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

October 3, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Oct-03 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 3 October 2001 Mercredi 3 octobre 2001

WEARING OF PURPLE RIBBONS

WEARING OF BUTTONS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SUDBURY ECONOMY

JAMES BURGESS METAL TRADES

TRAINING CENTRE

ARMENIAN CELEBRATIONS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

ONTARIO PREMIER'S LEADERSHIP

BORDER SECURITY

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

TAXATION

IMMIGRANTS

OTTAWA HOSPITAL

AGRICULTURE IN

NORTHERN ONTARIO

HOSPITAL FUNDING

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

ETHNIC PROFILING

HOME CARE

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

MFP FINANCIAL SERVICES

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

ETHNIC PROFILING

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

HOME CARE

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

FOREST INDUSTRY

DIALYSIS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

HOME CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STUDENT PROTECTION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LA PROTECTION DES ÉLÈVES

Wednesday 3 October 2001 Mercredi 3 octobre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

WEARING OF PURPLE RIBBONS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: October is Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Month. During the month of October, the

children's aid societies in Ontario will be distributing purple ribbons and lapel pins in an effort to raise awareness of child abuse and neglect and to encourage people to become involved in

efforts to prevent child abuse and neglect. Therefore, I seek unanimous consent of this House to wear the lapel pins and/or the purple ribbons for the month of October.

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

WEARING OF BUTTONS

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to wear this button in recognition of the

efforts of a young lady by the name of Dani Harder, who is in a wheelchair but is running in the Toronto marathon to raise awareness about her struggle to live independently in her own

apartment.

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

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SUDBURY ECONOMY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Analysts' warnings that Ontario will have the slowest economic growth in Canada will have a profound effect on my

resource-based community of Sudbury. Today I offer some real solutions that will go a long way to alleviate what experts are predicting to be a flat economy in Sudbury. I can't help but worry about

the impact this slumping economy will have on the fate of our northern medical school.

Almost six months ago, the government and its cronies popped the champagne cork in Sudbury to celebrate the first of many reannouncements about the establishment

of a medical school in the north. In May came another reannouncement of nothing more than the unveiling of a target date of 2004. Well, it's almost 2002, and we've seen or heard nothing about a

funding commitment.

So today I ask the government to show us the money. Show us your fiscal plan for this project, along with a firm commitment of capital and operating dollars.

This would go a long way in accelerating the construction

schedule of this project. All the government's announcements in the world won't put one construction crew on the site; only a funding

commitment will do that.

My concern over funding for projects also extends to Sudbury Regional Hospital. I urge the Minister of Health to immediately call for the operational review of

our Sudbury hospital so that he can see first-hand just how bad a mess he's given to our community.

JAMES BURGESS METAL TRADES

TRAINING CENTRE

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I rise today and invite the assembly to join me in extending congratulations to the James Burgess

Metal Trades Training Centre in the community of Wallaceburg.

Recently it was my pleasure to join with my colleague the Honourable Bob Runicman, Minister of Economic Development and Trade, as he presented a cheque to the

Burgess training centre in the amount of $1.5 million under our government's strategic skills investment program.

This cutting-edge training centre was established in 1974 and has been at the forefront of training skilled trades for more than 58 tool and die shops in

Wallaceburg and southwestern Ontario. These funds, in combination with contributions from private sector partners, will result in the construction of a $4.1-million, 11,000-square-foot addition to

the present facility. When the project is completed, the Burgess training centre will increase the number of tool and die machinists and mould makers they train each year from 200 to 240.

In addition, the minister also arranged for community leaders to meet with the consul and trade commissioner at the Canadian Consulate General's office in the

United States this past summer. As a result of that meeting, Wallaceburg has set its sights on becoming the leading trainer of skilled tradespeople for southwestern Ontario and the Midwest United

States. The reason is obvious. Government analysts say that over the next five years an additional 35,000 workers will be needed in the metal-cutting trades industry, while presently we only have

the ability to train about 20,000 workers.

The James Burgess Metal Trades Training Centre will continue turning out the best-trained, hardest working and most dedicated tool and die mould makers and

machinists anywhere in the world.

ARMENIAN CELEBRATIONS

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I rise today to express my sincere congratulations to the Official Youth Committee of Toronto, the Armenian

Evangelical Church of Toronto, the Armenian Catholic Church of Toronto and the Armenian Apostolic Church of Toronto in their joint celebration of the 1,700th anniversary of the establishment of

Armenian Christianity and a communal reflection on the work of their patron saint, St Gregory the Illuminator.

King Trdat proclaimed Christianity as Armenia's state religion in 301 AD. To honour this commemoration, Armenians worldwide have been participating in

celebrations since the beginning of the year. The Armenian church is among the world's most ancient continuously operating institutions, dating back to the apostolic missions of Saint Thaddeus and

Saint Bartholomew in the middle of the first century. It has seen many centennial celebrations. However, this celebration is particularly significant. It coincides with the second millennium of

Christianity. It also coincides with the emergence of a renewed Armenian church and, after 600 years of statelessness, a renewed Armenian state.

Occasions such as this give the public many new opportunities for learning. I would encourage all Ontarians to visit exhibitions, participate in conferences and

read the materials that have emerged for this once-in-a-lifetime commemoration.

Once again, please let me offer my best wishes for the celebrations. The Armenian community in Don Valley East and throughout Ontario has made significant

contributions to our communities, and celebrating its very core beliefs and foundations is certainly an honour for me.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'd like to inform members about a resolution I tabled in the House today. Here are some facts about community

care access centres that the resolution addresses.

Home care funding has increased from $681 million in 1994-95 to approximately $1.17 billion, more than a 70% increase. This government views home care as a

critical component in seamless health care delivery. Most CCACs are balancing demand for services within their funding allocation, but some are not. The federal government does not provide any

funding for home care despite pleas from Ontarians for more financial assistance with our health care needs.

This government has reaffirmed its commitment to home care by appointing the associate Minister of Health to review those elements that have led some community

care access centres into fiscal and management difficulties.

This government will continue to work collaboratively with stakeholders in the health sector (1) to implement necessary cost containment measures to manage

within their budgets; (2) to ensure they will meet the service needs of the clients; (3) to employ good case management practices; and (4) to ensure funding is allocated to client care services, as

opposed to administration.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Today I rise in the House to address the neglect of postsecondary education by this government. I'm

speaking on behalf of the students who have been directly impacted by the Harris government's disinterest in education.

We have a space crunch in Ontario universities. Recently 28 first-year students at the University of Western Ontario were sleeping in TV lounges and study rooms.

This problem is not unique to Western university. This is happening at the University of Toronto and at the University of Guelph. We've been warning this government that a change in student

demographics was imminent and that our post-secondary institutions do not have the necessary resources to address this change.

Even students who attend private vocational schools are not protected from this government's neglect. ITI Education, a corporation specializing in e-business

education, last month went into receivership and was forced to close two of its three Ontario campuses. Caught between bankruptcy law and the Private Vocational Schools Act, Harold Fisher and 310

of his classmates were thrown into chaos as they frantically tried to make alternative arrangements to attend the one remaining school in Ontario.

Only weeks earlier this same training school had closed campuses in the United States, clearly an indication of financial difficulties, yet this government did

nothing to protect the interests of these students. Furthermore, and I find this despicable, they did nothing to warn the new students who just registered in August. What did this government do? It

introduced private university corporations so that all Ontario students can be guaranteed the same lack of security as students who attend private vocational schools.

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Premier, some time ago you're quoted as having said that we're getting too many from other countries who are

coming here for a free ride. Please let me introduce you to Zoltan and Gabriella Marton and their one-year-old son, Zoltan Jr. They fled Transylvania as Hungarian Romanians oppressed in that region

of Romania, an oppression that is well known to every member of the fair-minded community internationally. They came to Canada, sought refugee status and, yes, were denied that refugee status.

But it was only today, when they were able to attend here, that anybody told them about the other opportunities available to them to appeal deportation and

forestall the deportation notice that's been served on them for October 10. They are not freeloaders. They have worked hard at hard jobs from the very day they arrived in this country. They're

respected members of their community in Niagara, active in their Hungarian Presbyterian church.

Premier, we indicated last week on Monday that we would join you in any legitimate attack on terrorists. Will you please join us in a fight to keep hardworking,

decent, good immigrants, yes, and refugees, here in this country? I tell you, Zoltan faces certain jail if he's returned to Romania. Ontarians should not let that happen.

ONTARIO PREMIER'S LEADERSHIP

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): Many families in my riding of Thornhill, and I know across the province of Ontario, have expressed concerns

since the tragic events of September 11. One of my constituents wrote to me expressing that she had not slept since September 11 "not only due to the disaster, but from the lack of leadership from

Ottawa." She further stated, "I know Mike Harris will pull through. He's a man who takes charge and does what he says he will," a promise that has been lost on the other side of this chamber and

unfortunately on Parliament Hill in Ottawa as well.

On Monday of this past week, our Premier, Mike Harris, chose a most appropriate method to speak directly to all the people of Ontario, not only a select few, as

he announced vital steps our government has taken to heighten the security of the province of Ontario. By appointing two distinguished security advisors for Ontario, our government has taken a

vital leadership role to protect our province and secure the freedom in our lives that we've come to enjoy. Moreover, he accelerated the tax cuts planned for January to help working families in

Ontario.

I think one of the headlines in the Toronto Sun today says it best, "Leadership Vacuum: Chrétien is Missing in Action; Harris Fills the Void."

The people of Ontario are pleased with the strong leadership of our Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I apologize to the member. I was going to try to settle them down to finish, but I see you did. I apologize.

I shouldn't have stood up. Did you finish on time? You did get it out.

BORDER SECURITY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I wanted to first of all acknowledge to the Minister of Health and to the Premier the gratitude of my

community for approving the new medical school on Monday in our community. It's been well received and the government responded to the request of our community.

Premier, there's another issue in our community that's extremely important, and I know you're aware of it, and that is the border-crossing issue. Yesterday in

your statement you spoke about the importance of our borders being free for commerce to happen.

As you know, your government downloaded the Huron Church Road corridor to the city of Windsor some four and a half years ago. It is the only part of a major

highway anywhere between Mexico and Montreal where the local authority has to maintain the highway.

The Premier is aware that there are 12 traffic lights which slow vehicular traffic down on our side and that it's extremely important in terms of ensuring the

ongoing flow particularly of automotive and other trade traffic that the province first of all upload that particular stretch of road, reassume what ought to be a king's highway, and number two,

commit, in co-operation with the federal and municipal authorities, to the approximately three quarters of a billion dollars that will be needed to ensure that that roadway can accommodate not only

current traffic volumes but anticipated growth in traffic volumes. Those areas are entirely within provincial jurisdiction.

The final advantage to this type of project now, sir, is that it would involve job creation at a time when there's considerable anxiety. We look forward to the

government showing some leadership in this issue.

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to tell my fellow members about my experience of sitting on the justice and social policy

committee hearings into the proposed Nutrient Management Act, 2001.

When this bill was introduced, the main concern my constituents expressed was whether they would be consulted. They wanted hearings held in their community so

they could take part without taking too much time away from their farms and businesses.

And that is just what this government did. The justice and social policy committee traveled across the province in September and heard from more than 150

individuals, groups and municipalities. I want to thank everyone who presented to the committee on this important legislation.

I particularly want to thank those presenters from my riding of Perth-Middlesex. I sat on the committee for four days of hearings in southwestern Ontario. During

those four days, both the counties of Perth and Middlesex, both counties' Federations of Agriculture and the municipalities of North Middlesex, West Perth and North Perth made presentations.

I share this to remind my fellow members how willing the farming community is to help us develop sound policies and legislation. Ontario's farmers support this

initiative and want to help create the best possible legislation to protect public safety and the viability of Ontario farms.

Ontario Agriculture Week is a great opportunity to thank farmers for their involvement in this process as well as for the work they do every day to bring the

best products to our tables.

VISITORS

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Speaker: I wish to acknowledge in the government members' gallery the presence of the

president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and also the chief of police of the city of Windsor. He and his department have done an outstanding job under very difficult circumstances

in our community. I know all members thank him for that and for his efforts on behalf of policing and all of us throughout Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We welcome our honoured guests.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My questions today are for the Premier. During your appearance before the Walkerton inquiry, and

while under oath, you admitted that there was a confidential presentation prepared for the caucus about the impact of your cuts to the Ministry of the Environment. I now have a copy of that

confidential presentation, and some of the information provided to your caucus in this document is nothing short of frightening.

The caucus was informed that as a result of the Ministry of the Environment budget being cut by 48%, there would be, under the

section "key impacts" -- these are

some of the impacts that were brought to the attention of caucus. It says reduced ministry capability to monitor, give early warning, ensure compliance; "increased risk" to human health and the

environment as a result of decreased compliance and "enforcement activities."

You admitted under oath that this presentation to caucus was so confidential that you insisted each and every one of your caucus members sign an oath of secrecy.

Can you tell us, Premier, why did you force your entire caucus to swear an oath of secrecy and never to disclose the fact that they'd received information from the Ministry of the Environment that

these cuts would constitute a risk to human health?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think there is the matter that I did travel to Walkerton to the inquiry that, as you know, we called to deal

with that and I did deal with that issue there.

We did take, and have taken, a number of unprecedented steps as a government, as you know. One was to include confidential cabinet information for caucus, and

whenever we did that we asked caucus to abide by the same confidentiality rules as senior civil servants or cabinet ministers would. I think you would expect us to do so, and I think reasonable

people would understand that.

I think, by the same token, those responsible for the inquiry will come to the same conclusion, that it is the responsible thing to look at all potential

impacts. Once those have been answered and addressed, then you move forward.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you're missing the point. You and the entire caucus, or at least those who were present during this presentation, were put

on notice very directly that there was going to be an increased risk to human health as a result of decreased compliance and enforcement activities.

I suggest to you that surely the fundamental responsibility of you and your caucus in government is to protect human health. I just think that's the starter,

Premier, that you should be accepting and championing.

Now, we tried to obtain copies of these oaths under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and we were told that they do not exist. This is

very important, because it implicates each and every one of those members who signed that oath, received this information, were put on notice, received the warning and failed to notify their

constituents of a risk to human health as a result of cuts to the ministry. It's very important that we have those oaths so that we know who got the information and who failed to live up to the

responsibility. Premier, what happened to those oaths?

Hon Mr Harris: I think there were a couple of occasions where we asked members. I can't speak to the actual swearing in or how it took place.

I'd be glad to look into that for you. But I can tell you this, that as has been confirmed by the two ministers of the environment and as I have confirmed, we do not believe, nor does our cabinet

nor does our caucus nor does our government nor does the Ministry of the Environment, that any of the actions that we took had contributed to any increased health risk to Ontarians.

Mr McGuinty: Sadly, we've seen this movie too many times now. We recently learned of the difficulties the RCMP had in trying to get Walkerton

documents out of the Premier's office. We learned about the key passages that tie the Premier to discussions in the Ipperwash affair that were missing from court evidence. And now we learn that

important evidence that proves exactly which Tory MPPs were told of warnings and agreed to keep it a secret is missing. Premier, I suggest that you have a growing credibility gap when it comes to

these kinds of issues.

This is what I ask you to do today: will you direct the secretary of cabinet to investigate the disappearance of these oaths, and pending that investigation,

will you provide me and Justice O'Connor with the names of the Tory MPPs who received these specific and explicit warnings and swore an oath not to tell anybody about the dangers?

Hon Mr Harris: I'd be happy to check into that for you. But let me make it very clear that at no time was any member of our caucus informed

that there would be any risk to the health of any Ontarian as a result of any of the actions we took at that meeting. That was confirmed by the Minister of the Environment. That was confirmed by

the two former ministers of the environment. It was confirmed by me.

Let's be upfront here. We are the ones who called the Walkerton inquiry. I had two ministers who attended to the Walkerton inquiry. I, myself, attended to the

Walkerton inquiry. I realize, with all the screaming and yelling and the rudeness, you don't want to hear the answer, but perhaps the people at home would like to hear the answer. We called the

inquiry. We put Justice O'Connor in charge of it. I travelled and spent six hours testifying to these very matters, and we all look forward to the results of Justice O'Connor's findings.

TAXATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. We believe in a balanced approach to the economy and in

achieving competitiveness. We understand it takes more than competitive taxes; it also takes continuing investments in and support for health care, education, infrastructure and protection of the

environment.

Two days ago, Premier, you made the mistake of speeding up your $2.2-billion corporate tax cut. Your promise to pay corporate taxes 25% lower than our

competitors' is unbalanced. It will not succeed in achieving your desired outcome. What's worse, it is eating away at the money we are going to need to invest in those new security measures, it's

eating away at the money we need to maintain investments in health care and education, and it's eating away at the money we could have used for infrastructure projects that would have had a real

immediate and positive impact on the economy and on jobs.

Do you still believe it is the right thing to do now, at this moment, to cut corporate taxes 25%?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): This is from a member who opposed every corporate, small business and personal income tax cut we have brought

in to the province of Ontario, tax cuts that now have been supported by every other government across Canada -- NDP, Liberal and Conservative -- tax cuts that have now been supported by the federal

government in Ottawa, who now say that the best way to fight the slowdown is with the tax cuts they propose to bring in over the next number of years.

I don't know how you can stand in your place, while we bring forward tax cuts to create more jobs, to create more job security, to allow people to have the

dignity of a job here in the province of Ontario, supported by every manufacturers' association, every employer, and somehow or other say your policy of higher taxes is better for the economy. You

are a two-person show. You and the leader of the New Democratic Party are the only two in Canada who believe that.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, it's a fairly simple question. Why do you believe that reducing our corporate taxes to the extent that they are 25%

lower than our American counterparts' is good for our economy? I think Ontarians are entitled to an answer on that score.

I think the sad truth is that you are stuck like a broken record on an old song. We have a new and unprecedented challenge before us, and it calls for

creative, innovative thinking, but above all it has to be balanced. Rushing your corporate tax cut is not going to save jobs.

Yesterday, Boeing announced layoffs here in Ontario. Nortel, which used to be one of our largest employers, announced that 20,000 people are going to lose

their jobs. It is a sad and stark reality that thousands of people in our province are now becoming unemployed and our families fear that someone is going to lose their job.

How can you still defend your across-the-board corporate tax cut?

Hon Mr Harris: I think every business, every economist, is saying, "How can you afford not to give our companies, to give our businesses, more

opportunities to hire more people, to stay in business --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Hamilton East, come to order, please. The member for Kingston and the Islands, come to order,

please. Sorry, Premier, for the interruption.

Hon Mr Harris: You may be able to find some left-wing, NDP, union-sponsored economist somewhere, but no mainstream economist agrees with your

position. They didn't agree with your position six years ago, five years ago, four years ago, three years ago, two years ago, last year, and they do not agree now. More than ever, our companies

need our help so we can keep people employed in this province, so we can hang on to the jobs we have and so we can attract new jobs. You do not do that with higher taxes, and I'm shocked that you

don't know that.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you are completely wrong on this issue. This is what one of the key economic advisers helping craft US President George

Bush's stimulus package just wrote, from this Sunday's New York Times. He said, " ... a permanent corporate income tax rate cut would have exceedingly little short-term stimulus benefit relative to

the cost." That's the advice that the American president is getting, Premier.

Let me tell you what else our economists are saying. They're telling us that when it comes to across-the-board corporate tax cuts, they help the companies

which are not in trouble, the ones that aren't in danger of laying off their workers. These kinds of cuts reward profits from investments made in prior years, not investments made today, which are

the kinds of investments that we need now. Thirdly, Premier, and even worse, corporate tax cuts rob us of our ability to make the key investments we need to be able to make now to save jobs.

So the question I have for you, Premier, is, how can you still defend what is patently a mistake?

Hon Mr Harris: As you know, we came forward with a very balanced plan. We did announce major new capital for infrastructure; we are

maintaining record investments into education and into health care; and, yes, we're trying to be tax-competitive.

Let me tell you about New York's tax competitiveness. If you look at the record of George Pataki, he has consistently cut corporate tax in his state, so that

now the corporate tax rate in New York is 7.5%. The reduction we announced takes our corporate tax rate to 12.5%; by 2005 to 8%, still higher than New York state.

I want to tell you this: you said here yesterday that Americans and New Yorkers were on their knees. What a shameful, disgraceful statement to make. I want to

tell you, I have never seen Americans stand taller, stand prouder, stand stronger, and particularly --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock.

OK, back to question period. The leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Premier, Nortel was so impressed by your accelerated corporate tax cuts on Monday that they laid off

20,000 workers on Tuesday. They're trying to send you a message: more tax reductions for well-off banks and corporations is not going to sustain jobs. But we've got a proposal for you, one that

will.

We're calling for an emergency reduction in the sales tax. You know and I know that people have to buy winter clothing, warm boots, snowsuits for their kids

for this winter. If you really want to get the cash registers humming, if you want to get people in the stores buying, if you want people to accelerate the economy, then reduce the sales tax. Will

you do that, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: I do want the record to show that the leader of the New Democratic Party is calling for a tax cut.

Let me say this: with your statement today, with your change in direction, your change in philosophy, you have distinguished yourself from the Liberal Party to

finally understand -- finally understand -- that tax cuts do work. I appreciate the suggestion. I don't know if you had breakfast with Mel Lastman today, who also was talking about a tax cut, and

we welcome him talking about lower taxes as well.

As always, we look at all suggestions. We look at all ways that we can stimulate the economy, not only in the short term but in the medium term and in the long

term. We make a judgment based upon the balance between health care, between education, between accelerating capital projects, and those kinds of tax cuts that will create the most jobs. So we will

continue --

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

The leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: We've long held that if you want to reduce a tax it should be the sales tax, because that's the tax which impacts upon the average

citizen across this province the most. If you want to get sales moving, that's the tax you should reduce.

You announced your accelerated corporate tax cut and the next day Nortel laid off 20,000 workers, and we know that more layoffs are coming as well. So it

pretty well shoots down your whole strategy that by feeding wealthy corporations you're somehow going to induce them to save jobs.

You could help a lot of Ontario families through tough times. A lot of people are worried about losing their jobs; a lot of people have already lost their

jobs. They need to buy winter clothing for their kids. They need to ensure that their kids have warm boots and snowsuits when they go to school. These are real needs, and your corporate tax cut

isn't going to do a thing for them. If it's so easy for you to say yes to a corporate tax cut that's going to benefit banks to the tune of their $10-billion profits, why can't you reduce the sales

tax so ordinary families can have a chance?

Hon Mr Harris: The shareholders and the pensioners who have Nortel in their portfolios will be pleased to know that Nortel, in your

definition, is a wealthy company. I would say this: your understanding of wealthy companies is one of the things that brought this province to its knees over your term in office, for the five years

that you were in office.

The tax cuts that we have implemented, led, as you know, in large part by personal income tax cuts, along with small business tax cuts and also corporate tax

cuts, are designed so that we can be competitive today, in the medium term and in the long term. In addition to putting more money in people's pockets, which stimulates consumer spending, they also

have a long-term benefit of boosting productivity, giving people a greater incentive to work. All of our policies have been designed about restoring the work ethic and the incentive to work that

you and the Liberals destroyed over 10 years in office.

Mr Hampton: The idea of reducing sales taxes to get the economy moving again is one that's being implemented by other provinces. Saskatchewan

reduced their sales tax from 9% to 6% and, in preparation for the winter months, took the sales tax completely off home heating oil. In fact, it was in 1980 that someone named Frank Miller,

Treasurer of a Conservative government, introduced supplementary measures to stimulate the Ontario economy, and he said, "Reductions in income taxes are not a viable mechanism for achieving

immediate relief. However, in the past, reductions in retail sales tax have proven to be the most effective."

If you want to get people in the stores purchasing, if you want to get the economy moving again, reduce the sales tax. Why don't you give up on your continued

gifts to your corporate friends, hundreds of millions of dollars to banks that already have $10 billion in profits? How is that going to help people purchase the goods they need?

Hon Mr Harris: If it saves a job, it will certainly help them. Let me say I'm pleased; you usually are about 21 years behind the times when

you come out with your economic theories and your economic policies. What we have to look at is, on balance, what is appropriate today. While we welcome all suggestions, certainly understanding

that taxes will continue to be reduced, will be competitive in the future is something the federal Liberal government in Ottawa -- not the McGuinty Liberals; they're opposed to tax cuts -- and our

government have come to the conclusion is what's appropriate at this moment in time. We constantly will review, of course, the policies.

I simply want to repeat that it is very, very refreshing to those of us on this side of the House to find you split from the Liberals now, who wanted higher

taxes. At least now you are talking the language of lower taxes. This is a great revelation on the road to Damascus so to speak. I --

The Speaker: The Premier's time is up.

IMMIGRANTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Also to the Premier: I think people will take note of the fact that you make fun of the possibility of

reducing a tax that really impacts on ordinary people. But my next question is about your comments that there are thousands of dangerous illegal immigrants on the loose.

We were in this Legislature a week ago Monday in a non-partisan debate where you suggested that it would be wrong to scapegoat immigrants to Ontario, it would

be wrong to scapegoat those people who might be of a different ethnic origin or might be of a different national origin or might be of a different religion. Suddenly, however, you are scapegoating

those people.

Premier, could you tell us where you got the information that there are thousands of illegal immigrants on the loose in Ontario?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I agree it would be very, very wrong to talk about immigrants in this country or in this province of Ontario

in any way connected to any of the acts of September 11 or terrorism. It would be very wrong for anybody to impugn that motive as well, and I'm sure you understand that.

We talked about illegal immigrants. We don't consider them immigrants; they're here illegally. There are many at large. This has been identified by the federal

government. Estimates are in the range of some 20,000 that are there. I think it is wrong for me to refuse to acknowledge that. We acknowledged it before September 11 and we're acknowledging it

after September 11, as is the federal government.

I can tell you that the Ontarians I've been speaking to since September 11 are concerned about security and they want us to take every initiative and every

measure we can to help guarantee the security of Ontarians, and indeed of Canadian --

Mr Hampton: Premier, the motion that you put forward in the Legislature last Monday says, "...to ensure that all Ontario residents continue to

treat one another -- regardless of race, religion, background or ethnic origin -- with generosity, with compassion, with dignity and with respect." Yet here you are today out there trying to play

on the fears of Ontario citizens that there are somehow thousands of illegal immigrants on the loose, and then you try to equate that with terrorism.

Premier, people have died, so people are scared. But could you tell me how fanning the flames of fear, how equating immigration with terrorism, does anything

positive, does anything to help the situation in Ontario today? People want to know what you can effectively do rather than simply fanning fears.

Hon Mr Harris: The only two people I've heard fan those fears and make that allegation are you and the leader of the Liberal Party, Dalton

McGuinty -- absolute, utter nonsense.

The Deputy Solicitor General has been in contact with her federal counterpart. The federal deputy has indicated the federal government's support for these

ideas. Meetings are being set up shortly between federal and provincial officials to discuss the next steps. Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley calls the moves a good idea. Manley, who heads the

federal cabinet committee against terrorism, says all provinces should spend more time focusing on security.

I have to tell you that anybody who considers the rights of illegal immigrants, who are here jumping the queue ahead of all the legitimate immigrants and

refugees, more important than the rights of legitimate immigrants, more important than the rights of legitimate refugees, I think is making a huge mistake. I just want to say that I hope that's not

what you and the leader of the Liberal Party are alleging with your silly arguments.

OTTAWA HOSPITAL

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I assume we're still innocent until proven guilty in this House as well.

Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. The Ottawa Hospital is in a real mess, a mess that you created as a result of your continuing

underinvestment and your poorly planned amalgamation. Six months ago, you received an operational review prepared by KPMG Consulting. They informed you that the Ottawa Hospital is being

shortchanged to the tune of $100 million. Three months ago, you fired the 28-member hospital board and replaced that board with your own supervisor. I can tell you during the course of the past six

months we are still short of nurses. We are still experiencing cancelled and delayed surgeries. We are still short of hospital beds and so on.

The question I have for you on behalf of the people of Ottawa is: when are we going to see some substantial progress in improving hospital-based care for our

families?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I want to assure the honourable member and this House that we evidently share the

same goal of improving the standard of care.

I know the honourable member is relying on the Brendan McGuinty report for a lot of his information. I want to share with this House the actual information in

terms of the province's support for the Ottawa Hospital. Base funding has increased this year alone by 5.3%. Indeed, over the last three years, base funding for this hospital has increased 21%. No

one in their right mind could challenge the commitment of this government to the actual operational needs of this hospital. The record speaks for itself.

Are there certain issues that have to be resolved? Of course there are. That's why we appointed a supervisor in the first place. We look forward to his

recommendations and will act upon them.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you continue to fiddle while Ottawa families experience tremendous difficulties in accessing quality hospital-based

care. If you won't listen to the KPMG report, why don't you listen to your own report prepared by the Hay Group, the operational review and clinical audit of the Ottawa Hospital? I'll just quote it

for you. It says, "Our analysis supports the notion that the Ottawa Hospital is not funded equitably in relation to its peers to support its overhead activities."

Every objective, impartial observer who's had the opportunity to take a look at what's happening in the Ottawa Hospital is telling you the same thing. We are

being shortchanged and our patients are paying the price. We have too few nurses. We have too few beds. We have delayed and cancelled surgeries. We have ambulances that are on a permanent

merry-go-round. We have patients spending the night in hospital corridors.

The question I have for you again is -- you've been on the job, you've taken responsibility for this hospital now for some three months -- when are we going to

see some substantial progress for our families?

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member keeps relying on the report that was engineered by Brendan McGuinty. He can do so if he wishes to.

I merely wish to put back on the record the Dalton McGuinty I knew, for it wasn't too long ago that Dalton McGuinty had this to say about hospital

accountability. He said, "One of the things that we've got to do is this: to instill our hospital administrators with a sense of accountability to the system and not just to their own institution.

In my own riding," he said, "there are five hospitals, and if somebody's got this machine, then the other guy wants the machine. If they've got this expert, they too want this expert. There's no

accountability to the overall system, so one of the things that we have to do somehow is nurture that." I agree with that Dalton McGuinty, not the Dalton McGuinty of today.

AGRICULTURE IN

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Many of the constituents in my riding of

Perth-Middlesex own land and are now harvesting their crops. Many of them play an important

part in the production of agricultural goods. As you know, agriculture is an important sector for

Ontario. This week, in recognition of the efforts, farmers across Ontario are celebrating Agriculture Week. The agriculture sector in the province is often referred to as the farming community

because they work together and face many of the same challenges.

Five per cent of Ontario's farms are in the north. I'd like to know what programs the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines had available to northern

farmers.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I'd like to thank the member for Perth-Middlesex for this question. I know he

does an absolutely outstanding job working hard to represent his constituents in Perth-Middlesex.

While I know that many members of the House have certainly heard of the northern Ontario heritage fund, I'd like to point out that one of the areas of focus of

the heritage fund is indeed agriculture. We know that there are at least 4,600 people who are employed in the agricultural industry in northern Ontario, and we want farmers to have access to the

latest farm practices and techniques. We recognize that a strong northern agricultural sector means strong northern communities as well as a strong northern economy. That's why since 1996, through

the heritage fund, the Mike Harris government has invested over $17 million in agriculture in northern Ontario.

Mr Johnson: My supplementary is also for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I know my constituents will be pleased to hear that

the Mike Harris government has made such significant investments in the agricultural community in the north. Farmers in the north face unique challenges, and I'm pleased that our government has

recognized the important part farmers play in the community and the economy.

For the benefit of all the members of this House, could you please give us some examples of recent initiatives your ministry has taken to support agriculture

in the north?

Hon Mr Newman: I'd like to thank the member for Perth-Middlesex for the opportunity to speak of some of the recent initiatives for agriculture

undertaken by my ministry. In fact, when I was in Vernor on September 18, I was pleased to announce that the heritage fund has provided over $3.2 million for 11 agricultural initiatives in northern

Ontario. I know those projects have the full support of my colleague Brian Coburn, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Today I had the opportunity to meet with representatives from the Chicken Farmers of Ontario. If I can for a moment just acknowledge their presence here in the

gallery today, we have Maher Kalaaji, William Bearss, and Jack Van Netten, who have joined us today for question period.

I think it's important to note that our stakeholders speak best when they speak about our recent initiatives. Daniel Olivier of the West Nipissing Soil and

Crop Improvement Association was delighted with the announcement. He said the province is helping to make improvements that will boost profitability and encourage the next generation to farm in

northern Ontario.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): My question is to the Minister of Health. It has come to my attention that at 3 pm today, the London

Health Sciences Centre is going to announce the unthinkable: the closure of the pediatric cardiology unit, a direct result of hospitals' forced restructuring.

You approved this plan. You knew this was going to happen and you did nothing to stop it, other than to script your London Tories. London West speaks of only

offering the service you rationally can in London. London-Fanshawe: "Of course I want pediatric services in London, but I've got older parents who have had heart surgery, so which do I pick?"

London North Centre: silence.

Minister, I lay the blame for this directly at your feet and at the feet of the local Tories. You speak of rationalization. Is shipping critically ill children

across this province rational? Is your idea of how to care for children in southwestern Ontario by the closure of this unit and many others? Welcome to Mike Harris's Ontario. These families demand

and deserve an answer as to what's going on at the London Health Sciences Centre.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. Minister, take a seat.

Come to order, please. You've asked the question. It is now the minister's turn to reply.

Member for London-Fanshawe, come to order.

Sorry for the interruption. The Minister of Health.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I would like to put on the record that the base funding for the very hospital that

the honourable member speaks about has increased 26% from the beginning of last year, so our commitment to health services for Londoners cannot be questioned by someone who knows the facts about

the situation.

The honourable member asked me a direct question about what is going to take place at 3 pm this afternoon. Let the record show that the clock stands at 2:25. I

cannot predict the future, but whatever is announced by an independent board of directors of the London Health Sciences Centre we will have to take a look at, and always act in the best interests

of Ontarians.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): It's not just pediatric heart surgery that will be shut down at the London hospital. We understand that

as many as 14 programs are going to be shut down. Minister, I say to you that this is the disastrous result of your underfunding of hospitals, and it is just the beginning. You were told that

giving hospitals any less than $650 million would mean service cuts and massive layoffs across this province, yet you are actually giving hospitals $120 million less this year than you gave them

last year. That is right, and it's in your estimates book.

You gave London $15 million to meet a $58-million deficit, and you told them to cut $17 million in services. That's the result we're seeing today. That means,

with all your talk about efficiencies in restructuring, hundreds of very sick people in southwestern Ontario, hundreds of sick children, hundreds of sick seniors, are going to be told to get their

care somewhere else. How many of these restructuring plans are you approving in London and across the province? How many more hospital services are you going to shut down?

Hon Mr Clement: I feel compelled to use my time to correct the record. There is an increase of $450 million of taxpayers' money for hospitals

this year, making a budget for hospitals in the province of Ontario of an unprecedented $8.6 billion for this year. Over five years, that's an increase of 28%. In London over the last two years for

the particular hospital that was mentioned in the first question, that's an increase of 26%. That record speaks for itself. It's a record of which we're particularly proud. It's a record that shows

we are facing some of the tough decisions and we know where our priority programs in hospitals have to be. We are funding those priority programs, we are funding the hospitals and we are also

demanding the accountability necessary to make sure that the money goes to the patient. Patient-centred care, that's what this government is all about.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Stop the clock, please. The member needs to hear to ask the question. Sorry for the interruption, member

for York North.

Mrs Munro: One of the most important services for victims of domestic abuse is the compassionate and supportive voice they can find through a

women's crisis hotline. These services are not only an essential source of information, but also a warm and sympathetic voice in their time of need. However, shelters which currently run emergency

crisis lines often lack the resources and staffing to provide around-the-clock service. In fact, many women have turned to the Assaulted Women's Helpline in Toronto, since they are the only ones

offering service 24 hours a day. Clearly, there is a need to provide greater access to these services for people outside of Toronto.

This government has put a lot of time and resources into getting tough on crime, but we can't forget that community supports are crucial to helping the victims

of domestic abuse. Minister, how does your announcement --

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

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for children, minister responsible for francophone

affairs): Providing supports to victims of domestic violence is something that's incredibly important, as it is to provide support to all victims of crime. It requires a real balance

between judicial supports and law enforcement supports, and we've done an incredible amount in this area. I certainly believe we could do more on the community side.

That's why in addition to the 300 new beds for victims of domestic violence, we announced this morning an initiative to try to expand the supports that women

in the greater Toronto area have been able to enjoy for a good number of years. We'll be able to expand this hotline for victims right across Ontario. This is important, not just for people in the

GTA and for every region of the province, but particularly for rural Ontario so they can benefit from these services and supports being provided by the government at the same level that they've

been enjoying in the city of Toronto for many years.

Mrs Munro: Crisis helplines are only one part of the answer to stopping violence against women. It's crucial not only to expand the number of

beds in the system, but also to make sure that the services are there and to make sure they're ready to help women break the cycle of abuse and violence. I know you made a major announcement

regarding violence-against-women funding in the last few weeks, but what does it mean for the system as a whole, in particular for high-growth areas in the 905 area like York region, where existing

services have not kept up with the huge growth in population?

Hon Mr Baird: In talking about smart growth and the challenges of a growing population, that is particularly a problem in areas like my home,

the Carleton ring around the new city of Ottawa. It's also important in the 905 area, the GTA. That's why we're making an investment of $26 million to build more capacity in shelters for victims of

domestic violence.

In the member's own constituency, we'll be converting 20 beds in Georgina. In Durham region, we'll be refurbishing 30 beds in Oshawa and Bowmanville and

increasing beds by 25 in the western portion of Durham. In Brampton as well, we can add an additional 27 beds. This goes to try to meet the increased demands resulting from a growing population to

ensure there's a social infrastructure there to be able to support victims of domestic violence.

All people in the province of Ontario deserve the right to live a life free of violence. We all take for granted the tranquility of our own homes. For too

many, when they put the key in the door, that's only the beginning of the fear, rather than the end.

ETHNIC PROFILING

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): My question is for the Premier. Sir, does the fight against terrorism require that we scapegoat a particular

community? Because, you see, Major General Lewis MacKenzie, in a recent radio interview, said that ethnic profiling of certain communities would have to be part of a crackdown on terrorism. In his

words, "I'm sorry more current attention is going to have to be paid to people who are obviously potentially part of that group." He went on to say, "Look, I'm terribly sorry. The odds are you're

not involved but you're going to receive more thorough interrogation."

Premier, you've appointed Major General MacKenzie as your security adviser. Will his ethnic profiling be part of your Conservative government policy?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No.

Mr Kormos: This House, all of us, have made it quite clear that we agree with confronting terrorism, but the fact is that human rights and

basic freedoms don't have to be sacrificed in the process. You've got to understand what ethnic profiling means to people who don't have the right skin colour or the right surname or the right

accent. It means you're stopped more often by the police without reason. It means your home is searched more often. You're under surveillance, you're subject to strip searches, among other things.

That amounts to the criminalization and harassment of significant and entire Ontario communities.

You appointed Major General Lewis MacKenzie as your security adviser. Will you please condemn today the statements of Lewis MacKenzie with respect to ethnic

profiling and assure us that the people of Ontario will never be targeted by MacKenzie or any other of your policy advisers or appointees because of the colour of their skin, the language they

speak or the place they were born?

Hon Mr Harris: I don't know where you make up this silly stuff. I can also assure the people of Ontario and all of those of different ethnic

minorities, different religious minorities, different skin colour, those who are here in the province of Ontario, I'll do everything in my power never to unleash you or your party on them again

too.

HOME CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Premier of Ontario, and I'd like to ask about home care. When we started

restructuring right across Ontario, we were guaranteed by Duncan Sinclair that restructuring would not go forward until community investment was in place. Let me read to you what Duncan Sinclair

now says about the home care program. He says, "`There's no question that those people right now who need home care and aren't getting it -- they face individual crises,' said Sinclair." That was

yesterday.

Let me tell you what an individual from your caucus has written to those responsible in your cabinet for home care: "I've heard from my constituents about

their concerns for sufficient funding to provide the level of care to those persons in need outside the hospital setting. We have to ensure the necessary level is provided." That is from Joe

Tascona, MPP for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford.

I'd like to know. You promised community investment. You've let us down. What do you have to say?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Mr Speaker, I think you know there have been massive reinvestments into home care. I understand the member

has a resolution she wants debated tomorrow that asks to go back to old levels of funding. I assume she means when her party was in power. That would mean a slashing of about two thirds of the

amount of funding that is in home care.

I don't understand why you want to go back to the Liberal ways and cut $800 million out of home care funding. We are funding home care at record levels. We

continue to make record investments into home care. Is there ever enough money for everything that everybody wants and needs in health care? No. We understand that. But when we've been slashed by

Liberals in Ottawa, we've done pretty good with $6 billion more in funding.

Mrs Pupatello: That's just such a dumb answer for such a serious issue facing people right across the province. Here's what your member Ted

Arnott said yesterday in this House, your member, not a member of the Liberal Party: "Some patients are receiving less care and some aren't receiving the care they need because they're on a waiting

list." They're asking you to improve the funding to CCACs.

Here's the member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, also from your caucus. Here's what he wrote, "In any event, I don't care how we do it. We must make sure our

sick and elderly get the type of care they need when they need it." He says, "How dare we put these people-what am I supposed to answer to Mrs Irwin, who writes to me and knows that we have a

problem?" Members of your own caucus are acknowledging that you're not taking care of our sick and elderly people like you're supposed to.

Premier, on an issue this serious, we don't want a glib answer from you. We want appropriate levels of funding. You said it was going to happen this way and it

is not. You're responsible. What do you answer to Mrs Irwin and all the people in Ontario-

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

Hon Mr Harris: I say that in Essex county we've increased funding about 34%. I say that-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock, please. The member for Windsor West, come to order, please. Sorry, Premier, for the interruption.

Hon Mr Harris: I'm sorry too, Mr Speaker. The opposition doesn't seem to want to hear the answers. I understand why this member doesn't want

to hear the answer, because she has a proposal before the House-

Interjection.

The Speaker: Stop the clock, please. I heard something that's unparliamentary. I need to have a withdrawal, please.

Mrs Pupatello: I withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker: I would ask all members to carefully watch their language. The temperature is rising a wee bit. Again I apologize to the Premier

for the interruptions.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much. Let me be the first to acknowledge that the challenges we face in providing health care are tremendous.

They're tremendous all across the country. It has been a struggle to come up with $6 billion more when we've been cut back by the Liberals in Ottawa. We found those dollars. It has been a struggle

in the rapid increase in demand in home care. However, I think the people of Ontario need to know that we have massively increased home care funding. I understand why the opposition members scream

and yell and don't-

The Speaker: The Premier's time is up, I'm afraid.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In speaking to many mayors and reeves

across the province over this past while-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. This is the last warning for the member for Windsor West. I can't continue with her doing that.

If she does it again, we will have to remove her. Sorry, member for Brampton Centre.

Mr Spina: Minister, in speaking with many mayors and reeves across this province over the past few months, I noticed there has been some

positive comment about the provincial government from the municipal sector. Can you give me some idea of what's going on and what's happened to demonstrate these comments?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Thank you very much. I appreciate the question, finally a good question from

somebody who's in touch with his constituents and municipalities across the province. As you know, municipalities do tremendous work on behalf of the residents in their communities. They make

important decisions that affect the quality of life for their communities. We appreciate that and they appreciate the fact that they have a government that recognizes the challenges of being

democratically elected, of being in positions of responsibility.

We've been working well together. We've been consulting on a new Municipal Act, something they've asked for for over 140 years. The act was brought in in 1849.

For the last 140 years or more they've been asking to update it. Going into the 21st century, they need the tools to do the job on behalf of their residents and their communities. It is something

on which we want to work with them to make sure our communities are better places to live.

Mr Spina: You mentioned the consultations you've been involved in regarding the proposed new Municipal Act. This has been talked about for a

long time by various governments of all stripes. It has been long awaited and anticipated by many municipalities in this province. When are we really going to start seeing something come out of

this? Will we be seeing something in the near future? Will the municipalities have the opportunity to really have input on this?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Mr Speaker, through you to the member, he's right. Ministers of Municipal Affairs have promised a new Municipal Act for at

least all of my lifetime, and probably the lifetime of most of the members in here. It's become a bit of an annual ritual at the AMO to promise a new Municipal Act.

We think we've got it right. We've got a balance, a consensus with a number of stakeholders that a new act would touch upon. We've been consulting. Al Leach,

Steve Gilchrist and Tony Clement set up processes where they consulted. We released a 1998 draft release.

In the words of Hazel McCallion, there's been enough talk on this. Now it's time for action. We intend to, with the co-operation of this House, bring in a new

Municipal Act to give our communities the tools they need to provide better service for the next century.

MFP FINANCIAL SERVICES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. Contracts with MFP Financial Services have recently been the

object of some scrutiny by municipalities in my riding. MFP Financial is the subject of a lawsuit by the city of Waterloo. The city of Windsor, the county of Essex and the Union Water System are

all reviewing, and in some cases withdrawing from, financial contracts with MFP Financial.

In the fiscal year 2000-01, ministries in your government paid fees to MFP Financial totalling $88 million. Recently I wrote to you asking that you "have the

Provincial Auditor conduct a special audit of any contract the province and its agencies, boards and commissions might have with MFP Financial Services."

My question is this, Minister: are you concerned with the government contracts with MFP Financial, and, to protect the interests of the taxpayers of Ontario,

what direction have you given to the Provincial Auditor?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I appreciate the question from the member for Essex. To answer your

question, yes, I am concerned whenever any type of doubt is raised about any situation that might impact upon any type of government contract. As a result of seeing your letter, I've asked our

ministry, Management Board, to investigate all the contracts dealing with this particular company. They have advised me already that in fact we have no legal disputes between them and any of our

government ministries at this point in time.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have investigated them. As far as we can see right now, certainly all the contracts we have are on contract and certainly

appear to be aboveboard.

Mr Crozier: It's like asking the fox to check the chicken house. They signed the contracts with this company. In fact, one of your senior

bureaucrats was on the MFP Web site as having endorsed MFP Financial. Now, mysteriously, that endorsement has disappeared from the Web site. That then would indicate to me, if they don't endorse

them any more, that maybe there are some concerns about them.

So, Minister, I'm asking you today, because I think this could come to some unfortunate conclusions in our area, that you have an independent review, not

somebody who signed the contracts with them but somebody like the Provincial Auditor, to review those contracts and assure you and this House that those contracts are in fact in order, unlike some

of the others that have been signed with municipalities in this province.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Let me clarify the statement, first of all. As I understand it, the statement was made by a former employee of the

government, and it was also appearing not on a government Web site, but also on the Web site of the particular company.

The fact of the matter is that Management Board's job is to be the auditor of this government. We keep track of the expenses of this government, and I must say

the civil servants in Management Board are doing a good job. Giving credit for that is part of that which is due for the situation we have right now. We have taken very conservative measures. We

have watched our own budgets. It's very important in this day and age; we've done that. Much of the credit goes to the civil service for doing that. I believe we have good employees of Management

Board, I believe they are capable of doing their job, and that's a job we'll continue to do.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. My colleague here has just recently asked you a

question with respect to the review of the Municipal Act. As you know, this has been under discussion for some time now.

Minister, in what specific terms are you going to be dealing with the issues raised in all three rounds of consultations to satisfy finding the right balance

with our stakeholders, the municipal leaders?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): As the member knows, this government has done more consultation on a whole

variety of issues than any government prior to our election, right from 1995 on.

In 1998 we released the draft Municipal Act. Al Leach took the lead on that, and we had a lot of input from municipalities right across Ontario, plus input

from chambers of commerce across Ontario, from small towns to large cities and boards of trade like the Toronto Board of Trade, right through to a variety of stakeholders that are affected by this

act, because this act affects municipal decision-making in terms of how they can provide service to their residents in a large province with a lot of diverse needs. So there has been extensive

consultation.

I've had the honour of leading this consultation in the final phases. As I mentioned, in the words of Hazel McCallion, "We've talked enough about this. Now

it's time for action." Our government is also known to provide action, unlike previous governments, so we will introduce

an act that hopefully will benefit the people of Ontario.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for that, Minister. I'll tell you, I am hearing very positive and supportive comments on your approach with

municipalities, and this all fits together with, I believe, a larger plan that you have with respect to the Smart Growth initiatives that your ministry is taking the lead on.

There is clear evidence to me in my riding. I know you have served at the municipal level of government, as I have. There's clear evidence that the

municipalities do want additional responsibility, but I'm hearing they are ready now for accepting accountability as well. Could you comment on that for me, Minister, please?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As you know, municipalities and their councils and the mayors and reeves and regional chairs are accountable. They are

accountable to the electorate every three years, just like we are. They cannot budget deficits. They do a tremendous job on our behalf.

Now, there are 447 municipal councils across Ontario and there are a lot of councillors, but most of them by and large get into politics for the right reasons.

It's non-partisan; it's to make their communities better places to live.

We consulted on Smart Growth. We consulted directly with municipal councils. Surprisingly, their input back to us was similar to what we heard in the 17

regional consultations, what we heard through our Web site, what we heard through the mail and what we heard on the street from our neighbours and our friends, and at the hockey arenas as well.

That is, they want more and better transit, more highways, more transportation. They want a cleaner environment. They want safe neighbourhoods and safe communities.

The Premier has listened. Last week's announcement on transit is truly historic -- $9 billion over 10 years to rebuild this province, to get people and goods

moving.

ETHNIC PROFILING

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Premier: General Lewis MacKenzie, September 12, CBC Radio -- here's the transcript, clearly using the

words "ethnic profiling" and recommending advocating it as a tool against terrorism.

Premier, were you aware of the general's viewpoints about ethnic profiling, and if you were, why did you appoint him?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think that you would agree and certainly most Canadians agree that General Lewis MacKenzie has experience

from the military side that could be very beneficial to us. Certainly Norman Inkster was very supportive of his appointment in being compatible with Mr Inkster's appointment.

I think the record will show right here in the Legislature -- Mike Harris, Premier of Ontario, October 3: no, we do not agree with ethnic profiling.

Mr Kormos: The Premier's record is far from blemish-free. He states, as I said earlier, that too many immigrants from other countries are

coming here for a free ride. The Premier has not been exactly generous to immigrant people to this province.

Premier, the reality is that your appointee as security adviser is a clear and unrepentant advocate of ethnic profiling. That means he is prepared on your

behalf to single out people of certain skin colour, people of certain ethnicity, people with certain surnames for special treatment, special surveillance, special interrogation, special

supervision, special police harassment. The best Lewis MacKenzie will do is say, "I'm sorry, but that's the way it's got to be."

What are you going to do to ensure that doesn't happen? Will you tell us that you revoke your appointment of Lewis MacKenzie today to distance yourself from

that policy and that attitude, that advocacy of ethnic profiling?

Hon Mr Harris: I think we've made it very clear, and let me repeat, that we do not support any immigrant who is here illegally, jumping the

queue, taking places away from legitimate immigrants. I think it is incumbent on us to do something about that. This is supported by the chief of police, it's supported by federal officials, it's

supported by others.

As to the previous quote, any immigrant from any country, of any colour, of any religion -- including Anglicans from Britain, who were my ancestors -- who are

coming here for a free ride are not welcome.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): In accordance with

section 37(

a) of the standing orders, I have filed the appropriate paperwork

expressing my dissatisfaction with the answer from the Minister of Health today.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member for that.

PETITIONS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm happy to submit this on behalf of many, many people in the Ottawa Valley.

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a petition which reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario have the right to receive clean and safe drinking water; and

"Whereas clean, safe drinking water is a basic human entitlement and essential for the protection of public health; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario have the right to receive accurate and immediate information about the quality of water; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and the government of Ontario have failed to protect the quality of drinking water in Ontario; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and the government of Ontario have failed to provide the necessary financial resources to the Ministry of the Environment; and

"Whereas the policies of Mike Harris and the government of Ontario have endangered the environment and the health of the citizens of Ontario;

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

"

(1) Immediately restore adequate funding and staffing to the Ministry of the Environment;

"

(2) Immediately pass into law Bill 3, the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2001."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): This petition is for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas part of the national child tax benefit program the federal government gives as a supplement to low-income families across the country to begin to

address child poverty;

"Whereas that money, up to $100 per month per child, is meant to give our poorest and most vulnerable children a better chance in life;

"Whereas in Ontario the Conservative government deducts the child benefit supplement dollar for dollar from those living on social assistance;

"Whereas this is leaving our province's neediest children without extra money they desperately need to begin their climb out of poverty;

"Whereas all children are entitled to a fair chance at life;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand that the government of Ontario stop the clawback of

the national child tax benefit supplement and ensure this federal money reaches all low-income families in Ontario."

HOME CARE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

of CCACs; and

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

home care services; and

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

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

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

"

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

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

"

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

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

"

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

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

Of course, I affix my signature to it.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Criminal Code of Canada considers animal cruelty to be a property offence; and

"Whereas those who commit crimes against animals currently face light sentences upon conviction; and

"Whereas those who operate puppy mills should, upon conviction, face sentences that are appropriate for the torture and inhumane treatment they have inflicted

on puppies under their so-called care;

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

"That the Ontario provincial government petition the federal government to move forward with amendments to the cruelty of animal provisions in the Criminal

Code as soon as possible."

Interjections.

Ms Mushinski: I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition, which my constituents take very seriously, even if the Liberal opposition

doesn't.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a number of petitions to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources called for proposals with respect to surplus northeastern Ontario hardwood;

"Whereas Wawa Forest Products submitted a proposal for this surplus northeastern Ontario hardwood which included the building of a manufacturing facility in

Wawa within the township of Michipicoten;

"Whereas on April 6, 2001, the Ministry of Natural Resources announced allocations of a portion of the surplus northeastern Ontario hardwood to Grant Forest

Products in Timmins and Englehart, and Algoma Mill Works in Blind River;

"Whereas the residents of the township of Michipicoten believe that the proposal submitted by Wawa Forest Products is viable and will result in a desperately

needed economic boost to the community and provide the industrial assessment needed for the continued viability of the community;

"Therefore

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

"That the Minister of Natural Resources arrange a meeting between officials of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Wawa Forest Products and the township of

Michipicoten. The reason for such a meeting is to coordinate a consensus on minor differences that may exist in the plan submitted by Wawa Forest Products. It is the hope of the township of

Michipicoten and its residents that such a meeting would result in the construction of the Wawa Forest Products mill in Wawa."

I support this petition and am most alarmed that the ministry has delayed the next call for proposals.

DIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is limited dialysis treatment available in the Cornwall area and the Cornwall dialysis clinic's waiting list continues to grow; and

"Whereas the lack of medical treatment forces dialysis patients throughout Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and beyond to drive to Ottawa, Kingston or Brockville

several times each week, even during dangerous winter driving conditions, to receive the basic medical attention and, at the same time, incurring unnecessary stress, cost and inconvenience; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care has been presented with a proposal that could drastically reduce the number of kidney patients that are

forced to travel to receive the life-saving medical treatment; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care could temporarily increase the number of patients receiving treatment at the Cornwall dialysis clinic until

the dialysis unit is up and running at the Cornwall General Hospital;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that increased patient treatment places are opened at the Cornwall dialysis

clinic."

I have signed my name to this petition to add it to the hundreds and hundreds of others that I've presented.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

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

"Whereas the November 2000 announcement of massive privatization of Ministry of Transportation services will have a significant detrimental effect on citizen

road safety, confidentiality of citizens' information and on the economy of Ontario; and

"Whereas the employees of the Ministry of Transportation are recognized in writing by the provincial government to have provided excellent service on the

government's behalf; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is taking away the livelihood and decreasing the standard of living of thousands of employees and families by its actions,

both directly and indirectly through spinoff effects; and

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are entitled to safe roads, consistency in driver testing, and competent inspection of trucks, school buses and vehicles carrying

dangerous goods; and

"Whereas communities continue to need to retain decent-paying jobs if they are to maintain viability and vibrancy; and

"Whereas we taxpayers have entrusted the provincial government with the maintenance of public safety, with an apolitical and efficient public service, a

service free of profiteering and protected from conflicts of interests; and

"Whereas privatization is an abdication of such public trust;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to place a moratorium on all further privatization and to restore and promote public service

as being of significant value in our society."

I have signed this petition.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a petition entitled Listen: Our Hearing is Important, and it is to the Legislative Assembly of

Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

I agree with this petition; I have signed it.

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

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

"Whereas the recipients of benefits under the Ontario Disability Act have not received a cost-of-living increase since a $2.50 increase in 1987; and

"Whereas the cost of living in Ontario has increased in every one of the years since, especially for basic needs such as housing, food, utilities,

transportation, clothing and household goods; and

"Whereas disabled Ontarians are recognized under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, and as such have the right to have their basic needs met,

including adequate housing, a proper and healthy diet, a bed that does not make them sicker and clothing that fits and is free of stains and holes; and

"Whereas their basic needs are no longer being met because the Ministry of Social Services has not increased the shelter and basic needs allowance of disabled

Ontarians eligible to receive benefits under the Ontario disability support program to reflect the increased costs of shelter and basic needs; and

"Whereas a new Ontarians with Disabilities Act has yet to be introduced to help protect the thousands of vulnerable people in Ontario who are dependent on

others for their basic needs and care and who are eligible for benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act 1997;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, request the Ontario Legislature to urge the government to respect their own definition of basic needs and

provide a cost-of-living increase to recipients of benefits through the Ontario Disability Support Program Act that is sufficient to cover the increased costs of their basic needs as of 2001

prices, and that this benefit not be reduced as a result of increases in the Canada pension plan benefit."

I am very proud to sign this petition as well.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I have received just today over 1,000 names on a petition entitled Listen: Our

Hearing is Important, which reads:

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

There are another 6,000 names which will eventually be submitted from citizens in over 110 Ontario communities.

HOME CARE

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

community care access centres; and

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

services; and

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

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

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

"

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

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

"

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

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

"

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

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

I affix my signature. I am in complete agreement with this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STUDENT PROTECTION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LA PROTECTION DES ÉLÈVES

Mrs Ecker moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 101,

An Act to protect students from sexual abuse and to otherwise provide for the protection of students / Projet de loi 101, Loi visant à

protéger les élèves contre les mauvais traitements d'ordre sexuel et à prévoir autrement leur protection.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member from Simcoe North and

the member from Thornhill.

Each day in Ontario, two million students attend 5,000 schools to be taught by about 120,000 teachers throughout our province. Nothing is more important than

the safety and security of those students. Every one of those two million children, as well as their parents, must be able to depend on school environments to be free from sexual abuse or

misconduct.

I think it's important to note that we all recognize in this House that the vast majority of our teachers deserve and have the trust of both their students and

parents. However, we also know that there have been circumstances where this has not been the case. Identifying and preventing this abuse -- sexual abuse, sexual harassment of students -- is not a

simple problem with a simple solution, but it is a problem that must be dealt with. Its solution requires action on many fronts. Effective and comprehensive responses require extensive

consultation, careful planning, and joint action among our education partners, including school boards, teachers, regulatory bodies and this Legislature.

The bill we are addressing today, the Student Protection Act, is another step in that process. It sends a clear message to those who would prey on our children

to stay out of our schools.

If passed, this bill would require school boards to remove from the classroom a teacher who may pose a threat to students. If passed, this bill would provide a

comprehensive definition of sexual abuse that would recognize sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour. If passed, this bill would clarify and require new reporting and information-sharing

requirements from employers with respect to sexual abuse by teachers. If passed, this bill would create a more comprehensive information-sharing protocol between employers and the Ontario College

of Teachers, the teachers' regulatory body, so we can ensure that a teacher who has sexually abused a student cannot move to another school undetected. If passed, the bill would clarify the

reporting obligations for teachers if they have information about suspected abuse of a student by a colleague. If passed, this bill would ensure that the Ontario College of Teachers has the

authority it needs to take action in cases where students have been or could be sexually abused or harassed.

This bill has been introduced as part of our government's response to the recommendations made by Mr Justice Sydney Robins in his report entitled Protecting

our Students: A Review to Identify and Prevent Sexual Misconduct in Ontario Schools. Members here in the chamber may recall that Justice Robins's appointment to study this issue followed the 1996

conviction of a former Sault Ste Marie teacher who had sexually assaulted several students over a period of 20 years. We asked Justice Robins to review the specifics of that case and to make

recommendations regarding protocols, policies and procedures for identifying and preventing sexual assault, harassment or violence throughout the education system. His report contains 101

recommendations directed to the education system very generally, very broadly, and also specifically to the College of Teachers and school boards.

The recommendations focus on a number of key themes, including improvements to the College of Teachers' processes, policies and regulations relating to

members' discipline and fitness to practise; improvements to communications and reporting protocols; improvements to the procedures at the school board and the individual school level and also

between schools, social agencies, police and parents; and improvements in the professional development and training of key individuals at all steps of this process.

The proposed Student Protection Act is the latest initiative in the step-by-step process of responding to Justice Robins's recommendations. Before I address

the specifics of the legislation that we'll be talking about this afternoon, I would like to take a few minutes to outline some of the steps our government has already taken to prevent and more

effectively deal with the sexual abuse of children, and also to respond to the recommendations in Justice Robins's report.

First of all, in 1999 we strengthened the Child and Family Services Act so we could provide front-line child protection workers with the better tools they

needed to do their job to better protect kids. The legislation also broadened the definition of sexual abuse to put forward clear reporting obligations not only on all professionals, including

teachers, but on members of the public as well. It made sure that all abuse, including neglect and patterns of neglect, could be reported as well. So it very much expanded the reporting obligations

and empowered our children's aid officials to better protect our kids.

Last December we announced a provincial model for a local police/school board protocol. That addresses a number of Robins's recommendations around the

relationship between school boards, police and children's aid societies, when to call people in, when to report, and how to deal with that. So we've put those protocols out for school boards, and

school boards are indeed following those practices.

Through our school-based service program, the Ministry of Education provides annual funding of approximately $1.3 million to support district school boards to

contract with local women's shelters and similar agencies to provide prevention education to teachers and students on violence against women.

Through the ministry's violence-free schools policy, school boards provide opportunities for staff to acquire the skills and the training, the knowledge that

they need to recognize the signs of physical, sexual or mental abuse and to know what action they should take if they indeed encounter such circumstances.

In our new elementary curriculum, the personal safety and injury component of that curriculum introduces such topics as sexual harassment, child abuse and

violence in relationships in an age-appropriate manner so that students can learn what is acceptable behaviour and what physical boundaries they should be able to expect.

This fall, the ministry also released a revised policy program memorandum for our schools to increase the awareness of the professionals and staff in our

schools about their obligation to report child abuse under the Child and Family Services Act.

Work has also been continuing with the ministry and our education partners to meet another key recommendation from Justice Robins regarding criminal background

checks, so we are developing a regulation to require criminal background checks for teachers and other school employees in contact with children. Implementation of the background checks, I should

note, is going to be phased in over the next two years, and we'll be announcing further steps on that later this fall.

There have been a number of other steps taken as well in the legal system, through our court system, to ensure that abuse cases can proceed expeditiously and

effecttively through the system and that children who might be caught up in those cases are also dealt with in a very sensitive and effective way. All of these initiatives speak directly to one or

more of the specific recommendations that we've received from Justice Robins.

The planning and consultative processes that have led to this legislation began shortly after we received the Robins report last year. I met with the Council

of Ontario Directors of Education, trustees' associations, principals' and vice-principals' associations and teacher groups to talk about strategies and work plans for addressing those

recommendations to make sure that all of the education partners are moving forward in an expeditious manner to try to put in place his very good recommendations.

We've been working with school boards to ensure that they are making important changes in programs, policies and procedures that address those recommendations.

I also met with the College of Teachers to request that they review their policies and procedures as well, in light of the many Robins recommendations concerning those matters.

I think it's important at this point to thank all those education partners who have taken steps to improve protection of students, who have provided us with

helpful advice on this important, complex subject, and that advice has been very instrumental in shaping and allowing us to bring forward this legislation today.

I think it's also particularly appropriate to thank the Ontario College of Teachers for its hard work on this issue and for the actions that it has taken to

respond to Justice Robins's recommendations and the recommendations that they have made to the government, based on Robins's work.

The legislation we are addressing today has one overriding objective: the Student Protection Act's purpose is to ensure that students in Ontario schools can be

more effectively protected from sexual abuse and sexual misconduct.

I'd like to emphasize again that I understand that legislation such as this can cause anxiety among those individuals who would come under it. So I think it's

important, and I know honourable members here would share with me, to express the sentiment that the majority of our teachers are indeed law-abiding individuals who are dedicated to enriching their

students' lives and to protecting them from harm. They have and deserve the trust and the respect of students and parents alike. However, as Justice Robins confirmed, it is a disturbing reality

that there are cases of sexual abuse, that they do occur and that there are those individuals, some teachers, who have taken advantage of their positions of trust in the classroom.

In our view, and I believe in the view of everyone in this Legislature, the existence of even one sexual offender in the classroom is simply one too many. We

must ensure, all of us, that we've taken every possible step to provide safeguards for our students and reassurance for parents.

Bill 101 proposes a series of amendments to the Education Act, the Ontario College of Teachers Act and the Teaching Profession Act. I would like to address

each of the bill's key provisions and present some of the rationale for these important changes.

Part I of the bill proposes an amendment to the Education Act that is very critical to protecting students from sexual abuse and harassment, and it would place

an important new duty on our school boards, which of course are the employers of teachers. When boards become aware that a teacher has been charged with or convicted of an offence involving sexual

misconduct or any other offence that might put students at risk, they are required under this legislation to ensure that the teacher does not perform any duties that involve access to students.

They, as employers, are obligated to take action, to make decisions about protecting our students, making sure they are not at risk. This requirement would apply to all certified teachers and

temporary teachers working for school boards, school authorities and provincial school authorities. In practical terms, it could require immediate removal of the teacher from the classroom and from

any other duties that might involve contact with students.

Justice Robins proposed a definition of sexual abuse. However, when we sought the advice of our partners and had taken a look at what had worked in other

professions, specifically the Regulated Health Professions Act, it was our view that that definition, helpful as it was, did not go far enough. One of the challenges with it was that it talked

about inappropriate behaviour, but it talked about behaviour as defined by its impact on students. So the question became, if there was a negative impact on a student, it was therefore perhaps

wrong behaviour, as opposed to clearly recognizing that there is inappropriate behaviour that should be prohibited regardless of whether there's an impact on students. So whether or not it offended

or negatively impacted a student is not the important point here; it's, if this is sexual misconduct, unacceptable behaviour, it should be prohibited.

So the amendments contained in Bill 101 would meet the need for a broad, comprehensive definition of sexual abuse that's focused on inappropriate behaviour, as

well as addressing the fact that there is no actual definition in the Ontario College of Teachers Act or the Teaching Profession Act. The definition of sexual abuse that we are proposing in

section

2 builds on the definition used in the Regulated Health Professions Act, which is the law that regulates all our health professionals, 24 health professions. The definition that we have chosen to

use, based on what that act says, would define sexual abuse by a teacher as sexual intercourse or other forms of physical sexual relations between a teacher and a student, touching of a sexual

nature of a student by a teacher or behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by a teacher toward a student.

We believe this definition will provide significantly increased protection of students from both abuse and harassment. The definition would define abuse so

that it includes not only sexual assault and touching, but also inappropriate sexual remarks. I think one of the other benefits of this particular definition from the Regulated Health Professions

Act is that, in effect, it has been road-tested, because it is very difficult to try to legally put down in words an appropriate definition that meets the legal test but at the same time is a

definition that can be readily understood and learned by all members that it governs.

I'd like to take a moment to remind the House of the role played by the College of Teachers in regulating the teaching profession here in Ontario. I'm sure

members in this House will remember that the college was first established by our government in 1996, based on work that had been done by many groups and organizations to put the recommendations

forward. This initiative putting the college in place recognizes the contribution of the profession to this province as well as the importance of teachers regulating their own profession, as many

other professions do. It also, I think it's important to note, recognizes the importance of the public, the public interest, because the governing council of the College of Teachers, while it has

elected members of the teaching profession, also has on it members of the public who can assist and guide in the important decisions that the governing council must make.

The college has a number of important responsibilities. They set and regulate teaching qualifications, standards of conduct, registration of members, and

investigation and discipline of members charged with professional misconduct. Based on the recommendations we have received from the college, which did considerable work around Robins's

recommendations, Bill 101, this legislation, proposes a number of important improvements to strengthen the ability of the college to respond to cases of sexual abuse by certified teachers.

The legislation that we are proposing puts forward a number of essential changes to the reporting relationship between employers and the college. This is a

very important step because, as Robins has indicated, one of the gaps that occurred in the case that he was dealing with was having employers and the college know information they both needed to

know about a teacher who may well have been engaging in inappropriate behaviour so they could take the appropriate action. This legislation, should it pass, will require that all employers of

certified teachers would be reporting to the college within 30 days where a teacher's employment may well have been terminated or his or her duties restricted for reasons of professional

misconduct. So if an employer, whether it's a school board or another organization, has felt it had to take action to remove a teacher, restrict a teacher in their access to students, if there's

that question of risk, the college, the regulatory body, needs to have that information.

Second, the legislation would require employers to report to the college if the employer had intended to terminate the teacher's employment or restrict their

duties due to professional misconduct but did not do so because the teacher resigned. Again, this provision is very helpful in preventing teachers who may have engaged in inappropriate behaviour

from moving undetected from one school or one board to another. What has happened before is that in some of these circumstances a teacher might well, knowing what was about to happen to them from

the employer or as part of some arrangement that has happened in the past between employers and employees -- arrangements are made that, "If you resign we won't take action." It's an important

loophole and Robins has recognized that. We could see the impact of not having this kind of clear reporting obligation in place in what happened up in Sault Ste Marie. So this is, I believe, a very

important closing of a loophole with the proposals in this legislation.

Third, the registrar of the college would also be required to report back to employers on action that the college has taken. I think this is an important step

too, because if the college has taken action to discipline, has determined inappropriate behaviour, that things have happened that shouldn't have happened and students may well be at risk, the

college has an obligation to ensure that employers are also aware of the disposition of the case involving their employees. Equally important, if there has been an investigation and there is no

evidence that inappropriate behaviour has occurred, if a teacher has been exonerated, the employer needs to know this. That's another important gap, another important balance that this legislation

seeks to address.

Fourth, employers would be required to notify the college when they become aware of a number of very important circumstances; for example, if a charge has been

withdrawn, if a teacher has been discharged following a preliminary inquiry, if a charge has been stayed, if a teacher has been acquitted. Again, the college and the employer need to have the

information if actions that shouldn't have happened have happened, but, equally, if investigations have said there was not an offence, nothing did happen, they need to know that as well.

The fifth new reporting initiative proposed in this legislation would require the college to provide employers with its decisions regarding teacher employees

relating to professional misconduct and professional status.

Sixth, to enforce compliance, Bill 101 would make it a provincial offence punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 for an employer who may well contravene the

reporting requirements included in this bill.

To summarize, the reporting requirements we are proposing would, we believe, help prevent and help catch the following activities: acts that result in a charge

or conviction involving a teacher's sexual conduct; any other charge or conviction of an offence that in the opinion of the employer may put students at risk or harm of injury; and any conduct or

action that in the opinion of the employer should be reviewed by one of the college's committees -- discipline, fitness to practise or the like.

These reciprocal reporting relationships are designed to make sure that all parties who have a legitimate legal interest or responsibility for the protection

of students are aware of any activities that might put students at risk.

The final area that is addressed by Bill 101 focuses on the obligations and responsibilities for teachers if they are aware of suspected abuse, misconduct,

that students may well be at risk. The bill focuses on their responsibility first of all to be vigilant, but to take personal action if indeed they are aware of these circumstances.

Under current legislation, certified teachers, members of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, are required under a regulation that is under the Teaching

Profession Act to notify their colleagues if they file an adverse report against them. In cases of sexual abuse, this is an extremely significant barrier to teachers reporting suspected abuse and

it was something that had been identified as a problem, something that we needed to clarify in the legislation.

The other confusion is that the comprehensive reporting requirement under the Child and Family Services Act clearly talks about all professionals, including

teachers, having a very high obligation to report incidents or alleged incidents of sexual abuse, so they are required to report to children's aid societies when they become aware of any child who

is or may be in need of protection, and in that one there are actually restrictions. They cannot notify their colleagues, no requirement for notifycation of colleagues, and very strict privacy

concerns, as there should be.

This, of course, quite understandably, has provoked confusion among teachers as to how they should meet these dual obligations. We have certainly recognized

that these differences might lead to some confusion with respect to notification of colleagues and that for some teachers the obligation that they should tell the other teacher about the report

itself may be a deterrent to reporting potential sexual abuse.

To ensure the protection of students, to make sure that the college has the knowledge that it needs so they can conduct the investigation, so they can

determine what action needs to be done, that the employer has the information they need to take steps to protect our students, to ensure that there are not barriers to this reporting, this

legislation proposes to amend the Teaching Profession Act so that it would preclude notification of adverse reports. If a teacher does feel compelled to make a report to the college about sexual

abuse, they do not have to tell the other teacher about the report. That is based on the recommendations we received and is an important step to take here.

I think it is also important to note, because it is fair to repeat here that the College of Teachers -- there are many legal protections, balances, checks in

the system, privacy protections around information to ensure that information they receive is treated appropriately, is investigated thoroughly and that the rights of any teacher who is so accused

has had reports made on them are protected as well. But at the end of the day the bottom-line priority here is to make sure that when there are reports about suspected abuse, reports that indicate

there may be a problem, that information goes to where it should so that action can be taken. That has to be, at the end of the day, the most important priority. That's a very important principle

that this legislation is focused on.

We would propose to amend the Teaching Profession Act to preclude that kind of reporting on sexual abuse and we're also going to be working with our education

partners to extend that provision to say that not only if a teacher is reporting on sexual abuse, but if a teacher is aware of and is reporting on incidents where students may be at risk, where

conduct of another teacher may well be putting students at risk, they not have to make that adverse report or that report to their colleague about the report they've filed, again making sure that

the priority is protection of students, and that where such cases are occurring or are suspected to be occurring, that information gets passed to the College of Teachers. We will be working with

our education partners to extend that provision under the Teaching Profession Act to all situations where students may be at risk of potential harm.

In closing, this legislation we have drafted is aimed at ensuring that our students are safe, that we are taking the right steps, the appropriate steps, to

protect our students in the classroom. This bill proposes to take strong action to improve our laws, to enable school boards or other employers of certified teachers, the college with its

regulatory obligations, to ensure they can better protect our children from sexual abuse and sexual harassment and to ensure the rules are very clear so that members of the profession also

understand what is and is not acceptable.

This legislation represents the advice we have heard from Justice Robins and from our education partners, including parents and students -- I should point that

out as well because their advice has been very helpful in this. So it represents that advice. It represents the experience the government has learned from the Regulated Health Professions Act,

which has strict laws around preventing sexual abuse of patients or clients of health professionals. I hope all members of this Legislature would agree that this legislation is good legislation,

that it's necessary legislation and that it will indeed help ensure that our children are better protected, that there are not incidents such as we've seen in the past.

Protecting our children is essential. As individuals, as legislators, as teachers, as parents, we all have a responsibility to do what we can to prevent sexual

abuse and to keep our children safe.

I look forward to hearing the comments of my colleagues opposite and I certainly hope they will see fit to support this legislation at the end of the day.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It's a real pleasure for me to be able to stand here this afternoon and speak on Bill 101, the second

reading of the Student Protection Act, 2001. I'd like to congratulate Minister Ecker and all of the staff in her office and in the Ministry of Education for their work in drafting this bill.

I'd also like to congratulate Minister Ecker on her hard work as minister. I've been involved in politics for about 20 years, municipal and provincial, and

I've seen very few people so committed to their work as Janet Ecker.

The purpose of this legislation could not be clearer. It is to ensure we are doing what we can to prevent children from becoming victims of sexual abuse. Bill

101 does something else that's important: it builds on our government's growing record of assistance for children who need support and protection. It's the goal of our government to help every

child in Ontario get a good start in life, to help every child reach his or her full potential.

Before I speak directly to the specifics of the bill, I'd like to take a moment to outline just a few of the key accomplishments our government has made in

providing more comprehensive support for vulnerable children and families.

In 1999 this government brought major revisions to the Child and Family Services Act. We improved the tools needed by front-line workers to do their job of

protecting vulnerable children. We expanded the identification of vulnerable children to reach a way to help a child who is or may be in need of protection. We strengthened the requirements for

professionals to report to the children's aid society if a child is or may be in need of protection, and we provided the societies with greater access to the information they need to protect our

children as well.

Over 135,000 children receive a nutritious meal on school days through our government's $4.5-million partnership with the Ontario Breakfast for Learning

program. All 139,000 babies born annually in Ontario can be screened through our $70.5-million Healthy Babies, Healthy Children early intervention and protection program. Since 1995, our government

has increased funding for child welfare by 115% to over $775 million, allowing children's aid societies to hire more than 1,000 new child protection workers.

Overall, our government spends more than $775 million a year on child protection. Earlier this year, through Ontario's Early Years plan, the Ministry of

Community and Social Services, through Minister Baird -- and I'm pleased to see he's here in the room today -- announced new funding of $114 million for targeted and universal programs to help

vulnerable children and to support the creation of Early Years centres across our province.

This is an enviable record, a record that confirms our government's commitment to ensuring that our children and young people get off to the best possible

start in their lives.

Since we are talking about protection for vulnerable children, I think it is only fair that we look at what other governments are doing in this area. While the

legislation we are addressing today is focused particularly on our schools, it is important to remember that other initiatives in other jurisdictions can play an important role in protecting

children from sexual abuse.

For some time, our government has been taking the lead in lobbying the federal government to establish a national sex offender registry. The point we have been

attempting to make to the federal government is simple and straightforward. As Ontario's Solicitor General said last month, "A national sex offender registry is absolutely critical to community

safety. Sex offenders cross provincial boundaries -- information on sex offenders must do the same. If the federal government is serious about protecting the public, it will put a real national

registry in place, one that stretches from coast to coast and includes offenders in