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

November 15, 1999

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 1999-Nov-15 vol. A (PDF)

L011A - Mon 15 Nov 1999 / Lun 15 nov 1999

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FERRY SERVICES

POLICE MEMORIAL

HEALTH CARDS

ROBERT MILLER AND FERNANDO SCONZA

QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

CRIME PREVENTION

EMERGENCY SERVICES

GRAFFITI

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PEMBRIDGE INSURANCE COMPANY ACT, 1999

ONTARIO MARINE HERITAGE ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LE PATRIMOINE MARIN DE L'ONTARIO

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

POLICE OFFICERS

VISITORS

WEARING OF RIBBON

POLICE MEMORIAL

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

YOUNG OFFENDERS

HATE CRIMES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

POLICE PURSUITS

CRIME PREVENTION

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

COMMUNITY POLICING

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

PAROLE SYSTEM

NUCLEAR FUEL

POLICE SERVICES

POLICE AND FIRE SERVICES BRAVERY AWARDS

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

PORNOGRAPHY

BONE MARROW DONATIONS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

HIGHWAY SAFETY

HENLEY ROWING COURSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SAFE STREETS ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FERRY SERVICES

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I would like to take this opportunity to share with the Legislature an issue of great importance to the residents of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.

Amherst Island is located at the east end of Lake Ontario, the gateway to the Thousand Islands. Residents of the island rely on a ferry to travel back and forth to the mainland for work and supplies.

Unlike many ferry services in the province, the residents of Amherst Island pay to travel to and from the island. During the summer months, residents travel on a large, stable ferry, the Frontenac II. In the winter months, the islanders are expected to use the smaller ferry, the Amherst Islander. The smaller ferry has only half the vehicle capacity of the Frontenac II. Even after recent dock renovations, vehicles continue to experience difficulty when boarding and exiting the smaller ferry because of low water levels.

Last week, service to the island had to be cancelled because rough waters made the use of the smaller ferry unsafe. Also, there are no life jackets available on the lower car deck, but only on the upper passenger deck. Both of these situations present serious safety concerns for the ferry users.

The Ministry of Transportation has indicated that the larger Frontenac II will not be available to serve the residents of Amherst Island year-round. Essentially, an antiquated agreement will be maintained even though it is well known that this agreement does not provide adequate, equitable or safe-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member's time is up.

POLICE MEMORIAL

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Today in Ontario, police officers across the province put their lives on the line to serve and protect us. I'd like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedication and courage of Durham, and indeed all Ontario, police officers. Each time a police officer is killed in the line of duty, the whole province shares in the tragedy.

It is important to honour our fallen officers. As members of the Legislature will know, the Ontario government recently unveiled its plans for building a permanent memorial to fallen officers on the grounds of Queen's Park. In September, Premier Harris and Solicitor General David Tsubouchi met with the families of several fallen officers. The Premier and the Solicitor General shared with them a model of the monument and confirmed this government's support for police officers in Ontario. The memorial, by the way, is expected to be completed in the spring.

The monument will help to preserve the memories of those courageous officers who gave their lives while serving others. As well, the monument will inspire today's front-line officers with the knowledge that society values them as they continue to face dangers each day.

I would also like to take time to pay tribute to one of my late constituents. Mr. Allan Christiansen of Courtice died in a tragic accident as he was travelling home after celebrating his graduation that very day from the Ontario Police College in Aylmer. Allan was only 22 years old, and he was due to start his policing career with Durham regional police the following week.

I know that Allan was looking forward to serving the people of Durham, and as a father I can tell you my sympathy is with his family and friends at this difficult time.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): Last week the Ontario Legislature adjourned to pay respect to local Canadian heroes, those Canadian veterans and their families who made it possible for all of us to live in peace.

You can imagine how appalled I was to discover that the Ministry of Health was creating anxiety for a family that gave four of its members into Canada's service in the First World War. In its passion to uncover fraudulent use of the health care system, the ministry had turned its zeal on a 93-year-old resident of a Chatham rest home, who has lived in Canada since infancy. He has no landed immigrant papers because papers were not required prior to 1947. But the Ontario government is refusing to provide a new health card without proper documentation. This takes time and money for census searches.

The ministry asked a 91-year-old woman who could not remember details of her arrival as a young child to go ask her parents. What kind of nonsense is this?

I understand vigilance to protect our health care system from fraud, but it should be tempered with fairness, reason and respect. I ask the Ministry of Health to work directly with the federal government to establish citizenship where documents and knowledge may not be available, and not torture helpless families with mindless bureaucracy.

ROBERT MILLER AND FERNANDO SCONZA

Mr David Young (Willowdale): I want to take this opportunity to congratulate two members of the Toronto police force stationed at 32 division in the riding of Willowdale. They are Constable Robert Miller and Constable Fernando Sconza. Each of them received the Ontario Medal for Police Bravery last week at an investiture ceremony at Queen's Park.

On July 25, 1998, Constable Robert Miller rescued four individuals from a house with dangerously high levels of carbon monoxide. He did so after entering the house on no less than three occasions to ensure that all the residents were out safely.

On June 2, 1998, Constable Fernando Sconza rescued an elderly woman who had been shot by a gunman. He quickly went to the front porch where she lay bleeding and lifted her away, even though he knew the gunman was still in the house and was armed.

Fernando Sconza and Robert Miller make a difference to our community in Willowdale, and I wish to acknowledge their heroic deeds. These dedicated officers continue to serve and protect the people of Ontario along with thousands of other officers across this province. It is because of them that Ontario is a better and safer place to live. That is why I am circulating a petition throughout Willowdale, which urges the federal government to pass tougher penalties for crimes committed with firearms. Hundreds of Canadians are harmed and killed each year in crimes involving firearms.

We owe it to the people of Ontario, we owe it to the fine, brave officers who serve our communities to get tough with violent criminals. We owe it to all of them to make appropriate and meaningful changes-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member's time is up.

QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I rise to make members of the Legislature aware that higher learning flourishes in beautiful eastern Ontario, and especially in the city of Kingston. The recent Maclean's magazine rankings for 1999 were published last week. Again, Ontario's oldest institution of higher learning, with Ontario's second-oldest academic chemistry building, is ranked number two nationwide. I refer, of course, to Queen's University, a splendid institution that counts many on both sides of this House among its proud graduates.

It's been another good year for Queen's. Many of its faculty have won honours for teaching and research. Queen's student engineers recently placed second in the World Solar Challenge car competition in Australia. There they brought greetings during the race from Kingston, Ontario, to the people of Australia.

Queen's ranking of 1999 academic all-Canadians is number one in the country. Again, in 1999, Canadian Business magazine ranked Queen's School of Business number one in the country. Queen's technology transfer organization, Parteq, is ranked among the outstanding commercialization groups in North America.

Now Queen's looks to the contribution it will make in the year 2000 to help solve double cohort enrolment problems, along with taking on the challenge to become number one in the rankings next year.

In closing, let me add that it's no accident of history that the land we occupy here today carries the proud name, Queen's Park.

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I rise today with regard to something that's happening across northeastern Ontario that concerns many, not only the northeast but I think concerns other people as well, and that is the state of the rail passenger services across northeastern Ontario.

You would know, that the government of Ontario is responsible for the ONR. In the past, it used to subsidize that train in order to make sure that the train was there for the people who needed it. In many instances, the train is the only way for people to be able to move from one community to the next or to be able to visit families or keep doctors' appointments in Toronto or North Bay, or wherever it might be.

What's different today is that you have a government in power, the Conservative government, with the Premier from North Bay where the head office of the ONR is, who don't give a darn about the train. They've reduced and eliminated entirely the subsidy that was paid to the ONR. We find ourselves in a position now that the government, by way of a special committee, is trying to figure out how to deal with the train-just the buzzwords in order to be able to get rid of it-and we ask ourselves what the future is. We know the future isn't bright.

I want to remind the House that it was the Premier, the leader of the third party, the member for Nipissing, Mr Michael D. Harris, who back in the early 1990s sent a letter to the National Transportation Agency saying that the train was important and a vital transportation link for the people of northeastern Ontario.

I want to know what happened between then and what's happening now. Why is it, when you're the gov ernment and you have the authority to deal with it, you don't and you turn your back on the citizens of northeastern Ontario?

CRIME PREVENTION

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to speak on an issue that is of great importance to the residents of York North and all Ontarians: crime and safety.

First, I would like to welcome the many police officers who are here in attendance today and thank them for their dedication and courage.

Last Wednesday I hosted a crime and prevention community forum in the town of Newmarket. I want to thank all those who took part, especially my constituents and the members of the York region police.

After listening to the constituents, I can tell you that people are pleased that finally a government takes crime seriously. We have listened to our fellow Ontarians. Our government believes that only when we get tough on crime will our communities be much safer than they were in the past.

During the forum, my constituents praised many of our government's steps on combating crime, such as 1,000 new police officers and 90-day suspensions, to name a few. Working in partnership with our police forces, we believe these steps will make Ontario the best place to live, work and raise a family. However, across the House from me it is quite a different story. The Liberals do not seem to understand that people do not feel safe in their communities.

My community forum on crime and prevention is another example of our government listening. While the Liberals make excuses for criminals and do nothing, we will work with our police and the public to fight crime.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): In July the Minister of Health assured us that her government had fixed the problems of overcrowded emergency rooms once and for all. Last Wednesday 17 hospitals in the Toronto area were on emergency room redirect. They were not accepting patients coming in by ambulance. Ambulance drivers had to try to find a place for their critically ill patients in one of the five hospitals that were still taking emergencies in their emergency departments. Sometimes the ambulances just stayed in the parking lot, waiting until there was room.

The government spokesman once again assured us that patients would be assessed within 15 minutes of coming into an emergency room, which is not very reassuring if you can't get into the emergency room in the first place. Why are the emergency rooms so crowded that they cannot take emergency patients? Because they are full of people who need to be cared for in hospitals that are already filled to overflow levels.

One caller to our office last week told us about more than 30 patients lying on gurneys in an emergency room hallway because there were no beds available in the hospital in Mississauga.

The minister may say you don't have to wait hours to be assessed in the emergency room any more, but you still have to wait to get into the emergency room, you still have to wait for treatment, and you still wait for a hospital bed if you need to be admitted.

This is not just a Toronto problem, and the problem can only get worse, not just because the winter flu season is coming but because the hospital restructuring process is just beginning to shut down acute and chronic care beds. Half of our hospitals are running deficits trying to meet the needs of patients who come in their doors. This government has not fixed the emergency room situation once and for all. Ask any patient who needed emergency care last week.

GRAFFITI

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): In the spring of 1996, Guelph police constable Doug Pflug noticed a disturbing increase in the amount of graffiti in the city of Guelph. He took it upon himself to find a strategy to combat this problem.

He first solicited the help of a known local graffiti artist. One of the solutions proposed was to find free wall space where the artist could paint legally. Within weeks, while city workers cleaned old graffiti off walls elsewhere, the artist had transformed a grey cinder block wall inside Guelph Memorial Gardens arena into a bright, dynamic mural.

Constable Pflug then convinced the local businesses and media to sponsor the annual Guelph police graffiti contest, which again allowed the youths a chance to demonstrate their talent, and this time compete for prizes, in a positive legal way on legal canvas.

Eventually, permanent space was freed up in a downtown tunnel running under the CN rail tracks.

At this point, graffiti in the city of Guelph has been reduced by 90%, saving property owners and local taxpayers the cost of cleaning it up, and one of the local artists has since been accepted to study art at university.

My congratulations to Constable Pflug and to all others who find creative solutions to turn around nuisance activities.

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On Monday, October 25, the member for Windsor-St Clair rose on a point of privilege on a matter respecting the non-passage of a supply bill for the fiscal year ending March 31. I thank the House for its patience while I took time to consider this matter.

In his point of privilege, the member for Windsor-St Clair referred to the Ministry of Treasury and Economics Act,

section 14, which says: "Despite anything else in this act, whenever the Assembly has concurred in the report of the committee of supply recommending the passage of any estimates, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize the payments of any items so concurred in."

The member then referred to order in council 626/99, which invoked this provision in circumstances where supply had been concurred in, but the supply bill itself had not been passed.

The intent of the March 24, 1999, order in council was "to appropriate the expenditures approved by the assembly to the votes and items of the estimates and supplementary estimates concurred in by the assembly...."

According to the member, the order in council had no legal validity because

section 14 of the act, in referring to the committee of supply, which no longer exists, was no longer operative.

I've had an opportunity to review the member's submissions, the submissions of the government House leader, and our parliamentary precedents.

My response to the member's submissions begins with a ruling on January 22, 1997, by Speaker Stockwell. In that ruling, as the member for Windsor-St Clair noted, the Speaker found a prima facie case of contempt had been made in circumstances where the ministry pamphlet undermined respect for the parliamentary process. In the case at hand, the member states that the order in council similarly undermines respect for the parliamentary process.

With great respect, however, there are important differences between the circumstances in 1997 and those before me now. First, unlike in 1997, the action in the case at hand is the passage of an order in council pursuant to a provision in an the act of this Legislature.

The second difference is that, unlike in 1997, the Speaker is in effect being asked to consider and decide on legal and constitutional issues that, according to our own precedents and various parliamentary authorities, are better left to the courts and litigants.

Let me refer to Speaker Edighoffer's ruling on April 23, 1990, when he said, "Speakers in this Parliament and other parliaments throughout the Commonwealth have consistently held the view that the Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question or decide a question of law."

For other precedents and authorities to the same effect, I refer the members to page 6538 of our Hansard for January 28, 1997, pages 7227 and 7228 of our Hansard for February 26, 1997, and citation 168(5) of the sixth edition of Beauchesne.

Whether the fact that a committee of supply no longer exists works to invalidate

section 14 of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics Act is clearly a legal question, not a procedural one.

The precedents and authorities therefore being clear and consistent on this point, I find that a prima facie case of contempt has not been made out.

My only other observation about the member's submissions deals with their timeliness. This House met on 12 sessional days over seven calendar days after the passage of the order in council and before the dissolution of the 36th Parliament. Not only has a considerable amount of time passed since order in council 626/99 was made, but we are now in an entirely new Parliament.

It is important that members do not delay in raising a point of privilege lest it be ruled out of order due to the passage of time. A point of privilege should be raised at its earliest possible opportunity and in the Parliament to which it relates. In this regard, I refer the members to citation 115 of Beauchesne.

I thank the members for their patience.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PEMBRIDGE INSURANCE COMPANY ACT, 1999

Mr Wood moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr13,

An Act respecting Pembridge Insurance Company.

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

ONTARIO MARINE HERITAGE ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LE PATRIMOINE MARIN DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Barrett moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 13,

An Act to preserve Ontario's marine heritage and promote tourism by protecting heritage wrecks and artifacts / Projet de loi 13, Loi visant à préserver le patrimoine marin de l'Ontario et à promouvoir le tourisme en protégeant les épaves et les artefacts à valeur patrimoniale.

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

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): This bill creates a new act, the Ontario Marine Heritage Act, 1999. Under the new act, the crown is the owner of every abandoned wreck sunk in waters on crown land in Ontario that has been submerged for more than a prescribed period of time. These wrecks are called "heritage wrecks" in the act.

The new act defines "marine heritage site" and prohibits anyone who does not have a licence under the Ontario Marine Heritage Act from entering a heritage wreck or damaging or removing a heritage wreck or protected artifact.

The new act creates an obligation to notify the minister of evidence of a marine heritage site. The minister must publish a record of marine heritage sites known to the minister.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on November 15, 16 and 17, 1999, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

POLICE OFFICERS

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I rise today in a very non-partisan spirit to speak not just for the government but on behalf of all the people of Ontario.

Today I want to pay tribute to Ontario's police officers, brave men and women who risk their lives in the service of others. Like so many in this province, I consider the work of police officers-their calling, if I can use that term-to be one of the highest forms of public service.

We are all very fortunate to be served by the dedicated men and women of Ontario's many police forces. We depend upon them every day. We know the risks they take. Today, on behalf of the people of Ontario, I just want to take a moment to say thank you.

Police officers are there for us. People know that and they count on them. In return, I want to say to all police officers in Ontario: You can count on us to be there for you. My wish is that that sentiment be unanimous, but there will always be some who disagree. To them I ask, what does it say of our society if we forget the contribution of those who risk their lives to protect us? When some people urge government to place new restrictions on police chasing suspects rather than new restrictions on suspects fleeing police, what message does that send to our children?

There is no room for neutrality between victims and their assailants and between lawbreakers and those who seek to enforce the law.

Have no doubt where this government stands: We stand solidly on the side of victims and solidly behind the men and women who risk their lives to support the law. That is why we have moved to meet the requests made by police officers across this province.

We are helping to place new front-line officers on the streets of Ontario communities: 534 so far, with a goal of 1,000 by next year.

We are working with police to implement a rural crime prevention strategy, part of our $150-million community safety commitment.

We introduced and passed the Community Safety Act allowing police to notify communities about the presence of high-risk offenders. As the next step, we will reintroduce Christopher's Law, which would create the country's first registry of pedophiles, of rapists, of child molesters and of other convicted sex offenders.

Responding to the concerns of police officers in urban communities, we have introduced the Safe Streets Act. This law would give police the tools to crack down on aggressive panhandlers and on squeegee people who harass and intimidate motorists.

We created and we will introduce legislation to strengthen the role of the Office for Victims, chaired by victim advocate Sharon Rosenfeldt, and served as special counsel by Scott Newark, former executive director of the Canadian Police Association.

We have renewed the mandate of the Crime Control Commission. The member for London-Fanshawe, Frank Mazzilli, a former London police officer whom I am proud to have serve as a member of our caucus and as parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, is one of the commissioners. The member for Cambridge and parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, Mr Martiniuk, is the other.

Within this term, we will fulfill our Blueprint commitments to introduce a Parental Responsibility Act and to introduce measures to strengthen the ability of municipalities and the province to crack down on establishments where it can be shown that illegal acts, including the use and sale of narcotics, habitually occur.

Together with police officers and concerned citizens across Canada, we continue to press the federal government to strengthen the law governing young offenders, repeal the "discount law" that lets offenders out of prison after serving only two thirds of their sentence, repeal the "faint hope" clause that causes victims so much trauma and so much grief, and stop giving federal pardons to convicted sex offenders.

We have also moved to establish a permanent memorial to police officers killed while serving others. I know that some members of this assembly have spoken critically of the police memorial. Some may believe that the memorial is inappropriate or that the sacrifices of these brave men and women do not justify the cost. Today I am urging all members of the assembly to put aside partisan differences and recognize the contributions made by the men and women of Ontario's police forces, both past and present members.

In particular, I ask all members to join in endorsing the police memorial project, a fitting and appropriate tribute to the memories of 192 men and women who served their communities at the cost of their lives.

I encourage all people in this province to support their local police, to remember the dangers they willingly face, and to join in saluting Ontario's police officers, both past and present.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just a quick reminder to our guests that it is a rule that there is to be no clapping in the House. I know that sometimes that rule would like to be pushed aside on some occasions, but it is a rule, so I would ask our guests to refrain from clapping.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): I rise today to inform the House that shortly this government will be taking further action to make Ontario's streets safer.

We have all witnessed the tragedies that have resulted when those committing criminal acts take reckless flight from the police. Some people will argue that crime is not a major problem. They'll blame anyone but the criminals. Try telling that to the victims and the victims' families.

We have demanded the federal Liberals amend the Criminal Code to include stiffer penalties for criminals who take reckless flight from the police, but in the absence of federal action we are moving forward to make Ontario's streets safer.

We've met with many groups, including the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards, the Police Association of Ontario, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Ontario Provincial Police Association, and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Today we are responding to their concerns and their input to address criminals who take reckless flight from the police.

I'm pleased to tell members that shortly our government will be introducing amendments to the Highway Traffic Act. These amendments, if passed by the Legislature, would, in cases involving bodily harm and death, provide for court-ordered driver's licence suspensions of not less than 10 years and up to life, with the suspension being consecutive to any other suspensions; increase the existing provisions for driver's licence suspensions for escape-by-flight offences to five years; double the fines for failing to stop for police up to $10,000; and introduce a fine for escape-by-flight offences of up to $25,000.

These amendments would also impose a jail term for escape-by-flight offences for up to six months. Furthermore, the proposed regulatory change would increase the demerit points available for this to seven points.

Criminals who try to take reckless flight from the police, endangering innocent citizens and police, must be made accountable. All too often the critics point their fingers to the wrong people. It's time to get tough with those who think they can get away with endangering the lives of the police and innocent bystanders. We have to make our streets safer and start putting the blame where it belongs: on the criminals who take reckless flight from the police.

Criminals fleeing from police must be stopped quickly and safely. We will not solve this problem until we make it clear to offenders that attempting to escape is not an option.

In consultation with Ontario's police services, this government has already taken action to better train and equip Ontario's police for situations in which criminals take flight from the police. Last April, for the first time in Ontario, we announced the development of a new regulation under the Police Services Act to provide better guidelines for police officers who find themselves in pursuit situations. The guideline is in the hands of Ontario's police services and they are developing procedures to ensure their officers are familiar with the guidelines. At the same time, the Ontario Police College is developing new training procedures to complement this regulation.

To encourage alternatives to pursuits, we have provided funding as well to tire deflation devices and helicopter pilot projects.

Our objective is to have the toughest penalties in this country for criminals who try to take reckless flight from the police. I call on all members of the House to support these measures to make our communities safer.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): I'm honoured to join in saluting the vitally important contribution Ontario's police forces make in preserving public safety in our province. I know the people of Ontario deeply appreciate the courage and the dedication of the police officers who put their own lives at risk to protect all of us.

As the Premier has just outlined, the Ontario government is bringing forward changes to help police get the job done on the front lines, changes like the Safe Streets Act introduced in this House earlier this month. This battle is a battle we cannot win on our own. The federal government must be a committed partner in the war on crime, yet the federal government has taken no action to repeal the so-called faint hope clause, which allows convicted murderers to apply for early parole and reduced sentences, and which brings families of victims back to court to relive tragic memories.

It has taken no action to repeal the discount law under which offenders can get out of jail after serving only two thirds of their sentences. The people of Ontario demand truth in sentencing; 25 years should mean 25 years.

The public is especially concerned about the rise in youth crime. The federal government had a chance to address this in a comprehensive way when it reviewed the Young Offenders Act. It chose not to do so. As a result, the proposed legislation is woefully soft on violent young offenders. The people of Ontario demand stronger legislation to deter violent crime and hold young offenders accountable.

Our government has made it clear where we stand: on the side of law-abiding citizens and on the side of those who protect them. The people of Ontario are now asking the federal government where it stands.

The Speaker: Responses?

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Let me say at the outset that we in our party as well are very grateful for the sacrifices and the good work performed day in and day out by police right across the province. We acknowledge their work and thank them for that as well.

I also want to say that I am pleased to support the government's intention to create tougher penalties for drivers who flee our police and who, by so doing, endanger lives. In the past year, eight Ontarians have been killed in police chases: Father Miovski, a priest here in Toronto, who was killed while changing a flat tire, was hit by a car that was being chased; John Gibbons, a 47-year-old father of six, hit by a pickup truck fleeing from the police; Sergeant Richard McDonald, a Sudbury police officer killed while laying down a spike belt, trying to stop a van that was being pursued by police.

When someone in a vehicle flees our police, that vehicle becomes a deadly weapon and people's lives are put at great risk. For that reason alone, this crime should be met with serious consequences.

In addition to toughening up our provincial laws, we believe the federal government has an important role to play here as well, so we're calling on the federal government to consider three things. First of all, we ask them to create a separate Criminal Code offence for escape-by-flight offences. Second, we're asking that the federal government create serious minimum sentences that will constitute a real deterrent for escape-by-flight offences. Third, we're asking that the federal government enable our judges, in the most severe cases, particularly those involving a loss of life, to impose a life sentence.

I can assure the House that I will be pleased to work with the Solicitor General, the Attorney General and the Premier to lobby Ottawa for those changes to our Criminal Code.

While I'm happy to support these changes, I'm happy to tell you what else we in the Liberal caucus will be happy to support. The government has gone to some lengths today to tell us about the failures of the federal government to act on a number of fronts when it comes to making Ontario safer for Ontarians. Let me tell you that we've been asking this government-begging this government-for over two years now to support tougher penalties for the customers of child prostitutes.

That was a part of our recommendations put forward in our First Steps document, and Rick Bartolucci, my caucus colleague, has brought forward a private member's bill on numerous occasions to try and force this government to take action.

We've also put forward the idea of creating safe school zones, in which any drug or weapons offence would result in stiffer penalties.

We support greater funding for the Ontario Provincial Police Project P in the fight against child pornography in an era where anyone with access to the Internet has the potential to download pornography right into the comfort of their living room.

We support Richard Patten's changes to the Mental Health Act that we believe will go a long way towards making Ontario safer. We also support provisions that would prevent mental health patients from being discharged unless they can be guaranteed help in the community.

We support gun registration.

We support photo radar. We believe that our police should have as an additional weapon in their arsenal photo radar. By the way, we believe that any funds levied from fines for photo radar should be directed to our policing efforts in Ontario, either to hire more policing or to make our highways and our roads safer.

I can also tell you, Mr Speaker, that we support an end to the privatization of policing services across Ontario. The Premier's former Solicitor General has suggested that municipalities should deal with your cuts to municipalities by replacing highly trained public police officers with security guards. If the government wants to put forward a bill to stop the privatization of our police, we would be delighted to lend support on that front as well.

I think it is plain that all Ontarians have a real and genuine interest in making Ontario safe for everybody, and it's not this government alone that represents the interests of our police and those who have a concern about criminality in Ontario. We have a number of ideas that we've put forward and we look forward to working with this government, should they so choose to move forward.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Speaker, allow me first of all to say to the Solicitor General that we appreciate very much that he is bringing forward this legislation. We will work with him and with his government to ensure that the legislation that is passed is good legislation and that it addresses the problem which has been out there, not just recently but for some time now.

I say as well to all of the police officers across the province that you have our support in ensuring that crime prevention is truly the agenda of the whole province, in ensuring that our streets are safe and secure and that our citizens are safe and secure. That continues to be the agenda of the whole province.

I want to make some comments, however, on what I believe is really happening out there, because part of the contribution to the debate must be not just to congratulate but also to note what is really going on.

I say to the government that you cannot achieve good crime prevention in this province by press release alone. I fear that on occasion that is what it appears to be to many people across the province.

For example, we watched in this Legislature a while ago when, with much excitement and much pronouncement, you brought forward your so-called victims' rights legislation. That legislation has been to the courts and the courts have had an opportunity to comment on that legislation. I'm not exaggerating when I say that when the courts considered that legislation, they found that it gives no rights to victims; it gives no advantage to victims; in fact, it is superficial, hollow and shallow. It does absolutely nothing to advance the position of victims in our law enforcement system.

Then there's the issue of the rural crime prevention strategy. I want everyone to know I think that's important. I think that's very important. But I want people to know that if you actually go out there to rural communities across this province, many of them experience longer response times than ever before. The response times for the police to be able to address what is happening is growing longer, not shorter. How police officers are going to be able to concentrate on crime prevention in rural communities when the response time for crimes that are committed is growing longer is, I think, a logical impossibility.

The government mentions its Crime Control Commission-I would say the so-called Crime Control Commission. I'm not going to make any comments on it. I think it distinguished itself by its comments about the Santa Claus parade a year ago.

What needs to be said is this: The fact of the matter is, we support police services across this province. But if we support police services across this province, why are there fewer police officers in the province today than there were five years ago? That is the reality of what is happening, and we should thank Statistics Canada for reminding us of it.

Statistics Canada tells us that in 1994 there were 20,737 police officers in Ontario. Today, there are 20,454-some 283 fewer police officers in the province, even though the population has grown by several hundred thousand people. The number of police officers out there is dropping when the population is increasing. I think it's a logical impossibility to say that you support police when in fact, as a result of government policy, the number of police officers on our streets is being reduced.

There's more, though. In fact, in the next two years some 5,730 police officers are going to retire and the government doesn't even have a plan to keep up with that natural rate of retirement. I'd hoped we would have announced here today a plan by this government to address the shortage of police officers and to address the fact that nearly 6,000 police officers are going to retire over the next two years but, alas, there is nothing.

People in our communities want to feel safe and secure on our streets, but what is happening out there, unfortunately, is that the well-off can feel safe and secure because they can hire private security agencies, but those who are not well off are witnessing a situation where we have fewer police officers, where the response time is, unfortunately, growing, not decreasing.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Before we begin oral questions, I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today 10 interns from the federal Parliament internship program who are currently visiting Queen's Park. Please join me in welcoming our guests.

WEARING OF RIBBON

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Speaker, I'd like to ask the House for consent to continue to wear the ribbon which represents the school colours for one of the schools in my riding which is visiting the House today.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm afraid I heard some noes. I'm sorry, I did hear some noes.

POLICE MEMORIAL

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: In light of the absence of an endorsement in the response as just delivered by the opposition, I seek unanimous consent to move a resolution without notice endorsing the memorial to be dedicated to our police officers killed in the line of duty and that the vote on this resolution be taken immediately.

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

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The resolutions reads:

"Be it resolved that, in the opinion of this House, the expenditure of public funds on the memorial being erected on the south side of the Whitney Block here at Queen's Park is a fitting, appropriate and worthwhile commemoration of those many brave men and women who, as members of Ontario's police forces, have been killed in the line of duty while protecting our homes and our communities, having made the ultimate sacrifice while dedicating their lives to helping the citizens of Ontario feel safe and secure."

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Last week some very troubling information was brought to the light of day. A ministry official with the former Solicitor General, by the name of Betty Doan, gave sworn testimony to the effect that the most senior staff person of your former Solicitor General ordered her to falsify a document. It appears that she was directed to do so in order to cover up knowledge that the minister was aware that there were concerns that young offenders had been abused in a provincial jail and did nothing about this.

We're talking about sworn testimony to falsify documents, the order coming from the most important person working in the former Solicitor General's office, his right-hand person.

Premier, will you do the right thing today and ask Mr Runciman to resign while a legislative committee investigates these very serious allegations?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): For the record, it's not Betty Doan, it's Betty Dean. Also for the record, the former Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services, the Honourable Bob Runciman, indicated to this House in that position over three years ago that he first became aware of the incident at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre in June 1996. Minister Runciman, as every member of this House knows, has the utmost integrity, and I accept his statements as fact.

Yet again, the members opposite are dredging up old stories and allegations for their political convenience in order to divert attention, I suggest, from the most serious leadership challenge that has faced the Ontario Liberal Party in some time.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, surely your writers can do better than that.

I know you're hoping that this too shall pass, that this will go away and you won't have to face these questions, but we're going to keep coming back to this. In addition to the ministry staffer coming forward last week with sworn testimony, there was a sworn affidavit by the then acting Deputy Solicitor General. That affidavit also said that the minister's office was kept informed of the allegations of abuse as early as March 1996, despite the minister's claims, and now yours, that he didn't know about the allegations until June of that same year.

So we have the sworn testimony of a staffer and we have a sworn affidavit by the acting deputy minister. Premier, do you not think this is a serious matter that warrants investigation by a parliamentary committee?

Hon Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, I refer the question to the Minister of Correctional Services.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): I know the leader of the official opposition's researchers have probably told him that this matter of February 1996 is before the quasi-judicial tribunal, and before the courts on a couple of other items. It would be totally inappropriate to discuss that matter here and to speak to the fact that he is raising in this House today.

Mr McGuinty: Nice hand-off, Premier. You get the pre-set script, stand up and deliver that, and then you hand it off to this other guy.

Let's understand once again what we're talking about here. We have a former staffer who issues an order. These are allegations brought forward by third parties, independent parties. They say that Bob Runciman's chief of staff ordered that documents be falsified. Then we have the acting deputy minister who comes forward and says that Bob Runciman's office was aware of these allegations in March and not June, which he said he was in this House back in June the same year.

So again, back to you, Premier. These are very serious allegations. It goes to the heart of what government is all about. It goes to the integrity of your government; it goes to your integrity. Ontarians are demanding that you have Bob Runciman resign and that you give us an opportunity to investigate the matter-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Will the member take his seat. Time.

Hon Mr Sampson: If the leader of the official opposition wants to refer to statements made in 1996, he can read Hansard, as I'm sure his researchers have done, and he will find that in June 1996 Mr Runciman said, when he was made aware of that particular incident-it was a subject of extensive questioning that day in the House, and Mr Ramsay from your party said, "I will accept the minister's word on that." I'm surprised that the leader of the official opposition-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Please take your seat. Member for St Catharines, order.

Minister.

Hon Mr Sampson: I would have thought the leader of the official opposition would be interested in what this government has done in response to the issues and incidents around February 1996. I would have thought he would want to know that we have instituted training programs for our correctional officers so that they could specialize in young offenders in our institutions. I would have thought he'd be interested in the cultural review that we undertook to determine how we could properly equip our correctional officers to deal with incidents such as the one around February 1996-

The Speaker: New question.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. As we speak, you will be well aware that there are plans underway for massive new developments on the Oak Ridges moraine. These developments include the construction of 14 new golf courses, and 26,000 new homes housing over 75,00 people.

I took the opportunity last week to visit the moraine and learned in much greater detail about the sensitive aspects of this bioregion. I'm asking you, Minister: In all the circumstances, would not the appropriate thing to do here today be to declare a freeze on all development pending the development of a comprehensive plan that would allow for sustainable development in the future?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): A couple of things: First, the particular issues the member is mentioning are before the OMB, so we'll let them deal with the matter. In the instant case of the applications that are before the OMB, I can tell this House that the honourable member is surely aware that the Ontario government is taking a position at both OMB hearings on the environmental issues that reflect the moraine. We are of the position that there are environmental issues that have to be protected on behalf of the people of Ontario, and we are doing that at the OMB hearings.

In terms of the broader public policy question, yes, we have a balance that has to be struck between prosperity and the environmental aspects of lands, including the lands on the moraine but also throughout the entire province. When his government was in power they didn't have that problem because there was no prosperity in Ontario. We have the opportunity to balance those issues, and we will balance those issues.

Mr McGuinty: The minister talks about balance, but there has been no balance whatsoever when it comes to his approach in advocating for the environment in Ontario. In fact, you're the guy who has been shilling for developers. What I'm asking you to do, as the Minister of the Environment, is to immediately declare a freeze on all development on the moraine. That's a very simple thing to do.

The people of York, Durham and Peel are asking for the same thing. They're asking your government to show some leadership on this matter. They want a freeze so they can develop tools to ensure that development takes place in a sustainable way. They're asking for a freeze. Will you give us the freeze, Minister?

Hon Mr Clement: Maybe this is a relevant issue to the honourable member as it's probably his first visit to the moraine. I was there well before I became Minister of the Environment. Congratulations on being up to speed, finally, on some of the moraine issues.

I can tell the honourable member that this is an important issue; there's no doubt about that. But it's an issue that is created because we have prosperity in Ontario, because we have lower taxes in Ontario, we have more jobs and opportunities in Ontario, and yes, there is a role to ensure that there is a balance between prosperity and development and the environmental issues that we hold dear for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren. We have that challenge. He didn't have that challenge when he was in government because there was no prosperity and development happening in Ontario at the time.

But we will deal with that challenge and we will do so in a way that is fair to Ontario. I can assure the honourable member of that.

Mr McGuinty: I wonder if at some time there might be anybody over on the other side who will stand up for the environment in Ontario, because they have failed to do that yet.

Minister, you have failed to do anything on this score so far except to interfere and to intervene on behalf of developers.

We have put forward a private member's bill that would give the same kinds of protection to the moraine that we give to the Niagara Escarpment. Will you stand up now and support that bill? We have put something on the table. You have failed to act. People in the community are looking for protection; they are looking for leadership. You have failed to show it. We have put a bill on the table. Will you, at minimum, support that bill?

Hon Mr Clement: Perhaps the honourable members are not aware of the private bill that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. First of all, that private bill apes verbatim the Niagara Escarpment Commission act, so in terms of putting new thought into the process, congratulations, your researchers were sleeping on the job again.

I can tell the honourable member that we have taken a stand as a government in Ontario. We are before the OMB. I won't comment on the specifics of the case, but we are there to lead evidence-hydrogeological evidence, scientific evidence-when it comes to the environmental issues that are before the board. We have taken a position.

I would ask the honourable member a simple question. We have the advantage here in Ontario, finally under a Mike Harris government, of prosperity, which pays for the things that we care about, including environmental protection. We have taken a stand in favour of prosperity, in favour of jobs, in favour of opportunity. I ask the honourable member, what side is he on?

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. My question concerns the role of a member of your cabinet in what appears to be the cover-up of abuse of young offenders at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

We know all about these events. The child advocate reported that young offenders were put in shackles and handcuffs, were kicked, beaten and prodded and left nude, with no clothing, for several hours. We know the child advocate raised her concerns to the deputy minister of corrections in March 1996. We know she continued to do so for two years. And last week, a respected public servant testified under oath that the minister, Mr Runciman, knew and that the minister's executive assistant ordered that a briefing note be changed.

Premier, what are your standards? What happens in your government when your minister's recollection of events is totally at odds with somebody who is giving testimony under oath?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I have already answered this question, and I think the information is before this Legislature, as it was three years ago. You may want to correct the record on the statements that you attributed to Betty Dean. They are totally inaccurate.

Mr Hampton: Premier, we can read the transcripts. We know that on March 4, 1996, the assistant deputy minister of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, Michael Jordan, told Kathryn Hunt, the Solicitor General's executive assistant, about the riots at Elgin-Middlesex and the allegations of beatings. We know this because Mr Jordan, who is still an ADM, says this in an affidavit.

We also know that on March 5, the minister's office got a call from a Bluewater inmate's mother telling them she had concerns for her son's safety. Those are the records of events. Your Solicitor General didn't call in the police to investigate until May 31.

Premier, how much evidence does there have to be? What are your standards? What are the standards for a cabinet minister in your government when public servants give sworn testimony that his recollection of events is totally at odds with what really happened?

Hon Mr Harris: I've seen no such testimony, and the information you've given the House is totally inaccurate, incorrect. You quote Betty Dean and you quote her totally inaccurately. That seems to be your standard. That is certainly not our standard.

Mr Hampton: The Premier would have us believe that the child advocate didn't know what she was doing. The Premier would have us believe that parents who phoned the Solicitor General's office were somehow completely mistaken. The Premier would have us believe that a deputy minister didn't know. He would have us believe that the minister's executive assistant didn't do what she was alleged to do.

Premier, there is a course of events here that goes back over three years. Papers were shredded at that institution, and now it is coming out and it is very clear what the course of events was.

My question for you is: In your government, how do you hold cabinet ministers responsible? What is your course of conduct when it becomes clear that a cabinet minister's version of events is totally at odds with the version of events that is being given under sworn testimony?

Hon Mr Harris: My code of conduct is to insist on the truth, something that seems to have escaped you, sir.

Mr Hampton: I would say we'll let those people who are giving sworn testimony decide what is true.

HATE CRIMES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My next question is also to the Premier. Your government has made a lot of noise about asking the federal government to change the Criminal Code. I'm going to ask you to join with me today in getting the federal government to change the Criminal Code.

Earlier this morning I went to a demonstration where people were demonstrating against the American hate messenger, Fred Phelps. Mr Phelps is an American who advocates hatred towards gay and lesbian people. A police officer has said, "If this was done against a Catholic or a Jew or a black person, charges could be laid under the Criminal Code."

Would you join with me in asking the federal government to change the Criminal Code to make it an offence to spread hatred against gay and lesbian people?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Yes.

Mr Hampton: I'm glad to hear your answer. I'm asking you to join me in sending a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada so that someone like Mr Fred Phelps will not be able to come to Ontario any more, will not be able to come to Canada any more and spread messages that incite hatred towards gay and lesbian people.

Could I have your commitment that forthwith this week, you and I will author a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, the federal Minister of Justice, advocating an immediate change in the Criminal Code.

Hon Mr Harris: I think it's a terrific idea. The leader of the New Democratic Party has come forward with a constructive suggestion on how we can work together in this Legislature. It's certainly the first time since the last election, in fact since 1995, that I have seen a party come forward with a constructive suggestion. I accept. We'll jointly author a letter and my office will get in touch with your office and we'll send it off to those Liberals in Ottawa and tell them to do the right thing.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask you to afford the Premier an opportunity to retract his comments. I'm sure he realizes in hindsight that the comment he made regarding the truth, as he was raising in his remarks, really was unparliamentary. I would ask him to withdraw those remarks.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I did not hear the remarks; I was looking for the next question. If the Premier wants to withdraw them, he certainly can do that at any time.

Hon Mr Harris: If I said anything unparliamentary I would happy to withdraw, Mr Speaker.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): A question for the Minister of Education. Minister, behind you today are 40 students from W.D. Lowe Secondary School in Windsor. I had the opportunity to visit that school, and I can tell you that it is a unique and wonderful institution. They speak 17 different languages and represent over 70 different countries.

The problem, of course, is that their school is being threatened with closure because of your funding formula, because you only measure square feet instead of measuring the needs of our students. Minister, you control the dollars; you make the rules. Will you tell these students today that you will fix your formula that counts square feet and not student needs?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I welcome the students to the Legislature. There have certainly been some interesting exchanges for them to witness today.

Trustees have a very difficult authority and responsibility in terms of deciding how to allocate their resources, how to decide which schools should be open and which should be closed. That's not a new responsibility for trustees. They've been doing it for many years. For example, when the honourable member's party was in power, there were 168 school closures. In our mandate there have been 86 school closures.

Because of the sensitivity of those decisions, we believe it is up to the local trustees. They are elected by the community to make those decisions. We heard the message from the boards a year ago that they needed more flexibility. We gave them that. They needed more money to help make those decisions. We gave them that as well, and I look forward to the final deliberations of the trustees in this community.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Minister, behind you are 40 students who woke up at 4:30 this morning to be in the House and who hope to hear from you potentially about an exemption. Our school board in Windsor is on record: Your funding formula does not allow this school to stay open. It's not the trustees' decision but your government's formula.

These students are here today to hear you tell them, because they live in downtown Windsor, because they're part of an inner-city school the likes of which you will find in Ottawa and Toronto, where they have needs to remain in their community school-minister, will you consider today an exemption of that school funding formula that will benefit not just W.D. Lowe but every other inner city school in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I find it passing strange that the honourable member would ask me to provide a guarantee that her leader was not prepared to give that school when he visited there during the election.

We do understand that trustees-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Windsor West.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate the commitment that students and parents have to a school in their community. That's one of the reasons, when the board said to us that they needed more money to help make it easier to make these decisions so they wouldn't have to close some schools, that they needed more flexibility in terms of how they could make those decisions so they could adequately consult with the community, that we did all those things.

I really believe that it's a difficult decision for these trustees. When we have a school that is less than half full, I think the trustees should take a look at that. I also understand that the community has made recommendations to the trustees-

The Speaker: The member's time-new question.

POLICE PURSUITS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question is to the Solicitor General. Minister, earlier today you announced to the House that our government will be seeking changes to the Highway Traffic Act. You also mentioned a regulation that accompanies the legislative changes. Could you please explain what the regulation entails and how it will further give police the tools they need to fight crime?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): I'd like to thank the member for Simcoe North for the question. It is true that a regulation has been developed, working with our police stakeholders. We're certainly interested, as is the police community-and all of these are things that the police do already. They already exercise discretion before they embark on pursuing a criminal who is fleeing from them.

They make this discretionary call on the basis of the safety of the innocent bystanders or the community at large and their own safety, balancing this against the importance of catching criminals, in some cases committing very serious crimes. So this is already done. But this has now, through their cooperation, through working with us, been developed into regulation.

There are other safety checks on this as well. The pursuit can be called off at any time. There's also a decision made at the station-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister, take a seat. Supplementary.

Mr Dunlop: Minister, could you please explain to me what other efforts we will be making to ensure that our police are able to use this regulation as a tool to crack down on the criminals who take flight from police?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, I'd like to thank the member for putting this in the perspective it should be in. The emphasis, of course, should be on the criminal, because if we didn't have a criminal attempting to escape from the police, very often very recklessly, we wouldn't have an incident. So that's very important. Second, we also believe the training is very important as well. There are some aspects to this that are important. The police need the tools to do their job. They not only need the proper equipment and training, but they also need the tough penalties to enforce against these criminals.

By working with the various police associations or police stakeholders, we have a commitment to work with them now to develop the proper training they need, not only in this area but in other areas as well, because the safety of our officers is of concern to us as a government.

CRIME PREVENTION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): My question is for the Premier. Your safe streets bill, while attempting to attack Toronto squeegee kids, seems to have a more sinister effect: to block the activities of charities in Ontario.

Under your legislation, students cannot hold up signs along roadways to invite motorists into charity car washes. Since when has this been considered aggressive?

Jim Parent, president of the Windsor Goodfellows, has stated that your legislation would kill his organization. Charities like the Goodfellows rely heavily on newspaper sales at traffic signals for fundraising. This law would be devastating to them.

The government is purposely taking fundraising abilities away from charities. Premier, Bill 8 is bad legislation. Bill 8 has nothing to do with safe streets and everything to do with punishing the good, along with your perception of the bad.

Why is this government making it a priority to undermine community values? Why don't you just withdraw a bad bill?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me respond in general to the question and the rationale behind the question. If there's any specific detail, I'd be happy to refer to the Attorney General by way of supplementary. What I read into this question is a disgraceful lack of confidence in the police to use common sense in understanding the difference between aggressive panhandling, that which is interfering and causing safety concerns, and the case you raised.

Anybody who would raise that kind of a question, particularly on this day, when a number of police officers are here, has a disgraceful lack of respect for a profession that has a far higher standard than you have.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the member take his seat. I would remind our guests, as I did earlier, that clapping is not allowed in the House by our guests. I understand that they may not have known that, but I have given one warning. I would appreciate it if our guests would not clap. Supplementary.

Mr Crozier: Premier, let me tell you why I raised this question: because your Attorney General, on November 3, when asked about the days soon being gone when firefighters in small towns can stop traffic to ask for donations or teens can stand at the roadside to ask motorists to come to a car wash, replied, "They will have to obey the law."

Staff Sergeant Dave Rossell, spokesman for the Windsor police services, said: "We can't pick and choose which laws we want to enforce and those we don't. We may be put in the position where we'd have to enforce" this law.

Premier, you're the one that's putting charities across Ontario in jeopardy. I raise that question because they want to know why you have such a poor piece of legislation, why you won't withdraw it and why you won't make it an objective of those that you want to-

The Speaker: Time. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: It really is not fair for me to take all these lollipops, so I'll refer the supplementary to the Attorney General.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, member for Sudbury, member for St Catharines.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The member opposite speaks about obeying the law, and indeed this bill, if passed by the Legislature, would apply to all people in Ontario. We're all subject to the rule of law and we're all obliged to obey the law, whether we're politicians or we're anyone else in this society, but I'd recommend to the honourable member that he read the bill before he comments on it.

In terms of holding a sign on the sidewalk, you'll see that the bill says "soliciting on the roadway." That's what the member will see if he bothers to read the bill. He'll also see in the bill, if he bothers to read the bill-

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Essex. I won't warn him again.

Hon Mr Flaherty: The member opposite will also see, if he bothers to read the bill, that passive solicitation on the sidewalk and so on would not be prohibited under the bill. So he is creating a difficulty, quite frankly, that is not created by the legislation. I don't know why he's doing that. I suggest he read the bill carefully, and he'll see that the problem is not present in that bill.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): My question is to the Attorney General, but first I'd like to say that I'm proud to join members on both sides of the aisle in this House in welcoming police officers from various police services in Ontario to the Legislature.

Mr Attorney General, I am a former front-line police officer. My question to you is this: Could you tell us what our government is doing to help police keep streets in Ontario communities safe?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I thank the member for London-Fanshawe for the question. This government has been bringing in a range of measures to assist our police officers in Ontario.

Let me focus on the one that is before the House now. The proposed Safe Streets Act is our government's response to requests from police and others for action to protect the public's right to use our streets and public places without being hassled and without being intimidated. If the bill is passed, it would ban aggressive solicitation, such as aggressive panhandling. It would ban commercial activity on highways, such as squeegeeing. It would ban, in situations in which people are captive, soliciting of them, such as in lineups at automated banking machines.

It would ban the disposal of unsafe objects, such as hypodermic needles, used and unused, which our children should not have to walk by on their way to school.

Mr Mazzilli: Could the Attorney General please explain whether the Safe Streets Act will give new powers to police officers as they work to protect Ontario communities?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I'd like to inform the member for London-Fanshawe that the proposed Safe Streets Act would amend the Highway Traffic Act to prevent a person on a roadway from stopping or approaching a motor vehicle and offering to sell any commodity or service. That kind of commercial activity on the highway endangers public safety and is a matter of public protection in Ontario.

The police have requested certain powers which they would need to enforce the law. That does include an arrest power in situations where it's necessary to do that to prevent the continuation or repetition of an activity. Quite frankly, I expect the vast majority of people in this province would obey the law if this Legislature sees fit to pass the law, and it wouldn't be necessary for the police to impose arrest. But if it is necessary, if it's repetitive behaviour, if it's defiant to the police, the police need that power.

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. We have reminded you time and again that you have a terrible record as a government in terms of addressing issues for disabled people. I want to tell you about Gayle Doucette, who is a disabled person in my riding. She applied to the Ontario disability support program in mid-July. She had taken great effort to fill in all the forms. She had given it to her physician.

More than a month later, her application form was returned to her, and they said, "In one place, the birth date isn't filled in properly; the complete address isn't filled in properly," despite the fact that in several other places it was.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Question?

Mr Hampton: Anyone looking at the form could have gotten the information from elsewhere in the form, or they simply could have called her. Yet your ministry sends back the application form and delays her support situation for four months. Minister, why are you treating-

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat; it's the time.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Improving income supports to people with disabilities has been a priority of our government. When I was first elected to this place, we had to wait up to two years to see a case adjudicated. We felt that was too long. We have undertaken a step-by-step approach to try to get that down. It certainly hasn't happened overnight, so we're taking every effort to do a better job for people with disabilities. As the member opposite will know, I can't make specific comments on a specific case.

I'd be very pleased, if he'd like to send me the information, to look into the specific charges on his behalf.

Our goal is to move from two years to six to eight weeks. As of November, for the cases we receive for adjudication, we'll have it to eight weeks, which is certainly ahead of schedule. Step by step, we're making a better plan for income support for people with disabilities.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): Minister, you delayed a woman's much-needed disability benefits for three months because of an incomplete birth date and address. You sent the whole package back to her instead of making a phone call. That sounds like a lot of red tape and wasted time and resources to me. I read from your government's speech from the throne: "Your government will create a permanent red tape watchdog. Its expanded mandate will include subjecting all new regulations to a strict business impact test."

It seems that cutting red tape and improving barriers for business is a priority of your government, but cutting red tape and barriers for disabled people isn't worth your time. Chaos and delays rule at the ODSP, and for five years, Minister, your promise to the disabled people of Ontario has been broken by failing to pass a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Minister, I'm asking you again today, will you clean up the mess at the Ontario-

The Speaker: Order; member's time. Minister?

Hon Mr Baird: We made a commitment to create a separate program for income support for people with disabilities because we believed the previous program, when the member opposite served in the cabinet, was not serving people with disabilities well. We took away the label of "permanently unemployable." We're doubling the budget for employment supports to help move people into the working world. It was taking up to two years for people to be able to get their case adjudicated. We found that unacceptable.

That's why we set out to change that process, set out to change that system to go from two years to six to eight weeks. The Ontario disability support plan legislation was proclaimed May 1, 1998.

We've made great progress. Can we do a better job for people with disabilities? You bet. Step by step, we are increasing service. I can tell you, we're going to keep working on it, because people with disabilities deserve our respect and our priority in terms of government expenditures.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My question is to the Attorney General, but in his absence I will pass it to the Premier. My office is inundated with calls from constituents who are being told that they'll have to wait to have enforcement orders undertaken by the Family Responsibility Office. It's my understanding that this is due, in many cases, to the computer system not working properly or in fact not working at all. Others are telling me that when they call for information on their file, they are being told that the system is down.

I understand it may not be working until after Christmas or into the new year, and this results in long, long waits while the files are retrieved manually.

Premier, from the beginning your government has made a mess of the Family Responsibility Office, and it's hurting the people of this province. I would ask if you could set your squeegee obsession aside for a few minutes or a few days. My question is, could you use that time to fix the computer at the Family Responsibility Office?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The Attorney General is here. I refer it to him.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member opposite for that question. With respect to computerization and the inventory of documents at FRO, I think the issue the member is addressing is that there sometimes is a delay of two to three weeks in inventorying a document in the computer system. That does not mean that the case is not being worked on. It does mean that it takes some time for scanning to take place. That I believe is the answer to the question raised by the honourable member opposite.

Mr Parsons: The staff are indicating that the computer system is simply not working. The scanner is not working, resulting in months and months of delay.

The offices of the FRO were consolidated in Toronto to improve service, but instead of that we're seeing children in this province not getting the finances they need for food and rent for their family. My question is very simple: When will the system be fixed?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The intermittent systems problems do not affect the timely processing of support payments. I hope the honourable member will convey that to his constituents, that the payment of support payments is not affected by the scanning of documents. That's quite important so that families in Ontario will not have cause for concern over this particular issue.

I would say to the member opposite, when he looks at the Family Responsibility Office, to recognize that the vast majority of people in Ontario who have support obligations, men and women, towards their former spouses and their children are honourably making their payments, and we should remember that. The Family Responsibility Office is dutifully making sure that those payments are getting to the spouses and the children who need them in Ontario.

COMMUNITY POLICING

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Solicitor General. We're all concerned about the safety of our communities and of our families. With Durham region having its first murder, and quite a senseless death, I might add, my constituents are asking, along with officers Ryan and Bell, who have joined us here today, what it is that our government has done and is doing in regard to community policing?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): I thank the member for Oshawa for the question. First of all, our community policing partnership program will result, at the end of the program, in another 1,000 front-line police officers on the front lines. This represents an investment of about $150 million that our government is prepared to do to make sure we do have more front-line policing available.

In addition to that, we fund a number of other programs: Crime Stoppers, the RIDE programs, certainly Neighbourhood Watch and Block Parents.

But community policing is very important to all of us. We believe it's the right direction to take. There are a number of communities across the province-in fact, Ken Robertson in Hamilton, who is the chief there, and also Lenna Bradburn in Guelph, have received an award recently for working with their communities to increase the police presence, but also to work with them on the police relations with the community. These are the types of programs we need to applaud and support, and I was very happy to be there to make sure that both of them were recognized properly.

Mr Ouellette: Community policing initiatives are extremely important to my and all constituents of Ontario. As we enter the holiday season, could you explain more about the government's support for the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program for Ontario?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The RIDE program is very important to all of us. Certainly now we need the awareness, as we get into the holiday season, about drinking and driving and how it is not acceptable in today's society. Since 1994-95, the province has more than doubled the funding for the RIDE program, and this tells you how important it is.

Recently I had the opportunity to go to the National Students Against Impaired Driving Day. The students of Regina Pacis high school were there to rally and to bring awareness of the problems of drinking and driving to other members of the youth community there. I applaud the leadership of these students for working with their community. It bodes well for the future.

Once again, I tell you that this government is committed to cracking down on drinking and driving, as we have brought in tougher rules, as we have brought in a number of programs that will result in less drinking and driving, and endangering our communities.

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Chair of Management Board, and it has to do with government spending. The government has indicated that it plans to cut one cent from every dollar it spends in each of the next two years. So you plan to cut, I gather, $500 million in the first year and $500 million in the second year, for a total of $1 billion. You have also indicated that you plan to increase health spending over those two years by, I think, about $1.3 billion.

The point is that if you plan to cut $1 billion from total spending and you plan to increase health spending by $1.3 billion, then I believe, based on what we've been told, that you plan to cut $2.3 billion from the budget exclusive of health care. That's about a 10% cut.

My question to you is: When do you plan to announce to the police organizations and our education systems exactly how you plan to cut what looks to me like about 10% of their budgets over the next two years?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I don't know where the member opposite gets his numbers. I can tell you that I disagree with the premise.

We are going to fulfill what we said in the Blueprint. This government is different from when your party or the NDP was in power. We believe the taxpayers' money should be used effectively and efficiently. It's an ongoing process, and we will make an announcement in the near future about programs that are no longer needed or that can be delivered better, not by the government. He will just have to wait for that, because we want to do that in a thoughtful and careful manner.

Mr Phillips: I just take the numbers the government publishes and assume they're correct. What you have said to the public is that you plan to cut 1% of the budget, $500 million, in each of the next two years. I want you to confirm that in your answer. Second, you have said that that's overall spending, total spending. If that's not correct, then I want you to tell the people of Ontario that it's not correct.

My point is this: According to those numbers, you're going to reduce spending by $1 billion; you're going to increase health spending by $1.3 billion; you're going to cut the rest of the budget by $2.3 billion. If that is not the case, clarify that with Ontario. If you are planning to cut $1 billion, you still need to cut about 4% out of our education and policing budgets. I simply say to you, these organizations must plan. When will you tell the people of Ontario how you plan to cut either $1 billion or $2.3 billion? Tell us what the number is and tell us how you plan to do that over the next two years.

Hon Mr Hodgson: As the member will know, it's slightly less than what they campaigned on to cut. We will be doing this in a thoughtful manner. All programs will be reviewed to see if we need to be in that business any longer or if there is a higher priority. There will be an increase in health care spending. You know law and order has been a priority: We're hiring 1,000 new police officers in this province to crack down on street crime. Your party has been opposed to any initiative to get serious on crime. We're lobbying the federal government to change the Young Offenders Act so we can have more rigorous enforcement.

I don't think you need to sit back and pretend that somehow the Liberals are above this. We will be making an announcement, in a thoughtful and careful manner in the near future, showing where we are going to reduce the cost and size of this government.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. Recently the Toronto Sun reported the National Parole Board study showing 58 people were killed by offenders who were under community supervision. I find this alarming and I have to wonder how the decisions are made to release offenders. I also note that what these statistics do not report is the number of crimes other than murder that are committed by those who are paroled federally.

All this leads me to wonder how our own provincial board of parole operate. Specifically, what information is considered as part of Ontario Board of Parole hearings, and what changes have been made to put public safety first?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): The honourable member is quite correct, there are two parole systems operating in Ontario: one under the jurisdiction of the federal government, dealing with individuals who are sentenced to two years or more; and then one that's run by the province, through the Ontario parole board, which deals with individuals who are sentenced to two years and less.

In Ontario, we consider parole to be a right and not a privilege. That's why our system is tough on offenders and puts public safety at the top priority. Under federal law, of course, inmates are eligible to apply for parole after serving only one third of the sentence. We have to live within that federal law. But when our board in Ontario reviews a parole situation-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Answer.

Hon Mr Sampson: -it considers a number of factors, including for the first time, again because we brought it forward, victims' input, in dealing with parole decisions. They deal with the inmate's current-

The Speaker: Time. Minister, take a seat. Supplementary.

Mr Gill: Minister, I appreciate the information you have given us about how the parole system works. I wonder if the minister could tell us what percentage of offenders who apply for parole are actually granted parole. Can the minister also inform us as to the status of our commitment to Ontarians to require that parolees take

part in mandatory drug testing.

Hon Mr Sampson: As a result of the reforms initiated by our government, only 33% of offenders were granted parole by the Ontario parole board last year. That's down from a high of nearly 60% in 1993-94. That's half of what it was.

With regard to the member's second question, I would like to say very directly and very clearly that we will honour our commitment to require parolees to be tested for drugs on a random basis as a condition of their parole release. Those who fail this test will have their parole revoked.

We know that drug abuse is of course not only illegal in itself but is proven to be linked to other criminal behaviours. That's why those on drugs who pose a safety risk to others will have their parole revoked.

NUCLEAR FUEL

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Premier, and it's about the shipment of plutonium to our province. It seems, by the news reports we read today, that the Americans aren't interested any more in shipping plutonium to Ontario. It looks like the federal government was the only level of government keen on this initiative.

I was pleased to stand on the bridge in Sault Ste Marie with our leader, Howard Hampton, and our federal leader, Alexa McDonough, in opposition to this initiative. I was also proud to stand with Greenpeace and other groups, such as my own municipality, First Nations, police associations, the FONOM executive and others, raising some very sincere and genuine concern about the safety of this particular movement of weapons-grade plutonium.

But there is still a risk that Russian plutonium may come in through Cornwall, and it appears that the government may still go ahead with sending a small amount of plutonium to the Soo for testing purposes. Premier, will you go on record today as opposing the import of weapons-grade plutonium to Ontario?

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

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I thank the honourable member for the question. Clearly, the only involvement we would have in this with respect to the energy side and my portfolio is through the new Ontario Hydro, the Ontario Power Generation corporation. They indicated very clearly that they're not interested in burning that plutonium in their Candu reactors. Secondly, all of the safety matters on that are in the hands of the federal government. So you should talk to the Liberals and the federal Liberal government. It's their project; it's their call. We've said we're not interested at this point.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I appreciate that answer, it's a partial answer to the question we have, but it's still a very serious issue, as you know. Just because a large amount won't be going through North Bay is no reason to say that the issue is being won. What we and the people from Cornwall and communities throughout eastern Ontario, who still could be at risk because of this, want to know, what I'd like you and the Premier to say today is that you are going to take specific action as the government of Ontario in dealing with the federal government.

I want you to stand and state what kind of action you and the Premier are going to take in terms of talking directly to the federal government to make sure they say no to Russian plutonium coming through Ontario.

Hon Mr Wilson: Quite a long time ago our power company, the Ontario Power Generation Corp, made the very point to the federal government that we're not interested in burning that plutonium in our reactors. I don't know how you could be any clearer. I don't know where they're going to go with it if they're not going to burn it in the Candu reactors, so I think that pretty well shuts things down. You see the United States indicating that they're not interested in sending weapons-grade plutonium across the border. I expect the federal Liberal government will make the proper decision in this case. We've made our position quite clear.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): My question is for the Solicitor General. Earlier this session I pointed out in a statement that there's a genuine concern from the public at large and from the police associations across the province regarding the possible privatization of police forces, something we on this side take very seriously. It has been brought up in caucus several times.

Schermerhorn, in the Kingston Whig-Standard, said that during their meeting with former Solicitor General Runciman, the Solicitor General suggested that Napanee look into having a private security firm do some of the OPP work for them. Whether or not that's a misquote, it caused a problem in our community as to whether this government is contemplating privatizing the police forces of Ontario in any way, shape or form. Would you tell us today that you have no intention of privatizing police in Ontario?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): Let me start with a definitive statement: I don't favour privatizing police services in Ontario, no.

In fact, I was able to convey that to both the PAO and the OPPA at meetings we've held in the last several months. People need an Ontarian accountability. That accountability means that you feel the police are there for you in your communities. We trust the police. I don't believe there's the same trust in privatized services in this area. People need that accountability. I believe in the police, we believe in the police, and the answer is no, we don't believe in privatizing the police.

Mr Levac: Believe it or not, the question wasn't answered. We need your commitment that you will not privatize police forces. We don't need the rhetoric that's being said right now. The rhetoric that's being said right now is basically: "We love you. We have our private little meetings."

Will you pass legislation that will not permit privatization of police forces?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I guess I could say, "What part of no didn't you understand?" But again, very clearly, you asked me if we favour privatizing police, and I answered very definitely: no.

POLICE AND FIRE SERVICES BRAVERY AWARDS

Mr Bob Wood (London West): My question is for the Solicitor General. Last week awards were given for police and fire bravery, including, I might mention, two police officers in the community of London. It's a tribute to the men and women of the police and fire services, and it gives our community a chance to feel proud.

Can the minister assure us of his continued commitment to this program, and is the minister prepared to look at ways of expanding it?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): First of all, I was very privileged to be there last week for the firefighters and police bravery awards.

I'm very pleased to say as well that today Bruce Miller, with the London police service, is here in the gallery. Bruce, along with his fellow police officer in the London police service, Brad Merrison, received awards for bravery when they entered a burning building on their hands and knees and, despite the smoke and the danger involved in that, were able to save lives.

That's very indicative of the type of men and women we have serving this province, in both the police services and the fire services. It's really a privilege for us to be able to recognize this bravery, because we speak for all the communities across this province and not simply for our side of the House.

Mr Wood: The minister will be aware that there are a number of community programs associated with these awards. I wonder if he could tell us which of these he thinks are most effective and whether he's prepared to consider expanding the reach of those programs.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: One of the really great things about the police community is that they work very closely with their communities at large. We are privileged as government to work with them to support many programs such as Block Parents and Neighbourhood Watch, and programs such as Crime Stoppers which work against criminals within these communities.

The government just doesn't do this. The various police services do this in their own communities. They have a number of educational programs, they work with the children, and they have forums. Even in my own area, York region, police chief Fantino has set up a number of community forums to get input from the community as to what they believe is important for their safety in their own communities. This is not unique. This happens right across the province, in small communities and large. I have a great hope that this will continue, and I believe it will. Our government will continue to support programs like this.

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a petition that's rather lengthy. I will read it in part:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the effluent coming from the commercial alcohol ethanol plant is creating a noxious smell in the former city of Chatham in the municipality of Chatham-Kent Essex, which has a nauseating impact on citizens who breathe it in;

"Whereas the citizens of Chatham have repeatedly brought this problem to the attention of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the former MPP for Chatham-Kent;...

"Whereas the citizens of Chatham-Kent Essex believe that they have a right to clean air and that Commercial Alcohols Inc must be subject to the environmental law in place to protect citizens;

"Therefore

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

"That the measures contained in regulation 346 of the Environmental Protection Act be immediately enforced on Commercial Alcohols Inc to ensure that the citizens of Chatham and the surrounding area have fresh air to breathe, free from the noxious odours that are spewed by the ethanol plant located on Bloomfield Road, in the westerly outskirts of the former city of Chatham in the municipality of Chatham-Kent Essex."

I affix my signature to it.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Southwest): I have a petition signed by 150 residents from Scarborough Southwest. It was sent to me by Mrs Cathie Neagle of the Catholic Women's League of Canada at Immaculate Heart of Mary Church. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas children are exposed to pornography in variety stores and video rental outlets;

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposures to pornography;

"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 pornography in retail establishments, prevent minors from entering establishments which rent or sell pornography, and restrict the location of such establishments to non-residential areas."

I've affixed my signature to this worthwhile petition.

BONE MARROW DONATIONS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas it has become apparent that there is no coordination of the unrelated bone marrow donor program in northern Ontario; and

"Whereas North Bay, Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury and the surrounding areas have an immediate need for a northeastern Ontario bone marrow donor centre that is equipped to address the unique requirements of northerners; and

"Whereas the Ontario bone marrow program is not accessible to the specific needs of northerners;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to establish a northeastern Ontario bone marrow donor centre in order to allow northerners to participate in this life-saving program."

This petition is signed by 3,206 people, and I affix my signature to it.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I have petitions signed by a number of constituents from my riding, particularly Orangeville, Shelburne and Caledon. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 13 people died during the first seven months of 1999 on Highway 401 between London and Windsor; and

"Whereas traffic levels on all sections of Highway 401 continue to increase; and

"Whereas Canada's number one trade and travel route was designed in the 1950s for fewer vehicles and lighter trucks; and

"Whereas road funding is almost completely paid through vehicle permit and driver licensing fees; and

"Whereas Ontario road users pay 28 cents per litre of tax on gasoline, adding up to $2.7 billion in provincial gas taxes and over $2.3 billion in federal gas taxes;

"We, the undersigned members of the Canadian Automobile Association and other residents of Ontario, respectfully request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately upgrade Highway 401 to at least a six-lane highway with full paved shoulders and rumble strips; and

"We respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario place firm pressure on the federal government to invest its gasoline tax revenue in road safety improvements in Ontario."

I have signed this petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the northern health travel grant was introduced in 1987 in recognition that northern Ontario residents are often forced to receive treatment outside their own communities because of the lack of available services; and

"Whereas the Ontario government acknowledged that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents and therefore that financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; and

"Whereas travel, accommodation and other costs have escalated sharply since the program was first put in place, particularly in the area of air travel; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has provided funds so that southern Ontario patients needing care at the Northwestern Ontario Cancer Centre have all their expenses paid while receiving treatment in the north which creates a double standard for health care delivery in the province; and

"Whereas northern Ontario residents should not receive a different level of health care nor be discriminated against because of their geographic locations;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their communities until such time as that care is available in our communities."

This is signed again by dozens of my constituents who share this concern, and I've affixed my own signature in full agreement.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I have a petition here signed by over 1,000 constituents from Timiskaming-Cochrane. The petition reads:

"To the Honourable Chris Stockwell, Minister of Labour:

"Whereas there are many unemployed and underemployed workers in this region; and

"Whereas many professional and industrial jobs in this region have been monopolized by Quebec workers; and

"Whereas the Quebec government has never respected interprovincial agreements on cross-border workers;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Minister of Labour of Ontario as follows:

"We would like the Minister of Labour to impose new hiring regulations on Quebec workers coming to work in Ontario. Furthermore, we would like the minister to implement an `Ontario first' policy on hiring. These policies would help to provide for better jobs for the residents of this province."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the recent changes in boundaries by the Ministry of Health have allowed for Lambton county to no longer be considered underserviced in the ratio of patients to ophthalmologists;

"Whereas Lambton county no longer has a local practising ophthalmologist who specializes in retinal laser surgery;

"Whereas the population of Lambton county is 120,000 strong and aging, making travel difficult;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to extend and increase billing caps not only in Sarnia-Lambton but throughout Ontario where necessary to ensure efficient and effective eye care for all Ontarians."

This petition has 2,200 signatures, and I affix my signature to the petition.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 13 people died during the first seven months of 1999 on Highway 401 between London and Windsor; and

"Whereas traffic levels on all sections of Highway 401 continue to increase; and

"Whereas Canada's number one trade and travel route was designed in the 1950s for fewer vehicles and lighter trucks; and

"Whereas road funding is almost completely paid through vehicle permit and driver licensing fees;

"We, the undersigned members of the Canadian Automobile Association and other residents of Ontario, respectfully request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately upgrade Highway 401 to at least a six-lane highway with full paved shoulders and rumble strips."

This is signed by many members of my constituency, and I'm very pleased to sign my name also.

HENLEY ROWING COURSE

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

"Whereas the Henley rowing course in St Catharines is an outstanding rowing facility which has for several decades been the site of hundreds of international rowing competitions;

"Whereas the World Rowing Championship has been held in St Catharines in 1970 and 1999 and has been declared an outstanding success on both occasions;

"Whereas the municipal, provincial and federal governments, along with generous private donors, invested several million dollars in the upgrading of the Henley rowing course to enable the 1999 World Rowing Championship to be held in St Catharines and that as a result the Henley is a first-class rowing facility;

"Whereas the organizing committee of the World Rowing Championship, the annual Royal Canadian Henley Regatta and other prestigious regattas, has the proven expertise to operate major international rowing competitions;

"Whereas all taxpayers in Ontario will be compelled to contribute to any financial assistance provided by the Ontario government for the Olympic bid for the city of Toronto;

"Whereas the creation of a new rowing facility outside of St Catharines for the Toronto Olympic bid would result in the unnecessary expenditure of millions of dollars to duplicate the St Catharines rowing facility;

"Whereas the rowing facility for several recent Olympic Games has been located outside the sponsoring and host city;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to persuade the Toronto Olympic bid committee to propose the Henley rowing course in St Catharines as the site of the rowing competition for the 2008 Olympic Games."

I add my signature, as I know the St Catharines and District Chamber of Commerce would like to add their signature, because they've now joined this crusade.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SAFE STREETS ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

Mr Flaherty moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 8,

An Act to promote safety in Ontario by prohibiting aggressive solicitation, solicitation of persons in certain places and disposal of dangerous things in certain places, and to amend the Highway Traffic Act to regulate certain activities on roadways / Projet de loi 8, Loi visant à promouvoir la sécurité en Ontario en interdisant la sollicitation agressive, la sollicitation de personnes dans certains lieux et le rejet de choses dangereuses dans certains lieux, et modifiant le Code de la route afin de réglementer certaines activités sur la chaussée.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I'd like to advise the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for London-Fanshawe, the member for Kitchener Centre and the member for Peterborough.

Today we proceed with the debate on second reading of Bill 8, the Safe Streets Act, 1999. When the people of Ontario talk about the quality of life in their communities, certain things come to mind. Key among these things is the ability to use their streets and their public places without being impeded and without being concerned for their own safety and security. Yet, for the past few years, the experience of many people in large and small urban areas of Ontario has been different.

Motorists driving on downtown streets now sometimes find their way blocked by people with squeegees, sometimes cleaning windshields without permission and sometimes being abusive when they don't receive payment. Shoppers, including the elderly, sometimes find they can't get into their favourite department store without being blocked by people who are aggressively soliciting.

We talked with police about this serious problem. We heard them say that, yes, the communities they serve expect them to do something to address these concerns. They told us that they need the tools to be able to do their job.

Parents in some communities have to think twice about letting their kids play in neighbourhood parks. Why? Because of the risk that someone will have carelessly discarded dangerous objects, such as hypodermic syringes, in the sandbox. Imagine a three-year-old child playing in a park, in a sandbox, falling and landing on broken glass, needles or a used condom. I've been told directly by residents about this type of thing happening in downtown Toronto. Our children ought to be able to enjoy their neighbourhood parks with confidence. The sad and unfortunate reality is that in some communities parents sometimes encounter these problems.

These are problems not unique to Ontario. We find them in other cities and towns in Canada and in the United States, but that does not mean that our government intends to be complacent. Anyone who cares about people and the quality of our lives together in our communities would want us to deal with these problems. The people of Ontario deserve-they're entitled-to be able to go about their daily activities in safety and security.

Our government heard their concerns. We made a promise in the Blueprint, and again in the throne speech. We are keeping our promise. We have introduced the Safe Streets Act. This bill, if passed, would protect the ability of the residents of this province to use and enjoy public places in safety-the roads and the sidewalks and the parks-safe public use of public places, which after all belong to all of us.

I've said it before, and I've even heard opposition members express this same view, that people in Ontario have a right to drive on the road, to walk down the sidewalk and to go to public places without being or feeling intimidated. The opposition justice critic, the member for St Paul's, was quoted in the media as saying this about squeegee people: "We cannot condone the effect within a civil society.

You should be able to walk the streets and not be harassed." The member for Eglinton-Lawrence, who is also a member of the official opposition, the Liberal Party, told the Toronto Star a couple of years ago about a personal altercation with squeegee-ers. He told the Star, according to that paper: "A lot of people are fed up with these punks." He said that he himself would propose legislation to give police the right to seize squeegee equipment.

The member for Eglinton-Lawrence can rest easy; he doesn't have to introduce the legislation he talked about introducing to solve the problem, because we have. We have introduced Bill 8. All my colleague has to do now is to cast his vote in support of this bill when the time comes. I'm sure the Liberal member for St Paul's and I'm sure the member for Eglinton-Lawrence, another Liberal member, will be consistent with their previous statements and support this bill when they're called upon to vote on second reading.

Our government has done more than just talk. We have seen the limitations of municipal action here in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada. With the Safe Streets Act, we are the first province in Canada to take a stand and address these problems comprehensively. By introducing this bill, we are exercising our authority to regulate the safe and secure use of public places in Ontario.

The Safe Streets Act proposes to make provincial offences out of the following: commercial activity on the roadways, including squeegeeing; soliciting in an aggressive manner; soliciting in places where the person is not usually free to walk away, what we call captive audience situations; and also, disposing of used condoms, syringes, broken glass in outdoor places such as parks without taking reasonable precautions.

If the bill passes, all of these activities would become offences for which a police officer can warn or arrest. If passed, the Safe Streets Act would also expand sentencing options for our courts. Penalties would include fine, probation, or jail for up to six months for repeat offenders. Probation itself could consist of community service, restitution, or drug or alcohol counselling.

I am aware that there are some concerns about the impact this bill may have on fundraising campaigns that are carried out on roads and sidewalks. In fact, I believe some members of the opposition, finding that the public is so strongly on side with us on this bill, have taken to creating fear in this regard where none is warranted.

They have been telling the good people in their communities that if the Safe Streets Act becomes law, traditional fundraisers for charities such as car washes for the local school band can no longer be held because these actions would be subject to prosecution. This is a misrepresentation of the intent of this bill. Charitable activities contribute to the quality of life in our communities. Our government knows that; the opposition knows that; the people of Ontario know that.

If this law passes, a Boy Scout or any other volunteer for a charitable organization may continue to solicit in a non-aggressive manner at locations where members of the public are not a captive audience. That is what the bill provides. Those who are trying to create anxiety among our charitable organizations I hope will take the opportunity to actually read the provisions of the bill.

We support the work of charitable organizations. These groups work with police; they work with local authorities year after year to carry out their solicitations in public places, safely and in accordance with the law. We encourage these groups and the volunteers who work with them to continue their good efforts.

Let me speak briefly, if I may, to the two key offences that the bill would create. First of all, commercial activity, including squeegeeing on the roadway-and it's important to emphasize "on the roadway" so that our charitable organizations in Ontario will understand that we're referring to that kind of activity on the roadway and not on the sidewalk, so that's commercial activity-and second, aggressive solicitation.

With respect to commercial activity, the Safe Streets Bill proposes to ban commercial activities such as squeegeeing on the roadway by closing a loophole in the Highway Traffic Act. That act already prevents a person from entering a roadway to stop or attempt to stop a vehicle for commercial solicitation. We're talking about commercial activity, business activity on our highways in Ontario. Squeegeeing takes place when the vehicle is already stopped. Therefore, we propose to change the Highway Traffic Act to make it illegal to also approach a vehicle to offer, sell or provide anything to anyone in that vehicle on the roadway.

I want to point out that with this amendment the Highway Traffic Act would better deal with an activity that is a safety hazard not just to the people in the car and other traffic but also to the offender in the street.

It is important also to note that this amendment would exempt legitimate emergency services. Tow trucks and the Canadian Automobile Association would still be able to help motorists in trouble without fear of penalty.

Our effort to make squeegeeing illegal has been described as an attack on young people who have no homes or jobs and who are simply trying to make a living. Our government has been accused by some of not addressing the root causes. I think we should take a close look at these claims.

Our government has allocated $265 million to employment programs for young people and adults. We fund summer job programs. We fund apprenticeship training. We fund courses on basic literacy, resumé writing and job preparation. We do this to help people who are unemployed get the skills for jobs with a real future.

Does any reasonable person believe that squeegeeing gives a person a chance of a better future? Who is being helped if activity that doesn't lead to a better future and endangers the lives of squeegee persons and drivers is encouraged?

In the safe streets bill, aggressive solicitation as a provincial offence includes the following: first, threatening physical harm to the person solicited; second, blocking the path of the person during or after the solicitation; third, using abusive language; and finally, following the person being solicited. The bill also proposes to ban solicitation in places where people cannot easily move away, places like bus stops, pay phones and bank machines.

I don't have to spell out how vulnerable you can feel at a bank machine, particularly if you're alone, if you're an elderly person, waiting for the cash and card to come out. You are in a captive situation. Someone who approaches you in order to solicit compromises your safe use of a public place.

With its provisions against captive audience solicitation, Bill 8 aims to further protect people's ability to feel safe and secure in their own communities.

I want to stress that the bill does not restrict all types of solicitation. A person may solicit in a non-aggressive manner at locations where members of the public are not a captive audience. Nor does this bill interfere with the ability of persons to freely and effectively speak or communicate with others. The bill does allow members of the public to freely choose whether to stop and listen to the person soliciting or to proceed on their way.

Our government is aware of concerns, and they've been raised with me, that this bill would affect mentally ill people who act out on the streets. This is not the intention of the bill. We have, in fact, committed to spending $45 million in each of the next three years to provide housing and other supports for people with serious mental illness. About $16 million was allocated in 1998 to fund 24 assertive community treatment teams for people who are severely mentally ill.

In addition, at a number of court locations in Ontario offenders who are mentally ill may be directed to treatment programs at the discretion of the crown attorney. There's a good example of that in Toronto. In 102 court in the old city hall in Toronto, there is a specialization in treating offenders with mental illness. An on-site psychiatrist and a mental health worker provide direct services. These include assessment of fitness to stand trial or designing a course of treatment for the offender to follow.

Overall, our government is reviewing the Mental Health Act and related legislation to see how we can fix laws that stand in the way of families and police and social workers, all trying to help the mentally ill.

It has also been said that panhandlers and squeegeers are homeless and that our gover