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

May 9, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-May-09 vol. A (PDF)

L055A - Tue 9 May 2000 / Mar 9 mai 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN ONTARIO

ONTARIO POLICE MEMORIAL

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

STRATHROY EMERGENCY RESPONSE DAY

WOODBINE RACETRACK

MISSING CHILDREN

ROB COLLINGS AND MARK ROTH

INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS

LAB-INTERLINK

VISITOR

SPECIAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF GREATER NAPANEE ACT, 2000

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

PROFESSIONAL BOXING

COURT DOCUMENTS

HOME CARE

SKILLS TRAINING

TENANT PROTECTION

AIR QUALITY

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

PETITIONS

STUDDED TIRES

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

KARLA HOMOLKA

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HIGHWAY 407

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

KARLA HOMOLKA

STUDDED TIRES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT (CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL (INDUSTRIE DE LA CONSTRUCTION)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Tucked away on page 12 in one of the small budget booklets is a line under "Northern Communities" which states, "The district of Muskoka will be included in northern Ontario for all government funding purposes." All atlas and geographic reference materials exclude the Muskokas from the boundaries of northern Ontario, but not this government. How absurd can Mike Harris get?

Over the last five years, the Mike Harris government has abandoned the north in every way possible. They have eliminated in excess of 4,000 government jobs from the north. They have made very little reinvestment in the north, and there is absolutely no plan to improve the economic face of northern Ontario. And now, the final insult is to include the Minister of Finance's southern vacation area in the north's funding envelope.

In 1988, the Liberal government implemented the northern Ontario heritage fund to expand the north's economic base. Not any more. The fund is now used to pander to the government's wealthy corporate friends as they drive to their cottages in the Muskokas, all on the backs of hard-working northerners who are struggling to eke out an existence in our region.

I am calling today on all northern political and business leaders to demand that the Mike Harris government stop its continual violation of northern Ontario with this latest crazy move and rescind the inclusion of the district of Muskoka in northern Ontario for funding purposes. If it isn't rescinded, there is no brighter future for northern Ontario. In fact, the budget fails the future of northern Ontario miserably.

ONTARIO POLICE MEMORIAL

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Yesterday, I was proud to be part of an important ceremony at the Ontario Provincial Police general headquarters in Orillia to pay tribute to the lives of Corporal Evan Gilmore of Spanish OPP, Constable Vaughan McKay of the Sudbury OPP, Senior Constable Chuck Mercier of the Niagara Falls OPP and Senior Constable Jim McFadden of the Chatham-Kent OPP. Also in attendance was Commissioner Gwen Boniface.

The names of these officers were added to the honour roll of OPP officers who sacrificed their lives to serve the people of Ontario. Each time a police officer is killed in the line of duty, the whole province shares in the tragedy. This ceremony followed Sunday's unveiling of the Ontario Police Memorial, where family members, friends and fellow police officers joined to pay tribute to the 200 officers who lost their lives in the line of duty. The names of the four slain officers who were honoured yesterday are also part of the Ontario Police Memorial.

The memorial will help preserve the memories of those courageous officers who gave their lives while serving others. As well, the memorial will inspire today's front-line officers with the knowledge that society values them as they continue to face dangers each day. It's important to remember the words inscribed on the memorial, "Heroes in life not death."

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Northern Ontario residents are angry about the Harris government's refusal to deal with the inequities in the northern health travel grant. We have told this story in this Legislature over and over. Day after day, we have read petitions from northerners demanding fair treatment. We have written letter after letter describing the hardship northern Ontario families are experiencing because of the thousands of dollars they have to pay out of their own pockets to get the care they need. The answer from the Minister of Health is always the same, "We have no plans to change the health travel grant."

Even the obvious inequity in covering 100% of the costs for southern Ontario cancer patients who have to travel for care seemed to make no difference to the answer. Even a study showing $5 million was being saved in efficiencies in the northern health travel grant program didn't lead to any increased dollars going into the budget for improvements to the support given to northerners.

We've had the same answer over and over until yesterday, when the Minister of Health said, "We'll review the program again." Why the change? Could it be because the Minister of Finance was asked a question about this on a radio open-line program last week? He seemed surprised that the problem existed. Where has he been? He did say he would look into it, so maybe that's why we now have another review; no new money, no equity, no fairness, but another review.

And now that residents of Muskoka qualify for northern health travel grants, maybe the Minister of Finance, who will certainly want fairness for more of his constituents, will at least pay some attention to this matter and he may even find some money for health care for northerners, whether they be from the northwest, the northeast or from Muskoka.

STRATHROY EMERGENCY RESPONSE DAY

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

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): Lambton-Kent-Middlesex. It's always a pleasure to speak on their behalf, and I'm glad to see that I have my colleagues supporting me from Grey-Owen Sound, Perth-Middlesex, Cambridge, and of course, not to forget, Durham.

Wednesday, May 10, marks the 10th annual international Emergency Response Day, and I would like to take this opportunity to share with the House how the town of Strathroy in my riding plans to honour the brave and women who risk their lives to protect their fellow citizens.

Emergency Response Day began as Police Day in 1991. At that time, former Strathroy Police Chief Bob Smith and Constable Bob McIlmoyle decided to hold a large event at the town arena, with 21 police departments setting up displays. The following year, ambulance services, fire departments and other emergency services were incorporated into the event, and every year since, it has continued to grow due to the hard work of organizers.

In fact, this year's event will be the largest of its kind in North America, with an estimated 7,000 people viewing more than 100 displays by 60 agencies from across Canada and the United States. As well, more than 30 elementary and nursery schools in the area will also participate in this event through safety awareness programs.

Of course, none of this would be possible without the support of the community, its volunteers and its charitable organizations. I ask the House to join me in commending Constable Bob McIlmoyle and the citizens of Strathroy for the continuing success of their Emergency Response Day celebrations, and may this event continue to grow as does Strathroy's community spirit.

WOODBINE RACETRACK

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): On March 29, 1,700 slot machines were installed at Woodbine Racetrack, and almost instantly the police forces at 23 division went to work. Officers, agents and inspectors started fielding questions on criminal acts that have invaded the area since the slot machines were installed:

"Fielding calls, that's all they do," denounced police commissioner Glen Paproski, "even though I assure the community of our continuous competent service. Woodbine attracts some 15,000 people daily. Soon, with additional slot machines, this will grow to 20,000," warned the police commissioner, "while our staff and number of officers are the same as before."

Maybe the provincial government can't see the relationship between casinos and problems of public order. While other casinos, such as Niagara, Windsor or Rama, provide their own security service, Woodbine is served and supervised by the local police force, a force which is needed in the community, visible on the streets in the community. Local councillors have been requesting the addition of some 33 police officers to help cope with the sudden increase in calls.

I ask, and a community that saw three serious criminal acts and shootings within a week asks for protection and asks, why the government is so disinterested in public safety, crime prevention and peaceful neighbourhoods.

MISSING CHILDREN

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): The month of May 2000 marks Child Find's ninth annual Green Ribbon of Hope campaign. This year the campaign will be incorporated with National Missing Children's Day to be held on May 25. The purpose of the campaign is to increase public awareness about the tragedy of missing children everywhere, and to seek their safe return. It's also about educating parents and children on how to effectively protect themselves to reduce terrible incidences of missing children and teenagers.

Child Find hopes to distribute 300,000 green ribbons in Ontario during May, as a visible sign of support for missing children and their families. Members will recall the Green Ribbon of Hope campaign begun in 1992 by students at Holy Cross Secondary School to remember the abduction and murder of Kristen French.

Last Sunday, in conjunction with Child Find, Sudbury chapter, my office hosted a child check/fingerprint program. This free service was provided by volunteers trained by the police and was available to any child who came with a parent or legal guardian. In addition to the fingerprinting, each parent received a kit called All About Me, which provides a complete profile of the child once the kit is completed. If a child goes missing, this kit can be given to the police to immediately assist in their search.

We were overwhelmed by the positive response from the community. In five and a half hours our volunteers, Bernadette Dupuis and Sue Leblanc, fingerprinted or footprinted over 70 children and babies. Other parents who were in the mall but did not have their children at the time picked up the All About Me" kit to complete it until such time as they could get the fingerprinting done.

Thanks to Bernadette Dupuis and Sue Leblanc for their tremendous work, and thanks to Child Find for making us aware of this endeavour.

ROB COLLINGS AND MARK ROTH

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): To mark Education Week in Ontario, I'd like to recognize two outstanding teachers in my riding of Perth-Middlesex.

Rob Collings and Mark Roth both teach technical studies at Northwestern secondary school in Stratford. In addition to teaching, they have gone into their community to promote the importance of a technical education in today's technological society. They have talked with industry, tradespeople, the chamber of commerce and other educators about the importance of linking technical courses with the demands of the labour force to help meet the shortages of skilled tradespeople. They have also helped to establish the Community Technical Training Centre to address the local demand for skilled individuals in technical areas.

Mark and Rob also made a very informative presentation to the Task Force on Rural Economic Renewal in St Mary's. During their March break, Mark and Rob have workshops for primary school students to show them the value of technical studies.

This Saturday, Mark and Rob are hosting a technical open house and spring sale, which includes a breakfast for co-op employers and industrial suppliers and a sale of items that students made in the classroom.

Rob and Mark are to be commended for their exemplary approach to teaching and for their perseverance in promoting the benefits of a technical education. Please join with me in recognizing Mark Roth and Rob Collings, two of the finest teachers in Ontario.

INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): I would like to ask yet again-it's not a question today, but I'd like to continue to ask the Minister of Community and Social Services how he can justify his unwarranted head tax of $925 on international adoptions.

Interjection: Shame, shame.

Mr Cordiano: It's a real shame.

These are people who go through an incredible amount of emotional grief to adopt internationally. I have pointed out time and again in this House that there is no fee for domestic adoptions. The home study that is conducted is the same for both domestic and international adoptions. The paperwork involved is the same.

It's simply not reasonable that the minister would want to exact $925 from people adopting internationally. In other jurisdictions, the United States, for example, a $5,000 tax credit is being offered for this type of an adoption. In fact, they're thinking of increasing it to $10,000.

When we passed legislation in this House two years ago, unanimously, I might add, there was no mention of a $925 head tax. So it's time for the minister to stand in this House and say he will rescind this tax, because it's odious and not justifiable.

LAB-INTERLINK

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Labotix Automation in Peterborough has recently merged with LAB-InterLink Inc of Omaha, Nebraska, combining LAB-InterLink's extensive software with Labotix's hardware expertise to provide the best open automation system available in the market today.

I'm very excited about the merger of these two companies, which means the largest installed base of clinical laboratory automation equipment in North America, along with specimen transport and robotic systems to the medical industry. The company's products work with virtually all of the leading manufacturers' laboratory instruments.

The merger would allow LAB-InterLink to provide their hospital clients with a comprehensive automation solution that has not been available to them before. At present, approximately 45 of North America's 5,000 clinical laboratories are taking advantage of automation, and LAB-InterLink is responsible for nearly half of these installations. This company will provide leading hospitals across North America and Europe with automation solutions to allow them to accurately test while controlling costs.

Congratulations on a partnership that ensures a successful future.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): In the members' west gallery we have Mr Jim Wiseman, who was the member for Durham West in the 35th Parliament.

SPECIAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On Tuesday, May 2, the House leader of the official opposition raised a point of privilege with respect to the chief electoral officer's report called Meeting the Needs of a Modern Electorate. The member asserted that the distribution of this report to the MPPs and the public was a breach of privilege.

I want to start by considering the matter of privilege. The principle of privilege as it relates to reports to the House requires that members receive copies of the report before they are made public. This was done, as the member stated when he made his point of privilege. The report was delivered to the Speaker's office and subsequently, as is our practice, to the members' mailboxes. Certain copies were then delivered to the press. This is the process that is usually followed.

The member also contended that the distribution was not in compliance with the standing orders. Pursuant to standing order 39(a), once a report has been deposited, whether or not the House is in session, it is "deemed for all purposes to have been presented to or laid before the House."

Since the report was delivered to all members prior to it being made public, I find no prima facie case of privilege has been made out. In addition, the standing orders clearly require that the reports, once delivered, are deemed to have been presented to or laid before the House.

The fact that the Speaker announces the tabling of such a report is not specifically required under the standing orders. However, it is the practice to make such announcements at the earliest opportunity. In this instance, there was a delay in presenting the report to the House and the recording of it in Votes and Proceedings. For that I apologize and assure all members that steps have been taken to prevent such a delay from occurring again.

I want to thank the member for Windsor West for raising that with me.

VISITORS

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I recognize a special group of visitors in the members' gallery today. The delegation is from Suxhou College in Jiangsu province, China, a province of 60 million people. Suxhou College has a developing partnership with Toronto's George Brown College. With the delegation is Mr William Wen Jr, the son of Mr William Wen, an Order of Canada recipient. I want to welcome our visitors to the Legislature and to Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It's not a point of order, but we do welcome our guests.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF GREATER NAPANEE ACT, 2000

Mrs Dombrowsky moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr22,

An Act respecting the Town of Greater Napanee.

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

Pursuant to standing 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I rise in the House today to announce increased compensation from the Ontario government for people who are infected with hepatitis C through tainted blood, people who should have been able to depend on our country's blood system, people who through no fault of their own now have a debilitating disease, people who our government believes should be treated fairly and equitably and with compassion.

Financial assistance for people who fall ill is somewhat unusual in Canada. We're used to seeing sufferers of a disease get health care, not compensation. After all, every Canadian who gets sick has access to necessary medical care through our public provincial health care system. But in the case of hepatitis C, the victims have needs that go beyond medical care, and in the case of hepatitis C victims who contracted the disease from tainted blood, they suffer this illness through no fault of their own because Canada's blood system failed them.

Let me talk for a moment about what hepatitis C means and the impact it has on victims. This is a devastating, debilitating disease. Many victims have needs that extend far beyond health care. Many victims are no longer able to earn a living. Some can't even perform basic work around the house, such as cutting the grass or shovelling snow. Yet even if they are too disabled to work, they still need to pay a mortgage. Even if they are too sick to provide for their families, they still need to put food on the table.

That's where financial assistance comes in, and that's why we see financial assistance as a moral imperative. These are innocent victims. These are people who went into the hospital, received transfusions, and ended up with this disease. Their only mistake was to put their faith in Canada's blood system. To dismiss their needs based on legal technicalities and arbitrary cut-offs, to treat this as a courtroom exercise rather than an issue of compassion, is an abdication of our moral responsibility as governments.

As members are aware, those victims who were infected between January 1, 1986, and July 1, 1990, benefit from a nation-wide plan of financial assistance. Our government, along with thousands and thousands of Canadians from coast to coast, didn't think that compensating only some victims was fair. We wanted to ensure that no innocent victim of tainted blood is left out in the cold. We wanted to abide by the recommendations of Mr Justice Horace Krever, to live up to the spirit of his report.

The commission of inquiry on the blood system in Canada was established in October 1993, and its report was released more than four years later. During that time, Justice Krever heard from 474 witnesses over 247 days of hearings. The testimony and submissions filled 50,000 pages of transcript, and 100,000 pages of exhibits were filed. His study was detailed, it was exhaustive, and it was complete. Mr Justice Krever said on page 1,045 of his report, "Compensating some needy sufferers and not others cannot, in my opinion, be justified." We agree.

In accordance with Justice Krever's recommendation, we would have preferred to extend compensation to everyone by working co-operatively with the federal government on a national plan that treated all victims fairly. Unfortunately, this was not to be. Our government was left with no choice but to act unilaterally, to do the right thing and to do the responsible thing.

We were the first to offer help to all those infected with hepatitis C through tainted blood. We were the first to actually put cheques in the hands of those who needed them. We were the first government in Canada to treat all the victims of this tragedy fairly, equitably and with compassion. Today I'm proud to announce that each Ontario hepatitis C victim who was excluded from the existing compensation agreement-that is, anyone infected before 1986 or after July 1990-will receive the same estimated provincial financial assistance as the average person who was included in that timeframe.

To accomplish this, we are increasing payments from $10,000 to $25,000 for each person. Our plan is fair; it is equitable; it is compassionate. We recognize the human toll of this tragedy. We're doing what we can to help all the victims and their families get on with their lives. It is the right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do.

Our initial support was applauded, I know, and supported by all members of this Legislature regardless of party. I encourage all members of the Legislature to share today's announcement with their constituents so they can get the help they need and they deserve.

However, our decision only extends equitable provincial compensation to all victims. All victims will not be truly equal until the federal government does the same. I'm asking all members to join me in urging the federal government to abandon its arbitrary, exclusionary compensation scheme and to agree to help all victims who contracted hepatitis C through Canada's blood system.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The House has just heard from Premier Harris how firmly our government is committed to fair treatment for all the innocent victims of tainted blood in Ontario. Hepatitis C is a blood-borne virus that can have devastating effects on its victims, leaving them unable to work, pay their mortgages or provide food for their families. This is the serious human cost of the disease.

As the House is aware, Justice Krever recommended in 1997 that provinces and territories devise compensation plans to help people suffering the serious consequences of receiving tainted blood or blood products. The Premier has just reminded us of how the federal government responded to Justice Krever and to the victims of tainted blood.

I can tell you that I am very proud of our government's response, and that pride is shared by people across this province. First, Ontario is contributing more than 40% of the provincial share for the federal-provincial-territorial hepatitis C settlement agreement to assist victims who contracted the disease between 1986 and 1990. But more importantly, Ontario has gone further, as the Premier has indicated, than any other government in Canada. We have extended fair and equitable financial assistance to all victims of hepatitis C, regardless of when they were infected.

Today our government is more than doubling our original compensation payment from $10,000 to $25,000 for each person who contracted hepatitis C through the blood system in Ontario before 1986 and after 1990. This increase means that our government is offering the same level of provincial compensation to all victims of this terrible tragedy. In total, we have set aside over $300 million to help the individuals and their families whose lives have been changed forever by hepatitis C.

So far, several thousand Ontarians have come forward to claim assistance and more than 2,100 people have already received $10,000 cheques. What this means is that only in Ontario are victims of tainted blood treated fairly and equitably, no matter when they were infected.

Of course, Ontario's $22-billion health system will continue to provide top-quality health care services to support all hepatitis C sufferers. That includes drug therapies and liver transplants, physician care, in-home nursing and homemaking services that will help people with hepatitis C live longer and maintain the highest quality of life.

Our government is committed to fairness and we are doing the right thing for all Ontarians who were infected with hepatitis C through the blood supply.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): On behalf of our caucus, I want to indicate that we are certainly pleased that more of the $200-million fund that was set aside to compensate victims who contracted hepatitis C before 1986 or after 1990 is going to flow to those victims. Our caucus had called for the extension of this program some two years ago. We expressed our support for the program when the government announced it, I believe about a year and a half ago, and we fully agree with all that has been said by both the Premier and the Minister of Health today about the physical, financial and human anguish of the sufferers of hepatitis C.

I believe the announcement today will alleviate some of the concerns that had begun to arise about when the $200 million in funds would actually flow to the victims of hepatitis C. The House will be aware that there are actually two funds, which I think we have to consider to be quite separate. One is the fund that is part of the federal-provincial program that's been agreed to. I believe Ontario's contribution to that fund is some $113 million. Regrettably-I would say tragically-the flow of funds under the federal-provincial program is tied up in the courts.

The second fund is the $200-million fund that came from the Ontario commitment to extend hepatitis C compensation to victims who contracted the disease before 1986 and after 1990.

Up to this point in time, as the Minister of Health has recognized, the dollars have flowed to some 2,100 victims at $10,000 per victim, which is a total of about $21 million to $22 million that has actually flowed, leaving some $180 million in the program. I understand approximately another $33 million will flow, which means we've got about $53 million that has been expended from the $200-million program. I think it's a fair question to ask how soon the rest of the $200 million is going to flow to the victims of hepatitis C.

The hepatitis C society was assured in February of this year that all of the $200 million would flow. There was some consternation when a spokesperson for the Ministry of Health indicated in February that the $200 million was just an estimate. I trust that the original agreement to flow all of the $200 million to hepatitis C victims will hold. We would be interested in knowing how many more victims the minister expects will be identified, and how long it will take to flow additional dollars to those individuals or whether there may be further compensation to people currently receiving those dollars.

I also want to recognize, with some concern, that the government has today used what I believe is in fact a compassionate action-I will not often acknowledge that in this House about this government's approach to health care, but I think this is

an act of compassion; at least I believe that to be the case-as a rather thinly veiled context in which to launch yet another partisan political attack on the federal government. We so rarely see acts of compassion from this government that I would think they would want it to stand on its merits, and to provide leadership through action and not just continue partisan bickering with the federal government.

Fifty million dollars to victims of hepatitis C is something the Ontario public most certainly supports, as we do. It's something positive. We trust the balance of the $200 million will flow, just as we trust that soon all hepatitis C victims will be compensated.

I think Ontarians want their dollars to be spent on health care. They want them to be spent in a way which is compassionate. I think they agree not only with compensation for hepatitis C victims, but that their dollars should be spent on compassionate health care for others. I find myself looking at something that I don't think Ontarians agree with, and that is a $1-billion "The cheque's in the mail" advertising campaign.

I find myself wondering what this government could have done with that $1 billion if it wanted to be truly compassionate when it comes to health care. I find myself wondering why they wouldn't want to use that $1 billion to double the amount of money that's available for home care so that victims of hepatitis C and others who need home care are able to get all the care they need and not have that care rationed, as this government has done.

I wonder if they wouldn't have been able to find maybe a few thousand dollars out of that $1 billion to give care to a man who died, a man who came to North Bay to receive care from his daughter and wasn't able to receive home care in Ontario because he had just come from Quebec.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): I'm pleased to have an opportunity to respond to the statement by the Premier today in the House. It's the job of the opposition to hold the government accountable, and I honestly believe that part of that is paying tribute when the government is doing the right thing. Today the government is doing the right thing. I have to say that it's almost a day for celebration when you hear the Premier of this province use the words "fairness," "equity" and "compassion" and actually mean it, so I applaud him.

I would love to be in a position to get him to hold those standards in all other areas of government action, but then of course he'd be a New Democrat and not a member of the Progressive Conservative Party.

On this particular issue today, I think this announcement continues to show leadership in this area and I appreciate and support, on behalf of our caucus, the announcement of the Premier. I want to go a bit further and say I also support the call, the urgent call, to ask the federal government to participate in this. Unlike my colleague who just responded, I don't think it is always a thinly veiled partisan attack to point out the obvious. On the basis of compassion and equity, it is important that all people who have been victims of the tainted blood fiasco, or their families who have been equally victimized by this, are treated equally.

That's all this is all about: It's the right thing to do. So our support to you on the initiative and our support to you on the call to the federal government to join in. I applaud the announcement today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Premier. Yesterday I exposed your political rewards program. That's the program where friends make contributions to the Mike Harris party and they receive special treatment from the Mike Harris government.

Today I have another example, and I'm going to ask a page to come here and bring over copies of two deeds. Premier, I've got a couple of deeds here, one that provides for the purchase of government land, sold by the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Chris Hodsgon, in November 1998. This same buyer sells the land in February 1999 and realizes a $3.8-million profit. He buys the land for $2.8 million, sells it for $6.6 million, and realizes a tidy profit of $3.8 million in under three months. To make matters worse, he didn't sell all of the property.

In fact, to get a profit of $3.8 million, he only had to sell one fifth of the property-one fifth of the property and he earns a tidy profit of $3.8 million.

Premier, once again on your watch Ontario taxpayers were ripped off. Can you please tell us, what excuse will you be serving up in this House today?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the member knows, as the taxpayers of this province know, that we take any allegation of wrongdoing very seriously. That's why there is an independent audit reviewing sales transactions dating back to 1985. It's why we fully support the investigation by the police, who are working closely with the independent outside auditors. Any information the member has that he thinks may fall within that category we certainly encourage him-in fact it's his duty-to turn over to the audit team and the police, and I hope he's doing that.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, let me tell you about the guy who cashed in at the taxpayers' expense this time. You would know him well. His name is Saverio Montemarano, and yes, he's an associate of Nick Cortellucci. That's the gentleman we talked about yesterday, the guy who was given a taxpayer-funded, interest-free mortgage.

These two people, Premier, are your top bagmen here in Ontario. They've hosted Premier's dinners and they've run countless fundraisers for cabinet ministers. They have raised millions of dollars for you and your party. That's not all. These two gentlemen and their companies have given you almost $500,000 of their own money since 1995. Premier, why should taxpayers be funding your political rewards program?

Hon Mr Harris: They have of course contributed to the Liberal Party too, although I don't know why, given the policies that are so anti-business and anti-jobs and anti-growth. Nonetheless, it's certainly their freedom to donate to the party of their choice. I don't know why anybody who wants jobs or growth or development donates to your party, which thinks "profit" is a dirty word.

Aside from that, I think the member is well aware that only the independent, arm's-length ORC is aware of any of the details of any of the transactions. I can assure you that they, like all agencies of our government and ministries, take no account of any political contributions to your party or our party. In fact, I doubt they are privy to any of that information. If the member believes there is something wrong with donating to a political party, say so. If he believes there is anything wrong with any of the transactions the ORC has carried out, he knows we have a full investigation underway.

Please do the responsible thing and turn it over to the authorities so we can all get to the bottom of it.

Mr McGuinty: There is nothing wrong with making contributions to any political party in Ontario. What is wrong is when you and your government allow yourselves to be unduly influenced by those contributions and end up, at taxpayers' expense, rewarding your friends with deals worth millions and millions of dollars in profits. That is what's wrong, Premier.

Again, we are talking about one buyer who made close to $500,000 in contributions to your party over the last five years. One buyer realizes a profit of close to $3.8 million by selling off only one fifth of the purchased land. If he were to sell off the rest of this land at the same price, he would realize a cool profit of close to $30 million. That's quite a deal. You chip in half a million to the Tory party and get $30 million back. This has to be the gold card version of the program, extra rewards for your extra-special friends.

Once more, Premier, stand up and tell us, because you haven't answered this question yet: Why is this kind of activity on your watch in the interests of Ontario taxpayers?

Hon Mr Harris: I find it ironic that the leader of the Liberal Party has said our goal was to get more corporate contributions, when in fact Phil Olsen, head fundraiser for the Ontario Liberal Party, said last year that in 1995 the Liberal Party got about 79% of its funding from corporations and 21% from individuals. Let me quote Mr Olsen-

Interjections.

Hon Mr Harris: No, that's not a mistake. He said this is the Ontario Liberal Party, not the Tory party. He's right. Every year on record, the Liberal Party gets more money, is more dependent and averages larger-sized contributions from corporations, including developers. Every year the Ontario PC Party gets less on average, less in total and less in contributions. Why? Because the support for this Conservative Party is across all-it's $10, $25, $50, $100. It's from all Ontarians. The only party dependent-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The Premier's time is up. New question, the leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the Chair of Management Board.

Premier, what we're talking about here again is your-

The Speaker: Order. The member must address his question to the Chair of Management Board, if he would, please.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I want to turn now to the fact that yesterday, in response to questions from reporters, you said you had stopped the practice at the ORC of lending money to buyers, and that this practice had been stopped for some time. I have in my hand another loan document showing that on April 20 this year you gave another mortgage back to a buyer. You loaned money again to a buyer who was interested in buying government land.

My question is: Why did you tell reporters that you were out of the loan business when you are still lending money to buyers of government land in Ontario?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): If the leader of the opposition checks the record, I stated that I personally think we're not a bank, that it's not in the interests of taxpayers. He would know there is an independent board of the Ontario Realty Corp that looks after the day-to-day operation of real estate transactions. That board goes through the process of being before your party and other parties in this Legislature for review. They were endorsed unanimously by your party, and they are accountable for their actions.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you can't dance around this unless the name of the dance is the cabinet shuffle. Either you were wrong yesterday, or you led the media down the garden path. You can't claim you have no responsibility whatsoever for land sales, land flips, land giveaways and money giveaways here in Ontario. The buck stops with you. That's the principle of ministerial responsibility.

For everything that is connected with the government in Ontario, there is a minister who is ultimately responsible. That person, in all these cases connected with the ORC and all these land flips, Minister, is you and nobody else. The facts show that the ORC is still in the loan business today. You said, "This is a bad practice." Ontarians now know it is a bad practice.

Tell me now, because you didn't answer the question: Why is it that on your watch today in Ontario the ORC is still giving loans to people who want to buy government land?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The leader of the opposition has heard on numerous occasions that we on this side of the House take these allegations of wrongdoing very seriously. That's why we have an independent, outside audit reviewing the sales transactions dating back to 1995. That's why we fully support the ongoing investigation by the police, who are working closely with the independent, outside auditors.

The fact is, the ORC is at arm's length from the government, an independent corporation led by an independent board of directors who are responsible for the transactions that it enters into. We are trying to get to the bottom of this, through the proper process. If you have specific evidence or allegations of wrongdoing, by all means, share them with the auditors and with the police. That's the proper thing to do. We're trying to get to the bottom of this, in the interests of the taxpayer, and I suggest you do the same.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, take a look at this document. You are getting in deeper every day. This is a scandal. It's your scandal. It's all about you.

It gets worse. The company you gave this loan to, coincidentally, is a pal of the Mike Harris government. In 1999, this particular buyer-borrower-gave $5,000 to the Mike Harris party. The board of directors is not responsible for this scandal. You appointed the board of directors. The employees aren't responsible for this scandal. You hired the employees. You are responsible for this scandal. All this has happened on your watch. It's happened in the last five years.

There is a stink emanating from the ORC, and you have refused to deal with this matter to date. Instead of taking what you can for your friends, why don't you take responsibility for all this matter and resign?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I encourage the leader of the opposition, instead of making things up, to do the responsible thing. If you have evidence, hand it over to the independent auditors or the police, and let's do the right thing together to get the bottom of it to make sure the taxpayers' interests have been protected and will be protected in the future.

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. You were a teacher for a short time. You should know how important extracurricular activities are in our schools. You should know how much teachers give in terms of energy, creativity and all the work, time and dedication that goes above and beyond the call of duty.

How do you think you can command, that you can demand that teachers give this time, this creativity? How are you going to take from them what people can only give of their free will?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): You're right, I was a teacher, although it seems so long ago now that perhaps this political experience is aging me faster. I was involved in "extracurricular activities," to quote your words, from lunchroom supervision to ski teams to athletics and others. The only difference between the way you phrase the question and the way I thought of it, and the way I think 100% of the teachers think of it-there may be the odd exception in the union leadership-is that we didn't think of it as going above and beyond the call of duty, we considered it part of the job.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you should know the effect your heavy-handedness, your bully tactics, are having out there. Take for example the case of Ken MacKay, who is a tremendous baseball coach at Brampton Centennial Secondary School. A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to congratulate him on his coaching record, a record of 75 wins and six losses. This is what he said when he was told about your plan to force him to give what he can only give of his own free will: "I feel like it's a slap in the face, because we're being forced to do something we already do as volunteers." Then he goes on to say, "If the government goes ahead with its plans, I will no longer be coaching."

What this is all about is clear: To finance your tax cuts for corporations and for the well-off, you're continuing to try to squeeze money out of schools. You're continuing to try to squeeze money out of school programs and lay off teachers, and then try to make extracurricular activities mandatory. Don't you realize, Premier, that this is actually going to have a destructive effect, that this is going to blow up in your face, that you can't force out of people something they can only give of their own free will? Don't you realize you're going to destroy extracurricular activities even more?

Hon Mr Harris: Nobody has been more supportive of the front-line classroom teachers than have I. Nobody has been more supportive of those teachers. Nobody has been more on the record as saying, from experience as a trustee and from my friends in the teaching profession, that there is a lot more to the job than simply four hours and 10 or 15 minutes each and every day. Nobody has talked more about the counselling, about the remedial, about the after-school, about the lunch room, about the graduations. I have always been on the record and very supportive and tell you that as a teacher, as a trustee, the majority I talk to consider it just part of the job. So do we.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Final supplementary, member for Trinity-Spadina.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I want to tell you, Premier, that 99% of the boards are providing extracurricular activities at the moment, except Durham obviously, where the only reason teachers stopped participating in extracurricular activities was that your heavy-handed tactics and your own hand-picked arbitrator forced an unacceptable contract on them. But 99% of the boards are providing it freely, as part of the job, voluntarily. What you're about to do is change this. Premier, your funding formula has taken money out of the classroom; it's a fact.

It has forced an increase in class sizes, a reduction in the number of teachers and drastic cuts in all kinds of activities, including supplies. Teachers and parents are looking for stability, yet at every turn you continue to offer instability. Why do you do that?

Hon Mr Harris: First of all, the member is incorrect. We were the first party in the last 10 years to say, "School boards and unions, you cannot negotiate an increase in class sizes." We made that illegal and we froze that because, you're right, class sizes were going up under your administration and the early part of our administration, because irresponsible school boards-and unions, by the way-agreed to do that to get more money. We stopped that.

You say that with 99% of the boards and the teachers it's working very well. Then those 99% will welcome the other 1% doing the same, because in Durham we've had two years where students have had no graduations, they've had no football, they've had no sports, they've had no extracurricular activities. They've had four hours and 15 minutes, and nothing else. This is unacceptable, and I'm positive that if in 99% of the schools it's working well, they will now welcome legislation that will say 100% of our kids are entitled to a complete education.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My second question is also for the Premier. Yesterday a cancer survivor, Anna Watson, travelled here to Queen's Park from northern Ontario. She wants to know why your government will provide full funding for a cancer patient from southern Ontario-airfare, accommodation, taxis, food cost-coming to thousands of dollars, but she as a cancer patient from northern Ontario, when she has to travel to Thunder Bay, has to drive four hours, sometimes over icy highways, and has to pay virtually the full cost herself.

Yes, she'd like to fly, and it would be physically easier on her, but she can't afford it. She wants to know why you're so generous with some cancer patients and you give the back of the hand to others.

We didn't get an answer from your Minister of Health. She said something about a review. The discrimination is obvious. The vice-chair of Cancer Care Ontario calls it health care apartheid. Your finance minister, the Deputy Premier, acknowledges there's an injustice here. When you've got so much money to give away to corporations in tax breaks, couldn't you at this time, Premier, provide some help to cancer patients in northern Ontario, some of whom miss their cancer treatment appointments because they can't afford the travel costs? Can't you do something about that?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the minister could respond.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): In response to the question regarding the travel grant, I think it's very important to keep in mind that since 1995 our government has expanded cancer care funding by $155 million. At the same time, it is very important to keep in mind that it was Cancer Care Ontario that put in place a program to re-refer people who were waiting for radiation. The money that has been set aside was requested by Cancer Care Ontario and it is specifically for people who are re-referred.

At the same time, we've been expanding the cancer facilities in northern Ontario. We're expanding in Thunder Bay, we're opening a new cancer centre in Sault Ste Marie and we are expanding the facilities in Sudbury as well. We've also managed to expand the number of specialists available in the north by almost 140.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Minister, people in Pickle Lake, Red Lake, Fort Frances and Dryden will always have to travel four and five hours to Thunder Bay for cancer treatment. People in Timmins, in New Liskeard and in other places in northeastern Ontario will always have to travel three and four hours for cancer treatment. They're not ever going to be able to get that in their own community. For the last 13 months you have discriminated against these patients.

You were the one who gave Cancer Care Ontario special funding so it could send people out of their home communities to access cancer care in Buffalo, in Kingston and in northern Ontario. But when it comes to dealing seriously with cancer patients in northern Ontario, you have no money.

Minister, there is no need for review. The discrimination is absolutely clear. Today you and your Premier got up and said you were going to provide fair treatment for hepatitis C victims. That's the right thing to do. Today you should also provide fair treatment for northern cancer patients. When are you going to cover their costs?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's very important to keep in mind the fact that there is no travel grant for people in the south. Cancer Care Ontario has elected to make available additional money to re-refer patients who cannot be treated with radiation in the province. I think it's very important that we distinguish between who is receiving the money. It was a recommendation of Cancer Care Ontario and it is for those people who are being re-referred. As I also said yesterday, we will be reviewing the northern health travel grant.

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Premier, I want to return to the matter of the land flip that I just talked about and I want to give you an opportunity this time to explain to Ontario taxpayers, since you haven't done that yet, why this is in their interest.

Again, in the first deed you sell the land to one of the largest contributors to your party. You sell 231 acres for $2.8 million. In the second deed that same buyer sells off one fifth of the land-that's only 42 of those 231 acres-and realizes a profit of $3.8 million. This buyer bought the land at $12,000 an acre and sold it off for-get this-$156,000 per acre. In just three months they made $3.8 million in profit by flipping just one fifth of the land.

There was a time in Ontario when Mike Harris projected himself as the Taxfighter, and he was there to protect the interests of Ontario taxpayers. It seems to me now, Premier, that what you're doing is protecting the interests of your contributors. Tell us now, because you have refused to do so so far, why is this deal, this land flip, in the interests of Ontario taxpayers?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): It may be; it may not be. You don't know; I don't know. The ORC are the ones who made the sale. If you believe this specific one deserves to be looked at, and raising it here, I'm sure it will be. We'll have it looked at, and if something inappropriate was done by anybody at the ORC then they'll be held accountable. That's the process. Nobody has upheld that process, in spite of all the yelling and screaming and interventions and yippity-yapping, instead of listening-

Interjections.

Hon Mr Harris: You see, that does not change the truth. The truth is the truth, in spite of all your screaming and yelling. If you don't want to hear the truth-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Premier, take his seat. The member for Sudbury, last warning. The last warning to the member for Sudbury. I'm afraid the Premier's time is up. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: It's great to hear from Tweedledee. We've heard from Tweedledum before. Now we know that neither of you is prepared to take responsibility for what's been going on when it comes to land flips in Ontario.

Again, there was a time when you said you got into this job in the first place to protect the interests of Ontario taxpayers. Why is it that you have suddenly decided you're not there for Ontario taxpayers and instead you're there for your contributors? Why didn't we see that as part of the Common Sense Revolution? Why wasn't that part of the party platform? Why didn't you proclaim to the world at large, Premier, that the real reason you wanted this job was so that you could go in there and look after your friends who made large contributions to your party?

Once more, Premier, you haven't answered this question yet: Why is it that this deal, this land flip that realized an obscene profit for one of your largest contributors, is in the interests of Ontario taxpayers?

Hon Mr Harris: You don't know and I don't know, and the minister doesn't know. The ORC will have to be accountable for the sale. That is the process. We're having a look at that.

But let me tell you this: For a party that voted against every tax cut, voted against every one of the 156 tax cuts brought in by this government to benefit taxpayers, for a party that ran up deficit after deficit and could never balance the books-and according to the auditor tried to say they did but couldn't-to pretend that this spendthrift party that opposed every tax reduction, opposed every job creation, to pretend that you are on the side of the taxpayer is the height of total hypocrisy. If that's not acceptable, I take it back-

The Speaker: Order. I would ask the member to withdraw that comment, please.

Hon Mr Harris: Yes, I withdraw it again, Mr Speaker.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question is for the Minister of Health. I was pleased to hear the Premier announce that our government has extended financial assistance for those persons who contacted hepatitis C in Ontario. Minister, through this announcement I am confident the government is demonstrating further its commitment to ensuring quality equitable health care for all Ontarians. Could you please take this opportunity to inform the house of this very important announcement?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The announcement relating to hepatitis C is an indication that our government wishes to treat all individuals in the province, regardless of when they contracted hepatitis C, and we will, as of today, increase the $10,000 compensation to those individuals and it will become $25,000 immediately. Again, those individuals who have applied to OHCAP will receive that additional money.

Mr Dunlop: Through your announcement and your statement in the House, I understand that the federal government is only providing assistance to those victims who contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood between the years 1986 and 1990. Is the federal government once again not living up to its commitment to Canadians and Ontarians alike to provide equitable health services through the provinces?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Yes, unfortunately the federal government in recent years has been abdicating its responsibility in the health field not only to Ontarians but to all Canadians. In fact, Liberal icon Tom Kent, who we know is the social policy godfather for the Liberals, when he was recently testifying before a Senate subcommittee, said: "The federal government is the biggest threat to the future of medicare.

The Chrétien government is starving the public health system of badly needed cash and holding up any chance of meaningful reform negotiations with the provinces." Unfortunately, he goes on to say that when federal Finance Minister Paul Martin slashed health care transfers in his 1995 budget, that really was the final straw that broke the camel's back.

Again, we have not only people in this province but we have an outstanding Liberal who says it is-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I'm afraid the Minister of Health's time is up.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): My question is for the Minister of Education. I want to talk to you about the charade your ministry is perpetrating around funding for school kids in this province. You know what a lot of the public doesn't, which is that the government you're associated with has cut funding to school kids in this province by $1.6 billion since you took office. You have done that in a number of ways, none of them up front, all of them hidden from view.

You took $800 million away from the budget, part of that by not renewing the social contract from the previous government, but the rest of it, direct cuts. You didn't make allowances for inflation or enrolment increases, which is another $745 million.

Today you stand up here in Education Week and you try to point to the teachers, to the boards and everyone else. It's you and your government that are to blame for what is going on in Durham, for what you want to inflict on the whole province. Minister, will you stand up today and admit that it's your funding that is causing problems for school kids all across the province?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): First of all, a bit of a history lesson: It was not this government that did the social contract; it was the previous NDP government that did the social contract.

Second, it's interesting that he's claiming we've cut all this money out of education. That's not what he said at the estimates committee when we went through this with him. For example, we have increased funding in this province, across the province, to boards.

It was over $12 billion in 1995-96 and it is now well over $13 billion and growing, with the recent budget announcements-for example, more money out there in the elementary panel to bring down class sizes in kindergarten to grade 3; more money for special reading help and support for those children in early grades; more money for special education, a 12% increase. As a matter of fact, the funding increase this year-and this is before the budget enhancements-was double the rate of enrolment.

I appreciate the question. Do we need more money? We always can use more money in health or education and a whole range of areas, and we're putting new money in.

Mr Kennedy: You should be embarrassed to have to play that kind of game. You know there is no new direction for education. It's just a new deception, because you're trying to say that somehow there is money in education. Your own figures show that you have cut $800 million directly from education budgets. Your share of education funding is down to $4 billion.

In addition, when we look at specific lines, transportation is cut $28 million, pupil accommodation for schools is down $153 million, adult education is cut $36 million, special education is down almost $300 million. But Minister, here's the kicker: You go and say you're cutting school board administration and, Minister, you haven't cut it at all. Last year you increased the funding for school board administration-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. Order. The member's time is almost up, if he could get to the question.

Mr Kennedy: Will you at least bring some dignity to that office and admit that the funding that you've taken away from kids is somewhere on your priority list. You missed it during the budget, but they want to hear from you during Education Week. Take responsibility, show some respect and starting funding kids' education in this province and-

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

Hon Mrs Ecker: I don't know why we spent the time we spent in estimates, going through the ministry budget with the honourable member. He obviously didn't listen. He obviously didn't understand. But I've got to tell you, in 1995-96, it was over $12 billion. This year and next year, with the enhancements, it's well over $13 billion. Even under the new math that's more money.

And I've got to tell you, there is more money for special-needs children out there. Do we need more? Of course we need more. We've increased it three years in a row-a 12% increase in one year alone. More money for more elementary school teachers-1,000 more teachers.

The honourable member over there is deliberately misleading the people of this House.

The Speaker: Order. The minister will have to withdraw that.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I will withdraw that if he withdraws that he said I said something untrue.

The Speaker: No. Last warning. You withdraw it, or you don't and I will name you. You either withdraw it right away or I name you. Simple as that. Are you going to withdraw it?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Certainly, Mr Speaker.

PROFESSIONAL BOXING

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Take a seat. Stop the clock for a minute please. The member is trying to ask the question. Everybody else has been patient. The member has been patient in trying to ask his question. Sorry.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister of Labour, come to order. Member for Parkdale-High Park, come to order. Last warning for the member for Parkdale-High Park as well.

Member for Oshawa, sorry for the delay.

Mr Ouellette: This question may be applicable. My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The province of Ontario has a reputation as one of the safest jurisdictions in North America where professional boxing is concerned. As a result, there have been no mismatches or serious injuries in several years.

Minister, could you explain to my constituents, who are concerned about safety in sports, Ontario's role in maintaining high safety standards and how our government plans to ensure that the safety of Ontario's athletes are protected for the future?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Yes, safety in professional boxing in Ontario is a very important issue. The mandate of the Athletics Commissioner of Ontario is to ensure the health and safety of participants in this sport. That includes issuing licences to event promoters, who must supply proof that they've obtained public liability insurance, that there will be medical personnel on site etc.

The commissioner or his designated officials attend all professional boxing events in Ontario. If the commissioner or his officials find any breach of the Athletics Control Act at an event, the commissioner can charge the promoter, revoke a licence or shut down the professional event at any time.

I'm very proud of the fact that Ontario enjoys such a stellar safety record for pro sports, and we're working very hard to ensure that this record continues.

Mr Ouellette: I'm encouraged that Ontario has such stringent regulations in place to ensure the safety of our athletes. As you said, boxing is growing in popularity in Ontario. Since 1999, for instance, both Windsor and Rama casinos have held professional boxing events, and they've indicated that they would like to eventually hold one event per month.

Sports and the safety of our athletes are important to my constituents. This year the Ontario 2000 Summer Games will be held in the region of Durham, and this winter the Ontario Winter Games held in Sault Ste Marie placed Ontario amateur boxers at centre stage. Minister, with the rising interest in sports in Ontario, and specifically boxing, could you tell the Legislature what our government is doing to meet the public demand for more boxing events?

Hon Mr Runciman: In addition to maintaining the strong regulations already in place, I'm looking forward to finding ways to bring more boxing events to Ontario.

Two distinguished Ontarians, Mr Ralph Lean and Mr Jim Hunt, have agreed to conduct a review of professional boxing in Ontario. They are volunteering their time. Regulations governing this sport have not been reviewed in over 17 years, and professional boxing has been relatively flat, averaging only four to five events per year over the past decade.

I've asked Mr Hunt and Mr Lean to consider all aspects of the sport in order to develop recommendations that will continue to ensure high levels of health and safety while enhancing activity opportunities in the province. I'm looking forward to receiving their recommendations this coming September. Their report will help to protect the well-being of our athletes in the sport of professional boxing in Ontario.

COURT DOCUMENTS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Attorney General: My question is with regard to your support for Bill 66, the proposal for public branding of judges. This is very typical of Tory politics: to exploit the real concerns of people about the safety of their communities with a by-election around the corner. Well, it's very crass politics, because while you're busy claiming to represent the interests of victims, as of March 17 courts across the province received a memo from your ministry saying that post-court dockets are to be sealed from the public. Do you understand what this means?

These are the lists of the people who have been charged with offences. This identifies whether they've been acquitted or found guilty, the disposition. It identifies whether the matters have been adjourned. For time immemorial this information, this post-court docket has been a public document available to the public as well as the media. Now, suddenly, you slam the door shut.

Attorney General, you're trying to have it both ways. Tell the people of this province why you're denying them the right to see these lists.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the honourable member for the question. I believe what the member is referring to is the use of post-court dockets in Kingston. They are an internal administrative tool of the Ministry of the Attorney General that may not be a public document and they may be governed by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. So it is a privacy concern in compliance with the act that led to the discontinuance of access to that document called the post-court docket.

Having said that, the courts of the province of Ontario are open courts. Information on local court cases can be obtained by the media and the public from the publicly available official court records, and you and every other citizen of Ontario, as part of our democracy, are entitled to see those records.

Mr Kormos: Journalists and the public in Kingston and, I tell you, in other jurisdictions-because these same post-court documents are relied upon by journalists across the province to confirm the accuracy of the information they may glean from the process to ensure that the people they're identifying are accurately identified, to ensure that the record being kept by the court-because that's what it is, Attorney General. You know that. The court officer records the disposition, the adjournment date, the finding of guilt or innocence.

They're being used by journalists to accurately present this information to the public. You want to have it both ways but you don't really want to protect the rights of victims.

You see, yesterday I was down in Wentworth-Burlington, and Jessica Brennan, the NDP candidate there, asked me to hold you accountable for your empty promises. Your Victims' Bill of Rights is nothing. It's a zero. It's not worth the paper it's written on. Your Premier promised in the last election that there would be a new bill-empty promises. And now we have this secrecy about court records.

You and the Premier are supporting Bill 66 while you block the public access to court records. That's shameful, Attorney General. Instead of singling out judges, why don't you reopen the door you slammed on the public and the media?

Hon Mr Flaherty: Ontario's court system belongs to the public. It's an open system. I'm sure the member opposite, as a lawyer who from time to time has practised in the courts, can verify that it is an open system. The court record, and let's be absolutely clear about that, is a publicly available record of documents filed in the course of a civil or criminal proceeding, and information on local court cases is available to every citizen in the province of Ontario. That's an important constitutional, democratic guarantee that has been there for hundreds of years, thank goodness, in Ontario.

The openness of our courts is a hallmark of a democracy, which makes this democracy different from some other places in the world that, regrettably, don't have that democratic, open court system.

With respect to victims, $1 million funding is confirmed in the budget for the permanent Office for Victims of Crime in Ontario, and 59 crown attorneys hired to provide the crown attorneys with an opportunity to interview victims in our court system.

HOME CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. Community care access centres across the province are facing constantly increasing needs for home care services. Hospital budgets are being squeezed, and people are being discharged from hospitals quicker and sicker. They need acute care. In fact, acute care has now become 50% of home nursing care. You promised long-term care beds, but they are not up and running. Elderly people who need long-term-care beds can be at home for a year or more before they get one.

The volunteer community boards that you have made responsible for dealing with all these needs have been telling you they just can't keep up with the demand. They have been telling you they need at least a 10% to 15% increase in their budgets. Yet there was nothing for community care anywhere in your budget.

How can you keep cutting hospital budgets, saying that home care is a better use of dollars, but shut out home care agencies from any new funding in this budget?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The member opposite knows full well that this government has made a tremendous commitment to long-term and community care. Our record is certainly one of the best in all Canada.

Our contribution to home care-we have expanded long-term community care funding by 49% since assuming office in 1995. In fact, we are the ones who introduced one-door access to community care throughout Ontario in order that clients and their families could know where they should go for the care and services they need. We're currently spending almost $1.5 billion on home care and community services. I can assure the member that additional funding will be provided this year, as it has been each and every year since 1995 by this government.

Mrs McLeod: Your answer to the rising cost of home care has been to ration the number of hours of nursing care, personal care and homemaking care that any one person can receive. I know full well that your answer is to have people pay for home care themselves. That's how you are planning to keep your costs down. I know full well that you have actually given home care agencies less than nothing in this budget, because you have told the community care access centres that they have to cut back their budgets to last year's funding levels.

There is no money in this budget to do what you have just said you intend to do. There is no money to continue funding the deficits the centres ran because they were just trying to keep up with the increased needs in their communities. That means that before this year is out, there will be more cuts to services and more rationing.

Minister, tell us openly and honestly today, since there is no new money but less money in this budget for home care, what new rationing scheme you are going to bring in as you starve the CCACs and force more and more cuts to home care?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The statements being made by the member are absolutely ridiculous. The member knows full well that this government has made a tremendous commitment to health care since 1995. This year we are spending $22 billion. There is only one government, the federal government, that has cut funding. We have lost $1.7 billion. Where are you in helping Ontarians get back the money the federal government has taken away in order that we can further increase home care funding?

I repeat: We have increased home care funding in this province by 49%. I challenge you to ask the federal government to restore the funding to all health services.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Recently I met with several representatives from various industries in my riding, including printers, auto mechanics and tool and die makers. One of them, a tool and die maker, Pino Furfaro of R.W.D. Tool and Machine in Thornhill, has expressed concern about a shortage of skilled tradespeople.

In my riding of Thornhill, while we need workers trained in the high-tech sector, we also need people trained as industrial mechanics, carpenters and bricklayers. What is your ministry doing to address the shortages our province is facing in these trades?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): As the member has indicated, our province is facing trades shortages. These are good-paying, rewarding jobs, and I certainly would like to take the opportunity to encourage more of our young people to look at trades as a good way to earn a living.

Our government is addressing this problem, but we know there is still much more to be done. We have introduced the strategic skills initiative program, which partners with industry and the education sector to produce more skilled students. We have signed on to the redesigned immigrant investor program to encourage more foreign investors to invest in and immigrate to our great province. These are just some of the ways we are working to ensure that businesses have the skilled workforce they need to thrive and to help them create more jobs.

Mrs Molinari: I understand that a possible part of the solution to this problem could include immigration as a way of filling some shortages. If I'm not mistaken, the federal government has joint programs with other provinces to address immigration issues. Why is the government of Ontario not involved in the provincial nominee program?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): What's the answer to that? Come on. Good question, Tina.

Hon Mr Palladini: Obviously the Minister of Labour agrees with the question the member has asked.

We have worked successfully with the federal government to bring in workers on a temporary basis in some sectors. But the federal government's provincial nominee program is too slow and unresponsive to industry needs. Ontario will not implement an expensive government bureaucracy, as the federal government would like us to, that will only give limited results. We are going to continue to work to create a whole new way to allow tooling and machining trades to enter the great province of Ontario, because we regard immigration as only a short-term solution to a long-term problem.

We need to do more to encourage Ontario's youth to get excited about entering the skilled trades. Many successful business people got their start working in the trades. I'm one of them, and I'm very proud of that fact.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I come before you again with real concerns about access to justice at the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal. I want to give you another example of how your processes fail tenants here in Toronto.

I have been contacted by a lawyer representing Mary McIlroy. She was evicted from her apartment, and her belongings are locked inside. The landlord is supposed to provide 48 hours' access so she can remove her things. He refused. In fact, the landlord has demanded full payment of arrears to access her belongings. This is clearly illegal. Minister, the tribunal or your ministry should enforce any breaches or offences contained in your laws. The act states in

section 200 that you as minister shall "investigate cases of alleged failure to comply with this act."

But when Ms McIlroy's lawyer contacted Mr David Grech, a team leader at your investigations unit at the ministry, he was told there would be no involvement because an eviction had taken place. There was no longer a landlord and tenant arrangement, and thus they didn't feel it was their place to take any action.

Minister, there is no other agency-government, policing or otherwise-that claims to have or appears to have any statutory basis to enforce this provision besides your ministry. So confirm for me today whether or not your ministry is, as the act states, "responsible for enforcing all provisions of the Tenant Protection Act," and if they're not, tell me who is.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The fact of the matter is, we have a specific tribunal arrangement in this province, which gets it out of the hands of politicians per se and into the hands of the tribunal. Frankly, tenants' rights cannot be extinguished, if they are unlawfully extinguished by the landlord. That is the law in Ontario, and it is a good law.

So I recommend to the honourable member's constituent that if there is a problem-if a right has been extinguished-there is a remedy under our system, and that can be pursued at the tribunal. That is the best advice I can give the honourable member. If there is a problem I can help with in some way, I'd be happy to pass it along to the tribunal.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Mr Caplan: The minister's willingness to help is certainly good, but the tribunal says it's not their problem; your own ministry says it's not their problem. You are not willing to enforce your own act.

Ms McIlroy's lawyer was told by your ministry to go to court. You've said in this House that the courts aren't the solution. But he did go to court and he filed a charge of extortion against the landlord, and that's when the landlord paid attention. He did allow access, but not 48 hours. In fact, some of her possessions were disposed of by the landlord; again, clearly illegal. So she's going to have to go to court again to charge theft against the landlord.

You claim that this is a fair process for tenants, but I don't see any fairness in the way that Ms McIlroy and other tenants are being treated by you, by your ministry or by your Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal. Landlords can extort money, they can destroy possessions, and you're not willing to enforce your own laws.

Minister, who is going to protect the tenants of this province if it's not you, if it's not your ministry, as the law passed in this province says? Who are they supposed to turn to?

Hon Mr Clement: I don't know the particulars of the case, and perhaps the honourable member can enlighten me at a future date. But the honourable member is talking about things like extortion, and I can assure this chamber and the honourable member that if there is a problem that has a right under the Tenant Protection Act, then certainly the tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the landlords in a way that is fair to the tenant. If there is a problem that is not before the Tenant Protection Act, if there is an illegal activity going on, by all means-extortion is not only a civil action; that is a criminal act.

If the honourable member has information or knows someone who has information that would lead to a criminal charge, my best advice is to go to the police and to file particulars of the situation with the police. They are the best people to handle situations like this. That is my best advice.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. I am informed that you were in Windsor yesterday, and I happened to have the opportunity to discuss probably the greatest budget that was ever laid down in the province of Ontario with the good residents of Windsor-Essex yesterday.

However, upon driving into the municipality of Windsor, it did not take an environmental engineer to realize that the air quality in the Windsor-Detroit area certainly was not at its greatest. You could see the haze, Minister. Apparently, you were in Windsor discussing the new air quality initiatives which began on May 1. I'm told that up to 90% of the smog in Windsor is caused by transboundary emissions from the US. My riding of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Pardon for the interruption. There was a point of order. If we could stop the clock, please.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You may not have been able to hear the Premier accuse my colleague the member for Don Valley East of a criminal act, of concealing evidence. It seems that that is-

The Speaker: No, I didn't. I'm listening very carefully. We're getting down to the end of question period and I've listened very carefully. One of the problems is that when people do shout, you're listening to some people and you can't hear anybody else. I started off listening to the question so that there wasn't anything out of order when members shout across.

We are getting down to the end of question period; there's less than four minutes. I would expect all members to try and behave for the last four minutes, and I apologize to the member for the interruption.

Mr Beaubien: I'm sure, if the member from Windsor-St Clair was paying a little more attention, that some of his constituents are affected by the air quality in the Windsor area, as it affects my constituents in Lambton-Kent-Middlesex.

Minister, as the summer heat begins to roll in, my constituents are becoming concerned about the quality of the air. What information can you provide them about the new initiatives, and where can they obtain this information?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I thank the member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex for his question. It is true that the quality of our air is indeed affected by the heat of the season.

Ontario's enhanced smog alert and air quality reporting program provides Ontarians with improved reporting through comprehensive and timely air quality readings. In fact, Ontarians can access up-to-date air quality reports publicly through our Web site at www.airqualityontario.com. I'm pleased to report that in the last week that Web site has had over 120,000 hits to it. Additionally, the people of Ontario can call us at 1-800-387-7768 to get up-to-date information on the air quality within their region of the province. The program also includes up to three days' notice if air quality is going to be poor.

It also provides for direct e-mail smog alerts for anyone who subscribes to the e-mail network through that Web site I mentioned.

Mr Beaubien: It's good to see that constituents can have accurate information regarding monitoring. I'm sure the member across from Broadview-Greenwood, whatever they call your new riding now, will appreciate the rest of the question. My constituents would like to know: What are you doing to clean up the air? I know it's a tough question.

Hon Mr Newman: I'd like to respond to that question. We've done a great deal since we took office in 1995. In Ontario there was a huge deficit looming over the province. Unemployment was high. Among other things, air quality was left to slip through the cracks in our province. In 1996 the Provincial Auditor stated, "Many of the standards for air pollutants were developed over 20 years ago and are out of date."

Since our election in 1995, over 130 air quality standards have been or are currently being updated. This is very significant. In fact, this government takes the challenge of improving air quality very seriously. That's why we began with ourselves. In 1996, we made a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from government operations by 40%. To date, we've surpassed the 32% mark. We're waiting for last year's figures to come in. I know we will surpass that 40% figures.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Yesterday in the House you said you couldn't comment on the issue of legislated protection for the Oak Ridges moraine because part of the moraine is the subject of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing. Minister, I say to you, what a cop-out. Let me tell you why. Just last November you sent a letter to Mayor Mel Lastman asking Toronto city council to reduce its numbers, yet that very issue was the subject of a hearing at the OMB.

Soon after that, you introduced the law that gave you the reduction that city hall and the OMB wouldn't give you. Why was it OK to both comment and legislate on a matter before the board last December, but now, when the Oak Ridges moraine is at stake, you won't?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The issue at hand that the people actually care about is, how best can we balance the interests of development and growth and prosperity that we have in Ontario with the ecological foundations for present and future generations? That's the issue people care about, and the people have an answer to that. Our government has been grappling with growth and prosperity. Those are the issues. How to make sure Ontario has growth and prosperity for the future was not an issue that her government ever grappled with, because they were in the depths of a recession expanded created unnecessarily in this province because of their policies.

Those are the issues before us. I can tell you that on the part of our government, we think there is a way to do that. We are implementing the 1991 guidelines their government first sought to put on the public table. That is the purpose for which these rules are in place and the response to the Oak Ridges moraine in the hearing is in place. No further than that.

PETITIONS

STUDDED TIRES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to rescind the law banning the use of studded tires in Ontario.

"Whereas personal safety on winter roadways would be greatly increased; and

"Whereas improved technology on studded tires has proven in other countries and provinces they will not damage the roadways; and

"Whereas studded tires are used in most northern countries and all other provinces in Canada; and

"Whereas studies have proven that studded tires outperform all-seasonal and winter tires in manoeuvrability and braking on ice and snow-packed roads; and

"Whereas studded tires can save lives;

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

"To rescind the law banning studded tires in Ontario and pass Bill 57 which would allow the use of studded tires."

I sign this petition as I am in complete agreement with it and give this to Philip Grandine, our page from Paris, Ontario.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): "Whereas Ontarians with a developmental disability are in growing danger of inadequate support because compensation to staff of not-for-profit agencies is, based on a recent survey, on average, 20% to 25% less than compensation for others doing the same work in provincial institutions or similar work in other settings;

"Whereas there are hundreds of senior parents in Ontario who saved the Ontario government millions of dollars by keeping their child with a developmental disability at home, and who are still caring for their adult child;

"Whereas there is no place for most of these adults with a developmental disability to go when the parents are no longer able to provide care;

"Whereas these parents live with constant anxiety and despair;

"Whereas these adult children will end up in Ontario nursing homes and hospitals if there is no appropriate place to provide care;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To significantly increase compensation for workers in not-for-profit agencies so that it is comparable to the compensation of government-funded workers in identical or similar occupations; and

"To provide the resources necessary to give appropriate support to Ontarians with a developmental disability who at present have no place to go when their parents are no longer able to care for them."

I'm pleased to sign that petition.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I have a petition regarding health care.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Canada's health care system is one of our greatest achievements as a country;

"Whereas health care in Ontario has deteriorated, with medical services being reduced and hospital budgets cut to the bone, resulting in lengthy delays in treatment, with sometimes fatal results;

"Whereas major changes to health care legislation by the Harris government have been made with no prior public consultation;

"Whereas residents of Prince Edward-Hastings are demanding that their voices be heard and their concerns addressed to ensure that future health care legislation meets their needs;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Harris government to protect our valued health care system and to hold public hearings on Bills 23 and 173."

I'm pleased to add my name to this petition.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have a petition entitled Clear the Drivers' Test Backlog and it's signed by young people and students from towns like St Williams, Vittoria, Port Dover, Simcoe, Waterford, the Delhi area:

"Whereas the backlog for final road tests is unacceptable; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation is not able to get rid of the backlog, and most of the new examiners have been based in Toronto; and

"Whereas young and elderly people are often intimidated by the driver's test examiner and the finality of the test; and

"Whereas the driving tests have become very expensive and amount to little more than a money grab by the government;

"We, the undersigned, petition to the government of Ontario to continue to revamp the driver's test system and implement a better system to get these tests done in a timely manner that is less expensive."

I agree with these young people and hereby sign this petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, I share the concerns of my constituents and sign their petition in full agreement with their request.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have further petitions from CAW 222, signed by residents in the Oshawa area.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas this year 130,000 Canadians will contract cancer and there are at minimum 17 funerals every day for Canadian workers who died from cancer caused by workplace exposure to cancer-causing substances," known as carcinogens;

"Whereas the World Health Organization estimates that 80% of all cancers have environmental causes and the International Labour Organization estimates that one million workers globally have cancer because of exposure at work to these carcinogens;

"Whereas most cancers can be beaten if government had the political will to make industry replace toxic substances with non-toxic substances;

"Whereas very few health organizations study the link between occupations and cancer, even though more study of this link is an important step to defeating this dreadful disease;

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

"That it become a legal requirement that occupational history be recorded on a standard form when a patient presents at a physician for diagnosis or treatment of cancer and that the diagnosis and occupational history be forwarded to a central cancer registry for analysis as to the link between cancer and occupation."

I continue to support these petitioners.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo were responsible for terrorizing entire communities in southern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ontario government of the day made a deal with the devil with Karla Homolka resulting in a sentence that does not truly make her pay for her crimes; and

"Whereas our communities have not yet fully recovered from the trauma and sadness caused by Karla Homolka; and

"Whereas Karla Homolka believes that she should be entitled to passes to leave prison with an escort; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario believe that criminals should be forced to serve sentences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes;

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

"Do everything within its power to ensure that Karla Homolka serves her full sentence;

"Continue to reform parole and make it more difficult for serious offenders to return to our streets;

"Fight the federal government's plan to release up to 1,600 more convicted criminals on to Ontario streets; and

"Ensure that the Ontario government's sex offender registry is functioning as quickly as possible."

I affix my signature.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since we're all opposed to any type of health care apartheid, I affix my signature to this petition and ask Megan Kirkey from Englehart to present it to the desk.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a petition regarding the ongoing situation in Sarnia. These petitions in fact are signed by citizens in my area of Hamilton.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the community of Sarnia is witnessing many women developing mesothelioma and asbestosis as a result of the asbestos brought home on their husbands' work clothing; and

"Whereas similar cases are occurring in other areas of the province;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act to allow compensation for family members who develop occupational illness as a result of workplace toxins inadvertently brought home."

I add my name to this petition.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I am presenting a petition. I am very surprised looking at the names here. I have Troy Young, John Mutton and others who have signed this petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario exempted Highway 407 east from a public hearing and then passed the Highway 407 Act to further exempt the proposed highway extension from important provincial environmental laws, such as the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and the fill regulations of the Conservation Authorities Act; and

"Whereas heavy equipment is now being used to clear the eastern path of the highway, without any environmental guidelines, control or monitoring;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislature of Ontario, as a matter of extreme urgency, to put in place such environmental monitoring procedures and controls as are necessary to prevent extreme degradation such as bulldozers working in stream beds, and numerous other environmentally destructive acts that have been witnessed since the 407 east extension was permitted to go ahead."

I'm pleased to present this petition to the House.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have a further petition also related to the northern health travel grant from a group of constituents who are not in my riding but are in the riding of the leader of the third party. I am happy to present the petition on their behalf.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is signed by 25 constituents of Ignace, Ontario. I'm happy to affix my signature in agreement with their concerns and those of my own constituents.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo were responsible for terrorizing entire communities in southern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ontario government of the day made a deal with the devil with Karla Homolka resulting in a sentence that does not truly make her pay for her crimes; and

"Whereas our communities have not yet fully recovered from the trauma and sadness caused by Karla Homolka; and

"Whereas Karla Homolka believes that she should be entitled to passes to leave prison with an escort; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario believe that criminals should be forced to serve sentences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes;

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

"Do everything within its power to ensure that Karla Homolka serves her full sentence;

"Continue to reform parole and make it more difficult for serious offenders to return to our streets;

"Fight the federal government's plan to release up to 1,600 more convicted criminals on to Ontario streets; and

"Ensure that the Ontario government's sex offender registry is functioning as quickly as possible."

I sign this petition.

STUDDED TIRES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I will not do the

preamble, because we are running out of time, but it does say:

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

"To rescind the law banning the use of studded tires in Ontario."

I thank Allan Clouthier and Pat Cormier from Sault Ste Marie for garnering these petitions.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT (CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL (INDUSTRIE DE LA CONSTRUCTION)

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 8, 2000, on the motion for second reading of Bill 69,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 in relation to the construction industry / Projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1995 sur les relations de travail en ce qui a trait à l'industrie de la construction.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's a pleasure to be able to rise and speak on Bill 69, the Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2000.

This is certainly a bill that needs to be celebrated. When we can bring together the trade unions, the employers, the construction industry and the employees all to the table to agree, and bring this bill forward, I would think that members on all sides of this House would be cheering and clapping and celebrating for this kind of bill being brought forward, and particularly for the homebuyers. The homebuyers, especially new homebuyers, have been the ones who have suffered during the last few years because of the type of legislation that was in this province, and Bill 69 is going to overcome those kinds of struggles, so I say it is indeed a time to celebrate.

Last evening we heard some of the members talking about putting a gun to the head. The only gun that I'm familiar with is called a strike gun, and that has been put to the head of employers and businesses for some time. I would like to read to you what came in from my riding. This is a man, Brad Willcocks, who owns the Best Western Cobourg Inn, and this is what he writes: "Our business was held in a seven-week strike in 1990 by the UFCW number 175. No strike vote was taken. Only 12 unionized staff affected 45 employees and almost bankrupted a family business.

All staff were so upset by the experience that they decertified in 1994. Please continue to balance the field. It is not fair for a union business agent to look across the table and say, `I'm going to bankrupt you,'" and that's what they almost did. That's the kind of legislation we've had in the past, and it's very wrong. That's just one example in my riding.

Strikes are so devastating to employees-members of the union, when I say "employees"-to employers, and often the only people who are going to gain from these strikes are the union brass themselves. They don't go back to the membership when they're out on the strike lines and ask: "What do you think? Is this the time we should change direction?" Oh no, they're trying to get another brownie point for their particular position in the union.

This bill has gone a long way to group the opportunity of lockout and strike within about a 45-day period, from May 1 to June 15. I think that as we look at this whole bill of improving and modernizing labour relations, it's long overdue. Some of the things that we've had in this province-think back to 1998, a five-month period where one trade union after another trade union would keep housing developments on hold. That's the kind of thing we do not need. Maybe a socialist government thinks that's wonderful; I don't know.

I certainly don't and the people of my riding generally certainly do not think that kind of thing is in order. This is the kind of commitment we made in the throne speech. We're carrying through on it. Again, it's a promise made, a promise kept, consistent with the philosophy of this government.

We've been doing a lot to level the playing field between management and the unions. One has been between Ontario and Quebec. The bill we brought in, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, promoted job growth and increased workplace democracy, something that was sadly missing, that they could not have or would not guarantee a secret ballot to certify or to decertify. This was another step in the right direction.

The current situation was a real disadvantage. It just has not been fair. Whether it's the employer or the employee, it certainly has been a real disadvantage. What we have here in a bill is a collaboration of both sides coming together and working for the benefit of all, particularly the homebuyer and the people of the province of Ontario. This is indeed a bill that is realistic. It's going to be workable, and most of all, it's really going to fly because it's people co-operating and people working together.

For the homebuyers, can you imagine, back in 1998, five-

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Do we have a quorum?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Is there a quorum?

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Northumberland.

Mr Galt: I was commenting on the situation of a new homebuyer caught in a five-month rotating strike by the various trade unions. Can you just imagine how devastating? You've ended the lease in the apartment you're in or you've sold your old home and then, lo and behold, what are you going to do? This house isn't built. The bricks are not on it. The plaster isn't on the wall. All because of a strike because of greed out there. That's indeed a most unfortunate situation, and this will end that kind of circumstance.

It costs so much to the homeowners, it costs so much to the employees and of course to the construction industry, and to the province of Ontario. Every time a new home is built, there are all kinds of other goods that are sold, various appliances and so on. It stimulates the economy so much.

Maybe the parties on the other side of the House don't appreciate the kind of stimulus that brings to this province, but it's indeed very, very important. I, for one, want to see the economy in Ontario rolling, and we're seeing it in my riding. We're seeing it in communities like Port Hope and Campbellford. We're seeing it in Warkworth. We're seeing it in Quinte West in particular in some of the things that are going on there with the newly amalgamated community.

This bill will ensure that in the future homebuyers have some idea of when that home will be completed for them, because it's important that they have that opportunity to plan ahead.

With this bill they've coordinated that all the collective agreements will expire on April 30, 2001. So there will be some coordination in the negotiations and then they will look at the specified time frame.

I know the opposition parties would disagree, but I have never been able to support the right to strike. It just upsets me to no end. This is a step in the right direction. It does allow a strike, but it limits it to a 45-day period. It limits any lockout to a 45-day period. So families of the employees who are working, members of a union, know that this isn't going to go on forever. What happens after June 15 is that then we start to look at unresolved disputes going for arbitration.

We have suffered too many crippling strikes in Ontario and I, for one, think it's time that those crippling strikes were brought to an end. Certainly this bill is going to be one step in the right direction of assisting with that, particularly when we have all the parties working together.

This is going to assist with bringing back competitiveness. We still would have collective bargaining. The kind of legislation we've had in the past has been totally non-responsive to that competitiveness, and because of that lack of responsiveness we've ended up with an awful lot of unionized workers without work. That's not fair to them, when they're required to belong to the union and then they can't get work because their company has to overprice in bids. It's been problematic in the past. This bill is going to help straighten that out.

This bill also gives some flexibility with the market conditions. They can come back to the arbitrator and identify the fact that they can't compete because of the high salaries. You know, it's better to get $20 an hour than to get zero. Maybe it would be nice to have $30. Or it would be nice to get $15, but it's better to get $10 than zero. That's what happens when companies can't compete.

So this is certainly going to promote construction and it's going to create jobs in Ontario. If there's ever been a jobs government, we have a jobs government. This flexibility that I referred to is certainly very, very key in this particular bill and is going to really assist as we move down the road. We've had four really good years, almost five years. We had five disastrous years in the beginning of the decade but we've had five pretty good ones. We want to keep that going. We're not just a government that comes in and stimulates the economy and then disappears. We want to see this going on for another decade or even longer.

I see that the changes in Bill 69, the amendments to the labour act, are certainly going to assist the construction industry. Protecting the residential construction industry will assist homebuyers and everybody down the road. Employees, employers and homebuyers are going to be the winners once this legislation gets passed.

The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mr Caplan: I'll be able to expand a little bit on my comments in just a minute, but it's very interesting that the member opposite talks about a negotiation bringing people together. What has become very clear is that this was a bit of a shotgun marriage. Mr Harris and the Minister of Labour held a gun to one of the parties' heads and said, "You will negotiate or we will do some pretty terrible things to you and to the labour laws in this province." That has really been the spirit and the modus operandi of the Harris government.

In fact, I understand in the debate last night the parliamentary assistant confirmed that this was the kind of debate around-as I say, I'll expand on this a little bit later-subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

My comment is that Liberals don't believe in that kind of an approach. We believe in a balanced approach to government. The Harris government's approach has been to push through legislation, to limit debate. It has been neither fair nor balanced. I can tell you that the attack on working people in this province has really only just begun. Ontarians should expect a further weakening of basic worker protections such as workplace health and safety, hours of work, all of those kinds of things. Liberals have always supported collective bargaining.

We're the only ones-sorry, we're not the only ones-who voted against the social contract legislation, as you well know. We've also opposed the various labour bills that have been brought forward by the Harris government which have tilted the balance. It's really a shame that the speaker would not comment on the way this particular deal was arranged, the way previous non-negotiations have gone, the weakening of worker protections and what the implications of that are for the people of Ontario and for the backbone of Ontario's industry, which is the construction sector.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Let me say to the member for Northumberland that I think that was one of the most insulting speeches I've ever heard anyone in here give. You talk about what goes on at a picket line. What would you know about what goes on at a picket line? I'll tell you something: If this government was one tenth as democratic as the labour movement, we'd have a government we could look up to, rather than one that people have to fear, which is the reality of what your Ontario is.

Let me tell you something else. When you say you still can't support the right to strike, you know, that happens to be one of the key foundations in the United Nations declaration of rights, and you've decided from your lofty position in life that ordinary people ought not have the right to withhold their labour. That's not a right you think they ought to have.

You stand up and pronounce and pontificate about how you care about all these lofty ideals, and one of the key foundations of the rights of humanity that the United Nations has declared we should all have, you, with the wave of your hand, believe ought to be eliminated. It's disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful that in this day and age a member of any government in a democracy like ours would stand up and make those kinds of statements.

Then you have the nerve to say that we ought to celebrate that people were brought to the table. How do you celebrate when a gun is put to the head of the labour movement and they're told, "You reach an agreement that we, the government, can live with and the employers can live with or else we'll remove the key foundation in law that allows a modern-day union to exist"? That's a disgraceful performance by someone with your background, doctor. You ought to know better and I hope you take the two minutes to retract some of those insulting statements.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Our colleague opposite certainly continues on the path that if he has nothing to say he says it loudly.

I, instead, would say to my colleague from Northumberland that when we contrast the steps that our government has taken to build some sort of accommodation between all the players in the construction industry, we contrast that to the previous government, who decided that ripping up existing contracts should be the hallmark of their labour law. The member opposite ripped up the contracts of hundreds of thousands of Ontario workers, and he's comfortable with that.

This bill, as the member from Northumberland has very adequately described, will bring greater peace to the construction industry. The member opposite obviously doesn't think that having a regular and steady paycheque is something that the actual workers aspire to, never mind the employers. Labour stability benefits all the players involved. It also benefits the potential purchasers, whether it's home or commercial construction. The reality is that all those people were vexed by strikes, rotating strikes, one after another.

The union bosses decided to pull the workers off the job sites, the union bosses, who never put their pay on the line, who never take any accountability, any responsibility for what they do to the economy in Ontario, the big union bosses to whom the NDP still pays homage. They don't care.

The people we're hoping to serve are the actual workers, the people who get the paycheques and the people who buy those homes. Those are the people this government cares about. Quite frankly, if it means that the union bosses are upset, I suspect that does more to reinforce our belief that this bill is heading on the right road than anything else the member could say.

The Acting Speaker: Further comments and questions? Response?

Mr Galt: I've been quite entertained by the responses. The member for Don Valley East talked about the shotgun marriage. Well, people getting together at the table-I'd hardly draw that as a shotgun marriage.

Then the member from Hamilton West: I consider it a compliment that he called my speech an insult, when it comes to his position and what I've heard from him in the past. I really feel honoured, because if he was on the same side as I'm on, I'd be upset and would be pretty nervous.

To listen to him, the garbage that was delivered in his two minutes, talking about-I think back to the social contract. As mentioned by the member for Scarborough East, it broke every-

The Acting Speaker: I ask you to withdraw the word "garbage."

Mr Galt: "Garbage" is an unparliamentary word?

The Acting Speaker: Just withdraw it. It's unparliamentary.

Mr Galt: OK. Recycled material, whatever.