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

April 26, 1999

36th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L002A - Mon 26 Apr 1999 / Lun 26 Avr 1999

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANNIVERSARY OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

BEAR HUNTING

BOWMANVILLE MAPLE FESTIVAL

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

YOUNG OFFENDERS

SYL APPS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

NIAGARA GRAPE AND WINE FESTIVAL

MARGARET CAMPBELL

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SOCIÉTÉS DE PRÊT ET DE FIDUCIE

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (MOULD CONTAMINATION IN PORTABLE CLASSROOMS), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION (CONTAMINATION PAR LA MOISISSURE DANS LES CLASSES MOBILES)

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA LOI INTITULÉE UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1965

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT (CHILD WELFARE REFORM), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE (RÉFORME DU BIEN-ÊTRE DE L'ENFANCE)

MINISTERIAL TRAVEL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR L'OBLIGATION DE RENDRE COMPTE DES VOYAGES MINISTÉRIELS

CANADA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE AND SCHOOL OF GRADUATE THEOLOGICAL STUDIES ACT, 1999

VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ APPELÉE VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE

NURSES' BILL OF RIGHTS, 1999 / DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DES INFIRMIÈRES ET INFIRMIERS DE 1999

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN INVOLVED IN PROSTITUTION ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS QUI SE LIVRENT À LA PROSTITUTION

LOWER PROPERTY TAXES IN SUDBURY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA RÉDUCTION DES IMPÔTS FONCIERS PRÉLEVÉS À SUDBURY

VISITORS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

LENGTH OF MOTIONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

EDUCATION FUNDING

CHILDREN'S TREATMENT CENTRES

ONTARIO 2000

HIGHWAY 407

CANCER TREATMENT

TELEMARKETING PRACTICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

HOMELESSNESS

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

PETITIONS

RECYCLING

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

PORNOGRAPHY

AIR QUALITY

FIRE IN HAMILTON

PORNOGRAPHY

TRAFFIC CONTROL

EDUCATION FUNDING

PAY EQUITY

PROPERTY TAXATION

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANNIVERSARY OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I rise today to mark the 84th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. April 24, 1915, was the start of a planned and systematic campaign to eradicate the Armenian people. One and a half million Armenian men, women and children were brutally killed.

At the time, the world community sat idle and did nothing. Thus the stage was set for other genocides and human tragedies. In fact, upon unveiling his final solution for the Jewish people, Hitler noted to his aides that the world would not lift a finger because, in his own words, "Who today remembers the Armenians?"

What is doubly tragic about the Armenian genocide is that even today much of the world refuses to acknowledge the horrific events. The perpetrators continue to deny the truth. This wound cannot heal. Peace can only be achieved through justice, justice cannot exist without the truth, and the truth is not divisible by two.

I was honoured to stand in remembrance with members of my community over this past weekend. Every year I've been proud to participate in the youth vigil on the grounds of this Legislature, and I was equally honoured to be asked to speak at the services at the Armenian Community Centre in my riding.

Recent events around the world will give members of this Legislature pause to remember the human tragedy of genocide and to give the survivors of this horror the recognition that they deserve and seek.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I rise today to report to the House that people of northern Ontario are more and more starting to realize to just what extent this government has abandoned its responsibilities for those people in northern Ontario.

We found out this February that the government, on its own, without any consultation with people in northern Ontario and, I would suggest, even without the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources, cancelled the spring bear hunt.

We then found out later on, during the spring, that even though thousands of people had gone to the Lands for Life meetings all across northeastern and northwestern Ontario, the government decided to go on its own, cook a backroom deal with a few companies within the forest industry and implement a Lands for Life policy that quite frankly is going to hurt the economy of northern Ontario.

I look at the Northern Miner today and I see that Wayne O'Connor, president of Band-Ore, is questioning why he supported the Conservatives in the last election, because as he puts it, by way of this policy you're basically putting an end to a lot of the mining activity that should be happening in northern Ontario.

We see a government that last fall and last winter cut back on the quality of snow removal on our northern highways. We find ourselves now being stranded in communities where we never used to see that before, and we're seeing highways not maintained to the quality they were in the past.

I come here with only one question at this point. It's a question northerners want me to ask the Premier of this province, the Premier who supposedly comes from northern Ontario. Premier, why have you turned your back on the people of northern Ontario?

BOWMANVILLE MAPLE FESTIVAL

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to be back in the House today and to remind members that historic downtown Bowmanville is beginning the first of its many celebrations in my riding of Durham East.

This Saturday, May 1, the annual Maple Festival and show will take place. Real maple syrup will be served all day long in the heart of downtown Bowmanville. This is truly a wonderful community event.

I would like to especially recognize those people who have worked so hard to bring this together: Edgar Lucas, who is chair; the BIA general manager, Garth Gilpin; Ron Hooper, the chair of the BIA; and Brian Purdy, Lori Allin, Kevin Anyon, Jan Penny, Monica Scott and James Rudd, to name but a few. All the merchants in downtown Bowmanville are involved.

Bob Schaeffer, from historic Tyrone Mill, will be on hand this year to make maple-flavoured donuts. Children will be able to sample sugar from a display put on by Jim Moore, a producer from Pontypool.

As well, a well-known woodcarver, Jan Oegema, and other hobbyists will be there displaying their woodcarving talents for the community, as well as Lori Allin from Cactus Clothing, who will be coordinating this event.

The well-known Herb Knox and his Dixieland band will be there to entertain people all day long.

Charles Taw, the curator of Bowmanville Museum, is there to bring a sample of whatnots from all parts of our history and our past. Big Brothers will run an event, as will the Antique Car Club.

I invite all the members and their families to attend the Maple Festival in Bowmanville this Saturday.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): If ever there was proof needed that Mike Harris's drastic cuts to our hospital system have had a devastating impact on patient care in Ontario, the situation I am about to disclose to the House will absolutely confirm that horrible reality.

A constituent of mine was diagnosed with breast cancer in mid-January of this year. A decision was quickly made that a bilateral - double - mastectomy was needed. Naturally, my constituent was quite terrified and anxious to have this major surgery done as quickly as possible. The problem was that because of cutbacks in beds at Thunder Bay Regional Hospital, imposed by this government over the last four years, my constituent could not get a bed in which to recover from this major surgical procedure.

As a result, with her growing fear that the cancer could be rapidly spreading, she had the procedure done as day surgery: in by 7:30 am, out by 2:30 pm.

Although it may seem difficult to believe that we now live in a province where this could happen, it is my sad understanding that there are several other examples of this occurring in our community and across the province.

No matter what Mike Harris says now or during the upcoming election campaign, the fact is that his cutbacks in funding to our hospitals have left this constituent and countless others without the care they need or deserve.

That is why the Ontario Liberals under Dalton McGuinty have committed that every Ontarian who needs a hospital bed will get that bed. It is unacceptable and shameful that my constituent should have been treated this way, especially in a province that used to pride itself on the quality of its health care.

Every resident of Ontario deserves much better.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On Friday the coroner's jury delivered its verdict on the James Lonnee inquest, making 119 recommendations around the care of young offenders in the care of the government. There were very serious concerns raised throughout that inquest on the way in which the youth justice system operates.

We all know that the death of James Lonnee was just one tragedy in a long train of tragedies that began at the Bluewater Youth Centre, continued at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre and then followed the young offenders involved in those events throughout their travels through the youth criminal justice system.

It is time that the Solicitor General called a public inquiry into that whole sorry train of events. It is important for the families of the young offenders involved and important for the staff who were involved, either as those accused of crimes or those who had to bear witness in those cases. It is important for all citizens to know what the train of events were that led us through this sorry spectacle in the criminal justice system for youthful offenders.

I call today on the Solicitor General to immediately call for a public inquiry into those events.

SYL APPS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): A very prominent citizen who served in this Legislature has passed away and I would like to take a few moments to commemorate his memory and his impressive contributions.

Syl Apps has been described as a model athlete, a gentleman and a man who cared about public service and his community. Mr Apps passed away on December 24.

He is perhaps best remembered for his career with the Toronto Maple Leafs in the 1930s and 1940s. During that time he scored 201 goals with 231 assists. He accumulated 56 penalty minutes during that time, winning the Lady Byng Trophy as the league's most gentlemanly player following the 1941-42 season.

Modesty and honesty were Syl Apps's hallmarks. It is reported that in 1943 he missed half the season when he broke his leg and he actually tried to return $1,000 of his $6,000 salary. In another instance, he went to officials after a game to let them know that an assist that had been credited to him should have gone to a teammate, and that was at a time when he was fighting for the league scoring title, with a $1,000 bonus on the line.

He was the MPP for Kingston and The Islands from 1963 to 1974 and served with distinction as Minister of Correctional Services from 1971 until his retirement. His other accomplishments are numerous: winner of the pole vault in the British Empire Games of 1934, fighting for his country during the Second World War, team captain for the Toronto Maple Leafs and winning numerous Stanley Cups.

I know my colleagues join me in extending our condolences to his family on their loss. He conducted his life with integrity and was a role model to his fans and the people of his riding, who were so fortunate to have him as their member.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It is difficult to reach into the mailbox or open the local newspaper, listen to the radio or watch television without being overwhelmed by the deluge of Harris government propaganda paid for by the beleaguered taxpayers of Ontario.

For a government which pinches pennies when it comes to education or hospital funding, the Ontario Conservatives are more than eager to spend wildly when it comes to promoting themselves with expensive pamphlets, full-page newspaper ads, catchy, if inaccurate, radio spots and highly partisan and slanted, self-congratulatory TV commercials.

"`I've never seen anything like this type of advertising anywhere in Canada,' says Nelson Wiseman, a University of Toronto political scientist... `It's a flagrant and wasteful expenditure of public monies,' he says. `It's all the more insulting to the intelligence of the public because this is a government that said it was going to cut back on wasteful spending.'"

Perhaps the Brantford Expositor said it best when it said:

"When the Tories took office three years ago, they set themselves up on a higher pedestal, promising fiscal rectitude and vowing to bring an end to pork-barrel politics, but as we so clearly see this week, the concept of sharing ends at Queen's Park. At the same time that school boards are closing schools, cities are cutting services and some municipalities are having trouble containing their tax increases due to downloading, the Harris government has managed to find millions to spread the word about how wonderful the Premier is."

Maybe the Tory brain trust figures you can fool all of the people all the time - $100 million worth of ads.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I say to the government that their deathbed repentance with regard to health care is fooling no one, certainly in Hamilton. They know there are two main reasons you're moving on health care: One is that the polls show you're extremely vulnerable, as you should be, on the issue of health care; secondly, you've now got loot from the federal government that, by the way, is ours because it was unjustly and unfairly held back and discriminatorily held back from us in the past. But it's not your money, it's not your initiative and it's not your agenda.

Running around and handing out cheques for health care in Hamilton is fooling no one. The recent announcement by the self-titled minister for Hamilton, Cam Jackson, announcing last week long-term-care beds for what used to be St Peter's Hospital, is fooling no one either. The fact is we used to have a full-fledged, chronic care, licensed, funded hospital, for which the NDP government had funded $12.5 million more to renovate the important south wing; this, on top of the fact that you've eliminated the Chedoke emergency care ward from the people on the mountain, and the fact that you're still planning to shut down the HPH, which clearly is a facility that's needed across Hamilton.

No one is fooled in Hamilton. This government is attacking the health care system in Hamilton, and your day of reckoning is coming.

NIAGARA GRAPE AND WINE FESTIVAL

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Attractions Ontario and the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism recently announced five Ontario attractions and events as finalists in the national tourism competition being held at a gala in Montreal on April 28. I'm very pleased to report that the Niagara Grape and Wine Festival has been chosen as one of those five Ontario finalists in the cultural event category.

The festival, which began in 1952 with a partnership between the city of St Catharines and the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board, is held each September and attracts over 500,000 visitors over a 10-day period. Without a doubt, the festival's cultural legacy is the true community spirit it generates, with over 20 Niagara wineries participating and more than 60 separate events offered by the community, from parades to children's programs and seniors' events.

I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Gerry Ginsberg, the festival's general manager, his staff and the many volunteers that make this event so successful. I'm sure that all members will join with me in wishing the Niagara Grape and Wine Festival every success at the national finals in Montreal on Wednesday.

MARGARET CAMPBELL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent to pay tribute to Margaret Campbell.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Mrs McLeod: It's a privilege for me to be able to pay tribute to Margaret Campbell on behalf of my caucus and on behalf of the Ontario Liberal Party. In fact, for those of us who knew Margaret well and who campaigned with her, it's hard to imagine that Margaret Campbell will not be part of the next election campaign. She has been a tireless campaigner in St George from the time she first ran successfully for that seat in a by-election in March 1973.

Recent newspaper reflections on Margaret's life have provided all of us with the facts of a truly remarkable career. Some things those of us who knew her were well aware of, but there were always some surprises when it came to Margaret Campbell. I knew, for example, that her husband, Sterling, was an equally remarkable person, an awarding-winning Hollywood director and producer and a war veteran, but I did not know that Margaret herself had done undercover work for the Mounties and had captured two German spies. But then again, no one who knew Margaret Campbell should be surprised by the fact that she was involved in something significant and unusual, particularly for a woman.

Margaret was an Osgoode Hall Law School graduate and she was serving as a provincial court judge when she decided to run for provincial office. It's remarkable in itself that she would have left the bench to go back into politics; remember that it was quite an achievement for a woman to have made it into the judiciary at that stage of the game. But Margaret clearly had some more crusades to wage.

Margaret Campbell made a lifelong habit of doing the unexpected and she managed to break a lot of glass ceilings along the way. She was a Conservative but she saw the light and ran as a Liberal, with no apology to anyone for her decision. At that particular time her decision would have caught people by surprise, because she decided to run as a Liberal candidate in a riding that had been a Conservative stronghold for 30 years and she was running against a man named Roy McMurtry, who subsequently proved that he was not a candidate to be taken lightly.

But Margaret not only had a habit of doing the unexpected; she had a habit of doing it well. She won that by-election, backed by the respect she had gained as a municipal councillor when she served as budget chief, a role not often filled by a woman, and campaigned against the harassment of women on the streets of Toronto. She was equally formidable as a member of the Legislature, leading the crusades for women's rights and gay rights and fighting for better health care and for improvements to the justice system.

"Formidable" is probably the best adjective that sums up the public Margaret Campbell, but it doesn't quite catch the essence of the person. Formidable and feisty she was indeed, a woman of strong principle and equally strong opinions, and she never hesitated to make both very clear. She still had a lot to teach each of us at 86 years of age and her messages still came across as strongly as ever.

Margaret Campbell was also a caring, compassionate person and a social visionary. She saw the world as she felt it should and could be and she did her best to make it better for people. She was a loyal and a wonderfully supportive friend, as I had reason to know. She had a wonderful sense of humour and a capacity to see the foibles of humanity as well as the sometimes undetected strengths in individuals.

Above all, and with everything else, she was devoted to her family. When she retired from the Legislature in 1981, it was to spend more time with her husband and her grandchildren. As John Downing wrote at the time, "It was symbolic of how important Margaret was to her riding, her city and her party that at the age of 68 she still had to defend her reasons for not running again."

Margaret Campbell was considered to be the provincial Liberal Party in Metro Toronto in those early 1980s. She continued to be an inspiration to all Liberals and most particularly to women and to female candidates for our party, because of course one of the glass ceilings Margaret broke was in becoming the first female Liberal member of the Ontario Legislature.

The Margaret Campbell fund has now been set up to extend the kind of encouragement and support that Margaret herself offered to women getting started in politics.

As a beneficiary of the fund in my first provincial campaign, I felt as though I knew Margaret Campbell before I ever met her. Without any doubt, her pioneering efforts made it easier for all of us who were to follow in her footsteps.

The Margaret Campbell fund will now continue as a working memorial to Margaret and will help to ensure that at least one of her crusades continues. Her legacy will be as remarkable as the woman herself.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to join with my colleagues in this House to express our sadness at the passing of Margaret Campbell.

Back in 1975 when I was a young rookie elected to this House, there were certain members of the Legislature who one learned to listen to very closely, particularly if one wanted to be in this place for any length of time, and Margaret Campbell was certainly one of those. Although she had only been elected to this place in 1973, in a by-election, she addressed issues in such a way that it appeared to me, as a young rookie, that she was one of the most knowledgeable and longest-serving of members, even though she had only been here a short time.

She was really quite formidable. When she rose to attack a government policy or to debate something that she saw as an injustice in this province, she was not someone you would take lightly. She was knowledgeable, she knew what the issues were, she could analyze them well and she had the facts to back up her positions.

She always carried an enormous stack of materials with her. I don't know whether that was just to intimidate the opposition with the material that she had to back up her arguments or whether, as I suspect it really was, it was the material that she had indeed researched before any presentation in this Legislature.

She had a wonderful sense of humour which usually took others by surprise when sometimes she would see the irony in a particular matter and would put forward her position in a sardonic and sometimes very humorous manner.

But what I recall most of all was her serious commitment to the vulnerable, to the downtrodden, to those who had little resources to be able to put forward their own position, and Margaret Campbell was there to speak on their behalf.

I learned a great deal as a rookie in this Legislature from Margaret Campbell. I considered myself fortunate to have been able to serve with her. I kept in not regular but some contact with her after she left this place and I want to say quite sincerely that I was very pleased to be able to count Ms Campbell among my friends.

I do regret her passing but recognize that she had a long and full life, that she was able to make an enormous commitment to the public life of this province and, in a way, while regretting her passing, we celebrate her contribution to Ontario.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I would just like to pass along our condolences to Margaret's family, her friends and the community on the passing of a very tremendous individual who contributed so much while she was here.

One of the time frames in which I had contact with Margaret was from 1977 until she left this place I believe in the early 1980s. One of the things that you noted about her is that she was very deceptive in appearing to be totally unorganized but able to come right to the nub of the issue, immediately or very quickly, and be very perceptive as to what was important and what was unimportant in the legislation.

I think the other part too, speaking from the point of the government, as we were during that period of time that I had experience, was that she drove a hard bargain in terms of dealing with legislation. She was very, very principled, some would say stubborn, in dealing with a piece of legislation. But she knew what she was talking about, she knew what she was driving for, and often the government listened and sometimes amended as a result of both her knowledge and her determination to bring the issue to the fore.

What I would remember most about her is that I believe she probably was one of the most unselfish people I have met in my lifetime because she was totally committed to the people she represented, to the people my colleagues have mentioned before; that is, to the weak, vulnerable, and those kinds of people in our community.

I believe she made a huge contribution not only to this Legislature but to the other activities that she was involved in as a judge and as a member of council here in the city of Toronto. She will be long remembered, by those of us who had the opportunity to sit with her, for her wit, her intelligence and her concern for those people.

I would like to pass along the condolences of my party to the Campbell family.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

Mr Kwinter moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Medicine Act, 1991 / Projet de loi 2, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1991 sur les médecins.

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

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): This bill ensures that physicians who provide non-traditional therapies or alternative forms of medicine are not found guilty of professional misconduct or incompetence unless there is evidence that proves that the therapy poses a greater risk to a patient's health than traditional or prevailing practice.

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SOCIÉTÉS DE PRÊT ET DE FIDUCIE

Mr Eves moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 3,

An Act to amend the Loan and Trust Corporations Act / Projet de loi 3, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les sociétés de prêt et de fiducie.

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

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): This bill simply contains an amendment that is necessary to extend the legal authority of loan and trust companies to operate in the province of Ontario.

I believe that members will find this amendment straightforward. It's similar to ones that have been introduced in previous years. It is a piece of business that needs to be dealt with, however, in a timely manner. It can be easily dealt with. It's a non-partisan, non-contentious issue so that the loan and trust industry can continue to serve Ontarians as they have in the past.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (MOULD CONTAMINATION IN PORTABLE CLASSROOMS), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION (CONTAMINATION PAR LA MOISISSURE DANS LES CLASSES MOBILES)

Mr Wildman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 4,

An Act to protect the health of pupils and teachers against the effects of Stachybotrys atra mould in portable classrooms by making amendments to the Education Act / Projet de loi 4, Loi visant à protéger la santé des élèves et des enseignants contre les effets de la moisissure Stachybotrys atra dans les classes mobiles en apportant des modifications à la

Loi sur l'éducation.

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

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The bill requires school boards and operators of private schools to conduct regular testing and inspections for stachybotrys atra mould contamination in portable classrooms. If mould contamination is found, it must be cleaned up or the pupils must be moved to another classroom.

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA LOI INTITULÉE UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1965

Mr Caplan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 5,

An Act to amend the University of Ottawa Act, 1965 / Projet de loi 5, Loi modifiant la loi intitulée University of Ottawa Act, 1965.

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

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): Briefly, this bill would change the composition of the University of Ottawa board of governors in two ways. It would formalize the role of student officials on the board; it's only been a convention in the past. Secondly, it would increase student representation from two to six members and provide a starting point of discussion to increase the role of students in decision-making on tuition issues.

I'd like to thank the student federation of the University of Ottawa for their suggestion and assistance in developing this bill.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT (CHILD WELFARE REFORM), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE (RÉFORME DU BIEN-ÊTRE DE L'ENFANCE)

Mrs Ecker moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 6,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act in order to better promote the best interests, protection and wellbeing of children / Projet de loi 6, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille afin de mieux promouvoir l'intérêt véritable de l'enfant, sa protection et son bien-être.

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

MINISTERIAL TRAVEL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR L'OBLIGATION DE RENDRE COMPTE DES VOYAGES MINISTÉRIELS

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 7,

An Act respecting Accountability for Ministerial Travel / Projet de loi 7, Loi concernant l'obligation de rendre compte des voyages ministériels.

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

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This bill requires members of the executive council of Ontario to submit to the Legislative Assembly or to the Clerk of the Assembly information relating to any travel by the member on government business to areas outside the province. The information must be submitted within 60 days of the member's return from outside the province.

CANADA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE AND SCHOOL OF GRADUATE THEOLOGICAL STUDIES ACT, 1999

Mr Klees moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr4,

An Act respecting Canada Christian College and School of Graduate Theological Studies.

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

VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ APPELÉE VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE

Mr Tsubouchi moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 8,

An Act to provide for the designation of a wine authority to establish an appellation of origin system for Vintners Quality Alliance wine and to administer that system / Projet de loi 8, Loi prévoyant la désignation d'un office des vins afin d'établir et d'administrer un système d'appellations d'origine pour les vins de la société appelée Vintners Quality Alliance.

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

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): This bill will provide a framework to allow our Ontario wines access to European markets and also promote the high quality of Ontario wines.

NURSES' BILL OF RIGHTS, 1999 / DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DES INFIRMIÈRES ET INFIRMIERS DE 1999

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 9,

An Act to protect the rights of nurses providing services in Ontario / Projet de loi 9, Loi visant à protéger les droits des infirmières et infirmiers qui offrent des services en Ontario.

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

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The purpose of this bill is to establish a bill of rights for nurses providing nursing services in hospitals in Ontario.

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN INVOLVED IN PROSTITUTION ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS QUI SE LIVRENT À LA PROSTITUTION

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 10,

An Act to protect Children involved in Prostitution / Projet de loi 10, Loi visant à protéger les enfants qui se livrent à la prostitution.

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

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The purpose of this bill is to protect children under 18 who are involved in prostitution.

LOWER PROPERTY TAXES IN SUDBURY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA RÉDUCTION DES IMPÔTS FONCIERS PRÉLEVÉS À SUDBURY

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 11,

An Act relating to property taxes in Sudbury / Projet de loi 11, Loi concernant les impôts fonciers prélevés à Sudbury.

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

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This bill relates to property taxes in Sudbury in

part XXII.2 of the Municipal Act, which was amended by the Fairness for Property Taxpayers Act, 1998, so that there will be fairness in property taxes in Sudbury.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to inform all members that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Mr Pavlo Movchan, member of Parliament for the government of Ukraine. Welcome, sir.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 to 9:30 pm on April 26, 27, 28 and 29, 1999, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(a), the House will not meet to consider private members' public business on Thursday morning, April 29, 1999, and that, notwithstanding standing order 95(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 1 through 6.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm pleased today to introduce the Child and Family Services Amendment Act.

The need for this legislation is clearly urgent. The safety and security of children, the most vulnerable members of our society, are at stake. Members of the public present in the gallery today recognize that urgency and so does this government.

I'd like to welcome members of children's aid societies who are in the gallery today: Bruce Rivers, the executive director of the Toronto CAS; Dr Colin Maloney, who is with the Toronto Catholic CAS; Mary McConville, the executive director of the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies; and Diane Cresswell, who is with the association as well. I'd like to thank them for all their work and support on these very important amendments.

Today I will be asking the members across the way to join with the government to provide unanimous consent for us to waive the normal rules for the printing of the bill so that we can have second and third readings of this most important bill in one sitting.

Given its legislative history in the last session, I will spend just a few moments outlining the key features of this bill. I believe members are well aware of the urgency of providing front-line child protection workers, professionals and the courts with the tools necessary to safeguard the most vulnerable members of our society.

The amendments proposed by this bill address eight key objectives:

The first one is to make clear that the Child and Family Services Act always puts the best interests, protection and well-being of children first; second, to expand the grounds for finding a child to be in need of protection; third, to make evidence of past conduct towards any child admissible at any stage in child protection proceedings; fourth, to clarify requirements for both the general public and professionals to report that a child is or may be in need of protection; fifth, to improve the access of children's aid societies to information they need to protect children at risk; sixth, to encourage earlier planning of permanent arrangements by reducing the time that children may remain in the temporary care of a children's aid society; seventh, to ensure that access to crown wards is beneficial to the child and that access will not impair opportunities for adoption or stable placement; and finally, to provide for a mandatory review of the Child and Family Services Act at least every five years.

As I said at the outset, the need for this legislation is clear. Needed improvements in the child protection system were highlighted by the findings and recommendations of six inquests into the deaths of 10 children between 1991 and 1996.

In 1997, the Ontario Child Mortality Task Force also made detailed suggestions concerning the tools and resources available to front-line workers, their training and the legislative base for child protection.

Last year, the government's expert panel, headed by Judge Mary Jane Hatton, told us there should be a better balance in the legislation between the interests of families and children. The panel recommended we make it clear that the paramount purpose of the act is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children. We have considered their input and their recommendations very carefully in developing this important legislation. These amendments address those changes most urgently needed to ensure the safety of children.

It is therefore not surprising that these proposed amendments have received the public support of the deputy chief coroner of Ontario, the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, child protection experts and numerous executive directors of children's aid societies.

But we also recognize that while legislation is important, more is needed.

That is why we have been taking additional steps: for example, the new risk assessment system which is now in place across the province to help front-line workers make better and more informed judgments about when a child is at risk; the new information database to link all CASs to enable the tracking of high-risk families wherever they move in the province - so far, over 40 children's aid societies have installed this new technology, and it is expected that the database will be installed in all 54 agencies by the end of May; $15 million in new funding in 1997 for an extra 220 front-line workers and supervisors to help with the database development and also to provide training on the new risk assessment system; an additional $170 million over three years for children's aid societies to support the hiring of another 760 additional child protection workers and supervisors to provide better staff training and to revitalize foster care, another important support for the system.

The first phase of this spending went out last year, and not only new money but a new funding framework for child protection that will reflect actual service needs of a CAS and support rational planning and effective management of all these reforms.

In a perfect world, children would not need legislation to protect them from their parents; they would not need children's aid societies and child protection workers; they would never be the subject of coroners' inquests; they would be nurtured and protected by loving and caring parents and caregivers. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world, and the result is that we must act on behalf of those children.

I know all members will agree with me that children are Ontario's most precious assets. They deserve the best our society can provide, a loving, nurturing environment, and above all, safety and security.

I am confident that the amendments proposed in this bill will make a difference. They will ensure that the best interests of children are the paramount concern of the child protection system and that the safety and security of children always come first.

I would now like to ask for unanimous consent from the members of this House to enable us to complete second reading, committee of the whole House, and third reading of the bill in one sessional day next Monday evening.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Responses.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I want to make it clear that our support of this legislation and these amendments specifically has never been an issue in this Legislature. I put it on the record many, many months ago in a question to the Premier, making it perfectly clear that we would stand in support of having this legislation passed in this Legislature at the earliest possible opportunity.

This legislation could have been made law before Christmas. Let us be very clear about that. The Premier could have reconvened this House several months past. This legislation, again, could have been law today. I am not standing here today, to make it perfectly clear, saying that this legislation is perfect. I am saying that it is better to pass it at the earliest possible opportunity in its imperfect state and to improve it later on, rather than to become bogged down in legislative procedures at the expense of Ontario's children.

I think it's also important to understand that when it comes to children, this government is undergoing a deathbed repentance. Coroners' inquests have put forward recommendations to the effect that this kind of legislation should have been passed over two years ago.

I put together a document, First Steps, and released it in February 1998, outlining 41 substantive recommendations that would improve things for children in this province who are growing up at risk. This government chose to ignore those recommendations.

Let's look at the record. It's important to contrast what this government is championing today and what it has actually done during the past four years.

This government made cuts to our programs like junior kindergarten. In fact, the Premier at one point in time said JK was one of the dumbest things he'd ever heard of. But now he's the champion when it comes to early childhood education for Ontario children.

This government made cuts to special education. Parents who have taken on the responsibility of helping their kids who have learning disabilities are asking for a bit of help from this government. One of the things they're looking for is to make sure there are adequate special education programs in place in their community. This government responded by making cuts to special education programs in Ontario.

This government made cuts to the children's aid societies. I think nearly half of our children's aid societies in Ontario today are running deficits. Additional monies that are going into those societies are going to meet their deficit needs as opposed to going into front line care for our children. This government chose to make cuts to children's aid societies that resulted in the layoff of workers.

It's important for Ontarians to understand the nature of this deathbed repentance. That's what it's all about. On this government's watch there have been cuts to many programs designed specifically to help children, but especially children growing up at risk, and this government has done nothing to this point in time other than cause them anxiety, anguish, pain and suffering as a result of cuts to programs those kids need.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): We will be pleased to finally pass this bill which we have been advocating for since 1995. We have been after this government to stand up for children since 1995. We find it amazing that the Premier has suddenly found religion in the 11th hour of his mandate, that he can stand beside Dr Mustard, a known and respected expert in the field of children, and say that Dr Mustard suddenly has groundbreaking evidence in the treatment of children. It may well have been groundbreaking in 1962, but not today. In fact, all of the things that he is now espousing are things we have advocated for the last four years.

Speaking specifically of this bill for children at risk, Premier, I ask you to think very seriously about the things you did through 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and even this year, where children do not have the kind of intervention services that are required so that they don't get into the hands of children's aid societies, so that there are treatment beds and day programs available for families and their children so they never have to get into the hands of the children's aid societies. I ask you to seriously think about that as we go forward with this bill.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I look forward to having the opportunity to debate and see passage of this bill next Monday night. I want to say on the record, however, how disappointed I am with the minister and her government in the way in which this bill has been handled. For a bill of such important public policy, of such important ramifications for vulnerable children in our province, the political games that have been played are little beyond disgusting. I remember asking on many occasions last fall for the bill to proceed with second reading debate; it was never called.

I urged public hearings because there were people who came forward who made the point on both sides of the issue, in support of stronger positions in the bill or had a concern about the appropriate balance. There's not been an opportunity, outside of the expert panel process, for others to comment. The minister, in her wisdom, refused to have hearings at that time, and as we know, the bill was bungled and died on the order paper in December when the House adjourned.

I wrote to her in January. I asked for the opportunity for the intersession to be used constructively so that the members of the standing committee on social development could voluntarily meet to have public hearings on this bill, to hear from people. The minister responded in March, didn't even acknowledge my request and simply said, "There's been enough debate."

Then, later in March, when the Premier said the House wasn't being brought back on

schedule and would be coming back in April, I wrote to her again and said: "We have one more month. Let's have your parliamentary assistants, the Liberal critic and myself join together and hold hearings on this, hear from people on this." Again, that request was ignored. Here we are now and we are told now, because of the government's political, electoral agenda, that if this is not passed without any debate in this House, without any appropriate consideration of major public policy, it will die once again, and children, as a result of that, will be put at risk.

We are not prepared to let that happen and so we will participate in having this bill passed in an expeditious way, but not without raising concerns we have. It is not that the minister came forward with all of the recommendations of the expert panel; in fact, she cherry-picked. There are a number of recommendations that are not here. It is a complete betrayal of those in the adoption community, whom she promised that, if the Child and Family Services Act was ever reopened, she would deal with the issue of adoption disclosure, and that is not here.

It is a complete betrayal of persons in the first nations, who were once again inadequately consulted. Although the amendments that are here don't deal specifically with the native child and family services and child welfare provisions, once again they are left fearing that greater intervention on the part of governments and on the part of children's aid societies outside of their culture will bring upon and visit upon their community greater intervention and children of native families being taken from their communities.

They have a right, based on experience, to that fear. They have a right to have someone stand up and debate that and bring forward amendments. My leader will be speaking to that. My leader will be bringing forward amendments with respect to that area.

There are provisions in this bill that we agree to. We agree to the expansion of grounds and the addition of neglect as grounds for intervention. We agree with trying to strike a better balance. But we think a balance must be there, and we have to point out that this government's balance on the other side, of support for positive parenting, is so lacking.

When I look at the Mustard report, when I see the hope and vision that is there, I feel sad knowing that this is not a government that will see that through to its end; that it has spent all of its time commenting trying to shift the responsibility to the private sector, trying to say that government doesn't have a leading role to take. And when I look at what they're doing in terms of new tools, risk assessment tools and other sorts of things and the money the minister says is there to support them, I see that as late as last week children's aid societies still hadn't had confirmation of their budgets.

We've still not been able to get a full explanation of the new funding formula. I've asked the minister on a number of occasions; it has not been forthcoming.

This is a sad, sad time in terms of public policy debate, in terms of appropriate dealing with major areas of such importance to our children. I think it is shameful the way the government has conducted itself with respect to this bill.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Briefly, I want to raise a significant issue that is a real problem. The government has had basically five or six months when it could have gone out there and it could have sat down and held some consultations and some discussions with those people who will have to work with this legislation and those people who will be affected by it. But the government has done none of that.

I want to put the minister on notice that native child and family service agencies across this province feel that not only are you not providing them with the tools they need to handle their difficult challenges; in fact, you will be taking away some of the tools that they have found most useful in terms of dealing with their difficult challenges. I say to the minister, you still have some time to talk to them and listen to them and bring in some amendments that will make this better legislation, instead of flawed legislation, which it is now.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce to the Parliament the 18th group of pages to serve in this 36th Parliament: Kevin Caners, from Leeds-Grenville; Brett Carroll, from Grey-Owen Sound; Ashley Challinor, from Halton North; Stephanie Di Giuseppe, from Eglinton; John Doan, from Sault Ste Marie; Anja Dobri, from Northumberland; Hugh Dowell, from Windsor-Walkerville; Tyler Frook, from Bruce; Shaughnessy Hawkins, from Parry Sound; Erin Holko, from Burlington South; Ian Johnston, from Huron; Susie Kruzlics, from Kitchener-Wilmot; Alex Mouret, from Wellington; Katherine Oksanen, from Fort William; Linas Paskauskas, from High Park-Swansea; Jeremy Range, from Durham-York; Matthew Reid, from Algoma; Paula Robertson, from Durham Centre; Katie Trebuss, from Don Mills; and Whitney Young, from Mississauga North.

Enjoy your time here.

LENGTH OF MOTIONS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Before we start, I've got a brief bit of housekeeping. I would briefly like to draw members' attention to a note on your desks from me about order paper motions and resolutions. I and the clerks - mostly the clerks - have been concerned in the past about the length of some of the motions that have been put on the order paper, specifically about the very long

preambles in some of them.

As I say in the note on your desk, I think the start of the new session is a good time to draw members' attention to our rules about long

preambles and recitals. Simply put, they are out of order. Beginning today, I am asking all members to comply with the direction to refrain from using these long

preambles and recitals, such as this.

Order paper motions consistent with standing orders: I want to make it clear now, in fairness to all members, that I will remove out-of-order motions from the order paper.

As always, the table is available to assist you with drafting advice. I encourage you to consult the clerks if you have any questions, because I don't know what they're talking about. Thank you very much.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Last week I was at the Hamilton general hospital where a man, an 87-year-old father, died on a stretcher in an emergency room. He spent, in fact, the last two and a half days of his life in an emergency room lying on a stretcher because there were no beds available and there was a shortage of nurses. His daughters were left to grieve their father's death in a busy emergency ward. My question to you, Premier, is, why is it that you can find 100 million taxpayer dollars to spend in an advertising propaganda campaign but you couldn't find enough money for this man to have a bed in a hospital?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I ask the Minister of Health.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As the member knows, this was a very unfortunate situation. As the Leader of the Opposition also knows, unfortunately emergency room issues are not new issues. We have numerous examples. But our government has been working very actively in order to ensure that emergency room pressures can be addressed.

As you know, we set up a task force and the task force did identify recommendations. We are presently moving forward. As you know, we have invested $75 million into expanding the capacity within the emergency rooms. We also have set up 1,700 interim long-term-care beds because much of the problem in the emergency rooms is the fact that previous governments didn't construct long-term-care beds for about 10 years.

Mr McGuinty: This week, the first of what are expected to be many schools made a stunning announcement: There is no money to replace sick teachers. At Broadview public school, which is the region's biggest primary school, they have now announced that when a class's regular teacher is sick, instead of a supply teacher coming in and following the lesson plan, these children will be divided up among the other school classes. What it means is that some students who are in grade 3 will be stuck in grade 6 and some in grade 6 will be transferred to grade 1.

My question again, Premier: Why is it that you can spend 100 million taxpayer dollars on your propaganda campaign but you can't find enough money to ensure that primary school children in Ontario have access to a supply teacher?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I ask the Minister of Education to respond.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I am pleased to indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that this government has protected classroom funding, has increased classroom funding. For the first time in the history of Ontario more of the monies are going into the classroom. Those funds are protected and they're fair across the province so that each and every board in Ontario has equal access to funds for teachers, supply teachers, textbooks etc. We allocate those funds to each board in question, in this case the Ottawa board.

The Ottawa board makes its decisions on how to spend that particular money, and I hope they're spending it to the maximum benefit of the students of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: I spent a lot of time during the intersession travelling around Ontario, and people have been asking me to put questions to you. You like to talk the talk when it comes to accountability and responsibility. Well, here's your chance. Here's another question, and you'll have the opportunity to stand up and answer it.

You're closing schools in Toronto. You're cutting special education in Durham and in Ottawa. You're sending cancer patients to Detroit and Buffalo. You're telling our cancer patients that they can't get treatment by the four-week mark, as recommended by their doctors, but they'll have to wait 16 or 17 weeks. Women are going to have to travel from Toronto to deliver their babies hundreds of kilometres away in Kingston and in Windsor. We have patients who are stacked up like cordwood in our hospital corridors in Ontario.

The facts speak for themselves. You are not interested in the health care and education of Ontarians; you are concerned about your re-election bid. Stand up today and simply admit that health care and education are not your priorities. Your re-election efforts are the only thing you're focusing on these days.

Hon David Johnson: In fact, health care and education are the two top priorities of this government. That's why this government has invested more money in health care - up to almost $19 billion today - and more money in education, over $15 billion in our elementary and secondary schools.

I will agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the facts do speak for themselves. Here is a fact in the province of Ontario: Between the years 1985 and 1989-90, talking about school closings, 37 schools closed in Toronto under the David Peterson Liberal government. Across the province of Ontario, 168 schools closed under the David Peterson Liberal government. Those facts speak for themselves.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. I think it's perfectly clear where your priorities lie, and they're not the same priorities that are shared by the people of this province. Why not, Premier, since you've decided to spend 100 million taxpayer dollars on your advertising campaign, a veritable orgy of advertising that we are witness to in this province - $100 million, just so you know, could have hired 2,200 nurses for our hospitals; it could have put 50,000 badly needed computers into our schools.

Premier, why don't you simply dispense with this charade, whether we're talking about the throne speech, the budget, the legislation you introduced today or plan to introduce over the next couple of weeks? Why don't you dispense with the charade and get on with the election? Stand up today and tell us that we're going to have an election so we can put these issues before the people of this province.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate very much, as do our ministers, the opportunity to talk about health care, to talk about education, to talk about how, in spite of the fact that your federal cousins slashed health care to the province, we were able to increase it $1.5 billion; how, in spite of the fact that we inherited an $11-billion deficit, we've been able to get $500 million more into the classroom; how we've increased funding for junior kindergarten; how we have 18,000 more children in junior kindergarten today than when we took office.

I might say that we will be happy, sometime over the next 14 months, to take these issues before the people of Ontario. Right now, we believe Ontarians are still overtaxed after 10 years of Liberal and NDP governments, and there's more to do to get more Ontarians working.

Mr McGuinty: The campaign is underway. You know it and I know it. You're spending taxpayer dollars right now. You're running ads on TV right now, radio ads right now, newspaper ads right now, pamphlets and brochures dropped at our doorsteps today: $100 million worth of campaigning is underway now. You're trying to distort and misinform the Ontario public about your record. Nobody's buying it.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You can't make those accusations. Please withdraw.

Mr McGuinty: I withdraw "misinform."

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): The outright lying campaign.

The Speaker: Member for Ottawa Centre, that's out of order. I would want you to withdraw that comment.

Mr Patten: I withdraw it.

Mr McGuinty: Your advertising campaign, your propaganda blitz, is not working. Why not do the honest thing and stand up and tell the people of this province that we're going to have an election and we're going to have it now?

Hon Mr Harris: I think I've been very upfront with the people of the province of Ontario. The normal comment I hear across the province, even from those who disagree with our agenda, is: "At least you did honestly exactly what you said you were going to do. At least you did that."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Scarborough-Agincourt, come to order. You too, members for Sudbury and St Catharines.

Hon Mr Harris: I've also heard as I've travelled around the province, "Thank goodness we had the kind of strong leadership that we see only in you, Premier." That's what I have heard as I've talked to people over the last four years.

Clearly, rather than have a budget that I hope has the capacity to cut yet more taxes so we can create even more jobs and make this jurisdiction even more competitive, you seem to want to have an election. I can tell you that in the fullness of time, sometime in the next 14 months, there will be an election.

In the meantime, when I hear you talk about the kind of reductions we've made - we have made reductions. We've increased health care spending, we've increased education in the classroom, but we did make a big cut: We cut government advertising from $277 million that you guys spent in five years.

Mr McGuinty: You know the Premier is in big trouble when he starts believing his own releases. He's starting to believe his own propaganda. Maybe we should just take the time to review the Premier's record for him.

He said he'd never introduce user fees. Our seniors are facing user fees in this province today. He said that downloading would be revenue-neutral. Every municipality in this province knows that is not true.

Premier, stand up now and do the right thing. Let's take this to the people of this province. Let's have an election.

Hon Mr Harris: I think those who are involved in delivering services to the people have seen a massive increase in books in the classroom; they've seen increases in junior kindergarten funding; they've seen more junior kindergarten spaces. They have seen as well reductions, and it has taken strong leadership to deal with an $11-billion deficit and cut the fat and waste out of the 10-year legacy of the Liberals and the NDP. Where have the biggest reductions been?

In taxes, opposed by the Liberals and the NDP; reductions in the number of politicians, opposed by the Liberals and the NDP; reductions in government advertising - $277 million by the Liberals, $238 million by the NDP, $148 million over the life of this government. So yes, we've cut out a lot of the fat and a lot of the waste.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Members, come to order. Member for Lake Nipigon, come to order now.

Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Clearly, Mr Speaker, judging from all the screaming and yelling, which is what the opposition parties are the best at, they don't like the fact that there are fewer politicians, they don't like the fact that we've cut out the wasteful spending, and they don't like the fact that we've reduced taxes or we've reduced the deficit. Quite frankly, Ontarians are a lot happier that there are over 540,000 new jobs in Ontario and that this province is not only strong as the result of the strong leadership we've provided, it's getting stronger and stronger every day.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question for the Premier. Premier, this is a health care question, one that you didn't include in your television propaganda ads. Ten days ago a man named Kim Ginter was admitted to the emergency ward at Queensway hospital with a life-threatening pancreas infection. He had to stay in the emergency ward bed for 48 hours because there were no beds in the intensive care unit. Kim Ginter's story is a story we hear all across Ontario, not the stuff that's in your propaganda ads. His is the real story.

Premier, why should Kim Ginter be forced to wait in an emergency ward for 48 hours with his life hanging in the balance so you can give a tax cut to the wealthiest people in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Premier.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Mr Speaker, I know the Minister of Health -

The Speaker: Minister of Health.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): That's why we are ensuring that the pressures in the emergency rooms are being addressed. As you know, this has been a long-standing problem. Our government has recognized that it is a long-standing problem, and that is why we have invested and are investing an additional $225 million to deal with the problem. That's why emergency room construction and renovations are being fast-tracked by our government, and that's why we are increasing the capacity in the emergency rooms by 18%. We are making the difficult decisions that have been put off because we know there are situations such as this that need to be addressed.

Mr Hampton: My supplementary is to the Premier as well. The Premier has so much to say, but when he's held accountable he suddenly doesn't want to answer.

Kim Ginter's story doesn't end in the emergency ward at Queensway-Carleton. Since last Wednesday, six days ago, doctors at Queensway have been trying to get Kim Ginter admitted to the intensive care unit at Toronto General Hospital, the only hospital in Ontario that can care for him. By Wednesday night his condition was so bad that family and friends were sent for. He was dying.

Premier, they're still trying to find a bed for him in the intensive care unit at Toronto General, even while his life is in the balance, but they can't find the bed.

Today we learned from the Toronto Globe and Mail that your income tax scheme has given the five wealthiest men in Ontario $4.8 million through your tax cut. Why are the five wealthiest men in Ontario getting $4.8 million from your government when Kim Ginter can't get the bed he needs at Queensway hospital, can't get the bed he needs at Toronto General Hospital?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As you well know, it is our government that has introduced for those individuals who are earning more money the fair share health levy, so people who are earning more today are also contributing a greater share to make sure that people throughout this province have the enhanced health services that we are making available. As you know, we are expanding services and we are providing more services than ever before to respond to the needs of people everywhere.

Mr Hampton: Here's the true story. Peter Monk, who has an income of $39 million a year, will get $1.3 million through your income tax scheme. Richard Cleary, who has an income of $34 million, will get $1.2 million. Frank Stronach, who has an income of $26 million, will get almost a million from your income tax scheme. Meanwhile, when you call Toronto General Hospital, they will say: "Sorry, we don't have a bed. We know we're the only hospital that can provide the care that this man needs. We know his life is hanging in the balance, but we don't have the beds. We don't have the nurses. Our budget has been cut. Money has been taken out of health care to finance Mr Harris's income tax scheme."

I want to know from you, Premier, since you want to talk about it all the time: What happens to Kim Ginter, who can't get the health care he needs now and probably won't be able to get it in the next few days? His life hangs in the balance. The system is failing him. Do you want to tell him about tax cuts? How about the health care he needs?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We would be pleased to follow through.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mr Hampton: I guess the response from this government is they want to talk about tax cuts -

The Speaker: Who is your question to?

Mr Hampton: This is to the Premier as well. They want to talk about the reality of health care.

Premier, another health care question - and this one didn't make it into your ads either. Karen Ford went into Mount Sinai Hospital earlier this month to remove a growth on her thyroid. That's a very invasive surgical procedure. In the past, someone would stay in hospital for three to five days to recover after that, but in Ontario hospitals today, where we don't have enough beds and enough nurses to staff the beds, sick patients are sent home right away. Karen Ford was sent home from hospital the morning after her surgery. She was in pain, she was weak, and she was scared.

You've cut health care to finance the income tax scheme that you talk about so often. Why does Karen Ford have to go home sick and scared and weak while you can afford income tax cuts for the wealthiest people in Ontario?

Hon Mr Harris: The Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As the leader of the third party well knows, those decisions are clinical decisions that are made.

Mr Hampton: Those decisions are not clinical decisions. When you talk to people in hospitals, they will tell you: "We'd like to keep these patients here, we don't want to send them home sicker and quicker, but we can't. We don't have the staff. We don't have the beds. Too much of our budget has been taken away." Instead of monitoring patients like Karen Ford, they are sent home quicker and sicker.

Six days after she was sent home, she went back to the hospital to have the stitches removed. When the nurse saw her, she said: "We can't deal with your situation right now. You have a very serious staph infection in the surgical wound."

Premier, do you think Karen Ford, now suffering from the staph infection, has suffered enough to finance your cuts to health care so that you can take the money and put it into income tax cuts for the wealthiest people in Ontario? Do you think she has suffered enough now?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As the leader well knows, we have not made any cuts to health care whatsoever. We have increased funding from $17.4 billion to $18.9 billion. There is only one government that did cut health care spending and that was the federal government. Thanks to the efforts of our Premier, we have seen the federal government recognize the need to restore the cuts. Their share, which at one time was 30 cents on every provincial dollar in 1979, had dropped to seven cents on every provincial dollar until recently, when they did give all of the provinces additional money.

We will continue to respond to the needs of people in this province. In fact, that is what our revitalization of health is all about. We need to respond. We are providing more services than ever before to address the needs and the issues.

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The issues are of long standing in this province because previous governments weren't willing to make some of the tough decisions in order to -

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: It is a fact that this government has cut more than $800 million directly from hospital budgets. That's what people like Karen Ford and Kim Ginter are facing when they go to the hospital. That's the reality.

Now, just before an election, you're trying to shovel some of the money back in to make it look good. It's not going to do it, Minister. It's not going to work.

Karen Ford's story doesn't end there. After another examination, they discovered that her thyroid is cancerous. She should have surgery to remove the thyroid, but she can't have surgery until they deal with the staph infection. So she sits at home now, very sick, very scared, very worried, not knowing when she'll be able to have the surgery and not knowing how long this delay is going to affect her long-term health.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Hampton: Minister, I can give you example after example like this. What are you going to do for all of the citizens of Ontario, who know you've cut the health care system? You've done tremendous damage to it, and now all of your cosmetic ads -

The Speaker: Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Let me again remind you, we have not cut health care. We are spending more today on health services than any government in the history of this province. Moreover, we are addressing the long-standing problems in the system that previous governments were not willing to address.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hold on.

Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would remind the leader of the third party about the fact that his party didn't have a plan. I read from the Windsor Star, October 1993: "As the provincial government scrambles to put together a cancer treatment strategy, waiting lists for patients in need get longer."

We do have a plan, and our plan is to ensure that all individuals in this province get the cancer care they need as quickly as possible.

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have invested $155 million. We have a human resource plan. We have Cancer Care Ontario -

The Speaker: New question. Official opposition; the member for Fort William.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is to the Premier. You cut $1 billion out of your education budget before you took control over the funding. You wanted to cut more and you backed off because of the public outcry. You said then that there would be no more cuts to education. But in the education grants that you announced two weeks ago, there were more cuts, like the $33 million more being taken out of adult education because you devastated the programs.

The bottom line of the grants you announced two weeks ago is that they are $500 million short of what you spent on elementary and secondary school education last year.

Premier, have you cut another half a billion dollars out of education, or are you saving the money for some good-news announcements in next week's budget?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'll refer it to the Minister of Education.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Unfortunately, this is just another example of incorrect facts on the part of the Liberal Party of Ontario.

If you recall, at one point they were saying there would be 10,000 teachers fired in the province - wrong; 10,000 fewer teachers in the province - wrong again. Now they're saying 3,500 teachers - wrong again.

In terms of this particular issue, the general grants to the school boards will increase by $150 million next year. They will not go down; they will increase by $150 million. Some of that money is in special education and some of that money is for operation and maintenance of accommodation. No board in the Ontario will have fewer operating funds next year than they've had this year, and many boards will have more.

Mrs McLeod: I hope the Premier knows that in the figures released by his own ministry, the difference between the funding in 1998-99 and 1999-2000 is $560,766,863 less, more than half a billion dollars less that at this point in time you're planning to spend on elementary and secondary education than you spent last year. There are thousands more students coming to school in September and you're planning to spend less money. Some of the cuts leap out at you, like the fact you're going to spend $66 million less on your early learning grant that the Premier was trumpeting last week as his answer to the Fraser Mustard report. How can you justify $66 million less in early learning?

Minister, I ask you: Are you going to put the full half a billion dollars that you're short back into elementary and secondary school education in the budget next week and will you ensure that it will go back into the programs you've devastated, like adult education and junior kindergarten and funding for kids in the early grades of school?

Hon David Johnson: Again I would encourage the member opposite to get her facts straight. The early learning grant is combined with junior kindergarten because now 68 out of 72 boards in the province have junior kindergarten. Because the number of junior kindergarten students has gone way up by some 17,000, the funding is coming out of junior kindergarten. Get it straight. You have to look at the two of them together.

I would say to the member opposite that when she checks her facts again she will find out that the support from this government to the school boards across Ontario has gone up by $150 million, that in fact every board will have at least as much money next year as they had this year and many boards will have more money - stronger support from this government.

CHILDREN'S TREATMENT CENTRES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question for the Premier again: This concerns children across Ontario with multiple disabilities, children from infancy to adolescence who need health care services like physiotherapy and speech-language therapy. Ontario's 19 children's treatment centres have been under a funding freeze for five years now pending a review. Today there are 3,600 children waiting for assessment and health care treatment. They are spending anywhere from two months to a year on the waiting list.

Premier, you didn't need to conduct a review before you introduced a tax cut for the wealthiest people in Ontario. The tax cut you are giving to Gerald Schwartz, the CEO of Onex Corp, $400,000 a year, would provide treatment for every child in Halton and Peel currently on the waiting list. If you stopped giving a tax cut to Charles Baillie, chairman of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, $300,000, all the children in Durham on the waiting list could be looked after.

You say you now understand the importance of early childhood education and development. What's more important here, a tax cut for the wealthiest or treatment for those children?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I guess there are two parts to the question, one about tax cuts and one about children's services that we of course continue to increase and fund and put more importance on, particularly in the early years. If you'd like details on the children's services, I'd be happy to refer the supplementary to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

If you would like details on the tax cuts, it has been our tax cuts that have brought $5 billion of new revenue to the treasury of the province of Ontario, that have put 540,000 Ontarians to work who were not at work before, that have provided jobs and opportunities for the vast majority of 374,000 Ontarians who are now off the welfare rolls. Were it not for the strong economy that we're providing, we wouldn't be able to put all the billions of additional dollars into health care and children's services that we are doing.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Premier, right now, 13 of those children's treatment centres under the Ministry of Health have waiting lists of over 3,600 children. Think about that for a moment, what that means in this province. I'm personally really pleased that the review that was initiated by the NDP government is finally taking place five years later, but I've been pushing for that review for two years in this House.

Premier, I've asked you questions on this directly and, in the meantime, their budgets have been frozen for that period of time, and the kids just can't wait. Right now we see treatment equipment that is deteriorating badly. We see the kids who have got service getting less service so that more can be seen, and there are 3,600 to be seen on a waiting list. You know early intervention is important. You just have to look at the Fraser Mustard report and others.

You've got a chance next week with the budget. Please tell us that instead of introducing more tax cuts for the wealthy, you're going to fund the treatment for children in these treatment centres; you're going to give a budget raise to those treatment centres.

Hon Mr Harris: Let me first of all say that nobody doubts the member's or her party's compassion and caring for Ontarians, particularly those who are most disadvantaged, and I respect that. We too share that concern and that caring. That's why we have increased substantially dollars for early childhood interventions, Head Start programs, speech pathology. We've put new money in a lot of areas, and this was applauded by the Mustard-McCain study that said, "Yes, the government is on the right track with these significant increases in funding."

I would say this, though, to the member: You and your party and I in our party disagree on whether we should have a massive deficit as we head, after the legacy of the Liberals and the NDP -

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Harris: - or whether we should have the massive high taxes that the Liberals brought us. We happen to believe that lower tax rates to create jobs and produce an increase in the growth of the economy are what had allowed us to be as compassionate as we -

The Speaker: New question.

ONTARIO 2000

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. My constituents and all Ontarians are getting very excited about the dawn of the new millennium, just 247 days away. It will be a tremendous opportunity to showcase the progress the province has made and to celebrate our position as one of the premier jurisdictions on the face of the earth.

In my riding of Scarborough East, the community has planned a wide range of cultural events under the heading of "Scarborough East Festival 2000," with the goal of including all residents, young and old, in the celebrations.

During the legislative recess, in fact, on New Year's Day, you launched an initiative called Ontario 2000. Could you please tell the House what kind of response the government has received about the Ontario 2000 program.

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I want to say that we've got a tremendous response about the Ontario 2000 program. We want to include all Ontarians in this program, as I'm sure the member for Scarborough East knows. One of our programs was to engage our youth, and the My Ontario initiative is a perfect example of this idea. We've invited Ontario's 2.1 million elementary and high school students to create in words and pictures their vision of what Ontario will be like in the year 2020 and what they'll do or what they would do to make that vision a reality.

I want to point out that the deadline for these submissions is this coming Friday, so get your submissions in. We're then going to publish all the reports, the special ones, in a book of selected works and distribute it to every school and library in the province. It's certainly a welcome tribute to the millennium.

Mr Gilchrist: I appreciate the timeliness of your suggestion to get those notices in.

I know most communities have begun their planning for the millennium celebrations, but for those who desire further information, could you please tell the House how Ontarians can find out more about the Ontario 2000 program.

Hon Ms Bassett: I thank the member for Scarborough East because, as you know, anybody who wants information from government sometimes has difficulty finding out the route to go. Our millennium office is based right here in Toronto. The toll-free number, and I'm going to read it, is 1-877-464-0444, and I'd certainly encourage all Ontarians to visit the Web site at www.Ontario2000.on.ca.

I'm also pleased to inform the House that since the Web site was launched in January, it's received more than 450,000 hits from across the province, the country and around the world. Visitors to the site can tap in and share their plans for New Year's Eve, or they can link to the millennium sites of other provinces and find out what towns right across the country are doing for the millennium celebrations.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question for the minister for privatization. When you sold Highway 407, you sold out the people of the 905 region with it - they're the ones who use it most - because you have condemned them to 99 years of tolls. That amounts to not one generation of toll-payers but three generations of toll-payers in this province.

This privatization is unprecedented. It's the largest in the history of this country, and yet you went ahead with the finalization of this deal without this Legislature and the people of this province having any say whatsoever. This was nothing but a quick sale designed to pump $1.6 billion into your re-election campaign. The details of this deal were not even revealed. How, Minister, can anyone believe you acted in the best interests of this province?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I thank the member opposite for the question. He calls this transaction unprecedented.

I would agree it is unprecedented that you would find a government that's prepared to find the appropriate partnership with the private sector that will create 6,000 jobs as the road is built, that will build the extensions on the east and the west components - plans, by the way, that you objected to and plans, by the way, that the previous government was not prepared to deal with - a relationship that will expand the lanes at no additional cost to taxpayers, plans that you objected to because you opposed the bill, plans that the previous government was not prepared to include in its design of the highway.

It's indeed unprecedented that we have a province here and an economic performance in the province that will attract the sizable investment that has come from outside of Canada into this province, clearly indicating that this province is indeed in business.

Mr Cordiano: During the election campaign, Minister, you set out a clear plan for the privatization of public assets. Just in case you've forgotten, I want to quote what you said in the last campaign. You promised, "The entire process will be open to scrutiny by the Legislature and the public."

Minister, before it's too late, why don't you honour that commitment to the people of this province. Bring this deal out of the secrecy you've shrouded it in. Let this Legislature examine the details of this deal before it closes. If you won't do that, why won't you let the Provincial Auditor of Ontario scrutinize this deal before it becomes final?

Hon Mr Sampson: Apparently another plank in the Liberal platform is now coming out, where they intend to direct the auditor of this province on what business he can or cannot audit. He's quite prepared and quite welcome to audit this transaction, should he wish. But in order to ensure we had a transaction that was fair and equitable to everyone, we engaged an outside, independent consultant to audit this process through every piece of the transaction; not at the end but right from the beginning of the transaction through every step of the transaction, right to the completion.

That audit report has been made available to you and if you and your research staff want to have another copy, I'd be more than happy to send it to you.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Premier, another health care question for you; again, this wasn't covered in your propaganda ad campaign.

One of the first things you did when you became government was to cut funding for cancer treatment. That money we know was taken to finance your income tax scheme. As a result of cuts to cancer treatment, patients now can't get the cancer treatment they need, and we now read of cancer patients being sent from southern Ontario to the United States, even to Thunder Bay. We understand that when cancer patients are sent to Thunder Bay, on the eve of an election, your government is paying the full shot: full air fare, hotels, meals, accommodation, everything.

When a patient is sent from northern Ontario to southern Ontario for treatment, they receive a travel grant of $420 or less. That doesn't even cover the cost of air fare.

Premier, can you explain why patients are treated differently depending on whether they're from southern Ontario or northern Ontario?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): First of all, let me correct the record. We have increased the funding for cancer care every year in every budget, with every minister and every budget the minister has brought forward. As you know, the whole area of incidence of cancer is on the increase. With an aging population, it is a huge and very difficult challenge for us. That's why we have constantly increased funding for cancer care.

We also are increasing funding for resources. However, if there is ever an occasion where we do not have 100% of the resources 100% of the time for every treatment, our commitment is to fund that, universally accessible to all Ontarians, where we can find those services. On an interim basis, we are finding some in the United States, which is not our first choice, but I'm surprised that you're perhaps suggesting it shouldn't be any choice. We happen to think that this care is appropriate and helps us meet the commitment to appropriate cancer care, wherever it is available, when it's required.

Mr Hampton: Premier, despite your propaganda campaign and despite your attempts recently to shovel money out the back end of the truck to cover your cuts, it is a fact. Cancer Care Ontario pointed out that your government cut the badly needed funding for cancer treatment in this province as soon as you took office. It is a fact, and Cancer Care Ontario announced it last year, that patients are being sent to the United States because they can't get the treatment here, and some patients in southern Ontario are being sent to Thunder Bay.

It is a fact that on the eve of an election you're doling out the money to cover all the costs for someone who has to be sent from southern Ontario to Thunder Bay for treatment, but somebody coming the other way is told, "You get $420, even if it doesn't cover the air fare, even if you have to scrounge out of your own pocket for a hotel room, even if you have to scrounge out of your own pocket to pay all the other things."

Premier, why the inequality? Why, on the eve of an election, can you do one thing for people from southern Ontario but people in the north are told, "No, you find the money out of your own pocket if you need health treatment"?

Hon Mr Harris: The only ones who seem to be talking about the eve of an election are you and the Liberals. I don't know why you're not interested in a budget, in more tax cuts to create more jobs and yet even more dollars for health care. Quite frankly, for you to stand up and criticize a program to ensure that we give appropriate cancer care to all Ontarians I find rather shocking. It is not consistent with the kind of caring that has been demonstrated by your party over most of its history in this province. Perhaps it explains why you've gone from first to third so quickly and perhaps it explains why you don't seem to be capturing much imagination.

The fact of the matter is, this government has done far more for health care in restructuring and more for cancer care. We will make care available to all citizens on an equal basis at every opportunity, and you know that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Members for London Centre and Sudbury East, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: And Lake Nipigon.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. I was going to debate you there for a minute.

Interjection.

The Speaker: That could be debatable.

New question, member for Niagara South.

TELEMARKETING PRACTICES

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I'm very concerned about some phone calls I received recently in the constituency office about a telephone scam in Niagara. The constituents related a story where somebody would call them at home, pretending to be a bank manager. They would ask the constituent to withdraw money from their account and then meet them at a specified location shortly thereafter.

My question for the minister is, what is the ministry doing to help fight such fraudulent activity in Niagara and throughout the rest of the province?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thank the member for Niagara South for the question. Telemarketing fraud is a very difficult issue for many seniors. We should have absolutely no mercy on these scam artists who do these things across the province.

The ministry has had a leading role, a very active role, in trying to combat telemarketing fraud. Through the initiative of Phonebusters, an OPP initiative, we have a number of partners in the private sector who have acted with us to try to make telemarketing fraud more public so we know all about it, so we can educate people and so we can combat it too.

One of the partners is the Canadian Bankers Association, which is very relevant to the question the member for Niagara South is asking, because what happens quite often is that someone - a senior, for example - breaks their normal pattern and decides to withdraw a huge amount of money, and goes to the bank. Of course, the banker will know it's an unusual amount for them to withdraw and they then alert the police. This is a very important initiative that we sponsor.

Aside from that fact, we took the lead as well at the provincial ministers' conference, and as a result of that a number of other provinces are joining with us to do this combat.

Mr Hudak: It seems like this phone scam, among others that have been related to my office, is targeting predominantly seniors. In fact, when we were in Smithville last week with the Crime Control Commission, a group of seniors related their particular concern, the number of phone calls and the kinds of phone scams that were targeting seniors in the West Lincoln area as well.

My concern is, what is done to alert seniors, who are predominantly being chosen as the targets for phone scams, to be extra cautious when getting these kinds of solicitations for money via the telephone?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, the majority of people who are scammed in the province of Ontario by telemarketing fraud are seniors. That's why it's very important for us to really grab on to some initiatives.

A short while ago we had what's known as a reverse boiler room. We called it Hang Up on Fraud. We had dozens of volunteers, and Minister Cam Jackson joined me in this initiative on this day. We called a number of people who were on these lists that people call to alert them to the problems with telemarketing fraud, to make them more aware of the situation. During the course of the day, there were three specific events that were stopped, because seniors were in fact going to write huge cheques to people to get a prize. Of course, it goes without saying that if you don't enter a contest you can't win a prize, and if something is too good to be true, it really is.

It really hits home, because that day I talked to a gentleman who had just lost his wife and he had been scammed by one of these companies for over $100,000. He volunteered that day so he could then convey the message as well, to prevent other seniors from being impacted like that.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): My question is to the Minister of Education. The Toronto Catholic schools have a serious problem. Once again, as a result of your 100-square-foot funding formula, children in schools are being shortchanged. Because of your unworkable formula, the Toronto Catholic school board finds itself $100 million short. This is the same Toronto Catholic board that you and the Premier praised last year as the model of efficiency.

On November 3 you said: "If the Toronto public school board pursued the same methods of efficiency that the Catholic board had, they would save almost $80 million a year." Now this very efficient board that you've praised in November finds itself in deep trouble, being short $100 million to do their job properly.

Minister, will you admit that your funding formula was a disaster last year for the Toronto public schools, and that it is now a continuing disaster for the Toronto Catholic schools? Will you do the right thing? Scrap your formula and give the schools the money they need to educate the children.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): What I will admit to is that the approach we've taken to funding, for the first time in the province of Ontario, guarantees that each and every student all across this province will have a fair and equal opportunity, not just students in certain boards. I'll also say that the approach we've taken to funding will put more dollars where it counts. A couple of years ago, probably five or six years ago now, a former Liberal cabinet minister by the name of John Sweeney did a study at the request of the NDP government, and I credit them for doing that study.

He said, "Too much money is being spent outside of the classroom." We agree with Mr Sweeney. That's why we've changed the formula to put more money in the classroom.

In the case of the Toronto Catholic District School Board, they received about $11 million extra this year than they did in the last complete year, and next year again they will receive more money.

I believe that board can stay within budget and provide a first-class education to the students of the city of Toronto.

Mr Colle: Maybe the minister should come to Cardinal Carter Academy at 7 o'clock tonight and tell the Catholic parents, children and teachers that everything is OK. They don't believe your formula because they are $100 million short. This was the formula that was supposed to bring them up to a level - in fact, it's got them into a deeper hole than last year. Your figures don't add up, Minister.

This is the board where you and the Premier stood in this House in November saying that they were the model of efficiency. Now the parents and trustees are saying that they are fed up. Enough is enough. Catholic parents are fed up with excuses. Our children are being shortchanged.

Come tonight to Cardinal Carter and tell them how your wonderful formula is helping Catholic education.

Hon David Johnson: I would say that in a number of ways I have great confidence that education will improve for this particular board. One example is that this year there will be a flow of money, almost $13 million, to the Toronto Catholic board for new schools, and that's a flow of money to pay the mortgage payments. Next year, there will be some $20 million to this board for the construction of new schools. Consequently, you will see in the Catholic system right here in the city of Toronto a huge construction program. I can assure you that this board is not $100 million short in terms of their particular money.

I have written to the chair of the Toronto Catholic school board and offered to do an independent audit. I have offered to work together with the Catholic board to do an independent audit to look at the numbers, to look at the figures, to ensure that this Catholic board has fair funding. We've offered to do that for every board and we're going to do it with the Toronto public board. We're very close to signing an agreement -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I can't hear the answer. Member for Oriole, member for Oakwood, come to order.

Minister of Education.

Hon David Johnson: We've offered this to every board in Ontario. We've offered it to the Toronto public board, we're in the process of doing it with the Toronto public board, and I've offered it to the Toronto Catholic board: Bring in an independent third party, let's look at the numbers and let's see where the facts lie. I'm confident that when we do that, we'll find out that they have more than adequate funding.

HOMELESSNESS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Last month I went out to the Scarborough motel strip, where your government in effect tries to hide away families with children who don't have a home. As you know, there are close to 1,000 children and families there who do not have a home and that's where you're putting them - no house, a one-room hotel room in the motel strip.

Your government cut the funding for affordable housing. You did away with all of it. That's why these families are homeless. The private sector will not build homes for modest- and lower-income families. The Anne Golden report tells us that the people who are more and more on the list of the homeless are families with children. At the same time that you cut affordable housing, the five highest-paid executives in Ontario will get from your government $5.4 million out of your income tax cut.

Minister, can you tell me why it's more important to give those executives such a big tax cut?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'll refer this question to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I would like to challenge the leader of the third party. Would he like us to remove the tax cut from the 655,000 low-income families out there today who do not have to pay Ontario income tax at all? That is more money in their pockets because of our tax cuts, and that's more money for them to help support their children.

The other thing - I would like to make a point - is that we recognize that here in Toronto there is indeed a significant problem with homelessness. That's why I went to the summit meeting Mayor Lastman called several weeks ago. We'll be meeting again. We took forward some new initiatives which the mayor felt would be extremely helpful: more money and the flowing of money to municipalities in different ways. For example, we have increased the community start-up grant for families so that we can move them out of those hotels. We've taken a number of steps to help people who find themselves homeless.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to move a motion with respect to the agreed-upon procedure for consideration of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that the members moving and seconding the throne speech motion shall be provided with the time remaining after routine proceedings for this sessional day. In the event that all of the time remaining until 6 pm is not used, the debate shall be adjourned and the House shall be adjourned until 6:30 pm this evening;

That the speech of the leader of the official opposition shall be stood down until tomorrow afternoon when he shall be allotted the time remaining after routine proceedings until 6 pm to make remarks with respect to the throne speech motion. In the event that all of the time remaining until 6 pm is not used, the debate shall be adjourned and the House shall be adjourned until 6:30 pm Tuesday evening;

That the speech of the leader of the third party shall be stood down until Wednesday afternoon when he shall be allotted the time remaining after routine proceedings until 6 pm to make remarks with respect to the throne speech motion. In the event that all of the time remaining until 6 pm is not used, the debate shall be adjourned and the House shall be adjourned until 6:30 pm Wednesday evening; and

That the debate shall rotate among the three recognized parties in the House during debate on the throne speech this evening and tomorrow evening and for all consideration following the remarks of the leader of the third party.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): You've heard Mr Sterling's resolution. Is it agreed? It is agreed.

PETITIONS

RECYCLING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I have petitions from a group of students at St Sylvester who presented them to Mr Curling and myself. It says:

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario should be seeking the best methods of preserving our environment for future generations; and

"Whereas one proven method is to reduce waste by reusing and recycling materials; and

"Whereas one area that benefits from this method is PET, plastic pop bottles; and

"Whereas Ontario regulations 340 and 357 say that 30% of pop has to be sold in refillable bottles; and

"Whereas soft drink manufacturers are not following these regulations;

"Whereas recycling one-way PET bottles is a good start to achieving environmental protection;

"Whereas using a refillable PET bottle would save taxpayers money; and

"Whereas a refillable PET bottle can be reused 25 times; and

"Whereas this would use 90% less energy, natural resources and create 90% less pollution; and

"Whereas we have only 45 years left of using oil and natural gas; and

"Whereas over one billion one-way current PET bottles show up in landfill each year; and

"Whereas using a deposit-return system is the most economical, environmentally responsible way to sell pop;

"Therefore,

be it resolved, for the sake of our environment, that legislation be passed requiring soft drink manufacturers to use refillable PET bottles."

This petition has been collected by these young students. We have well over 3,000 signatures here. On behalf of myself and my colleague Mr Curling, I'm pleased to present it and to sign this petition in support.

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Hamilton and the surrounding communities, beg leave to petition the government of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has announced the closure of the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario, through the Health Services Restructuring Commission, is divesting its responsibilities for mental health care without any consultation with the people of Hamilton-Wentworth; and

"Whereas the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital has a reputation for excellence and is a leader in providing mental health care services and many unique programs; and

"Whereas in 1998 the American Psychiatric Association awarded their gold award to the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital for its program on mood disorders; and

"Whereas both city and regional councils oppose the closure and more than 30,000 people have signed petitions opposing the hospital's closure; and

"Whereas the people of Hamilton-Wentworth will pay the price when the Harris government shuts down the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital;

"Therefore we, the people of Hamilton-Wentworth who care about quality, accessible and publicly accountable mental health care, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to keep the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital site open and deliver the services and programs from that location."

I continue to support those Hamiltonians who want to save the hospital, and I add my name to theirs.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 51 people from across the province.

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

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

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

"To enact legislation which will create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to pornography in retail establishments; prevent minors from entering establishments which rent or sell pornography; restrict the location of such establishments to non-residential areas."

AIR QUALITY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a 10,000-signature petition gathered by the Clean Air Committee of Sudbury and it says:

"Whereas SO 2 emissions from mining and smelting operations remain a serious threat to the health, environment and property of Sudbury citizens;

"Whereas there continues to be ongoing intolerable peaks in levels of SO 2 emissions from mining and smelting operations;

"Whereas the threat of fugitive emissions remains constant to the Sudbury region; and

"Whereas existing government regulations and thresholds for SO 2 emissions may be in need of immediate reassessment;

"Whereas the elimination of 26 regional Ministry of Environment jobs by the Harris government has resulted in lower monitoring effectiveness;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government aid the citizens of this community in having these emissions monitored closely and reduced significantly."

I affix my signature to this petition.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas two years ago, Hamilton was the site of one of the worst environmental disasters in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Plastimet fire raged for three days in a residential area of Hamilton, releasing furans, large quantities of heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals and consuming 400 tonnes of plastic, including polyvinyl chloride, PVC, which releases extremely toxic substances, such as dioxins, which are thought to cause cancer and disruptions to endocrine systems; and

"Whereas the city of Hamilton declared a state of emergency and a one-day evacuation of area residents because of fears about airborne toxins; and

"Whereas the government has cut funding to the Ministry of the Environment by more than 35% and laid off more than 750 people who worked to protect the environment; and

"Whereas we urgently need a public inquiry to find whether these cuts played a role in causing the Plastimet fire, whether the evacuation process was adequate, if residents and workers received adequate warning of the danger, are there ways to improve responses to these life-threatening fires and how to prevent the nightmare of other Plastimet fires in all our communities; and

"Whereas for the past two years the Harris Conservative government has steadfastly refused to hold such a public inquiry or listen to municipalities, labour organizations, environmental groups and firefighter organizations, who have all urged the government to hold a public inquiry; and

"Whereas the Harris Conservative government has allowed corporate polluters like Plastimet to operate with virtual impunity in a climate of deregulation or industry self-regulation, along with cuts to monitoring and enforcement mechanisms;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to put the safety and health of the people of Hamilton before the interests of corporate polluters and immediately hold a public inquiry into the Plastimet fire."

I continue to add my name to these petitioners.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a petition signed by a number of residents of Waterloo region.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

"To enact legislation which will create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to pornography in retail establishments; prevent minors from entering establishments which rent or sell pornography; restrict the location of such establishments to non-residential areas."

I affix my signature in support of this petition.

TRAFFIC CONTROL

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Thunder Bay Expressway has been the scene of serious accidents in recent years; and

"Whereas as a result of strong lobbying by the community, including the OPP and Thunder Bay city council, an advance warning light has been installed at Balsam Street; and

"Whereas since the installation of this warning light there has been a major improvement to the safety of that intersection; and

"Whereas to further increase safety on the expressway more warning lights are needed further down the system; and

"Whereas the Balsam Street warning light is in its second year of a three-year pilot project to deem the effectiveness of advance warning lights in the area; and

"Whereas surely two years is enough time to confirm that the advance warning light system has made a positive difference;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to end the three-year pilot project early and assess the results that will show that the Thunder Bay Expressway would greatly benefit and become much safer if a full system of advance warning lights were installed."

I'm very pleased to sign my signature to that.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has imposed a politically motivated funding formula that will force the closure of hundreds of schools across Ontario;

"Whereas the only reason for the funding formula is to justify removing more than $1 billion from the education system so that the wealthiest Ontarians can get a tax break;

"Whereas the schools are the heart of our communities and to close schools would be to cut out the heart of our communities;

"Whereas a properly funded, quality education system is critical to the well-being of the children of this province and the future of the province itself;

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

"That the government of Ontario scrap the funding formula and save our schools by properly funding public education, starting with the return of more than $1 billion taken out of education by the government of Ontario."

This petition is signed by approximately 80 residents, mainly of the Windsor area. I support the petition and have affixed my name thereto.

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm very pleased to present a petition signed by over 200 people from the Niagara Peninsula, a petition for equity in education funding. It reads as follows:

"Whereas this government has undertaken to reform the system of education funding to ensure fair funding for Ontario's children; and

"Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the province could, if it so chose, pass legislation extending funding to denominational schools other than Roman Catholic schools without infringing the rights guaranteed Roman Catholic separate schools; and

"Whereas providing our children with an excellent education consistent with our cultural and religious beliefs is a necessity and not a matter of preference; and

"Whereas independent schools successfully educate children across the entire spectrum of learning abilities and special needs; and

"Whereas all children of taxpaying Ontario parents deserve to have funding distributed in a manner that does not discriminate against those not using the public Catholic systems;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens and taxpayers of Ontario, respectfully request that the government take immediate steps to extend fair funding to all students of the province."

In support of this cause, I sign my signature as well.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas providing daycare spaces is critical for the families in Toronto that need access to them; and

"Whereas the well-being of children should not be sacrificed to tax cuts; and

"Whereas the provincial government has significantly cut the budgets for Toronto school boards; and

"Whereas under the provincial government's ill-conceived Bill 160 there is no flexibility for boards to make up for the cuts; and

"Whereas daycare spaces in schools are now threatened by these cuts with the prospect of full cost recovery arrangements with daycares and the threat of school closures;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to repeal Bill 160 immediately; and

"Further

be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to restore meaningful and flexible funding to the Toronto school boards to ensure that they are able to continue to accommodate our community daycares; and

"Further

be it resolved that the Honourable Dave Johnson, Minister of Education and Training, takes responsibility for his government's funding cuts rather than passing the buck to school boards, who have no control over provincial government spending cuts."

I agree wholeheartedly with this petition and I've affixed my signature to it.

PAY EQUITY

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition which is signed by 178 residents of Sudbury and area. It reads as follows:

"On September 5, 1997, the Harris government was ordered by the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) to reinstate pay equity for women working in child care, nursing homes, community agencies and homemakers. Today all the Harris government has done is delay monies rightfully owed to us. All we have received is excuse after excuse. We the women who work in the public sector are petitioning the Harris government to pay out what is rightfully owed to us immediately. Not only did we have to fight for the decency to be equally and fairly paid, but now we have to continue to fight for the justice that was given us, despite this court ruling.

"We, the undersigned, want this injustice to stop now. No more excuses, no more stalling tactics. Let these women have what is rightfully owed to them now. Enough is enough."

This petition was organized by Val Trudeau, who is the CUPE president at Extendicare York in Sudbury. I agree with her wholeheartedly.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have a petition signed with 169 names from the city of Sarnia to the province of Ontario's Legislative Assembly.

"We, the undersigned residents of Sarnia, private homeowners within the boundary of the Cameron land claim, draw the attention of province of Ontario to the following:

"Those realtors selling homes within the Cameron land claim list a claim against the property in the sales agreement;

"That property values within the Cameron land claim are being reduced;

"That properties are harder to sell because of the claim, hindering the mobility of the residents.

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon the province o