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

December 3, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Dec-03 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 3 December 2001 Lundi 3 décembre 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE

SUPPORTLINK

FOOD SAFETY

LABOUR DISPUTE

CHEMOTHERAPY CLINIC

HIGHWAY SAFETY

HANUKKAH

CANADIAN CELEBRATION

IN NEW YORK

FIREFIGHTERS

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS

OF CRIME AND SOLICITORS STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

SUR L'INDEMNISATION

DES VICTIMES D'ACTES CRIMINELS

ET DES PROCUREURS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

INTERNATIONAL DAY

OF DISABLED PERSONS /

JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE

DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

BORDER SECURITY

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOLTEACHERS

MINISTRY DOCUMENTS

HEALTH CARE

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LEGISLATION

WASTE DISPOSAL

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION

SCHOOL CLOSURES

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

MINISTRY DOCUMENTS

FOOD SAFETY

MINISTRY DOCUMENTS

NANTICOKE GENERATING STATION

WASTE DISPOSAL

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

EDUCATION FUNDING

NURSES

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

HOME CARE

SOCIAL AUDIT

EDUCATION FUNDING

CHILDREN'S MEDICAL SERVICES

HIGHWAY SIGNS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Monday 3 December 2001 Lundi 3 décembre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I want to be sure the Minister of Health has seen the advertisement that is running in papers across

northern Ontario. The ad is paid for by the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association. It's supported by concerned citizens, educators and medical practitioners across the north.

These are all people who understand the importance of training doctors in the north. These are people who were ready to welcome the government's initiative in

establishing a new medical school in northern Ontario, but they are also people who believe the government's motto for the medical school is the wrong one. That's what the ad says to the government

and to the people appointed to implement the government's proposed model: you are doing the wrong thing.

Laurentian and Lakehead universities developed the proposal for a new medical school and it was always to be a school with two equal campuses: one in the

northeast and one in the northwest. That's the model that had the support of all municipalities across the north, that's what was presented to the government's expert panel on physician shortages

and that's what the commission recommended. But it seems Mike Harris's political friendships counted for more than the government's own expert panel. Now we have an important initiative that could

have made a huge difference to health care in northern Ontario, but won't, because it is the wrong model.

There's a big price to be paid for doing this the wrong way. The two-year clinical program will not get off the ground in northwestern Ontario and we will lose

this important opportunity to introduce new medical school students to practise in the northwest. We will continue to have a shortage of doctors and people will continue to either go without care

until there's a crisis, or they will seek costly care in hospital emergency rooms.

Communities should not have to take out ads in the paper to persuade government to listen and to understand what they're trying to say. They don't know what else

to do to get the government to hear them. Let's hope this works.

SUPPORTLINK

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I rise today in the House to speak about an important program that our government has started in partnership

with Ericsson and Rogers AT&T Wireless. It's called SupportLink.

The focus of the program is to keep victims safe through planning and awareness. Victims referred to SupportLink are offered specialized planning services to

assist them in keeping safe and providing them with techniques to prevent or escape potential problem situations. Victims who are most vulnerable and lack the resources to acquire a wireless phone

of their own may receive a free wireless phone, pre-programmed to dial 911 in the event of a personal safety emergency.

In 1999 the Harris government initiated the SupportLink program with two pilot sites in Ottawa and Barrie. Following the success of these programs, SupportLink

is being expanded province-wide to 18 additional sites over the next two years. This year, new sites will be located in Durham, Muskoka, Peterborough, Brant, Dufferin, Guelph, Niagara, Peel, North

Bay, Timmins, Toronto, and in my riding of Simcoe North. The program is being administered in my riding of Simcoe North, in Orillia, though the North Simcoe Victim Crisis Services, an amazing

organization run by executive director Patricia Heath.

I'd like to thank them for continuing to work with victims to make our communities a better place to live. I'd also like to thank the Orillia detachment of the

OPP for their support, Attorney General David Young, the Office for Victims of Crime and all the volunteers who work with the North Simcoe Victim Crisis Services to make our community a better and

more caring place to live.

FOOD SAFETY

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): With the aftermath of the Walkerton tainted water scandal still fresh in all our minds, the safety

of the food we eat on a daily basis is of utmost importance to all Ontarians. The principal responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is to manage the food safety risk

in order to protect all consumers.

As pointed out by Erik Peters, our independently appointed Provincial Auditor, in this year's annual report, the meat and produce we eat and the milk we drink

are becoming increasingly contaminated. "They" -- and I quote him -- "pose risks to human health and deficiencies are not corrected in a timely manner."

Meat is inspected by how it looks and smells, and not by the antibiotics it contains. Ninety per cent of all goat's milk shows excessive bacteria counts. Over

one third of all deficiencies noted by him were detected again the following year, in meat inspections, milk-dairy operations and excessive amounts of chemicals in our fruits and vegetables.

Has this government not learned anything from Walkerton? Do we really feel safe about the food we eat when the staff has been reduced from 103 full-time

inspectors in 1995 to only eight in 2000? Do we really need a crisis like Walkerton to occur in our food inspection area before this government will take action?

On behalf of all Ontarians, I ask the government to stop implementing its $2.2-billion corporate tax cut today and reinvest in quality and accessible health

care, affordable and universal education, and adequate inspection programs in water and food safety so that all of us will feel safe and secure in the food we consume on a daily basis.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On Saturday morning I was extremely proud to join workers in Whitby on their picket line, members of CAW Local

1000, the employees of Value Village in Whitby who have been forced out on strike on to the streets since October 10 in their efforts to negotiate a first contract.

Mostly women, these workers are being paid $8 an hour for what is nothing other than and best described as sweatshop work conditions. These workers had the

courage and the tenacity to organize, to join a trade union, in a climate in this province created by Mike Harris and the Conservatives that we know discourages trade unionization. These workers

have banded together in solidarity as Autoworkers to take on this bad boss, this sleazy employer, Value Village.

The boss, the employer, Value Village, is trying to bust that union. These workers aren't going to let that happen, their union leadership isn't going to let

that happen, other working women and men acting in solidarity with these workers aren't going to let that happen, and the NDP is going to do everything it can do to make sure it doesn't happen.

I call upon the members of this Legislature and indeed folks across this province to boycott every Value Village retail outlet in this province, until Value

Village sits down at the bargaining table with these workers in Whitby and organizes a contract that's fair, guarantees fair salaries and guarantees workplace conditions where the workers have some

control over their occupational health and safety.

Value Village, bad boss, sleazy employer: we're standing with the workers.

CHEMOTHERAPY CLINIC

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to celebrate the opening of the new chemotherapy clinic at the Northumberland Health

Care Centre. As our population ages, there will be more and more demand on our health care system. This clinic will provide the chemotherapy services necessary for the residents of Northumberland

right in their own backyard.

For example, in the year ending March 31, 2001, 10 patients received 39 chemotherapy treatments in the Northumberland Health Care Centre. In the past six months,

six patients received 26 treatments. It appears that the number of treatments will almost double this year over last. The need for a local clinic is clear.

An open house held last week at the clinic showed what the community has accomplished through fundraisers, gifts and donations. With these proceeds, the clinic

was able to purchase comfortable recliners and many other homey touches such as curtains, wallpaper borders and attractive framed prints.

Through Cancer Care Ontario, the government is ensuring that people in Ontario receive high-quality cancer treatment. One of its mandates is to ensure that

patients across the province receive the same high quality of care regardless of where they live.

Our government is committed to supporting our cancer patients. I commend the efforts of the Northumberland Health Care Centre, and I'm pleased to congratulate

our community for working together in the opening of this clinic.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): As the Minister of Transportation will know, a tragic accident near Shabaqua this past Friday

between two transport trucks completely shut down the TransCanada Highway this past weekend. Because one of the vehicles contained PCBs, extreme caution is being used. It is expected that even now,

three days later, there will be only one lane of traffic open until at least tomorrow.

The province must recognize that when an accident such as this takes place on that particular stretch of the highway, there are no other options for drivers

going east or west. It has happened before and I fear, unfortunately, that it will happen again. Surely the most recent tragedy should be a wake-up call for the Minister of Transportation. A

divided, four-lane highway must be constructed on this stretch so that road closures such as the one we are now experiencing can be avoided. Perhaps, more significantly, it is clear that this

accident never would have taken place were the transports travelling on such a divided highway.

We need more than a rehabilitation of our highways in our part of the province. We need a rejigging of the priorities so that this vital project, a divided,

four-lane highway between Nipigon and Shabaqua, is treated as a real priority by this government. We are tired of being treated as second-class citizens as far as highway improvements are

concerned.

While I have the attention of the minister, I'd like to ask him to provide proper lighting on the Thunder Bay Expressway. All of us who use the expressway after

dark find it a frightening experience. In light of the increased inter-city volume of traffic that is on the expressway, I would figure that officials would agree proper illumination is vital. The

next time you're in Thunder Bay, Minister, I would invite you to travel on the expressway after dark. I suspect that would be enough to convince you of the need for this crucial safety

improvement.

HANUKKAH

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): It gives me great pleasure to speak today about the Jewish festival of Hanukkah, which will begin Sunday,

December 9 at sundown and will be widely celebrated throughout my riding of Thornhill.

Hanukkah comes from the Hebrew word meaning "dedication," and is celebrated for eight days in the Hebrew month of Kislev, which usually occurs in mid- to late

December. Hanukkah recalls the struggle of religious freedom and commemorates the victory of the Jewish fighters, the Maccabees, over the Hellenistic Syrians in the year 165 BCE. The Maccabees

became legendary in later years, largely due to the Jewish historian of the first century, Josephus. His retelling of the Hanukkah story became immensely popular during the Middle Ages. It was

Josephus who first referred to Hanukkah as the Feast of Lights.

Jewish families across Thornhill and the province will celebrate Hanukkah by lighting the eight lights of the menorah, which celebrate the miracle of a one-day

supply of oil lasting for eight days. I will have the pleasure of taking

part in some menorah lightings in Thornhill, in particular on December 15 at the Chabad Lubavitch of Markham.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish the families in my riding of Thornhill and across Ontario a very happy Hanukkah.

CANADIAN CELEBRATION

IN NEW YORK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt) I want to salute all Canadians, including a huge number from Ontario, who went to New York City this

weekend. There were 20,000 people at that rally. It's very important to show our support for our neighbours. New York was dealt an enormous blow on September 11, and it is slowly getting back on

its feet, but it does need the support of its friends.

Ontario's police and fire services did us particularly proud by presenting a $200,000 donation to the victims and families of the police services in New York.

Our fire services donated a huge new vehicle.

Probably no two countries in the world have closer and more friendly relations than Canada and the US.

I was in New York with my daughter and my 7-year-old grandson -- all at my own expense, by the way, just in case the taxpayers are worried -- and we went

throughout Manhattan. I can tell you that New Yorkers were very much aware that their friends from Canada were there, and they really appreciated it. After the event, Mayor Giuliani said it was the

most uplifting event he has experienced since September 11. As I walked around Manhattan there was a song that kept going over in my mind, That's What Friends Are For -- in good times, in bad

times.

New York has had a tough time, and it was good to show our terrific friendship with our good friends in New York City. I congratulate all who travelled down

there.

FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Earlier this month a ceremony was held outside this Legislature to honour brave men and women, the

firefighters of Ontario, and Lieutenant Governor Hilary Weston was on hand to give out Ontario medals for firefighter bravery. I'm proud to say that one of the 15 recipients was from my riding of

Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant. As we've become more aware in recent months, firefighters must be prepared to face danger each and every day. They must have the skills it takes to handle an emergency, but

more important, they must have the bravery it takes to face the sometimes life-or-death challenge.

Last July, Phil McCulla, of the Norfolk County Fire Department, was off duty east of Turkey Point when he spotted the scene of a head-on collision, and he

responded in the only way he knew how -- with skill and bravery. Hearing a woman screaming from one of the vehicles, McCulla flew into action, pulling the woman from the car. He then battled

extreme heat and flames to rescue a trapped boy who was unable to move because of two broken legs. As Solicitor General David Turnbull noted at the medal presentation, "Philip risked his life so

that the mother and child could live." Philip was one of six to receive the Ontario Medal for Firefighter Bravery. We recognize Philip McCulla, firefighter, hero and Norfolk county resident.

VISITORS

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd ask you and all members of the Legislative

Assembly to join me in welcoming Linda Brett, mother of one of our pages, Andrew Brett, from Scarborough Southwest, to the Legislature today.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS

OF CRIME AND SOLICITORS STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

SUR L'INDEMNISATION

DES VICTIMES D'ACTES CRIMINELS

ET DES PROCUREURS

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 146,

An Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act and the Solicitors Act / Projet de loi 146, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'indemnisation des

victimes d'actes criminels et la

Loi sur les procureurs.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I was honoured to be at the kickoff of Action Sudbury's Red Ribbon program on Friday, and in their honour I

introduce this bill. This bill amends the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act to allow victims of motor vehicle offences under the Criminal Code of Canada, such as impaired driving, to apply for

compensation under the act. At present, victims of those offences are not allowed to apply for compensation under the act, and I believe with the passage of this bill there will be fairness for all

who are victims of crime because of impaired drivers.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

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

pm to midnight on Monday, December 3, Tuesday, December 4, and Wednesday, December 5, 2001, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Cleary, John C.

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Kennedy, Gerard

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Phillips, Gerry

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 73; the nays are 6.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

INTERNATIONAL DAY

OF DISABLED PERSONS /

JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE

DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Might I seek unanimous

consent from the House to have five-minute statements from each of the caucuses with respect to the International Day of Disabled Persons?

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

Hon Mr Jackson: December 3 is the day that the United Nations has set aside as the International Day of Disabled Persons. It is an annual

opportunity for governments all around the world, for persons with disabilities, their families, their friends and their caregivers, to celebrate their achievements and focus on public awareness of

issues around disabilities.

Ontario is already recognized as a leader in services for persons with disabilities in Canada. Our foundation of legislation and services for persons with

disabilities includes the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the Ontario Human Rights Code, and they are considered the strongest in North America.

A strong Human Rights Code provides a solid basis for the rights of persons with disabilities in this province. The code and the commission have an impressive

record of protecting the rights of all residents, including persons with disabilities, yet we know that we can do much more in this regard. That's why this government is planning legislative

amendments that would update, improve and strengthen the Ontario Human Rights Code. I'd like to acknowledge the work of the chief commissioner, Keith Norton, and his commissioners.

There is a special feeling to the events that mark the International Day of Disabled Persons this year. With our recently released Vision of a more inclusive

and accessible society, with our Framework for Change for Persons with Disabilities and with our proposed legislation, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, Bill 125, we have embarked on a course

that is considered one of the broadest and strongest in all of Canada.

We're determined to increase the independence, the opportunity and the quality of life for persons with disabilities, to achieve a province where existing

barriers are removed and have a legislated plan in place in order to remove existing barriers. All of us have a role to play in this important goal. That's why we've consulted Ontarians so widely

sector. These are valuable meetings, and they reinforced my belief that Ontarians were up to the challenge of assisting this government in establishing standards and guidelines that can be enacted

to improve the lives of persons with disability.

Last Friday, further public hearings began in Ottawa on Bill 125, and these hearings continue in Windsor, Toronto, Sudbury and Thunder Bay this week. The

hearings reflect our continued commitment and desire to make a good bill even better by holding it up to public review and consultation.

The government's proposed Framework for Change would directly affect four key areas: the Ontario public service, the municipalities, the broader public sector

and the private sector. Each has a role to play in helping Ontario achieve its vision for persons with disabilities and each is affected by the mandatory and the non-mandatory measures.

Hotel Association, the Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association and Tourism Toronto.

Earlier today, I launched a new ministry Web site at the Granite Brewery restaurant on Eglinton Avenue in Toronto, a fully accessible private sector

restaurant. The Granite Brewery has menus in Braille, the public telephone is lower to accommodate persons in wheelchairs, audible emergency signals have been installed for customers who are blind

or visually impaired and the staff have been specifically trained to provide good customer service to persons with disabilities. When I asked Ron Keefe, the owner, what prompted him, he said the

CNIB and seniors in their immediate community, in their neighbourhood, have a right to have full access to his business.

That's why I think it is important for us to include all sectors in our Vision for improving the quality of life for individuals with disabilities in our

province. You'll find more about the Granite Brewery and many other leading-edge companies on the ministry's brand new Web site, Paths to Equal Opportunity, which was launched this morning.

Later today, I will be attending the March of Dimes 50th anniversary open house and reception. The Ontario March of Dimes and the Ministry of Citizenship have

forged a strong working relationship over the years. We respect them as leaders in their field, and we rely on their expertise and their commitment to persons with disabilities. All in all, the

ministry has provided significant funding, but it is this relationship which has worked so successfully.

The March of Dimes is not unlike hundreds of organizations, with their dedicated staff and volunteers who are inspired by their service to disabled citizens.

As members, we continue to be inspired by their spirit and their hopes for our future.

Ontarians want to do what's right, and they have demonstrated this time and time again. Our Vision, our Framework for Change and our proposed disabilities

legislation will, I believe, be welcomed into Ontario's historic wellspring of justice and fairness.

Barriers still remain; we know that. But together we must set about the task of removing them. Only the Ontario government is prepared to make the first step

opportunity for all its citizens.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On behalf of the official opposition, I and my colleague from Ottawa Centre will share our five minutes

to make a few comments about the International Day of Disabled Persons.

As we reflect on the contribution of the disabled community not only in this country but around the world, we think of people like Franklin Roosevelt, or like

Gary Malkowski, who was the first deaf person elected to this Legislature. We think of the enormous contributions that have been made by many people who face challenges the rest of us don't in

terms of making this world a better place, whether here in the Legislature or right across Ontario.

This day also gives us reason to pause and reflect on what contributions may have been met, what opportunities may not have been forsaken, had we truly had a

are truly astounding, and their contributions are truly remarkable. Tomorrow, the Order of Ontario will be bestowed on one of my constituents, Danielle Campo, a remarkable young woman who

represented this country so well in the Paralympics. I'll be speaking more about that tomorrow.

But we must reflect always on how we deal with these issues legislatively and from a public policy perspective. The minister referenced the achievements of

successive governments in this province, whether it was the government of Bob Rae or the government of David Peterson or the government of William Davis or John Robarts, that have consistently

moved us forward. Today in committee in Windsor, we are debating the government's Ontarians with Disabilities Act, a bill that we feel is flawed, but we will have more to say about that in the

committee hearings and as we continue debate in this House.

It's ironic that those hearings had to be moved at the last minute today in Windsor because the facilities that were booked were not accessible to the

disabled. It is an important matter, when we deal with the issues confronting disabled persons, that we be sensitive to their needs, in a timely fashion, but one that will allow full accommodation

as a government. It's unfortunate that at a time when the world, particularly the United States with its Americans with Disabilities Act, has moved so far forward, we are left moving hearings at

the last minute because the site we chose as a government was not accessible for Ontarians with disabilities. It is a commentary not on the government but on this society that that sort of thing

should happen. It is a commentary on all of us, that each of us needs to strive to recognize the enormous potential that people in our communities have to give to society and to improve society. We

in the official opposition pay tribute to those among us with disabilities who contribute every day to the greatness of this province and country.

With that, I'll give the remaining time to my colleague from Ottawa Centre.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I would like to add that I had the experience last Friday of sitting in on some hearings to look at the

Ontarians with Disabilities Act proposals that are before the people, and it's quite a moving experience.

There was one gentleman suffering from multiple sclerosis who in particular had an impact. His statement was, "The bill as it is proposed does not, of course,

deal with the private sector," which is fundamentally important, because in the daily lives of most disabled people, about 75% to 80% of their experience has to do with barriers in the private

sector. He used the analogy of one step. He said, "Everywhere I go, there's one step." He's in a wheelchair and he struggles even being able to manage the wheelchair. He said, "I keep hitting upon

trying to go to a coffee shop. There's one step, and it's a barrier. I try to go to a dry cleaner's; there's another barrier because of that one step." He said these things do not take massive

amounts of resources. There are no incentives even for the private sector to make improvements to some of their places. He said that will be, at the end of the day, what we will see as a

measurement of the commitment of this government, because it is in the government's hands.

We will vote for you with some support in addressing the private sector to play a role in supporting the disabled people in our province.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): International Day of Disabled Persons: a day established by the United Nations to recognize that

people who struggle with disabilities are often not fully included, not fully given access or allowed to access all of the work, all of the physical settings, all of the participation in our

society that we believe needs to happen.

It is clear that headway is being made in other countries around the world in terms of recognizing the challenges that individuals who suffer with disabilities

face. It is clear, for example, the strides that have been made in a number of European countries. It's clear, for example, by some of the legislation that has been passed in the United States. We

would hope that in our province, the province of Ontario, we would similarly take steps to broaden the access in employment, broaden the access physically, broaden the access in terms of

participation in society.

At this time we are in fact debating legislation, Bill 125, which the minister says is Ontario's answer. On this day, I simply want to comment once again on

the reality of Bill 125, which is being heard now in hearings being held across the province. The people who are coming to the hearings are not congratulating the government; the people who are

coming to the hearings are pointing out the shortfalls in the legislation. This is what they point out:

There is no enforcement strategy to this legislation; there are no timelines to indicate when persons with disabilities can expect to live in a barrier-free

Ontario.

The advisory committees that will be established have no power to ensure compliance and enforcement; their only capacity will be to lobby, something that the

community has been doing.

There is no mandatory action required of municipalities, other than simply to develop plans, plans which need not be acted upon.

The only enforcement machinery that is available is the Ontario Human Rights Commission, something which we know is already very badly overextended.

And while the legislation says that it reforms the Social Housing Act to ensure any future social housing is fully accessible, we know that no social housing

has been built in this province for five years now.

So representatives of the disability community, the David Lepofskys, the Gary Malkowskis, are left to wonder, if there is so little in this legislation, what

is improving. What is happening? I think the sad commentary is that not much is happening.

This is a day where the government wants to say that it is doing something. The reality is, when you look at their legislation, not much is happening at

all.

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James) : Imaginez-vous qu'aujourd'hui, en 2001, on se plante ici à l'Assemblée législative

de l'Ontario pour faire des remarques faisant affaire avec la Journée internationale des personnes handicapées. Moi, je me dis comme individu ontarien comment on n'a pas avancé le

dossier, dans les 120 années que la province est ici, comme Assemblée législative. Pourquoi pas faire des modifications à la loi municipale pour un fait seulement, le moindre

des moindres : dans n'importe quelle planification des nouveaux bâtiments dans la province, que chaque bâtiment soit bâti avec l'idée de faire accessibles ces

bâtisses-là ? C'est quelque chose qu'on pourrait faire, c'est facile, ça se fait tout de suite et on pourrait avancer le dossier pour les personnes avec disabilities. Mais on ne

le fait pas.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know it's never the intention of any member to mislead this House.

However, I believe I heard Mr Duncan suggest that the hearings in Windsor today are taking place in a facility that is not disabled-accessible. In fact, the representative --

The Speaker: Order. The member take his seat. The member will know that he can't correct the record of somebody else. If there is a record

that needs to be clarified, the member can do that.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's a misinterpretation; I'm sure the member didn't mean to mischaracterize. The hearings in

Windsor had to be moved late on Friday because it was determined on Friday afternoon that the venue that the hearings were supposed to be in was not in fact accessible. They moved them, effective

today, to accommodate those persons who, it is my understanding, could not have been accommodated in the original facilities that had been chosen.

The Speaker: I am aware of the change of the venue. The Chair of the committee I'm sure will handle the circumstances as rightly as is his

duty.

It is now time for oral questions.

Oh, I'm sorry: the member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale.

VISITORS

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I'd like to have the members of the House recognize students from Cardinal Leger high

school in Brampton and their teacher, Trevor Hilton, who are in today along with many other students.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I apologize. There is statements too. The member on a point of order?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): If we're going to start welcoming people, I'd like to welcome a number of citizens from northeastern

Ontario who are here today. They are worried about what's happening with the garbage situation and they are so opposed to the Adams mine project. Our good friends, Charlie, John and the rest, we

welcome you to the --

The Speaker: Order. Let me say very quickly about the introductions that I have no problems with doing them. As I've said to some members,

some days they're the nicest things we do here. I remember one day a young fellow up there in the gallery was so excited when he got introduced that there was a big smile on his face. I don't see

problems with doing that as long as we don't get too carried away.

Some members I know have voiced concerns about that. I will leave it up to the House leaders and collectively the House to decide. I'm in your hands on that.

The only thing I will suggest: if we start introducing people and then putting caveats of why they're here, it may become a little bit more partisan. That will defeat it, and then some members

won't want to proceed like that.

Again, I will leave it in the hands of the House leader. For those members who have voiced some concern, different jurisdictions do it differently. For

example, in the House in the United States, they actually call the guests down. They come up, they interrupt the proceedings and they welcome their honoured guests. I personally don't see a

problem; as I mentioned, when I see a smile on the face of some of the young people when they get introduced, I don't see a problem with it. I will look for the guidance of the House leaders, as I

often do in situations like this, on how they want to proceed with introductions and I will be guided by them.

I apologize; I went by ministers' statements.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

BORDER SECURITY

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'd like to share with the House the update on border security issues. As

members know, on November 2 Premier Harris and I hosted an industry leaders' round table on border issues.

Business leaders and governments are in agreement that we must find a way of maintaining the free flow of goods, services and people across our border with the

United States while ensuring our security. Business leaders and the Ontario government came up with four key recommendations. They are: the establishment of a North American security perimeter --

we believe that a security perimeter is key to ensuring both our safety and our economic prosperity; harmonization of border procedures between Canada and the United States; increasing the use of

pre-clearance and identification procedures; and utilization of new and existing technological measures.

The recommendations of Ontario's round table report were reinforced today when the Coalition for Secure and Trade-Efficient Borders released its second report.

The coalition is calling for many of the same elements to be brought to bear as are suggested in the Ontario report: for example, increased use of technology and pre-clearance; improvements to

immigration security; and investments in transportation infrastructure to facilitate the movement of goods and people.

The two reports are sending the same message to Ottawa: the federal government must develop a comprehensive and integrated strategy that addresses the issues

of security and border management, and they must do so in a way that will give Canadians and Americans confidence that border issues are being addressed head-on.

We sent our round-table recommendations to the federal government, but I felt the message needed to be delivered in person. Last Friday I met with Industry

Minister Tobin and stressed to him how strongly Ontario's business community feels about these recommendations. I also participated in a federal-provincial conference call of trade ministers that

same day.

In my meeting with Mr Tobin and during the conference call, I had the same message to deliver: listen to Ontario business about border security. A North

American security perimeter is vital to our safety and our economy. All the provinces and territories expressed support for the perimeter concept, and it appears the federal government is

listening.

Today we see the first concrete steps.

US Attorney General John Ashcroft is in Canada today to meet with four federal cabinet ministers to discuss security issues. His visit comes on the heels of a

United States announcement that 600 American troops will be deployed to assist in border flow and security. It's clear the United States continues to have grave concerns about the possibility of

terrorists entering their territory from Canada. The US action today underscores the importance of Canada moving quickly to introduce a perimeter approach to North American security.

Today's announcement includes an agreement to coordinate immigration measures between the two countries, and hopefully this will lead to the tightening of

Canadian immigration rules called for by Premier Harris in his November 6 letter to Prime Minister Chrétien.

We will closely monitor the implementation of today's announcements and will be in constant touch with stakeholders in Ontario to assess the impact as these

third countries and to ensure everything possible is done to facilitate cross-border trade.

Security and the economy are completely linked. The jobs and the lives of Ontarians depend on quick and thorough action by the Canadian government.

I want to thank Industry Minister Tobin for his co-operation and support. Our industry leaders' round table called for co-operation between governments on

these critical security and economic issues, and with today's announcement it appears to be happening.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I'm pleased, on behalf of our caucus, to have the opportunity to respond to the minister and, first of

all, to acknowledge that we are pleased with the tone of this statement, acknowledging the role of the federal government. We think it's extremely important that governments at all levels,

municipal, provincial and federal, work together, and it is our view, frankly, that the rhetoric emanating from Ontario has not been helpful in these circumstances and during these debates.

Representing the largest dry port in this country, this issue has been of extreme importance to myself and my colleagues from Windsor West and Essex, as it is

to all of us in this Legislature.

The federal government has had no less than five ministers down to our community to meet with business communities. The federal government has met quite

independently of the province's initiative on an ongoing basis with key business representatives from across the country. The question of free flow of goods and the question of security at the

border are now interwoven and must be dealt with together.

On the question of free flow of goods, I think all of us support it. There are some challenges with that issue. There are some challenges that have to be

acknowledged with respect to our sovereignty and our ability to integrate not only our border, but how that impacts on some of our other laws. For instance, the Americans have very different gun

laws from Canada. We don't allow handguns; they do. Like it or not, that's the way it is. There is a whole range of these kinds of issues that deal ultimately with our ability as a people to make

laws for ourselves that reflect our national objectives.

Accordingly, as we move to a freer border, and I think we all agree to that, a number of the initiatives that have been proposed, and I say to the minister,

these initiatives have been on the table for some time prior to September 11 -- for instance, the pre-clearance through customs on either side -- took on a new urgency, admittedly, after the

terrorist bombings. Those things do have to move forward, but in a manner that can accommodate our national differences, our national priorities and our national choices.

This province's trade is so dependent on the United States, we have no alternative but to make sure that border remains open. My leader, Dalton McGuinty, came

to Windsor I think about a week and a half after September 11 and met with all of the business leaders. He has also met with leaders of the automotive industry and other trade-dependent industries

to talk about the impact of these events on working families in this province. We recognize the need to make sure that border stays open to the free flow of goods.

It will be incumbent on the government of Ontario, in our view, to work co-operatively with the federal government at this time of war. We are in a state of

war. Canadian troops are on their way to Afghanistan as we speak. We are engaged in security measures. I should say to the minister, I had the opportunity to cross the border the other evening, and

passenger vehicles are now moving across in about 15 minutes. It's still slower than it was prior to September 11, but the co-operation we've seen between Washington and Ottawa is an example of the

co-operation we ought to have between Toronto and Ottawa.

government for its response. I acknowledge that the government of Ontario has taken a proactive role. This is no time for lobbing cheap political shots. This is not a time when we ought to be

debating, in what I would call a crude partisan fashion, issues that are at the very heart of our economic well-being and the security of the people of the United States and the security of the

people of this province.

I would urge the minister, as I wrap up my remarks, that there are certain issues that the province of Ontario ought to look at very quickly.

Number one: the largest border crossing in this country is not directly linked to a provincial highway. It was the minister's government that downloaded that

road to the municipality.

Number two: there is an urgent need for another border crossing, but more importantly from the province's perspective, an investment in capital to ensure that

the goods and services that are crossing at that port can access our provincial highway system. Today they can't. The minister is in possession of the emergency response from the city of Windsor

dated September 11, and he knows full well what this province ought to be doing to ensure -- and this province can do alone -- as he says, that our border stays open and free and the people in this

province continue to have jobs to support their families.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I want to raise some questions about the statement made by the minister responsible today.

First of all, I want to talk about the trade issues, because it seems as if someone is trying to indicate that following September 11 there was this dramatic

drop-off in trade. But all of the evidence points to the contrary.

I want to quote from the Financial Post

article of November 21, where they look at the Statistics Canada figures, which are released monthly. The Statistics

Canada figures for September show that within a week after the events of September 11, the actual amount of traded goods going across the border had returned to normal. In fact, they note that the

only significant decline was a decline in energy exports. But energy exports do not move across customs inspections; energy exports move by way of natural gas and oil pipelines.

So I'm left to wonder: if the evidence that has been determined by Statistics Canada, which is also corroborated by studies on the United States side of this

issue, in fact shows that there has not been a major disruption of trade, then what is the motivation here?

If I may suggest, the motivation underlying this -- and I think we should thank the United States ambassador, who has been very forthright on this issue. He

said, "It's long been, in fact, the policy of the United States to ask Canada to integrate our immigration, our customs and our policing and security issues with theirs, even before September 11."

But there is no evidence, in terms of the trade data, which would support this.

I wanted to ask another question about the so-called security side, because it seems to me that there are some issues here as well. I watched the US Attorney

General, Mr Ashcroft, on television two nights ago. He indicated, for example, that the United States has over 9,000 customs officers and border security officers along the border with Mexico. On a

border that is two and a half times larger, the border with Canada, they have only 500 customs officers. It seems that the United States has not regarded their border with Canada to be a problem.

It seems they've not regarded it to be a problem at all.

If having more security officers along the border is a solution, it seems to me that Mr Ashcroft and this government should explain how, despite all of the

border patrol officers and customs officers along the US border with Mexico, over one million illegal immigrants move from Mexico into the United States every year. You should explain how it is

that Spanish-speaking people are now becoming the largest immigrant group, the largest ethnic group, in the United States. Something doesn't add up here.

Another question about security: we know that the United States has spent billions of dollars along the Mexican border, yet it doesn't seem to have added any

security. The United States has spent tens of billions of dollars in the last 30 years on something called the war on drugs. One would think, with the incredible resources that have been devoted,

and the tens of billions of dollars, that Americans should somehow be more secure from drugs. It hasn't happened.

I want to get directly to the question, the issue of trying to build a security perimeter around North America. I invite this government to actually listen to

somebody who has been advising the United States. The gentleman's name is Robert Kaplan. He is an adviser to the US Special Forces. It's his advice to them that you cannot, in the modern world,

build this kind of security barrier. He points out that the heart of the problem is rising inequality in the world. One part of the world lives in desperate poverty and people will do anything to

escape that desperate poverty. People live in hopelessness and they live with a sense of injustice, so trying to establish security perimeters really doesn't answer the question. We have to address

the issue of growing inequality in the world. We have to address the issue that over 50% of the people feel a great sense of injustice in this world. We have to do something about it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOLTEACHERS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Minister of Education. Minister, on your watch, the number

of unqualified people teaching Ontario children has skyrocketed. According to the College of Teachers, we now have 1,300 people teaching in our schools who simply are not qualified to teach. That's

63% higher than last year, and 400% more than under the previous two governments. These people are teaching our kids, despite never having graduated from a faculty of education and notwithstanding

the fact they have never been certified by the Ontario College of Teachers.

Madam Minister, I thought you were all in favour of higher standards for teachers. Why are you lowering the standard for teaching in Ontario?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I find it interesting that the honourable member would like to support

higher standards for teachers. I hope that means he will be supporting Bill 110, which sets out performance appraisal standards for teachers in the classroom. I hope very much that that setting of

higher standards would be something the honourable member would support.

Secondly, as the honourable member should well know, the policy that provides school boards the flexibility to have people with other skills that they feel are

appropriate in classrooms through the letter of permission process was the same process that was in place when the Liberal government was there, when the NDP government was there and when the

Conservative government was there. I would certainly caution you on the use of numbers. That number fluctuates up and down, as it has under Liberal, NDP and Conservative governments.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, your number, 1,300 letters of special permission issued this year, is 400% higher than the numbers ever used by

the previous two governments. It used to be an emergency provision, where you brought in teachers as some desperate measure. The problem today is that you're driving teachers out of the profession.

That's why you've got to bring in so many teachers.

In Toronto alone, you've got 1,000 people teaching who are not teachers; there are 138 in Ottawa, 123 in London, at least 70 in the north and 39 in Barrie.

That means that somewhere around 30,000 Ontario students are at a distinct disadvantage because the people standing at the front of the class and teaching them day in and day out are not certified

and are not qualified to teach as teachers. Madam Minister, I ask you again, why are you lowering the standard of teaching in Ontario classrooms?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, no one has changed a standard. The letter of permission process is the same process that was in place for the

last many, many years and many, many governments. There are actually more people in teachers' college, more people graduating from teachers' college, because on this side of the House we recognized

some years ago that the population was aging and that the demographic wave was going through the profession of teaching like it's going through nurses, doctors and politicians. We have increased

the number of spaces in teachers' colleges to make sure there are more teachers available for our system -- some 6,000 more teaching spots -- and we still have more people who want to be teachers

than we have spots for. It's a wonderful, positive statement about the teaching profession and how young people and people from other careers see teaching as a wonderful choice to make.

Mr McGuinty: There were 35% fewer applications in Ontario's faculties of education last year than the year before. You are driving teachers

out of the profession and you are hardly extending a warm invitation to those who might be considering it as a profession.

Madam Minister, you won't do anything about these unqualified, uncertified people teaching Ontario children but the Ontario College of Teachers would like to

do something, but they are powerless to do so. They're asking you for greater authority over these unqualified individuals and you won't give it to them. They say they need this "for reasons of

accountability, standards of practice, ethical standards and misconduct rules." If you won't do anything to help regulate and control these unqualified, uncertified people who are teaching Ontario

children, then why will you not at a minimum accede to the Ontario College of Teachers's request so they can put in place some measures of accountability and some standards for those people?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Again, there are more people applying to teachers' colleges. We are expanding --

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): Not this year there aren't.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Yes, there are. I hear the honourable member, Mr Kennedy, who hasn't got the research right yet. I really wish he would. It

would certainly help the debate on public education. It deserves better than the kind of research that has sometimes been demonstrated.

We are expanding the number of teachers' college spots. We still have more people applying than we have space for. That's why we're continuing to expand the

number of teachers' college spots, to take advantage. We still have boards -- for example, the Toronto board had more people applying for jobs than they could possibly hire. We're continuing to see

qualified, interested people who have skills to offer.

If he wants to suggest that school boards are not living up to their obligations and responsibilities as employers, if he says he can't trust school boards to

protect our kids, then he should say that, because that's what that question is saying, that he doesn't trust school boards to hire qualified people --

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

MINISTRY DOCUMENTS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Solicitor General. You are the chief law enforcement officer of the

province of Ontario. In that capacity you must be beyond reproach; you must inspire the confidence of Ontario families; you must be seen to have the utmost respect for the law. The Provincial

Auditor says you did not respect his lawful request for information, a request he made pursuant to the Audit Act of Ontario. Given that you failed to respect the law in the past as a minister, how

can we trust you to respect the law today as Ontario's chief law enforcement officer?

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): To the Deputy Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The government can answer the question -- whoever. Deputy Premier, sorry for the interruption.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The question relates to the auditor's work with the Ministry of Transportation, not

with the Ministry of the Solicitor General. In the work that was done by the auditor, the auditor's staff, as is normal, worked with the staff of the ministry, not the minister. That's normal;

that's the way the procedure is normally followed. Then something unusual happened. The auditor's staff requested the release of cabinet documents. That is an unusual occurrence. The next thing

that happened, which is absolutely appropriate, was that the ministry staff then took the matter to Cabinet Office. The secretary of cabinet and the Secretary of Management Board then met with the

auditor.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, let me just remind you of the auditor's finding that he set out in his recent report. He says, "For the first time

since being appointed Provincial Auditor, I have to report an instance where my office did not receive all the information and explanations we required." He specifically says this was contrary to

section 10 of the Audit Act. He says, "The then senior management of the ministry hindered the audit process by not giving my staff full access to pertinent files, not providing all the information

requested and deleting parts of pertinent documents that they provided." That is very specific.

This man sitting directly behind you is in breach of

section 10 of the Audit Act of Ontario. How can he expect us now to have confidence in him in his new

capacity as chief law enforcement officer of Ontario if at another time and in another capacity as a minister he did not show respect for the law then?

Hon Mr Flaherty: As I was indicating in my previous answer, which I didn't finish because of the time, what happened after the cabinet

documents were requested by the auditor's office was that the ministry staff quite rightly referred that to the Cabinet Office, and the secretary of cabinet quite appropriately got involved. The

secretary of cabinet and the Secretary of Management Board then met with the auditor's office. There was no protocol for the release of cabinet documents in those circumstances, and there are

conflicting issues here. There's the issue of the confidentiality of cabinet documents and the cabinet process, and there are the responsibilities the auditor has under the Audit Act. The good news

is that a protocol was worked out to cover the entire government with the auditor, and that's significant progress.

Mr McGuinty: The only conflict here is between your version of events and the Provincial Auditor's version of events, and I'm with the

Provincial Auditor.

There is not a single reference in the auditor's report to any cabinet documents. On the other hand,

section 10 of the Audit Act is very clear, and I'll quote

from it. It says, "Every ministry of the public service ... shall furnish the auditor with such information ... as the auditor from time to time requires, and the auditor shall be given access to

all books, accounts, financial records" etc. There are no ifs, ands, buts or maybes. It says that they "shall" provide that specific information.

I ask you again, Mr Minister, in your new capacity, how is it that you expect us to have confidence in your new role today as chief law enforcement officer of

Ontario if in another capacity as minister you refused at that time to respect the law?

Hon Mr Flaherty: First of all, the information was provided. The member should make that clear and acknowledge that, that the information

requested by the auditor was in fact provided.

The second point -- and I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition, as a lawyer, knows that there is a significant issue raised between the auditor's

responsibilities under the Audit Act and the necessary confidentiality of the cabinet process. Those are competing demands. They had to be resolved. They were resolved through the secretary of

cabinet and the Secretary of Management Board meeting with the auditor's office and working out a protocol to cover government. That's a desirable result. It's helpful to have the protocol in

place. I'm sure that will assist not only Cabinet Office, but also Management Board and all ministries in dealing with the auditor and his important duties in the future.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): A question to the Deputy Premier: When Ontario citizens hear about your plans for private hospitals in

Brampton, we wonder, when is the Conservative government going to start learning from your privatization mistakes? Siphoning off health care dollars for private, for-profit health care corporations

is the problem we face, not the solution.

The Provincial Auditor slammed your government last week for proceeding with privatizations without making any case as to how the public was going to benefit.

But despite Walkerton, despite the problems with food safety examination, your government continues down the road. Before you make another mistake on privatization, Deputy Premier, will you say

here and now that there will be no private hospitals in Ontario of any shape or form?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The announcement that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and I were privileged

to make on Friday afternoon in Brampton dealt with the use of private capital in order to build hospitals sooner and to build more new hospitals in Ontario. Certainly it's the view of the

government that that's in the best interest of the people of Ontario, who, after all, want the best. They want first-class health and hospital facilities.

We're very fortunate in this province to have signifycant pools of capital in the teachers' fund, in the OMERS fund, in private capital reserves. It seems to

me an entirely sensible thing to do, for the public sector to partner with the private sector to get these facilities built earlier and to build more of them in the province.

Mr Hampton: Deputy Premier, what is almost tragic about this is that your governments, Conservative governments, have been down this road a

couple of times before. In the early 1980s the Conservative government of the day got into a contract with Extendicare to build a chronic care hospital in Etobicoke. But then it leaked out that the

cost of private financing and private building would mean that the cost to the public was $3 million more. It cost $3 million more for the private sector to build the hospital. After that became

public, the Conservative government of the day quickly and quietly backed away from that kind of proposition.

So I have to ask you, do you have to repeat the same mistake again? Private building of hospitals, private operation of hospitals, have been proven time and

time again to cost more. If you really believe that health care dollars should be used wisely, you won't do this. Stand up and say you're not going to, in effect, cost the people of Ontario more

because the private sector will want to make a profit on the building of the hospital.

Hon Mr Flaherty: Private money can of course be used to build the hospital. The hospital would be publicly administered and would comply with

the Canada Health Act. The RFP process would be followed, as always, to ensure the best proposal came forward and was accepted by the government. All of this is standard procedure.

Mr Hampton: What's not standard about it is that time and time again it's been shown that when the final bills are in, the public will be

paying more. You keep saying you have no money for health care, yet you're going to try the same kind of boondoggle Conservative governments tried in the 1980s; that is, get the private sector to

build the hospital, but then you have to figure in the profit level and the financing fees that they'll charge, and it comes out costing $3 million or $4 million more.

If you're short of health care dollars, how can you afford to spend the $3 million or $4 million more that the private sector will demand because they will

want to make a profit on the building, on the leasing and on whatever other operations they pay for? It can't be both ways. Either you're trying to save health care dollars or you're spending more,

as I say you're doing now. How can you defend this when you know it's going to cost more money?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The leader of the third party was right when he advocated tax cuts in Ontario. He's wrong about this and he's out of touch

with the people of Ontario.

David MacKinnon, the president and CEO of the Ontario Hospital Association, said on Friday, "This initiative is an example of an innovative partnership that

will enhance quality health care services in this province."

Hilary Short, the vice-president of the OHA, said this, this weekend: "The OHA is very supportive of this innovative new partnership to build a new hospital.

In light of very significant capital needs of hospitals, we need to find new and creative ways to rebuild the hospital system."

Interjection.

Hon Mr Flaherty: If we listen to the member from St Catharines, who's yelling at me right now, we'd know that the member for St Catharines

would pull the crane down, down the street, that's building the new emergency ward at the Toronto Hospital, $250 million, being built now through a bond issue. The member for St Catharines wants no

more --

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

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LEGISLATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Attorney General. I want to ask the Attorney General about a woman named

Stephanie Tesolin, a woman who knows all too well how this government fails to help women who are victims of violence. Mrs Tesolin's husband is serving a 30-day sentence for assaulting her and

threatening to kill her, but the 30-day sentence is up soon. She wanted to make use of some sections of the Domestic Violence Protection Act,

an act that your government passed 12 months ago that

you said was absolutely urgent. But when she tried to make use of the sections, she was told that despite the fact that it was passed 12 months ago, your government hasn't proclaimed the act.

Can you tell us, Minister, how a piece of legislation that was urgently needed 12 months ago to protect women who were subject to violence hasn't been

proclaimed in force by your government?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The act that my friend talks about is indeed an important act; it

is indeed

an act that will revolutionize, in many respects, the way that this very important matter is dealt with. But as the member knows, this isn't easy. If it was easy, undoubtedly the member,

when he was in my position, when he was sitting around the cabinet table, would have taken these steps. For five years they did absolutely nothing.

Here's what we've done: we've brought in legislation that is generally viewed as being state of the art and ahead of its time. But in order to implement it, as

he should know, we have to make sure that all the resources are available. So over the last little while, what we have done is we have worked with the judiciary, we have worked with crowns, we have

worked with victims' groups, we have worked with the police, with a view to ensuring that the proper resources are there to assist individuals in need of this type of assistance when they need it.

We must get it right the first time.

Mr Hampton: This was the government that 12 months ago told this Legislature and the people of Ontario that this bill was absolutely urgent

and had to be passed right away. This is a government that used time allocation to force the bill through in record time because it was so urgently needed. This was a government that said that once

this bill is proclaimed, abused women will be able to get emergency intervention orders any time of the day or night. Well, this woman, who is afraid for her life, tried to use your legislation and

what did she find out? This legislation that was so urgent, that had to be rushed through the Legislature with limited debate, almost no debate, your government hasn't even proclaimed it yet.

What do you say, sir, to Mrs Tesolin and all the other women out there who have been beaten and abused and threatened with death, and you can't even proclaim

legislation that you said was urgent 12 months ago?

Hon Mr Young: What I would say to the individual involved is that we have resources in place to assist them right now, resources that weren't

there when the Liberals and the New Democrats were in power, in excess of 40 programs in fact in place, $145 million spent every year by this government to assist victims each and every day.

As for this new legislation, that I believe the member opposite not only voted against but argued against day in and day out, as for that legislation that he

opposed, that he attempted to delay, that he's now welcoming, that he's now asking us to expedite, even though he tried to stall it, I say to you that in other provinces it's taken up to 15 months

to proclaim similar types of legislation, legislation that doesn't go nearly as far as our legislation does. If he looks across the country, if he looks at provinces that have different

governments, governments that are New Democratic or Liberal, he will see that they've tried to do as much as we are doing and that it's taken them even longer.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): My question is to the Deputy Premier. I'd like to know why your government has reopened the Adams mine

debate on the eve of Toronto city council's garbage vote, which is supposed to happen this week. The answer up here is that the Harris government is once again using the power of its government to

basically enrich, in one last parting gift, the Premier's personal friends.

This is the same, as I call them, notorious nest of thieves up in North Bay that is not content with the taxpayer-financed golf tournaments and sweetheart land

deals we've all seen. If you're a friend of the Premier, you get a good deal.

Interjection.

Mr Ramsay: No, they're waiting for the big payoff, the Adams mine. That's the multi-million dollar project that's going to pay off big for the

Premier's friends, that's going to pay off very big for the Premier down the road.

Minister, the trouble with the Adams mine is that it's anti-environment. Unlike the Michigan contract that the city of Toronto wants to sign, the Adams mine is

contrary to all the progressive diversion programs that Toronto wants to embark upon. Why have you waited until the very last moment to intervene in Toronto's garbage debate?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): There's an issue, of course, with respect to the garbage production in the city of

Toronto, and not only in Toronto but in the areas surrounding Toronto and elsewhere in southern Ontario that produce a great deal of garbage.

It is up to the relevant municipalities, including the city of Toronto, to take decisions. Their elected officials will make decisions about how to dispose of

their garbage. You know that the Keele Valley site will be closed. You know that commitment by this government is firm. You know there's some indication that the city of Toronto intends to move

garbage down Highway 401, through populated areas, into Michigan. It is up to the city of Toronto to make that decision. It has raised concern from other municipal leaders: Mayor McCallion in

Mississauga, Mayor DeCicco in London.

These are difficult issues, but they are for the municipalities to determine.

Mr Ramsay: Minister, if it's up to the city of Toronto, why is your Minister of Municipal Affairs right now asking for a six-month deferral of

this vote? It's because your government wants to interfere with that municipal function. That's what's going on.

I ask myself, "What's the reason?" It just so happens that here we have the chief dump promoter in North Bay, a full-page ad, saying, "Mike Harris, do what you

said you were going to do and put this money into our pockets." A few days later, here's a full-page ad, also from a dump promoter, saying, "Get on with it, Mike. We want this project." Why would

this be coming? The day after this ad appears, Chris Hodgson comes in and says, "I'm going to step into the Toronto garbage debate." Lo and behold, he's doing that.

Over the last six years, this has been a consistent pattern of behaviour, that this government has steered the city of Toronto toward the Adams mine. Why?

Because the Premier's friends potentially can benefit from millions and millions of dollars from this. Minister, it's obvious why the Premier wants this. But why is your government, you and the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, participating in this gross conflict of interest?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I understand the Minister of Municipal Affairs did not ask for six months, but that's another matter.

There are a number of regional and municipal governments throughout Ontario that will be considering waste disposal solutions in the very near future. This

government lived up to its commitment to review Toronto's proposal to transport its solid waste, by truck, to Michigan, to ensure it meets all provincial regulatory requirements for protecting the

environment. We did that. It remains a matter of substantial concern, however, to other municipalities. There are other municipalities around Toronto that are going to have to deal with this very

serious issue of disposing of garbage over time.

It does seem that the minister responsible, and others, would view the role of the Smart Growth councils as being vital in looking at the overall issue of how

we're going to deal with this important environmental issue over the next decade.

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. This past week I received the latest edition of ON magazine

entitled, "Building a Stronger Economy." Flipping through it while eating breakfast, I noticed there is quite a variety of information.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The Minister of Labour, it's your member. Please let her ask the question. Member for York North.

Mrs Munro: There is quite a lot of information about what this government is doing for the people of Ontario. For example, I was struck by the

information it provided for people about how to start their own small business, tips on safe winter driving, information on how to keep our communities safe, fun and interesting winter holidays in

Ontario and a parent survey on education.

The opposition parties have on numerous occasions called this same publication "partisan political advertising." When there is so much news coverage about what

this government is doing and with so much attention to decisions made by this House, is this publication really necessary?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): ON magazine, which has just recently been issued, contains a number of very

important information items for the public. In fact, the government wants to be able to convey to the people of Ontario many things, informational pieces about what the government is actually

doing. According to a very recent survey done by the federal Liberal government, it was indicated that 14% of people thought they received enough information from the government and, therefore, the

vast majority believed they didn't receive enough information.

I will point out one thing. A number of the issues here were such tourism initiatives as, in the member from York North's riding, the Georgina Winter Carnival.

Certainly it's a good promotion for events in Sutton. We have Winterlude in Ottawa and the Bon Soo in Sault Ste Marie. I'm sure some of the members in the opposition parties would like to see the

government promoting such great tourism initiatives under our great tourism minister, Tim Hudak.

Mrs Munro: I appreciate the response from the Chair of Management Board. I think everyone will agree that a government has an obligation

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It's getting loud in here. The member for St Catharines, please come to order.

Mrs Munro: -- to communicate with its taxpayers. Certainly a government like this, which has undertaken so many important initiatives, is no

exception.

I was not aware that so few people felt they received enough information about what their government is doing. In light of that, I find it appalling that the

opposition would carry on to the extent it has. Based on this, and their resistance to these communications, I can only surmise that they are either (

a) ignorant of the facts --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Windsor West, come to order, please. I just get up and say it and then somebody else starts up. Please come to

order. You were talking right across the entire time. Please come to order. Sorry again, member for York North.

Mrs Munro: -- or (

b) are afraid of people having information so that they can make up their own minds

We all know that information does not come cheaply. The opposition has often told us that we are wasting money on advertising. Minister, can you tell me, do

you feel that being accountable to the people of Ontario is worth the expense of government publication?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You'll be happy to know, and I'm sure the people in Ontario will be happy to know, that ON magazine, which informs people

about education, health and a number of tourism issues, costs 25 cents to publish, send out and deliver. That's the whole cost. That's less than about half the cost of a postage stamp. On the other

hand, we have here the federal government publication, which is called Services For You, which costs 32 cents per unit, which is 36% higher than the cost to the Ontario public.

We have the ability here to tell the public about our commitment to health care --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. A warning to everybody: the next one who shouts out, I'm going to pick you out. It's like a hockey game. You might not be

the first one to do it, but now there's going to be somebody thrown out. It might not be the person who does it, but just be warned, if you do shout out, you might or might not be thrown out. Last

warning to everyone.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'm very pleased to say that with ON magazine we have the ability to inform the public about our commitment to health care,

on which I have to say the federal government certainly doesn't live up to its commitments. I'm sad to say that back in 1974 the commitment was 50-50, the federal government and the province of

Ontario. In 1994, it was 18%. Sadly today, it is 14%. Fourteen cents on every dollar by the federal government, where the province of Ontario pays 86 cents --

The Speaker: Order. The minister's time is up. New question.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question for the Minister of Education. You've been forcing school boards to close schools

now prematurely and unnecessarily at a rate that is double and triple the closures of previous governments. Your provincial school closing policy would put 100-plus schools up for closing this year

in Ottawa, in St Catharines and right here in Toronto.

Minister, today in the gallery is June-Marie Herron from St Veronica's elementary school. So is Deborah Lucas from St Bernadette's. She's here with her kids

Emily, Benjamin and Jacob. They represent hundreds who are here today to hold you directly responsible for the pending loss of their schools. You no doubt want to blame the school boards, as you

had in the past, but these parents know better. Your policy is seriously flawed. It's a rigged process: the board who plays this can only lose, and it's a question of which parents and which

children will lose.

Minister, will you today fix your school closing policy so it's not so brutally unfair? Are you prepared to sit down with the parents --

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

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): One of the most difficult responsibilities for any school board is to try

and allocate school space as populations shift from one neighbourhood to another neighbourhood. That's always been the responsibility of school boards. The rate of school closure was the same in

the honourable member's government time in office as it is now with ours.

Secondly, it is not accurate and is highly misleading to go out and take a list of schools that boards are looking at and reviewing, and saying they're all

slated for closure. If the honourable member was familiar with the process he would know that by law, school boards are required to talk to the community and to work with the community: "Are there

alternatives? Are there better uses to make sure that we can have effective use of all of our school space?" Many times, when that happens, a school board decides, based on the community input, to

make alternative decisions, and that is as the process should be. If the honourable member is proposing that he wants Queen's Park to start making decisions about --

The Speaker: Order. The minister's time is up.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, 10 years before your government, an average of 30 schools closed. Last year there were 59 closed. The year before that,

73. That's not the same rate.

These parents and hundreds of others have examined your excuses and they want me to tell you that it's unacceptable. The experts say their smaller schools are

better. They say that the savings are small or non-existent and they know that what you're doing is taking away parent choice despite the chattering of the people opposite. They know that the

millions that you spent on ads and on phoney questionnaires could have kept their school open.

Real parents are right here, as they are in Niagara and in Ottawa. Their lives are about to go through contortions. Debra McNevin depends on grandparents to

look after kids. Joanne Kular, with her kids here, Eric and Laura, depends on special programs that you are going to make them lose.

Minister, if you're so confident that you don't have a role in this, that it's not your provincial school closing policy, will you refer it to an independent

body, say, to the deans of education? Will you at least sit down with these parents and explain why you're closing their school?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Let's be clear what the honourable member has just asked. You want to take elected trustees and say, "Step aside; you have no

right to make the decision about what works for your community school," and give it to unelected university, ivory tower -- God bless them -- faculty of education deans. Let's be very clear that's

what he's asking to do: to take deans of education --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Sorry. Not you, Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'm very respectful of the Speaker.

The Speaker: I know, it's confusing when you do that. Sorry, Minister. I didn't mean to scare you.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member is quite obviously not familiar with the process that school boards are required to go through: to

consult the school community, to consult parents. First of all, about the honourable member's factual information: there were not 73 schools closed in 2000. There were not 59 schools closed in

2001. Again, he's putting out facts trying to scare communities. It's a very difficult process. That's why --

The Speaker: Order. I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Transportation. I bring forward concerns from the important and

highly competitive trucking industry. These concerns relate directly to the administrative process associated with the international registration plan. Minister, for some people in my riding, the

amount of time and distance required to get a truck registered can be very, very impractical. In this respect, businesses in large urban areas have an unfair advantage over their rural

counterparts. This issue of access to services was emphasized to me when I chaired the Premier's Task Force on Rural Economic Renewal. Minister, what actions have you taken to improve customer

service, and is it possible to expand the number of service delivery points?

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank my colleague for the question. My ministry is committed to ensuring that the

Ontario trucking industry remains competitive in the North American marketplace. Membership in the international registration plan supports Ontario's transportation industry and our economy as a

whole.

The original interjurisdictional carrier registration network consisted of seven offices. Since implementation of IRP, my ministry has expanded this network to

13 offices, opening new ones in several municipalities across the province. The Ontario trucking industry was consulted and provided valuable assistance in selecting these new locations.

In addition to over-the-counter service, MTO registers Ontario IRP carriers through fax, mail and courier delivery. We've also developed new innovations to

ensure a quicker registration process. Of course, my ministry will continue to look for ways to improve this service.

Mr Galt: Thank you for the response. Minister, we're living in an age of dramatic technological advances, including interactive Web sites,

videoconferencing and instant financial transactions. Many time-consuming tasks have been simplified and made user-friendly. Under this government, you can now register a business within 20 minutes

or less, as opposed to 20 days in years past, and you can now renew your vehicle licence plate conveniently at kiosks located in malls and government buildings across the province. The process of

international-registration-plan registration appears to be a simple information transaction. Is it not possible to provide this service via a secure Internet site or through existing government

kiosks and service desks?

Hon Mr Clark: Thank you again to my colleague for the question. Registering a vehicle for travel within Ontario is relatively simple. However,

it is naturally more complicated to register a commercial vehicle for travel to other provinces and the continental US.

During my ministry's transition to IRP, 12,000 applications, totalling 60,000 vehicles, were processed. IRP is designed as a one-stop shopping program for

registration in all member jurisdictions, so carriers must satisfy the information needs of up to 59 jurisdictions, instead of just Ontario. So you can appreciate that, as a result, IRP

applications need to be processed by specifically trained staff using software designed specifically to capture the necessary information. We are looking into new ways of providing an electronic

processing feature for IRP, and I'm looking forward to examining these possibilities in the near future.

MINISTRY DOCUMENTS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Deputy Premier: there's nothing ambiguous about

section 10 of the Audit Act, and there's no ambiguity

in the report of the Provincial Auditor. The Provincial Auditor didn't report back on establishing a new protocol about accessing certain types of documents. The Provincial Auditor complained of an

unprecedented obstruction of the performance by him of his duty. That obstruction consisted of a clear breach of

section 10 of the Audit Act, as well as the alteration of documents and the contents

of those documents.

I say to the Deputy Premier, the then Minister of Transportation is now the Solicitor General. Do you think it's appropriate for a minister of your government

to engage in scofflaw, as was demonstrated here, and the possible breach of Criminal Code, and is it similarly appropriate that that minister now be the Solicitor General?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): It should be noted that the government did indeed provide the auditor with all of the

necessary information that he required to conduct his audit, including the confidential cabinet documents. The staff of the ministry was working with the auditor. An issue arose at the request of

the auditor for the production of certain cabinet documents. Quite correctly, the ministry staff referred that to the secretary of cabinet, to the cabinet office. The secretary of cabinet and the

Secretary of Management Board then met with the auditor's office. They developed a protocol together that would permit the government to provide those confidential documents to the auditor's

office. As I say, the government provided the auditor with all the necessary information that he required.

Mr Kormos: Well, Deputy Premier, your line today doesn't jive with what was in the Provincial Auditor's report. The Provincial Auditor

complained of an unprecedented obstruction of his work. You should understand, Minister, that making a material alteration in a document by erasure, obliteration, removal or any other way

constitutes the criminal offence of forgery. The Provincial Auditor indicated clearly that he received documents from the then Minister of Transportation, now Solicitor General, that were

materially altered. The purpose of the alteration was clearly for no other reason than to protect the government in a way that it finally wasn't able to protect itself when the auditor finally had

access to all of the information.

I say to the Deputy Premier that we, as you know, have asked the Ontario Provincial Police to conduct an investigation of this matter. Why is it appropriate

for your Solicitor General to remain in his position when he is the subject matter of a contemplation of an investigation by our Ontario Provincial Police?

Hon Mr Flaherty: As I indicated to the member opposite, a protocol has been agreed on with respect to the production of these types of

documents. There is also a long-established protocol in place that allegations of misconduct that have been raised are referred to the assistant Deputy Attorney General for his review.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): To the Deputy Premier on the same matter, I just talked to the Provincial Auditor, who tells me

that the documents he requested are documents that in his opinion are documents prepared in the normal course of events, documents that are prepared in any ministry to do business, not confidential

cabinet documents, and that those are documents that his auditors have always had available. Minister, why would you be telling the Legislature that these documents were secret cabinet documents

when according to the Provincial Auditor they're simply documents prepared in the normal course of events?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I'm advised that the documents requested by the auditor's staff in undertaking their work were cabinet documents.

Mr Phillips: I would like to know how you personally have been involved in the background analysis of this. To us, a decision like this would

be one that appears to have been made with the involvement of the cabinet minister involved, a major decision like this. Have you personally assured yourself, Deputy, that the documents the auditor

requested -- because according to him, these were simply documents that would be prepared in any ministry for any normal business case, documents always provided to the auditor. Have you personally

had an opportunity to review this and determine, first, whether the minister himself was involved in discussions with staff about the decision, and second, have you assured yourself that in fact

the documents requested by the auditor were confidential cabinet documents?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I have not investigated this matter or assured myself with respect to those matters. That's not my role. What I do rely on is

the information given to me through Cabinet Office and through Management Board that this was the process followed. I have no reason to believe that the information given to me with respect to

process is anything but accurate, and that is, certain documents were requested, there was a meeting that took place between the auditor's office and the Secretary of Management Board and the

secretary of cabinet, and that a protocol which heretofore had not been in place was put into place. The documents were then produced. The auditor got the information he wanted and was able to

comment on the subject matter with which he was concerned.

FOOD SAFETY

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question. Member for Perth-Middlesex.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): Mr Speaker, I'm sure you'll get us on

schedule again on the rotation.

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. As society moves more from subsistence, where each person grows their own food, to

survival, where very few people produce the food for everyone -- that's the context I want to put my question in. Last week, the Provincial Auditor reported some concerns about the safety of our

food, especially meat, fruits and vegetables. Can you tell me what your ministry is doing to ensure food safety for Ontario consumers?

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Actually, our government and my ministry are working on many fronts to

ensure the safety of food for our consumers. We're continually strengthening the province's food safety system by updating standards and inspection programs and using new science, taking advantage

of new technologies to minimize public health and the economic risk.

When the audit of my ministry's food industry division was being conducted by the Provincial Auditor, we were already well underway in reviewing our food

safety system in preparation for new legislation. In fact, when Bill 87, the proposed Food Safety and Quality Act, is passed, we'll be better equipped than ever to provide a science-based,

field-to-fork food safety system.

I can assure consumers that all of the recommendations in the Provincial Auditor's report have been accepted and many have already been acted on by our

ministry. But we also work closely with our industry partners --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

Mr Johnson: Minister, I'm pleased to hear your assurances for consumers and that the industry is working with you to ensure food safety. I

have an

article here from the local Listowel paper that makes note of Mary MacIntosh and Russ Danbrook and the grant they received from the healthy futures program for their environmental farm

plans. Of course, it mentions that in the county that I live in, Perth, the peer review committee has approved over 1,000 farm environmental plans in that area. Can you tell me what other kinds of

industry projects are supported through the healthy futures for Ontario agriculture program?

Hon Mr Coburn: There are a number of excellent projects that we have partnered with in the healthy futures program. For example, a project

called The Cutting Edge involves a thorough technical analysis of leading-edge beef cutting and tracing technology around the world and the development of a comprehensive plan for best adapting it

to the unique needs of the meat processors here in Ontario.

Another project will ensure the development and implementation of a hazard analysis and critical control point, more commonly known as HACCP. This is a quality

assurance program for all of the chicken farms in the province.

There is a second HACCP-based quality assurance program for 6,300 dairy farmers right across the province as well, and yet another HACCP-based project at the

Ontario Food Terminal.

The healthy futures project for the pork sector includes enhancing competitiveness in five distinctive areas: assured food safety and quality, livestock

identity preservation, international marketing and competitiveness, industry co-operation and development, and electronic supply chain coordination.

MINISTRY DOCUMENTS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the Deputy Premier. I want to return to the very serious matter raised by the

Provincial Auditor and specifically his assertion on page 2, right at the front of his auditor's report released last week, that

section 10 of the Audit Act was breached, and was breached for the

first time since he was appointed Provincial Auditor some nine years ago. This is a man who has completed dozens of audits and of course who has since produced nine annual reports.

Minister, I'm trying to ascertain now precisely your understanding of why it is that information was held back from the Provincial Auditor. First you told us

that these were cabinet documents and hence protected by confidentiality, but we now have learned directly from the Provincial Auditor himself that the documents he was seeking at no time were

cabinet documents and that they were documents that were provided in the normal course of events.

Can you now tell us specifically what kinds of documents you believe were held back and why it is that they were held back from the Provincial Auditor?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): As I told the honourable member some 30 or 40 minutes ago now, the auditor's office

was working with the ministry's staff in the normal course of their audit. The minister's office was not involved; the ministry staff were involved. That, again, is the normal process. In the audit

relationship in Ontario, as I understand it, the auditor's staff requested certain documents in the nature of cabinet documents. That was an issue, then, that was raised by ministry staff with the

secretary of cabinet's office -- with Cabinet Office. That was, again, appropriate; the procedure followed was to refer the issue to the Cabinet Office. Cabinet Office and Management Board

responded promptly to the specific request of the auditor and developed a government-wide protocol for the release of cabinet documents.

Mr McGuinty: I can understand why the Deputy Premier now would be shifting his answer. At first it was a matter specifically of cabinet

documents. Now, apparently, that is not in fact the case, given the assertions just given to us by the Provincial Auditor. Now the Deputy Premier is trying to place the responsibility with

staff.

I believe there's something called ministerial accountability, and I believe that the minister's responsibility is to acquiesce to any invitation, any request

made by the Provincial Auditor when it comes to providing information in the normal course of events.

Will you now admit, Deputy Premier, that the facts are as specifically stated by the Provincial Auditor in his report and as he has just added to those through

his telephone conversations with us today? And the facts are that there were no cabinet documents involved here. These were documents that should have been provided in the usual course of business.

The fact is that the minister, who is accountable for the activities of anybody within his ministry, failed to live up to his responsibilities under the Audit Act and to provide all information

that he should have provided to the Provincial Auditor, who was conducting an audit.

Hon Mr Flaherty: As I indicated previously to the member opposite, the secretary of cabinet and the secretary of Management Board met with the

auditor to resolve the issues and define a mechanism to provide him with the information that he required to fulfill his responsibilities under the Audit Act. Again, there are the competing

requirements of the auditor's obligations, his responsibilities under the Audit Act in Ontario, and the obligations with respect to confidentiality, which are the responsibilities of the secretary

of cabinet and the secretary of Management Board. What they were able to accomplish was to draft a protocol and agree to a protocol for the release of the documents.

I repeat to the member opposite that the government provided the auditor with all of the necessary information that he required to conduct his audit, including

confidential cabinet documents.

NANTICOKE GENERATING STATION

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): My question is to the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. Minister, just last week you were

down in my riding and visited our Nanticoke generating station. At the station you announced the installation of selective catalytic reduction units, certainly great news for our area. It would

create jobs, of course, but more important, the installation of this kind of equipment is great news for the environment.

Despite this fact, there are critics. They continue to raise concerns that the plant should be converted to natural gas. Minister, could you please explain to

my constituents and others elsewhere in the province why the Nanticoke coal-fired generating station should not be converted to natural gas?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): While it may be a noble goal to convert our four coal stations to natural gas, I

remind people that's certainly not the trend around the world. There are 205 United States coal plants within our Ontario-US airshed. Currently they're building more coal plants, as are Alberta and

other provinces in Canada, and many of these new plants don't have the new technology or the $250-million investment that we've made on the Nanticoke plant and the Lambton plant.

Also, the Clean Air Alliance says this can happen overnight. You've got to ask Jack Gibbons, "Where are you going to get the gas?" Our four coal plants would

take all of the natural gas available today in Ontario, plus we'd have to double the pipeline either from the west or the east. The tripling of natural gas prices you saw last year and earlier this

year -- you ain't seen nothing yet. We would take all the gas so that Mrs Jones, my mother, my household wouldn't have any available gas. We'd have to double the pipelines in Canada. You would do

more environmental damage doing that alone, keeping in mind that Nanticoke and our four stations are responsible for less than 10% of the smog problem in this province.

Mr Barrett: Thank you, Minister. We certainly all realize this $250 million is a very significant investment, an investment by Ontario Power

Generation. Could you now explain how the selective catalytic reduction units will help the environment while improving air quality in my area and improving air quality across the province?

Hon Mr Wilson: The selective catalytic units will reduce some 12,000 tonnes of toxic emissions. That's the equivalent of taking 6,000 cars off

the road. It will remove some 80% of the nitrogen oxides and will make a significant improvement to air quality.

Again, the point is, to convert these plants would take all of the natural gas and more that's available in Ontario today, so there would be none left to heat

those over two million homes and small businesses that need it, for our hospitals, for our small businesses and our large businesses, our steel factories etc. The price of gas would at least

quadruple, if not go up six or eight times, plus you'd have to build new pipelines across this country or from the United States to get more gas in here. It doesn't make sense.

The route we're taking has been applauded by many environmental groups. Our new standards at Nanticoke and our other plants are now higher than those in the

United States by the EPA, and the commitment of this government is to meet or exceed anything the US may come out with in the future. Right now we're North American leaders.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Deputy Premier and it's in regard to the Adams mine project once again. You would

know that Gordon McGuinty, the proponent of the Adams mine project, is out there trying to revive that project once again, and it would appear that he has found himself a champion at your cabinet

table -- none other than Chris Hodgson, the Minister of Municipal Affairs himself.

Why we're saying that is that it's fairly clear by the actions of Mr Hodgson that he and Mr McGuinty are somewhat connected. We know that Mr McGuinty is out

there saying he wants the city of Toronto to delay by six months their decision to extend the contract for transportation of waste to Michigan. We've now got the Minister of Municipal Affairs out

there saying he wants to have the same six-month delay. We know that Mr McGuinty is saying that he is developing language saying this is a made-in-Ontario solution. All of a sudden we hear the same

buzzwords coming out of the minister's mouth.

I'm asking you this question: Deputy Premier, will you today make a very clear statement on behalf of your government that you will not take

part in trying to

revive the Adams mine project once again?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The decisions with respect to garbage and the disposition of garbage remain with the

municipalities. It is a matter for them to decide. In the future we do anticipate that the Smart Growth councils will be of significant assistance to all of the people in Ontario in taking a broad

view on a regional basis, because the Smart Growth councils will be regionally based, with respect to how we address this very important issue, not just with respect to the city of Toronto but with

respect to the 905 areas and other areas of the province.

This is a major environmental challenge, I'm sure the member opposite would agree, for all of us in Ontario. It is up to the municipalities to come to a

decision. They have to comply of course with provincial regulations. I understand the city of Toronto has done that, but in the future I certainly hope that our Smart Growth councils would address

this important environmental issue.

Mr Bisson: We could debate your Smart Growth; it's more like dumb growth when you look at the policy. But the issue is a very simple one. I'm

asking you today to stand in this Legislature and categorically say that your government is not going to be moving to try to be the proponent of the Adams mine project. I'll put it to you again.

It's really simple. Will you stand up today on behalf of the government of Ontario and tell us and tell northerners who are here today in the gallery that your government will not take

part in a

strategy that will see the revival of the Adams mine project once again?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The province is not in a position to tell the city of Toronto what it should or should not do. The city of Toronto has the

jurisdiction to make its own decision with respect to the disposition of its waste. I hope that the city of Toronto would take into consideration the views of the mayor of Mississauga, of the mayor

of London, of other people around the province, with respect to the disposition of its waste.

Similarly, I hope that the 905 areas and the other areas of the province with significant challenges in terms of disposition of waste would take into

consideration the views of other people in the province of Ontario, but at the end of the day this is a municipal issue to be resolved by the municipalities, subject of course to ensuring that

their steps meet all regulatory requirements for protecting the environment. That has been reviewed in terms of the city of Toronto proposal to truck waste to Michigan and they've complied.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traffic volume has increased dramatically on Highway 11-17 between Thunder Bay and Nipigon over the past 15 years; and

"Whereas the sections of Highway 11 between Nipigon and Longlac, Highway 584 to Nakina, Highway 17 between Nipigon and Marathon and Highway 527 to Armstrong

would benefit from a safety point of view from fully paved shoulders; and

"Whereas the Minister of Transportation has recommended that any major transportation infrastructure improvements on these stretches of the provincial highway

should focus on high-volume areas and enhanced safety features;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario and residents of northwestern Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to provide funding

support to:

"

(1) Twin the highway between Thunder Bay and Pass Lake as a first priority with the stated goal of eventually completing the twinning all the way to

Nipigon;

"

(2) Commit to fully paving the shoulders of Highway 17 from Nipigon east to Marathon, Highway 11 from Nipigon east to Longlac, Highway 584 from Geraldton to

Nakina, Highway 527 from the Thunder Bay Expressway to Armstrong;

"

(3) Commit to a serious re-evaluation from a design point of view of dangerous portions of the highway that have seen a higher proportion of accidents over

the years."

This comes to me from June Huston in Pass Lake, who has worked very hard to get these out. I'm very happy to add my name to this petition.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

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

"Whereas Health Canada approved Visudyne on June 1, 2000, as therapy for the treatment of wet form age-related macular degeneration. However OHIP does not yet

pay for the procedure and it has not been added to the Ontario drug plan formulary;

"Whereas the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia have already added Visudyne to their provincial drug plans;

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

13% of patients;

"Whereas patients requiring therapy using Visudyne face a cost of $1,750 for the drug and $750 for the clinician procedural fees each time therapy is

administered, and to complete a full therapy cycle, a patient would be required to pay $15,000 to preserve his or her sight; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health was to make a decision on Visudyne treatment at the end of February 2001;

"Let it be resolved that the Ministry of Health immediately approve and add Visudyne treatments to the Ontario drug plan formulary to assist those suffering

with macular degeneration."

I affix my signature. I'm in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed in this petition.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I have a petition here from the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board expressing concern about the

student-focused funding. They're asking for additional funding. In particular, their concern has to do with declining enrolments and the difficulties that boards have with declining enrolments. I

respectfully submit this petition.

NURSES

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I have a petition here that is supported by all the members of Scarborough-Rouge River. It

reads:

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

injury to nurses; and

"Whereas there is a chronic nursing shortage in Ontario;

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

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

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

The Ontario government must:

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

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

decisions."

I'm going to affix my signature on this, with all the people of Scarborough-Rouge River, in support of this.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I have another 1,000 names to add to the audiology petition from the following

communities, who have asked me to present on their behalf: Caledonia, Hagersville, Mount Hope, Ancaster, Hamilton, Grimsby, Dundas, Sutton, Nobleton, Mount Albert, Bradford, Oakville, St

Catharines, Brougham, Brampton, Barrie, Pickering, Uxbridge, Thornhill, Oakville, Holland Landing, Keswick, Caledon East, Georgetown, Little Britain, Lindsay, Belleville, Fenelon Falls, Coboconk --

I don't know where that is; I'm going to look that up, though -- Oshawa, Cameron, Oakwood, Woodville, Reaboro, Colborne, Drayton, Listowel, Fordwich, Hanover and Moorefield. The petition from these

communities reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

May those who have ears to hear, hear.

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a petition presented to me by Mike Wells. There are over 1,300 names on this petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the London Health Sciences Centre is a world-class academic health sciences centre serving people throughout southwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has forced the London Health Sciences Centre to find $17 million in annual savings by 2005; and

"Whereas the London Health Sciences Centre has agreed to cut 18 programs in order to satisfy directions from the provincial Ministry of Health; and

"Whereas these cuts will put the health of the people of southwestern Ontario, and particularly children, at risk; and

"Whereas these cuts will diminish the London Health Sciences Centre's standing as a regional health care resource; and

"Whereas these cuts will worsen the continuing physician shortages in the region;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government take immediate action to ensure

these important health services are maintained so that the health and safety of people throughout southwestern Ontario are not put at risk."

I too have signed this petition.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

riding, Durham, Peterborough and also from Prince Edward-Hastings. Basically they're concerned with the teacher testing program. They oppose what the government is passing. What they're asking is

that:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that you repeal all clauses and references to professional learning from the Stability in Education Act, 2001."

I respectfully submit this petition.

HOME CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a petition here signed by a number of people in my riding of Kingston and the Islands. It

states as follows:

"We, the undersigned, request a withdrawal of Bill 130, the Community Care Access Corporations Act, 2001, introduced by the associate minister of health with

responsibilities for long-term care, the Honourable Helen Johns;

"Bill 130 will eliminate community volunteer membership in local access centres, fire the CEOs, fire the volunteer officers and members of the boards of

directors. The cabinet will appoint a CEO, the directors and the officers of the local access centres, who will be paid by the taxpayers as they are no longer volunteers;

"We urge the government to withdraw Bill 130, initiate public consultations with the stakeholders that are transparent and accessible and to review the issues

of the current delivery of home care and options to improve the current system."

This has been signed by a number of people, and I have signed it as well.

SOCIAL AUDIT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has undertaken a massive reform of the way social service programs are managed and delivered in this province; and

"Whereas the government's language, actions and policies over the last six years have reinforced the worst kind of stereotypes about people on social

assistance without offering Ontarians any proof that the policies they've put in place are meeting the needs of those whose circumstances have forced them to seek temporary assistance from

Ontario's social safety net; and

"Whereas this government when challenged on how well their Ontario Works programs are working, point to welfare caseload numbers as their one and only

measurement of success or failure; and

"Whereas a social audit would determine how this government's policies are impacting on low-income children and families and allow for enhancements to improve

the well-being, employability and economic security of individuals and families in need;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand that the government of Ontario conduct a social audit of its Ontario

Works program."

I am pleased to sign my name to this petition.

EDUCATION FUNDING

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

"Whereas the Harris government's rigid education funding formula is forcing the potential closure of neighbourhood schools such as Consolidated, Dalewood,

Lakebreeze, Maplewood and Victoria in the city of St Catharines, and has centralized control for education spending and decision-making at Queen's Park, and will not allow communities the

flexibility to respond to local needs;

"Whereas chronic underfunding and an inflexible funding formula are strangling the system and students are suffering the consequences;

"Whereas there is evidence that larger schools do not automatically translate into cost-effectiveness;

"Whereas smaller, neighbourhood schools have lower incidences of negative social behaviour, much greater and more varied student participation in

extracurricular activities, higher attendance rates and lower dropout rates, and foster strong interpersonal relationships; and

"Whereas small neighbourhood schools in local communities, both rural and urban, serve as important meeting areas for neighbourhood organizations which help

bring individuals together and strengthen neighbourhood ties and the current funding formula does not recognize community use of these schools,

"Be it resolved that the Harris government immediately reconfigure their unyielding funding fo