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

October 10, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Oct-10 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 10 October 2001 Mercredi 10 octobre 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GASOLINE PRICES

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

GASOLINE PRICES

KEELER CENTRE

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

VISITORS

EDUCATION FUNDING

EVENTS IN DURHAM

EDUCATION FUNDING

ONTARIO SECURITY

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PREVENTING PARTISAN

ADVERTISING ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 VISANT

À EMPÊCHER LA PUBLICITÉ

À CARACTÈRE POLITIQUE

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO SECURITY

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

GOVERNMENT POLICY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

TRANSIT SERVICES

PRINCIPALS

ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK

COLLÈGE DES GRANDS LACS

PETITIONS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

OHIP SERVICES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

OHIP SERVICES

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

PERSONAL NEEDS ALLOWANCE

LORD'S PRAYER

HOME CARE

OHIP SERVICES

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROHIBITING PROFITING

FROM RECOUNTING CRIMES ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 INTERDISANT

LES GAINS TIRÉS

DU RÉCIT D'ACTES CRIMINELS

Wednesday 10 October 2001 Mercredi 10 octobre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I don't believe I am remotely exaggerating when I say that drivers in Thunder Bay and

northwestern Ontario are thoroughly fed up with the high price of gasoline at their local service stations. Recently, prices soared to over 80 cents a litre in Thunder Bay and were in the mid- to

high 80s in other communities in my riding.

But what makes us more convinced than ever that this is nothing more than gouging by the oil companies is new evidence that the price differential should be no

more than four cents a litre between Thunder Bay and Toronto. Yes, we accept that transportation costs and lower-volume issues justify a slightly higher price, but a l5-cent difference, which is

the reality right now, is nothing more than a rip-off for the people I represent.

Yesterday when I flew out of Thunder Bay, the cost for gas was just over 72 cents a litre, a drop of 10 cents from that outrageous price two weeks ago. Yet when

I arrived in Toronto, the cost for gasoline here was only 57 cents a litre; the l5-cent difference was maintained. Not only is this unacceptable, it seems impossible to justify. That is why, at the

behest of a new gas price task force recently formed by Thunder Bay Mayor Ken Boshcoff, I have written to the heads of all the oil companies, asking them to justify these price differences or, more

hopefully, commit to a fairer deal for all northwestern Ontario residents.

Today I'm also calling on the Premier, the Ministry of Energy and the consumer minister to help us get this fairer deal. Perhaps it's time for the Premier to put

some real pressure on these companies so they cannot continue to post whatever price they want at the pump. People are very angry about this, and well they should be. This unfairness must be

stopped.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): I rise in the House today to notify the members of this Legislature and the people of Ontario of the

disturbing state of affairs in our federal correctional facilities. Last month, Clinton Suzack, convicted in the 1995 slaughter of Sudbury police constable Joey MacDonald, was transferred to

another luxurious Club Fed vacation destination.

The criminal was moved to William Head, located on the southern tip of Vancouver Island. This resort-like correctional facility is described by Corrections

Canada as having a "unique physical environment -- bordered on three sides by ocean." In Ontario, that's called waterfront property, and it's prime real estate.

I have also been advised that inmates at William Head can golf on a small pitch-and-putt golf course, they can go fishing and have an amazing view where they can

watch whales swim in the ocean.

This sends a message to Canadians. It says that if you kill a police officer, you'll be punished and you'll be restricted to playing golf and watching whales on

prime real estate.

I sympathize with all police officers who risk their lives each and every day. On September 11, the attack on the United States taught us all that we cannot take

our emergency service workers for granted.

How is it that Corrections Canada, the federal Liberals and their Ontario lieutenant, Dalton McGuinty, can take Joseph MacDonald's life for granted by

transferring his assailant to minimum security after only eight years? Murdering a police officer is a cowardly act and unacceptable, and transferring Clinton Suzack to Club Fed is an insult to all

police officers in this country. It's time that the federal Liberals take the lead of the Mike Harris government that gets tough on convicted --

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

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Premier, gasoline prices are grossly out of line in southwestern Ontario, and you should do something about it. My

constituents are fighting mad over this. Gasoline prices in my community, for example, range from 68 cents a litre to 73 cents a litre. Today, prices in Toronto range from 55 cents a litre to 67

cents a litre. If we're to believe what the retailers say, they don't have much margin to work with. In fact, I think it would be cheaper if they came down to Toronto and got a load of gasoline and

took it back home to sell it.

You know, I believe the retailers in that they don't have that much margin. What it's all about are gasoline companies that are gouging us. What does the Premier

say about this? A year or so ago he appointed gas-busters. Well, a lot of busting they did. They busted the price right up to the ceiling.

What do the oil companies say? "It's supply and demand." I think the oil companies are simply gouging us. That's what they're doing.

What does the Premier then say to the oil companies? "We're going to give you a tax cut. We're going to give these great, big corporations who are making

millions upon millions of dollars on the backs of southwestern Ontario constituents a big tax cut." We won't stand for it.

KEELER CENTRE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to recognize the official opening of the Keeler Centre, a new community and

recreational facility in the village of Colborne. The Keeler Centre is a multi-purpose community centre which features a state-of-the-art hockey arena and banquet hall.

The building is environmentally friendly, using a heating and air conditioning system based on the latest heat pump technology. Even the seats of the arena are

heated through the heat pump's underground system.

The arena also features an impressive acoustic arrangement which completely eliminates echo. This achievement is especially notable, particularly for those

parents who regularly spend frosty Saturday mornings watching Junior practise his slapshots. The boards are made from fibreglass, which also helps keep Junior safe.

For evening events, the Rotary banquet hall can seat some 400 people and is ideal for hosting special functions. It will also serve to accommodate regular

meetings of service clubs, local organizations and seniors' activities.

This coming weekend I will be in Colborne to join dignitaries from the municipality of Cramahe for the gala opening celebrations. I commend all the people who

were involved with the project, and I look forward to the many successful events and community parties that will be held at the Keeler Centre.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): These are trying and challenging times for our province, with new realities confronting us as a result of

the tragic and horrifying events of September 11. There's a justified expectation that government will play a central role in ensuring that our citizens are protected from threats to their safety

and security, and a recognition that additional funds must be found to meet this challenge.

When security was breached at the Bruce nuclear generation station about a month after the terrorist attack on New York and Washington, with an individual being

able to gain access to the station property, there was understandable apprehension and support for an investment in increased security measures at the nuclear plant.

What is not necessary is the Harris government using these difficult circumstances confronting us as an excuse to squander huge sums of money on

self-congratulatory, full-page newspaper ads. Surely the millions of dollars the Harris administration spends on partisan advertising in a year could be put to far better use than a public

relations campaign to shore up the sagging popularity of the Premier. Fire and police departments, public health agencies, hospitals and emergency measures organizations would benefit immensely

from an infusion of funds from the provincial government.

If Mike Harris wants to engage in a self-congratulatory advertising campaign, then let his well-financed Conservative Party pay for it and use hard-earned

taxpayers' dollars for the public good.

VISITORS

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have visitors from Mount Olive Christian Academy from Hamilton

Mountain here. Welcome.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): The Harris government has stated its strong commitment to quality education for children in their early

years, yet their education policy suggests otherwise. I recently attended a meeting with parents and educators and our school trustee, Paula Fletcher, to discuss the cuts in education assistants in

junior and senior kindergarten. These cuts are being made by the board because the funding formula is totally inadequate to meet the needs of quality education in this province.

The Toronto board of education has yet again to make more cuts, to the tune of $126 million from this year's budget. The funding formula provides just under $1

million for education assistants in regular kindergarten classes. The board is currently spending $22.3 million to provide 800 necessary education assistants in regular kindergartens, including a

small component, a complement for open-plan schools, French as a second language and ESL and those kinds of situations.

The surrounding areas outside the old Toronto, after amalgamation, did not have the same complement of teaching assistants, so what the board has had to do is

harmonize down. Talk about meeting the lowest common denominator. That's what's happening here, and it has to be fixed.

I call upon the Minister of Education to look into this today.

EVENTS IN DURHAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House to recognize the Scugog Fire Department's auto extrication team. The team finished third overall

at the international fire extrication competition held in Burlington last month.

The Scugog team was competing against volunteers and full-time fire departments from across the United States, England and Canada. In this contest 28 teams

battled the clock in simulations that tested their speed and skills with power rescue tools and hand-operated tools. I might add that Scugog scored first among all Canadian teams.

I'd like to congratulate District Chief Dave Ballingall, the coach and supervising officer, along with team members Jamie Donaldson, Clint Walker, Don Buldyke,

Dave Reed and Mike Morden.

In addition, I am pleased to report that the newly renovated Scugog Fire Station Number 1 will be officially opened tomorrow, Thursday, October 11. This station

on Crandall Street in Port Perry has been enlarged to approximately 12,000 square feet. I am sure we'd like to congratulate Chief Richard Miller, Deputy Chief Rob Gonnermann, District Chief Dave

Ballingall and each of the 50 part-time professional firefighters who serve Scugog township.

I applaud the Scugog firefighters for achieving two milestones: the success of their extrication team and the opening of their new fire hall. Congratulations

should also be extended to Scugog Mayor Doug Moffatt, Scugog town council and the citizens of Scugog. They have every reason to be proud of their firefighters.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I rise in the House today on behalf of the parents and students of Buchanan Park school in

Hamilton. The current situation in the junior and senior kindergarten class finds 49 students, three- and four-year-olds, with two teachers. This situation is untenable. Is this an example of

Harris's pledge to reduce classroom sizes?

Clearly the situation at Buchanan Park illustrates that this government does not take education seriously. Children have difficulty learning constructively in

If this was a daycare centre, it would be closed down. Parents have serious safety concerns, and furthermore, students are being denied the high quality of

education they deserve.

Yesterday I presented a petition to the Legislative Assembly asking for immediate action by this government to increase funding to school boards, adjust the

funding formula and place a real cap on primary class sizes of 20 students, as the Liberal Party recommends.

I am calling on this government to help the students of Buchanan Park succeed by acting now. Give back the millions of dollars you have taken away since 1995 so

that three- and four-year-olds can get the proper education they deserve.

ONTARIO SECURITY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): This Thanksgiving weekend, people in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant were honoured with the

presence of Ontario's newly appointed security adviser, retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie.

As one of Canada's most famous military figures, Major General MacKenzie honoured our war vets as the reviewing officer for the 39th annual Warriors Day parade

at this year's Norfolk country fair. This is one of only three Warriors Day parades in the province. It reminds us of the commitment and the sacrifice of those who served in times of war. These

military personnel who have placed themselves in the front lines are heroes in the truest sense of the word. As Major General MacKenzie stressed, "Heroes are people who sacrifice their lives for

others."

As we reflect on heroes and battles past, we reflect on today's challenge to our safety and security. Then, as now, people step forward and answer the call in

our time of need: military personnel, emergency workers, police, firefighters. Then, as now, Ontario remains strong and at the ready.

The warriors of the past have taught us well, but there is much work to be done in the months ahead to meet and emerge victorious from this challenge of

terrorism. The government of Ontario and the people of Ontario have risen to that challenge, and I look forward to next year's Warriors Day parade.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Before we continue, seated in the Speaker's gallery today I'm very pleased to welcome to our Legislature the

Honourable Patricia Forsythe, member of the New South Wales Legislative Council in Australia. Please join me in welcoming our special honoured guest.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PREVENTING PARTISAN

ADVERTISING ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 VISANT

À EMPÊCHER LA PUBLICITÉ

À CARACTÈRE POLITIQUE

Mr McGuinty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 107,

An Act to end government spending on partisan advertising / Projet de loi 107, Loi mettant fin aux dépenses du gouvernement en matière

de publicité à caractère politique.

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

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

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

The member for a short statement.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Quite simply, my bill would finally bring to an end this government's terrible and wasteful

practice of spending precious taxpayer dollars on partisan political advertising.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We need to be able to hear what we're supposed to be doing.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I have a routine motion here concerning the membership on one of the

committees. I move that Mr Prue replace Mr Marchese on the standing committee on general government.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO SECURITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): It was my understanding, Mr Speaker, that the Minister of Energy would be here, and I have a

question for him.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just so we know, we did finish the introduction of bills a little bit quicker than normal, so we'll give a little

bit of time for some of the ministers. We're a little bit early. We'll reset the clock and start at the beginning. I think we should be ready.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, three weeks after September 11, a man walked unchecked, unimpeded, on to the grounds of the Bruce nuclear site. You've

now had a full day to look into this. Can you tell us -- because Ontarians are very concerned about this -- how could this have happened three weeks after the most horrific terrorist attack that

ever took place in North America, that a man could walk unimpeded, without being checked, without encountering any security measures whatsoever, on to the grounds of a nuclear generating site in

Ontario?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): The facts are exactly as I outlined them yesterday. The gentleman went through a

perimeter fence, which is a short fence. It is a fence that marks the --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wilson: Excuse me. It is a fence that marks the property line. It's some three kilometres away from the actual security fences that

surround the reactors. A phone is on the administrative building inside of this little fence, and it is meant for exactly what the gentleman used it for. It's for people who are in distress to use

and to phone the security of the plant, who did respond right away and brought him into the building to warm him up, because he and his friend were suffering from hypothermia. They were transported

to the hospital.

I would say to the honourable member that you have had overnight to go up to the Bruce and to see for yourself that the facts are exactly the way I have been

describing them.

Mr McGuinty: Perhaps the member would invite all Ontario families to visit the site at the same time.

I can understand why the minister would be anxious to quickly dismiss this concern and to get it behind him. But let me tell you what the Solicitor General

said yesterday. He said, "Clearly, there was a breach, but nobody contemplated anybody coming in from the water." You will know, as the Minister of Energy, that all three of our nuclear sites are

situated adjacent to water.

So the question I have for you, Minister: three weeks after the most horrific terrorist attack in the history of North America, how can it be that, when it

comes to the security measures at our nuclear sites, there are no security measures in place beside the water?

Hon Mr Wilson: This particular area is a boater-safety area. It's a sluice in the water, and boaters, local duck hunters and fishermen know

that's an area where they can go to access the emergency telephone. As of today, we've moved that telephone closer to the water so that there's no perception of them getting through any security

fence, which did not happen.

If the honourable member would attend the site, as, I will tell you, most of the media here have done -- they've gone up and taken pictures, and they're very

satisfied. This is a small perimeter fence like you'd see around a schoolyard; it is not our big, huge security fences, which are some three kilometres away. It's a small administrative shack. The

phone is there for the purpose that it was used for. We're now making more phones available, so there's no perception at all that someone broke into the nuclear facility. That did not happen. It

would not happen, because we are very confident that the measures that we've taken, that Bruce Power has taken, are making our plants very, very secure.

Mr McGuinty: One of the reasons Ontario families are wondering about this is that in the expensive political propaganda they paid for in

today's papers it says, "Since September 11, we've taken swift action to protect our people." Three weeks after September 11, this man ambled on to the site of a nuclear plant in Ontario -- three

weeks after September 11.

Minister, yesterday you said, "Our plans are as good or better than many of the plans in place for US nuclear sites." So we contacted the Fermi II plant in

Michigan to see if they had any suggestions on securing nuclear plants from the water. They refused to discuss specific details, but they insisted that at minimum they have to have the US Coast

Guard there establishing a security zone.

So my question to you is, four weeks after September 11, on the same day you tell us that since September 11 you have taken swift action to protect the people

of Ontario, why have you not established a secure perimeter zone around nuclear sites in Ontario?

Hon Mr Wilson: We don't discuss the details of the actions we've taken.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wilson: You should know that the federal Liberal government is actually responsible for the security at our plants. The Canadian

Nuclear Safety Commission --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock, please. Order. It's time to proceed. Sorry, Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: Ralph Goodale, the federal minister, and I have spoken about security in our plants. The federal government is very satisfied

with the quick action we took to ensure proper security at the plants. Again, the only person in Ontario today who is fearmongering about this incident, which had nothing to do with security at our

plants, is the honourable member.

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

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Minister, I want to talk to you about this wasteful,

expensive, partisan political advertising you've run in today's Ontario papers. I just want to set the scene and the context a little bit for you.

Our families today feel a tremendous sense of insecurity. They want a sense of personal and economic security to come from this government in real and concrete

ways. They want much to be done in terms of improving our security provisions -- and we've just heard from this minister that you're failing to do that. They want to know that you're dealing with

the economic downturn. In addition to all that, they want to know you are still protecting health care, education and the environment. Given all that, all those pressing priorities and urgent needs

on the part of our families, can you tell us how you've decided that your greatest priority today is to put hundreds of thousands of dollars into wasteful partisan political propaganda?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I know the Chair of Management Board would like to answer this.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Clearly this ad is very important for two reasons. First of all, it's

important for us to recognize the contributions of Ontarians, who have contributed in many ways. Whether they're firefighters who went down with the effort, whether they're construction workers,

whether they're ordinary Ontarians who donated blood, who certainly assisted in some way in the effort when this tragedy occurred, it was very important for us to thank them.

I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition, but if I could quote: "The events of September 11 were devastating tragedies and the people of

Ontario responded generously, lending heartfelt support to those suffering sorrow and pain.

"To everyone who reached out with condolences, who donated blood, who gave money or found other ways to help the victims and families of these terrorist acts

-- thank you.

"If ever there was a time when America needs a friend, it is now.

"You didn't hesitate. You responded immediately. So did your government."

Mr McGuinty: This time you're not going to walk away with this. There are urgent and pressing priorities in the minds of all reasonable people

today in Ontario, and this kind of investment, this kind of waste, does not fall within those priorities.

Let me tell you something about our families. They are sick and tired of the fact that there aren't enough textbooks in our schools, they're sick and tired of

the fact that the air is making their kids sick, they're sick and tired of the fact that we don't have enough beds in our hospitals, they're sick and tired of the fact that this government is doing

nothing in concrete terms when it comes to protecting their economic and personal security. So I ask you again, in light of all of that, Minister, how could you possibly decide that the best way to

invest taxpayer dollars is in this political partisan propaganda?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Obviously the Leader of the Opposition has not been talking to the same Ontarians that many of us on this side have been. I

know that people out there are concerned. People out there need information. Many ordinary people in our communities have certainly asked, "What is the Ontario government doing to make sure that we

in Ontario have proper measures in place to assist us?" This is certainly something that people are talking to us about. Obviously, he either doesn't know that or he doesn't care.

Certainly, in this ad as well, which is very important for us to convey, there are a number of protective measures that we are taking for the province of

Ontario. First of all, as you know, we have appointed Norman Inkster, retired commissioner of the RCMP, and also retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, as provincial security advisers. There are a

number of measures that we have taken in Ontario to ensure the safety of people in this province. It's very important for us to convey that message to them. That's what Ontarians are asking for,

and that --

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

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I want to bring you from the abstract to the immediate. Last week a man walked on to the grounds of one of Ontario's

nuclear generating facilities. He was able to do that because there were no security measures in place. I would think that one of the places Ontario families would want you to start to invest is in

security measures at our nuclear sites. People are afraid of losing their jobs. People are concerned about what has happened to the markets and their loss of retirement savings. They're concerned

about what's happening at our border and the fact that there's a slowdown in terms of getting our goods across the border. Those are the kinds of things that our families are concerned about. So I

ask you one more time on their behalf, because you have yet to justify this, how, in light of all of this and all of these pressing and urgent needs, could you have possibly decided that the best

way to spend hundreds of thousands of precious taxpayer dollars today was on this kind of partisan political propaganda?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I appreciate the question. The Leader of the Opposition talks about the abstract, he talks about the real. I'll tell you

what's considered real to me and probably all people on this side: Ontarians, real people out there, who are concerned, who want information. That's what's real to us. I don't know what you're

talking about.

Secondly, since the Leader of the Opposition is holding up his copy of this ad, I must say in this ad we talk about many security measures. If I can outline a

few, thank you for the opportunity.

"We are undertaking a thorough review of Ontario's emergency response plans.

"We will require all municipalities to maintain emergency response plans and train their employees.

"We will work with owners and operators of large buildings and public facilities to develop appropriate emergency response programs."

These are concrete, real examples of how this government is committed to public safety in this province, something that you certainly don't know anything

about.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Acting Premier, and it concerns why this government is waging a campaign

against our civil liberties. Your government appointed Norm Gardner to the Toronto Police Services Board as chair of the board. Now he says Toronto police are compiling a list of hundreds of people

to target for surveillance. People are put on the list because -- quoting Norm Gardner -- "They may have said something that might lead the police to raise their eyebrows." Deputy Premier, is this

your government's policy? Do you support Norm Gardner running a thought-police operation?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'm not really sure why he's asking us this question. Isn't the chair elected

with another body and accountable to another body?

Interjection.

Hon Mr Hodgson: The member from Etobicoke knows full well who the person that he refers to reports to and how they're elected, and he should

know that as well.

I can tell you that our province takes our responsibility very seriously in protecting Ontario's citizens and also balancing that with our fundamental rights

and freedoms that we enjoy in this province.

Mr Hampton: He is your appointment to the Toronto Police Services Board. What I want to know is this: does he represent government policy? Is

it the policy of your government that someone would be put on a police surveillance list where they can be watched, pulled over, requested to attend and answer questions based upon -- and I quote

Mr Gardner again -- "tips from informants, from suspicious or disgruntled neighbours or hearsay"? Is that government policy in Ontario today, that someone can be put on a police surveillance list

based upon hearsay? If that's not your policy, then please disown it.

Hon Mr Hodgson: That's not what the leader of the third party said. He talked about us appointing the chair. As the member for Beaches-East

York might be able to inform you, the chair is elected. The majority of the members on the police services board of Toronto are appointed by the municipality. I just reiterate that your member from

Beaches-East York -- you've got him newly installed in the caucus -- might be able to inform you on how that institution works.

Mr Hampton: Acting Premier, he is your appointment to the Toronto Police Services Board. He is now the chair of the Toronto Police Services

Board. He says that people will be placed upon a list for police surveillance based upon hearsay, based upon whether he believes people have "hate in their heart." We haven't seen this kind of

trampling on people's civil liberties since the FLQ crisis based upon, apparently, no evidence.

My question is, is this your government's policy? Is it your government policy that people will be put on a police surveillance list based upon hearsay, based

upon somebody simply calling up and saying, "I'm suspicious of this person"? Is that your government's policy, that people's civil liberties in Ontario today are worth so little?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The answer is no. I think the member knows that.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Also to the Acting Premier: then you should disown the comments of Mr Gardner and you should do it now.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My next point is this: we know Ontario's economy is in trouble. Your Premier has admitted as much.

About a year ago, we had a blizzard of announcements about SuperBuild, how SuperBuild was going to be out there and it was going to be making construction things happen. But since all of the

hoopla, virtually nothing has happened. Meanwhile, we have community after community that needs to fix up their water treatment plant or needs a new water treatment plant or has a capital project

that they need to get to work on, but your government isn't there.

Can you tell us, why are you sitting on SuperBuild money? Why in a time when the economy is in difficulty are you so far behind and so delayed in terms of

bringing meaningful municipal capital projects forward?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): SuperBuild, as you know, is a way to coordinate capital spending and try to

leverage it to the maximum benefit for the people of Ontario.

The Minister of Finance, along with the SuperBuild Corp, has been doing an excellent job on behalf of the province of Ontario. They've invested $906 million in

provincial highway programs, $200 million in hospitals and $48 million in post-secondary education facilities. It's also part of the Canada-Ontario infrastructure agreement and we have approved a

number of projects that are waiting for Ottawa's approval as we speak. We hope that we will have these projects announced soon under the protocols that have been reached and that you will see

construction on a lot of the projects right across Ontario to benefit the communities we all care about so deeply.

Mr Hampton: The Acting Premier recounted some announcements. We checked out some of these announcements. On June 15 you boasted that Sudbury

would get $15 million to improve their water treatment system. Well, we're now into October -- and no money. The communities actually had to call and ask you not to enforce the clean water

regulations because you don't come up with the money. You announced on August 16 a project for Niagara-on-the-Lake. We called them -- no money. Red Lake, in my constituency: $10.5 million for a

water treatment plant because five communities are boiling their water -- no money. Sioux Lookout: $5.5 million for a water treatment plant so people don't have to boil their water -- no money.

You've made all the announcements, but for some reason these communities aren't receiving the money to do the capital works. At a time when people are losing

thousands of jobs in Ontario, tell us, please, when are you going to address the needs of these communities on these important issues and also ensure that much-needed construction projects can go

ahead so that people can continue to have a job?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think the leader of the third party would be well aware that this government is setting aside large amounts of money for

infrastructure investments that are long overdue due to neglect that happened under your government and the shortfall in capital that was required to keep our infrastructure current, modern and

safe.

As to the announcements you talk about, there was a series of announcements around the studies that are required to make sure we get the proper numbers. In

Sudbury you're talking about the millennium partnership; in the other small towns you're talking about OSTAR led by my colleague from rural affairs in conjunction with the Minister of Northern

Development and Mines.

There are announcements. There are actual projects beginning in a serious way to start construction. You will see a lot more announcements and you will see a

lot more construction because we believe in rebuilding this province. We have to make up for a lot of lost years and the neglect of Liberal and NDP administrations, which did not invest in the

infrastructure of this province.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): The question is to the Minister of Health. I put the question to the minister on behalf of

parents of southwestern Ontario who are very concerned about the future availability of specialized health care for their children.

In recent days, Minister, you have told those parents that you can't find any more money for their specialized burn unit for children, that you can't find any

more money for their cardiac centre specializing in children's care, but it turns out today that this minister and this government found the money to run a full-page ad in the London Free Press.

The question I have for you on behalf of southwestern Ontario parents, and particularly those living in the community of London: why is it you can't find money to maintain an adequate level of

health care services for southwestern Ontario children, but you can find the money for partisan, political propaganda?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Let me set the record straight for this House. I've said on the record already that

the sum total of all the decisions made by an independent board of directors represented 1% of their activity. The two activities the honourable member mentions: pediatric burn unit had two cases

per year on average over the last three years, and cardiac transplant pediatric was two cases per year on average. So, yes, those programs can be transferred to other facilities, because, do you

know what? The clinical outcomes will be better. The patients will get better service, they'll get better treatment and that's better for the patients in Ontario.

That's the kind of thing the London Health Sciences Centre agreed upon. It's the kind of thing we support. It's the kind of thing that means we'll have better

outcomes for the patients he seems to be so concerned about.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): Minister, shipping patients and their families to other centres without assurance that there's space

in those centres is totally irresponsible of you and your government. Citizens of southwestern Ontario don't want to hear your platitudes. They want to know why this government is turning its back

on children and families in southwestern Ontario.

Do you know what the problem is, Minister? It's you and your ministry. Yesterday, I spoke to the chairman of the board of the London Health Sciences Centre,

and do you know what he told me? He said your ministry approved and signed off the proposal before it went to the board. They were required to do this as part of the renewal plan. So don't stand

there and say your government had nothing to do with it and blame it on the local board. You and your ministry are the ones who decided to abandon these children and these families.

Minister, the London Health Sciences Centre is, or at least was, a world-class medical and major academic centre, a centre of excellence. Could you please tell

this Legislature when your ministry made the decision to approve the plan that would downgrade the London Health Sciences Centre to a community hospital?

Hon Mr Clement: Nothing could be further from the truth on a number of different accounts. I can tell this House that we certainly want the

best clinical outcomes for our children when they need the services of a burn unit, when they need pediatric cardiac care. We want the best services in the best location for our children to get

those kinds of services.

If the honourable member doesn't believe me, that's his right. I can merely read from the local paper, the London Free Press, which said that the plan is to

boost core medical services locally, while passing off others that lack the critical mass of patients to those that can supply the service.

We want the best services for our kids, the best services and all the range of care that was hitherto available, in the best location. If the honourable member

wants to play politics with that, that's his right, but we want the best results for the people of Ontario.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): My question is to the Minister of Education. Yesterday you announced the government is committing $5

million --

Interjections.

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

Thank you. I'll run it. You're House leader; you run yours. I'll be the Speaker. If you want to run for Speaker, run for Speaker next time.

Order. The member for London-Fanshawe.

Mr Mazzilli: I will pass on to my constituents the disrespect the opposition has for London and the questions coming from members who are from

London.

Minister, yesterday you announced that the government committed $5 million in funding to improve students' reading skills. In the first year, 16 schools --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member, take a seat. Order. We'll start having to name people. He has a right to ask a question; he's asking a question. We need

a little bit of quiet. Sorry, member for London-Fanshawe.

Mr Mazzilli: Minister, in the first year, 16 schools have been selected, including Franklin Roosevelt in London. Can you tell me how this

program will benefit students?

Interjections.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): The initiative I announced yesterday -- I know the opposition doesn't want

to hear about something that's going to help improve student learning and improve how well our children are able to get those early literacy skills. This program is part of our plan to do that.

It's part of an almost $200-million initiative we have. We've put investments into smaller class sizes from kindergarten to grade 3 and more money for literacy specialists, training for teachers,

more teachers for the early grades and more resources in the classroom for early literacy initiatives.

This is part of that investment, and this piece is dedicated to those schools that have been having the most challenge meeting the grade 3 testing standards

over the last two or three years. In our consultations with the sector, they thought some intensive support for that family of schools would be helpful, so we are indeed doing that.

Mr Mazzilli: Minister, my understanding is that besides the 16 schools that were selected in the first year, there will be additional schools

selected in the upcoming two years, yet it won't include every school in Ontario. Can you tell me how all of Ontario's students will benefit from the new selections?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, all elementary schools are benefiting from these initiatives through the investments in smaller class sizes from

kindergarten to grade 3, the investments in early literacy and also the investments for the early reading strategy. All schools are benefiting from that funding.

We've asked all schools to set improvement goals for grade 3 reading over the next three years, to put in place improvement teams to do that. And for the small

number of schools that have been struggling the most, we're putting intensive support in for those particular schools, to assist them in helping their teachers teach their children better, to meet

the standard. The best practices and the experience we're gaining in those schools is going to be available for all of our elementary teachers across the province.

This responds to best practices in other jurisdictions, it responds to what the research shows will improve student learning, and that's why we've made these

investments and are moving forward.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, Jill Dean is a profoundly deaf child. She has had

a measure of hearing and a certain capacity for speech restored to her through a cochlear implant. This wonderful development has necessitated 29 visits to an audiologist over seven years. The cost

to Jill's parents under your new plan for audiology services would have been $1,740.

Minister, you should know that Jill's parents already manage significant costs to travel 800 kilometres to the implant centre and to pay for new speech and

hearing devices. Now they have to pay for every reassessment of her hearing. Many families could not bear the burden of these new costs, not even for something as important as their children's

hearing. I ask, will you reverse your decision and let audiologists work with children like Jill Dean at no cost to their families?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Let me assure this House that certainly those kinds of procedures are still listed

under OHIP. They are still available under our health plan. They are available either via the hospital or via the medical specialist.

I don't know the particular circumstances of the individual the honourable member is mentioning, but we can certainly provide that information to her

directly.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The Minister of Health.

Hon Mr Clement: I believe I completed my remarks, Mr Speaker.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, put the facts on the table. You've set out to save $50 million by removing some services from basic health coverage.

That's a fact. The other fact is, you're expecting to save $7 million by charging children and seniors for hearing tests. The other fact is that you would rather spend that money fighting the

audiologists in court than using that money to protect children's and seniors' hearing.

Minister, I have dozens of letters from families and seniors who have exactly the same concerns as the parents of Jill Dean. I also have a letter that was

written back in 1993 by the then assistant deputy minister of health, Margaret Mottershead, providing an assurance that if government went ahead and delisted audiology services so that you were no

longer paying for them through the OHIP schedule, you would provide alternate funding. Your ministry had intended to do this; they knew how to do it. Why did you, Minister Clement, decide that you

would not provide the funding for hearing assessments for children and seniors?

Hon Mr Clement: The facts of the matter are that this is a procedure that is still listed under OHIP. It is still available by medical

specialists and audiologists working with medical specialists. It's still available in hospitals and other treatment centres. Those are the facts.

I find it quite passing strange, if I can use that term, that the honourable member lifts a piece of paper up dealing with something in 1993. If the honourable

member wants to compare records on how we are committed to health care, to the right kind of health care, to the right kind of people, I will put our record against her record in government any day

of the week.

You closed 10,000 hospital beds. You kept the hospitals open; you closed the beds. You call that a health care policy. I call that a shame and a blight on the

people of Ontario. You should be ashamed of yourself.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and it relates to the issue of the Oak Ridges

moraine. For years now, successive governments of all political stripes have studied the issue of development on the Oak Ridges moraine. The previous Liberal government commissioned a study, to

their credit, but ended up doing nothing by way of legislation. To the credit of the previous NDP government, they also commissioned a report but never did bring in legislation. Development

applications have continued to be approved on the Oak Ridges moraine, without a comprehensive framework of provincial policy.

To your credit, Minister, and to the credit of this government, you introduced legislation to freeze development approvals on the moraine, a clear signal that

at least this government would deal with this issue once and for all. That freeze is scheduled to be lifted on November 17. Can you tell us when can we expect to see the proposed legislation?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'd like to thank the member for the question. As he mentioned, we appointed

the advisory panel because this House unanimously approved legislation dealing with the Oak Ridges moraine for a six-month time out to try to see if we could reach a consensus on what should be

protected and what should be developed, and to see if that could be achieved.

The member correctly referenced that people have been arguing about this issue for a generation now. The advisory panel worked very hard over the summer. They

built upon the region's and the conservation authority's public forums, they held numerous public forums themselves, and they came out with a document entitled Share Your Vision for the Oak Ridges

Moraine. They consulted on that with a number of open houses.

Right now, in answer to the question, we are analyzing that input to see if they have found a reasonable course to move forward at this time.

Mr Klees: With the lifting of the freeze a mere five weeks away, that doesn't leave a lot of time for members of this House, for members of

the public and for stakeholders to provide input to whatever the proposed legislation is that you'll be bringing forward. Can you give us your assurance that this House will see that legislation in

sufficient time so we can have reasonable input, so stakeholders can provide you with their views on implementation issues and so the public can have an opportunity to review that proposed

legislation, so that it will in fact be meaningful and effective?

Hon Mr Hodgson: It is a good question, and I would like to report that over August and September extensive consultations were held with

stakeholders and the public on the future of the Oak Ridges moraine based on the advisory group's report. Approximately 2,100 people attended the public meetings. A total of 165 stakeholders

attended four workshops held by the interministerial team, and it has been posted on the EBR Web site for 30 days. To date, we've received about 400 written comments from public stakeholders

regarding the future of the moraine.

Prior to the public meetings, the advisory panel incorporated the consultations that were done by the three regions of York, Peel and Durham into the Share

Your Vision paper. Certainly the member from Oak Ridges will agree that we have had comprehensive consultation. He referenced the fact that both governments had initiated studies. No action

followed up from that, but there were studies that were done. There has been a lot of talk about this issue.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Acting Premier as well. The announcement of your flip-flop on public transit funding

was welcome, but people with disabilities are very concerned because they're left out of the public transit equation. Right now, they can't access most public transit across Ontario. For example,

only 20% of Toronto's bus routes are even partly accessible. The Ontario Human Rights Commission says that may violate the Human Rights Code. Will you require all new buses to be accessible to the

disabled and provide funding accordingly?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I would like to thank the member of the third party for the question, because

he's right. It was an historic announcement where the province is going to make a tremendous investment to improve our transportation systems in terms of both highways and transit. In the

consultations in the Smart Growth sessions that were held across Ontario, we heard that we needed more of both.

The Minister of Transportation will be leading consultations and setting up a GO operating agency to make sure we deliver better transit. Our government has

committed $300 million in new funds. Municipalities are looking forward to matching that; they're paying 100% right now. We, as partners -- the municipalities and the province -- are calling on the

federal government to live up to the commitment it promised in the red book to match that, three hundred million new dollars year over year for 10 years, to have a $9-billion transit investment in

this province. That's tremendous news for this province.

Mr Martin: Minister, I asked what you were going to do to make sure the system was accessible to the handicapped. Your government has

repeatedly broken the promise to pass an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Legislation is badly needed. The ability to move around our cities freely is something most of us take for granted. But for

people with disabilities, that's far from the reality. This transit announcement is a chance to put your money where your mouth is. Will you require accessible buses, or is your commitment to an

Ontarians with Disabilities Act just so much hot air?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The Minister of Citizenship wants to answer this specific part of the question.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): This government pledged to work co-operatively and consult

not only with persons with disabilities in this province but also with AMO and all municipalities. Those discussions have been occurring rather intensively on the part of the Minister of

Transportation and myself, as the Minister of Citizenship responsible for bringing in an Ontarians with Disabilities Act,

an act we have committed to, which will be on the floor of this Legislature

this session, something we've committed to do and will do, something your government failed to do on behalf of Ontario's 1.5 million disabled persons.

PRINCIPALS

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question for the Minister of Education. In the face of the changes to, and mismanagement by

your government of, the education system, some 1,900 schools are going to lose their principals over the next five years. Surely the minister has known this. The minister has been aware that the

lack of success of this government in schools is chasing away the leadership. The very people who would bring positive learning experiences to students are saying, in the study released by Queen's

University, that they're leaving.

Minister, you have not been able to maintain the confidence of educators in this province. I would like you to tell the parents and the students of this

province today that you have a plan, that you will make sure something is done to change abruptly the way your education reforms have gone so we don't lose the leadership of our schools in

Ontario.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): What the honourable member obviously has missed is that in education, as in

health, in business and in many other sectors, we're facing a significant demographic challenge. As the population ages, we have more people retiring than we have coming in in a whole range of

areas. Unfortunately, education is no more immune to that than every other sector.

We've done a lot of work with the principals' council and the other two principals' associations, because we quite recognize the importance of principals.

They're very key individuals in our schools, key leaders, key managers of our schools, key communicators with our parents. We've been working with the principals' associations through more money

for training, more money for supports. For example, we had a specific initiative where we invested money to hire more principals for schools, especially small schools.

So we take the challenge quite seriously. We've been working with them very closely to make sure we have that leadership in our schools.

Mr Kennedy: The answer from the minister is no answer at all. Half of the principals are going to be lost in the next number of years. It's a

massive vote of non-confidence in what you're doing. What the study found is that they're leaving at the exact second they're eligible. They won't wait five minutes, because they have no confidence

in what you're doing. The minister obviously doesn't wish to be the Minister of Education, doesn't want to work on behalf of students, but maybe she can be brought to listen.

Sandy MacLean is a principal who retired last year from Mowat collegiate. She's the chair of the east regional secondary principals. She says to you, Minister,

that she would not have retired if it wasn't for the Harris government.

This is what principals in schools say today, those who have left: until your approach took away support, resources in the schools, gave bigger class sizes,

took away a lot of the things that they had to have success, principals were working.

Minister, this is a study. It reaches over 1,000 principals. It represents the actual situation in this province. I give you another opportunity, Minister, to

tell us today: what will you be doing?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the member's time is up. Sorry. The Minister of Education?

Hon Mrs Ecker: It's unfortunate that the honourable member wasn't listening to what I said earlier in terms of the work we're doing with the

principals' associations, because we quite recognize the importance of qualified teachers in our classrooms, of qualified principals in our classrooms. That's why we've put additional monies in to

support principals, additional training. That's why we've expanded the number of spots in teachers' colleges so that we can start having more people coming in as teachers.

But one of the concerns: I know in Durham region, for example, the school board actually was working with teachers to try to have training positions for more

principals, teachers who were interested in moving up the career path, and the biggest barrier to that happening was the local union that said they would blackball any teacher who did that.

So if the honourable member is concerned about this, and I'm assuming he certainly is -- it's an important issue and we need to meet this challenge in our

classrooms -- it might have been helpful if he had taken a stand when that union blackballed those teachers who wanted to be principals --

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

ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. It was a proud day for the entire

region of Durham Thursday last as we celebrated the new opening of the Ontario Institute of Technology, a new concept for a university that is to be built on the Durham College site.

It was clear during the ceremonies that the OIT is not only the first new university created in Ontario in more than 40 years, but it is also very unique.

As a former board member for Durham College and a graduate of Durham College, I certainly have an idea of what OIT is going to do for the region of Durham.

But, Minister, can you tell my constituents and the members of the assembly what will make the Ontario Institute of Technology such a unique institution?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): I'm pleased to respond to

the question from my colleague from Durham. Obviously this innovative and new Ontario Institute of Technology, with an extremely unique mandate to meet the needs of the job market and our economic

growth here in this province, will offer a mix of courses, both university and college courses, to ensure that our graduates have the right skills and the knowledge of course to succeed.

The OIT will link the education and the skills training with the demands of the marketplace, and they'll ensure a responsive, timely, up-to-date program. With

this seamless transition from college to university right on the campus of Durham College, they will be focusing on the needs of the job market.

It's a very exciting time in the history of our province, and I was proud to be there along with my colleague.

Mr Ouellette: It was indeed a pleasure to join the minister as well as the Minister of Finance, Mr Flaherty, and Mr O'Toole, the member for

Durham, whose riding it's actually in, at Durham College last week at the ceremonies. We look forward to seeing them all there in 2003 when the students are expected to arrive.

The institution will serve the needs of the citizens of the region of Durham very well. When you look at the innovative programs that are there that this new

university will offer, I'm certain that students from all across Ontario will want to come to study in the region of Durham.

Minister, can you explain what role you see OIT playing in Ontario's broader educational university system?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think one of the priorities of our government, and governments across this country, is to address the skills shortages

and to ensure that we've got the skilled workforce necessary to attract both the investment and jobs. Durham is one of the fastest-growing regions in our country, both in terms of population and

the economy.

When I attended the Council of Ministers of Education for Canada last week, ministers across the country were working to ensure that they've got these

innovative new kinds of programs. One of the objectives was a closer working relationship between our colleges, our universities and our apprenticeship training programs.

At Durham, they have been discussing the possibilities of applied degrees in health sciences, nuclear technology and safety, and information technology.

They're looking at the shortage and, of course, they're looking at unique programs.

We're very proud that we will have an institution that is, and will be, an even greater national leader along with other colleges' and universities'

apprenticeship programs and community-based programs in the province of Ontario.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, you know that personal

safety and security is a concern of all Ontarians and so it is with our seniors, our frail and elderly, and those people who are sick and released from hospitals sicker and quicker than ever

before. They need the security that upon being discharged from hospital the community care is there for them, which you promised them when you closed hospitals and shut down beds a number of years

ago.

Across the province, $175 million is needed so that our sick and elderly, our frail and elderly, can get the necessary nursing and home care services that we

deserve to give them, which will make them secure and safe in their own house. When are you going to ante up the money -- Kitchener-Waterloo is short $12.7 million, York region is short $12 million

and Windsor-Essex is short $2.8 million; I could go on and on -- so that the people in those areas can get the necessary services that you promised them and that you're denying them right now? When

are you going to ante up the money?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): To the associate Minister of Health.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): Let me say that this government is committed to the highest quality

of health care for the people of Ontario. To show you what this government has done, let me remind you that we have invested an increase of 72% in CCAC funding since 1994-95. That's a substantial

average increase across the province, and we've continued to work with CCACs to ensure that they provide the best-quality care.

I also need to remind you that many of the CCACs that you talked about today have a far larger dollars-per-population base than other areas across the

province, and we need to look at that to make sure that there's equity all across the province so everyone in the province gets the care that they need and deserve when it comes to community

services.

Mr Gerretsen: Minister, you are giving up on our seniors, our elderly and our sick that are released from hospitals. You've got $175 million

available for a corporate tax cut right now. It didn't take more than one day to decide to accelerate that corporate tax cut of $175 million. Why didn't you put that money for the hundreds and

thousands of people out there that need that help on a day-to-day basis? You've given up on the seniors, and we on this side of the House demand that you immediately restore the funding of $175

million so that those people who are released from hospitals sicker and quicker can be helped today, not tomorrow but today. When are you going to live up to your promise?

Hon Mrs Johns: The member opposite knows as well as I do that there has been no money taken from CCACs across the province. When you compare

the base budget last year to the budget of this year, there's an increase across the province.

Let me also tell you that his area of Kingston, for example, has 34% more dollars that they're using to fund CCACs than other areas in the province, and still

they can't provide the services. I think we have to ask questions about what some CCACs are doing with their money and what they're not. That's why this government has put a review together. We

believe that it's very important to ensure that quality services are being provided in every area. That's why we went into Hamilton, for example, and did an operational review, because we knew that

services weren't being given to the people of Ontario. We're continuing to do that because we believe that quality services and community --

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

MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is also directed to the associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, as you are

aware, this week is Mental Illness Awareness Week. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of recognizing the significance of this designated week and what it stands for. For many years, mental

illness was a disease that, quite frankly, people were afraid to discuss. For many reasons, some quite irrational, people did not feel comfortable or have the ability to speak about it freely. Many

Ontarians who suffered from mental illness had limited information on how to get help.

Minister, you mentioned yesterday in your statement that it's essential that the stigma of mental illness end. It is important to create an environment where

it is acceptable to discuss and to seek information, treatment and support for mental illness. It is equally important to have these services and treatments available at every stage of life and as

close to home as possible.

Can you please indicate what our government has been doing to create successful mental health reform?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): I'd like to thank the member from Northumberland for his question.

This is a really important question because each of us knows that one out of four Ontarians is struck with some form of mental illness. So it's very important for us during this Mental Illness

Awareness Week to talk about mental illness, to talk about how we can move to mental health and to help others battle this disease. I called upon all the members of the House to do what they could

in their constituency over this week.

Since 1995, this government has been putting additional dollars into mental health services, and we have put in $377 million. What that means is that of the

total funding that happens in the province now, we spend about $2.7 billion in mental health. We ensure that we have institutions or the general community facilities to ensure that people can move

out into the community. We have homes for special care, mental health homeless initiatives, and we have a lot of programs to ensure that we try to strengthen our mental health in the province of

Ontario.

Mr Galt: Thank you for the response. As we're seeing a shift from institutional care to community care, it is indeed necessary that task

forces be there to represent and interconnect the various sectors and health care providers. I have great confidence that the mental health implementation task force in my region of central east

will bring about the changes needed to ensure that people with serious mental illness have access to a wide range of client-centred services and supports close to home.

Minister, could you please tell us about these nine mental health task forces that have been established to help the Ontario government improve mental health

services delivery across the province, including the status of the mental health reform implementation task force, its time limits and how much our government is investing in them?

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Johns: I'd like to thank the member for the question. I'd like to say that there's a commitment, I'm sure on all sides, to mental

health, even though there is a large rumble in the Legislature today. Let me remind people that the Premier went to talk to the task force representatives from each of the different regions to talk

about his commitment to mental health and mental reform. He did quite a good job. He reinforced at that time the need for these task forces to take into account local considerations, to tell us

what they needed in their own communities so we could strengthen the network all across the province of Ontario.

I've had the opportunity to meet many of the task forces, and I have to tell you that as impressive as yours is, Dr Galt, so are all the task forces across the

province. We have brought together some of the best people who have education and knowledge about mental health, and they have come together to ensure that when the task forces do their reports,

which will happen about 18 months after they begin their initial consultation, they will truly be making a difference to the people of the province.

COLLÈGE DES GRANDS LACS

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James) : Ma question s'adresse à la ministre de la Formation et des Collèges et

Universités. Ma question porte sur la fermeture du Collège des Grands Lacs de Toronto, qui est le seul établissement postsecondaire pour les étudiants francophones du centre et

du centre-sud-ouest de l'Ontario.

Lundi dernier, la direction du collège a annoncé officiellement la fin des opérations du Collège des Grands Lacs. Concrètement, cela

veut dire que les étudiants de la première année, qui sont la majorité, devront continuer leurs études au Collège Boréal à Sudbury. La plupart d'entre eux

ont déjà fait savoir qu'ils ne sont pas intéressés à aller à Sudbury, et ce matin la direction a eu ce message très fort.

Madame la ministre, je demande la question suivante : pouvez-vous nous donner l'assurance que les étudiants pourront compléter leur année

cette année-ci à un établissement à Toronto ?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): The students' needs are at

the top of the agenda for the members of this Legislative Assembly. There are discussions going on. I wasn't aware of what you've just told me, but I am aware that we are trying to meet the needs

of the students, and we will meet the needs of the students.

As I said to the member yesterday, we do know that we have initiated discussions with Collège Boréal. If there are plans where the students can

finish their education right here in Toronto, which was my understanding, then of course I think what he's saying is that everyone will be happy. But if there are other arrangements that have to be

made, they will be made with the students, working with the officials, to make sure they get what they need; in fact, to have the best education as francophones in the province of Ontario.

M. Bisson : Madame la ministre, ce qui est important, je pense, entre les deux, c'est d'être d'accord sur les besoins des

Justement, comme vous le savez, le Collège des Grands Lacs a un nombre d'étudiants qui sont venus de l'Europe. Ils ont payé 12 000 $

pour venir faire leurs études ici à Toronto. Nous, la province de l'Ontario, on les a attirés à venir ici. Pour nous autres de dire tout à coup, après tout ces

arrangements que les étudiants ont faits, « Allez-vous-en à Sudbury, » c'est suffisant, je pense. C'est quelque chose qui n'est pas acceptable pour nous dans la

province de l'Ontario. Mais, plus important, ça envoie le méchant message aux étudiants en Europe.

Je vous demande de prendre les étapes suivantes : premièrement, on a besoin d'assurer que les étudiants continuent leur éducation ici

à Toronto. Si ce n'est pas fait sous le Collège des Grands Lacs, on demande au moins que le Collège Boréal opère un satellite ici à Toronto pour s'assurer que ces

élèves ont l'opportunité de finir leur éducation ici à Toronto, soit sous la titulaire du Collège des Grands Lacs, ou sous le Collège Boréal.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's my understanding that it is Collège Boréal that is working with the administration of Grands Lacs, and I'm

definitely listening to the member. I think others will be reading what his question is. The focus is going to be on what the students need, and I'm sure that we can meet the requirements of both

the students and Collège Boréal as they work along with Collège des Grands Lacs. We're all interested in the same bottom line.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to present this petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the Harris government is planning to take funds that our public schools desperately need and funnel them to private schools through tax credits;

and

"Whereas the government's plan is to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools; and

"Whereas the initiative, in effect, is a voucher system and is the beginning of the end of quality public education in Ontario,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call on all members of the Legislature to fight and defeat this attack on the choice parents most want: stability, co-operation

and respect in clean, safe public schools."

I put my signature to this as well.

OHIP SERVICES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have further petitions from Gwen Lee out of Hamilton. The petition reads as follows:

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

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

due to shortges of specialty physicians; and

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

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

biofeedback; and

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

and

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

industrial workers; and

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

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

I support my constituents and add my name to their petition.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads:

"Whereas post-secondary education is very important in the development of young adults, to the betterment of society and the economic future of our province;

and

"Whereas the continuing challenge and cost of education facing families in Ontario in the 21st century is ever increasing; and

"Whereas the cost of post-secondary education in Ontario requires a combination of government and individual financial support; and

"Whereas the tax credit proposed in Bill 4, Saving for our Children's Future, 2001, will effectively and beneficially encourage families to save for their

children's education; and

"Whereas the large majority of children and families with a registered education savings plan do not apply for OSAP, thereby freeing millions of dollars for

other OSAP students;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, hereby respectfully petition the Legislature of Ontario to act quickly to pass Bill 4, Saving for our Children's Future, 2001,

and thereby extend the opportunity of post-secondary education to thousands of children."

I affix my signature to this petition from many Ontario citizens.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas many residents of St Catharines and of 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 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 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 $240 million on blatantly partisan government advertising in the form of glossy brochures and television and

radio ads" and full-page ads in newspapers,

"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 into health care in the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature because I'm in complete agreement with this petition.

OHIP SERVICES

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

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

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

due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

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

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

transcutaneous nerve therapy stimulation and biofeedback; and

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

and

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

industrial workers; and

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

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

I agree with the petitioners and I have signed my name to these petitions.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

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

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario ban the use of genetically modified foods for consumer use until it is safely and clinically tested by the Ministry of Health

and the Ministry of Agriculture with no adverse side effects for human consumption. It should then and only then be passed by the Parliament of Ontario.

"As there are products coming into Ontario at this time from Europe, the USA, as well as Canada, ie, potatoes, tomatoes, soy products and by-products such as

the oils from these products, we also petition that these products be labelled to tell the people of Ontario that they contain GMO (genetically modified organisms)."

I'll sign this as well.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

Of course, I affix my signature to this petition.

PERSONAL NEEDS ALLOWANCE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I continue to receive petitions from individuals on the Hamilton second-level lodging home tenants'

committee. Their petition to the Legislative Assembly reads as follows:

"Whereas individuals who are tenants or residents in facilities such as care homes, nursing homes or domiciliary hostels under certain acts are provided with a

personal needs allowance to meet incidental costs other than those provided by the facility; and

"Whereas the personal needs allowance has been fixed by the Ontario government at a rate of $112 for nearly a decade and has not kept pace with cost-of-living

increases, and furthermore is inadequate to meet incidental costs such as clothing, hygiene products and other essentials;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately review and amend provincial legislation to increase the personal

needs allowance from $112 a month to $160 a month for individuals living in care homes, nursing homes or other domiciliary hostels."

I add my name to those of these petitioners.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer, also called Our Father, has been used to open the proceedings of municipal chambers and the Ontario Legislative Assembly since the

beginning of Upper Canada in the 18th century; and

"Whereas such use of the Lord's Prayer is part of Ontario's long-standing heritage and a tradition that continues to play a significant role in contemporary

Ontario life; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is the most meaningful expression of the religious convictions of many Ontario citizens;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings, in accordance with its long-standing established custom, and do all

in its power to maintain use of this prayer in municipal chambers in Ontario."

I'll affix my signature to that.

HOME CARE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have more petitions relating to home care and community care access centres.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the need for home care services is rapidly growing in Ontario due to the aging of the population and hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the prices paid by community care access centres to purchase home care services for their clients are rising due to factors beyond the control of

community care access centres; and

"Whereas the funding provided by the Ontario government through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is inadequate to meet the growing need for home care

services; and

"Whereas the funding shortfall, coupled with the implications of Bill 46, the Public Sector Accountability Act, currently before the Legislature are forcing

CCACs to make deep cuts in home care services without any policy direction from the provincial government;

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

"

(1) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to take control of policy-setting for home care services through rational, population-based

health care planning rather than simply by underfunding the system; and

"

(2) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to provide sufficient funding to CCACs to support the home care services that are the

mandate of CCACs in the volumes needed to meet their communities' rapidly growing needs; and

"

(3) That the Legislative Assembly make it necessary for the provincial government to notify the agencies it funds of the amount of funding they will be given

by the government in a fiscal year at least three months before the commencement of this fiscal year."

This particular group of petitions is signed by people in the Manitowaning area.

OHIP SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that's been sent to me by Goldie Leibman, who is the coordinator of the Association of

Jewish Seniors. It reads as follows:

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

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

due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

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

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

nerve therapy stimulation and biofeedback; and

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

and

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

industrial workers; and

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

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

I agree with the petitioners, and I have signed my name to their petition.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

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

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

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

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

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

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

community care access centres can provide the services that Ontario's working families need."

I affix my name to this petition, along with others from my own constituency of Windsor West.

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to move a motion regarding

the terms of this evening's debate.

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

Hon Mrs Ecker: I move that G101 be called as the first order of the day this evening; that the remainder of the sessional day shall be spent

debating the bill, at which time the Speaker shall put the question; that the vote may be deferred; that at the conclusion of the second reading stage of the bill, the bill shall be referred to the

standing committee on justice and social policy; that the standing committee on justice and social policy shall be authorized to meet in Toronto for up to three days; that the standing committee on

justice and social policy shall report back to the House no later than November 8, 2001.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'm OK with what's been read up to now, but just to understand that

both the Liberals and the New Democrats will stand down their leads in the debate this afternoon and that the vote is collapsed tonight if there are no other debaters.

The Speaker: It's a different bill, but there may be some clarification from the government House leader.

Hon Mrs Ecker: It's my understanding that the Attorney General will be calling that order and that there will be consent for the two

opposition critics to stand down their lead-off time.

The Speaker: Mrs Ecker has moved that G101 be called as the first order of the day this evening; that the remainder of the sessional day be

spent debating the bill, at which time the Speaker shall put the question; that the vote may be deferred; that at the conclusion of the second reading stage of the bill, the bill shall be referred

to the standing committee on justice and social policy; that the standing committee on justice and social policy shall be authorized to meet in Toronto for up to three days; that the standing

committee on justice and social policy shall report back to the House no later than November 8, 2001.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROHIBITING PROFITING

FROM RECOUNTING CRIMES ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 INTERDISANT

LES GAINS TIRÉS

DU RÉCIT D'ACTES CRIMINELS

Mr Young moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 69,

An Act to protect victims by prohibiting profiting from recounting of crime / Projet de loi 69, Loi visant à protéger les victimes en

interdisant les gains tirés du récit d'actes criminels.

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I will, with your permission of course, Mr Speaker, be sharing my

time this afternoon with the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey and the member for Peterborough.

I proceed with second reading of this very important bill this day and, as I indicated, we will be sharing our time. This bill, the Prohibiting Profiting from

Recounting Crimes Act, 2001, is yet another bill that this government has brought forward, a bill to protect victims and to keep victims and their families safe and to keep communities across this

province safe. We have a number of beliefs that have led us to bring forward this proposed legislation.

We believe that victims of crime deserve not only justice but a strong voice in the justice system as well. You can't have one without the other.

We believe the government should provide the programs and services that victims of crime need. And we believe that it is essential that laws be in place to

prohibit criminals from benefiting financially from the pain they have caused their victims. The victims and their families have a right to know that they will not be revictimized in this way.

Since coming to power, this government has taken a leadership role in protecting victims' rights and in improving the treatment of victims of crime in the

justice system. We have also begun steps to take the profit out of crime, to help people who have been victimized by organized crime and other unlawful activities. As you're well aware, there is a

bill currently in front of this Legislature that, if passed, will do just that.

But there is more to be done. That is why we have taken a further step to assist victims of crime and fulfill a Blueprint policy, a Blueprint promise, a

commitment that we made to the voters of this province leading up to the June 1999 election, a promise, a commitment to strengthen victims' rights across this province by introducing the

Prohibiting Profiting from Recounting Crimes Act .

I talk in terms of the Blueprint. I think most here and most across the province will understand that the Blueprint was a policy document that this party, Mike

Harris's Conservative Party, came forward with prior to the election that set out for the voters in very clear and unequivocal terms what it was that we would do if we had the privilege of

governing for yet another term.

The Blueprint document said that for justice, and I quote, "Convicted criminals should be prohibited from financially benefiting from their crimes, including

the sale of book or movie rights." That's the promise we made to the people of this province in June 1999.

We come forward at this juncture with this bill, Bill 69, which would indeed take the profit out of crime. Let me explain, if I may, for a moment how that

would occur.

If this bill is passed, it would allow for the seizure and forfeiture of money criminals receive from recounting their crimes in books, interviews, movies and

any other source of media that one can imagine. It would establish a fund from the forfeited proceeds that would be available to the victims of crimes. So the money would be taken from those

convicted of serious offences, and I'll explain that later, and it would be given to the victims.

Ontario would be the only jurisdiction in this entire country to have this sort of protection in place. I'm very proud of the fact that we are the first

government to come forward with this type of protective measure. But this protection does exist in other jurisdictions. Legislation to take away proceeds from criminals who gain money from

recounting their stories is in effect in almost every state in the United States of America; almost every state has this legislation.

If I can give you a few examples as to how they have brought forward legislation south of the border, I would be pleased to do so. For instance, in New York,

anyone who contracts with a person charged or convicted of a felony must give a Crime Victims Board notice of any payment or an obligation to pay what is defined as "profits" from crime. Upon

receipt of that notice -- notice of that contract -- the board then goes and contacts all known victims of that particular crime, who may then decide whether or not to institute a civil proceeding.

The board may obtain interim preservation or freeze orders to protect the funds in question, to protect the profits.

California's legislation creates a trust from which proceeds of crime can be taken by appropriate beneficiaries, by the victims and/or their families. The

legislation specifically defines beneficiaries as those who have suffered physical, mental or emotional injury or pecuniary loss as a result of the felon. That trust in California exists for five

years, and the beneficiary must commence an action within that five-year period in order to claim an interest in the trust funds. If a beneficiary is successful in a court action, the court shall

order payment from the trust funds.

Similar to the board's power in New York, in California the Attorney General may bring an action to freeze the proceeds upon showing that the proceeds are

subject to the act and that the beneficiaries do indeed exist.

I should point out that the United States is not the only jurisdiction that has this sort of legislation in place. Similar legislation also exists in

Australia.

In Australia -- in Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania -- legislators have come forward and have brought into law provisions that allow the

respective states to apply for and obtain a forfeiture order for benefits or their equal value, acquired by a criminal defendant in a contract dealing with the recollection or retelling or

recounting of a serious crime.

Profiting from these types of crimes is wrong. I suspect every member of this Legislature would accept that in principle, but what is also important to

remember is the victims' groups. Victims' advocate groups have come out very strongly to confirm just how wrong it is, and how important it is that we come forward in this Legislature with some

laws.

Victims' groups, including the Victims of Violence group, have said to us that they do not want to see their members, and future members, revictimized. If they

were here, they could tell you that victims need protection from the efforts of criminals who are attempting to capitalize on their crimes. Victims of crime and those affected by the crime, such as

spouses, children and other family members, should not have to relive the pain they have suffered at the hands of the criminals. Nothing could be more wrong. They need, and they deserve, to be

protected.

This bill would further help to protect those very victims, if it is passed. Under this bill, a publisher or any party to a contract with a criminal convicted

of a serious violent crime to which this bill applies would be required to report their contracts or be fined up to $50,000.

Applicable contracts entered into before or after a conviction could include the use of documents that may be related to the crime, an interview with the

convict or an appearance of the convict to recount his or her criminal activity. Any payments made to the criminal under these contracts could be subject to forfeiture for the benefit of the

victims.

The act, if passed, would allow for the establishment of a fund with the forfeited proceeds, which would be available to victims of crime. It's hard to imagine

how anyone could oppose this initiative. It's certainly hard for me to imagine how anyone could oppose this initiative, but there are some critics of the bill out there who say it's not needed,

that it's superfluous. They say we already have legislation similar to the bill in front of us, and they refer to the Victims' Right to Proceeds of Crime Act. I'd like to take a moment, if I may

with your permission, to talk a little bit about that bill, which was introduced as a private member's bill by my colleague and friend Cam Jackson.

The now-minister brought forward a bill and indeed started down a path. I applaud him for that. The bill was proclaimed in May 1995 and serves to compensate

victims of crime from monies acquired by an accused or a convicted person who recounts a crime. We've learned a lot from that current act. We also know there's a lot more that can be done. We know

that a great deal more can be done to take the profit out of crime and we know that a great deal more can be done in order to help victims. We sincerely believe that this proposed legislation we

come forward with this day will do a great deal more to help victims in a number of different ways. I, again with your permission, will attempt to enumerate the advantages, improvements that would

exist should the current bill in front of the Legislature be carried.

In order to properly understand the working of this bill, I think it's important to look at how the proposed legislation defines the term "crime." The Victims'

Right to Proceeds of Crime Act does not define crimes to which it applies, so we start with that understanding. However, Bill 69, the bill that I have brought forward for second reading today,

defines a designated crime. It does so by saying that a designated crime is a serious, violent crime, an indictable offence where the penalty is five years' imprisonment or more and also

specifically includes the crime of sexual assault. Within the definition, it also speaks of serious property offences prescribed by regulation. So that's the definition that would exist should this

bill become law.

It's also important to understand the mechanism, the workings of the system, that we have proposed to the Legislative Assembly, because if the bill we brought

forward becomes law, victims would no longer be required to obtain a civil judgment. They wouldn't be forced to go to court, to hire a lawyer, to proceed through a trial that they'd have to fund

before they could collect monies. They would not be required to retain and pay for counsel and to go through that excruciating experience of being part of a court process of that nature. Instead,

victims would only have to apply for access to the forfeited funds. Under the existing legislation, the victims have to get a civil judgment in court in order to have access to funds. Under the new

bill, under our proposal, funds would be deposited into a special account to be made available to victims, including those persons who have sued under

part V of the Family Law Act. These, as I'm

sure you know, are dependants of the victims, whether the victim was injured or killed.

Here's an important point that I ask you and all the other members of this assembly to consider seriously, Mr Speaker: any excess money, any surplus money,

that is seized or forfeited would not be returned to the criminal under this scheme. However, under the current law, the one we hope to supplement or replace, under the Victims' Right to Proceeds

of Crime Act, funds are simply held in trust, and if any funds remain after a civil judgment is obtained and satisfied, the balance may be returned to the criminal. I want to emphasize that under

the proposed bill, the one we're here arguing in favour of today, the one the Mike Harris government has tabled with this Legislative Assembly, funds would be forfeited to the government and would

be placed in a special purpose account, at which point the convicted person would lose any and all rights to any remaining funds that may exist in that account, to any of the funds that were

seized. Remaining funds, if there were any, would be used to support victims initiatives.

Before I conclude my comparison of the existing law and the proposed bill, let me also say this: the existing act provides for an offence for failure to report

a contract for the recollection of crimes and failure to pay proceeds to the government, but it does not provide for a clear enforcement mechanism for collecting the funds. Under this new bill, all

parties to a contract that deals with the recounting of a designated crime, all parties to a contract for recounting crime that involves payment to a convicted person, would be obliged to report

the existence of the contract to the government. There would be that obligation. If a party failed to do so, if they didn't report in the manner prescribed, they would be liable to a fine of up to

$50,000. So they would have a duty to report now. In order to make this workable, in order to give it teeth, this duty could also be imposed personally on the directors and officers of a publishing

or media company, to ensure compliance with the act. No one could hide behind a corporate veil in this instance. As well, the bill we have brought forward provides a clear court process to apply

for the preservation and forfeiture of funds.

If the Prohibiting Profiting from Recounting Crimes Act is passed, the Victims' Right to Proceeds of Crime Act would be repealed.

Since the enactment of the existing legislation, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, a body which drafts model legislation for Canadian jurisdictions, has

released model legislation designed to respond to this very problem, designed to respond to the criminal exploitation of violent crimes. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada set out two possible

models in their option paper and, in February 1998, recommended a final model. I'm proud to say that their recommended model is very similar to the legislation we have proposed in this Legislative

Assembly. Again, that new legislation we've come forward with, if passed, would do considerably more, in our respectful opinion, to take the profit out of crime and to further protect victims.

As I said earlier, the bill we've come forward with, the proposal we've come forward with, does not require a civil judgment to obtain money from the trust.

What would happen is that the government would assume the responsibility to go to court on behalf of the victims to seize and in some instances to forfeit the funds in question. This would help to

relieve both the emotional and the financial burden of victims. It would serve to broaden the definition of "proceeds of crime" to include contracts entered into prior to a conviction. The act

says:

"`proceeds of a contract for recounting crime' means,

"(

a) money or other consideration paid under a contract for recounting crime to a person convicted of or charged with a designated crime or the agent of a

person convicted of or charged with a designated crime, whether the money or other consideration is paid before or after this act came into force, or

"(

b) property acquired, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from money or other consideration referred to in clause (a), whether the property was

acquired before or after this act came into force."

Some critics have said that they do not believe this bill is needed. They point to the fact that under the current legislation only $1.07 has been paid into

the trust since 1995 and, they say, obviously there are very few criminals in Ontario who have written about their crimes. I say this bill is a preventive measure. I say that we would be remiss if

we didn't come forward with this sort of initiative, if we waited until that sort of unseemly profit occurred, if we waited for victims to be revictimized. Because this proposed legislation, this

new bill, is so stringent, because it has a stringent reporting requirement, if the bill is passed, we expect that there would be more information about the frequency of these types of contracts in

the future.

Some lawyers and civil libertarians have come forward to oppose the bill as an infringement on civil rights. I say to them this is simply not true. I say to

them that this bill is intended and designed and crafted carefully to prevent victimization, to prevent victims from being revictimized. It is intended to help victims of crime. Clearly, it is

intended to help victims of crime, and this bill also provides for due process. There should be no doubt about that.

The government must apply to court to forfeit funds. It's not an arbitrary, unilateral regulatory process. They have to apply to a court of law, they have to

appear in front of a judge, and the convicted person will have notice and have a full and fair opportunity to make submissions as part of the determination of this issue. It's all set out in the

act and all steps in a proceeding must be approved by the courts.

Other critics have demanded examples of how this legislation would work. I say to you that I operate, as should most members of this Legislative Assembly, with

some restriction and I cannot and I will not mention specific cases, for a number of reasons, one of which is that it would only add to the notoriety of the persons in question, notoriety of

persons convicted of crimes at the expense of victims.

To those who look for specific examples, I would again say to them that one of the main goals, one of the main objectives of this bill is to prevent criminals

from profiting from crimes. It is preventive in nature. We believe that if this act is passed it would help prevent these types of contracts in this province. This bill is intended to apply to

those who commit serious property offences or violent crimes such as sexual assault, armed robbery and murder.

Once again, I say that criminals should not be able to benefit financially from the pain that they have caused to victims, from the pain that they have caused

to families. That should not be allowed. This bill would help victims and prevent criminals from profiting from those sorts of activities, from profiting from that type of crime. I urge members of

this Legislative Assembly to support this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further debate?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I'd like to add to the comments from the member for Willowdale, who is the Attorney General,

Mr Young, and his remarks with respect to Bill 69, a bill prohibiting profiting from recounting. I think he has adequately explained to the House what the bill is trying to do. What the bill is

trying to do is to prevent criminals from profiting from crime. A key objective is to give victims of crime access to the profits of criminals who recount their crimes and talk about their crimes

in movies, in books, in interviews. We don't want that to happen. We therefore feel that this is a most important and necessary piece of legislation with respect to assisting victims in the

province of Ontario.

We believe that if this bill is passed it would take the profit out of crime by seizing the proceeds convicted criminals get from recounting or talking about

their crimes in books, movies, interviews and other media. No one should be allowed to profit from their crimes in this manner. The monies seized, as the Attorney General has stated, would be

placed into a fund that would be available to victims of crime and for programs for victims.

When we use the term "criminal," it would apply to a number of things, which are set forth in the definition

section of the bill, if any of you are following

along with the bill. It would apply to anyone convicted of a serious criminal offence or a serious property crime designated under the act. It would apply to persons acting on the criminal's

behalf, such as a spouse, partner, child and other related persons in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and evidence to the contrary would be decided by a judge. It might, for example, be a

wife who has been a victim -- and I'm not saying that's an example but that's an example that could be considered as evidence to the contrary. It would apply to a corporation where the convicted

person has substantial interests, and it would apply to persons for the purpose of interim freeze orders.

Under this bill, the offence may be committed before or after the enactment of the legislation. Property claims may be added under regulation.

An eligible criminal offence under the act would be defined as committing or attempting to commit sexual assault, with or without a weapon. It would be defined

as threats to a third party that caused bodily harm. It would be defined as an aggravated assault; this is a criminal offence. It would be defined as a violent, indictable offence with a sentence

of five years or more in prison, and a serious property offence under the Criminal Code as prescribed by regulation.

The bill talks about a contract, that terminology, which would include any money paid to a convicted person before or after a conviction for the literary or

media description or the recollection, the telling of or the description of the crime. It would include the use of documents that may be related to the crime. It would include an interview of the

convicted person about his or her crime. It would include an appearance on a television or radio show by the convicted person. So it's fairly widespread as to what a contract would be.

Under this bill a publisher or any other party to a contract and the convicted criminal would be required to report the existence of a contract involving the

recounting of a crime, and they'd have to provide a copy of that contract. The publishers, as the Attorney General has stated, could be fined up to $50,000 for failure to provide a contract. In

addition --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): That's a lot of money.

Mr Tilson: Yes, it is a lot of money, and we're quite serious about this.

In addition, directors and officers of media, publishing and other companies who contract with a criminal would be held personally liable for failing to report

a contract.

Bill 69 would ensure that criminals do not profit from recollections of their crimes but would not interfere with a publisher's ability to contract. The

Attorney General would apply to the court to freeze and seize the proceeds payable to a convicted criminal for recounting crimes. This would also include any property purchased with the

proceeds.

I'd like to explain very briefly the four steps of how this legislation would work.

The first step is identifying the contract. Once a person accused or convicted of a designated crime enters into a contract to recount or talk about his or her

crime, the parties to the contract would be required to report it to the Attorney General within 15 days. The Attorney General may then make an application to court for an order which would freeze

the funds payable to the accused person under the contract to which the bill applies. This is included to ensure that, in appropriate cases, the court may freeze funds until a criminal charge is

dealt with.

Under Bill 69, funds may not be forfeited out of the bill from an accused person, but only from a convicted person. Where the funds of an accused person have

been frozen and the person is not convicted, then of course the bill requires that the funds be returned to that person. If the accused person is convicted, the bill provides that the Attorney

General must apply within a certain period of time for a forfeiture order or the Attorney General must return the funds to that person.

The second step is the freezing and the forfeiting of the funds. The Ministry of the Attorney General would have the authority to commence a legal proceeding.

If a person has been convicted of a crime to which the bill applies, the Ministry of the Attorney General would have the authority to apply to court to forfeit the proceeds otherwise payable to the

convicted person. Where a person has been charged with a crime to which this bill applies, the Attorney General would have the authority to make an application to freeze the funds pending the

outcome of the charge.

The Ministry of the Attorney General would develop operational policies relating to when it would be appropriate for the ministry to apply for a forfeiture

order. The relevant factors which the Attorney General's office would likely include are whether the ministry is of the view that the act applies under the contract, the amount of money due to the

criminal under the contract, the purpose of the contract, the type of story that's being recounted, the type of crime, the number of victims and other relevant circumstances, including whether the

ministry is of the view that a person other than the convicted person who has entered into the contract is actually acting as the agent of the convicted person.

The third step is the distribution of the victims' fund. Funds forfeited under this bill would be disposed in a special purpose account. It would not go to the

consolidated revenue fund. Victims could apply for compensation for financial and other losses -- for example, pain and suffering -- from the fund. The procedures for applying to the fund would be

set by regulation. It's expected that the regulations would include reference to factors such as the nature of the harm caused, any out-of-pocket expenses, the amount of funds forfeited and other

relevant factors such as whether a civil judgment has been attained.

The fourth step deals with residential funds given to other victims initiatives. In the event that there are funds remaining after the compensation to victims,

they would be retained in a special account to fund victims initiatives.

I echo the Attorney General: this bill is needed. It's thorough and it builds on the existing legislation originally started by Mr Jackson, the Victims' Right

to Proceeds of Crime Act, by strengthening enforcement mechanisms.

Those are my comments in addition to the Attorney General's comments, and I would encourage all members of this House to support this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Hon R. Gary Stewart (Minister without Portfolio): I am indeed pleased to be able to speak to Bill 69, the Prohibiting Profiting from

Recounting Crimes Act. I believe that victims deserve to be protected. I also believe that victims deserve to have their voices heard. Victims deserve programs and services that respond to their

needs and give them support. Victims deserve to be compensated for the suffering and pain they have to endure as a result of the crimes perpetrated against them. Often, victims must cope with the

emotional, physical and financial cost of crimes committed against them. They are indeed the victims.

This government has a genuine concern for the rights of victims. We promised to change the way victims were treated, and we are. We promised fairness and

justice for victims, and we have kept that promise.

Since 1995, our government has implemented several initiatives to enhance victims' rights and to make Ontario's towns and cities safer for Ontarians. We have

taken steps to protect victims' rights and improve victims' services. In 1996, we passed the Victims' Bill of Rights, an important first step in responding to the needs of victims of crime by

setting out basic principles regarding the treatment of victims in the justice system.

The Victims' Bill of Rights also simplified the process for victims who want to sue their assailants in civil actions for damages, and provides better support

for children who must testify in court. One of its most important provisions is the enshrinement of the victims' justice fund so that fine surcharges are collected and used strictly for services to

victims.

This government fulfilled one of its Blueprint promises when the Victims' Bill of Rights Amendment Act, 2000, was proclaimed in June 2001, creating Canada's

first permanent Office for Victims of Crime. I want to emphasize that, if I may: the Victims' Bill of Rights Amendment Act created Canada's first permanent Office for Victims of Crime, indeed a

most important initiative. The Office for Victims of Crime played a valuable role in advising government on programs and services for victims. The new agency will consult and liaise with victims

and provide advice to the government on issues relating to victims. They would include options for the development of province-wide standards for services for victims of crime, the use of the

victims' justice fund to provide and improve services and also ways to prevent further victimization in matters of legislation and policy on the treatment of victims of crime.

We have done more. We have expanded the victim-witness assistance program, which ensures victims are supported throughout the court process. Thirty-one

locations will be added across the province, bringing the total to 57 outlets for the victim-witness assistance progra