on a bit because Mr Goyette, in his rather comprehensive report, made some other recommendations that were not acted on by the then Liberal government at any point in time during their five years in office; no action whatsoever on these key recommendations. But these recommendations are included in Bill 140, which we have tabled in this Legislature and hope to see passed, if it is the will of the members present.

The Goyette report talks about the following: that "the property taxpayer should be provided with an improved level of understanding as to the purpose and functioning of tax." Mr Speaker, I remind you and my colleagues and the people of Ontario that in fact we will have distributed throughout this province in the not-too-distant future a uniform tax bill, a tax bill that will be transparent, that will clearly enunciate and articulate to taxpayers exactly what they are paying, where it's going and why they're paying what they are paying.

The Goyette report, tabled with the Liberal government, said the following: that "there should be a higher degree of predictability afforded to taxpayers in the determination of their property assessment and taxation." That sounds very much like the rolling averages and the OPAC assessments that are underway now and are the subject of a great deal of discussion, both in the media and in this assembly. We acted upon it. Other governments before us, including the Liberal government that asked for this report, did nothing in that regard.

The Goyette report also says that "there should be an improved level of assistance and information provided to taxpayers who undertake to appeal their property assessment." There is a proposed process that would allow for that if our legislation is passed.

I'm going to try to jump forward as quickly as I can, but I think it is worth noting that the other opposition party in this Legislature also recognized the problem. They also realized that property taxes were a problem when they were in government. When Mr Rae was the Premier of this province and was in a position to do something about the clear inequities that existed throughout this province on the subject matter of property tax, he had the opportunity to do something and he started down the road.

He started down a road that he knew was going to be dangerous. Unfortunately he didn't complete his journey. What he did was that in April 1995, just before the actual election that followed in June of that year, he had Anne Golden and others investigate this very matter to determine what would be appropriate, what would be fair. The GTA task force was one that, I think by reasonable assessment, would certainly not be called a Progressive Conservative coalition of parties.

It was one that brought together some considerable expertise, and it was one that said very clearly, when discussing the property tax situation, particularly in the GTA, the following, and I'm going to quote from the press release that was put out by Ms Golden at the conclusion of her investigation in January 1996:

"The task force undertook a thorough analysis of the property tax system and the options for eliminating the two most pressing problems-the erosion of the assessment base through successful appeals and the inequities in the property tax system. Extensive research conducted for and by the task force led them to the conclusion that a system based on actual value assessment is the most stable, reliable and equitable assessment system."

Our government, the Mike Harris government, unlike its predecessors, acted upon the direction we received from the authors of that report and others. We knew there was a problem and we knew that it would be difficult to correct the problem, that it would be difficult for a great many reasons, which included the inaction of many of our predecessors and the fact that many municipalities just weren't prepared to make difficult decisions when it came to taxation within their communities. But we did the right thing.

Within four months of the election of the Mike Harris government, we proceeded with a process that we are here today as a part of. I said at the outset of my comments that in my view this is not a time allocation motion dealing with a debate that has been ongoing for 10 days or 10 months. It has been years; it has been decades.

The Who Does What panel was commissioned in May 1996, and it made a number of recommendations. I won't read from that rather comprehensive report, other than to say that the panel recommended "a province-wide value-based property tax system with values that are up to date and kept up to date." The report went on to say, "Province-wide, three-year rolling averages should be used to help smooth out sharp fluctuations in property assessments. All properties should be assessed at their current values based on current use."

That is what the report we commissioned recommended, and that is exactly what we're doing. When viewed in the context of the history that existed over the last three and a half decades, the idea that we are attaching some efficiency to this debate, the idea that we wish to have this legislation passed in an expeditious manner, really makes a great deal of sense.

In my remaining time I wish to point out the following: in order to draft this legislation, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Finance engaged in a very extensive consultation process which lasted in excess of two years and resulted in dozens and dozens of stakeholders being consulted. I'm going to take a moment, if I may, to talk about the sorts of groups that were consulted. They included representatives from the city of Toronto, from the Mississauga area, from London, Ottawa, Hamilton, Sudbury, Cobourg, the region of York, Peel region and Wellington county, to name just a few.

They included extensive consultation with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the body that is the spokesperson for municipalities across this province. They included ongoing consultation with the Municipal Financial Officers' Association as well as discussions with the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers. The Association of Municipal Tax Collectors was also consulted, as was the Ontario Property Assessment Corp.

Their input is the reason we are now in a position to table this bill, which includes so many provisions that municipalities are welcoming, including the elimination of the frozen assessment listing, which municipalities were very anxious to see eliminated and which will make the role of municipalities across this province much easier than it has been in many years in the calculation of property taxes.

We also consulted with the business sector-and there should be no hesitation on the part of anyone in acknowledging this-because it's essential that this continues to be a province that sends a very clear message to our business partners that we welcome them, that we are not here to put up impediments, that we are not here to place hurdles in their way, that we're here to be fair with them, because they, especially those in small and medium-sized businesses, create jobs and create wealth within this province.

We consulted with organizations like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, an organization, by the way, that is a spokesperson for small and medium-sized businesses across this province, an organization that has said wonderful things about this legislation, that welcomes it. We consulted with the chambers of commerce, we consulted with the Toronto Board of Trade, the Fair Rental Policy Organization, airport authorities, power dam corporations, charitable associations and farm associations.

It is as a result of that extensive consultation that we are here today in a position to discuss a piece of legislation that is fair, that is balanced, that provides continued protection to the taxpayers across this province and that I would encourage the members in this assembly to pass as expeditiously as possible in the circumstances.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to follow the thoughtful comments of the member for Willowdale, just to say to the public that what we're dealing with here is a property tax bill of immense importance to every resident, every citizen of the province of Ontario. Among other things, it gives Premier Harris the authority to raise for the province about $6 billion worth of property tax. It has profound implications for everybody in Ontario.

The public should recognize that this is being rammed through. This was introduced a week and a half ago, quietly tabled in the Legislature. I think we've had three days of debate. What we in the Liberal caucus and my leader, Dalton McGuinty, and I believe the NDP caucus have proposed is that at the very least this bill should be referred to a committee. We've requested that in writing. We've assured the government that we understand that this bill has to pass before we adjourn this session at Christmas. We've given our undertaking that we will commit to making sure that it passes.

It is clearly about making sure that the public and those who are most dramatically impacted by the implementation of this, and that's the municipalities in Ontario and the professional staff, the group called the clerks and treasurers-but the government has decided to allow no opportunity for a committee to take a look at this bill. I think that's unfortunate and it's wrong. There's absolutely no reason why it could not take place, other than the government is determined that there be no public debate on this.

I want to raise with the public several issues within the bill that should be open to debate. The first and I think the most significant part of the bill is that it will require municipalities that may be forced to increase taxes-by the way, the member for Willowdale said that much of this came out of the Who Does What committee. Dave Crombie and the Who Does What committee warned the government not to put on property taxes social assistance, social housing, ambulance services, but the government went ahead and did that. They put some of the most sensitive services on to property taxes.

Crombie said, "Don't do it." For public information, Crombie headed up a panel called the Who Does What committee, hand-picked, 14 of them, by Premier Harris, to recommend what things should be funded by the province and what things should be funded by property taxes. The government ignored their advice. They unanimously and strongly said, "Don't put these things on the property tax." But it has been done.

We know that municipalities in the months and years ahead are going to be in a position where they have services that are in immense need in their communities, but this tax bill will mean that the only way they can fund the increased costs is on single-family residential. That's a big part of this bill that the government does not want publicly debated.

I say to municipalities around the province, get this list of municipalities where you will be forced to put any increased needs on to single-family residential. I'll just read off several: Brockville, Guelph, London, the region of Niagara, North Bay, Owen Sound, Peterborough, Stratford, the region of Waterloo, and others. So when the public is watching this debate, there's no opportunity for any public input into this, no opportunity for this to go to a committee. This motion that the government will be forcing through on a vote this afternoon essentially cuts off all debate. In fact, the bill cannot be amended. Not one word can now be amended in the bill.

I just warn the government that as municipalities become aware of this-and by the way, many municipalities in the province of Ontario are only getting into the detail of the bill; they just found the bill a week ago. They're looking at the implications for themselves and will be surprised when they find that this thing was rammed through in a matter of a few days, from introduction to third reading, and they had no opportunity for input. This has a profound impact on municipalities.

Those municipalities that I talked about, if they have increased needs in their communities, are going to be faced with an almost impossible decision. They will have to take the tax rates up dramatically on single-family residential, because that's the only source that will be left to them, or they're going to have to cut essential services in their communities.

So I say to us all, surely we owe the public and our municipal partners an opportunity to come before us to express their views on this bill. As I say, this particular part of the bill has enormous implications for municipalities. I repeat that no one wants to see property taxes increased, but with the services that have been downloaded on to municipalities, the slightest economic downturn will have an immediate and substantial impact on municipalities. We are passing the bill not just for one year; we'll require them forever to put the increased costs on to the residential property tax.

The second thing I want to talk about is that the member for Willowdale was saying it doesn't make sense that you can go down a street in Ontario and on one side of the street a business is taxed at one rate and an identical business on the other side of the street is taxed at a completely different rate. That was what the previous seven property tax bills were supposed to be fixing. Remember that this is the eighth major property tax bill we've had in the last three years.

This has been almost a public comedy of major bills being introduced to fix problems created by previous bills before the previous bills had even been passed. That's the language the clerks and treasurers used with us, saying nothing could prove more that this is being made up on the fly than the fact that one bill is introduced to correct a previous bill before the previous bill has even been passed.

I want to remind us that for commercial and industrial businesses in the province of Ontario, more than half of the property taxes on their businesses is set by the province. I'm not sure many businesses in the province understand that when they get their property tax bill, over half of it goes to education, and that tax is set exclusively by Premier Harris and his cabinet. It's not set by the Legislature because they've taken that responsibility and they deal with it in something called regulation.

Here we have now, three years after the government began this property tax reform, a study conducted by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, an organization that represents business; it does fine research in the province of Ontario. They advocate on their members' public policy issues, and they do it quite well. They did a study across Ontario of what businesses pay in education property taxes. Remember, this is set by the province; the municipality has nothing to do with it. Premier Harris took over education. He wanted to be in complete control of it. He now is in complete control of it.

He sets the property tax rate. By the way, it raises $6 billion. The fourth-largest source of revenue for the province of Ontario is property taxes.

What we found were identical businesses valued at $500,000-this is education property tax-in Toronto paying $25,000; in London paying about $20,000; in Brockville, $23,000; in Barrie, $12,000; and in Parry Sound, $5,000. So you have our business community scratching their heads, saying, "Wait a minute. I thought the province took over this to provide equity. Here we are three years after they took over the education property tax, with totally identical businesses, valued by the Ontario Property Assessment Corp equally, and one's paying four or five times as much education property tax as another business.

One business in Brockville is paying almost five times as much as the same, identical business would in Parry Sound."

Nothing in this bill fixes the Brockville-Parry Sound issue. When we raised it here in the Legislature, the government said, "Well, you can't fix these problems overnight." All right, but this is the start of the solution and it's not there.

Actually, it was rather ironic that when we were debating this one