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

October 15, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Oct-15 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 15 October 2002 Mardi 15 octobre 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FOSTER FAMILY WEEK

KIMBERLY ROGERS

NORTH BAY ECONOMY

KIMBERLY ROGERS

PETROGLYPHS PROVINCIAL PARK

MARCY'S WOODS

OPERATION CHRISTMAS CHILD

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANTS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

HYDRO DEREGULATION

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

SCHOOL FACILITIES

WATER EXTRACTION

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

MARIJUANA GROW HOUSES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANTS

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

ONTARIO INNOVATION SUMMIT

VISITOR

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 69

RICK KERR

LONG-TERM CARE

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

NATURAL GAS RATES

EXCELLENCE FOR ALL

EDUCATION PLAN

HIGHWAY 69

NATURAL GAS RATES

LONG-TERM CARE

NATURAL GAS RATES

HIGHWAY 69

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Tuesday 15 October 2002 Mardi 15 octobre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FOSTER FAMILY WEEK

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): This week is Foster Family Week in Canada. I would like to thank and applaud the thousands of

families in Ontario who open their hearts and their homes to the children who require support and care in alternative parenting. I would particularly like to applaud the children of foster parents,

because they have made the decision to share their parents, to share their secrets and to share their life with other children who are in greater need. It does benefit them and strengthens them,

but it is at some cost to them, so I applaud all the families in Ontario who are prepared to provide this service to our children.

I also call upon the government to do more, not for foster families but for foster children. They can and must do more. There is a dire shortage of mental health

services available to foster children in this province. Children who have been abused need that support.

The government must adequately fund a computer system which provides one common database for every children's aid society to access and to know if children move

from one area to another.

Lastly, this government must do something for foster children who need post-secondary education. At this instant, they are basically abandoned when they turn 18.

The cost of post-secondary education has increased dramatically since 1995. We're seeing children with wonderful abilities, wonderful gifts, not able to fund their course. We cannot waste that

resource: we can't waste it for them as individuals and we can't waste it for us as a province. So I call upon the government: do not abandon foster children when they turn 18. Enable them to be

successful with a post-secondary education.

KIMBERLY ROGERS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Today begins the five-week inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers, a woman who was banned from welfare and

sentenced to house arrest for collecting student loans while on social assistance. Kimberly died while under house arrest. She was eight months pregnant and had only $18 for food for an entire

month.

Ms Rogers had great potential. She proved this by graduating from college with top honours in social work. All she ever wanted was to get a good job as a social

worker and to help people.

Persons on social assistance used to be able to go back to school and get student loans to cover their school expenses. People who took advantage of this were

applauded for trying to better themselves. But this government changed all that and brought in its sweeping welfare reforms that make it impossible for people to better themselves and break out of

the cycle of poverty. Instead, this government has changed the laws to make people who try to better themselves criminals.

It is time this government admits that its welfare policies are wrong. It is time for this government to take responsibility for the effects of its policies and

change them so people can better their lives and no one else ends up dead.

Stop the ban on student loans for people on social assistance. Stop the lifetime ban for people found in contravention of the welfare laws. Stop the clawback of

the national child tax benefit.

NORTH BAY ECONOMY

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): I stand before the House today to talk about economic development in my riding of Nipissing. Last Thursday I

attended the 2002 Northern Ontario Business Awards held in North Bay and I was amazed with the progress that has been made with regard to the development of a diversified workforce, and in

particular the retention of young people in the north.

According to the judges at the business awards, and I agree, North Bay was once known as a junction for major railways and a military town, but has since

adjusted to a changing economic landscape and is branding itself today as an emerging centre of commerce, technology, education, health care and retail, and as a stable environment to raise a

family.

North Bay has reeled off successes on a number of fronts, with the creation of 2,300 jobs, expansion of commercial retail space, low vacancy rates, a white-hot

real estate market and a relatively stable labour market.

The judges at these awards chose this year's recipient to be the North Bay Economic Development Commission. They've done an outstanding job in creating jobs and

in the retention of youth as a priority in Nipissing. I would have to say that they have done a wonderful job this year, and I know they will continue to do so.

Last week in my member's statement, I spoke about job loss in my riding of Nipissing. As I said before, I feel strongly about this because I believe businesses

and local entrepreneurs are working very hard to retain people in the north. I'm a firm believer that no matter how hard one works, one can work even harder. It is this determination that will pull

us out of job loss and into job creation.

KIMBERLY ROGERS

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): It is indeed a tragedy that today in this province an inquest has begun to

investigate the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of a woman who was eight months pregnant and whose only source of income was cut off by this government.

The eyes of Ontario are looking at the Kimberly Rogers inquest to understand how, in this most blessed province, such a tragedy can happen. A woman who tried to

educate herself so she could break the cycle of poverty, whose goal was to seek higher education, was banned from welfare for life. Agencies and groups across Ontario will present at this inquest

their research about the devastating impact of Tory policies on the poor.

It does beg the question, however, why the Ministry of Community, Family and Children's Services, the ministry responsible for caring for our neediest citizens,

has not sought standing at this hearing. A national paper reports that even today the Tory get-tough attitude hasn't waned, at least for the poor. When cabinet ministers break rules, they determine

what they will pay back only after they are caught. When a poor pregnant mother breaks the rules, the Tories kick her off benefits for life. It's time the Tories did the right thing and conducted a

social audit to determine how many Ontarians are at risk because of this government's "get tough with the poor" policy.

PETROGLYPHS PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I would like to advise members of this House of a very special place they might like to visit or tell their

constituents about: the Learning Place at Petroglyphs Provincial Park, located in my riding of Peterborough. Petroglyphs Provincial Park holds a very special place in the Ontario parks system. This

historic class park is the site of one of the most intriguing and evocative treasures in Canada, the petroglyphs themselves.

The history of this new visitors' centre is a long and fascinating one. This building was erected in 1988 and sat empty due to lack of funding until 1994. I

would like to congratulate the team of volunteers from the Curve Lake First Nations community and Ontario parks staff who took the initiative to embark on a mission to construct and install the

exhibits in the Learning Place. Provincial and federal funding supported those efforts. The Learning Place has been designed to take visitors through the teachings of the four directions. They

comprise the largest known single concentration of aboriginal rock carvings in Canada.

This project is a testament to what can be achieved through a positive working relationship such as the one between the Curve Lake First Nations and Ontario

Parks. I urge everyone to take the opportunity to visit this historical and very interesting site.

MARCY'S WOODS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): For several weeks concerned residents of the Niagara region have been waiting patiently for their

provincial government to come forward with a plan to save Marcy's Woods from development.

Nestled along the shores of Lake Erie, the 284-acre Marcy's Woods is home to the only known old-growth black maple forest in North America, is one of only three

old-growth eastern hemlock stands in the entire world, and is home to dozens of rare species of plants and animals, including the grey fox, the flying squirrel, Fowler's toad and the hog-nose

snake.

Placed in jeopardy following its recent sale to a Niagara developer, a combined local effort of community leaders from all levels of government has risen to the

task of saving the Carolinian forest from the prospect of being bulldozed. Despite their efforts and those of honourable groups such as the Bert Miller Nature Club and the Nature Conservancy of

Canada, no guarantees have been forthcoming that Marcy's Woods will remain in its natural state much longer.

Marcy's Woods is a cherished part of the Niagara region's natural heritage, and it is incumbent upon this government to explore every instrument at its disposal

that will bolster local efforts to protect this unique and vital forest land.

Time is running out on the woods. I call on Ontario's Minister of the Environment and Ontario's Minister of Natural Resources to step in and preserve this

exceptional environmental gem.

OPERATION CHRISTMAS CHILD

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): For people who want to share the joy of Christmas with needy children around the world, I want to inform

the House about a program called Operation Christmas Child.

I learned about this program through one of its sponsors, St Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Fergus, which is the church my family attends. There recently we

were shown a video of children living in the Third World beaming with delight when they received a shoebox full of gifts just for them for Christmas. For many of these children, it's probably their

first-ever Christmas gift or the only gift they will receive this year.

My constituents in Waterloo-Wellington may know that this program is also operated through the Elmira Independent Newspaper. People living in Elmira and the

surrounding area can contact editor Gail Martin to find out how they can pick up the shoeboxes and drop them off after they have been filled.

My constituents can also contact the office at St Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Fergus. The church is serving as a drop-off centre as well, and all drop-off

centres must receive the shoeboxes by November 16 in order to ensure their distribution before Christmas.

A project of Samaritan's Purse, Operation Christmas Child is celebrating its 10th year internationally. Last year Canadians donated over 700,000 boxes of toys

through Operation Christmas Child.

For my wife and me, it's a very special time spent with our three boys, putting together packages of special things we would like to give to youngsters living in

places like Central America, Africa and South America.

Be it extra toys from around the house, letters of encouragement, photographs or even personal care items, it's a kind of giving that's needed and that teaches

and reminds us of the true meaning of Christmas.

I encourage all members to show their support for Samaritan's Purse and Operation Christmas Child.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): We're entering the fourth week of this session and Ontario's families are wondering what this government's

agenda is.

Here's what we know so far: we have a cabinet minister fired for his spending habits at the best steak houses and fancy hotels, all on the taxpayers' dimes. We

have a Premier who's living the high life and charging the taxpayer for it. We have a government handing $10 million over to professional sports teams that happen to be owned by friends of the

government -- but suddenly nobody knows anything about this secret sweetheart deal for their friends. We have a government that secretly promised 800 slot machines to a top contributor to that

party and its members.

What happened to their jam-packed legislative agenda? We have no Safe Drinking Water Act. We have no new legislation on ministerial spending habits. Ernie Eves

has no plan for education. The government has no plans for health care. And the Harris-Eves government has no plan for our environment except that one day they oppose Kyoto and the next day they

support it.

This is a government with no plan, no focus, no agenda, and most of all, no leadership. They are lurching from crisis to crisis, desperately grasping for a life

preserver.

Ontario families want a government with a plan. They want a leader with integrity and leadership who works for them. They want a Premier like Dalton McGuinty.

They want a government that will be led with vision and understanding of the complex problems of this issue. Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals are the only alternative to that bunch that's

lurching from crisis to crisis.

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to call your attention to a wonderful fiscal innovation. In the spirit of

non-partisanship, I want to give full credit to the Leader of the Opposition, Dalton McGuinty. You see, Dalton has discovered how to spend the same dollar many times over. This fiscal magic is

called the "Dalton loonie," or, for short, "Da'loonie."

Let me explain. First the Liberals say they will pump a billion Da'loonies into education. Then Liberals turn around and spend the same billion Da'loonies on

daycare. It gets better. They then recycle the same Da'loonie to pay for a new gas pipeline from western Canada so that there will be enough natural gas in Ontario for Dalton to keep yet another

billion-dollar promise.

These Da'loonies are environmentally friendly. The same Da'loonie can be reused, recycled and respent over and over again. That way, you can promise voters more

and more. No wonder Liberals love Da'loonies. Da'loonies are so popular, I understand there was a move to change the party's name at the Liberal Party's big meeting two weekends ago. To honour

their leader, they now want to call themselves the Da'loonie Party. It is a fitting tribute to the man with Da'loonie promises.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall

meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Tuesday, October 15, Wednesday, October 16, and Thursday, October 17, 2002, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1348 to 1353.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

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

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Smitherman, George

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 72; the nays are 5.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

VISITORS

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My page Teddy here -- his parents

and his brother are down today, and I just want to take the time to introduce them: Darlene, Axel, and his brother, Matthew. Welcome, and thank you for coming.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Welcome. Your son is doing a fine job here. You can be very proud of him.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANTS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question today is for the Premier. Premier, last week I had the opportunity to meet with

parents of Rippleton Public School here in Toronto. They are angry because you won't help their children. At Rippleton there is a JK class with 26 children, starting at three and a half years of

age. There is a senior kindergarten class with 27 children. Mrs Fox, their teacher, has been teaching for 26 years. She says she just can't do it on her own. She needs an educational assistant to

help. The parents and Mrs Fox are concerned about the safety of the children in that classroom. You have now taken over responsibility of the Toronto school board, Premier. Will you see to it that

an educational assistant is on the job starting tomorrow morning?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The education system in the province of Ontario is working well. As you know,

we increased the amount of funding to the system this year by $557 million. I am confident, as is the Minister of Education, that the three boards that have supervisors are operating well on a

day-to-day basis.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, my best advice that I can give to you is that you've got to remove yourself from this place. You have to talk to some

real Ontarians about some of the real problems that they have to grapple with day in and day out.

Here are some of the events that Mrs Fox has to deal with daily in her junior kindergarten class of 26 kids: temper tantrums, throwing up, wetting pants,

nosebleeds, bumps and cuts, crying, running away. She can't do all this for 26 children and teach them on her own.

By the way, Premier, she's not taking the children outside for recess because she can't, on her own, guarantee the safety of her 26 charges. I'm asking you on

behalf of those children and their parents, Premier -- you have now taken responsibility for the delivery of public education in Toronto. What are you going to do to help those children, whose

education is not only being compromised but their very safety is being compromised?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the official opposition is fully aware that staffing decisions are made locally. Those decisions have been made

locally for decades in this province and they continue to be made locally, as they should be. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the teaching profession in this province, delivering the

services that they deliver on a daily basis to our most important resource, our young people.

Mr McGuinty: There is a hiring freeze in place now at the Toronto school board. They can't do anything without the consent of the supervisor.

The supervisor can't do anything without your consent. Apparently you have money for the Blue Jays, you have money for private schools, but you don't have money to make classes smaller and

safer.

Here is a specific incident that took place in that classroom just a short while ago. A young boy was vomiting in the classroom while others were crying and

throwing tantrums. Mrs Fox directed the sick child to the garbage can while she dealt with the others. The child fell asleep with his head in the garbage can. Fortunately for all concerned, he did

not choke. Premier, 26 or 27 three-and-a-half to five-year-olds in one classroom is simply not manageable, and beyond that, it is dangerous. You have now taken responsibility for the delivery of

public education in Toronto. I want you to tell me, do you think it is perfectly acceptable for 26 and 27 three-and-a-half to five-year-olds to come under the purview of one single teacher? Yes or

no? Is that acceptable?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the official opposition will know that we have taken steps to reduce class sizes in the province when for years, I

might point out, teachers' unions in this province actually bargained to have -- unions; not teachers but unions, and there is a big difference --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: I say to the member for Sudbury, if he doesn't know the difference between Earl Manners and a teacher in the classroom every day,

then he'd better get a life and he'd better get out and see his constituents and people in the classroom every day.

The reality is, we are taking steps to reduce class sizes despite the fact that in some bargaining contracts they've actually asked for larger class sizes so

they could get more benefits for the union. We on this side of the House have rejected that out of hand. We are reducing class sizes. We have increased education funding from $13.86 billion to

$14.36 billion in the time that we've been the government, and we will continue to increase our commitment to public education in the province.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. I've been travelling the province meeting with real people who

are telling me about real problems, and they're looking for real solutions. They are telling me that their kids' classes are too big; they are telling me that the air is making them sick; they are

telling me that they can't find a doctor. I put forward a number of plans, on many fronts, which make up real solutions to their real problems. The problem here, Premier, is that you don't have any

plan and you aren't offering any real solutions.

When I come back to the House, I discover that your ministers are threatening civil servants, handing out secret tax breaks to sports team, or resigning over

expense scandals. The problem, sir, is that you don't have a plan. You still don't know why you want to be Premier. I'm asking you on behalf of the people of Ontario, what is it specifically that

you want to do that's going to address real problems faced by real people day in and day out in our province?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the leader of the official opposition, seeing as how he has some

differentiation between real people and some people whom he I guess describes as not real people, so I guess they're not part of the province of Ontario, every person in the province is a real

person and every person in the province has needs that the government tries to respond to on a daily basis.

If he's been out and about as much he says he has been, then I'm sure he will be aware, if he's talked to nurse practitioners in Harrow, Ontario, or smaller

communities across the province, that we have some 369 nurse practitioners who in the next 18 months will be practising in smaller communities across the province of Ontario, and that number grows

to some 950 in about five years' time. I'm sure he would like to acknowledge that is a step in the right direction, that they provide 85% of primary care that a physician can provide. I'm sure he

would acknowledge that that is an appropriate step to take on behalf of those people in those smaller communities, some of those real people he talks about.

Mr McGuinty: Those real people I am talking about are looking for a real plan to be put forward by a real Premier.

Last week, instead of trying to help northerners, your minister Jim Wilson threatened to fire public servants who were affiliated with parties other than your

own. Our public servants are world-class professionals who dedicate themselves to serving the public interest. The right of public servants to hold membership in the party of their choice is

protected by law. Premier, this really isn't about your minister's unlawful threats. It's about your lack of standards and your failure of leadership, your failure to put forward real solutions.

How can you tolerate this kind of behaviour from this minister?

Hon Mr Eves: I read the quotes that were attributed to the Minister of Northern Development, and they were totally inappropriate. As I

understand, the minister has withdrawn those remarks; he has apologized for those remarks. I want to tell you and the other people on the other side of the House that I have always regarded the

Ontario public service to be a great professional body that is independent. They are there aside from the politically elected people in the province of Ontario, and I have always valued their

contribution and the very important role they play in the public service of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I wonder if you can see the pattern that is evolving here. We've got another ex post facto apology. He's done something

wrong and apologizes for it; you say he was wrong and should never have done that.

Then there's the case of the $10-million tax break in secret. People over there pretend they knew nothing about it. Apparently your Minister of Finance knew

something about it all along. Since you were found out, since you were caught, you now tell us that this too is something you should apologize for and that never should have happened. Then there's

the matter of Cam Jackson running up expense tabs, again ex post facto --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm sorry, leader of the official opposition. Attorney General, come to order. Quit shouting across, please.

Sorry to the leader of the official opposition. I know he was wrapping up. It was awful noisy. Attorney General, please come to order.

Mr McGuinty: Back to this issue of the pattern, Premier. I wonder if you are taking notice that your ministers are apologizing ex post facto

for behaviour that should never have arisen in the first place. The reason that is happening is because of your lack of standards, your lack of leadership, the lack of direction you are setting for

your government.

So I'm asking you, on behalf of the people of Ontario, with the greatest of respect: why is it, sir, that you decided to become Premier, and what specifically

are you now going to do to address the real problems faced by the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Eves: Everybody on this side of the House, and I presume everybody in the House, is in public service for the right reason, and that is

to try to make the lives of the people of Ontario just a little bit better in their own particular constituency or, if they're fortunate enough to be asked to serve on the Executive Council or in

some other capacity, to serve the people that way.

With respect to standards that are being set and leaders of different parties, I would like to know when your honourable

member across the way is going to return his pension money as you and your members asked me to do and I'd already done, unbeknownst to you, several months before that. When is that going to happen?

Where's the leadership from you on your party on your side of the House?

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. The Minister of Northern Development.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, I want to make a point of order concerning my remarks last Wednesday

in this House concerning the Ontario public service. I think the Leader of the Opposition's comments were a bit unfair there; at no time did I mention the Progressive Conservative Party. However,

my remarks were very inappropriate. They were done in the heat of debate, and I certainly shouldn't have made them.

During my 12 years representing the people of Simcoe West and then Simcoe-Grey, and during the last seven years in three different ministries, I have grown to

respect a great number of our public servants. They are professional, and they must be free from politics and free from slander -- from myself, for example -- in order to do their jobs and serve

the people of Ontario. So I apologize to any Ontario public servant who might have taken offence at my remarks, and I certainly apologize to the opposition. But I wish they wouldn't bait me. They

know I do have a bit of a temper, and it does get the better of me from time to time, Mr Speaker, and I apologize for that.

The Speaker: I thank the minister.

New question?

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. As the Minister of Northern Development and Mines has just admitted,

last week he threatened to fire civil servants if they merely did their job and answered opposition questions about how community hospitals could have their budget deficits addressed. That kind of

behaviour might go down in a banana republic -- it might be justified there -- but I don't think it's justified in any democracy. I don't think the effect upon the civil service is justified

either.

Premier, this is about your standards. It's about the standards by which your government will operate. Is it acceptable for a cabinet minister to engage in

this kind of intimidation and threats when civil servants are merely being asked, "How does our hospital deal with its operating budget?"

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I've already responded to that issue in question period today. The minister,

of course, has stood in his place on a point of personal privilege and apologized. He understands that the remarks were inappropriate. I understand that the remarks were inappropriate. I think

everybody does. I understand the frustration that ministers and other members of the Legislature sometimes have, but quite frankly that sort of conduct is inappropriate and it has been

retracted.

Mr Hampton: Premier, this is about your standards. It's about the kind of conduct that your cabinet ministers will be able to engage in and

that you find acceptable. It was conduct that was intended to be intimidating, that was intended to be threatening. The question that was being asked is a reasonable one. There are 119 hospitals

across Ontario that are struggling with inadequate operating funding, and they want to know how they get their operating deficits addressed. The response of your minister was that he promised that

if any civil servant in the Ministry of Health answers any of those questions, they will be fired. Premier, is that the standard of your government? Is that acceptable by you? Is that how your

government is going to conduct itself?

Hon Mr Eves: I don't believe that is what the Minister of Northern Development said, but I'm sure everybody can check Hansard and see exactly

what he did say. His comments were inappropriate.

I value the independence and professionalism of the Ontario public service. I always have. In every single ministry I have been in, I can tell you that the

deputy has fulfilled his or her role in a more than forthright and direct manner. We have to have that independence of the Ontario public service, as separate and apart from the elected officials

in this place, for the system in Ontario to work properly.

Mr Hampton: The substantive question that was being asked here in the Legislature was, how do those 119 hospitals that have an operating

deficit get that addressed? Your government's response at the time was that if any civil servant in the Ministry of Health answers opposition questions on that, they will be fired. That's the only

response we've had from your government.

Those 119 community hospitals want an answer other than threats and intimidation. I want to ask you again, Premier: what are the criteria for having their

operating deficits addressed? Do you find the behaviour of this minister acceptable? Are you going to allow this kind of behaviour to continue?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, they get that issue addressed through the Ministry of Health, where it should be addressed. That's how they get the

issue addressed.

If you want to talk about independence of the public service, we certainly understand on this side of the House that the

independence of the Ontario public service is vital and important. That is more than I can say for the previous New Democratic regime in Ontario, which took a very political person, the principal

secretary from the Premier's office, and made that individual secretary of cabinet -- totally inappropriate for the independence of the Ontario public service. So I think you might want to look in

your own closet before you start looking in others'.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My next question is also for the Premier. And the 119 hospitals still want an answer, Premier.

My question is about the container board mill at Sturgeon Falls. As you know, Weyerhaeuser closed their container board mill in Sturgeon Falls last week,

laying off 140 workers, but they're going to keep the hydro generating station. They're not going to close it. They're going to keep the hydroelectric generating station and six or seven employees

because they've discovered that, under your system of hydro privatization and deregulation, they can make more money by laying off the employees and simply selling hydro at the much higher hydro

prices your government has established.

Premier, is this your idea of how hydro privatization and deregulation is supposed to work for northern Ontario communities?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I refer the question to the Minister of Northern Development.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I thank the member for the question; it's an important question. Certainly there

are a lot of jobs at stake in Sturgeon Falls, some 128 jobs, and the government is very concerned. The company has made it clear, though, and I've spoken to officials at the company, that it's an

old plant and for those reasons they want to close it down. Yes, they do have a hydroelectric project up there that is very successful. The company also wants to make it clear that in no way is

that project tied to their decision about this particular plant.

Mr Hampton: Here's the reality: they're going to lay off the 140 workers but they are going to continue to operate the hydro generating plant

because they figured out they can make more money selling hydroelectricity under hydro privatization than they can make employing 140 mill workers. They've also indicated that they actually want to

increase the generating capacity of the plant from seven megawatts to four megawatts. We've already heard from the two major employers in Wawa, which is surrounded by hydro generating stations,

that they don't know if they can continue to operate the sawmill and the gold mill.

Tell me, Minister, is this your image for the northern Ontario economy: shut down the sawmills, shut down the paper mills, shut down the pulp mills, lay

everybody off, and make your money selling electricity into the privatized, deregulated hydro market? Is that your vision for the northern Ontario economy?

Hon Mr Wilson: Having met with the mayor of Sturgeon Falls just last week, and a number of people in that part of the north, they certainly

have a different take on this; they still have hope that those jobs in one form or another can be saved. They are not giving up on their community. They have a very positive attitude, and they see

hydroelectric as an inexpensive, clean form of electricity that may attract new industry to that part of the north. In many ways, the hydroelectric projects up there are a positive for the creation

of new jobs and economic development.

Sturgeon Falls certainly doesn't need any more knocks at this time. It needs the understanding of the leader of the third party, and it needs the promotion of

this government and all levels of government to make sure we do what we can for the people who are being laid off and try and get them new jobs.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): My question is to the Premier. I'd like to return to the subject of the unlawful conduct of

the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Interjections.

Mr Smitherman: Oh, yes, the Public Service Act. I recommend it; it's a good read.

On Wednesday, your Minister of Northern Development threatened the employment of every public servant in the province who is not a card-carrying Conservative.

When confronted with his comments later, he said, "It's not a threat; I promise to do so."

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Can I ask for some clarification,

if one member can accuse the other member of unlawful conduct?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): You can't say that. I didn't hear it. I'd ask the member to kindly watch his wording on that.

Mr Smitherman: On Thursday --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Come to order right now, government benches.

Mr Smitherman: I'm not used to this heckling, Mr Speaker.

On Thursday, he made matters worse -- he said the comments reflected his passion -- and today we see this conditional apology: stale contrition at best.

Menacing the livelihood of public servants is gravely serious. Their political rights are protected by the Public Service Act. The minister made serious

threats. He must be dismissed from the cabinet. Premier, when will you obtain his resignation?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale, he might want to set a standard

himself by apologizing for the very inappropriate remark he just made in this Legislature.

Mr Smitherman: Mr Speaker, it seems to me that we all had a feeling in this province that our Premier was pretty lame, but the response that

you just gave demonstrates just how lame you are. The conduct that we're dealing with here --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Come to order. You can't use that. It's hard to keep order when you use language like that. I'll ask you to withdraw that.

You can't call the Premier "lame." You need to withdraw that.

Mr Smitherman: I'll happily do that. Perhaps --

The Speaker: Not good enough. No.

Mr Smitherman: I will. I withdraw. Yes, sir.

The Speaker: Don't yell at me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Come to order, please. The member can't continue. I would ask him to be very cautious in the language he uses. I will be

listening very carefully. The member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale.

Mr Smitherman: Mr Speaker, at your suggestion I did withdraw immediately. If I didn't do that in the proper fashion, I apologize to you, sir.

No disrespect was intended.

I return to the --

Interjection.

Mr Smitherman: It took him five days, Madam Minister.

I would say that we have heard in this House today an apology that was loaded with conditions, an apology that sought to blame this side for provoking him

because of his passions.

I would say to the Premier, in asking this question: I recently got a speeding ticket and I apologized to the police officer, but I settled my account in the

eyes of justice by paying a $111 fine. The apology notwithstanding, I would ask the Premier, will you seek this minister's resignation because of the conduct he demonstrated in terms of disrespect

to the democratic process and to bureaucrats --

The Speaker: The member's time is up.

Hon Mr Eves: Nobody suggests that the comments that were made by the Minister of Northern Development were appropriate. He doesn't suggest

that, I don't suggest that, I don't think anybody suggests that. He has done the honourable thing. He has apologized. I think that is the appropriate course of conduct, just as your apology today

is an appropriate course of conduct.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Our children are our most precious resource, and the

vast majority of children in my riding of Perth-Middlesex and in rural ridings across the province travel to school each day by school bus. As a matter of fact, 800,000 students across Ontario ride

school buses each and every day.

Research tells us that school bus travel remains the safest form of transportation for students. However, I'm sure we would all agree that when it comes to the

safety of our children, there's always room for improvement. Minister, can you tell me and my constituents what your ministry is doing to improve safety for our children as they're transported to

and from school each day?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Transportation): I'm happy that our members are engaged in real issues and real policy discussions.

Safe transportation of our schoolchildren is of course of tremendous importance to each and every one of us, particularly those of us who represent some parts

of rural Ontario. Today we are launching our annual School Bus Safety Week campaign to remind everyone of their responsibilities around school buses and school zones, especially drivers who come

upon school buses. Our strategy aims to enhance school bus safety through public education of students, parents and motorists and by making all road users accountable for their actions. In fact,

Ontario has some of the toughest penalties for drivers committing school bus violations. We seek to improve school bus safety, and we will do that in any way we can that's possible.

Mr Johnson: Public education and increased penalties are certainly important aspects of enhancing school bus safety. However, safety can also

be put at risk by an unsafe vehicle, an unsafe bus driver, as well as either inattentive or careless motorists or speeders. People in my riding of Perth-Middlesex would like to know what you're

doing to ensure school buses are safe and drivers are appropriately qualified to transport our children.

Hon Mr Sterling: One of the things I would like to do is thank all the school bus drivers who have transported our children safely over the

past number of years. We have a tremendous record, and part of that record is due to the fact that we have set high standards for those drivers and they have come through for us. We have licensing

standards that exceed those established by the national safety council of Canada. On each driver we ask for a criminal record search to be done, and we re-test our drivers every five years.

We have done a great deal in terms of this area. It is an area that needs continuous improvement and I, along with my colleagues, am open to any kinds of

suggestions and changes that would enhance the safety of our children in terms of their transportation in the future. I want to thank all the operators and drivers for the tremendous job they've

done for the children of Ontario.

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with her signed approval of the $10-million

tax break for the Blue Jays and the Raptors.

On April 2 you signed a document that said the Minister of Finance had recommended the $10-million deal and that the cabinet had agreed to the deal. We've

learned since that the Minister of Finance, Mr Flaherty, has said that he never recommended it; in fact, he argued strongly against it. We also have learned that it wasn't approved in cabinet. Many

of the cabinet members have said that they were against it and that it was never approved by cabinet. So we have a signed document by you that was seriously wrong on two points. You must have known

it was not accurate at the time you signed it, Minister. My question is this: why did you sign a document you must have known was not accurate?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): To the honourable member, I know he doesn't mean to imply what he has just implied.

As Minister of Education, I was asked to sign an order in council to implement a decision. Due diligence was done, the process was followed, I signed the order

in council, and as far as I knew and to the best of my knowledge, that was the end of the matter.

Mr Phillips: When you say you did due diligence, I think people have a right to say, "What kind of due diligence did you possibly do?" I say

again that the document you signed says "the Minister of Finance recommends." Mr Flaherty has made it very clear he never recommended it; in fact, he was strongly against the proposal. It says that

this document you're signing had the "concurrence of the executive council," in other words, the agreement of the cabinet.

You've said you did due diligence on this, but we find that the Minister of Finance did not recommend it, was strongly against it, and that cabinet did not

approve it. I ask you again, Minister: why did you sign this document that you must have known, if you did in fact do your due diligence, contained at least two major inaccuracies?

Hon Mrs Ecker: As I said very clearly to the honourable member, I signed an order in council. I was asked to sign an order in council. It is

not an unusual step in government of any political stripe at the federal or provincial levels to use orders in council to implement decisions of the government. I signed that order based on the

information that was provided to me, and that is as it stands.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): My question is to the Minister of Education. As you know, when we had the budget there was some talk

in it about many of the schools that needed repair, and that maybe some of them across the province needed to be rebuilt. It was also mentioned that nine had been picked out to be done. Also

mentioned in the budget was that there was a committee or some sort of organization set up to look at different schools throughout the province. I would like the minister maybe to explain a little

bit about this committee and what they're doing.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): We released, in May of this year, grants for school renewal in the amount of

$241 million, in 2002-03 alone. As the member has indicated, we provided funding in order that nine schools that it was simply prohibitive to repair could be replaced. However, we recognize there

are many schools throughout Ontario that certainly need repair, so what we're proposing to do over the next two years is to inspect the schools across Ontario. We have provided $17 million to

determine which schools are most in need of repair and then to provide the appropriate funding.

Mr Murdoch: That's fine, Madam Minister, but as you will know, in my area the Bluewater District School Board has done extensive studies. We

had many meetings in the Bruce Peninsula and we had to come to some decisions. We have a high school in Wiarton that, as we speak here today, is practically falling down around the students. This

committee has not been there, to my knowledge. I would just like you to explain to the House and to the people in the Wiarton area what is going on and when we can expect some word about when our

school will at least get repairs or when a new one will be built.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The round of inspections will be starting immediately. I'm very pleased to say that the Bluewater District School Board, which

I think includes Wiarton, has identified two schools that have the most pressing needs. Their number one choice for inspection is the Wiarton high school, because they do believe it is in need of

inspection. I believe the inspections will most likely have been completed by Christmas this year, and there will then be information forthcoming about the future of the Wiarton high school.

WATER EXTRACTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Premier. Your own constituents are outraged over your failure to protect the

quality and quantity of their drinking water. Your government is letting a local water bottling company pump more than four million litres of water out of the ground, and that's leading up to the

possible extraction of nearly one billion litres per year. Residents in the Mono Centre area are understandably afraid that these massive water takings will dry up their wells, and the local

conservation authority is concerned that the creek will be threatened.

The Mono Mulmur Citizens' Coalition has collected more than 8,000 signatures from your own riding calling on you to stop issuing permits to take water in the

area at least until the proper scientific studies are done. Will you do what your constituents are asking, and what Justice O'Connor recommended, and start protecting the province's precious supply

of groundwater?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I believe the Minister of the Environment has a response.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): This government has taken, I think, enormous steps with respect to

Justice O'Connor's Walkerton part one and Walkerton part two recommendations.

You know full well that Bill 175 is designed to protect drinking water in this province. You know that we're doing a source protection examination to determine

a bill that can protect sources of water in this province. Water management studies are being done with respect to conservation authorities; a Safe Drinking Water Act is coming forward with respect

to that. Nutrient management is a good example of safe drinking water and how we take the water issue very seriously.

For you to stand in your place and suggest we're not handling this -- we've said we'll adopt every recommendation from Justice O'Connor that came out of the

Walkerton report.

This government is taking the lead to have in the province of Ontario the safest drinking water throughout the world. Once these legislation initiatives have

been put through this House and adopted, there is no chance that you will have safer drinking water anywhere in the world than in Ontario.

Those kinds of allegations are spurious --

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

Ms Churley: Premier, back to you; I'm talking about citizens in your riding. They're now asking questions that people all over the province

want answered and that the Minister of the Environment still did not answer. How much water do we have? How much water is being taken from rivers, lakes and the ground? What impact will it have on

our drinking water and ecosystems?

The truth is that you and your Minister of the Environment don't have a clue. You don't have answers to any of those questions because you haven't implemented

the watershed planning that Justice O'Connor recommended. Your constituents, and indeed the people of the province, can't wait until you finish patting yourselves on the back for bringing forward a

Safe Drinking Water Act that actually is weaker than the bill I brought forward and that says nothing about groundwater protection. You need to take action now on source protection.

So I'm asking you a specific question: will you commit today to bring in a moratorium to stop issuing permits --

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

Hon Mr Stockwell: The site you're speaking about received an application to take water. The ministry received that application for permit of

water taking and is conducting studies to determine whether it's allowable. They have allowed a temporary permit to extract a small amount of water at that site to do an examination of the needs

and concerns of the community with respect to the amount of water taken.

The answer to your question is very clear: the actual permit to allow them to take water in the volume you're suggesting hasn't been approved because the

studies aren't back. So the simple fact of the matter is, they posted that, and they're getting complaints from the area. They're dealing with those complaints and doing the study in co-operation

with the company that's seeking the water-taking permit.

So the fact remains that your statement that they're taking millions and millions of gallons of water as of today isn't the case, because the ministry is

working on a planned study in the community with a temporary permit to examine the amount of water that is being taken to approve in the future. There has been no conclusive decision taken, and

they're doing the responsible thing: they're examining the application, studying it and --

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

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Deputy, on Thursday you stood in this House and levelled false

accusations against me. What you said in response to my question was that I had been overspending my budget since I arrived here at Queen's Park. Following that question, you had your staff skulk

around to the reporters here and tell them that in fact that was false, but you yourself, Deputy Premier, never apologized.

This is not something that just sort of came out by accident. This was fairly premeditated, because you as an

individual, who have been here more than 10 years, who have been in opposition and in government, know "full well" that you can't overspend your MPP global budget. You know that information is

tabled in this House, and when you get to the end of your cap, it simply stops.

Minister, are you going to do the right thing today and will you stand and apologize for your remarks?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I think what the member is referring to is a rhetorical question that I asked. I

would be happy to withdraw the rhetorical question. It was simply a question.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Deputy Premier, that's not the whole story; that's not the end of the story. Staff members from your

party have been sending media releases to local newspapers in the southwest, in my riding and others, claiming that other Liberal MPPs have overspent their global budgets. You know these

accusations are both impossible and untrue. This issue speaks to the integrity of your government. People of Ontario need to know if they can trust the information their government provides. The

information your staff distributed in the southwest is not accurate.

Deputy Premier, will you apologize on behalf of your government for spreading this false information?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's very important that all of us in this House remember the reasons why we were elected. We were elected to serve

the people in this province. We were elected to make sure there was job creation in order that we could have the resources to pay for health services and educational services and the protection of

our environment.

I believe that it is time that we move forward and that we deal with the issues, the needs of the people in the province of Ontario, and that we move forward

in a way that responds to their needs.

MARIJUANA GROW HOUSES

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): Talking about glass houses, thank you for sending your press release to my home newspaper. I appreciate it.

I got great press. And I got a resounding response of one positive call. Thank you. Good luck.

My question is for the Minister of Public Safety and Security. As we've seen in the media lately, there are many ongoing problems with marijuana home grow

houses, as I understand from some of my constituents who have come to me regarding marijuana grow houses in residential neighbourhoods, because of the problems they've had. In fact, I've had four

within a block of my own house this past year that have been busted.

Minister, the police and courts are struggling to cope with the volume of these houses, not to mention the damage and danger to our families and characters.

Are you aware of this problem, Minister, and what are you doing about it?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): I want to thank the member for Brampton Centre for the question. I know he

has a particular concern regarding this issue, given the recent raids in Brampton neighbourhoods. The police have estimated that indoor marijuana grow houses is a $1-billion-a-year industry, making

it the third-largest cash crop in Ontario. In addition, grow houses steal hydro power. Police estimate these operations are involved in $18,000 to $20,000 worth of stolen hydro per grow house

operation every year.

More important is the economic benefits these homes supply to criminals, especially organized crime. In two recent cases in Toronto, 632 marijuana plants,

worth approximately $600,000 on the street, were seized. In the London area there have been five busts that collected a total of 713 plants worth over $1.5 million dollars on the street. Those are

obviously large profits for those involved, regrettably with very little consequence.

Mr Spina: I know it's at almost epidemic proportions. Peel regional police tell me they've probably identified close to 170 houses within

Mississauga and Brampton alone. The problem is that they need the resources. There have to be a number of measures and it's not just policing. I know it falls within the jurisdiction of the courts

and so forth, but what can we do as citizens to assist the police in this process, and what are the measures that have to be taken to stem the tide of this epidemic?

Hon Mr Runciman: There's no question that this is currently a low-risk, high-reward, slap on the wrist business. There are no minimum

sentences under federal legislation. In the case of the two Toronto raids, not one of the individuals received a sentence longer than one year, nor did any of them pay a fine greater than $100.

Most first offenders receive jail terms of 30 to 60 days. We clearly need minimum sentences if we want to effectively combat this growing plague in our province. Organized crime is very actively

involved. Police services are overwhelmed, and we will be calling on the federal government at the upcoming federal-provincial conference to institute minimum sentences.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): My question is for the Minister of Education. The parents and children in Linden,

Sheffield and Dundas are truly losing their faith and patience with you and your government. Ten days ago you told us in this House that it would be school trustees who would make any final

decision with respect to closing their schools. No sooner were the words out of your mouth than your board supervisor Jim Murray was quoted as saying, "Right now, I am the board, I am the supreme

authority. The board trustees don't have those powers."

For two long, agonizing years, school trustees and parents, using your ministry-mandated process, discussed school closures. After much thought, the board

decided that Linden, Sheffield and Dundas schools would remain open. Minister, will you stand in your place today and tell this House that your government-appointed supervisor will not be closing

our precious rural schools, and that you continue to stand by what you said to me last week, that only the elected school trustees will make these informed decisions?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): Under normal circumstances, it is trustees in Ontario who make decisions

regarding school accommodation reviews, as to where schools will be built to accommodate increases in population and also decisions regarding where schools may be closed in areas where there's a

decrease in population. However, since the trustees in the Hamilton area abdicated their responsibility and did not provide a balanced budget, the superintendent is now making decisions regarding

school accommodation.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): It's a super-lord, not a superintendent, by the way, Minister. I attended the first meeting of the

one-member, self-appointed, one board member. It was surrealistic, with the director of education looking quite humiliated. While you read out the motion, he reads out the motion, he looks around

and says, "Any other staff wanting to make comment? No other staff." Then he says, "Passed." He went through and rescinded decisions on the bylaws on the consultative process. He rescinded the

decision trustees had made, a no on three school closures -- called that forward; changed the consultative

schedule to speed it up to suit his own particular area. This government-appointed

superlord wrapped up 100 years of local democracy in five minutes. It's a shame to see that. The parents and teachers were totally embarrassed.

He's making decisions that you and the Premier said would not be taken by him. Will you overturn the decisions related to school closures and special

education?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I understand that in Ottawa the supervisor has certainly been hearing people. I understand there is a huge need for schools in

some of the outlying suburban areas, and I understand that people in those areas are asking for new schools. It's really important that we keep in mind that in Ottawa we have 18 elementary schools

with less than 70% capacity and seven secondary schools as well. These are some of the issues the supervisor needs to deal with. Obviously, he must respond to the people in the outlying areas of

Ottawa who have been demanding new schools for years because their students are in overcrowded accommodations.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We know the Ontario agri-food industry is a

major contributor to the province's economy in terms of job creation and growth. Given that the past year has presented significant challenges for farmers, can you provide us with an indication of

how the industry has performed over the past year?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I would like to thank the member, and I would like to say that despite this year of

depressed commodity prices, poor weather and unfair US subsidies, our agriculture sector continues to display a competitive spirit. In 2001 this province led the country in agricultural production,

with total farm cash receipts of close to $8.5 billion, which translates into nearly one quarter of the total farm gate receipts in Canada.

I want to assure the honourable member, who has a large agricultural contingent in his riding, that this government continues to work at long-term strategies

to assist our farmers. That's why we have moved forward with the federal government on $72.5 million in bridge financing and negotiated comprehensive risk-management strategies this year so that we

can be there to protect the agricultural community as they move into the future.

Mr Dunlop: Thank you very much for that answer and for your ongoing support for Ontario agriculture. I can tell you that the agricultural

stakeholders in my riding are very pleased with the way you have performed in your position as Minister of Agriculture and Food.

I'm aware that there are more than 1,200 food-processing establishments in our province. How has this important sector

of the economy performed over the past year as well?

Hon Mrs Johns: I'm pleased to inform the member that once again, Ontario led all provinces in agri-food exports by shipping some $7.4 billion

in product in 2001. That's quite an accomplishment. Over 70% of these exports were value-added and consumer-oriented. That continues to increase as we move forward.

In the period from January to July 2002 we were up more than 6% over the same period in the previous year, with nearly

$4.7 billion in shipments of Ontario product around the world. That accounted for more than $800 million in new investments in the agri-food/agri-beverage business in 2001.

We continue to move forward. Last week I worked with OMAF to ensure that we brought industries from all around the world -- 35 buyers in the retail food chain

from the United States and 60 Ontario food processors -- together in Ontario to ensure that we continue to export Ontario product.

EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANTS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): My question is for the Minister of Education. Perhaps she'd be good enough to take her seat for

me.

Minister, parents, trustees, teachers, all the citizens of Ontario are used to your standard operating procedure whereby you cut the macro budgets to school

boards, and then, when the trustees are left making impossible decisions you stand in your place and you say, "It's not my fault; it's the trustees' fault. They made that decision."

Tomorrow in Hamilton, you can't play that shell game. We have educational assistants sitting down with your supervisor, not our trustees. You caused a coup

d'état in Hamilton. We don't have trustees any more; we have your supervisor. That supervisor will sit down with representatives of over 500 educational assistants. If there is not an

agreement, there are hundreds of special-needs children on Thursday morning who will not be able to go to school.

What, Minister, are you going to do to ensure those educational assistants are in the classroom?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): It would be totally inappropriate for me to answer that question during a time

of negotiations.

Mr Christopherson: No, Minister. You see, that's not good enough either. The fact of the matter is that you stepped in and said our elected

trustees no longer have the democratic responsibility that the citizens of our city gave them. You appointed your own supervisor. As far as we're concerned in Hamilton, it's you sitting at the

table. So you are the person we should ask as to whether or not we're going to get agreement.

Minister, you consistently stand up and say that you care about children with special needs, that you care about our families that are facing these challenges.

Now's your chance to do something about it, and we're going to hold you accountable.

I call on your again, Minister, to stand in your place and tell us what direction you're going to give your supervisor so that our special-needs children in

Hamilton can rightfully attend their classrooms.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just respond again, as I did before: it would be totally inappropriate for me to respond during a time of collective

bargaining.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, it is now a

fact: you have underestimated the number of students who will be graduating and applying for colleges and universities. You've underestimated by 30%: up to 11,000 students may not have a spot.

Stakeholder groups have been warning you, the opposition has been warning you, but to no avail.

In the spring of last year, after half-a-billion-dollar cuts over the last five years, you finally put some money in the post-sec budget at the lowest possible

estimate of the double cohort. The responsible thing would have been to at least look at the average. Instead, you took the lowest possible estimate. It now looks like the highest possible estimate

is the true case.

Minister, we are not fearmongering; we are stating facts. This isn't my research; this is your research that shows this. What will you do in very quick fashion

to fix the problem that your government made?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): In Ontario students make

decisions about what secondary institutions they attend. Many of them have not yet made those decisions at this time, but we will have a better estimate probably by the end of December.

In response to my colleague and my critic -- who actually does a good job in her role, in my view -- I would say this: we are looking at a number of scenarios.

I cannot base my decisions on anything but the numbers that we get from education, where the students have given us their intentions; in working with the colleges, where they know where the

students are coming from, meaning the secondary schools; the universities -- last year, university applications increased by 16%, more than many commentators expected, but through broad planning we

were able to ensure that --

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

Mrs Bountrogianni: Minister, you've just made our case here and the case for the students of Ontario: more than you expected are applying. But

it is wrong to say that we have not heard from colleges and universities of the need. It is wrong to say that no one has told you that there will be more students than expected. That's wrong. As

late as two weeks ago you were told, but as early as last spring statistics showed that up to 30% won't get in. These are students who have played by the rules, who have worked, who have studied,

whose parents have saved, and they will not have a space.

Minister, I know you know that it's too late at the end of December. It takes a year to hire professionals.

Interjection.

Mrs Bountrogianni: What do you know?

It takes an average of six years, $6,000 --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member will know if you yell those things, it makes it difficult. You may wrap up the question; you've got 10 seconds

to wrap up.

Mrs Bountrogianni: It takes approximately $6,000, Minister of the Environment, just to interview a professor, and I know the minister knows

that.

We do have a crisis now. What I'm asking is, how are you going to solve this crisis at this very late date?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Last year, in spite of the same kinds of questions, every qualified and motivated student found a place in our colleges

and universities. More came; we gave them more money. Next year, every qualified and motivated student will in fact find a place in our colleges and universities.

This is a time when we should be supporting our families. It's a time when, in the past, like in the future, parents are concerned. But if the students are

motivated and they get the marks, there will be a place for every qualified and motivated student in our universities, as in the past.

Mr Speaker, you're a parent. We have to be reasonable with our young people, and we have to encourage them. Sitting around the breakfast table this morning,

after looking at all of the media, I'm sure people will not feel good, but they should, because there will be a space for those students.

ONTARIO INNOVATION SUMMIT

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I guess I just made the bell.

My question is for the Associate Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation. Minister, As you know, on November 5, Toronto will play host to the

Ontario Innovation Summit. Apparently, this forum will provide a unique opportunity for participants to explore innovative approaches to improve Ontario's competitiveness, productivity and economic

growth.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. He's going to get his question. Sorry for the interruption. The member may continue.

Mr Beaubien: Are we ready? OK. Minister, can you expand on some of the details of the summit for the members of this House, and also, what

role our government is going to play in implementing some of the recommendations that may come out of this summit?

Hon David Turnbull (Associate Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): I'd like to thank the member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex for

this most important question. The Ontario Innovation Summit will provide an opportunity for representatives of Ontario's companies to hear from international experts on the question of innovation.

They're going to have an opportunity to learn from the lessons of other jurisdictions where opportunity has been gained from innovation. Roger Martin, the dean of U of T's Rotman business school,

will be the keynote speaker, and he's going to release his task force report, commissioned by our government, on competitiveness, productivity and prosperity. He is measuring Ontario's progress for

higher productivity.

Innovation is a priority for our government. We intend to provide a culture of innovation in this province. This is going to ensure that the province maintains

and improves on its competitiveness position in the globe.

VISITOR

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): In the members' gallery today, I would like to welcome Al Smith. Mr Smith was air crew during World

War II, was shot down over France, and spent the balance of the war in Buchenwald concentration camp. It is because of sacrifices by individuals such as him that we enjoy the freedom and democracy

we have, and I welcome him here.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it concerns the multi-laning of Highway 69 between

Sudbury and Parry Sound.

"Whereas modern highways are economic lifelines for the north; and

"Whereas the stretch of Highway 69 from Sudbury south to Parry Sound is a treacherous road with a trail of death and destruction; and

"Whereas the carnage on Highway 69 has been staggering; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has shown gross irresponsibility in not four-laning the stretch of Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

"Whereas immediate action is needed to prevent more needless loss of life; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility of a government to provide safe roads for its citizens, and the Harris-Eves government has failed to do so;

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Eves government to begin construction immediately and

four-lane Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound so that the carnage on Death Road North will cease."

I affix my signature to this petition, give it Valerie and ask her to bring it to the table.

RICK KERR

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to read a petition from some of my constituents in the riding of Durham.

To the Ontario Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas Rick Kerr has distinguished himself as a dedicated member of Durham College through 25 years of service; and

"Whereas his commitment to student success and professionalism has set an outstanding example for Ontario's college education sector; and

"Whereas his nickname of `Captain KPI' should in no way diminish his accomplishment of organizing program mapping when no one else would; and

"Whereas Rick's proficiency as a squash player and his status as the most physically fit person on campus has earned him only passing glares; and

"Whereas his commitment to student fashion has made the police foundations program clothing order an international event for the textile industry; and

"Whereas the Kerr family has an outstanding reputation in the community for teaching, and Rick also teaches;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize Rick Kerr's long service and dedication to the Durham College community."

Many of my constituents have signed this very complex petition. I will as well.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): The increase in long-term-care costs for residents of long-term-care facilities is just

dreadful. We've had an amazing petition campaign. I would like to read one of the petitions.

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid for by seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities by 15% or $7.02 per diem

effective August 1, 2002; and

"Whereas this fee increase will cost seniors and our most vulnerable more than $200 a month; and

"Whereas this increase is 11.1% above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the increase in the government's own contribution to raise the level of long-term-care services this year is less than $2 per resident per day;

and

"Whereas according to the government's own funded study, Ontario ranks last among comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a resident for

nursing and personal care; and

"Whereas the long-term-care funding partnership has been based on government accepting the responsibility to fund the care and services that residents need;

and

"Whereas government needs to increase long-term-care operating funding by $750 million over the next three years to raise the level of service for Ontario's

long-term-care residents to those in Saskatchewan in 1999; and

"Whereas this province has been built by seniors who should be able to live out their lives with dignity, respect and in comfort in this province;

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

"Demand that Premier Eves reduce his 15% fee increase on seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities and increase provincial government

support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

I want to thank Alma Gatien, who put together 486 names on this petition and presented it to me. I'm very pleased to sign my name on behalf of the

petition.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I have over 2,000 signatures here.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid for by seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities by 15% or $7.02 per diem

effective August 1, 2002; and

"Whereas this fee increase will cost seniors and our most vulnerable more than $200 a month; and

"Whereas this increase is 11.1% above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the increase in the government's own contribution to raise the level of long-term-care services this year is less than $2 per resident per day;

and

"Whereas according to the government's own funded study, Ontario ranks last amongst comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a resident for

nursing and personal care; and

"Whereas the long-term-care funding partnership has been based on government accepting the responsibility to fund the care and services that residents need;

and

"Whereas government needs to increase long-term-care operating funding by $750 million over the next three years to raise the level of service for Ontario's

long-term-care residents to those in Saskatchewan in 1999; and

"Whereas this province has been built by seniors who should be able to live out their lives with dignity, respect and in comfort in this province;

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

"Demand that Premier Eves reduce his 15% fee increase on seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities and increase provincial government

support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

I proudly sign my name to this petition.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I have a petition here from concerned citizens of the Rockland and St-Paschal-Baylon

area.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government is shutting down the heart surgery unit at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario; and

"Whereas every year CHEO treats 140 cases of seriously ill children close to home; and

"Whereas centralization of children's heart surgery in Toronto would force patients and their families to travel 400 to 600 kilometres away from home at a

traumatic time; and

"Whereas there is a waiting list for cardiac surgery in Toronto but not at CHEO; and

"Whereas the people of eastern Ontario demand accessible, quality health care for their children;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately override the government's decision to close this life-saving program and to

ensure that top-quality accessible health care remains available to every child in eastern Ontario."

I proudly add my signature to the petition.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario Energy Board has consented to allow Union Gas to retroactively charge $40 per month for a three-month period to recover additional system

operation costs that occurred during the winter of 2000-01 totalling approximately $150 million; and

"Whereas Union Gas will recover accrued costs over the peak heating season, causing undue hardship; and

"Whereas this retroactive charge will affect all customers who receive Union Gas, including new homeowners and new customers to Union Gas;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive under

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy

Board Act disallowing the retroactive rate hike granted to Union Gas, and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes

that will protect consumers from further retroactive rate increases."

This is signed by a number of residents from Chatham, Ridgetown, Leamington, Blenheim, Dresden and Woodstock, and I too have signed this petition.

EXCELLENCE FOR ALL

EDUCATION PLAN

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Ontario students are experiencing a disruptive learning environment and currently do not have access to a full range of extracurricular

activities;

"Whereas extracurricular activities are an essential part of a quality, well rounded education for our students;

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty has put forth the Students First Excellence for All education plan;

"Whereas the Ontario Liberal plan is a reasonable compromise;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario government to immediately adopt the Excellence for All education plan."

I sign this petition.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is another petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it deals with the multi-laning of Highway

69. It says:

"Whereas modern highways are economic lifelines for the north; and

"Whereas the stretch of Highway 69 from Sudbury south to Parry Sound is a treacherous road with a trail of death and destruction; and

"Whereas the carnage on Highway 69 has been staggering; and

Whereas in the last three years, 46 people have lost their lives; and

Whereas this year alone, 10 people have been killed on that stretch of highway between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has shown gross irresponsibility in not four-laning the stretch of Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

"Whereas immediate action is needed to prevent more needless loss of life; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility of any government to provide safe roads for its citizens, and the Eves government has failed to do so;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Eves government to begin construction immediately

and four-lane Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound so that the carnage on Death Road North will cease."

I again sign my name on this petition and give it to Émilie to bring to the table.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My constituents and all the people across the province are furious about the Ontario Energy

Board's consent to allow Union Gas a retroactive delivery charge. We have got a remarkable campaign going, with letters of protest and a petition signed by thousands. I'd like to read some of those

petitions.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Energy Board has consented to allow Union Gas to retroactively charge $40 per month for a three-month period to recover additional system

operation costs that occurred during the winter of 2000-01 totaling approximately $150 million; and

"Whereas Union Gas will recover accrued costs over the peak heating season, causing undue hardship; and

"Whereas this retroactive charge will affect all customers who receive Union Gas, including new homeowners and new customers to Union Gas;

"Therefore we demand that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive under

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy Board Act disallowing the retroactive

rate hike granted to Union Gas; and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes that will protect consumers from

further retroactive increases."

It has been an effective campaign and the energy board is being reviewed, but I am very pleased to continue to read these petitions and sign my name to

them.

LONG-TERM CARE

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

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid for by seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term care facilities by 15% over the last three

years, or $3.02 per diem in the first year and $2 in the second year and $2 in the third year, effective September 1, 2002; and

"Whereas this fee increase will cost seniors and our most vulnerable more than $200 a month after three years; and

"Whereas this increase is above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario for 2002; and

"Whereas according to the government's own funded study, Ontario will rank last among comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a resident for

nursing and personal care; and

"Whereas the long-term-care funding partnership has been based on government accepting the responsibility to fund the care and services that residents need;

and

"Whereas government needs to increase long-term-care operating funding by $750 million over the next three years to raise the level of service for Ontario's

long-term-care residents to those in Saskatchewan in 1999; and

"Whereas this province has been built by seniors who should be able to live out their lives with dignity, respect and in comfort in this province;

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

"We demand that Premier Eves reduce the 15% increase over three years in accommodation costs to no more than the cost-of-living increase annually and that the

provincial government provide adequate funding for nursing and personal care to a level that is at least the average standard for nursing and personal care in those 10 jurisdictions included in the

government's own study."

This is signed by a number of residents from Leamington and Mersea, and I too have signed this petition.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): More petitions regarding Union Gas, this one sent in by Mrs Diane Cuff:

"Whereas the Ontario Energy Board has consented to allow Union Gas to retroactively charge $40 per month for a three-month period to recover additional system

operation costs that occurred during the winter of 2000-01 totaling approximately $150 million; and

"Whereas this retroactive charge will affect all customers who receive Union Gas, including new homeowners and new customers to Union Gas;

"Therefore we demand that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive under

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy Board Act disallowing the retroactive

rate hike granted to Union Gas, and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board."

I am very pleased to sing my name to this petition.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it deals with the multi-laning of Highway 69.

"Whereas modern highways are economic lifelines for the north; and

"Whereas the stretch of Highway 69 from Sudbury south to Parry Sound is a treacherous road with a trail of death and destruction; and

"Whereas the carnage on Highway 69 has been staggering; and"

Whereas in the last three years 46 people have lost their lives tragically between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

Whereas so far this year 10 people have died needlessly in traffic accidents between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has shown gross irresponsibility in not four-laning the stretch of Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

"Whereas immediate action is needed to prevent more needless loss of life; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility of a government to provide safe roads for its citizens, and the Harris-Eves government has failed to do so;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Harris-Eves government to begin construction

immediately and four-lane Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound so that the carnage on Death Road North will cease."

I affix my signature to this petition as I've done in the past and give it to Valerie, our page, to bring up to the table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Doug Galt (Minister without Portfolio): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special

order of the House relating to Bill 60,

An Act to give victims a greater role at parole hearings, to hold offenders accountable for their actions, to provide for inmate grooming standards, and to

make other amendments to the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, when Bill 60 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the third reading

stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

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

and

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Galt moves government notice of motion 41. Ordinarily we would look to the government for a leadoff

and we would go in clockwise rotation.

Debate? The Chair recognizes the member for Glengarry-Frontenac -- Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. I'm sorry for getting those mixed up.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): That's all right, Speaker. Certainly Glengarry is a beautiful part of the

province, but the part of the province that I represent is Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.

I rise today to speak to the motion that has been placed on the floor by the chief government whip. I'm very disappointed, again, in my role as the elected

voice of the people from my riding to have to speak to a time allocation motion. What that means for the people who are observing these proceedings, for the people who might be following it in

Hansard, is that we have a very important piece of legislation that has been placed in this Legislature for debate and the government is saying, "We don't want to hear any more about it. We have

one hour to talk about all the reasons why we shouldn't hear any more about the Victim Empowerment Act." That really is the purpose of a time allocation motion.

It is the kind of motion that we have seen in this Legislature, under this leadership -- and I use that term very loosely. We've seen on dozens of occasions

where there is legislation that has been presented by the government, written by the government -- and I believe that we, as members of the opposition, have a responsibility to examine the

legislation, to offer those issues around where we believe the legislation is good and to also offer comments about where we think the legislation falls short in meeting the needs of the people in

our communities, where possibly there could be amendments to the legislation.

However, the opportunities for members of the opposition to make those points are significantly reduced, hampered, impeded, absolutely taken away when a motion

for time allocation is introduced, because it takes away from the opposition that opportunity to offer suggestions to the government about how to make legislation better, stronger and more relevant

for the people we all represent in this Legislative Assembly.

I really am very sad when I have to stand again and talk about how we, as an opposition, believe it's not just about speaking time in the Legislative Assembly,

although it is the honour I have been given by the people who elected me to be their voice in this room. I really think it is an affront to that great privilege when, time and time again, we are

presented with time allocation motions where the government is in fact saying, "We don't want to hear the voice of those people; it doesn't matter. We have the answer, and we are going to move

forward with our agenda."

In my opinion that's not appropriate and it's not the way democracy was set up to work. I think everyone should have a fair hearing. I don't think it's right

simply because someone has a majority. Perhaps from time to time, because of the fact that we do have a procedure in our standing orders for time allocation, it is appropriate that when there is a

piece of legislation that is very short and very simple and that everyone agrees on and that could not be made better, then it might be appropriate to invoke a time allocation motion. But in my

time here I have to say that would be very rare. Given the number of times we have had to stand in our place and talk about how disappointed we are that we are not going to have the opportunity to

fully flesh out our ideas in terms of where the legislation could be better, how it could be better, the kinds of amendments that the government might entertain to make it stronger for all the

people of the province, I think, is truly regrettable.

It is a very important piece of legislation that the motion impacts. It is Bill 60, the Victim Empowerment Act. It is actually a piece of legislation that will

provide more rights to victims of violent crimes than has been the case. I think it is important to note that in that respect our province is playing catch-up to what is already in place at the

federal level. The federal corrections system already allows -- for example, one of the codicils of the legislation is that telephone calls of prisoners would be monitored. That already happens in

federal penitentiaries, so there really isn't anything to argue there. We think that it is in fact past time that that would happen.

However, there was a document that was published in the year 2000. It was a report from the Office for Victims of Crime, entitled A Voice for Victims, which

made many recommendations to the government in terms of how the government might indeed do what this bill suggests the government would do; that is, provide more empowerment for victims of crime.

Just having had some benefit of some of the debate that has taken place so far in the Legislative Assembly, I think it is quite apparent that not all those recommendations have been captured in

this legislation.

I think there is room for the government to consider more of the recommendations from A Voice for Victims to ensure that victims truly do have recourse, that

they do have a say in terms of whether the person who aggrieved them, who broke the law and they were a party to that -- that in fact they are getting what is fairly and duly theirs. It's an area

that I think, and a reason why I believe, the legislation certainly deserves more consideration than the government is obviously prepared to offer for it at this particular period of time.

I also have a concern when we talk about victims of violence and victim empowerment that there are victims in the system who may not have been present at the

time of the crime but who have played a very important and key role in terms of caring for or the incarceration of the people who have been convicted or are waiting for their trial. They would be

the corrections officers in our provincial institutions, in our correctional facilities.

There has been concern expressed that the legislation is not broad enough and does not extend to in any way provide a mechanism for corrections officers to be

considered victims. One example: there was an inmate in a detention centre in this province who was given one additional day of sentence for assaulting an officer. That, in my opinion, is not

acceptable. It would be tantamount to a student who might strike another student or a teacher in a school. This is the government, I believe, that would suggest that kind of behaviour should not be

tolerated -- and I'm not suggesting that we would say it should be. But it strikes me as strange that in a school, a youngster could potentially receive a higher level of punishment for the same

kind of action that an inmate might perpetrate on a corrections officer and receive an additional day of sentence.

That does two things, of course, in my opinion: it weakens the impression of the public about the relevancy of the judicial system, and it certainly has an

impact on the hard-working corrections officers who have the responsibility to put their lives in harm's way from time to time -- on a daily basis for many -- when they deal with inmates, when they

realize that they can be virtually assaulted and the person who would do that would receive only one additional day. It's a problem worth noting. I think it's also worth noting that it's a problem

that is more prevalent in privately run institutions, as opposed to those that are publicly run.

So that's another area of concern, that unfortunately we're not really going to have the opportunity for members on this side of the House to discuss fully and

debate and to have some comment, rebuttal and so on by the government members because our voice has been stifled with a time allocation motion. We each have a fixed amount of time this afternoon.

We will be voting on the time allocation motion at about 10 to six tonight, and that will end any debate, any conversation, any opportunity to offer good suggestions about how to make this piece of

legislation stronger and work better for the people of Ontario.

That's what our role is all about. That's certainly what I take my responsibility to be, as an elected member from Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington and

also as a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. I take that role and responsibility very seriously. We have here today a motion that basically thumbs its nose at what our role here is, and that

is to focus on making laws that are good, sound and strong.

So I regret very much that it is yet another time that I have to stand and speak on this. I long for the day when the bills that are introduced in this House

will be brought forward as laws in the fullness of their time, having had full second reading debate, full third reading debate and committee hearings.

Again, it's another area of contention. We believe that the best laws come from a process where the public particularly, and in this case victims, would have

an opportunity to tell us as lawmakers exactly how they feel, to tell us about what parts of the bill really make sense to them, resonate with them, speak to their needs and address their concerns,

and also what parts of the bill perhaps we should pay more attention to or look to strengthen. That opportunity is now taken away from us today, sadly, again in the Legislative Assembly.

I can only underscore my disappointment that in a place where I was elected to be the voice of the people and to bring forward cogent points on legislation, I

really am required to stand here today and talk about all the reasons why I don't think this is fair -- and I don't think it's fair that we have time allocation on Bill 60.

I appreciate the opportunity to make these points.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Once again we find ourselves debating a muzzling motion to stifle off debate. It's interesting,

Speaker -- to remind this House -- that House leader meetings have now become pretty much dictation sessions. There was a time in this place when there were actual negotiations happening, real give

and take. I raise that because the reason the government says that they have to bring in time allocation is they can't get agreements at House leaders' meetings.

In the time that I was the House leader for the third party, often there was no debate. Whether you wanted to enter into negotiations or not really wasn't the

point. The government House leader merely sat there with a sheet of paper and said, "Here's what's going to happen next week." That's about it. There really were no negotiations.

When you take that kind of approach, when you change the rules so that that's really all that's left of the dynamism of this place, then we find ourselves with

a government that habitually, and I would say institutionally, brings in closure motions. They just build it into whatever they do. "We'll do the minimum in the House and then we'll ring in a

closure motion, we'll shut things down and then we'll move on to the next bill. We'll bring it into the House, we'll have the minimum debate, we'll bring a closure motion, and then we'll move on."

That's all that happens around here.

I think there's another reason why this bill in particular is being shut down early, and that's because the government wants to be able to say, "We did

something for victims." In fact, they like to say that they're the only ones who do anything for victims of crime: everybody on this side of the House is soft on crime; all the people on the

government side care about victims. They want the people of Ontario to believe that it's that black and white. But they also know that when they open up debate on this issue, they've got to be held

accountable for their record. I refuse to let an item go by like this without once again reminding the government members that you're the government that with great fanfare introduced the Victims'

Bill of Rights.

Oh, Speaker, to listen to the speeches that came from the government benches, you'd think that they were inventing democracy itself -- a Victims' Bill of

Rights -- you know, trying to match it up against the NDP's Environmental Bill of Rights, which fortunately has survived the axe of this government and continues to serve this province well. But

the Victims' Bill of Rights, well, that's quite a different story, isn't it, members of the government caucus?

Notice how quiet it is when we talk about this issue, Speaker? I can understand why. I wouldn't be lifting my head either and trying to draw attention to

myself during this kind of a debate, and why, you might ask, Speaker? Because this government, having introduced their great Victims' Bill of Rights, turned around and went to court and argued in

front of Judge Day that the two Ontario citizens, two women, who came to the court to have the rights that they were told by this government exist in the Victims' Bill of Rights enforced -- they

came into court, they went before Judge Day, and they said, "Your Honour" -- obviously I'm paraphrasing -- "the government told us we have certain rights as victims. To date we haven't received

those rights. We are here today, sir, to ask you to order the government to give us the rights that they told us we had."

What did the government do? They sent in their lawyers, government lawyers, to argue in front of Judge Day that those Ontario citizens did not have the very

rights that they said they wanted enforced and that this government told them they had. A scathing indictment of this government and their motives and that legislation came from Judge Day when he

had to rule, and he said, "I have no choice but to rule that those rights don't exist," because of the way you structured the law. That's how much you care about victims' rights. You stand in your

place day after day and you keep telling the people of Ontario that the world is black and white and you're the good guys in all of this, and yet the Victims' Bill of Rights is the best example --

also one of the most tragic -- of how you say one thing and you do something entirely different.

Can you imagine, Speaker? I certainly think back to the days when we were in government, and I think of the Honourable Bob Runciman when he was exactly where I

am now, over here in the third party. He was the justice critic for the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. Had I been a member of a cabinet that said, "Victims of crime,

you've got these rights," and then when somebody went to court to have those rights enforced I sent in government lawyers to argue, "No, you don't," we'd still be peeling him off the ceiling. And

yet this government has the audacity to come in -- check some of the speeches. Anybody who is following this, and there are a lot of people who care about criminal justice in our society, take a

look at what was said even about this bill.

I ask people, when they do that, to think about those two Ontario citizens who had the temerity to actually take the government at their word. The Attorney

General stood in his place and said, "You have these rights," and in court they marched in their lawyers to argue, "You do not have these rights." I say that discredits anything positive that you,

the government, want to say about your agenda for victims, because you committed a second crime against them, in my opinion. You used them. You used victims of crime to gain political points. On

the surface, it's a political place; fair enough. But to tell people who are the innocent victims of crime that you are giving them rights, knowing full well that in the detail of the law you were

not, and when somebody called you on it, you sent in the government lawyers to argue, "No, Your Honour, these Ontario citizens do not have the rights that our ministers said they have," is

disgraceful.

I argue that that's another reason why this government wants this off the plate. They want to be able to say, "We passed Bill 60" -- that's the debate you're

shutting down today -- "the Victim Empowerment Act." It sounds so good, and they want to be able to say they passed that bill. They made it a priority, brought it into the House and marched it

through. "In the face of opposition to the government we still persevered and fought for the rights of innocent victims." Yes, they want to be able to say that, but what they don't want to do is

defend their own track record. Your own track record is disgraceful on this subject, so I'm not the least bit surprised that you want this bill out of here. Then you'll just try to take whatever

glory you can from having passed a bill that says "victim empowerment" in the title and hope that nobody looks beyond that.

While I'm on my feet, and given that we are debating a closure motion, a time allocation motion, of course it's the tradition of this place to allow a little

bit of latitude in our comments. I want to talk about the victims in Hamilton in terms of the families that could very well be facing a crisis come Thursday morning, when those families that have

children with special needs, special challenges, aren't able to send their children to school because educational assistants are out on strike. Why would they be going out on strike? Because this

government has decided that the very people, the citizens we hire, to help our children with special-needs function in the classroom are taking on this government and saying, "We deserve to be paid

a decent wage for this work we're doing."

Why is it so hard for this government to accept how difficult it is to provide personal human services? Educational assistants: I know there are some people

who make minimum wage and less money than I'm about to announce, but for the education and the responsibility we ask from people who take care of our children, paying them less than $24,000 a year

sounds cockeyed to me. It's OK for your friends to be paid big dollars, but structurally to talk about people who provide personal human services, somehow paying them a decent wage is anathema to

this government.

Early childhood educators: the same thing. We know the earliest years are the most influential on our children in terms of their development. Therefore,

teachers we hire to look after our youngest citizens during these formative years should be valued in our society, but they aren't; they're among the lowest-paid. They're in the same bracket. I

think some of them make less than $24,000, significantly less.

Home care workers come to mind. Again, if you're providing personal human services or services for the personal needs each of us has at different times in our

lives, somehow that's of less value than, I guess -- I don't know -- working over on Bay Street. I think we've got things upside down. When we look at the future, at the strength of our economy, so

much of it's built on value added. What that means is that our society can provide an added value to the production of anything, whether it's an actual thing or a service, because we have people

who are so well-educated. They're healthy, they lead positive, balanced lives and they're able to bring to the workplace something that is better than and more than and of more value than other

societies. We can't do it solely on our natural resources. We certainly can't do it, contrary to this government's thinking, by paying the working people of Ontario less than anywhere else. If you

ever need an example of how that doesn't work, take a look at Mexico.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): Incomes are up --

Mr Christopherson: Hang on; just hold on for a second. Boy, we got off victims' rights and suddenly he gets animated. We'll go back to

victims' rights if you want to play heckle.

Mexico: there were thousands of jobs that were lost out of Canada, out of Ontario, out of my hometown of Hamilton -- and Allen Industries comes to mind -- that

went to Mexico. Why? Because the Mexican workers were paid so little that ultimately it was a wise investment strategy for the corporation to say, "We're going to shut down the operation in

Hamilton and we're going to move it to Mexico."

That was about 20 years ago, but do you know what's going on now, and do you know why that kind of approach cannot work

for us? Because now there are Mexicans in southern Mexico who are working for less than the Mexican workers in northern Mexico, which is where our jobs went from Hamilton, and now they're being

laid off and production is either relocating or new investment is taking place in southern Mexico because those workers are being paid even less. We can't win that game, nor should we even be in

it.

The reason we have one of the strongest, most effective auto industries and steel industries in all the world is the value added that Canadian workers bring to

the task. I raise that to take us right back to the point that if therein lies the future for our competitive edge as an economy and ultimately as a society -- assuming we spend the fruits of those

labours properly -- then it makes a great deal of sense that we would put investment in those things that will most improve the quality of life of ordinary citizens, from childhood all the way

through to a post-secondary education system, that allows the poorest Ontarian, with the smarts and the ability and the wherewithal to go as far as they can.

Yet, early childhood educators make nowhere near a reflection of the contribution they make -- yes, let's be crass -- to our economy, never mind the love,

compassion and care they bring for our children. If that doesn't move you -- it should, but if it doesn't -- then the economics alone ought to do it. Instead, they make a fraction of what they're

worth, of what their value is to us and to our future.

It's exactly the same thing for our educational assistants -- the very individuals who may have to go out on strike Thursday morning because they can't get a

decent collective agreement from this government. This time, as I mentioned during question period, you can't say it's the local school trustees, that it's their decision to make, as you did about

so many other things: school closures, cutbacks in transportation, cutbacks in maintenance in the schools, all those things where you said, "Well, yes, we may have cut the macro dollars, that may

be true, but it's the local trustees that make these decisions, and therefore we're not responsible; it's those horrible school trustees you have. That's your problem."

Well, they can't do that this time, because this time the school trustees aren't at the table. Why? Because essentially you fired them and you appointed

somebody, a supervisor, to run our entire education system. Anywhere else, that would be a coup d'état. That would be a coup d'état anywhere else. But somehow this government -- and, you

know, it's not the first time we've been through this with these clowns. We've been through this with these guys before. They've done it with our health care system --

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Those poor trustees.

Mr Christopherson: I hear the member saying, "Those poor trustees." It's too bad Hansard can't reflect the tone and the attitude that was put

to those very words, because they always want to blame somebody else; it's always somebody else's fault. Well, my point today is, it is not somebody else's fault; it's your supervisor. They're

there under your marching orders; they are there to do your bidding. I might add that having supported our trustees and then standing up to you -- and I know my colleague from Hamilton Mountain,

who is in the House also, supports the trustees in standing up and saying, "We have done so much to our system" --

Mr Gilchrist: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the

preamble of this member's comments, he bemoaned the fact that there wasn't enough time

to debate the bill before us on victims and parole issues and the like. Perhaps the member could stay on topic.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. The Chair recognizes a member for Hamilton West.

Mr Christopherson: Thank you, Speaker. Victims are victims and, come Thursday, if there isn't a resolution to the issue I am raising, we are

going to have a whole lot of families and a whole lot of children who are the innocent victims, again, of your system. While the member laughs and scoffs, let me tell you, come Thursday morning,

about not only the disappointment of those children who can't be in their classrooms but the amount of pressure that's going to put on family members, who will have to suddenly find a way to deal

with the need for care for those children because they're not going to be in the classroom.

Interjection.

Mr Christopherson: I can appreciate that the rich friends of the member doing all the hollering could just pick up the phone and hire whomever

they want. But most of the people who are going to be affected Thursday morning, if there isn't an agreement with the education assistants, can't afford to do it. If they don't have a union and a

collective agreement that provides them with the right to take family days and crisis days, then we don't know what those parents are going to do.

So victims abound in this issue. You can do something about it, and this time we're not going to let you hide. We're not going to let you play the shell game

that, "It's their decision. We didn't do it. Blame them. We're nice people; they aren't. You've got incompetent trustees," all those usual answers. You can't do that this time because the person

sitting on the management side is not the duly democratically elected representative of the city of Hamilton. It's your dictator. He will be the one sitting at the table making all the decisions.

So as I said earlier today, that means you are accountable. If it's your appointee, then you, the government, and you specifically, the Minister of Education, can't blame anybody else.

You know the $16 million that I talked about earlier and that I said our school board trustees refused to implement because of the serious damage it would do

to the education system? This supervisor -- and this has nothing to do with the individual, with the person, but the position -- is going to cost our system hundreds of thousands of dollars for his

pay, his expenses, his public relations person and any other administrative staff that he would need or any other experts that he might hire on a contract. Every penny of that money that's now been

added to the bill in Hamilton has to come out of our education system to pay for.

You said that our trustees were irresponsible, and a lot of other things too, in not passing a balanced budget, which would have meant that those further $16

million in cuts would have to be implemented. So you brought in a supervisor and you said by your action that you don't think trustees can do this, that it's really a simple matter of being more

business-minded, being more responsible, sharpening your pencil, and that all it would take is some real leadership. So you brought in this individual and gave him all the power that used to reside

in the democratically elected trustees. Do not tell the people of Hamilton, therefore, that you are not personally, as the Minister of Education, responsible for everything that happens at that

bargaining table. By extension, you are responsible if those Hamilton children with special needs are not in the classroom. You are responsible. All your protestations to the contrary, you're

responsible.

Interjection.

Mr Christopherson: You don't have your whipping boys any more. You don't have scapegoats any more. You fired them.

OK, you proved the fact that a majority government can do anything it wants. You proved that point. But with that comes responsibility. Those hundreds of

thousands of dollars that are going to be cut in addition to the $16