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

December 4, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Dec-04 vol. A (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

OF ONTARIO DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 4 December 2000 Lundi 4 décembre 2000

ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

LAW ENFORCEMENT

SMART COMMUNITIES

ACADEMIC TESTING

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

ELWOOD MOORE

HIGHWAY SAFETY

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 /

LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

DEFERRED VOTES

CONTINUED PROTECTION FOR

PROPERTY TAXPAYERS ACT, 2000 /

LOI DE 2000 POURSUIVANT

LES MESURES DE PROTECTION

DES CONTRIBUABLES FONCIERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

AMBULANCE SERVICES

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

MARRIAGE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

COMMUNITY SAFETY

COURT RULING

PAROLE SYSTEM

CLASS SIZE

DRIVER LICENCES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE /

LONG-TERM CARE

RURAL JOBS STRATEGY

SITE OF EARLY PARLIAMENT

PETITIONS

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

PARENTAL LEAVE

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

PHOTO RADAR

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Members' statements? The member for Algoma-Manitoulin.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Point of order.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. I apologize. Thank you. I said I would do that and I forgot in two minutes. The Chair of Management Board.

ESTIMATES

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I have a message from the Administrator of the Government, signed by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The Administrator of the Government transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March 2001 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): On Saturday, I had the good fortune to meet with the board of directors of Algoma Community Living. That's the agency that provides support to developmentally disabled people through the entire district of Algoma, from Hornepayne right straight through to the Elliot Lake, Blind River, Spragge area.

They told me, in meeting with the executive director, Glenn Rampton, and Lila Cyr from Blind River, that Ontario needs a strong new Ontarians With Disabilities Act to tear down the barriers that keep people with disabilities from participating in all aspects of life. Last March, they participated in an event in support of an ODA consultation by my colleague Steve Peters. I was also there. They are telling me there is a critical need for more funding to support aging parents with middle-aged children with a developmental disability still living with them.

This year, they were asked to do a quick inventory of the more pressing cases. They identified a need for funding in the order of $500,000 to deal with needs that will likely become crises over the next few years. They received only $93,000. They also told me that over the past few years, WSIB costs to this agency have increased from $66,000 to almost a quarter of a million dollars. This is unacceptable.

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Mr David Young (Willowdale): At a ceremony last Friday night, the Rock-Machine, a Quebec biker gang that has battled the Hell's Angels in a bloody turf war over the last six years, were made probationary members of a Texas-based biker gang known as the Bandidos. Toronto police chief Julian Fantino, who also heads the national strategy against bikers, stated that he was not surprised by the move, given the refusal of the federal Liberals to get tough on organized crime. "The response by the federal government to the whole threat is feeble and has lacked courage," stated Chief Fantino.

Indeed, one police source was quoted as saying that the federal Liberal failure to make anti-gang legislation a leading issue during the recent election campaign may well have helped to spur on the merger.

We have heard from the federal Liberals time and time again that getting tough on organized crime, getting tough on criminals, is a top priority. But their actions speak louder than words.

Take the Young Offenders Act, for example. For three straight elections the federal Liberals have promised to strengthen the Young Offenders Act, and three elections and eight years later we have seen nothing from them -- nothing but more promises, hollow promises, to strengthen the legislation. If a strengthened Young Offenders Act was indeed a priority for the federal Liberals, then why did they let it die on the order paper before calling the last election?

SMART COMMUNITIES

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I rise today to tell the House about the phenomenal transition that has occurred in the new city of Ottawa. This morning's Ottawa Citizen is an

article entitled "Ottawa poised to be 'Megacity of the Future.'" The

article is subtitled, "City Leads Way in Digital Governance."

As many in this House should know, there is at this time the emergence of a whole new political geography. This new reality requires that government and business work hand in hand to foster the growth of smart communities. There is no better example of how to do this than what is being done today in Ottawa.

The Citizen

article refers to a visit to Ottawa by John Eger, the president and CEO of the World Foundation for Smart Communities. He points out that part of Ottawa's advantage is in part the result of the Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation. This non-profit initiative, I should point out, is a combined public and private initiative. This is an excellent example that all communities should aspire to working together. Mr Eger also refers to the co-operation he witnessed in Ottawa's amalgamation process. He called this "an undertaking which will strengthen the community." He, as a resident of San Diego, relates to his own experience.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize for this House how important it is for different levels of government to truly work together, in addition to government working alongside business when building so-called smart communities like the one we are fortunate to have taking place in Ottawa. Ottawa is an excellent example on which this type of policy can best be based.

ACADEMIC TESTING

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): After hearing the Leader of the Opposition on November 29 talk about students who failed to meet provincial standards, I want to inform the House of the positive testing results achieved in my riding of Waterloo-Wellington. For the second year in a row, grades 3 and 6 students in the Upper Grand School Board scored above the provincial average in provincial reading, writing and math tests. Wellington Catholic board students also achieved higher results this year.

I would like to take this opportunity to credit the students, parents and their teachers in Waterloo-Wellington for these successes to date. With dedication and compassion, teachers provide the mentoring, knowledge and skills that our students need to prosper in a rapidly changing world. I believe most teachers would agree with this quotation from a recent Globe and Mail editorial entitled Education: the Forgotten Issue of the Campaign. Referring to the federal election campaign, it said, "Education is the key to our future prosperity. In a global economy, that depends more and more on knowledge and information. The countries that thrive will be the ones with highly educated people."

In recent weeks, I have visited John Black and James McQueen public schools in Fergus, Ponsonby and Elora public schools, as well as Centre Wellington High School and Elmira District Secondary School. I think the teachers I met there fully understand the importance of their role in students' lives and in encouraging them to do better all the time. That is why I believe they also realize that above-average is a positive first start, but striving to achieve the highest possible scores is the optimal next step forward.

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands) : This evening, we will all have the pleasure of attending a reception honouring Ontario's Provincial Auditor, Erik Peters, who is this year's recipient of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario's award of outstanding merit. The award is the highest honour the institute confers upon its members. It is reserved for those whose service to the CA profession and to the broader community has been uniquely conspicuous and sustained.

Erik has served his profession and the broader community with distinction for some 35 years. His career achievements in both the private and public sectors, his volunteer leadership of provincial, national and international policy and standard-setting bodies and his local community service have all been marked by the highest standards of competence and professional integrity.

In 1993, he assumed the responsibilities as an officer of this assembly, as the Provincial Auditor of Ontario. Reporting directly to the Legislative Assembly, Erik's office conducts independent audits of government programs, crown agencies and corporations. It assists in holding the government and its administrators accountable for their stewardship of public funds and for achieving value for money in government operations.

As Chair of the public accounts committee for the past year and a half, the committee that directly reviews his reports and makes further recommendations, I speak on behalf of all committee members. We have been extremely impressed by Erik's professionalism and purposeful determination to ensure that all government ministries use the appropriate measures to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely and on a cost-efficient basis.

As the Minister of Community and Social Services, John Baird, so aptly put it recently, "Erik Peters is the best friend the taxpayers of Ontario ever had."

I want to congratulate the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario for selecting such a deserving individual as the recipient of this year's Award of Outstanding Merit.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I want that long as well, Mr Speaker.

Yesterday, December 3, was United Nations International Day for Persons with Disabilities. This morning, seniors in support of a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act held a press conference to call on the Harris government once again to bring in the act they promised in the 1995 election. Those speaking were Etta Ginsberg McEwan, Mae Harman, Dorothy Rivers and Reta Duenisch Turner. They represented the following groups: Canadian Association of Retired Persons, Canadian Pensioners Concerned, Care Watch Toronto, Older Women's Network, Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations and the United Senior Citizens of Ontario.

These women's voices were powerful and moving. They spoke about their own personal plights and they also spoke in general about the need to be more caring for the most disadvantaged in our society.

They also spoke about the fact that people with disabilities who have trouble moving around and getting around actually can and want to contribute to society. They want the government to bring back the Employment Equity Act that the NDP government brought in and this government immediately got rid of. They want the government to keep its promise and bring in an effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act and to consult with those most affected.

ELWOOD MOORE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): It is with great pride that I stand here before you today and pay tribute to an outstanding local conservationist and community figure, Elwood Moore.

Mr Moore was born and raised in Grey county and accomplished many things in his life. From 1942 to 1946, Mr Moore was a radar technician in the Royal Canadian Air Force. From 1953 to 1960, Mr Moore was a councillor in Derby township. From 1960 to 1964, he was the reeve, and served as warden of Grey county in 1964.

Mr Moore also made a huge impact on conservation. From 1957 to 1984, Mr Moore was the director of the North Grey Regional Conservation Authority, representing Derby township, and from 1967 to 1969, he was chairman. From 1985 to the present, Mr Moore has been a director of the Grey-Sauble Conservation Authority.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Mr Moore, who is here in the House today.

Mr Moore has had 44 years of continuous service as Derby township's representative on the conservation authority. In fact, this is the longest continuously serving director on a conservation authority ever.

With municipal restructuring, Derby township will no longer exist as of January 1, 2001, having amalgamated with the surrounding townships of Kepple and Sarawak. As a result, the Grey-Sauble Conservation Authority brought Mr. Moore here today, where he will have the opportunity to meet Her Honour Hilary Weston, the Lieutenant Governor.

Mr Moore is a remarkable and dedicated individual. He deserves recognition from this House for his significant contributions to Bruce and Grey counties.

I want to tell you that all these people are here to honour Mr Moore.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My statement today concerns the stretch of Highway 402 between Sarnia and Strathroy that is under construction. This

section has been reduced to single lanes because of highway maintenance. I noticed over the summer and fall of this year, as I drove to and from Toronto, that more and more markers to denote the separation between the single lanes were missing over time, leaving large gaps in safety signage.

On November 21, a Michigan woman was killed on that construction

section in a head-on collision with a transport truck. Even more alarming is that the probable cause of the fatal accident was the missing signage to mark the single lane divisions.

I drove to Toronto from Sarnia yesterday, December 3. It's almost two weeks since that accident claimed the life of the young woman. The signage has not been replaced and those huge gaps between the safety markers are still there.

We all see huge signs put up ASAP lauding the fact that our tax dollars are at work on this province's highways, yet due diligence on the part of the Ministry of Transportation to ensure safety is obviously not a priority.

Dalton McGuinty and the provincial Liberals understand that road safety is a priority. This signage should have been replaced immediately it went missing, but the Harris government does not even replace it after someone dies.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I am pleased to rise today to draw attention to the International Day of Disabled Persons. On Sunday, the province of Ontario joined nations around the world in commemorating the day, created by the United Nations in 1992. The UN did so in order to improve the situation of persons with disabilities around the world and to provide persons with disabilities equal opportunities.

Our government currently invests almost $6 billion -- one ninth of the provincial budget -- in programs and services to increase opportunities and improve the quality of life for persons with disabilities and their families. In the last five years, we have announced $800 million in new or enhanced services -- a clear indication of our ongoing commitment to people with disabilities.

These important programs and services improve the lives of Ontarians with disabilities and their families in the following ways: they make buildings and motor vehicles more accessible; they create opportunities for people of all ages to live independently and in their communities; they help students with disabilities get an education; they help people with disabilities find jobs, or help support them when they cannot work; and they offer health care services that improve care, provide earlier interventions and improve outcomes.

But government cannot go it alone. The commitment to improving opportunities for persons with disabilities is a shared one. It is shared with business, with other levels of government and with community organizations. Indeed, it is a responsibility shared by all Ontarians.

Together, we're building bridges of opportunity, bridges that will permit every Ontarian to participate more fully in the life of his or her community. I invite the members of the House to join me in recognizing International Day of Disabled Persons and to renewing our commitment to improving opportunities for all Ontarians.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 /

LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

Mr Duncan moved first reading of the following bill:

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

The member for a short statement?

In short, we're trying to protect the people of Ontario from the hidden agenda of the Canadian Alliance and the Mike Harris government in health care.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, December 4 and Tuesday, December 5, 2000, 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 will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, in order to accommodate the Minister of Labour and get his legislation through this House, I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(ii), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to midnight on Wednesday, December 6, 2000, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): In the 2000 budget, we reported that Ontario's economy was growing stronger and faster than expected.

Today, our economy is still growing faster than all of the G7 nations. Our businesses are still creating jobs at a vigorous pace and hard-working Ontarians are still creating new opportunities. These are major achievements. But staying competitive means not standing still.

Some people believe that tax cuts cost government money. Nothing could be further from the truth. Tax cuts stimulate investment, create jobs, and generate the fiscal resources we need to invest in our priorities.

We expect that by the end of this year our tax revenues will be $14 billion higher than when we initiated our tax cut agenda five years ago.

Ontario's real GDP rose 6.1% in 1999 -- more than the growth in the rest of Canada, more than any other province in Canada, more than the United States of America and more than any G7 nation.

Our prudent 2000 budget projection suggested our economy would grow by 4.6% this calendar year and 3.1% in 2001. In fact, based on the exceptional performance so far this year, the recent average private sector forecast is that Ontario real GDP will grow by 5.5% this year and 3.7% in 2001.

Strong economic growth is reflected in vigorous job creation. So far this year, Ontario has created 184,000 new jobs compared to the same period in 1999. Since September 1995, Ontario has created 830,000 net new jobs -- more than half of the jobs created in Canada over that period of time. We have become and we remain the job creation leader of Canada.

Tax cuts remain central to our strategy for strengthening our economic competitiveness. We are pleased that the federal government finally realizes the economic benefits of tax cuts and is following our lead by beginning to cut personal and corporate income taxes. But Ottawa must do more to make Canada's tax rates competitive with other jurisdictions, particularly the United States.

In the 2000 budget, we proposed that beginning January 1 of next year the capital gains inclusion rate in Ontario be reduced from two thirds to 50% over four years. We issued a challenge to the federal government to match these reductions. In its October 18, 2000, economic statement and budget update, the federal government did respond.

To ensure that Ontario taxpayers receive the full benefit of this move, we are going to accelerate our capital gains tax rate reductions as well. Today I am announcing that retroactive to October 18, 2000, we will fully implement the 50% capital gains tax inclusion rate.

In the 2000 budget, we also announced plans to support the mining sector with a new bonus deduction for purchasers of flow-through shares. Again, we issued a challenge to the federal government to support this critical sector of the Canadian economy. Ottawa followed the lead by proposing a flow-through share tax credit. Today I am announcing that retroactive to October 18, we propose to introduce a flow-through share tax credit, as opposed to a deduction, of 5% to parallel and harmonize with the federal move.

I would like to thank the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada and my colleague the Honourable Tim Hudak, Minister of Northern Development and Mines, whose dedication and persistence helped lead the federal government to support this important sector and our northern communities.

Laughter.

Hon Mr Eves: The members in the opposition benches laugh. It only took the federal government six months and an election to respond to the budget initiative of May 2. However, Liberals are slow learners.

The tax changes announced today complement the many initiatives we have undertaken to support the development of an innovative society.

For example, in this year's budget we announced that we would be tripling funding for the Ontario Innovation Trust to $750 million. This allows research institutions in Ontario to lever funding provided through the federal government's Canada Foundation for Innovation.

The 2000 budget also proposed the Ontario research stock option credit and the elimination of the employer health tax on stock options paid by research-intensive firms. More recently, we proposed a new 20% personal income tax credit for investments in research-oriented investment funds. We are taking these steps to attract and retain workers in the highly competitive knowledge-based economy.

The SuperBuild Corp represents a new and fresh approach to government capital spending and planning in Ontario. It is an approach anchored firmly in the belief that public-private partnerships can help build public infrastructure in the most cost-effective and productive manner possible.

Health care still remains Ontarians' highest priority. Through partnerships, we are investing $1.8 billion to modernize our hospitals and provide Ontarians with the highest standards of health care possible.

Partnerships are also helping us expand our post-secondary education system to meet the challenges ahead of us. Together with post-secondary institutions, the private sector and other public partners, we have committed $1.8 billion to create 73,000 new student spaces in colleges and universities, ensuring that every Ontarian who is qualified can pursue a post-secondary education.

This year we are investing a record $1 billion to expand and renew Ontario's highway infrastructure.

We have demonstrated that partnerships between government and the private sector work. The successful sale of Highway 407 to the private sector, the largest highway privatization in the world, generated $3.1 billion for the Ontario treasury. Continuing construction to complete the highway has created over 6,000 new jobs and has helped relieve traffic congestion for business and commuter traffic across the GTA.

The recent lease agreement between the province and British Energy for the Bruce nuclear facility is a partnership that will see a dormant provincial asset revitalized and reactivated. As a result, jobs will be saved in the Bruce Peninsula communities and new economic growth will be possible in the region.

Details of SuperBuild's activities to date are provided in the first SuperBuild Corp progress report, tabled and released today.

Ontarians, like all Canadians, expect the federal government to be a true partner in the funding of health care and other social programs by committing to fund 18% of provincial-territorial expenditures through CHST, the same share of the cost that the federal government paid in 1994-95.

While we have certainly made progress with the federal government in this regard, it is still today only funding 12% of health care expenditures in the province of Ontario this year. Meanwhile, Ontario will be spending $2.1 billion more on health care this year than we did last fiscal year.

In the 2000 budget, we announced that in 2001 we would fully implement a made-for-Ontario taxation system. Under that system, Ontario will establish our own income tax rates and brackets and our own approach to reductions in income tax through credits, exemptions and deductions. Today I am announcing that we will use our new made-for-Ontario policy flexibility to enhance Ontario's non-refundable credits for students, people with disabilities and their caregivers. This $60-million increase in tax benefits will assist both part-time and full-time students with the costs of their post-secondary education and will help people with disabilities live independently and with dignity.

It is Ontario's view that the flexibility provided by the made-for-Ontario income tax system is desirable. We also think it can be achieved within a single tax administration system.

However, the federal government must begin to realize that the interests of taxpayers are different in different parts of this country. Taxpayers in Ontario surely have interests that are unique to Ontario and different from the interests of taxpayers in Saskatchewan, for example. Likewise, those in British Columbia have different concerns from those in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland. Every province should be able to address the needs of its own taxpayers as it sees fit.

A good example is the Ontario research employee stock option credit. It is an initiative that is designed to improve Ontario's competitiveness as a place for researchers to locate and conduct their work. To date, the federal government has not responded to the challenge to match that program, nor has it agreed to administer the benefit at a fair and reasonable cost. If the federal government remains unwilling to act in the taxpayers' best interests, Ontario will have no choice but to establish the capacity to provide this benefit directly ourselves.

In 1995, we committed that we would launch the new century with a balanced budget. We have more than honoured that commitment. We were there one year ahead of schedule.

In response to the strength of our economy and our robust revenue performance, we are eliminating the need for the province's $1-billion reserve and applying the full amount to reduce the net provincial debt.

We remain committed, as we announced in the 2000 budget, to reduce the net provincial debt by at least $5 billion during this mandate, more than double the Blueprint commitment.

Based on the Second Quarter Ontario Finances, which we are releasing today, I am pleased to report that we are now projecting a budget surplus of $1.4 billion for this fiscal year. This projection is based on recent forecasts of 5.5% economic growth this year. Some private sector forecasters have projected even stronger growth.

Stronger-than-expected revenue growth does not mean, however, that government can return to its past practices of being all things to all people all the time. When we are fortunate enough to have extra money, we must invest it wisely.

Earlier in this statement, I spoke of the need to challenge the federal government to act to boost the nation's competitiveness. We are only asking that the federal government work with the provinces in a spirit of co-operation.

We all have a stake in Canada's future. Ontario wants to ensure that Canada maintains its position at the leading edge of the global economy. Ontario cannot do it alone. The provinces cannot do it alone. We can only achieve our goals if all levels of government work responsibly and work together.

Our government remains committed to protecting the gains we have made and ensuring that the outlook remains bright and prosperous for Ontarians today and tomorrow.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I'm pleased to respond on behalf of my party.

The minister today spent a great deal of time focusing on tax cuts. I want to make it perfectly clear that, based on what we have been hearing from Ontario families, tax cuts alone are not enough to help our families find success in the future.

We believe our families are entitled to first-class public education, and they're not getting it. Instead, they are getting schools sapped of their spirit and characterized by turmoil, demoralized teachers, loss of extracurricular activities, and test results showing fully one half of our children are not meeting the standard for reading and writing in Ontario.

I believe Ontario families are also entitled to an affordable university education. They're not getting that either. Instead, they are getting an undergrad education that costs today in Ontario, all-in, $48,000. They're getting professional degrees like medicine that cost, all-in, easily another $100,000. Either our children are graduating with enormous debts or their parents are using their retirement money to finance their children's education, or both.

I also believe Ontario families deserve a health care system they can count on, and they're not getting it. Instead, they're getting hospitals that are short of beds and short of nurses, which means, in turn, that Ontario families are having to contend with longer waiting lines, delayed treatment, and often no room for even our most critically ill loved ones. Mike Harris recklessly fired nurses and closed beds by the thousands. Now our families are paying the price. We believe the parents of sick children and the children of ill parents should have the peace of mind that comes from knowing health care is working.

We believe Ontario's families deserve a government that protects the air we breathe and the water we drink. They're not getting that government. Instead, in the fight against pollution, Ontarians are getting a government that sides with polluters. Mike Harris has fired inspectors and enforcement officers and made Ontario the second-worst polluter in North America. He believes that prosperity in Ontario must come at the expense of the health of our families. We believe we can and must sustain the health of our families as we prosper.

To conclude, I believe it takes a lot more than just tax cuts to help Ontario families get ready for the future. It takes good schools with enthusiastic teachers. It takes an affordable university education. It takes health care that you can count on. And it takes a government that will stand up to polluters and protect our air and our water. When it comes to meeting the needs of Ontario families, tax cuts alone just don't cut it.

I can tell you something else that Ontario families are looking for. They want a government that's going to reach out to help them, but it's difficult for a government to reach out to people when it's so busy patting itself on the back. It's difficult for a government to steer us toward the future when it can't stop staring into the rear-view mirror. It's difficult for a government to help people reach their goals when it itself is adrift. It's difficult for a government to serve the many when it is so indebted to a wealthy few. That is exactly the case with this particular government.

As well, I think we should be honest about the cause of our prosperity today. Let's give credit where credit is due. The prosperity of Ontario, the prosperity that we are enjoying today, is the result of the financial health and vigour of our largest trading partner by far, the US.

Interjections.

Mr McGuinty: The government members may be reluctant to admit to this, but our country's federal monetary and fiscal policies have also been very helpful. A low dollar, low interest rates and a modest rate of inflation have all been very helpful to us here in Ontario. Tax cuts by governments play a role in making our province more competitive, but -- and here is where the Premier and I have a major disagreement -- tax cuts alone are not enough to help Ontario families find success in the future.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): As I listen to the government today, I have to ask, what do Mike Harris, Jean Chrétien, Lucien Bouchard and Bill Clinton all have in common? The answer is this: each one of them wants you to believe that they and they alone are responsible for the economy. Each one is in the middle of a masquerade.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. Order. Minister of Labour, come to order. Sorry for the interruption.

Mr Hampton: As I said, each one of them wants you to believe that they and they alone are responsible for an economic boom that has extended across western Europe and across North America. The fact of the matter is that none of those impostors -- none of them -- has anything to do or has had anything to do with that huge economic boom. The real question they have to answer is, what have they done in the midst of an eight-year economic boom?

It goes on. This is a government that in the midst of the largest economic boom since the Second World War now leaves municipalities with a $9-billion sewer and water treatment deficit. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario told you that there is $9 billion in maintenance and capital work that needs to be done. This is a government that, in the midst of this huge economic boom, has cut the budget of the Ministry of the Environment to the extent where even the auditor says that you've had to reduce the inspection of water treatment plants, sewer treatment plants and hazardous waste facilities. The people of Walkerton know all about that.

Then there's the issue of social housing. As rents in the city of Toronto have increased by $2,000 a year for a two-bedroom apartment and as more and more people face homelessness, this government is now downloading seniors' housing and social housing on to municipalities and is saying to municipalities, "You find the $1 billion over the next five years to do the needed maintenance."

When the history of these times is written, I suggest that what people are going to focus on is, here is a government that lived during the most incredible economic boom since the Second World War, and what did they do? They underfunded health care, they underinvested in education, they ignored the poorest people, child poverty increased, they underfunded environmental protection and they stopped building social housing, co-op housing and non-profit housing.

What has really happened here is that we have a government that has literally wasted the opportunity of a lifetime, a government that had the opportunity to make investments which would produce a better quality of life for people and which would allow people to be more productive economically and socially. Instead of making those investments in community services, in transit, in environment protection, in education, in health care -- instead of making those necessary investments -- this government squandered that opportunity on tax cuts for its corporate friends.

That will be the history of this government, and a shameful history it is.

DEFERRED VOTES

CONTINUED PROTECTION FOR

PROPERTY TAXPAYERS ACT, 2000 /

LOI DE 2000 POURSUIVANT

LES MESURES DE PROTECTION

DES CONTRIBUABLES FONCIERS

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 140,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act, Municipal Act and other Acts with respect to property taxes / Projet de loi 140, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'évaluation foncière, la

Loi sur les municipalités et d'autres lois à l'égard de l'impôt foncier.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from to 1417 to 1422.

The Speaker: Mr Eves has moved third reading of Bill 140. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 50; the nays are 35.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. I notice in today's statement some good budgetary news: there is going to be a $1.4-billion surplus. You remind us that we have 5.5% economic growth this year. These are prosperous times.

There is a sad reality, however, in Ontario, and that is the fact that our poor are getting poorer. Notwithstanding the fact that you take a special delight in stereotyping people on welfare as all being drug-addicted junkies waiting for their next fix, the fact of the matter is that well over half of the people on welfare are single mothers and their children who are desperately struggling to make ends meet.

A little over five years ago, you cut government support to Ontario's poorest families by over 21%. It's been frozen there ever since. Christmas is just around the corner and it seems to me that the right thing to do in the circumstances, given our prosperity, is that all of us be able to share in that. I want to return to something I raised with you before, Premier. Are you now prepared to build a cost-of-living adjustment into payments for our poor?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): First of all, let me correct the record on something the member said in the

preamble, and that is that Ontario's lower-income individuals and families are getting poorer. I repeat that because it is absolutely false and not true. Ontario's low-income families and individuals are better off today than they were last year, and they were better of last year than they were since we took office. They have more money to spend. They have more money in their pockets. They are relatively better off. In fact, every statistic demonstrates this.

From time to time, those of you who want to criticize even good news will try and twist the facts and statistics around and say, "Somebody else is doing even better." It may be true. Working Ontarians are doing even better than non-working Ontarians, but non-working Ontarians are doing better than they were last year or --

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

Mr McGuinty: Thank you, Mr Grinch. About five and a half years ago, Premier, you cut welfare payments by over 21%. I want to come back to the same matter, which you're trying to dance around. We're talking about people who have been on welfare for the past five and a half years. I'm talking about families.

Mr Tsubouchi, who was minister at the time, came up with a diet that he felt could be supported with $90 a month for food. It was ridiculed at the time and it was generally considered that it would hardly meet nutritional requirements for an adult. What we did today was take that same shopping list Mr Tsubouchi produced some years ago for $90.81 a month and produced the new total. We sent somebody over to the No Frills store on Parliament Street and came up with a new total of $105. That's a 16% increase.

Premier, you tell us today that we are enjoying unprecedented prosperity. Why do you not consider it to be the fair thing to do to share our prosperity with our poor?

Hon Mr Harris: I think if you review the budgets that the Minister of Finance has brought in, which have led to the prosperity, you will find that the biggest percentage increases in all benefits and all programs have gone to those less fortunate in Ontario, have gone to low-income Ontarians, have gone to more working opportunities for low-income Ontarians. I can tell you today that now, through our welfare rates, we are funding a higher percentage than the rest of Canada and higher than when we took office just five years ago.

But more significant than that is the fact that we have the most generous earn-back provisions -- the most generous provisions to get back into the workforce, to top up income, to break that cycle of dependence that was one of the biggest problems that we inherited when we took office. So yes, each and every month, each and every day, each and every year we look at ways that we can help even more to break that cycle of --

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

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you bring to mind a very interesting study in contrasts here. You were prepared to go to the wall for a 42% pay hike for yourself but you're not prepared to go to the wall for cost of living for people on welfare. This is what you are all about. We are enjoying unprecedented prosperity today in Ontario; revenues are greater than they have ever been. You cut welfare by 21%. You alone are the sole contributor to all those children who find themselves on welfare. Christmas is just around the corner and you're not prepared to consider an increase of some 2% or 3%.

I ask you one more time, Premier, on their behalf, why is it that we can't share our prosperity with people who find themselves, through no fault of their own, on welfare?

Hon Mr Harris: As the only leader of a party that asked for any kind of an increase in pay, the Liberal Party, I'm surprised that you have the gall to stand up, after personally advocating a raise for yourself as well as the $2,000 you tried to get through the back door that we finally found out about and nixed --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier, take your seat. Member for Hamilton East come to order. Sorry, Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The facts are --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier, take your seat. The member for Ottawa Centre, this is now your last warning. I'm not going to sit down and, as I'm sitting down, somebody shout out. If it happens we'll ask you to leave -- simple as that. Sorry, Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I understand the Liberals are ornery that they didn't get a raise, and that's the Liberal way. If they can't line their own pockets, then they get a little snarly. I understand that. I understand all the yelling and screaming. The member for Windsor is upset that she didn't get her raise, and I understand that.

But what we on this side of the House are most concerned about is, how do we help those less fortunate actually do better? Let me tell you what David Perry, head of research for the non-partisan Canadian Tax Foundation said this year: "If you are a single mom at low-income levels, there isn't any better place that you'd rather be than Ontario. Ontario provides significant relief at the bottom of the income scale. You have property tax" --

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

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): "Are there no prisons, are there no workhouses," Mr Premier?

My next question is for the Minister of Health. I believe the government has a responsibility to ensure public safety. Unfortunately, your ambulance dispatch system is risking lives and in fact has proven to be costing lives. The director of Niagara Emergency Medical Services has linked four specific deaths to your ambulance dispatch system. Four people have died because ambulances are being sent -- and listen to this, Minister -- to the wrong addresses, sometimes the wrong towns. Sometimes ambulances weren't sent at all.

Nobody knows the size of this tragedy as it unfolds around the province, but the auditor has told us that ambulances were failing to make the response times three out of five times last year. Minister, will you scrap your plan to download this broken system on to municipalities and fix what we have before another life is lost?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I would just encourage the Leader of the Opposition to be careful as to the statements that are made before reviews have been undertaken and to make sure that he can verify the accuracy of the information. However, as I indicated last week in response to a question that had been placed by Mr Bradley, we did review the situation as it existed because we appreciated the concerns, and I would indicate to the Leader of the Opposition today that we have communicated with the region of Niagara and we have stated that in response to the review we will be initiating an external review.

Mr McGuinty: Just in case the minister doubts the authenticity, I'd ask her then to spend a bit of time on the front lines talking to paramedics, and you can pick any community you want in Ontario. Paramedics are complaining about being sent to the wrong addresses, about being sent to the wrong cities, and in some cases not being sent at all.

When it comes to your dedication to getting to the bottom of this, Minister, the auditor's report shows that you haven't been inspecting the dispatch centres. More than 60% of the dispatch centres didn't have a review between 1996 and 1998. You assure us that all is well. When I asked you before about whether or not we should be downloading ambulance services on to municipalities, you said, "Yes, they can cope. That is not an issue."

We now learn through our paramedics that people are losing their lives as a result of a faulty dispatch system. We've got an auditor who's telling us that more than 60% of the dispatch centres didn't have a review between 1996 and 1998. What are you doing to fix this broken system?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that we took all of the information that was provided by the Provincial Auditor very seriously. We have been moving forward in the last number of years in order to ensure the highest level of public safety.

Again I would just say to the member -- because unfortunately he didn't hear the response that I had to his first question. I indicated that we were going to be conducting an external review, which he wasn't expecting; he continues down the same path. Again, I would just remind the leader opposite that we are doing everything we can to ensure quality dispatch services. There was a very careful review made of the concerns that had been raised in the region of Niagara, and we are undertaking an external review of the dispatch system there. We are working forward with the AMO group of officials in order to ensure the highest level of standards.

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

Mr McGuinty: Minister, whatever you're doing, you're doing too little, too late.

Presumably if you're conducting an external review, it's because you recognize that there are some serious problems internal to the system. If that is the case, why do you insist on going ahead and transferring a broken-down ambulance system to our municipal partners, who are saying, "We can't handle it; we can't cope with it. The system is already broken. Stop thrusting it down our throats"?

If that is the case, I ask you again, if the system is broken, why do you insist on downloading it on to our municipal partners?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member knows full well that already 14 of 49 municipalities have successfully assumed the responsibility for ambulance provision. Furthermore, the member refuses to acknowledge publicly that it was never the province that delivered the ambulance services to begin with. The majority of them were handled either by hospitals, the private sector, the volunteer sector or a municipality. The province was only responsible for 10, and now we have a partnership between the municipalities and the province.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Premier, today the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses presented the Legislature with 21 roses that symbolized the violent deaths of women and children in the province who died as a result of domestic violence. They gave 16 red roses to symbolize the 16 women who have already died this year; four red roses to symbolize the four children who have died as a result of violence; one white rose to symbolize the women across the province who may have died as a result of domestic violence, but where we yet don't know about it.

During this legislative session, a number of women's organizations have asked your government to come forward with money for transition homes, for a crisis line and for a number of other measures that would help prevent and protect women and children from domestic violence. Premier, can you tell us, do you think your government has done enough to prevent violence against women and children in this legislative session?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the question. I appreciate the member's and the party's interest and concern in the whole area of domestic abuse, particularly wife abuse and family abuse, as it affects, we all know, primarily but not exclusively women and children.

I would venture to say that I would never be able to stand up and say we will ever have completely resolved the problem, partially I suppose because there are limitations on what governments can do. I can tell you that we treat the matter very seriously. We have made a number of enhancements since we have taken office. We have made a number of enhancements both legislatively and with dollars and intervention programs. We have not done everything that the group you mention specifically has asked for because we fundamentally disagree with some of the areas they are lobbying for.

We are trying very hard to ensure that women who are in abusive situations are not financially dependent, and we don't think you solve that problem by making them financially dependent on the state. We think you solve that problem by giving them independence, and we spend --

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

Mr Hampton: Premier, 20 women and children have died already in the province this year as a result of domestic violence. Earlier this fall, 150 women's organizations came here, and in the midst of this economic boom that your Deputy Premier just boasted about, they asked you for $350 million to provide affordable housing, to provide shelters, for second-stage housing, for legal aid services so that women who are trapped in an abusive situation could begin the process of getting out. Your government, despite your boasting here today about all the money you've got, couldn't find one cent. The most you could do was to reannounce something that you announced a year ago.

Premier, on the day that your Deputy Premier boasts about how good Ontario's economy is and how much credit you deserve for it, don't you think you could find at least some of the money that would help those women and children achieve a greater sense of independence so fewer of them would die?

Hon Mr Harris: We are a government, as you know, that has wanted to focus more resources on those most dependent and fewer resources and opportunities on those who we feel are in a position to help themselves. There's no question, when you deal particularly with women in abusive and domestic violence situations, we treat them as the most vulnerable.

I will say to you that we do have a fundamental disagreement with you and your party because we had a record of five years of abysmal failure and disaster when you tried it for some of the recommendations that have been put forward to us.

Every nickel that we think will be of benefit to those in abusive situations we will find and we will allocate and we will spend. But we are not going back to end work for welfare and increase welfare rates and create government dependency at the same time as we're trying to eliminate that financial dependency that is at the root of a lot of domestic violence and why they can't leave those situations. That's replacing a wrong with a wrong. You advocate it; some others advocate it. It's been tried and failed, and we won't do it. But we will spend every nickel we can --

The Speaker: Order. The Premier's time is up. Final supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Premier, I don't think you understand what these women are telling you. They are telling you that it is your cuts and your deregulation that are causing some of them to go back home after fleeing an abusive situation, and some of them not being able to leave.

Today, front-line workers for domestic violence released a book of stories by women and children who tell what it is like to be bruised and battered and unable to escape. These front-line workers are hoping that when you read real-life experiences of women, you will take action today and listen to them. They want action on affordable housing, shelter and second-stage housing, and a province-wide telephone crisis line so that abused women can get help no matter where they live in Ontario. This represents a handful of services that give women the power to leave domestic violence. That is what these women are trying to tell you, and you are not listening.

I ask you in all seriousness, how many more women have to die before you will bring in even one of those emergency measures?

Hon Mr Harris: We've already brought in a lot of those emergency measures, as you know. We have responded to a number of the requests. Many of the things we have been asked to do, we have done, or they are under active consideration. But there are some things we are being asked to do that are not under active consideration because they have been tried and have failed in the past.

If this government felt for one second that another billion dollars would 100% solve the problem, that would not be a barrier. We are interested in solving this problem, as we are all problems that come before us. If dollars were solely the answer -- when you were in government, I think your total funding for violence against women was $97.9 million. We are now up to $134.1 million, substantially more, far in excess of the rate of inflation, even though you left us with an $11-billion deficit. We will find more dollars for more programs as long as we believe we are going to get --

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

MARRIAGE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier, and it is about the Premier's government's dedication to human rights. The Metropolitan Community Church, a church with the legal right to perform marriages in Ontario, will begin performing same-sex marriages in the new year. Reverend Brent Hawkes of the church says he will utilize an age-old Christian practice known as the publication of banns, a practice that is recognized in

section 5 of the Ontario Marriage Act.

Premier, since the publication of marriage banns is recognized in Ontario law, will you pledge that your government will not interfere with the right of the Metropolitan Community Church to issue legally binding marriage licences to same-sex couples?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No.

Mr Hampton: Premier, this is a method of marriage under Ontario law. Ontario law says that where you have the publication of banns and a couple are prepared to enter into that form of marriage ceremony, a licence to marry in Ontario is legally recognized. So tell us, why would you interfere? Why would you not act according to law? This is an age-old Christian practice which is recognized in law in Ontario. Why would you interfere with that?

Hon Mr Harris: I didn't say I would. You asked me, would I commit not to? Let me be very clear. I know the Metropolitan Community Church has stated that they plan on performing marriages for any couple willing to go through the marriage banns.

Here's what the province of Ontario does and can do legally. We are responsible for who will marry: a registered clergyman or others if we -- there is a consultation process looking at who, for example, can marry. Just who has the capacity to enter into a marriage is under exclusive federal jurisdiction. We take direction from the federal government. I can tell you that sections 91 and 92 of the Canadian Constitution clearly state this. They have exclusive jurisdiction over who can enter into a marriage.

Now, common law has established -- I'm happy to share with you my understanding of the federal position -- that only a man and a woman can marry. That has been the position of the federal government. As far as I know, it still is and it therefore is the position, quite willingly, of this government.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier. I want to talk to you about your made-in-Ontario rental housing crisis. In Toronto, the vacancy rate for apartments is now down to 0.6%. In Ottawa it's 0.2%, the lowest in the country. That tells us there are two vacant apartments for every 1,000 units. We have lived under your regime for quite some time and we are paying a terrible price. Will you now admit that your policies, when it comes to making sure we have more rental accommodation built in this province, are an abject failure, and will you agree to start anew?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Housing can respond.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): As the honourable member should know, this tightening of the housing market is something that not only Ontario has experienced. Indeed, throughout Canada the statistics do not lie. They simply say that in Canada the number of completions of rental housing accommodation has declined to under 5% a year. When you compare that to south of the border, it's 15%.

One has to ask oneself, what is the cause of this Canada-wide challenge? The cause has to be, at least in part, the federal government's positively discriminating against the type of housing the honourable member and I both want to see built. Their consideration of the type of active versus passive investment, the insurance costs -- these are the kinds of things I would dearly love to have the honourable member's help on when convincing Minister Gagliano or his successor to change the Income Tax Act to allow this kind of housing to be --

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

Mr McGuinty: You are the Minister of Housing in Ontario. CMHC tells us we might get 1,500 new units built this year -- we might. They also tell us we need 20,000 new units to be built every year. What are you doing to make sure we get those 20,000 units built? We know your policies aren't working. They are a complete and abysmal failure. What we want to know now is, what are you going to do to make sure, for all those people who are coming to this province, that the growth in this province might be accommodated some time soon? What are you doing to make sure we get 20,000 new units built every year?

Hon Mr Clement: The recent CMHC report has indicated that Ontario's strong economy has attracted job seekers from other parts of Canada. That's the problem of success.

I can tell you what we have done that no other government before us has done. We have changed the building code, we have changed the Tenant Protection Act to allow for more renovations and more types of renovation to be done, we have $50 million more for up to 10,000 Ontario families who need that kind of rental accommodation. So we have put our money where our mouth is.

What the honourable member can help do is ensure it is not just the provincial government that is spending its time, its energy and its money trying to solve this problem. If we had a federal government that was concerned about this, then we'd get somewhere. I take the honourable member's seriousness on this to mean he is going to come up to Ottawa with me to confront Mr Gagliano to get a solution to this problem that is province-wide and nationwide.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the Solicitor General. I know that community safety is one of this government's top priorities. During the last election, we made commitments in our Blueprint to increase public safety across Ontario -- commitments, I might add, that we have kept. We improved public safety through the Sergeant Rick McDonald Memorial Act, which increased the penalties on criminals who take reckless flight from police. Our government has also passed Christopher's Law, creating the first sex offender registry in Canada.

And we dedicated the Ontario police memorial to honour police officers who have died in the line of duty. We put 1,000 net new front-line officers into our neighbourhoods, just like we said we would.

Our government is also committed to continually providing police services with the resources they need to do their jobs. Last Friday, you and I joined in presenting the Toronto Police Service with a new tool to help keep the streets of Toronto safer, and I wonder if you could tell this House and the people of Scarborough Centre more about this pilot project and how it will benefit the Toronto Police Service.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): I'd like to thank the member for the question. Yes, last Friday the member for Scarborough Centre joined me in announcing a new tool to keep the streets of the city of Toronto safer. We approved a Toronto Police Service pilot project to test a new alternative to lethal force when apprehending individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others.

The alternative to lethal force is the Taser. The Taser is an option that will increase the safety of police officers and the public, allowing them to subdue an individual from a distance. The Taser emits a pulsating electric current that overpowers the body's normal electrical system to subdue an individual. This is also being piloted in Ottawa and is being used currently in Alberta and British Columbia.

I'd like to take the opportunity just to remind the House that the coroner's jury inquest into the death of Wayne Williams recommended that police services field test the Taser, a less lethal system.

Ms Mushinski: I'd like to thank the minister for that answer. My supplementary question is also to the Solicitor General. At local events, on radio open-line shows and door to door, people I've talked to in Toronto and Scarborough Centre all believe we should be able to live in our communities free from the fear of crime. Our government has made commitments to the people of Ontario to make our neighbourhoods safer.

The Taser is just one of the tools we have given the Toronto Police Service to help them to do their jobs. Could you please tell this House and my constituents about the other resources that our government has given the Toronto Police Service to help keep the streets of Scarborough Centre safe?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Once again, I thank the member. Earlier this year, the member for Scarborough Centre once again assisted us in presenting a cheque to Police Chief Julian Fantino for an amount just over $2.2 million, which represents an instalment for the community policing program. That represents 250 net new officers on the streets of the province.

We also had given last year just over $100,000 to the RIDE program. Last Thursday, the member for London-Fanshawe kicked off the GTA RIDE program, along with all the chiefs of police for the GTA, Hamilton, south Simcoe, the OPP, and they were joined as well by Wendell Clark, who is the honorary captain of this campaign this year. The message is, "Don't drink and drive." Clearly we want to get that message out and work with our police services in doing that.

COURT RULING

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is for the Minister of Labour. On November 21, the Ontario Court of Appeal held, in the CUPE decision, that then Minister of Labour, the Honourable Mr Flaherty, "interfered with the independence and impartiality of boards of arbitration ... contrary to the principles and requirements of fairness and natural justice."

So now we have an intolerable conflict of interest. The minister who created a reasonable apprehension of bias is now the person who decides whether the decision is appealed. I just want your assurance as the Minister of Labour that in fact we're going to clean up this conflict of interest. Can you assure this House that the Honourable Mr Flaherty will not be involved in the decision of the Minister of Labour to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I thank the member opposite for the question. Frankly, having read the decision, it was certainly interesting to see that it was decided --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Did you read the whole decision?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Yes, I did, and I will read it to you one day, actually.

It was very surprising to see that the decision was that retired judges are not unbiased. They determined that retired judges in fact are biased individuals who couldn't hear these cases. It was a strange conclusion, I thought, considering the fact that they had sat for many, many years on the bench to hear a considerable number of cases and then, upon retiring, suddenly they became biased members of society. I frankly found that surprising.

Can I give you an undertaking that the Attorney General would not be involved in the decision to seek leave to appeal? No, I can't give you that undertaking. The Attorney General is the Attorney General of the province of Ontario. He provides sage and good advice to this government and to cabinet, and I think it would be remiss of us not to seek his guidance considering the leadership he's provided in many cases that have come before us.

Mr Bryant: Minister, that's the problem. The person who will decide whether or not the decision goes up to the Supreme Court of Canada -- his actions are the very subject matter of the appeal. If the decision is sent up to the court, then it's going to look like you're trying to save his bacon. If it doesn't go up to the court, it looks like you don't want the Supreme Court of Canada to pronounce on that.

I know you disagree with the decision, Minister, but the Ontario Court of Appeal has said that the then Minister of Labour created the reasonable apprehension of bias.

As you know, it's not just that justice is done; it's that it is seen to be done. We need the appearance of impartiality. All I'm asking for is that a person who is not the subject matter of the appeal be making the decisions. What we need to have in this House is some confidence that the decision as to whether this goes up to the Supreme Court of Canada is in the public interest of Ontario and not in the self-interest of the Honourable Mr Flaherty.

Hon Mr Stockwell: The question is absurd, to be perfectly frank. Any question that comes before this government with respect to seeking leave to appeal is decided upon initially by the minister, and that would be me, the Minister of Labour. But that's not where it stops. Obviously, it goes on to consult with the Attorney General, and of course cabinet would make the ultimate decision. To ask that somehow, because the Attorney General was once the Minister of Labour, therefore he should not be involved in taking a decision as important as this is patently absurd.

Decisions are made by cabinet on directions from the ministers. I, being the Minister of Labour, would bring it to cabinet, make a recommendation, and cabinet would take a decision. That's fundamentally how all issues are decided upon, and I would think you would expect this decision to follow that particular line of thought.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. It is not fair that victims of crime have to see offenders out on the street early when these criminals have refused treatment in prisons. People who have committed crimes and are placed in our institutions repeatedly refuse treatment programs. Because of the federal discount law, they are able to get out after serving only two thirds of their sentence. I believe that's ridiculous. Minister, how will the new responsibilities of the Ontario Parole and Earned Release Board put an end to criminals receiving early release when they refuse treatment?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): I thank the member for Peterborough for the question. Quite frankly, the answer is very simple. If the Legislature deems it appropriate to pass the bill before the House, then those who are in jail in Ontario will have to earn their early release. It won't be a gift granted to them, as the Liberals opposite would rather have it be, that is granted to them as a result of their arriving at the front door of the jail on the day they begin to serve their sentence. This is not a right that is there to be granted; it's a privilege to be earned.

I say to the member from Kingston, who I believe has said on many occasions, "You should release them all," that that would be the Liberal strategy, the Liberal philosophy, which has been clearly demonstrated by his federal cousins in Ottawa, who have this quota system to dump all the people out of jail. In Ontario, you will have to earn your time out of jail. That is quite clear. In Ontario, you will earn your early release.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Mr Speaker, on a point of order.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The clock is going to run. Be very quick, because I'm going to be up quickly.

Mr Gerretsen: I would ask the minister to withdraw. I would prefer not to be misquoted.

The Speaker: That is not a point of order. Supplementary?

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Minister, for that response, which I think many people in Ontario, those good-living citizens of this province, wanted to hear. It is reassuring that our government believes that a criminal who needs it should have to undergo treatment before they be released early from prison.

Minister, I understand that the decision-making process for granting early release is a shared responsibility in your ministry causing duplications and overlaps between parole, earned remission and temporary absence programs. How will the board's new responsibilities make a difference?

Hon Mr Sampson: Very simply, the board will be reconstituted as the parole board and the earned remission board as well and they will have the responsibility to review early release decisions for the more serious and violent offenders in our correctional system, those generally serving sentences of 15-plus months. For those serving less time, the release decisions will be made by the local superintendents.

But all these decisions, whether they be made locally by the superintendents or otherwise, will be reviewed periodically by the board to make sure that those who are serving sentences that have been allocated to them by our justice system spend their time in jail until it's appropriate that they be released, as evidenced by the fact that they have earned that privilege to be released.

I say to the member for Kingston, who I gather I hit a sore spot with, I'm sorry he is a little bit upset, but the federal government is on record --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

CLASS SIZE

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Parents say that your unfair funding formula is inadequate and is short-changing students. You've cut teachers, and we now have 11,000 fewer teachers while there are 60,000 more students in the system. The result, I think you know, is bigger class sizes. In York region, class size is the key issue in bargaining for elementary teachers. One grade 8 class at Ballantrae public school has 40 students, and that includes special-needs kids who sometimes are left without a specialized teacher. How can you justify your funding formula that has made class size explode and hurt the education of our children?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I would really caution the honourable member. He might want to check his facts. We do have more teachers this year than we did last year.

Mr Marchese: I love this minister. She's the best, I tell you. I say one thing; she says another. I give facts; she says, "No, no. The facts are different." Forty-two per cent of elementary classrooms have 26 or more students. By the way, I point out that since you came to power, class sizes for grade 2 students have increased by more than 10%. We give facts; she gives us other facts. I agreed with you when you said in September that the explosion in class sizes is a disturbing trend across Ontario. That was an admission of yours, not mine, and I agree with that. It is a disturbing trend, and what we need is action.

You know, Minister, that reducing class size is the only way to improve reading, math, participation and discipline problems. Forty kids to a class is 15 more than experts know is good for kids. You can make a difference. Make 25 the maximum number of kids for grade 8. Will you or can you do that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: In the interest of accuracy here in the House: he makes claims, I provide the facts. But I hope the honourable member would subsequently, based on his comments today, support Bill 74, which gives the government the power to require boards to fully report on what they're doing with the increased resources for smaller class sizes. I agree with the honourable member that if they're taking the $263 million we gave them this year and they're not applying it to class size, we need to know about that. We need to have the ability to fix that.

The other thing: I honestly, again, suggest to the honourable member that he needs to do some re-search. I recognize that class size is very much an important quality indicator for parents and teachers, which is why we put the $263 million out there. But when you look at the research, it does not track testing results and outcome the way the honourable member stated it did.

DRIVER LICENCES

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. The public auditor has repeatedly warned the Harris government that its headlong rush to privatize is putting Ontario lives at risk -- it happened in Walkerton where seven lives were lost -- yet you continue on this insane course. It has been shown that privatizing jails will endanger lives, as would privatizing air ambulance, where four patients have died.

Bill 137 will allow you to privatize driver examination, vehicle inspection and the transportation of dangerous goods on our highways. It will put lives at risk. Three Christmases ago, four horrible deaths caused by flying truck tires forced you to provide the necessary resources to Ontario's road inspectors to correct the problem. Have you learned nothing from this, nothing from Walkerton? You are abdicating your responsibility to protect the public, and for what? The auditor has told you that you haven't saved any money. What is your almighty rush? You are putting lives at risk. Will you at least agree to broad public hearings that will allow Ontarians to be heard?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): The member, as usual, is absolutely wrong. Since we became the government, we have substantially reduced the incidence of flying truck wheels. The member should check his facts, because he's just dead wrong.

With respect to the question of driver exam centres, we've been very clear. We're looking toward improving standards. MTO will continue to set and enforce high standards. Our government will make its continuous effort to make our roads safer. Since we became the government, we now have the fourth-safest roads in the whole of North America. That's a lot safer than when you were the government, sir.

Mr Hoy: In terms of the flying tire issue, it took four deaths before you made any moves of any significance there.

Minister, you know very well that the devil is in the detail, and your bill gives none. It's the new Harris trick: when in doubt, give yourself a blank cheque. With Bill 137, the power is in the regulations. What the public won't see can't hurt you; is that it? If you have no intention of privatizing these services, prove it. Make it clear in the bill that the public safety will be served; that these services cannot be farmed out to a company whose bottom line is profit, not public safety. Will you do that, Minister? Will you allow broad public hearings and meaningful amendments that will spell out exactly how public safety will be protected?

Hon Mr Turnbull: I can quite clearly see that the Liberals are absolutely unwilling to look at any other way of delivering services. You left a mess. You didn't spend money on roads when you were the government. We inherited a mess. When your government was in power, when the NDP was in power, they didn't spend that and our roads were less safe. Today they are a lot safer than when you were the government.

We are committed to safety. We're also committed to finding better ways of delivering services, because customers should be the king, and we will continue to enforce high safety standards.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I have a question about businesses being able to open on statutory holidays. In the past few days there's been quite a lot of attention paid to an appeal that was made in the Superior Court. Last Thursday's decision to overturn the 1996 ruling that opening on statutory holidays was unconstitutional has created some confusion among consumers about when exactly stores can and cannot open. I thought I was pretty clear on the decision until I heard all the questions from my constituents on the weekend.

Minister, I wonder if you could please clarify for the House just what was involved in last Thursday's decision and how it will affect the way stores in Ontario currently do business.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thank the member for the question. I think there was some confusion that stemmed primarily from news reports that were somewhat misleading, to say the least. The case really changed nothing. There was a decision in 1996 which was appealed by the government, and nothing really changed during the interim until that appeal was heard. The law was enforced during that period of time by municipal police services.

As the law was changed in 1996, there remained eight statutory holidays under the Retail Business Holidays Act. They are New Year's Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Victoria Day, Canada Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas Day.

Mr Wettlaufer: I've also heard some concerns that stores will not be able to open on Boxing Day, which some people mistakenly believe is a statutory holiday. We all know that Boxing Day sales are almost as much a part of Christmas as eggnog and mistletoe. Some stores report to us that half their annual sales are recorded on Boxing Day. Minister, could you please explain how Boxing Day is affected by the Retail Business Holidays Act and whether or not shoppers can look forward to rushing to the malls on December 26.

Hon Mr Runciman: I indicated the days that fall under the Retail Business Holidays Act, and Boxing Day is not one of them. It was removed by the Harris government in 1996 in light of consumer demands and the realities of the day. Given the economic good news that we heard from the Minister of Finance earlier today, I think retailers can expect full stores come Boxing Day, given the booming Ontario economy under the Harris government.

SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE /

LONG-TERM CARE

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier) : Ma question s'adresse à la ministre de la Santé. Il y a quelques semaines, j'ai parlé au nom des commettants d'Ottawa-Vanier qui ont vu annuler leur chirurgie à la dernière minute et se sont vus placer une fois de plus sur une longue liste d'attente. Plus je parle aux commettants et commettantes d'Ottawa-Vanier, plus ils partagent avec moi leurs inquiétudes face à l'état dégringolant des hôpitaux d'Ottawa-Carleton.

These are people in my riding whose surgeries are being postponed and who are being placed once again on a waiting list because there are simply no beds available to them. This is happening because too many short-term beds are being occupied by long-term patients who should be in separate institutions.

Minister, you continue to trumpet the success of your government in addressing the critical lack of long-term-care beds, and yet what you are saying is completely at odds with what health care professionals and patients are telling me. I want to know what you say to my constituents when they ask you why they are waiting longer than ever before for medical treatment at a time when Ontario is enjoying one of the longest economic expansions in its history.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The member probably knows that at this point in the history of Ontario, the $8.3 billion that we have made available to hospitals as of this year is the highest level of funding we have ever provided to hospitals in this province.

I would also just remind the member that our government has increased health care funding each and every year since 1995, from $17.6 billion to over $22 billion today. The only time we've seen any decrease in health funding was from the federal government, when they cut the transfer payments. So we continue to make the money available for all our health care partners, including the hospitals.

Mrs Boyer: Minister, the people of Ottawa-Vanier are once again left shaking their heads at your response because they know that what you are saying is completely at odds with what they are experiencing.

La semaine dernière, j'ai reçu un appel d'une dame qui était cédulée pour une opération majeure qui à la toute dernière minute a été annulée. Cette femme avec de jeunes enfants avait fait des arrangements pour qu'un membre de sa famille d'ailleurs dans la province puisse prendre des vacances pour venir l'aider après sa chirurgie.

Minister, her surgery and many others are being postponed because 12% of short-term hospital beds in Ottawa-Carleton are occupied by people who should be in long-term-care institutions. The reason they are not in long-term-care institutions is that these facilities are short 1,900 beds in Ottawa-Carleton alone.

You are the person sitting at the Harris cabinet table who is responsible for fighting for health care in Ontario. I want to know how you, as Minister of Health, can justify what is happening in Ottawa. When are you going to meet the need for 1,900 long-term-care beds in Ottawa-Carleton in order to free up short-term beds and put an end to extensive waiting lists?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member is right. I am the individual who's responsible for fighting for health care dollars and I am very proud of the fact that we were able to convince the federal government to give back to the provinces the money that they've taken away.

I would also ask you, are you not aware of the fact that it was your government, in 1988, that stopped the construction of long-term-care beds? We know there are people waiting in acute care hospitals who need long-term-care beds, and that's why we're building 20,000 long-term-care beds. That's why my assistant deputy minister of health last week went to Ottawa in order to find out where we can place the interim long-term-care beds. But if you hadn't stopped in 1988, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today.

RURAL JOBS STRATEGY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I want to remind this House that this question will not bring the government down, so don't get too excited about it. It's one of those questions that has to be asked from time to time.

Minister, last August you announced a project in my riding, funded by the rural youth job strategy. That was designed to provide investment and jobs for young people by promoting excellence in manufacturing. I, along with many others in my area, am proud of the Excellence in Manufacturing Consortium started in Owen Sound, which has gone on to other areas.

It's an idea that shares learning, expertise, knowledge and resources to meet the training needs of its members and provides great opportunities for the residents of Grey county and Bruce county. I also want to mention that when this consortium got together, I was proud of them for the fact that they got through the red tape and all the bureaucratic mess that it takes to get these grants. They did a real good job if it, I want to tell you that.

Can you give me an update on this project? Is the project meeting its goals?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Thank you, to the member for Grey-Bruce, for the question and for the opportunity to talk a little bit about the ongoing success of our rural job strategy program.

The member refers to the internship program we funded in partnership with the Excellence in Manufacturing Consortium. This is an $8.2-million project with the goal of creating over 800 intern positions in many communities in the member's area over a two-and-a-half-year period.

Today I'm pleased to report that the project has retained 80% of the interns who have been given this opportunity, many of those in full-time jobs. This is an extremely high level of success and it give us confidence that this project is helping meet the goals of giving our young people opportunities for employment closer to home.

This project is just one of many across the province that are successfully helping young people get their careers off to a good start.

Mr Murdoch: I want to thank you for that, Minister, and I hope the opposition heard that, that this project is working fine. It's working fine for people in my area, like Owen Sound, Markdale, even down in Mount Forest. I just want to make sure you understand that, because a lot of times you get up and all you can ask are negative questions. Sometimes we need these positive questions because the government is doing positive things.

I also want to throw something in, and this isn't on the paper, but I want to make sure, Minister, that we can have some more money for our area. I want to make a bid for that, because we've done such a good job in Owen Sound. We always seem to be leading the province, anyway, so that's nothing new.

But has the youth strategy been working in this way in other areas? How is this working in other areas? I want to know how it's working in other areas, plus I want your commitment that you will work with us and make sure we get some more money.

Hon Mr Hardeman: I want to assure the member that the people in his community did a very good job in implementing this program.

The rural youth job strategy was introduced in the 1998 budget, a $35-million program that's aimed at enhancing training and employment for young people in rural Ontario. We are finding that this program is helping to provide opportunities that may not have existed before, and these opportunities are leading to full-time opportunities in many cases.

So far 66 projects, representing a $40.3-million investment in the young people of rural Ontario, have been approved. These projects have created about 7,000 jobs, along with providing 3,000 opportunities for work experiences. In all, well over 10,000 young people have been given opportunities that they may not have had if not for this strategy. Mr Speaker, I want to point out to you and to the members here today, and the public as well, that the rural youth job strategy is still ongoing.

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

SITE OF EARLY PARLIAMENT

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I want to thank you for leaving enough seconds so that I can ask the Minister of Culture this question. I've waited for six weeks. I am calling on you and your government to save the site of Ontario's first Parliament, where you know artifacts and foundations have been uncovered. The site is in danger of becoming a car lot, as opposed to being a part of a living culture for Ontario. Many Ontarians are outraged that you are prepared to stand idly by while this significant heritage site is paved over. I tell you it's the cradle of Ontario's democracy.

I'm calling on you to purchase this site, the site of our first Parliament, and do so for the people of Ontario.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): I'd like to thank the member opposite for his question. Of course, all Ontarians across this great province are interested in the first Parliament Buildings. Some may know that there is the potential we've found some foundations down on about Front Street. It may be an important archaeological find. We've had a licensed archaeologist there for a number of weeks. He has to provide a report to us about the find. We can't jump into this before we know exactly what has been found.

We've gone back and we've protected the foundations by putting dirt back over them so that we have all the precautionary measures taken --

Interjection.

Hon Mrs Johns: I'm glad you know that. I want to show you that we've made every effort to ensure that we're taking care of these Parliament Buildings. When we receive the report, when we understand the ramifications of the report, the government will be making decisions about what we should do to ensure that the history of the province of Ontario is protected and there for future generations.

PETITIONS

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I have a petition signed by hundreds of constituents across the province to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas charities such as the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada, Goodfellows, the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, firefighters and many others participate in fundraisers on streets, sidewalks and parking lots;

"Whereas the Safe Streets Act, 1999 effectively bans these types of activities, putting police forces in the position of ignoring the law or hindering legitimate charities; and

"Whereas charitable organizations are dependent on these fundraisers to raise much-needed money and awareness;

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

"We ask that the government of Ontario amend provincial legislation by passing Bill 64, the Safe Streets Amendment Act, 2000, to allow charitable organizations to conduct fundraising campaigns on roadways, sidewalks and parking lots."

In support of this petition, I sign my signature and give it to Andrew to take to the Clerk's desk.

PARENTAL LEAVE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that's signed by over 400 people that's been given to me by Laurell Ritchie of the CAW. It reads as follows:

"Whereas Ontario's Employment Standards Act provides vital job protections for new parents on parental leave, including reinstatement to their previous pay and job, accumulated seniority while on leave, continued participation in workplace pension and health benefit programs, and prohibitions against discriminatory treatment; and

"Whereas unemployment insurance parental benefits have been extended to 35 weeks effective for a child born or adopted on or after December 31, 2000, changes long sought by women's groups, labour groups and others and in keeping with the modern provisions in many European countries; and

"Whereas parental leave benefits are distinct from pregnancy benefits, this means that a total of 50 weeks of EI benefits will be available to a natural mother who qualifies for EI and serves a two-week waiting period; and

"Whereas the federal government, the Quebec government, and more recently, the governments of British Columbia and Nova Scotia have amended their legislation to allow for at least 52 weeks' combined pregnancy and parental leave for a natural mother and at least 35 weeks' parental leave for a natural father or adoptive parent; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has refused, without just and good cause, to amend the Employment Standards Act in a timely manner, effectively denying parents access to the new EI benefits since they would otherwise risk their jobs at a time when the security of their employment and working conditions is most critical;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the Employment Standards Act of Ontario forthwith to extend the current parental leave and normal protections of workers' jobs and working conditions by 17 weeks, effective December 31, 2000."

I've affixed my signature to it. I'd ask the government to pass my fair parental leave bill immediately so these provisions could come into effect.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I want to remind those in the gallery that we don't have conversations. Could I ask that somebody go up into the members' east gallery, please.

Further petitions?

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Speaker, I agree with you on this. The member for Peterborough was certainly disturbing me and I have no doubt he's disturbing you. But I am going to read on behalf of the constituents of my riding of Durham a petition -- and by the way, I'm getting thousands of these, all authentically signed.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to immediately pass Bill 99 or to amend the Highway Traffic Act to be used on vintage automobiles," when they register vehicles.

I'm pleased to give this petition to Rose, who will present it to the table, who will then acknowledge this to my constituents in the riding of Durham.

PHOTO RADAR

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

"Whereas Mike Harris made the decision in 1995 to cancel the Ontario government's photo radar pilot project before it could properly be completed; and

"Whereas two Ontario coroners' juries in the last year, including the jury investigating traffic fatalities on Highway 401 between Windsor and London in September 1999, have called for the reintroduction of photo radar on that stretch of 'Carnage Alley'; and

"Whereas studies show that the use of photo radar in many jurisdictions, including British Columbia, Alberta, Australia, many European countries and several American states, does have a marked impact in preventing speeding and improving road and highway safety, from a 16% decrease in fatalities in British Columbia to a 49% decrease in fatalities in Victoria, Australia; and

"Whereas photo radar is supported by the RCMP, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, several police departments, including many local Ontario Provincial Police constables ... and many road safety groups;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Ministry of Transportation reinstate photo radar on dangerous stretches of provincial and municipal highways and streets as identified by police. The top priority should be 'Carnage Alley,' the

section of the 401 between Windsor and London, and all revenues from photo radar should be directed to putting more police on our roads and highways to combat aggressive driving."

It's signed by a number of residents from Stratford, Sebringville and Mitchell, and I affix my name to it.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition regarding this government's ongoing discrimination of northern cancer patients. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

This has been signed by residents of Schreiber and North Bay, Ontario. I agree with them and I have affixed my signature to it.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): This seems to be a petition that keeps coming back, so I think we've got to do something about this one.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to pass Bill 99 or to amend the Highway Traffic Act to be used on vintage automobiles."

I have the pleasure of signing my name, and I'm going to hand this to Geoff, the great page in this session of the Legislature.

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I can hardly believe it, but the petitions keep rolling in and I'd like to get them in. They're like letters to Santa, really. The page Pascale will take this to the table.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): If you'd like to read it, we'd like to hear it forthwith.

Mr O'Toole: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there are many Ontarians who have a passion for perfection in the restoration of vintage vehicles" -- I've heard that before -- "and

"Whereas unlike many other jurisdictions, Ontario vintage automobile enthusiasts are unable to register their vehicles using the original year of manufacture licence plates" -- that's quite sad, actually -- "and

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

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to pass Bill 99 or to amend the Highway Traffic Act to allow vintage auto enthusiasts to register their vehicles using year of manufacture plates."

I have good new on this. I have been speaking with the Minister of Transportation and I think this will carry --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to hand this petition to Rose, from Chatham-Kent Essex. I have affixed my signature to it.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Conservative government of Mike Harris to immediately end their abuse of public office and terminate any further expenditure on political advertising and to invest this money in health care in the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement. I hand this petition to Andrew.

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a petition from a number of residents from Chatham and Dresden.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this important petition.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The time for petitions has ended. Before we do orders of the day, I just wanted to make sure we've all had the opportunity to wish the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs a happy birthday today.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I certainly want to make it clear that I am not challenging the Chair, nor would I ever do that. However, for clarification, on rotation of petitions, is it not true that it's the Liberal, then the NDP and then the government caucus? That's the first part of the question. Depending on the answer to that, I have a part two to the question.

The Acting Speaker: Question period starts right after those other things and it's not question period for the Speaker.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 144,

An Act to establish accountability in correctional services, to make offenders demonstrate that they are drug-free, to set rules for offenders to earn their release, to give the board of parole a say in earned release decisions, and to change the name of the board of parole, when Bill 144 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

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

h) shall be permitted; and

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

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

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the Minister of Correctional Services for debate.

Hon Mr Sampson: I'm going to be dividing my time, which is a total of 39 minutes and 54 seconds, I see from the clock, with the members from Stoney Creek, Halton, Peterborough and Northumberland, all of whom have been speaking quite --

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): They each get one minute.

Hon Mr Sampson: No, I think they'll get longer than one minute.

I do want to say a few words as we start off debate this afternoon on this motion before the House as it relates to this very important bill.

I want to say to the people watching and listening today that the fundamental principle of the bill before the House, which is the subject of the motion, is that we need to establish some accountability in the correctional system to make sure that we have a system that is appropriately armed, if you will, to help individuals who are working within the correctional service do the best job they possibly can at the tremendous and very difficult challenge that's placed before them by the courts of this province when they sentence somebody to either institutional time or sentences served in the community.

The bill is effectively addressing three fundamental components, one dealing with a framework, if you will, for partnering with the private sector. I know my colleague from Stoney Creek will want to speak, as he normally does quite eloquently, to that particular issue. The second is the tools that allow us to better get a handle on and start to deal with the very serious problem of drug and alcohol abuse within the correctional institutions in this province. The third deals with the concept of earned remission. I'm going to speak to those three points very quickly in reverse order.

As it relates to earned remission, our preference as a government -- and we've said this many times -- would be that the principle of any remission from a sentence be permanently deleted from the records of the criminal law in this country and this province. But as this province isn't given the authority to deal with writing and changing criminal law, that authority resting in the hands of the federal government, we have to do what we can if the federal government chooses not to deal with earned remission as we would choose.

We've made a number of presentations to the federal government through justice ministers' conferences, deputy ministers' conferences, conferences public or private or otherwise, you name them, and we've not been able to convince the federal government to make those changes. Earned remission is still part and parcel of the legislation that governs how individuals are treated in institutions as it relates to their sentences, and we have to deal with that.

The way in which we will deal with it in this province is that we'll make that remission, however it is calculated, something that is earned by inmates in institutions -- earned not just by spending your time passively in institutions, but earned as a result of active, progressive and positive participation in the programs that are deemed appropriate by professional staff in our ministry to help individuals deal with their particular problems in jail, whether they be drug addiction problems, whether they be anger management problems, whether they be other types of criminal thinking challenges.

We believe that you need to demonstrate to us that these programs you are going to are having some positive impact on your lifestyle. Why would it be appropriate to have somebody attend drug rehab programs in the institution, continue to participate in drugs and yet still be allowed out after completing two thirds of their sentence? It doesn't seem appropriate. It doesn't seem right. So we will make changes to make sure that inmates in this province earn the privilege -- not the right but the privilege -- of any early release from jail.

I know one of the members of this Legislative Assembly has debated in private members' business a resolution dealing with drug challenges in institutions. Much has been said during that time and in the debate on Bill 144 so far about the tremendous problem of drugs in jail. I know, to the people watching today, it's hard to actually fathom that one would have a problem with illegal drugs and alcohol in correctional facilities, but that is indeed the case.

How serious is that problem? Well, frankly, we don't know. There are a lot of anecdotal stories about how serious the problem is. Our challenge to the service, if this bill passes, will be to implement a mandatory drug-testing program that, by the way, other jurisdictions have done around the globe to help them deal with the drug problem.

Much has been said in this House about how you need other tools to help deal with that problem, and I agree. I fully agree that other tools need to be used to get a handle on the inflow of drugs in the institutions. But surely you only design those tools and pick from the tool basket that's available once you determine how serious the drug problem is in a particular institution and once you establish the framework that says to those who are participating in illegal activities in jail that there is a meaningful consequence to them continuing to do that.

There is a deterrent factor involved in mandatory drug-testing. There have been numerous studies, and I'm holding some in my hand now, that have been done around the globe by those jurisdictions that have implemented what's called mandatory drug-testing. Those studies speak to the fact that there has been a sizeable reduction in the severity and incidence of drugs, however measured, as a result of a plan that simply says to an inmate, "You are going to be tested. You won't know when, but you will be tested, so you'd better beware. You'd better be on guard. You'd better have a positive focus, therefore, on your rehabilitation and your ability to kick that addiction."

The final point I want to speak to today before I yield the floor to my colleagues is very simply a short commentary on one very key component that hasn't met with a lot of discussion so far but should, I think, as it relates to our partnering with the private sector. We've already heard other members in the debate so far raise the examples of the experiments, if you will, or otherwise, south of the border of partnering with the private sector that have not achieved successful results.

I've said many times in this House and outside this House that it is not the intention of this government to import the bad correctional practices of other jurisdictions, whether they be with private operators or with public operators. It's not our intention to import that into Ontario. What we're looking for is a solution that is Ontario-based and Ontario-made, one that says the principle here should be on how the institutions are run and less on who is running them.

I understand the NDP caucus's fundamental objection to having the private sector operate in many jurisdictions that have previously been occupied by the public sector. It's a matter of principle over there. They believe the monopoly should rest in the hands of the public sector for a lot of activities that government is involved in.

The Liberals go back and forth, depending on which particular case it is. The member for Stoney Creek has a really good example which he may speak to shortly.

The fundamental principle has to be that you need to focus on how these institutions are being run and not who is running them, and you need to have a system of accountability to make sure that your focus on how they are being run is constant and public. So a fundamental component of the bill that's before the House and one that really hasn't had a lot of debate so far -- and I hope we'll see some shortly -- is the principle of local boards of monitors. Frankly, it's a concept we are borrowing from other jurisdictions.

What is a local board of monitors? Very simply, it's a group of local citizens who have an interest in justice issues, or who have previously been employed one way or another in a justice issue, being allowed unfettered access to the correctional system to watch what is going on there and be the eyes and ears of the public for what is going on in that institution. It's had a tremendous impact on the way institutions are run in those jurisdictions where that concept of a board of monitors has been applied.

I say to the members opposite who belittle this principle of a board of monitors that it has even worked in institutions that are being managed and run by the private sector. In one of the facilities in the UK, the board of monitors, in their yearly report -- they do a yearly report that's public -- have said, "Overall, we, like the chief inspector, find very little criticism here and much to praise." They are talking about a private jail in the UK.

"Many of the minor recommendations made by us in this report have already been implemented -- proof, if proof be needed, that this is a dynamic and forward-thinking establishment." This is a comment from individuals who have been drawn from the community to supervise the operation of a particular facility in the UK. They look at everything. They speak to inmates, they speak to employees, they speak to the management, and they help us, as public citizens who only see the jail from the outside, understand very publicly and openly what is happening on the inside.

I say to the people who are watching today and to the members of the Legislative Assembly, I believe this is a very fundamental change in the way in which we believe the business of corrections should be run. It shouldn't be something that is operated in a black box. It shouldn't be something that only gets exposed when something happens that we might not want to have happen in a jail or a correctional facility. It shouldn't be something that only comes up when there's a problem. Public scrutiny of correctional facilities should be 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

That's the principle we are trying to impose on all of the correctional facilities in this province, clearly starting with the much larger facilities that we're building. Why? Because it allows us the tools, as the payers of the bill for correctional facilities, as the managers of those individuals who are sent to our institutions for rehabilitation, to monitor how institutions are being run -- not who is running them, but how they are being run. Clearly, I say to the Speaker and those who are interested in this debate, that should be the funda