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

October 25, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Oct-25 vol. A (PDF)

L095A - Wed 25 Oct 2000 / Mer 25 oct 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

CHILD CARE

FEDERAL ELECTION

OPPOSITION PARTY

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

ORIN REID

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

SENTENCING

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

COMMUNITY SAFETY

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

TENANT PROTECTION

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

EDUCATION REFORM

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

FRAIS DE TRANSPORT AUX FINS MÉDICALES

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

WATER QUALITY

FEDERAL HEALTH SPENDING

EDUCATION FUNDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

TOUGHEST ENVIRONMENTAL PENALTIES ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SANCTIONNANT PAR LES PEINES LES PLUS SÉVÈRES DES INFRACTIONS DE NATURE ENVIRONNEMENTALE

SOCIAL HOUSING REFORM ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RÉFORME DU LOGEMENT SOCIAL

RACING COMMISSION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA COMMISSION DES COURSES DE CHEVAUX

RACING COMMISSION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA COMMISSION DES COURSES DE CHEVAUX

VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA CHARTE DES DROITS DES VICTIMES D'ACTES CRIMINELS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Recently I had the privilege to visit North Addington Education Centre, nestled in the heart of Addington highlands in the picturesque community of Cloyne, home of Bon Echo Provincial Park. It is a unique school community that houses students from kindergarten to OAC under one roof. The school community has an enrolment of 464 students and, together with a very capable staff, they create a most familial atmosphere.

The school complex also serves as a centre for community activities, where young and old enjoy recreational sports, interest classes, clubs and community special events.

This school is very capably managed by principal Brenda Martin, who is an excellent curriculum leader and community builder. What is also unique about this school community is that it is twinned with another elementary school 45 kilometres north at Denbigh and they share the same principal. I was able to accompany Ms Martin to visit the 46 students who attend Denbigh and speak with members of the school council.

It is important to understand that the new funding formula has required the sharing of a principal, an integral role in every school community. The people of Ontario need to know that by restricting how school boards spend school administrative dollars, it means that smaller rural and remote schools have to share these key people. These schools deserve their own principals who are able to be on site and available for all their students and staff.

CHILD CARE

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I would like to comment on a recently released report entitled "You Bet I Care." This report puts forward the perspective that many daycare operations in Canada and throughout the province of Ontario are mediocre. It provides as the basis for its conclusions a number of what are questionable statistics.

The conclusions of the report were predetermined by the political biases of at least one of the primary researchers, prior to any research having been undertaken. Members of this House might be interested to learn that the contact person whose name appears on the report's press release is a Ms McCuaig. Ms McCuaig has been a candidate for the Communist Party of Canada in federal elections in the 1970s and 1980s. When the Communist Party reorganized in the early 1990s, media reports identified Ms McCuaig as a central executive committee member of that party.

She also signed an open letter in support of self-determination for Quebec earlier this year, using her current designation as a director of the Child Care Education Foundation. This lady appears to be committed to the breakup of Canada and to the Communist Party. She is hardly what could be considered an unbiased researcher. Add to this level of political bias the fact that the report was never open to scrutiny by research journalists trained in statistical analysis review, and the validity of the report becomes dubious at best.

The response to the report from the daycare operators in my riding has been one of disappointment and anger. Lori Darling-Paquette, a teacher at Owl Child Care Services, a Kitchener centre that takes in about 170 children, states, "It's degrading to the people actually putting in the effort ... of providing quality daycare services." Lynda Grammeros also complained. I think their efforts should be commended.

FEDERAL ELECTION

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I want to acknowledge members from my riding who are visiting the Legislature today, and to use the remaining time I have to talk about the federal election campaign.

Settling into the flow as it is in these early days, I thought it was interesting that last night Brian Mulroney came to Toronto to prop up the fledgling campaign of Joe Clark. Talk about desperation. We've got a man Canadians continue to loathe who is the only one who can come to the rescue of the Clark campaign. But at the end of the day, I'm sympathetic to Joe. He's working hard and trying his best.

I also want to talk about Stockwell Day. Just a few days into the campaign, Stockwell Day's promises are extraordinary. Yesterday in St Catharines, Stockwell Day made a commitment that when he is elected he will reverse the flow of the Niagara River. Lyn Mcleod's riding and that of my other colleague from Thunder Bay will no longer be the Lakehead. Apparently he's got a plan to reverse these flows. It reminds one of the Rhinoceros Party commitment in the 1980s to tear down the Rockies to create jobs.

If that isn't enough, speaking about the brain drain, Stockwell Day went to a high-tech company in Ottawa to talk about this issue and highlight it, only to find that the high-tech operator had recently returned to Canada, a place he finds to be an excellent place for investment. Early in this election campaign, we learn that the net brain gain is in the province of Alberta, gaining as they are from Stockwell Day's absence from that province.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I request unanimous consent to wear this cord in respect to the fetal alcohol syndrome conference that's going on in Durham today.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Agreed? Agreed. Members' statements?

OPPOSITION PARTY

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): This year's Sydney Olympics ended a few weeks ago, but the equally exciting legislative Olympics here in Ontario are just reaching their midpoint. Of course there are the traditional events this government excels at, such as tax cutting-166 times; job creation-over 768,000 new ones; and funding health care-up $4 billion, with more to come.

But recently some new events were added to recognize the special talents of our Liberal friends across the way. The duathlon, which combines the rhythmic clapping of the Liberal caucus with the artistic bobbing and weaving of its leader before question period, is a gold medal performance. The Liberals have set world records in the various backtracking from various past-policy stances events, such as on welfare reform and local amalgamation. And in an event that is rapidly becoming my favourite spectator sport, the Liberals have won a gold medal in the flip-flop floor routine for an unprecedented fifth year in a row.

Liberals have recently spent a great deal of time and energy encouraging Ontarians to donate their $200 tax rebate to charity, but what, according to the Liberals, should our worthy charity be? Well, according to the Liberal Party's most recent e-news, the charity Ontarians should donate their rebate to is none other than the Ontario Liberal Party. Well done.

This hypocritical flip-flop is so big that I understand there's a move afoot to pad the clerks' table and the opposition's desks to prevent Liberal members from injuring themselves. The Liberals may not be up to the job when it comes to the traditional events Ontarians care about, but they are champions in their own right when it comes to hypocrisy and self-interest.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I am once again bringing to the attention of the Legislature that we have a crisis in Sarnia-Lambton regarding developmentally disabled children and their families.

The Harris government changed the rules so that now there is no extra money to deal with crisis situations at the agencies, such as the Lambton County Association for the Mentally Handicapped, the Sarnia and District Association for Community Living, St Francis Advocates, and Christian Horizons. Program money has been eliminated and the funding is now individualized. The agencies in Sarnia-Lambton requested $2.7 million, and yet Minister Baird provided only $106,000.

Over 200 families came together last Thursday to address the fact that the provincial community and social services, because of the policies of the Harris government, is failing to assist them. These families with developmentally disabled children require the services provided by the underfunded and resource-strapped agencies. As these families age, the parents are dying, and there is now no place for their children.

Minister Baird is letting down these people who are the most vulnerable in our society. The plight of these families is heartbreaking. Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus understand the real desperation facing these hard-working families who have given a lifetime of dedication to raising developmentally disabled children.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Today we are privileged to have in the Legislature with us a group of OAC students from Walkerton. I see that Chris Peabody, their teacher, is with them. There may be another teacher, I'm not sure. If so, I'm sorry, I don't know his or her name, but I'd be happy to get that into Hansard later.

The students met with my leader, Howard Hampton, and my other colleagues in the NDP today to tell us a bit about what life has been like in Walkerton over the last five months.

I am sure they are interested in hearing first-hand why this government let them down, their classmates and the citizens of Walkerton; why, after so many months, these students do not have a safe source of drinking water; why this government has refused to have public hearings on Bill 96, the Safe Drinking Water Act; why the Minister of the Environment calls research on providing safe drinking water "more red tape"; why, instead of answers and actions to Ontario's environmental crisis, all we get from this government is more talk.

I'd like to welcome these students to the Legislature, on behalf of all of us. Life has been tough on them and their families since the E coli breakout. But their presence here today reminds us of something else that's very important: there is much more to Walkerton than the tainted water. These students here today remind us of that, that Walkerton is a thriving community, where people are living their lives very much like the rest of us. I congratulate the students today for coming down to see how the democratic process works in Ontario.

ORIN REID

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): Today I rise in the House to pay tribute to a great constituent of Guelph-Wellington. Orin Reid was a pillar of our community, both as a homebuilder and in his private life as a philanthropist and a local leader. He suddenly passed away in August of this year.

Orin followed in his father's footsteps and established his business in 1978 and for more than 20 years has left a lasting mark on our city, on Wellington county and on Waterloo region. The Ontario Home Builders' Association named one of his projects, the Village by the Arboretum, the Community of the Year last year.

Orin always played a prominent role in the communities where he built. He was the chair of the Partners for Better Health fundraising campaign for both Guelph hospitals. He was an active member of Friends of Guelph, an organization dedicated to redeveloping parts of our city and bringing businesses to Guelph. Orin and his wife, Jane, often worked as missionaries in places like Haiti, and it was not uncommon for them to go to visit and take planeloads of supplies with them.

An obituary in the Toronto Star called him a "friend to the trees," and I couldn't agree more. Orin planted trees in many of his projects, and in fact more than 5,000 trees annually were planted by his company.

Since Orin has passed away, countless people have told me of his acts of kindness, stories Orin never wanted to be known but that people have appreciated and have quietly told each other around the community.

I know all members of the House will join me in extending their sympathies from the people of Ontario to Orin's wife and to their four children.

Often we commend people in this House. Orin was truly a great man and will be missed in my community.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): The Liberal caucus is sick and tired of the Harris government treating northern Ontario like a third-class colony up north. Their cancer treatment program is absolutely discriminatory toward northerners.

Here I'd like to present another example to the House today. Mr Elliot, a cancer patient in Iroquois Falls, was referred to his oncologist in Sudbury. Upon examining Mr Elliot, the oncologist said that he had to re-refer Mr Elliot to southern Ontario because he could not handle this type of complicated cancer case.

What Mr Elliot got was only $121 difference to go down to southern Ontario. But if Mr Elliot had lived in Hamilton, where he was referred to, and was re-referred up to Sudbury, he would get up to $4,000 of food, accommodation and airfare for himself and a companion.

You tell me that's not discrimination. That's discrimination. We have two classes of citizens in this province, depending upon where you live. We're sick and tired of that, and we're not going to take it any more. This government has to change that policy.

Why do you have one policy for southern Ontarians re-referred to the north and another one for northerners re-referred to the south? That is wrong. You're discriminating based on geography. All Ontario citizens, regardless of where they live, deserve to be treated the same by their province. This government doesn't do that. You treat northerners like second-class citizens. We're not going to take it any more. We're going to demand our rights, and we're going to fight until we get equal treatment.

SENTENCING

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): Last Thursday, the Leader of the Opposition, Dalton McGuinty, a lawyer by trade, rose in this House to state his belief that drinking and driving is a very serious crime.

He further shared his belief that second-time offenders should be doing time. Mr McGuinty says, "Do the crime, do the time." I couldn't agree more. Mr McGuinty says that judges are sending people to jail to serve intermittent sentences to be served on weekends.

Will the Leader of the Opposition demand that his federal Liberal buddies, now in the midst of a premature election campaign, get tough on crime? Will he demand, as our Attorney General and our Minister of Correctional Services have, that the federal government slam the door on intermittent sentencing?

Is the Leader of the Opposition prepared to force the Liberal government to amend the Young Offenders Act in a meaningful way so that perpetrators of violent crime do the time that they so clearly deserve? Is he prepared to support and assist Toronto police chief Julian Fantino in his search for truth in sentencing?

Quite frankly, I think the Leader of the Opposition is soft on crime, all talk and no action. Quite frankly, I believe Dalton McGuinty is just not up to the job.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

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

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

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following changes be made to the ballot list for private members' public business: Mr Gerretsen and Mr Crozier exchange places in order of precedence, Mr Johnson and Mrs Munro exchange places in order of precedence and that, pursuant to standing order 96(g), notice be waived for ballot item number 46, standing in the name of David Ramsay.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Premier. Premier, day after day for months now we've been reading petitions from residents of northern Ontario asking you to end the discrimination against northerners who have to travel to get medically necessary care.

Tens of thousands of northern residents have tried to express their frustration, their anger, their anguish that your government pays 100% of the costs of travel for cancer patients from southern Ontario while most cancer patients from northern Ontario receive a maximum of $419 from the northern health travel grant.

Today we have 50,000-plus more names on petitions, and these are not just from northerners; these are from people all across Ontario who see how unfair and discriminatory your policy is. Some 92% of people polled across this province believe this kind of discrimination against northern Ontario residents is simply wrong, yet week after week, month after month, you and your Minister of Health have been attempting to justify this unfair treatment. Premier, will you finally stop this discrimination and end health care apartheid in this province?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I really appreciate the question and I appreciate the opportunity to respond because had I been asked the same question, with the same misinformation, in a survey, I would have responded the same as did the 50,000 or 60,000 people who were surveyed.

Your colleague the member from Timiskaming-Cochrane raised a case today where, if the facts as he states them are true, the person from southern Ontario would not be eligible for a penny, let alone 30 cents a mile. If the facts of the case are that it has to do with radiation for the prostate, or breast cancer, then the person from northern Ontario would be eligible for the full $4,000.

I would be happy to make sure that the totally non-discriminatory services that are available for cancer care patients in the various regions of the province apply to every citizen. If your members would spend more time doing that instead of spreading information that is simply not true, I think we'd all be better-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I'll ask the Premier to withdraw that. You have to withdraw that.

Hon Mr Harris: Sorry. Instead of saying whatever you're telling them that's not the facts.

The Speaker: That's not good enough, Premier. You need to withdraw it. You need to say, "I withdraw it."

Hon Mr Harris: I withdraw.

Mrs McLeod: I assure the Premier that I will be sending a copy of his response to Julie Groombridge, Sheila Chalat, Judy Carrol, Eric Seigwart, Heather Curtola, Butch and Judy Carrol, and Dana Zahn in Thunder Bay. And I'll send it to Pat-Stewart Encil, Trevor Warren, Beryle Reynolds, Paul Difant, Janice Skinner, Sue and Dan Piche, Charles Windover, Tim Rice, Andre Fournier, Lisette Landry, Doug McMorran, Bruce Faddis and Monty Duff.

Premier, I want you to know that those people whose names I've just read all have three things in common: they live in northern Ontario; they have been faced with cancer, either their own cancer or cancer in their children; and they've had to pay out of their own pockets to get the care that they and their loved ones so desperately need.

This is not only discriminatory and unfair; this is illegal. You have set a standard for covering all of the costs of travel for cancer patients from southern Ontario. The Canada Health Act and the Constitution of this country say that this standard must be extended to all equally. I ask you again, will you end this discrimination against northern Ontario residents who have cancer?

Hon Mr Harris: If you would like to send me the information, I'd be pleased to take a look at it. If they were referred out of the northwestern Ontario district-we're very proud of the fact that, contrary to many areas of specialty, we now have excess capacity for radiation in Thunder Bay for the northwest and in Sudbury for the northeast. Unlike your government and the NDP, which seemed to say, "How many dollars can we spend to ship people to the centres of excellence in southern Ontario?" we took the approach that service close to home was most appropriate.

So we've expanded services in Thunder Bay, we've expanded services in Sudbury and we now have the capacity to deal with northern Ontario patients right in northern Ontario, which is our first priority.

If there are patients that you reference who are being referred to southern Ontario, out of their district where we're trying to provide services, Cancer Care Ontario will pay the full cost.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, I hope you've just made a policy announcement, because what you have just said is not the case today. If what you have just said is about to be the case, we will welcome that 100% and so will every one of those people whose names I've just read into this record, because every one of them is a cancer patient who has had to travel to get cancer care and has had to pay for that care out of their own pocket.

You have two very different programs, Premier. Let me be clear. You've got a re-referral program that pays all the costs for cancer patients from southern Ontario who have to travel outside their home area to get care-you're planning, incidentally, to double the spending on that program this year-and you have the northern health travel grant program. You know that well; it pays only $419 per trip no matter what your costs are. The only northern cancer patients who qualify for your gold-seal standard are those who need brachial therapy.

The rest are paying out of their own pockets for care, and the communities raise funds to help those families whose children have cancer so they're not doubly devastated.

Premier, on behalf of all those individuals whose names I've read, all those ones you're going to hear about today, all the ones who didn't want to be mentioned, I ask you, have you just told them that you are going to cover all of their costs for cancer when they travel for cancer care?

Hon Mr Harris: The request has been to ensure that the same policy for southern Ontario cancer patients applies to northern Ontario cancer patients. If you live in southern Ontario and you require radiation for either breast cancer or prostate cancer-for those two forms, for which, quite frankly, we are not doing as good a job in southern Ontario of providing services as we are in the north-Cancer Care Ontario is reimbursing, on a temporary basis, every person in southern Ontario who is re-referred out until we can get services here in southern Ontario like we have in the north.

Anybody in northern Ontario under the same conditions, that is, who is being re-referred out for radiation treatment for either prostate cancer or breast cancer-and those are the only people in southern Ontario who are eligible-will also be eligible for costs under Cancer Care Ontario.

Now, northerners do have another program available only to northerners. Pity, southerners say, but it does discriminate. Only in the north are you given a travel grant, regardless of whether it's cancer or what form of cancer or whether it's heart, if you have to travel 200 kilometres or more.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is also to the Premier.

Janice Skinner from Sudbury, who has a rare form of cancer and has to be treated in Toronto, has made 19 trips, spending $40,000, much of it borrowed. Paul Difant from Sudbury has to travel to Toronto for his treatment of leukemia. He's made 24 trips in the last year and a half, and it's cost him $10,000. Sue and Dan Piche from Kapuskasing spent at least $35,000 for travel, meals and accommodation trying to save their son Ryan, who was suffering from leukemia. Unfortunately and sadly, Ryan died, but the Piches are still paying the thousands of dollars they borrowed.

In stark contrast, southern Ontario cancer patients who have to come north receive full compensation for travel, full reimbursement for meals and full reimbursement for accommodation costs.

Premier, you have repeatedly gone on record as saying northerners like Janice Skinner, Paul Difant, Sue and Dan Piche and many others are receiving preferential treatment. Will you stand in your place today and tell those people how they're receiving preferential treatment?

Hon Mr Harris: If somebody in southern Ontario is referred for the same form of cancer to Sudbury or Thunder Bay, they get nothing. In northern Ontario, they get the same program you had, the same program the NDP had and the same program we have, which is the northern health travel grant, because they live in northern Ontario, a program not available to that patient with the same form of cancer who lived in southern Ontario. So there is some discrimination. They get some money,

whereas in southern Ontario they get nothing.

Now, is it enough? Well, I would say to you in this case it clearly is not, and we have other forms of trying to help.

It is the same as you provided, it is the same as the NDP provided, and if you're now arguing that it's time to update the program and that this discriminatory program only available to northerners should be updated and reflect some increased costs, that is exactly what we are doing.

I appreciate that question and I appreciate the opportunity to explain that the only discrimination here is in favour of the north.

Mr Bartolucci: Premier, between 50,000 and 60,000 people all across Ontario don't agree with you. They believe that it's discriminatory policy. Legal experts are now telling you that you're in violation of three acts.

Premier, listen. Let's try to explain this very simply. Janice Skinner, Sue and Dan Piche and Paul Difant get 30.4 cents a kilometre, one way, for the treatment they have to get in Toronto, and there are many, many more. You know that.

People from southern Ontario get full travel costs, full accommodation and full meal costs if they have to go north for their cancer treatment.

Interjection.

Mr Bartolucci: Excuse me? That's the truth.

Premier, will you please tell the people of Ontario how there is any logic in your policy, which clearly discriminates against northern cancer patients who have to travel. Where is the logic in your program?

Hon Mr Harris: The forms of travel for the cancers that you're talking about, in southern Ontario you get nothing and in northern Ontario you get 34 cents. Now, 34 cents may not be enough, and that's fair argument to take a look at. Now that we've balanced the books, now that we have the economy booming, are we able to do more and expand the program? I hope we can. We are taking a look at that and, I might add, as part of that review, we are looking at whether people in southern Ontario who travel similar distances ought to be entitled to a travel grant as well. I'm sure you would want to support that.

The facts of the matter are that when it comes to radiation treatment for breast cancer and for prostate cancer, we clearly are not doing a very good job of providing those services in southern Ontario. But we've done a marvellous job in northwestern Ontario and in northeastern Ontario, and we should be applauding that and trying to take that example now to southern Ontario.

Mr Bartolucci: You mentioned earlier that you'd love the opportunity to be able to explain that. Tomorrow night, you're going to be in Sudbury for your annual fundraising dinner. Gerry Lougheed Jr and I will be meeting with Janice Skinner, Paul Defant and several other cancer patients from northern communities at the same hotel as your fundraiser. In fact, it's in Georgian Room B, which is adjacent to your fundraiser.

On behalf of Ontarians seeking equal cancer care, I am inviting you to attend a portion of our meeting, which begins at 5 o'clock, to explain first-hand to those cancer patients how they are receiving preferential treatment. With due respect to your office, do you have enough compassion, enough conviction and enough confidence in your government's cancer policies to attend the meeting? Will you be our guest at this meeting to explain your position to cancer patients?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate very much the member's invitation to set the record straight and give the straight facts to those cancer patients in northern Ontario. My office, in fact, before your offer, has already offered to meet with some of the cancer care patients. I'm not interested in meeting with you-I'm happy to meet with you here-and Gerry Lougheed. I guess this is the Gerry Lougheed who today said this terrible situation started in March, 1999, before the provincial election.

I guess this is the same Gerry Lougheed who wrote me on July 8, 1999, three months later, after the election: "Dear Premier Harris: I thought you'd be interested in Cancer Care Ontario's two-hour documentary Cancer: The Journey Home, televised on Sunday, June 27," etc. "I hope you enjoyed it. I hope you were inspired about our cancer issues. Have a great summer. P.S. Your government's doing an excellent job in regional cancer care delivery."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Member for Hamilton East, come to order. New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Premier, with the presentation of a legal opinion today, the question becomes this: do you intend to force cancer care patients from northern Ontario to go to court to seek justice, or will you finally do the right thing? Will you recognize the injustice, and will you put an end to the cancer care apartheid that your government is responsible for?

The reality is this: every day cancer patients from across northern Ontario have to travel 500, 600, perhaps 1,000 kilometres to access cancer treatment. Meanwhile, patients from southern Ontario who need to access cancer treatment are being subsidized, compensated fully by your government. The same patients in northern Ontario don't receive that compensation. Are you going to equalize the situation, Premier? Are you going to do the right thing or are you going to force people to go to court to get the justice they deserve?

Hon Mr Harris: There may be a lawyer's opinion you can get that says there is discrimination. Most likely it will be that southern Ontario people travelling the same distance get nothing and northern Ontario people get 34 cents a kilometre.

With regard to that program, we've indicated this is the program we inherited from you. You inherited it from the Liberals. It was discriminatory when it was brought in, because we didn't have the same services in northern Ontario. This was a way of compensating. We are reviewing that program. We are looking at the relevance of it. We are looking at: should it be extended to people at an equal distance from services in southern Ontario to change that discrimination and make it equal across the province? We are looking at the amount of compensation that could be paid. We think we are actually in a much stronger position to pay more than you were.

With regard to cancer care treatment, the two specific types of radiation treatment, for prostate and for breast cancer, about which Cancer Care Ontario has admitted, "We have some problems. We cannot provide the services in southern Ontario in a timely fashion, unlike in northern Ontario which is well-served"-

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

Mr Hampton: You can try to fudge the issue all you want. You can try to muddy the waters all you want. The fact of the matter is you've got a patient like Donna Graham in Pickle Lake who has to travel six hours one way by car, often over an icy highway, to access cancer treatment. After she receives that cancer treatment, she then has to return back. She can't afford to fly. She can't afford to take any other means of travel. She has to drive because your government will not compensate her for the cost she has to incur to reach the cancer treatment.

Meanwhile, patients from southern Ontario who have to travel to access cancer treatment are being compensated fully by your government. That's the issue. Don't try to fudge it by comparing or contrasting it to something else. All Donna Graham wants, all she's asking for, is that you compensate her fully for her travel costs so that she won't have to take $4,000 out of her own pocket just to pay to access the cancer treatment.

This is not a great deal of money we're talking about. You could find justice here without disrupting any of your tax giveaways, any of your advertising campaigns. Why won't you compensate these patients who have to undergo incredible hardship just to access cancer treatment? That's all they're asking for.

Hon Mr Harris: In the case of Donna Graham, we are giving her exactly what you gave her to travel to the same hospital for this treatment. We are looking at whether we can do more than your government did. We think we are in a much stronger economic position, thanks to the change from your disastrous policies that bankrupted the province, to actually do so. That's why that program is under review. Our goal for southern Ontario is to get the equipment and the technicians so that nobody from southern Ontario has to travel out of their district and they won't get anything.

Mr Hampton: Premier, this is not about a recession. This is not about the fact that we're living in a North American economic boom now. This is about cancer patients. This is about people like Gladys Whelan, a pensioner who has to travel almost 400 kilometres by car to get to Thunder Bay and then back and who has to use part of her pension cheque. She has missed appointments with her cancer physician because she couldn't afford the travel costs. When she gets to Thunder Bay she encounters patients from southern Ontario who boast, "The government pays my full way here. They pay full air fare. They pay for my hotel. They pay for my taxis."

Fighting cancer is tough enough. It's even tougher when you know you're going to miss some of your appointments because you don't have the money to pay the travel costs. Then you get there and you find that the government of Ontario is paying the full shot, everything, for the person who is in the room beside you. Doesn't that bother you, Premier? Do something about it. Don't force these people to go through three- and four-year court battles to get the justice they deserve.

Hon Mr Harris: They pay not a cent more or a cent less than when you were in government for treatment in northern Ontario. Quite frankly, we are reviewing the health travel grant that is there to see if we can pay more than you could. We've clearly acknowledged that we are reviewing this. This is a substantial budget item and it is something that we are looking at.

No program will ever cover 100% of the costs of being sick. We understand that. That's why the Cancer Society assists; that's why volunteers assist; that's why the communities assist in some of the exceptional circumstances. But our goal is to try to ensure that the people of southern Ontario get the same access to radiation in a timely fashion so that they do not have to travel to the centres that are there for those in northern Ontario. We are able to accomplish that goal-

The Speaker: Order. I'm afraid the Premier's time is up. New question.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question to the Premier regarding his ongoing discrimination of northern cancer patients. Premier, you were asked this morning if you would meet with cancer patients in Sudbury tomorrow night, and you said, "I don't know if they have requested a meeting. I'd be happy to explain it to them if the opportunity arises." The "it" refers to your latest spin that it's southern and not northern cancer patients who are facing discrimination.

The northern cancer patients who want to meet with you tomorrow night live that discrimination every day. They know that the Toronto or London or Hamilton cancer patient in the treatment bed right next to them in Sudbury or Thunder Bay has just had 100% of their travel, accommodation and food costs fully paid for by your government, while they themselves can only claim a mere portion of the mileage if they live 100 kilometres, one way, away from the treatment centre. They know that they are paying hundreds and thousands of dollars out of their own pockets when they have to come to Toronto or Ottawa.

The question for you, Premier, is this: instead of lecturing cancer patients tomorrow night, why don't you end the discrimination and come and tell them you'll pay 100% of their travel costs too?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate the question. I don't know whether it's now your meeting or whether it's the Liberals' meeting. I can tell you that before either one of you invited me, I have offered-

Interjections.

Hon Mr Harris: You're right. As the Liberals yell and scream, you're right. It is the cancer patients' meeting, and I have offered to meet with them; not with you, not with the politicians, not with Gerry Lougheed, but with the cancer care patients, so I hope we can set up that meeting.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): Will you be there tomorrow night?

Hon Mr Harris: Well, since you're not involved, it doesn't matter to you when it is. We are making those arrangements.

But let me say this. This is the same member who in June 1990 said this: "The travel grant in this province," speaking about the Liberals, "is woefully and totally inadequate. This Minister of Health"-Liberal-"and this government have done absolutely nothing to change that in spite of the cases we raised in this House. None of the total cost for accommodation, for airfare, for wages lost when people have to take time to go with relatives in search of medical treatment is covered." That's what you said when they were in office. You did absolutely nothing for the five years you were in office. We have said, yes, we will take a look and see if we can pay more.

Ms Martel: The question was, Premier, will you end your discrimination against northern cancer patients and announce tomorrow night that you will fully fund northern cancer patients too? This situation has gone on for far too long. In early May, even your finance minister, who is sitting beside you, said that there was something very unfair about this situation. In the same week, your Minister of Health said that a review of this inequity would be done. Here we are over four months later. I have no doubt the review has been done and I have no doubt it hasn't been released because it clearly shows that your government is discriminating against northern cancer patients.

Your government announced several weeks ago that it was prepared to send more southern Ontario cancer patients for treatment in northern Ontario and the United States and fully pay their costs. If you've got money to send more southern Ontario patients away for treatment, then you have money to fully pay the costs for northern cancer patients too.

Premier, when will you end your discrimination? When will you pay 100% of the costs for northern patients too?

Hon Mr Harris: I intend when I meet with cancer patients in northern Ontario to explain to them the program so they have the actual facts. I intend to explain to them that in 1990 your leader, Howard Hampton, said this: "Over the past eight months southern Ontario patients who have been referred to Thunder Bay for specialist treatment have received full funding of their airfare, hotel accommodation and meals from the Ministry of Health."

I intend to point out that the Liberals did that, I intend to point out that your leader pointed that out, I intend to point out that the five years you were in office you did nothing to correct that, and I intend to point out that, yes, we have rapidly expanded cancer care treatment in northern Ontario, to the extent that the services there are now better than in southern Ontario. I intend to also point out that I hope we are able, finally, to get radiation treatment available in southern Ontario in a timely fashion as well.

But I certainly intend to point out to them that this problem was there under the Liberals and you did nothing for five years to correct-

The Speaker: The Premier's time is up. New question.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My question is to the Premier as well. I want to tell you a heartbreaking story, one that I hope will touch you and one that was clearly made worse by your discriminatory health travel policy.

A five-year-old Thunder Bay boy was diagnosed with acute lymphoplastic leukemia in 1999. Because our regional cancer centre has no pediatric oncologist, there was no other option but to immediately send him to Sick Children's Hospital in Toronto.

Over the next 14 months he and his family travelled between Thunder Bay and Toronto on numerous occasions, with extensive periods of time spent in Toronto. The emotional and physical strain on the family was obviously enormous, and was compounded by the overwhelming financial burdens placed on the family. Despite help from the Canadian Cancer Society, all the family's life savings were spent and their house had to be remortgaged. All in all they spent over $18,000 of their own money.

This past June, this brave little boy died.

Premier, my question to you is simply this: how can you justify denying this family full financial support as they fought to save their little boy's life?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me say that when we get circumstances like this-and with all the best intentions and all the government policies and travel grants and health care in the world, we still have examples like this-this is tragic, and surely this cries out for leadership within the community. If you're doing something to personally help, I'd be glad to assist you.

Mr Gravelle: I truly believe that no health care story better illustrates the cruelty of this government's travel grant policies than the one I have just told. It's simply unconscionable that northern patients are being treated as second-class citizens of this province, which is what happened in this case. Let's be honest: this differentiation between referral and re-referral is absolute balderdash in this particular case.

I sent the Minister of Health this letter last weekend from the mother of this little boy. She and her family deserve to be treated better by this government, as do the many other northern patients who have been discriminated against.

Premier, will you write this family back? Will you tell them that you will meet with them and talk to them about this, and will you also tell them you will stop this discrimination against northern patients?

Hon Mr Harris: No patient anywhere in the province is given anything other than 34 cents, unless they live in northern Ontario, for travel for that form of cancer. So there obviously is not any discrimination. Is 34 cents enough in this case? I think in the case of this family you would argue it is not. Is there to be a government program that covers 100% of all costs, including wage loss? I don't know. Your party didn't propose it. Are you advocating that now? The NDP had an opportunity to criticize you when you did exactly the same thing.

If southern Ontario patients were re-referred, you paid 100% of the costs to go to Thunder Bay. That was the gist of Howie Hampton's question to you in 1990.

But I tell you, there are individual cases that no government program is going to be able to address. If you would like to assist me, or for me to assist you, in how we can get together as a community, as humanitarians, to assist in this case-

Interjection.

Hon Mr Harris: If the member from Thunder Bay, your co-member, doesn't want to hear this, I'm sorry. If she doesn't treat the issue seriously, you and I will go ahead-

Interjections.

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

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question today is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. My question concerns your announcement last week of the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act.

In addition to other improvements, the legislation would provide for the creation of private universities in Ontario. While I agree with giving students more choice, post-secondary education is, as you know, important. It is essential that we maintain high standards, like those at Durham College and University Centre in my riding. People like president Gary Polonsky, board of governors chair Terry Hing, and student president Will Ellis are leaders in post-secondary education in Ontario. Just recently, in fact, Durham College raised $15.7 million in a capital fundraising campaign. It also is the only college in Canada to offer ISO standards.

The reputation for excellence that is enjoyed throughout the province in public institutions like Durham should be preserved and expanded. Minister, what steps does this legislation take to ensure that new private institutions will offer high-quality programs to Ontario's students?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): In response to my colleague from Durham, who is always a great spokesperson for his college as well as all of his constituents, I want to assure everyone in this Legislative Assembly that quality is the trademark for post-secondary education in this great province and in this country.

In order to establish and maintain and increase our reputation with regard to quality, we will establish a quality assessment board for post-secondary education. This body will assess all new applications to create private degree-granting programs in the province, as well as applied degree programs. They will look for the demonstration of both the quality of the program and the ability of the institution to provide degree-level education and to assure our students that they will be protected in the event of closure.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Minister, for that very detailed and, I might say, thoughtful response for me personally. I know of your commitment to post-secondary education. Some of our critics, however, are trying to frighten Ontarians by telling them that, under the North American free trade rules, allowing private universities will force us to surrender control of our provincial educational policy. Some critics have even argued that under NAFTA the province would be required to extend the same benefits and funding to private universities as we would to public universities.

Minister, this sounds like another example of empty Liberal or NDP posturing to me. Can you respond to these claims and assure Ontarians that NAFTA or other trade agreements do not threaten our quality post-secondary education system?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's absolutely important for the members of this Legislative Assembly, when they get these kinds of questions, to understand that both our Minister of Economic Development and Trade and the federal Minister for International Trade have assured all provinces across this country that our post-secondary education programs, our social programs and our medicare systems will not be up for negotiation during the next round of World Trade Organization negotiations. We have all been reassured, especially by our federal Liberal colleagues, so please do not let your party down in this regard.

I will say that we in Ontario retain the authority to set educational policies for our citizens. No one should be discouraged or confused about Ontarians having control of our post-secondary education.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a question for the Premier. It's about access to quality health care here in the province of Ontario. It's about distance and geography being a barrier to access to quality health care in Ontario. I represent a constituency of the rural north, of the small towns of northern Ontario: Hornepayne, Wawa, Dubreuilville, Meldrum Bay, Iron Bridge. These people deserve to have quality health care.

When access in southern Ontario was not available for certain types of cancers, your government decided that they would pay the full expenses for those people to go north. In northern Ontario, where certain kinds of cancer cannot be treated, those people do not receive the same consideration. Why is that?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Certainly any patients in northern Ontario who require radiation for prostate cancer or for breast cancer, if they cannot get it in northern Ontario, in the northwest or the northeast, we do carry on the Liberal program to pay their costs to the other jurisdictions.

I guess I could ask you why, for the last eight months of your office in 1990, southern Ontario patients who were referred to Thunder Bay for specialist treatment received full funding of their airfare, hotel accommodation and meals from the Ministry of Health. The NDP thought that was shocking, but when they were in office they did the same program. We're not happy either that people from southern Ontario have to be referred out of their district, but as an interim measure we are doing the same thing as they did and you did. Surely, the first choice is to make sure that those patients in southern Ontario get the treatment close-

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

Mr Brown: That's exactly the point. In northern Ontario we deserve to have quality health care delivered as close to us as we possibly can. We know that in Sault Ste Marie 50% of the specialists you say should be there, aren't there. We know that in Sudbury one third of the specialists you say should be there, aren't there. Our people are denied that service.

In some ways we understand that there needs to be a critical mass, there needs to be room somewhere in the province. But we need access to that. If you can't improve the service in our communities, then the least you can do is take away the geographical barrier that is there. Why, again, can we not have the same treatment as southern Ontario patients who need to travel long distances to access care? Why can't we have the same program? Why is it different?

Hon Mr Harris: You have exactly the same program and all northern Ontarians have exactly the same program as those in southern Ontario have when they're referred out.

But I appreciate, really for the first time, your acknowledgement that the goal is to provide the services as close as you can. I think you would acknowledge that, in the cases you're raising, of radiation therapy, we're doing a better job in northeastern and northwestern Ontario than we are in southern Ontario. Why is that? If you look at other areas, if you want to talk about services closer to home, no government has done more to provide these services.

I can give you a list: $310 million toward health services structuring in northern Ontario, 138 specialists recruited in northern Ontario; general practitioners, family physicians recruited in northern Ontario; $14 million on emergency room alternative payment plans; responding to McKenry's report.

That's been our goal: get these services into both northeastern and northwestern Ontario. I hope we can-

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

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Attorney General. Minister, as a result of the federal election, which some regard as far too early and completely premature, federal legislation relating to justice has died on the order paper. Constituents in my riding of Scarborough Centre consider that community safety is a top priority and I'm wondering if you could tell the people of Ontario how the calling of an early federal election will affect them.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for Scarborough Centre for her question. The federal government has shown a remarkable lack of vision and an inability to act on justice issues. They ignored us on the Young Offenders Act and produced an ineffective act. They promised serious penalties for those who stalk victims or invade their homes, and failed to deliver. They did not care enough about women's justice issues and let their inadequate legislation die.

We have also asked the federal government to intervene and bring justice to the native peoples of Ontario who suffered in residential schools. They've failed to tackle this issue in an acceptable manner, preferring to litigate, to threaten bankruptcy to the churches and to confer no benefit on the persons who attended the residential schools. They failed to pass legislation allowing judges to impose consecutive sentences of up to 50 years without parole for multiple murder or sexual assault.

We have offered solutions. They have failed to deliver.

Ms Mushinski: Clearly, the recent actions of the federal Liberals are quite shameful. Obviously, like their provincial cousins, they've failed to get the job done. I'm curious to see if the federal Liberals will meet the same fate their Ontario cousins did in 1990.

The Attorney General, in his closing remarks, mentioned he has offered his help to the federal government on many occasions. Would the minister please expand on his earlier points.

Hon Mr Flaherty: We have offered our help and insight on many occasions to the federal government. We have listened to the people of Ontario. We have acted on their issues. We've called on Ottawa to get tough on youth crime. We've said they should lower the age at which a person can be charged with a criminal offence to age 12, toughen sentences and send a message to young people and make it easier for crown attorneys to transfer young offenders to adult court. Clearly, they don't care. They've failed to act. We passed the Parental Responsibility Act, which holds parents accountable for the actions of their children.

As I said, the federal government has failed to protect women from stalkers and people who invade their homes. We called on Ottawa to create new criminal offences for home invasions. We have called for tougher sentences and for mandatory sentencing guidelines. Where they have failed, we have acted.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Premier. Last week, you came to Sault Ste Marie and told my constituents they should just stop whining, that if there was any discrimination going on where cancer care is concerned, it was to the constituents of southern Ontario. Was that just plain ignorance, or is it just more of your arrogance?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the calm, cool language and demeanour of the member-typical of his party, I might add.

Let me say that you seem to be concerned about a situation that your leader and your critic raised with the Liberal Party when they were in office. For five years, when you had the opportunity to do something, you not only didn't do anything, but you tightened up the criteria and made it more difficult-in fact, refused to pay for some people travelling from northern Ontario to southern Ontario. Even the health travel grant, as I recall, you were tightening up. That was the NDP response: no increase in mileage, no concern at that time for the issue that you're raising now.

We are concerned. We are very concerned that people in southern Ontario are not getting radiation treatment for breast cancer or for prostate cancer in a timely enough fashion-

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

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): What takes the cake is that we've got a northerner standing here in the Legislature telling us we're a bunch of whiners in northern Ontario and that we should feel sorry because people in southern Ontario don't have health care services. What hogwash.

Premier, if you're sick in Toronto and you need cancer treatment, it's only a matter of jumping on the subway and going down the street, but if you're living in Wawa, Moosonee or Dryden, there's no subway and, in many cases, no airplane. The only way you can get in is to get in your car and drive.

What's so disappointing for us is that the Premier, who comes from northern Ontario and should have some sympathy for northern issues, completely refuses to do anything and in fact is the one who has created this discriminatory policy. Premier, on behalf of all northerners, I ask you this: When will you remember where you come from and for once act in the best interests of northern Ontario and fix this problem?

Hon Mr Harris: You're right. The northern health travel grant is discriminatory for northerners, not southerners, because it is greater distances and we do have to travel greater distances. We understand that when we choose to live and have our principal residences in the north, as I do, as you do and as many do. We understand that when we live in remote northern communities there will not be a world-class cancer care hospital right there in the middle of Wawa or of Pickle Lake and we'll have to travel for some of those services. That's why, I think, the Liberals brought in the program.

I assume that's why, although you tightened it up and made it more restrictive, you carried on the program, and you did not bring in any increases. That's why we are reviewing the program now, to see if the time has come to enhance the program. We're quite happy to receive advice and input-

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

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Very recently we got, under freedom of information, our first glance at how much taxpayer money you are spending to defend yourself in the civil case brought by the George family in the death of Dudley George at Ipperwash. Just to mid-January-and this is the first few weeks you used this outside lawyer-we're told you spent $130,000. We estimate that has now gone to perhaps $500,000; we'll find out later.

This expenditure is unnecessary. The George family has said to you that the civil action is not necessary if you would commit to holding a proper public inquiry. This is very straightforward: you commit to holding a public inquiry-no one's right to a fair trial would be jeopardized, because that inquiry need not start until that happens-and you would save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Will you make that commitment today, Premier? Commit to a public inquiry to begin as soon as possible, when no one's right to a fair trial is jeopardized, and save the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, and we would finally see some justice in this province.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the very matter for which you are asking for the inquiry would probably cost several million dollars, and those very questions are indeed the same questions that are being dealt with in the lawsuit.

You're quite right: there are lawyers' expenses which are being paid. I can tell you that doing this is not cheap and that the majority of the costs are being paid by the government's insurer. Unfortunately, that is the cost of being in public office today.

Mr Phillips: What you just said was that you are treating the civil case essentially as the public inquiry; it will handle the same issues. The difference is that the George family does not have access to your millions of dollars to defend themselves. They don't have millions of dollars to get at the truth.

What should happen is that you should commit to a public inquiry so we get the truth, so we don't get you, with your millions of dollars of high-priced Bay Street lawyers, taking on the Dudley George family with their relatively modest means.

Again I say to you, Premier, do the decent thing today. Say, "I am committing to a public inquiry. The inquiry will begin as soon as no one's right to a fair trial is jeopardized, and finally we will see some justice." Will you do that today, rather than trying to bankrupt the George family?

Hon Mr Harris: I am not taking the George family to court, and I don't choose to be in court. They are taking me to court, and a number of other defendants and the government. I don't think there is any need for that. I have already committed, of course, that when the trials are over I would ensure the information would be made available, one way or another, if it comes through the trials or whatever is there. I think that's the appropriate time. In the meantime, I and other defendants are defending ourselves.

As I have indicated, most of our costs-I can't give you the exact amount-are being picked up by the government's insurer. Some of those costs are being recovered, because a lot of the allegations are frivolous and we're winning all those in court, and costs are being assigned to that party.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Today in the gallery, as has been mentioned, we have a group of young citizens from the Walkerton area who I believe have been most inconvenienced because of difficult circumstances there over the last couple of months. Many of us who live in rural Ontario have experienced not having water from time to time because of pump failures on the farm or power failures or whatever it might be. We definitely know what it is not to have the convenience of being able to turn on a tap or get on the handle of a pump and get water. Could you tell me what you are doing to get the water back on in Walkerton?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I also want to welcome students from Walkerton here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and to share with them and all Ontarians what we've done in Walkerton.

To date, we have replaced 4.6 kilometres of water mains in Walkerton. The pipe replacement is complete and work on the service connections is continuing. We've issued orders to stop using well number 5, as well as ordering a hydrogeological study in areas surrounding the other wells. The Ontario Clean Water Agency is installing the interim filtration system, which will be put in place by October 30. Every house and every building in Walkerton has been sampled as part of our confirmation program to ensure the efficacy of the house-to-house decontamination.

We continue to provide an alternative supply of water for local and long-term care facilities, the hospital and the jails, with water trucked in daily from nearby Hanover.

Mr Stewart: Certainly, I believe the province has been extremely responsible and receptive to this problem that was created. I think that all Ontarians have to take some responsibility ourselves to make sure that on our own property, whether it be in the rural or small urban, that we do the water testing for our own wells.

I think most important of what these young people are interested in is the very basic question: when will the water be turned on?

Hon Mr Newman: I want to say to the member from Peterborough that we've been working hard in the Ministry of the Environment on this very important issue. Once the work in Walkerton is done, we'll provide our final report to the local medical officer of health. It is up to the local medical officer of health to determine when the boil-water advisory is lifted. After all, he was the individual who put the boil-water advisory in place.

We all recognize that the people of Walkerton have been through a lot and are tired of the disruption in their lives. We have to make sure that the water in Walkerton is clean, safe and secure from source to tap.

I want to share with everyone just what the mayor of Walkerton has said about this government. This is what he said on August 17 this year: "From day one, Premier (Mike) Harris, the Minister of Environment Dan Newman, the Attorney General (James Flaherty) and the Ontario support team have done whatever it takes to restore clean"-

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

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Dalton McGuinty and Ontario Liberals have real concerns about your proposed amendments to the Tenant Protection Act contained in Bill 119. It's clear to me that you had one thing in mind when you proposed these amendments and that's to further restrict access to justice for Ontario's tenants. It's easy to see why and how you're doing this. You're making it easier and easier for landlords to get evictions without having hearings.

Let me give you an example of how this works. You're changing the law to allow tribunal staff, not adjudicators, to sign default orders. This is like saying that a court clerk can issue a verdict without a judge ever having to hear the issue. Default orders in 1998 were 56% of the cases. In 1999 it was 61%. This year it's 64%. It's only going to get worse when Bill 119 goes through.

Why don't you just come clean? Stand in your place in this House today and tell us why you've decided to pick efficiency over justice for Ontario's tenants. Tell us why, when people's homes are on the line, you've decided to opt for speedier paper-pushing over protecting people's rights to stay in their homes and have a fair hearing.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'd be pleased to answer the honourable member's question. The fact of the matter is that nothing has changed. This piece of legislation is bringing the Tenant Protection Act into complete concordance with the former Landlord and Tenant Act that his government promulgated and introduced in this House. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, the officials were allowed to designate staff-staff like the registrar, who is a civil servant, not an adjudicator-and to issue default orders. This merely brings it into line with the Liberal position when they were the government. So are they flip-flopping now or did they flip-flop then?

Mr Caplan: The minister really should read his own legislation. I have a copy of KPMG's operational review of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal. They made several suggestions and I want to remind you about them.

On page 25 they said, "As applications move through the process, more time and expense is invested in the resolution. Hence the most costly applications are those that proceed all they way to the hearing stage of the process."

They go on to say on page 30, "The default process is one of the main mechanisms the tribunal has to resolve disputes quickly." It goes on to say, "The tribunal is currently not using this mechanism to its fullest advantage."

In other words, the Harris government can save time and money by denying tenants the right to access justice and have their cases heard by a tribunal. It's clear when you read this report and when you see Bill 119 that you have taken the suggestions to heart. It's clear that instead of making changes that would ensure that tenants have a chance to exercise their rights, you have done the opposite. You have guaranteed that thousands more Ontario tenants will lose their right to a hearing, to stay in their homes, because of efficiency and to save money. Why don't you stand up for them today?

Hon Mr Clement: Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed in 1998, under their legislation, actual requests to evict a tenant were 4,077. Under our legislation, actual requests to evict a tenant went down to 4,054.

The honourable member likes to read the report. Let me read another

section of the report for the honourable member: "A significant finding of the operational review is that the landlord and tenant groups are generally satisfied with the existing service delivery. Clients prefer the tribunal process because it is less formal, provides greater access and is more user-friendly."

I want to ask the honourable member something. We're for the tenants who pay their rents on this side of the House. We're for the tenants who are law-abiding and deserve quiet enjoyment on this side of the House. What side is that party and that member on? That's what I'd like to know.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is for my honourable friend the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation and it concerns her Bill 112,

An Act to amend the McMichael Canadian Art Collection Act, which I understand has passed second reading in this House and is currently before a standing committee.

It's my understanding that this bill restores the spirit and understanding of the government's original 1965 agreement with the McMichaels, who generously donated their Group of Seven collection to the people of this province. The government is keeping its word.

There are some reports, however, that leave the impression that the province might be swamping the Canadian art market by disposing of the modern art that is currently held at the McMichael Canadian Art Collection. Surely the minister is not planning a fire sale of this type. Would she please clarify this point for the House?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): I'd like to thank the member from Waterloo-Wellington for the question, and I appreciate the interest he has taken in the McMichael art gallery along the line.

Let me say that we entered into this bill, Bill 112, as a result of this government believing that if you make a commitment, if you make a promise, you have to keep that promise. So the legislation restores the gallery back to its original mandate of collecting and displaying the Group of Seven and contemporary artists who have made a contribution to the development of Canadian art in the province.

That certainly is something that's been raised and nothing could be further from the truth when we talk about the fire sales that may happen at the McMichael. That is just not the truth. The art acquisition committee looks to see what art the gallery should be collecting and the board decides how it will be acquired and how it will be sold within the gallery. The board has the say with respect to that. The board is headed by David-

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

Mr Arnott: From the minister's answer, it certainly sounds clear that although the gallery's collection is currently before the board, it will be looked after professionally. However, there seems to be some feeling in the cultural community that one of the effects of this bill is to exclude gallery professionals and other staff at the McMichael from providing input into the gallery's decisions. Can the minister speak to this issue?

Hon Mrs Johns: As a result of the committee hearings in the last week or two, we have heard that a number of people are concerned about this very issue, that volunteers and the people who work at the gallery may not be asked for their opinion with respect to this. From that standpoint, today we intend to put forward an amendment that says that the volunteers, the trustees, the employees, will be able to be asked by the board to contribute to any committee. They'll be asked to give their valued opinion. We think that will clarify anything that's been raised in the committee.

We all agree, of course, on all sides of the House that it's important to have the involvement of staff and volunteers in decisions. We will clarify that today by putting forward an amendment that ensures that if the board thinks they need additional help, they can ask those members to help them with that-not a voting share, but certainly they'll be able to give input.

We appreciate the involvement of everyone who came forward to the committee. We appreciate the work that's been done on that. If all the amendments are accepted and the bill is passed, we think we'll have a good bill to move forward to make sure that we keep the promises we've made and that we also make sure it has financial stability for years to come.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The time for question period has ended.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to advise the Minister of Health that one of the patients whose case I raised in this legislature over a month ago, Donna Graham, has now passed away. That's the real tragedy of this and-

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition to the Ontario Legislature. It was collected by Hazel Rouleau, who is adamant about-

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Order. There's an opportunity, if you want to talk to somebody except me, to do it outside voluntarily for the next minute. If it's not voluntary, then I'll help you. I will have order in here for the member who has the recognition from you to speak.

Mr Bartolucci: Again, this is a petition to the Ontario Legislature, and these names were gathered by Hazel Rouleau, who is passionate about this issue. It concerns northerners demanding the Harris government eliminate health care apartheid.

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

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

"Whereas a recently released Oracle research poll confirms that 92% of Ontarians support equal health travel funding;

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

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

"Therefore,

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

Of course, I affix my signature to this petition.

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

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

"Whereas a recently released Oracle research poll confirms that 92% of Ontarians support equal health travel funding;

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

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

"Therefore,

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

I sign my signature to this, and I'm going to give it to the page from Sault Ste Marie, Cameron Dutchak, who's going to deliver it to the table.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition that was given to me by the Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School parent's council and the community. I will just summarize it.

"Whereas numerous bills, introduced over the last few years, intended to reform and to substantially improve the quality of education, for the future of Ontario, have been significantly deficient in doing so; and

"Recognizing that, especially during a time of change, support services such as operational computers, accessible research centres (libraries) and adequate personnel support must be provided."

There are a number of changes they'd like to see to Bill 74, which is actually the law of this land.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have a petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the northern health travel grant was introduced in 1987 in recognition of the fact that northern Ontario residents are often forced to receive treatment outside their own communities because of the lack of available services; and

"Whereas the Ontario government acknowledged that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents and, therefore, that financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; and

"Whereas travel, accommodation and other costs have escalated sharply since the program was first put in place, particularly in the area of air travel; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has provided funds so that southern Ontario patients needing care at the Northwestern Ontario Cancer Centre have all their expenses paid while receiving treatment in the north which creates a double standard for health care delivery in the province; and

"Whereas northern Ontario residents should not receive a different level of health care nor be discriminated against because of their geographical locations;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their communities until such time as that care is available in our communities."

This has been signed by another 126 concerned constituents who believe it is time to end the discrimination against northern residents.

FRAIS DE TRANSPORT AUX FINS MÉDICALES

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James) : J'ai ici une pétition signée par beaucoup de personnes de la région du nord de l'Ontario qui dit :

« Les gens du nord exigent que le gouvernement Harris mette fin » à la matière des soins de santé faisant affaire avec the northern travel grant.

« Attendu que, d'une part, le programme de subventions accordées aux résidents du nord de l'Ontario pour frais de transport à des fins médicales offre un remboursement partiel au taux de 30,4 cents par kilomètre » à sens unique seulement, « à l'intention des personnes atteintes de cancer, et que, d'autre part, la politique de déplacement pour les gens du sud de l'Ontario rembourse en entier les coûts de transport, de repas, et d'hébergement ;

« Attendu qu'une tumeur cancéreuse ne connaît aucune politique de transport pour les soins de santé ni de région géographique ;

« Attendu qu'un sondage de recherche Oracle publié récemment confirme que 92 % des Ontariens appuient un financement égal de transport à des fins médicales ;

« Attendu que les résidents du nord de l'Ontario paient le même montant d'impôts et ont droit au même accès aux soins de santé, ainsi qu'à tous les services du gouvernement et à tous les droits de personne inhérents que les autres résidents de la province ;

« En conséquence, il est résolu que les soussignés exigent que le gouvernement Mike Harris propose immédiatement de financer en entier les frais de transport à l'intention des résidents du nord de l'Ontario atteints de cancer » et mette fin à ce système qui existe présentement dans la province de l'Ontario en matière des soins de santé.

Je signe cette pétition avec fierté.

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a petition here presented to me by the Action on Women's Addictions Research and Education Foundation of Kingston. It's a very short but powerful petition. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario claws back the national child benefit supplement from families on social assistance,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop its discriminatory practice and return the national child benefit supplement directly to its rightful recipient-the family on social assistance."

I agree with it. I've signed it and I'm handing this petition over to the excellent page from Kingston and the Islands, Jill Quirt.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

This is signed by a number of people from my riding. I've affixed my signature to it. I'd like to thank Gerry Lougheed Jr for all of his efforts on this matter.

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned inmate/patients detained in the maximum secure prison at the Oak Ridge division of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre, in Penetanguishene, Ontario, hereby call upon members of the Legislative Assembly to appoint an inquiry into the failure by the Minister of Health to terminate the employment of a staff member ...."

Mr Speaker, the petition is very long. I just wanted to present it to the Legislature.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a number of petitions here from people from Iroquois Falls, Powassan and many other points in northern Ontario. This is a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"Northerners demand Harris government eliminate health care apartheid.

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

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

"Whereas a recently released Oracle research poll confirms that 92% of Ontarians support equal health travel funding;

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

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

"Therefore,

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

This is a number of 60,000 signatures that are being presented on this issue.

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): This petition is from the inmates and patients at the Oak Ridge facility in Penetanguishene to the Parliament of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned inmate/patients detained in the maximum secure prison at the Oak Ridge division of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre (`Oak Ridge' or `the institution') and our family members and friends, hereby request that Oak Ridge be privatized."

Again, it's a very long explanation. I'll present this to the Speaker.

WATER QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas water is a basic unit of life; and

"Whereas business does not view water as a social resource necessary for life but as an economic resource to be managed by market forces like any other commodity to earn a profit; and

"Whereas governments must not hand this precious resource to the private sector ensuring that decisions regarding the allocation of water centre around business considerations and where the management of water resources will be based on the principles of scarcity and profit maximization rather than long-term sustainability; and

"Whereas business is driven by increased consumption to generate profits and is therefore more likely to invest in desalination, diversion or export of water rather than conservation; and

"Whereas during the Walkerton crisis the local council and PUC relied on Ontario Clean Water Agency's expertise, experience and in-depth knowledge during those challenging days and continues to rely on OCWA's expertise to the present day;

"Therefore, we petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to not permit the sell-off of the Ontario Clean Water Agency or any Ontario water resource to the private sector."

I affix my signature. I'm in complete agreement.

FEDERAL HEALTH SPENDING

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): I have a petition from a number of my constituents, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the federal and provincial governments in Canada agreed to share the cost of health care on a 50-50 basis;

"Whereas the federal government's contribution to the cost of health care in Ontario constitutes only 11 cents on the dollar;

"Whereas the federal government wants to create new health programs before properly funding existing programs;

"Whereas the federal government has not committed to increase funding for health despite its huge budgetary surplus;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to continue to pressure the federal government to become a true health care partner and properly fund health care in Canada and Ontario."

I agree with this and affix my signature.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools and is now closing many classrooms completely; and

"Whereas community use of schools is necessary to preserve low-cost and easy access to community programming in our riding; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris funding formula is forcing boards of education to charge high fees to groups that require the use of schools for their programming;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to instruct the Minister of Education to restore meaningful and flexible funding to the Toronto school boards to ensure that they are able to continue to accommodate community use of schools at low or no cost to the community groups renting the facilities."

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 16, 2000, on the motion for second reading of Bill 119,

An Act to reduce red tape, to promote good government through better management of Ministries and agencies and to improve customer service by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting two new Acts / Projet de loi 119, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives, à promouvoir un bon gouvernement par une meilleure gestion des ministères et organismes et à améliorer le service à la clientèle en modifiant ou abrogeant certaines lois et en édictant deux nouvelles lois.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 17, 2000, I'm now required to put the question.

Mr Wood has moved second reading of Bill 119. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1510 to 1515.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 51; the nays are 35.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 17, 2000, Bill 119 is referred to the standing committee on general government.

Orders of the day.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we would have unanimous consent to have a vote on this next matter immediately after I call the order rather than having a five-minute bell.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

TOUGHEST ENVIRONMENTAL PENALTIES ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SANCTIONNANT PAR LES PEINES LES PLUS SÉVÈRES DES INFRACTIONS DE NATURE ENVIRONNEMENTALE

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 23, 2000, on the motion for second reading of Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act in respect of penalties / Projet de loi 124, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement, la

Loi sur les ressources en eau de l'Ontario et la

Loi sur les pesticides en ce qui concerne des peines ayant trait à l'environnement.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 24, 2000, I am now required to put the question. Mr Newman has moved second reading of Bill 124, and it is then passed by unanimous consent, 51 to 35.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Is that not what you agreed to?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I'd like to be able to hear the Clerk so that I can correct myself.

That unanimous consent was not to have the same vote; that unanimous consent was just to waive the five-minute bell.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: But leading up to that, Mr Newman has moved second reading of Bill 124. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the "ayes" have it.

I think there's some misunderstanding. We have agreed that there will not be a bell.

All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Cleary, John C.

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Smitherman, George

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 79; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 24, 2000, Bill 124 is referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

SOCIAL HOUSING REFORM ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RÉFORME DU LOGEMENT SOCIAL

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 18, 2000, on the motion for second reading of Bill 128,

An Act respecting social housing / Projet de loi 128, Loi concernant le logement social.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have all-party consent that the question now be put and that if a recorded division is requested, there be no division bell and we vote immediately.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it agreed that the bell will be waived? It is agreed.

Mr Clement has moved second reading of Bill 128. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The members are called in. There won't be a bell.

All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 51, the nays are 35.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr Speaker, I'd like this bill to go to the standing committee on justice and social policy.

The Deputy Speaker: The bill has been referred to the justice and social policy committee.

RACING COMMISSION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA COMMISSION DES COURSES DE CHEVAUX

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 11, 2000, on the motion for second reading of Bill 94,

An Act to revise the Racing Commission Act / Projet de loi 94, Loi révisant la

Loi sur la Commission des courses de chevaux.

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

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It is my distinct pleasure and honour this afternoon to be able to speak on this very important bill before us in this House, because it will affect, hopefully in a positive way, a piece of our industrial infrastructure that has struggled for quite some time but is now beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel. With some support and direction, and given its head a bit by government, it now looks like it has come up with a plan that could see it be successful and contribute in a significant way to the overall economy of this province.

It is an opportunity for a whole array of folks who are involved in the racing industry, who enjoyed some success 10 or 15 years ago but in the last few years struggled somewhat as the whole gaming scene in the province shifted dramatically with the introduction of some new venues and new competition.

If I'm correct in my assumption and my reading of this, particularly after having had a very good meeting with the executive director of the Ontario Horse Racing Industry Association, Jane Holmes, who assures me this is going to be good for them, it will be supportive of what they want to do and is good for the industry overall.

I just want to put this into some context for folks out there, because they may not be all that familiar with the horse racing industry in the province. I am sure there will be others in this House who will have a bit more personal knowledge than I have of the industry, because I do not follow the horses. I have, from time to time over the last few years when I've been in other jurisdictions with family members, attended some horse racing meets and have lost some money and won some money. I found it rather a fun thing to do, interesting and exciting, particularly when you have a wager on.

I am sure that in Ontario, as we look at some of the very well-known and popular venues that are out there-and there has been some consolidation over the last couple of years, but certainly there are several very good horse racing venues in southern Ontario. There is Sudbury Downs in northern Ontario, which has been a very well-run and successful operation and hopefully, with the passing of this bill, will be even more successful.

The person I speak of as the executive director of the Ontario Horse Racing Industry Association is Jane Holmes, who took time out of what I'm sure was a very busy

schedule to come and share with me some of what this piece of legislation will mean for them, some of the history of the evolution of this legislation and how important it is that we not hold it up too much in this place as we put on the record some of the concerns we have.

I have to say as well this afternoon that we in the NDP caucus do have some concerns, but not enough to stop the passage of this bill. We will put them on the record so that the government knows of them.

The horse racing industry knows that we understand that there is still a way to go as we try to figure out what is the best framework within which to have horse racing within the larger context of gaming in this province, and how, in doing that, we also respond in some significant, meaningful way to those in the province who have a concern about the escalating level of gaming and gambling opportunity that is now present and those who will be hurt by it, and what we do to minimize the hurt and then take care of those who perhaps find themselves in some dire circumstances or straits and need some assistance or counselling or whatever because of that.

I've had some folks in my office and I know some of the Liberal members have had some folks in their office.

The member for St Catharines in particular expressed some very grave concerns about the aggressive expansion of gambling in the province and how there doesn't seem to have been enough consultation with the larger community that often sits alongside the gaming industry, of whatever nature, that is going to be affected directly and is, yes, going to be able to take advantage of some of the positive spinoff by way of the economic opportunity that is there but is also going to have to deal with some of the downside of that industry that we know is there. I don't think there's any denying it.

It has been quantified to some degree now because we've had a fairly varied gaming operation or scene evolve in this province over some 10 years now, and some government agencies and people outside of government who have some concern about this have done some research and some study.

I think we all need to take some time to take a look at that material and information and meet with those people so that we hear and understand what their concerns are and then as a government hopefully have the commitment to make sure that we're doing everything we can to serve all the people of Ontario when we pass legislation in this place and do what we can to provide some relief or assistance or some help to those folks as well.

However, horse racing is a fact of life in Ontario, and has been for quite some time, and I think we need to support it, because it is a very healthy and important economic or industrial piece of many parts of this wonderful province and there are some really wonderful people involved in the horse racing industry, whether it's breeders, whether it's people who train the horses or ride the horses or take care of the horses or in fact manage the industry where the selling and breeding of horses is concerned, or whether it's the racing end of things.

There are people who work very hard at that, who are committed to making sure that it's a vehicle of tremendous integrity in this province and continues to serve all factors of our community and our society in a positive and constructive way, and who are working themselves in partnership with others to minimize the downside that so many are so very legitimately concerned about.

The Ontario Racing Commission Act was first passed in 1950. It created the Ontario Racing Commission to govern, control and regulate horse racing in the province. The government appoints the members of the commission and selects the chair and vice-chair. The ORC is responsible for licensing owners, trainers, drivers, jockeys, apprentice jockeys, grooms, jockeys' agents, jockeys' valets, exercise riders, tradespersons and other persons working at racetracks and to set the conditions of those licences. The Ontario Racing Commission collects licensing fees and imposes fines and levies.

The high degree of regulation and licensing reflects the extent to which this industry is absolutely dependent on the public believing that the races are not fixed or that the industry is not being dealt with in any way that is slanted. It's a question of integrity. Is there integrity in the product?

I know that a while back when the government was looking at privatizing or contracting out a lot of the services, it looked at the whole package at one point, where the Ontario Lottery Corp was concerned. When I spoke to the people in that industry who had worked so hard for such a long period of time to build up that vehicle that we, as a government, used to provide people with an opportunity to take a chance, to buy a ticket, on the possibility of winning some money, and we provide that to everybody across this province in a fair and equitable manner.

The issue that came up over and over again was to make sure that whatever we did protected the integrity of the product, that there was nobody out there who thought for one second that there was some fixing going on within the operation itself that would lend to somebody having unfair advantage over somebody else.

Certainly that's been one of the main reasons the government felt very strongly back in 1950, and continually since then, that it was important to regulate the horse racing industry so that the integrity remained intact and that we didn't get ourselves painted with the brush that is happening in so many other jurisdictions where gambling is concerned. We read stories in some of the magazines that come out-Fortune magazine has had a few very troubling stories about some of the goings-on in the lottery industry.

In many jurisdictions in the United States and across the world, you get an incursion of those unsavoury types in one organization or another who are not there to provide a product that is fair and equitable and provides a fair return to the owners or operators of a particular venue, but in fact are there to tip the scales so that they, themselves, reap most of the benefit. If, at the end of the day, a few winners get some money, it's really not in keeping with what everybody out there thinks is fair in terms of return when you walk into an establishments, whether it be a casino or you buy a ticket at a kiosk for a lottery or go to a horse racing venue.

We want to know, the government wants to know and I think the province wants to know that everybody involved in that industry is being dealt with in a fair, equitable and upright fashion, and that they are being allowed to participate in the way they have the potential to, to maximize both their contribution and, at the end of the day, their ability to make a living working in this industry.

Even though we are supportive of the efforts of the whole of the racing industry to come together around a plan they think will serve them well, we want to put on the record that we have some concerns where the question of continuing integrity is concerned.

We have some concerns that those who participate so actively in the industry now continue to be able to do that, to have a say, to be able to challenge in some meaningful way, to see some response and some reaction to some of the things they will bring to the table-nothing is ever perfect; there are always things we need to be fixing and making better-that they are allowed to continue to participate in the way they have up to now by way of their expertise and skill, and at the end of the day be rewarded accordingly and make enough money to take care of themselves, feed their families and contribute to the economy of their local area in a way that we know any industry has the ability to do as long as a big chunk of the control and activity continues to be close to and part of and directly connected to the operation of that particular venue, so that, for example, some of these racing venues that are so very important from a community economic development perspective to many parts of this province do not simply become a franchise or some other less important outreach of some bigger operation headquartered in New York or Tokyo or London.

As so often happens, particularly under the leadership of this government, where they want to get government out of the way, where they want to reduce regulation, where they want to let the free market reign, we simply become the end on a conduit to a huge vacuum cleaner that sucks money out of our jurisdiction, makes a small number of people very rich and leaves the rest of us struggling to keep our heads above water and make ends meet.

This industry has been struggling for quite some time now, primarily because, as I said earlier, of the incursion, the evolution, the development, the arrival of so many other gaming venues in this province, the introduction of lotteries, the introduction of casinos and the slot machines now that are going into various and sundry establishments that have affected very directly-

Interjection.

Mr Martin: I'm not casting blame here; I'm just saying that's the reality in Ontario today. Yes, we as a government introduced casinos to the province, you're absolutely right, and it has had a very difficult, challenging effect on the racing industry. But while we were at it, we did recognize there were going to be some difficulties for the horse racing people. My colleague who used to be the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in this government is now the member for Toronto-Danforth. They keep changing the names of the ridings and it makes it difficult for somebody nowadays to remember where everybody's from, although I suppose I should remember my own colleague's riding.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): You've got so few of them, you should.

Mr Martin: That's right. There are only nine of us, but we do such a tremendous job here for nine. Our voice is probably equal to, if not greater than-how many Liberals do we have here?

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): There are 36.

Mr Martin: There are 36 Liberals. We know we have a challenge and that it's difficult, but we're up to the challenge and we work very hard at it. That's why I'm here this afternoon, trying desperately to put on the record some of my very sincere and legitimate thoughts on this issue.

As I was saying, the horse racing industry has been challenged over the last 10 or so years with the intro duction of new venues for gaming and gambling. Under the leadership of the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Marilyn Churley, we brought together all of the players to say, "What can we do? What is it that we could do with you, for you, to improve the opportunity that should be there for you to continue to make a living and to have this industry prosper and grow?"

The member for Toronto-Danforth says this wasn't unlike some of the work we did in Sault Ste Marie where we restructured so many of the very important industrial pieces up there, and in Kapuskasing and Thunder Bay. The formula was the same. You're faced with a challenge and industry is having some difficulty. You understand the import of that industry to the local economy in that area. You don't just say, as this government does now, "Leave it up to the free market. Let the market determine. It's free enterprise, everybody for themselves out there. Government should just stay out of the way, shouldn't get involved. Just let it all unfold."

We know what happens when you do that. A lot of good industry which with a little help could have been better, given some support, leadership and assistance from government could have changed track a little bit to take advantage of new opportunities. But that doesn't happen under this government. Under our government, we in Sault Ste Marie brought together all the players around the table and said, "Define the problem, the challenge. What is it that we can do together? What is it that you can do individually to assist?" and came up with a plan that everybody bought into and, in the end, was successful.

I'm not saying we don't struggle, that life doesn't go on and that with the economy that we're in today, particularly for resource-based areas of the province where we continue to make things and make a living by the sweat of our brow and the intelligence that we have, we aren't challenged in many significant ways. But because of the leadership given, because of the commitment made and the resources brought to the table by the Bob Rae government of the day, we still have a very vital and viable Algoma Steel operation in Sault Ste Marie.

We have a very successful St Marys Paper that is just putting out product like there's no tomorrow, generating profit and sharing that with their stakeholders and workers in a very generous and positive way for our community, as they take that money and spend it then in the local stores and shops of Sault Ste Marie and environs.

You look at the Algoma Central Railroad and the work we did there, and Lajambe Lumber, and the list goes on and on, where we as a government came in, brought people to the table, everybody involved, asked them what they thought, defined the challenge and came up with a plan that we then worked with the folks to carry out. And we had success. It happened in Kapuskasing, it happened in Thunder Bay and could have happened in many, many other communities across this province had we been returned to power in 1995 when we went to the electorate. Alas, that's life in this business, and here we are.

But I have to say that in fact we have a piece here of that very important work that was started when we were government to bring people around the table, to ask those very important questions, to, as I said before, define the challenge, look at all the factors, work with everybody, give some leadership, and then decide together what it is we need to do to make this particular piece of a very important industrial infrastructure successful again. So that's what we have. We have the development of the Ontario Horse Racing Industry Association, which Marilyn Churley had a big hand in.

As a matter of fact, she was telling me earlier today that she herself participated at many of the meetings, chaired those meetings, contributed in many significant ways, even went to some of the horse racing venues. She tells me that she went to a couple of the Queen's Plate events, actually wore the big hat and put on the white gloves and mingled with the very good folks who go to-

Mr Gerretsen: Did she pick a winner?

Mr Martin: I'm not sure if she picked a winner or not. I didn't ask her that. But she certainly was there and she was certainly supportive of the people in the industry, showed her personal interest. And not only did she go to the venue and wear the costume of the day, but she came back to her office and sat down with her political staff, who were very much involved in the evolution of this OHRIA, and struggled with them to try to find an answer to some of the very real and difficult challenges they were facing at that particular point in time.

The key feature of the bill we have in front of us today, Bill 94, is to make the Ontario Racing Commission self-financing. That means that the Ontario Racing Commission becomes responsible for all its own expenses and that all monies it receives through licensing fees, fines and levies will no longer go to the province's consolidated revenues. The commission appears to have complete discretion to determine what those licensing fees will be.

The self-financing also means that for the provincial government the racing commission's net gains or net loss will be off-book. It lets the government off the hook, in some senses, if the industry continues to struggle financially, but on the other hand, if it does well-as we expect it probably will now that it's been given a bit more freedom to do some things it needs to do and has been given some further opportunity to have other gaming operations happening on their premises-and they start to make a whole lot of money, that money goes to the industry itself, as it should.

But it seems to me that if we're at all interested in some fairness and contribution by every industry, as it is successful, to the common good of a jurisdiction, there should be some ability or vehicle-put a formula in place-to have some of that money at some point come back to general revenues so we might have more ability to provide the infrastructure that we know is going to be necessary if we're going to have the good flow of traffic, if we're going to continue to be able to provide sewer and water to those facilities and the communities that support it, and if we're going to be able to work with communities that surround those particular venues to make sure they continue to be healthy and can respond to some of the challenges that will be presented as racing becomes successful and grows and prospers in this province.

There is always a common cost, no matter what industry it is. Nobody any more lives in a vacuum, nobody any more is out there completely and totally on their own. They have to be connected in significant and meaningful ways to the bigger picture, the overall economy of a particular jurisdiction, in this instance the province of Ontario. This is one of the concerns we put on the table.

As I said before, it's not one that's going to stop us this afternoon from passing this important piece of work, but I think it's something we have to keep in mind as we move forward, as we continue, hopefully, to work together with the racing industry to make sure they do well and that at the end of the day the profit they generate somehow is used