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

October 24, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Oct-24 vol. A (PDF)

L094A - Tue 24 Oct 2000 / Mar 24 oct 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

OFFICER OF THE YEAR AWARD

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

DEFIBRILLATION EQUIPMENT

PARENTAL LEAVE

LABOUR DISPUTE

PROMENADE WEST

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

VISITORS

MIKE LAZARIDIS

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

IMITATION FIREARMS REGULATION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES FAUSSES ARMES À FEU

ORAL QUESTIONS

AMBULANCE SERVICES

CONTROL OF SMOKING

NURSING HOMES

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

COMMUNITY SAFETY

WASTE DISPOSAL

CANCER CARE

YOUNG OFFENDERS

RECYCLING

EDUCATION REFORM

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

PAPER SLUDGE

CARMEN ROAD OVERPASS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

AGRICULTURAL LAND

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

FARMFARE

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

INVESTIGATION INTO CHILD ABUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): I want to speak to you about the Ontario welfare system and an individual in my riding who just went on to the welfare system: an able-bodied young father of three with a wife at home as well: that's four dependants. Here's an individual with a skilled trade-he's a cabinet maker-perfectly prepared and willing to work, who has now joined the welfare system in Mike Harris's Ontario.

What is the difference with Mr Mousaly, other than that a couple of weeks ago I brought up in this House the fact that this is an individual who is waiting for knee surgery out of a London hospital and has to wait until September of next year to have very much needed knee surgery so that he can go back to work? The only thing Mr Mousaly asked was that he be allowed to go back to work.

Desperate for this operation, we've made lots of inquiries, and the fact of the matter is that even in the mecca of health care, London, which is what Windsorites consider London to be, they cannot get operating room time. Why? Because they've closed two operating rooms. Why is that? Because University Hospital in London also received funding cuts.

Last week in this House, our health critic announced that all of the operating dollars given to those hospitals are not what they seem to be, and the result is that a perfectly able-bodied young individual who wants to work and to raise his family is on Mike Harris's welfare roll, a place he should not be.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Durham.

Interjections.

OFFICER OF THE YEAR AWARD

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Could you start the clock again. We'll give you the full 90 seconds; we'll hold the clock.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm very disappointed by the member from Windsor West continually interrupting an important announcement that I'd like to make about one of my constituents.

On October 14, a former Durham riding constituent, Constable Phil Edgar, was awarded by the Durham regional police the Officer of the Year Award, which is determined by the men and women serving on the force.

Constable Edgar, who grew up on Skugog Island, is a general patrol officer and has been in the Durham regional police since 1994. His enthusiasm, dedication and commitment to serving the people of Durham region have resulted in some very impressive accomplishments during this short career. Over the past one and a half years, Constable Edgar has been responsible for the recovery of nearly 160 stolen vehicles with an estimated worth of $4 million. Seventy-seven of these vehicles have been retrieved this past January alone.

Auto theft affects everyone. The people in Durham riding appreciate the steps being taken by Durham regional police to curb theft and return stolen property. Crime costs all of us. Last year the Insurance Crime Prevention Bureau stated that $46 out of everyone's auto insurance premium in the province goes toward covering theft claims, which amount to almost $200 million annually.

I'm sure that all members of the House will join me and my constituents of Durham, including Constable Edgar's parents from Scugog Island, Gary and Alice Edgar, on their son being named Officer of the Year.

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Over the last couple of weeks, I've presented to the Minister of Education over 3,000 letters from students across my riding pleading with her to resolve the education crisis so that all our students can get a full and complete educational experience. Today I will be tabling with her another 1,500 letters from Ernestown Secondary School, Holy Cross secondary school and Regiopolis/Notre-Dame imploring the minister to take immediate action.

Extracurricular activities such as sports, drama, debating, clubs and other related activities are an important integral part of a student's education. They have been put on hold in many parts of this province as a result of the unilateral action taken by the Minister of Education changing teacher conditions and thereby lowering school and student morale and undermining the fundamental purpose of our young people to receive a first-class quality education.

One student put it right on the mark: "Through participating in these activities, we all learn about teamwork, responsibility, respect, work ethic and the value of participation. Extracurricular activities also provide a way to relieve stress, build friendships and motivation for students to work hard in school to make the grade."

I say to the minister that I completely agree with the student who wrote, "It's time that the divided parties work together to resolve these issues so that education, teachers, students and the community will not continue to suffer."

Please, Minister, stop denying the students in my riding and across this province their right to a fully enriched education.

DEFIBRILLATION EQUIPMENT

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to talk about one of the most recent initiatives of the emergency response training enterprise in Northumberland. Sudden cardiac arrest claims the lives of more than 44,000 Canadians each year and is the leading cause of death and disability for Canadians over 45. The most effective immediate treatment for sudden cardiac arrest is defibrillation. Advances in defibrillator design have made it possible for rescuers to provide defibrillation sooner following cardiac arrest by using an automated external defibrillator, or AED.

I'm proud to say that all of Northumberland's fire departments are now using AED units. With support from local foundations and service groups, as well as community fundraising efforts, Northumberland is the first county in Canada to accomplish this feat. With a population of approximately 71,000, the emergency response training group's efforts have ensured that there is one AED unit for every 2,629 residents, and this means that the citizens of Northumberland county have a better chance of surviving sudden cardiac arrest.

It's my pleasure to congratulate those fire departments that have most recently come on board for AED training, and I applaud the efforts of the emergency response training enterprise in promoting public health and awareness in Northumberland county.

PARENTAL LEAVE

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I rise in the House today to speak about the important role that parents play in the lives of their children in the early years. I call upon the Harris Tories to extend parental leave to equal that of the federal government. The changes to the federal Employment Insurance Act will enable parents to take a leave of 50 weeks. Provincially, we still only provide for a leave of 35 weeks. If we value our children and recognize the important role played by parents in the most formative years of our children, then the province would emulate the changes made to the Employment Insurance Act and allow for a leave of 50 weeks.

It is shameful that in this day and age amendments and changes have not been made to allow for both mothers and fathers to make the best choices for themselves and their families and to have the option available to them to remain at home with their newborn children.

I call upon the Premier to live up to his supposed commitment to children and to introduce changes to the Employment Standards Act which will allow parents to take 50 weeks' leave to remain at home with their children. This government is good at talking the talk, but it's time to walk the walk when it comes to caring for our children.

My leader, Dalton McGuinty, put forward a clear and comprehensive plan outlining our priorities as Liberals on the importance of the early years. This government, and in particular this Premier, have paid lip service to this issue, calling yet again on the federal government for more dollars with no clear initiatives in place. Tough on talk, weak on action.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I rise today to speak on behalf of the 130 case managers and 70 support staff of OPSEU local 256 who work at the CCAC, the community care access centre, in Hamilton.

Members of the House will recall that we just went through a similar battle in our community with the VON workers, who made it very clear at that time that their problem and their fight was not with their immediate employer but, on the other hand, it was indeed a battle with this government, a battle with underfunding, exactly what we're facing here at the CCAC.

The government came along recently and offered a little over $3 million, touting this as the be-all and end-all in terms of saving the CCAC and home care services. Quite the contrary. That only matched about half the projected deficit that the CCAC has, and that's before we get into these negotiations.

This government has a track record they ought to be ashamed of in terms of pitting elements of our communities against each other. In Hamilton, we've had the difficulty of the hospital boards pitted against the community, including nurses and support staff and doctors, and eventually we saved the Henderson hospital. We've got school closures now, pitting school trustees against communities and parents. We went through the same thing with municipal councillors who were trying to preserve services. All because this government is fixated on tax cuts rather than building communities and improving working families' lives.

PROMENADE WEST

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): It was my pleasure to attend the first Promenade West Homeowners' Association barbecue on Sunday, October 15. Based on the success of this barbecue, I am sure it will become an annual event.

Though Mother Nature decided it was time for fall weather and dredged Promenade Green Park with blowing rain and an easterly wind, none of this dampened the lively community spirit of the Promenade West residents. Live uplifting salsa and jive music brought warmth to the crowd, who swayed and danced to stay warm. As well, they were fuelled with warm, freshly cooked sausages, chicken and beef. The atmosphere continued to be enlivened as door prizes were awarded.

It is scenes like this, though traditionally seen during the summer, where one sees the true community spirit which has developed and grown in this province and which continually makes Ontario the best province in Canada to live. Participants in this event represented a mosaic of ethnic cultures and various ages, and reflected a variety of family structures. It was enjoyable to see all of these individuals drawn together in friendship on a cold, wet October afternoon, united in the common element of living in the same neighbourhood of a few streets. I congratulate the hard work and effort of Bob Bak, Joanne Fisher, Mario Botticelli and Arlene Stone.

This group of residents gathered at Promenade Green Park shared one other common element. They were all Ontario taxpayers who are to receive a $200 taxpayer dividend cheque. In fact, many of them had already received their cheque and were pleased that the government of Ontario, after balancing the provincial budget, saw fit to return close to $1 billion surplus to those who had paid taxes. After all, it is their money to save, spend or donate as they so choose.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Just when you thought that out of conscience, sheer embarrassment, or at least a discreet call from the Ontario Taxpayers' Coalition or the National Citizens' Coalition, the Harris government would have brought to an end its orgy of self-serving, blatantly partisan advertising at taxpayers' expense, yet another expensive booklet landed in the mailbox of every Ontario resident.

The latest propaganda sheet is nothing less than what Toronto Star columnist Jim Coyle described as "another colossal waste of tax money by an administration which urges frugality on everyone else."

As Toronto Sun columnist John Downing put it after receiving an education brochure last month, "You know what, Mr Premier? If there's any steam left from the Common Sense Revolution, you could grab the initiative for your floundering government by swearing off blatant partisan ads paid by taxes."

Both journalists are right on the mark.

What is particularly galling is that the Conservatives were elected on a platform of cutting government waste, yet it is the Harris crowd that has spent almost $190 million on advertising at taxpayers' expense-$30 million more than the entire budget of the Ministry of the Environment this year.

If Mike Harris wants to spend millions of dollars on propaganda pamphlets or partisan ads in newspapers, on radio and on television, let him dip into the political war chest of the Conservative Party, swelled by grateful donations from the wealthiest and most powerful in Ontario, and keep his hands out of the wallets of Ontario taxpayers.

VISITORS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd just like to bring the attention of the House to our guests today from Assumption College high school in the riding of Brant. The history students are joining us in the gallery with their teachers, and their department head, Mr Rob Campbell, is a big advocate of democracy in the province of Ontario.

MIKE LAZARIDIS

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I'm honoured to recognize the outstanding contribution of Mike Lazaridis, founder and co-chief executive officer of Research in Motion of Waterloo and, as of yesterday, one of the greatest Canadian philanthropists of all time.

The Honourable Elizabeth Witmer and I were present at the announcement yesterday, which was also attended by Dr David Johnston, president of the University of Waterloo, and Dr Bob Rosehart, president of Wilfrid Laurier University.

Mr Lazaridis will personally donate $100 million to found the Perimeter Institute, a Canadian institute dedicated to research in theoretical physics. This investment will vastly improve research and development in Waterloo region and will benefit my constituents in Waterloo-Wellington as well. It will have a profound impact on Ontario's future by fostering pure research in physics, which will improve our economic competitiveness and put us at the leading edge.

To quote Mr Lazaridis, "The pursuit of theoretical physics gave rise to all the technological advances of present-day society," from lasers to computers, from cellphones to MRI machines.

As a young man, Mr Lazaridis struggled in choosing between the study of engineering and physics. He chose engineering and founded Research in Motion, a world leader in wireless communications technology, but obviously continues to have an interest in physics. His contribution to physics was well described by Mrs Witmer, who, in expressing thanks, said that the institute will "fuel the enlightened thinking of tomorrow's Newtons and Einsteins."

I hope all members of this House will join me in showing our appreciation to Mr Lazaridis for this gift to humankind.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I would like to take this opportunity to invite all members to welcome to our chamber a special visitor who is seated at the table, Mr Niall Johnston, who is the special advisor to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland assembly. Would all members please join in welcoming Mr Johnston.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

IMITATION FIREARMS REGULATION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES FAUSSES ARMES À FEU

Mr Tsubouchi moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 133,

An Act to regulate the sale of imitation firearms / Projet de loi 133, Loi visant à réglementer la vente des fausses armes à feu.

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

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Given the nature of this bill and the fact that my colleague from St Paul's was able to bring this to the attention of the House, I would seek unanimous consent for the member from St Paul's to make a statement on the bill.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I heard some noes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. In just two months' time, you're going to download the life-and-death responsibility of our ambulance services to our municipalities. I am afraid, Premier, that our municipalities don't have the resources or the expertise to carry out the job safely, and many of those municipalities agree. Listen to what North Perth mayor Vince Judge had to say earlier this summer: "By downloading it to non-professionals, you increase the opportunity that something can go wrong. Municipalities are not in the health field. We don't want a Walkerton situation, but that's what we could very well be facing."

Premier, given that your government failed to take the necessary time and all reasonable precautions when you downloaded water testing on to our municipalities, I'm asking you here and now, can you assure us that municipalities of Ontario have everything they need and are ready to take on the new life-and-death responsibilities associated with operating an ambulance service?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Just as an aside, I think the member is well aware that the cost of testing was not downloaded by our government. I just wanted to correct the record on that. We did maintain municipalities paying for those things. That was done long before we were in office.

As to the second part, the main question, dealing with ambulances, we did enter into extensive discussions that were started under the former government under the guise, at that point, of disentanglement.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Don't blame the NDP.

Hon Mr Harris: Nobody's blaming the NDP. If the Liberal member from St Catharines would stop interrupting me, I'd be happy to give the answer.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, earlier this month, local taxpayers in Niagara learned they had to spend $3.3 million to upgrade their ambulance service. They were told to do that because their local medical officer of health said that when you downloaded the responsibility for the system, you downloaded a response time that wasn't even complying with provincial law.

In Kingston, local paramedics say you're handing over an ambulance and emergency system on the verge of collapse. They say the system's shortcomings are already costing lives. Today they've got three ambulances to cover 800 square kilometres and 165,000 people. They're using cardiac monitors and defibrillators today in Kingston that exceed their life expectancy. Their warranties have run out and the machines repeatedly malfunction during ambulance calls.

I ask you one more time, Premier, are municipalities ready to take on the life-and-death responsibilities of operating ambulance services?

Hon Mr Harris: As I was saying before I was interrupted by the interjections of the member from St Catharines, this is all part of a number of discussions. It started with the disentanglement discussions under the NDP-they were not successful, as you know-and then concluded, at the request of the municipalities, by us, with the discussions under what was known as Who Does What. We've taken a considerable amount of time in making this transfer to ensure exactly, as the-

Interjection.

Hon Mr Harris: I'm sorry, but if the Liberal members keep yelling and screaming, I can't answer, Mr Speaker.

Mr McGuinty: I can appreciate that the Premier is looking for any excuse whatsoever not to answer the question, but I'm going to return to it again nonetheless, Premier. If you won't heed warnings from elected officials, then let's listen to what your own hand-picked transition boards are saying around the province of Ontario.

In Ottawa-that's a place where ambulance response times under your watch have become so slow that the regional medical officer of health says that 100 lives are being lost every year. There in Ottawa, your transition team is saying that property taxpayers are going to have to spend somewhere between $28 million and $30 million just to bring that ambulance system up to standard.

In Haldimand-Norfolk, two people died last Christmas after it took ambulances 24 minutes and 18 minutes to reach their homes. This was at a time when the Ontario standard was 15 minutes. They've been told they need to spend $750,000 to bring ambulance services up to Ontario standards.

These are your transition boards. They say that you are creating an economic burden. Elected officials say that this is going to be dangerous to the health of their citizens. I'm asking you again: are you really sure it is appropriate and safe to download this new responsibility on to our municipalities?

Interjection.

Hon Mr Harris: I am happy to answer, but if the member from Thunder Bay wishes to yell and interject and answer the question, I'd be happy to let her answer. If the Liberal members can't control themselves-

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

This is where I'll step in. There was too much noise that time. I ask all members to come to order. For some of you who read Saturday's Globe and Mail, at the federal House, a chap by the name of Lee Morrison said there's a difference between intelligent heckling and boorish noise. He was talking about the federal House. If people are going to scream and shout, then I will interrupt and proceed to warn people. Having said that, we also know that "intelligent heckling" is allowed in here. Where the line begins and ends is sometimes very difficult for all sides to understand.

But I also say to the government members that this House isn't going to be in total silence. It never has been and it never will be. Hopefully, we will have some type of balance.

Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: That's why, of course, that very concern. There are challenges in delivering ambulance service. You've pointed out that some of the ones we run are not as good as we would like them to be. But I have to tell you that a large number of ambulance services are already run by municipalities across this province. In fact, many of them are model examples of running ambulance service. Many are run by the private sector. Many were when you were in government, many were when the NDP were in government and many are now that we're in government.

What we have moved to now are more coordinated, tougher standards and a more rigorous service. As you know, the trades transferred $2.5 billion worth of tax room to be able to assist with this. As you're also aware, we cost-share 50-50 and we set the standards. So yes, we are very confident that municipalities have the wherewithal-the money, the resources and the expertise-to perform these services, and in those areas where they're not ready, that's why we've been taking the time to make sure they are ready.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): This question is also to the Premier. Every year in Ontario 12,000 Ontarians die from tobacco-related illness. This costs our health care system $1.1 billion annually and it requires more than one million hospital days for treatment. Yesterday a report was released by the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit which tells us that 42% of our grade 11 students are experimenting with cigarettes today in Ontario. They also tell us that this has held steady since 1995.

One in six of these children later on will suffer from lung cancer, with all the associated pain and suffering for themselves and their families. I ask you, why is it that you have failed to lower smoking rates among Ontario youth in the six years that you've been the government?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): This is a good question and a big challenge for us all. As you know, we've had cigarette prices from 1995 to 2000 substantially lower than they are now, when we had a virtual ease. Like a prohibition-type availability of liquor, we had a prohibition-type availability of such cheap cigarettes that the federal government, in a coordinated strategy with ourselves and our government, realized that when the taxes were so high, they did not have the resources within the federal government to control the cheap cigarettes coming across the border points. I think we're all aware of those challenges.

We have worked with those groups that are concerned and advocating for policies to do everything we can to curb smoking, particularly in young people. There are more young people-there are some badges of honour, I guess, in doing things that are even more expensive and more illegal. It is a tremendous challenge. We've not found the solution yet-

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

Mr McGuinty: Nobody said it's going to be easy, but I can tell you that there are some real successes out there. California has experienced a 33% decrease in smoking among their young people. Massachusetts has experienced a 31% decrease in smoking among their young people.

You commissioned that a report be prepared. It was submitted in February 1999. It's called Actions Will Speak Louder Than Words-I would ask you to pay some attention to that particular title, Premier-and it includes 29 specific and substantive recommendations on how to attack the incidence of smoking especially among our young people today in Ontario. It includes everything from raising taxes on our cigarettes, so that we are no longer the lowest-priced jurisdiction in Canada, and it talks about hard-hitting ad campaigns.

If you want to put some money into ads that have a really positive effect, then stop putting them into those partisan political ads and start putting them into ads that discourage our young people from smoking. If you're looking for some ideas, there are all kinds out there, including 29 specific ideas that came back to you from your own committee.

I'm asking you today as a parent of four teenagers, when are you going to act on these ideas and make it tougher for our kids to get hooked on cigarettes?

Hon Mr Harris: As you know, we spend a considerable amount of our advertising on anti-smoking campaigns. This was one of the recommendations. We did set up the committee. We are working with those groups and we spend a large amount of money advertising in these areas.

We're always looking for new ideas. As long as one person, a young person in particular, takes up smoking, then there is still a job for us to do. We work on the tax side with the federal government in a coordinated way, as you know, because there's not much point in one government working by itself in this field when we both have taxation areas there.

We are acting on a large number of the recommendations. I can let the minister give you the litany of those. But you know, there is a large number of young people right here in the chamber today. Maybe we should hear from them what we need to do to discourage smoking. I invite them to send their comments directly to me.

Mr McGuinty: I want to bring you back to the title of the report which you had prepared for you: Actions Will Speak Louder Than Words. There is nothing more eloquent than actions, Premier. You have been painfully silent and inactive on the issue of the incidence of smoking among Ontario's young people. There are some real successes that have been experienced in other jurisdictions. There are things we can do. In particular, you might start by acting on the 29 specific and substantive recommendations found inside this report.

The facts don't lie. For the last five years, this report released yesterday tells us, Ontario's young people are still experimenting with cigarettes at the rate of 42% in grade 11 and 28% in grade 9. That has not changed. Again as a parent I am asking you, when are you going to crack down on the incidence of smoking among young people in Ontario and act on those so many good ideas that have been placed on your table?

Hon Mr Harris: As you know, we continue to welcome new reports and new suggestions. But to suggest that we haven't acted on them-let me share with you a few things.

We've laid more charges than all other provinces combined for selling cigarettes to minors-4,000 charges under the Tobacco Control Act, an increase of 43% over the predecessor government before we took office in 1995; 4,800 tickets issued for smoking in a prohibited place, almost all of which are for students smoking on school grounds. This is an increase of 86% over the previous government, before we had taken office. We have a very ambitious $17-million heart health campaign, a good example of our commitment to identifying tobacco-related health issues.

We continue to welcome these reports, we continue to work with the federal government, but I say to you, perhaps it's time that instead of listening exclusively to all the experts and all the scientists and all the adults, maybe we should be talking a little more to the kids. For your information, they're from Centennial public school in Guelph-Wellington, and my bet is they'll have better ideas than your whole caucus.

NURSING HOMES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Six months ago we asked your Minister of Health why nursing homes across this province had not been inspected in over two years. Your Minister of Health first tried to deny it and then she tried to blame the previous government.

Now, thanks to freedom-of-information documents obtained by Colin Perkel of the Canadian Press, the truth is out. Your Minister of Health, under her watch, gave the direction that nursing homes were not to be inspected as frequently as they had been in the past. In fact, the cut was close to 80% in Toronto and 40% elsewhere in the province. Tens of thousands of frail elderly seniors who depend upon your government to protect them were neglected.

Premier, what do you say to those frail elderly seniors and their families who now know that your government, not accidentally but intentionally, reduced the inspection of nursing homes where those frail elderly people reside?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The Minister of Health can respond.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): First of all, let's be accurate and let's be correct. There was no direction given to anyone for the reduction. Our government is very committed to high-quality standards for all our long-term-care facilities, whether they are homes for the aged or whether they are nursing homes. In fact, your government and the Liberal government before you also were criticized by the Provincial Auditor for not ensuring that all facilities received an annual review.

Our government, for the first time, has made it possible and has made it mandatory, and we now have a program in place in order to ensure that all long-term-care facilities will receive an annual review each year. I'm pleased to say that 53% of all the facilities have been reviewed this year and we will reach 100% compliance by March 31 of-

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): Minister, it's interesting. The briefing note you just read-the words are verbatim in the briefing notes that were prepared for you at that time. Even your staff said in the confidential documents we have here, "This cannot be turned into a good-news story." But what did you do? You tried to spin it; you tried to deflect it. You tried to blame others, and you're doing it again today.

You told the world that there was no law requiring annual inspections and you said the NDP got rid of it. And here in your confidential briefing notes are the notes, the handwritten staff comments, saying, "This is a statement of error." Did you admit that? No. Instead, we have an e-mail from your staff as they're trying to help you spin it, and it reads, and I'm going to quote this because I love it, "FYI: we have a response for the scrum. Don't kill yourself. Frances was right." But day after day you denied it.

You know, you stand up here, you deny, you refuse to take responsibility, and the proof is now incontrovertible. It's right here in these documents. You pulled inspection staff off the job to do something else that you thought was more important. That was a wrong choice, but for God's sake, now that the proof is there, would you please at least finally admit it, Minister?

Hon Mrs Witmer: There was no decision to pull any staff. I would again indicate very strongly that I was very disappointed to learn that all facilities in this province had not been receiving annual reviews. In fact, let me quote from the Provincial Auditor in 1990 on the Liberal record: "We concluded that the procedures used by the branch to monitor the quality of care in nursing homes required significant improvement....

The number and nature of cases selected for reviews was inadequate." Then the Provincial Auditor, in 1995, on the NDP: "No annual reviews of homes for the aged were conducted in 1993 and 1994"-none. "We understand that the ministry decided not to conduct any annual reviews of homes for the aged." This meant that there were 176 that received no review in 1993, and 164-

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

Ms Lankin: Well, the minister continues to do it. I find this absolutely astounding. Let me read to you from one of the other e-mails: "During the 1998 and 1999 RFP"-that's for the new long-term-care beds; I told you that's where you put the staff-"there were no annual inspections, I'm sure, unless it was tied in with an urgent complaint." This is your own staff admitting it to you, and you won't stand here and tell us the truth today.

This is a question-

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

Ms Lankin: I withdraw that, and I say once again that you will not admit to the facts that are here, and there's proof of it.

It's not a question about a minister doing acrobatic feats to avoid admitting facts that are now proven; it's a question about accountability to the people of this province. It's about getting correct, factual and, dare I say, things that are honest answered in this. I want you to admit that the truth of this is that you pulled staff off, and as a result of your wrong choices you left vulnerable seniors' lives at risk in this province. Will you finally admit that?

Hon Mrs Witmer: If you want to deal with facts, I think it's important, first of all, to take a look at the fact that opinions of staff are not necessarily facts. Let's deal with the facts. The facts are that we discovered there had been no annual-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The minister take her seat.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Which one of your staff are we to believe?

The Speaker: The member for Hamilton West, come to order, please.

Interjection: That's Hamilton East.

The Speaker: Hamilton East. I apologize. You'd think I'd know these, wouldn't you?

Sorry for the interruption. Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: It was our conclusion-information provided to us by ministry staff-that there had never been 100% compliance and review of all long-term-care facilities in this province. I indicated to my deputy that he was to provide us with an action plan. I am pleased to say that on July 5, 2000, we announced an action plan with $860,000 to ensure that for the first time all long-term-care facilities, nursing homes and homes for the aged would receive an annual review. New compliance advisers were hired. I'm pleased to say that over 53% have been-

The Speaker: Order. New question.

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Through Bill 74 you have created an education nightmare in Ontario. You insisted that cutting the number of teachers in our schools wouldn't affect the quality of our students' education. You wanted complete control of the school boards, and through Bill 74 you got it. You wanted complete control over extracurricular activities, and through Bill 74 you got it. And now what's happening? Students across the province are losing out on their extracurricular activities. They can't get the remedial time they need, because teachers are so busy doing the bureaucratic nonsense you've thrown on them.

At Malvern secondary school here in Toronto, in northwestern Ontario and in schools I know of across this province, students are not receiving the full quality of education they deserve.

You wanted all the power. You said you had all the answers. What are you going to do to fix the problem that you and your government have created, Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): This is, as you know, a serious issue and a serious concern. Just so I understand very clearly and to help me answer, I wonder if you could describe for me what bureaucratic nonsense we've asked teachers to do that they weren't doing before. That might help me respond.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I think when I become the Premier I'm going to answer that question, but in the meantime, Premier, I quite frankly think you are paralyzed by your own power.

Let me give you a perspective. Before Bill 74, you and the Minister of Education agreed that 99% of the boards were doing extracurricular activities. You decided to fix a problem that didn't exist. You brought in Bill 74 and forced teachers to teach an extra class, thus getting rid of some of the teachers. Those who are left, in my view, are stuck with hard choices: an extra class or extracurricular activities. That's the choice you left them with.

You exported the problem from Durham, from one board, and spread the disease all over the province. You gave yourself the power to cure the disease and instead, in my view, it has become an epidemic. Premier, I don't think you or your minister know what you're doing.

Hon Mr Harris: I can recall a question and a statement, I think from this very member, back last spring, saying, "We don't think you need to proclaim this

section of the legislation. We don't think you need it because 99% of the teachers are already performing these co-curricular activities." We listened to your advice. We did not act on that legislation.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Harris: My colleague interjects with one of the more intelligent interjections I've heard this session, that that's the last time we should listen to you when we're trying to deal with these issues.

I can tell you that we've never shirked our obligation and responsibility in trying to ensure that all our kids all across the province receive a full and balanced education, including very important co-curricular activities.

Again, since you could not identify one single piece of bureaucratic nonsense we've asked teachers to do that we haven't asked them to do before, I would take that as a sign that you agree with us that we've tried to make life easier for-

The Speaker: Order, Premier; your time is up. New question.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a follow-up question for the Premier. He stands here saying he'll listen to young people, but instead he is the government that cancelled extracurricular activities. What happened since last spring? You passed Bill 74. You made sure that teachers couldn't do it.

Premier, students are saying to you that you sucked the spirit out of their schools. Last year, we had 70 out of 72 boards providing extracurricular. You passed that law. Now they're not able to provide it.

Your member for Leeds-Grenville said to the students in his riding who came with a petition that you would be doing something by the end of the year. Students out there can't wait. They don't want you to use the big hammer in Bill 74; they want you to do your job. They want you to stand up and make sure that students have a quality school year, that their extracurricular activities that you took away, that you cancelled, are restored. Premier, stand up in this House today and tell us how you're going to bring back extracurricular activities, having taken them away in the first place.

Hon Mr Harris: The minister can respond.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): The reason extracurricular activities have been cancelled in some communities, in some schools, is because some teachers have chosen to work to rule and not to provide those activities.

Secondly, the honourable member says that Bill 74 should somehow not be in existence. Bill 74 says things like if a school board is given money for lower class size, they'd better spend it on lower class size. If the member disagrees with that, he should tell us. Bill 74 says that if a school board is given money for special-needs students, they'd better spend it on special-needs students. Perhaps the honourable member disagrees with that policy.

Bill 74 establishes a workload standard for classroom time for high school teachers that's based on the national average: four hours and 10 minutes. Perhaps the honourable member thinks that is the wrong standard. If so, he should stand up and say that.

Mr Kennedy: I can't tell you how disappointed I am, on behalf of these young students, that the Premier was afraid to answer this question.

Last year 70 out of 72 school boards delivered extracurricular to these kids, and now they don't because they've passed this law. This minister can't name one school board that isn't affected by the loss of extracurricular.

This minister tried to say it's work to rule. She tried to avoid her responsibility. Let me tell you what the director of education in London, John Laughlin, says. In London they have settled; there is no work to rule. He says that even after a contract, only 10% of extracurricular is taking place. This is what he says: "A provincial solution to the problem" is needed to bring back extracurricular activities to these students.

Minister, you should know this, and if you don't know this, then we have a bigger problem than is apparent. The parents, the students and the public have every right to believe that you're not just cancelling extracurricular activities on purpose. You brought in Bill 74. It took away extracurricular activities. Minister, will you at least tell these students, tell the House and tell the public-

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

Hon Mrs Ecker: The only people who are afraid in this Legislature are people who are concerned about facts. When the honourable member stands up, it is quite fearsome what he does to them.

First of all, I assume from the question that what the honourable member is asking us to do is to proclaim the

section of Bill 74 which would make extracurricular activities mandatory. On the one hand, they said we shouldn't. We didn't. Now they are saying that somehow we should.

The other thing that I think is important to recognize is that the workload standard, the four hours and 10 minutes, is based on what teachers do across the country-the 20 minutes a day. On the one hand, we have teachers in communities who are providing extracurricular activities, who are choosing to do that because they care about the kids, because they know it's important, and at a school up the road they are choosing not to do that. That is work to rule. If the honourable member supports that, he should say that.

We think all students deserve those extracurricular activities. I support those students in their protests-

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

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. A week ago you were in my riding, signing an agreement between the Ontario government-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Will the member take his seat. Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Hamilton East, come to order. The Minister of Education, come to order. And the Minister of Labour, come to order as well. The member for Sudbury, this is his last warning. I've warned three other people. I don't appreciate the yelling across. It's the member for Sudbury's last warning. I say to the Minister of Education, it was your own member asking the question and he couldn't do it.

The member for Halton.

Mr Chudleigh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member for Hamilton West perhaps would be interested in this question as well.

Minister of Transportation, you were in my riding last week signing an agreement between the Ontario government and the town of Oakville to reconstruct the overpass over the QEW and Third Line. It's a very important overpass for my constituents who travel down that road to go to the GO train, and they will appreciate that reconstruction. It will also pave the way for the expansion of the QEW, and we very much appreciate the fact that this expansion is taking place along that very busy road. Minister, could you give me any details on when these events will begin to happen?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): Obviously, the QEW is a very important transportation corridor. Last week we signed an agreement with the city of Oakville to reconstruct the existing Third Line interchange. This calls for $12.4 million to be expended by the provincial government and the balance of the $20 million it will cost to be paid by the city of Oakville. The construction will begin in 2002 and be completed in 2003. When completed, this interchange will support future widening of the QEW into the Halton region.

The government has initiated-

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

Mr Chudleigh: Thank you very much, Minister. That expansion can't come too fast for my constituents in that area. Traffic congestion, of course, is horrendous in that area. As the QEW is a gateway to the US, that congestion has real economic impact. I wonder if you could tell us about the enhancement of trade and how soon we can look to that expansion on the QEW.

Hon Mr Turnbull: In order to minimize disruption of traffic, we'll be working in off-peak hours on this important development. We'll minimize lane closures and we will be using special construction message signs to guide traffic. We'll also be using movable concrete barriers and expanding the Compass camera system to that area. This is a $100-million investment and it will take approximately five years, subject to property acquisition and environmental approvals. It will considerably improve traffic movement in this area.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Five years ago this month your government began its attack on Ontario's poorest citizens by cutting social assistance rates by 22%. Since that time, you know that the cost of food has increased and that the cost of shelter has gone through the roof, particularly in the Toronto area.

We all know that the upcoming increase in home heating costs will be devastating to Ontario's poorest families. There's no doubt that more and more children are living in poverty in this province. Even the national children's benefit, meant to improve the lives of our children, has been brutally clawed back by your government from those who need it most. Clearly costs have gone up. Ontario's poorest families are falling further and further behind. Even the cost of David Tsubouchi's dented can of tuna has gone up.

Minister, my question to you today is simply this: isn't it time to attach a cost-of-living adjustment to social assistance benefits?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): This government committed in the 1995 election to keep welfare rates more than 10% above the average of the other nine provinces. That's not just a commitment we made; in fact they're up to 34% higher than the average of the other nine provinces. For those with disabilities they're well over 45% above the average of the other nine provinces.

But I think it's important to go to the honourable member's leader, Mr McGuinty. He was asked by Richard Brennan, "Are you going to restore" the welfare cut "or aren't you?" "That money's going to be restored, yes it is," he said. Later that evening, McGuinty issued a press release denying what he had said in the interview: "I fear I may have left the impression that it was my intent to fully restore the 22% welfare cut to all welfare recipients. That is not my intention."

Mr Gravelle: We're not asking for much at all. We're asking for a cost-of-living adjustment increase. What we are left with is a government determined on driving more and more people into poverty. Instead of any expressions of shame and a commitment to find the solution, we end up with this awful partisan rhetoric.

Minister, you know that it's a fact that Ontarians living on disability support have had no increase, as well, for the last nine years. People in my part of the province have seen the impact of rising costs in a far more severe way.

It has been five years. People are getting further and further into poverty. The costs are increasing. Can you not at least acknowledge the reality? Take the first step today to fight the disgrace of child poverty: forget the partisan rhetoric and add the cost-of-living adjustment to social assistance programs in this province. It's the least you can bloody well do.

Hon Mr Baird: Isn't this a great world we live in? He can agree with his leader when he says one thing and I can agree with his leader when he says the other thing. We all win.

This government not only keeps the disability rates for those on social assistance more than 45% above the average-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. Last warning to the member for Windsor West. Anybody else want the last warning? Last warning to the member for Windsor West. We've got two now.

Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Mr Baird: We're keeping rates for those with disabilities more than 45% above the average of the other nine provinces. Not only do we have the most generous earn-back-

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member's asked the question. The time was there for him to ask it. He can't then shout across.

Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Mr Baird: It's over 45% above the average of the other nine provinces, and this government has the most generous earn-back welfare policy in the country, where more than one quarter of all people on social-

The Speaker: The member take his seat. The member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale, his last warning. If he shouts out again, he'll be asked to leave for the day.

Hon Mr Baird: In fact, more than 25% of those on welfare are working and are taking advantage of that earn-back program, are taking advantage of the supports of workfare, of training, of learnfare and are being able to realize the dignity that comes with a job and the pride that comes with independence.

This number speaks for itself: more than 549,000 people breaking the cycle of welfare dependency and realizing the dignity that comes with being independent.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last week you told my colleague the member for London-Fanshawe about an announcement you were about to make on improving safety in our bars and clubs. For the benefit of those who may have missed the details, could you explain to the House what has come out of that announcement?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I want to thank the member for Peterborough for the question and the opportunity. One of the key recommendations coming out of the report, Building Safer Communities, is the creation of a centralized, interdisciplinary unit which will involve the police, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission and other agencies from all three levels of government.

This unit would co-ordinate efforts using provincial liquor regulations, fire, building and health codes, municipal licensing powers and any other avenues available to put problem establishments out of business.

The report also calls for tougher penalties, the treatment of a liquor licence as a privilege, not a right, expanded powers to revoke or suspend licences as well as the ability to hold landlords accountable and liable for illegal activity occurring on their property.

While the vast majority of the 16,000 licensed establishments in Ontario run good, law-abiding operations, there are a few habitual offenders out there who are threatening the safety of our communities, and we will take tough measures to make our communities safer.

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

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Minister, for your response. It sounds like a good first step in the battle against illegal activities in these establishments.

I want to make one comment before I ask the supplementary, and that is to comment about the conference that's coming up in Peterborough on October 26 and 27. Regarding the Safe Communities: Everyone's Responsibility conference, I want to comment about the Greater Peterborough Safe Communities Coalition, which is a major part of setting this up, as well as the national coalition. I compliment them on it and I also suggest that it will be a well-attended conference.

Minister, now that you have the recommendations in hand, could you explain how they're going to help protect the well-being of Ontario's citizens?

Hon Mr Runciman: There's no reason our thriving hospitality sector should have to suffer because of bad actor operators who break the law and do not act in the public interest. Ontario is open for business, legitimate business, and legitimate business should not have to put up with criminals who ignore the law and have a total disregard for the safety of our communities.

We're acting on the suggestions and ideas that came out of the conference in responding to the concerns of the people of Ontario. Our review will look at ways to beef up the Liquor Licence Act. We need to get tougher in our enforcement actions. Licence holders who chose to ignore illegal activities in their establishments should face swift and decisive action like having their licences suspended or revoked, and licensees must be held accountable 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for what goes on in their establishments.

We'd like to keep the bad guys out, close problem facilities quickly and develop some new enforcement tools to protect the people of Ontario. We're committed to taking whatever steps are necessary to build safer communities in this province.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question, again, is for the Premier. Despite your drastic efforts to force the Adams mine deal down people's throats, it's now dead. People across the province are asking, why is your government so opposed to new progressive technologies that promote the three Rs, recycle, reuse and reduce? Premier, in Edmonton, in Halifax and just down Highway 401 in Guelph, there are exciting new technologies that are diverting up to 80% of the material that used to go to landfill sites.

Even your own organization, the Ontario Waste Diversion Organization, strongly recommends that you ban organics from landfill and that you get serious about the three Rs. Those are your people, Premier. Can you tell us, why does your government refuse to answer the phone when all those people are calling you and offering to help you reduce, reuse, recycle and ban organics from dumps? Why won't you even talk to them?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate your question. I know a number of environmental groups have said that-if you go back from that period of 1995 let's say 20 years-the only meaningful, significant move they saw in this area was a report released by the then Conservative minister, Keith Norton, on the four Rs-you forgot one of those along the way-and the most significant advances that have been made in reducing and recycling over that period of time.

Other than increasing the tax on cans that the Liberals introduced, you took no meaningful steps at all to advance the blue box program and a number of those initiatives. We are very strong on reusing first and then reducing and then recycling. As to your reference to any individual facility, we take no position on any individual facility. Our role is to ensure that any facility that wishes to be used-

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

Supplementary?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Premier, in 1995, when you came to office, you cut blue box funding completely. Let me tell you, Premier, that when it comes to waste diversion, you make Mel Lastman look good, and believe me, that's bad. The goal is: reduce waste and keep it out of landfill sites and out of our water supply.

Instead of promoting the three Rs, you pushed the Adams mine and did nothing else, but you failed. Now we're looking at a million tonnes a year of municipal waste in the GTA. Your Waste Diversion Organization says you cannot meet diversion targets unless you keep organics from landfills, and the technology now exists to do it. Why don't you go to Guelph yourself and see how it works?

Premier, which of the WDO recommendations will you implement and when will you do it?

Hon Mr Harris: I don't know why you bring up the Adams mine or the Michigan proposal that your party favours. There is absolutely no difference. Whether it is your party's Michigan proposal or the proposal of the city of Toronto and the Kirkland Lake proponents for Adams mine, there ought to be no difference. We have the top priority, that wherever ultimately waste that is not dealt with is disposed of we want-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier, take a seat. The member has asked the question. Now this is your last warning as well. You can't ask the question and then shout at the person who's trying to answer it. If you do, we'll do what we did last week and we'll ask you to leave.

Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

So the issue really is that it shouldn't matter whether it's Keele Valley, Britannia, Adams mine or your proposal to ship it to Michigan that you've promoted and encouraged. We should be trying to reduce, reuse and recycle everything we absolutely can so that wherever it is ultimately disposed of, we minimize that. That's our goal. I would hope it's your goal, although I haven't heard too much-

The Speaker: The Premier's time is up.

CANCER CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. Cancer Care Ontario has completed its report on the pending crisis in providing chemotherapy treatment to cancer patients. That report is on your desk, and I understand it tells you that we need more than 30 medical oncologists and more than 30 cancer nurses if this crisis is going to be avoided. Minister, we've seen the crisis in access to radiation therapy, with people waiting as long as seven months for treatment.

You promised you would solve that problem by last year, but instead you are planning to send more and more people out of the province for care. That crisis is completely out of control, and now we're facing similar problems in getting chemotherapy treatment.

Minister, will you release the Cancer Care report on chemotherapy today, and will you acknowledge the seriousness of the problems we're facing?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Our government has acknowledged that one of the priority health areas we are addressing is the issue of cancer, another is cardiac, another is the need for dialysis services, and the increased number of MRIs. Unfortunately, the incidence of cancer is increasing in our province, and it will probably continue to do so as our population ages and as our population grows.

As a result, our government since 1995 has invested over $160 million into cancer services and cancer care. Just this year, our budget included $54 million for priority programs such as cancer, and we will continue to make additional money available. We added $24.9 million in 1999-2000 for 11 new drugs to treat 17 different cancer indications. As the member knows, we are also expanding and building five new cancer facilities to respond to the growing incidence and need for treatment.

Mrs McLeod: People in this province were horrified to realize that you could not get radiation treatment in a timely way in Ontario and that people would have to be sent out of this province to get care. The people of this province have a right to know the seriousness of the problem that may be facing anyone who needs chemotherapy in Ontario. You must release the report so the public can judge whether or not your government is responding to this pending crisis.

Even without the release of that report, we know there is a critical shortage of medical oncologists and cancer specialists in this province. We know that the reasonable standard for workload for medical oncologists is to see 140 new patients a year. We know that in Ontario medical oncologists are seeing 200 new patients a year. We know that the critical shortage of cancer specialists is exactly the reason that you can't reduce the waiting times for radiation therapy. We know you needed 14 new radiation oncologists this year and you graduated two; this year we graduate none.

Minister, will you commit today to increasing not only medical school spaces but training places for specialties like cancer care?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As the member may have forgotten, we take this issue seriously and we have invested considerable money. In fact, I'm pleased to say that we have been recruiting additional cancer health professionals, and we have been able to recruit a total of 128 radiation therapists, 11 medical physicists, 13 physic residents and 16 radiation oncologists. We know there is a need to do more, and I can assure you we will continue to do that.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. Just a few days ago, the federal Liberals announced that the Canadian citizens would be going to the polls in November. I might add, this is an announcement that comes just a little over three years after the 1997 election, an unnecessary exercise, an unnecessary cost to taxpayers, unnecessary to everyone except Chrétien, and obviously they didn't learn from Peterson.

In the wake of this election call, the Toronto Star printed an

article mentioning several federal bills that have been abandoned due to the dissolution of Parlia-ment. One of those bills was the proposed amendment to the Young Offenders Act. Minister, do you think the federal Liberals were ever serious about this legislation?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): I thank the honourable member for the question. It's actually hard to tell what the federal Liberals felt about the Young Offenders Act, because they took a number of positions on it. But the last bill that was before the House was, of course, one the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and I were trying to encourage the federal Liberals to change, because it frankly didn't reflect much of a change from the current bill.

If you go and ask the people of Ontario, do they think the current Young Offenders Act is getting tough on young offenders, they would say no. They would say, as they have said to me many times, they believe the act needs to be toughened up so that young offenders who commit serious and violent crimes face serious consequences for their actions. I hope the Liberals, as they go door to door, will listen to Ontarians as they say that.

Mr Galt: It's certainly no secret that the federal Liberals are soft on crime. They're soft on our endangered species. A bill that came in some three times has died on the order paper.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the member take his seat. I am going to have to put the member for Hamilton East on the list of warnings too. You can't continue to shout across like that.

The member for Northumberland.

Mr Galt: Obviously, like their provincial cousins, they're soft on crime. They've been unwilling to take a stand that the citizens of this country can be proud of. This would be a good opportunity for them to realize that Ontario is indeed a leader in putting the rights of victims first and that we have taken steps to reform the system in favour of victims.

Minister, during this federal election, what policies would you like to see created by the federal Liberals to improve their stand on crime?

Hon Mr Sampson: Frankly, I'll take any policy at this point. The Attorney General, the Solicitor General and I have been to many justice conferences where we've pleaded with them to establish changes to the criminal justice act and the criminal justice process to get tough on crime. I believe at the first meeting we went to, we had a list of 10 items, and at the second meeting we went to, we had a list of 15 items. I suspect we'll have a list of 20 items, because the list keeps growing and they just won't listen.

What we need to get them to do is follow the lead of this province and the Premier of this province, who is prepared to allow victims to have a stronger role in the criminal justice process, a stronger role in parole hearings-of course, we have made tremendous efforts to establish the victims of crime office. There are a number of things they can do. I'll take any one of them. We have a long list. I'll take any one that they want to deliver on.

RECYCLING

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday, Dalton McGuinty raised the issue of how you've got out of the business of protecting the environment. Ontario has the lowest recycling rates in Canada. You are the only provincial government that doesn't mandate the private sector to share the cost of recycling products they have produced. Of course the Provincial Auditor, in 1997, was critical of your government's lack of commitment to recycling programs.

The result of your lack of leadership is that we're now drowning in garbage. We all heard the outcry about shipment of garbage to Timiskaming. Now you're creating a wave of controversy in southwestern Ontario by allowing more shipment of garbage.

Minister, what are you actually doing to provide responsible leadership to solve this problem that's not going to go away; it's only going to get worse?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Nothing could be further from the truth. The protection of the environment is the role and responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment, and that's what we do.

The member opposite should know that waste management is indeed a growing global problem. I've heard concerns from many members in the Legislature, on both sides of the House, in fact, about the city of Toronto's plan to ship its garbage to the United States. Let me assure you, Mr Speaker, that this government takes very seriously its responsibility to both preserve and protect the environment. As you know, it is our role to review the environmental impacts of waste management proposals and to ensure that the environment is protected. Municipalities, on the other hand, are responsible for determining their own waste management long-term plans.

Ms Di Cocco: Minister, yesterday you were reminded of the fact that the LCBO collected a $240-million levy for recycling and you spent $4 million. It's a mere drop in the bucket. Where is the money going?

Whether it's Windsor or Sarnia-Lambton or Essex or London, garbage problems should not be about shipping it from one area to another. What message are you sending to municipalities that are doing the right things? Are you telling them to get out of the recycling business and into the business of shipment of garbage to other jurisdictions? Do you know what responsible leadership is about? It's about diverting from landfills and other progressive alternatives for garbage.

What explanation do you have, in light of all of the facts, that you are out of the business of protecting the environment?

Hon Mr Newman: That is our business in the Ministry of the Environment: protecting the environment. In our continuing efforts to ensure the financial sustainability of waste diversion in Ontario, we are currently reviewing the final report that has been submitted by the Waste Diversion Organization, which is a multi-stakeholder group that we as a government created in November 1999.

Our government continues to be committed to the blue box program and we will ensure that it remains sustainable over the long term. Our government established the Waste Diversion Organization to provide municipalities with blue box funding support and, more important, the tools they need to achieve greater waste diversion.

I think we all agree that waste diversion is an important aspect of the long-term sustainability of our environment. I would encourage all municipalities to include these alternatives in their waste management plans.

I want to say to you today that I'm committed to ensuring that the work of the Waste Diversion Organization continues beyond its one-year mandate and that the recommendations in its final report-

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

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the response the minister gave to the member he stated, and I quote directly, "Nothing can be further from the"-

The Speaker: There's no point of order.

The member for Scarborough East.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, at a recent student forum held by one of the government members, a wide-ranging and very productive discussion took place. The students demonstrated an excellent grasp of the issues and, unlike the opposition members, they saw past the union rhetoric and understood that a sincere dialogue with the government was the only way to get to the truth in this important area.

Far from evading our responsibilities, the students know that our government is prepared to practise what we preach. Much of the recent reform to education has been concerned with accountability. Minister, I'd like to know what the government has done to make itself more accountable for the reforms and the decisions it's made.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): It is indeed an excellent question. Accountability is one of the goals that we have for our education quality reforms, and whether it's the minister, the ministry, a school board official, trustee, teacher, all of us as part of the system have responsibilities and obligations to be more accountable to students, to parents and to taxpayers.

That's why the ministry does, for example, an annual plan, sets out targets for what it's going to achieve every year. That's publicly released. We measure how well we succeed on that.

By law, we'll be requiring that the ministry report regularly to school councils on issues and information that they need. We continue to have regular reports to taxpayers using a variety of communications vehicles to talk about the reforms we have underway and why we think they're necessary and how we are delivering on the commitments we made to the voters in 1995 and 1999. Accountability is very important and we are living up to it.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Petitions continue to fly in related to the northern health travel grant and the discriminatory treatment of the province in that regard.

"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."

It's a huge issue. I'm very grateful for the support we're receiving, and I'm happy to add my name to this petition.

PAPER SLUDGE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm very pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham.

"Whereas residents of the riding of Durham have voiced their objection to the storage of paper sludge and related material within the Oak Ridges moraine; and

"Whereas the residents are concerned over the impact of this material on the air, water and soil of the moraine and on the health of those living nearby; and

"Whereas this issue has been raised at several public meetings by both individual citizens, members of the Protect the Ridges Coalition and municipal governments; and

"Whereas the Ministry of the Environment is currently completing a study of the impact of paper sludge in the Durham riding:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to take whatever steps are necessary to re-evaluate the use of paper sludge in Ontario, including in stockpiling and storage in rural areas, the spreading of this material on farm fields and any other commercial applications for this material. And that such re-evaluation of this process include consultation with residents in communities where paper sludge is spread, stored and processed. And that the re-evaluation also include whatever technical studies are necessary to fully understand the impact of this material on the natural environment."

I'm pleased to support this petition on behalf of my constituents.

CARMEN ROAD OVERPASS

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

"Whereas the community of South Dundas has a major concern regarding the closure of the Carmen Road overpass. The impact on the business community is devastating. Our children are at risk by crossing the busy railway at level crossing (14 buses a day). The cost for the closure alone is astronomical and we appeal to the government to find the funding and repair this bridge immediately.

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

"Repair the overpass immediately."

I also sign the petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

I agree with the petitioners. I have signed my name, and I'd like to thank Gerry Lougheed Jr for all of his efforts in this regard.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

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

"Whereas the activity of farming is being severely threatened and restricted by urban sprawl and infrastructure construction in the GTA;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to provide protection of the class 1-3 farmland and the business of agriculture and provide a competitive environment conducive to the business of agriculture."

I will affix my name to this.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced Bill 112,

An Act to amend the McMichael Canadian Art Collection Act;

"Whereas the McMichael Canadian Art Collection has grown and evolved into one of Canada's best-loved and most important art gallery collections of 20th century Canadian art;

"Whereas the passage of Bill 112 would constitute a breach of trust made with hundreds of other donors to the McMichael Canadian Art Collection; vest too much power in the hands of the founders, who have been more than compensated for their generosity; diminish the authority and responsibility of the board of trustees; limit the focus of the art collection and hamper the gallery to raise private funds, thereby increasing its dependency on the taxpayers; and significantly reduce its capacity and strength as an educational resource;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to withdraw Bill 112."

I affix my signature to this petition.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I am very pleased to present a number of petitions on behalf of constituents like Lynnis Trotter, Jim Grieves and others, because I support their concern.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there are many Ontarians who have a passion for perfection in the restoration of vintage automobiles; and

"Whereas unlike many other jurisdictions, Ontario vintage automobile enthusiasts are unable to register their vehicles using the original year of manufacture licence plates; and

"Whereas Durham MPP John R. O'Toole"-that's me-"and former MPP John Parker have worked together"-tirelessly-"to recognize the desire of vintage car collectors to register their vehicles using vintage plates; and

"Whereas the Honourable David Turnbull as Minister of Transportation has the power to change the existing regulation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to pass Bill 99 or to amend the Highway Traffic Act" to enable the use of vintage automobile plates for registration.

I am pleased to endorse, sign, and ask all members to raise this issue.

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a very short petition, which is forwarded to me by the Action on Women's Addictions-Research and Education committee in Kingston. It merely states this. It's very powerful and forceful. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

I agree with the petition and have signed it accordingly.

FARMFARE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Further petitions from farm workers, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, as follows.

"Whereas the government of Ontario introduced farmfare on September 21, 1999, to supplement their workfare program, forcing social assistance recipients to work on farms for their benefits; and

"Whereas the Harris government of Ontario has not provided for any consultation or hearings regarding this initiative; and

"Whereas the Harris government has excluded agricultural workers from protections under the provincial labour code by passing Bill 7; and

"Whereas this exclusion is currently being appealed under the Canadian Charter of Rights for infringing on the right of association and equal benefit of law;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to retract the farmfare program until hearings have been held and to reinstate the right of agricultural workers to allow them basic human rights protection under the labour code of Ontario."

On behalf of the NDP caucus, I add my name to those of these petitioners.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature, and it concerns northerners demanding the Harris government eliminate the health care apartheid which presently exists in this province.

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

Of course I affix my signature to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Further petitions from Sarnia.

"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."

As my caucus agrees with this position, I proudly add my name to theirs.

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 their communities."

This is signed by a number of my constituents in Atikokan, a small community where residents routinely have to travel 200 kilometres to get health care.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): The CAW continues their campaign of fighting against cancer in the workplace. Their petition reads as follows:

"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; and

"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 carcinogens; and

"Whereas most cancers can be beaten if government"-

Interjection.

Mr Christopherson: Why do you have to heckle every time I read something to do with human rights?

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I just heckle because it's you.

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

"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 add my name to those of these petitioners.

INVESTIGATION INTO CHILD ABUSE

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

"Whereas Garry Guzzo, MPP, Ottawa West-Nepean, has brought forward Bill 103,

An Act to establish a commission of inquiry to inquire into the investigations by police forces into sexual abuse against minors in the Cornwall area; and

"Whereas Bill 103, 2000, has the public support of John Cleary, MPP, Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh,

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

"To enact Bill 103, Inquiry into Police Investigations of Sexual Abuse Against Minors in the Cornwall Area Act, 2000."

I have also signed this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I move that pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act in respect of penalties, when Bill 124 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be ordered to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs; and

That no deferral of the second reading vote pursuant to standing order 28(

h) shall be permitted; and

That the standing committee on finance and economic affairs shall be authorized to meet during its regularly scheduled meeting times on one day for clause-by-clause consideration; and

That pursuant to standing order 75(c), the Chair of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs shall establish a deadline for the tabling of amendments or for filing them with the clerk of the committee; and

That the committee be authorized to meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment on the that day until the completion of clause-by-clause consideration; and

That at 4:30 pm on the final day designated by the committee for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, those amendments which have not been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill, and any amendments thereto. Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the completion of clause-by-clause consideration, and not later than November 14, 2000. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That when the order for third reading is called, the remainder of the sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, the debate time being divided equally among the three caucuses, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

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

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

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is a complete betrayal of what was offered by the Deputy Premier to our, the NDP's, deputy leader when asking a specific question about this bill. As you know, we have major concerns with it. The Deputy Premier that day said, "I can assure the member opposite"-

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Order. I didn't hear a point of order. Under which standing order are you rising?

Ms Churley: It breaks the spirit of the agreement we had in House leaders' meeting and it breaks the spirit of what the Deputy Premier-

The Acting Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. Debate.

Hon Mr Newman: I welcome this opportunity to debate the motion to allocate the

schedule for the remainder of the Toughest Environmental Penalties Act, 2000, so that, without further delay, this bill can be voted on. I want to thank all the members who will take

part in the debate this afternoon.

The goal of the Toughest Environmental Penalties Act, 2000, is to maximize the effectiveness of the safeguards that protect Ontario's air, water and land. I know this is a goal shared by all the members of this Legislative Assembly. I know that all members desire a clean environment for the health, well-being and prosperity of the people they represent and indeed for all Ontarians.

There are several key requirements for strong environmental protection. We need tough standards and effective programs and policies, we need high-quality monitoring and reporting, we need to ensure compliance and be able to conduct investigations and prosecutions when compliance is not forthcoming and we need tough penalties to serve as a credible deterrent. If passed, this bill will be more than a credible deterrent; it will become the law of this province.

I believe the Toughest Environmental Penalties Act, 2000, is a very important piece of legislation for our province. I would like to expand on three of the reasons I believe it is so crucial. The first is the deterrence factor: we need to send a loud and clear message that it doesn't pay to pollute in Ontario. The second reason is that tough penalties protect the vast majority of individuals and companies who do play by the rules. Third, the tougher penalties we are proposing will increase the strength of our environmental protection and show the commitment of the Mike Harris government to our environment, to ensure cleaner, more prosperous communities for all Ontarians.

One of the challenges of environmental protection is the fact that there are people who do not obey the laws that have been put in place to protect the air, water and land in our province. They show callous disregard for the environment and for the health of other people. They believe their short-term gains outweigh any further losses for their community and for future generations.

This government has worked hard to stop polluters. We have put a lot of effort into ensuring the soundness of our environmental protection system as a whole. We have made regulations better, stronger and clearer. We have given ministry staff better tools for ensuring compliance and investigating suspected offences against the environment. These tools include more modern investigative aids and techniques. We have broadened the scope of enforcement to cover not only those caught breaking environmental laws but also the behind-the-scenes operators, and we have toughened the penalties for environmental offences.

Clearly we need to build on these accomplishments to provide maximum deterrence. We need to do this because, frankly, we are still seeing many of the same faces in our courts. There are a number of bad players who persist in polluting in this province. This legislation needs to send a message as quickly as possible that they have met their match. We need to make it even more obvious to them that pollution does not pay. We need to give Ontario the toughest fines and jail terms in Canada for major pollution offences. That is exactly what the passing of Bill 124 would do today.

If we work together and quickly pass the Toughest Environmental Penalties Act, 2000, it will send an important message to these repeat offenders. The message is simply that the elected representatives of this province are united against them. Our desire to put an end to their behaviour transcends party lines.

We must work together and give priority to the health, well-being and prosperity of Ontarians. Our families and communities, especially the children and future generations, will be the beneficiaries.

We also need to send a message to those who obey the environmental laws of this province. We need to tell these individuals and companies, and they are clearly in the vast majority, that we appreciate their efforts and we will not let them down. We have taken strong action on behalf of the good environmental players and will continue these efforts. We will not rest on our laurels. We will be like Simon Whitfield, the Canadian triathlete who won gold this past summer in Sydney. We will persevere as long as there are polluters we have not caught. We will track them down one by one, and even if we have to come from behind, we will win.

Unlike a race, there is no finishing line when it comes to protection of the environment. There are times when great gains are made-and Ontario would make great gains with the passing of the Toughest Environmental Penalties Act, 2000-but there will always be the need for adjustments and refinements as new knowledge and situations arise.

By keeping to this course, we are making it known to the good environmental players that we are on their side for the distance. The individuals and companies that focus on their environmental performance have a big advantage on polluters: intelligence. It's not simply the desire to avoid stiff penalties. They have a broader awareness of the importance of meeting the requirements of the law. They know they are contributing to the health and well-being of society at large.

They also know that strong environmental performance contributes to strong economic performance in terms of efficiencies to be gained, market advantages and so on. In fact, the environment itself is one of the strongest drivers of economic growth in Ontario. We do not want to lose the momentum that has been achieved by the good environmental players. I urge the members to pass the Toughest Environmental Penalties Act, 2000, to help us maintain and build upon this momentum.

The final and most important point I'd like to make about the proposed bill is that it would be good for the environment. A sound environmental protection system depends on good standards and on the ability to effectively enforce them. By passing this bill, we would increase the effectiveness of the actions we have taken on so many fronts to protect Ontario's air, water and land.

We are fortunate to live in a province that is economically strong and blessed with an abundance of natural resources. But we must be constantly vigilant to ensure that our environment is not compromised by the few who would put short-term profits over the interests of our air, water and land.

I urge all the members of the Legislative Assembly, in the strongest terms possible, to support the Toughest Environmental Penalties Act, 2000. If we work together in passing this important piece of legislation, we will send a strong message to everyone that offences against Ontario's environment will not be tolerated.

The Acting Speaker: Further dabate?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): I rise today very pleased to speak on this bill. The bill we're contemplating is really a question of the difference between the hypothetical and reality. The hypothetical is that this government passes such a bill, which solves the problem they're dealing with, which results in tougher penalties, which results in a lower number of violations with respect to environmental laws being broken. A greater number of penalties are imposed, and they're tougher.

However, the reality is they will never be enforced, and therefore there will not be the number of cases brought and charges laid. So you have the difference between what the government deals with in terms of a political problem and its attempts to solve its political image with the public, which is to say, "We brought forward tougher laws. We are not soft on environmental crime." That's what it amounts to.

Essentially, the government is posturing, suggesting we are getting tough on environmental crime. That's the only way we can describe it. We're getting tough on it, we're increasing penalties. But the reality is that this government has decimated the Ministry of the Environment and its enforcement branch and therefore does not have the ability to carry out the enforcement required to back up its rhetoric.

This government has demonstrated that from the very beginning, when it was first elected, by downsizing the Ministry of the Environment by one third. Nine hundred staff were laid off at the Ministry of the Environment. Its budget was cut by $121 million.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): What percentage is that?

Mr Cordiano: That's a 42% reduction. A 30% reduction in the compliance and enforcement branch resulted in 141 staff being fired. This is like the jail guards leaving the keys of the jail right there for the inmates to unlock themselves and sneak out any time they want. Of course, they've done that in the boot camps.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): We did correct that incident.

Mr Cordiano: My good friend the former minister of corrections is here today, and I know he'd like to correct that incident. If he were the minister, I'm sure he would want to do that.

But when all is said and done, this is a government that does not stand up true to the environment and its protection. It does not do that with the full force of the law and with any kind of vigilance. When all is said and done, the problem this government faces is that the Ontario public does not believe that this government truly is tough when it comes to dealing with environmental violations. It's not going to do it. It does not have a track record. It does not have the credibility that's required.

As we know, not dealing with these problems today means that we will have enormous problems tomorrow. Our children will inherit this huge environmental deficit-that's the only way you can describe it-the cost of which will be rising. Trying to deal with the pollution problems of tomorrow could very well bankrupt future governments if we don't deal with some of the huge problems we're facing today when it comes to water pollution or air pollution. These are problems that are not going to go away unless we take immediate action today, and taking the action that is required today means that it will cost less tomorrow.

We have all kinds of new technologies that are available to us to divert waste, to divert the kinds of wasteful initiatives we have been seeing just recently with the Adams mine.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Such as that advertising.

Mr Cordiano: The wasteful initiatives we're seeing by this government in terms of advertising: a huge, full-colour brochure. Once again this government uses propaganda to talk about issues that-

Mr Bradley: There's a picture of the Premier in there.

Mr Cordiano: Where's the picture? Let me see. Oh, here he is right here: "A message from the Premier."

Again and again-and we saw this in all kinds of ministries. Just recently, in the summer, the Minister of Community and Social Services put out another piece of propaganda talking about welfare and the reduction of the welfare rolls, yadda, yadda, yadda. At the end of the day this government, on every single issue, will send out a piece of propaganda to talk about, "Isn't the government great?" patting itself on the back. Millions and millions of dollars are wasted on government advertising. That's the only way you can describe it. This is blatant. Previous governments could never have gotten away with this kind of nonsense. Never, ever did they even attempt to do such blatant advertising.

This is a full-colour brochure, great colours of fall. Look at that.

Interjection: Pumpkins.

Mr Cordiano: Pumpkins. Every season has a new propaganda pamphlet out there. That's what we're seeing from this government, rather than dealing with the very real problems of the environment.

This bill does nothing to convince those of us who are very skeptical about this government, and that list is growing. Every day the Ontario public becomes more skeptical about this government's true intentions when it comes to the environment, the vigilance with which this government is dealing with environmental problems, whether it's water or air pollution, or garbage for that matter. This is not a government that takes these problems seriously. It's not a government that is in effect dedicating additional resources.

We have a glorious opportunity at this present time to take the initiative in this province to support emerging technologies. It's a great time to do that. It's a great time for Ontario to show leadership, to make certain that the future is a better place for all of our children, that we're not passing on a legacy of enormous costs which will, as I say, affect future governments and the economy of this province. At some point down the road the bill for these enormous costs will come in and we won't be able to deal with it.

This government has a terrible legacy, a terrible record when it comes to the environment. It is third from the bottom of the list, where all North American jurisdictions are concerned, as the worst in dealing with environmental questions. It has not proven to the public that it will do so with any kind of vigilance.

Therefore we look at a bill like this and tell ourselves that this is nothing more than posturing on the part of the government, as they have demonstrated time and again they will do when they realize there's a political problem, that there's a perception problem: introduce a bill or send out a pamphlet to deflect any real criticism; create the alternate perception out there that in fact they are doing, that they are taking action, that they are vigilant about these problems we're facing.

That's the style of governance we've seen from this government time and time again. When it comes to the environment, we should be depoliticizing this question. It should not be a partisan question; it should not be a question at which we have any kind of division. All of us in this House should be for environmental protection, should be vigilant in our efforts to ensure that there is good public policy to protect the environment. After all, it affects all of us. It should be "apple pie" that we're talking about. We've dealt with many other issues in previous years. This one should be an issue that does not have to be politicized.

It's a question of dedicating resources and having the political will to deal with some of these problems, and they will be solved. Once again it is a sad thing that this government does not recognize that in dealing with the environment, and ensuring that there is clean water and air, we're providing to all of the people in the province a great service and doing what is required of us as legislators. That is the first and foremost priority for all of us.

I think the time has come, in this new century, to declare that the environment is something that will be depoliticized and no longer a partisan question, that it can be something all of us work and strive to achieve with respect to better air and better water for our children in the future.

Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, I'm sorry that I rose earlier on a point of order that turned out not to be a point of order, and I realize you had to do your job and rule me out of order on it, but I was making the point because I feel that some faith was broken in this House today.

In the spirit of co-operation and agreement about this bill, I was led to believe and understood that there would be some-not enough but some-time for public hearings on this and some time to make amendments. What we've got before us today is yet another closure motion, a motion to shut down debate and shut down the public. The public will have no input in this bill whatsoever now. We will have a few hours of what's called clause-by-clause so that we can put forward amendments which, my assumption based on what's happened here today, will go nowhere.

I'm hoping very much that at the very least some of the concerns we raised in this House will be incorporated into amendments that can be made to fix this bill, which has some really deep flaws which we have pointed out repeatedly here. Let me tell you two reasons why I believe we should have at least some public hearings.

The deputy leader of the NDP, the member from Beaches-East York, Frances Lankin, asked a question in this House to the Acting Premier on October 16. I was in Walkerton that day, it was the first day of hearings in Walkerton, and my leader was also in a community, so Ms Lankin asked this question on behalf of our caucus and pointed out a very deep flaw in the bill, a very im-portant flaw.

I'm going to tell you what that flaw is first so members will understand one of the reasons why the NDP caucus has such a problem with this bill and why we want it to have public hearings, so that the government could hear from people who are experts in the environmental field who could give some advice. But no, they don't want to hear that.

The issue she brought to the attention of the Acting Premier that day, and the Acting Premier on that day was the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet, was that she told him about what we had discovered in this bill, and they don't talk about this. They never told us in the explanatory note that they were actually weakening the bill before us. What she asked about was that, right now on the books, there is a law that allows administrative penalties against a director or an officer of a corporation who has failed to take all reasonable care to protect the environment.

This law that this government is getting up and bragging about day after day repeals that. It's actually a bill before us that brags about increasing penalties, which nobody can disagree with on the surface, but that's the only bit of the bill they talk about. That was the question she asked that day to the Acting Premier.

I'm going to quote to you some of the words from the Acting Premier that day, the Chair of Management Board. He said, "I can assure the member opposite that our draft legislation will go through consultations. I know that you would agree with"-and blah, blah, blah about that. He said "I can assure," not "maybe," not "I will speak to the minister," and he was speaking for the government members that day. He said, "I can assure the member opposite that our"-and he called it-"draft legislation will go through consultations."

We took the government spokesperson of the day, the head of the government that day, at his word that there would be-well, what does "consultations" mean? It doesn't mean just speeches in this House, which these guys don't listen to anyway. It means consultations with the public so they have an opportunity to express their concerns about this bill directly to government members on a government committee. That is what we expected.

The other reason I expected some hearings on this, albeit not enough, is that I, as the whip of the NDP, sit in the meetings that take place weekly between the House leaders and the whips of all three parties, where we sit down and to the best of our ability try to negotiate how this place is run, while recognizing that the government holds all the cards, especially since they've changed the rules to the point where the opposition's role has been reduced to very little, with very few tools left for us to show the truth of what's happening in this place and the content of bills.

But there are some opportunities for us to sit down and negotiate. One of the things we talked about was hearings for this bill before us today, the closure bill. Let me remind people again what that means. It means that they're going to shut down debate on this bill before us today and that there will be no public hearings. In the House leaders' meeting, I had made it very clear that I wanted some days of hearings. I knew I wasn't going to get a lot so I didn't push for too much. I said I'd like a couple of days, with a day for clause-by-clause.

We left it with the possibility that the best I could get was a day of public hearings and a day of clause-by-clause. It was left up in the air, and no agreement had been made, because the House leader said he would talk to the minister about it.

What he came back with today was this proposal. There was no discussion about it, no negotiating. The heavy hand of the government once again came back and said, "No, there will be no hearings whatsoever." Clause-by-clause: I assume that's because the government must have some amendments, and we will see if some of the urgent matters our caucus brought up about the flaws in this bill-if the government will bring forward those amendments.

The bottom line on two occasions-I negotiated in good faith on behalf of our caucus and on behalf of the groups that have an interest in this bill. I know the whole world is not paying attention to this bill and some people might wonder why I'm kicking up such a fuss about it. On the surface, in the whole scheme of things that are happening to our province under Mike Harris's watch, this either seems, I'm sure, to most people, if they're paying attention, insignificant, or the way the government talks about it, like a good thing.

Let me tell you and remind you again why it was so important to have a proper, full debate in this Legislature about this bill, and why it was critical that environmental groups and perhaps community folks would want to come in and express their concerns, or maybe even some big business might come in in favour and say, "Yes, increase the penalties on us." There are a lot of problems with this bill, and the increase in penalties is something we're going to hear the government brag about time after time because their environmental record is so weak and so embarrassing to them.

What this will do is they'll be able to stand up, as they've done repeatedly in this Legislature, and say, "Hey, we're great. We brought in the toughest penalties in Canada." The penalties are pretty tough right now. They're pretty high and nobody objects to making them higher. It's a good thing. The bottom line, though, is that somebody's actually got to enforce the law and they're not enforcing the existing law.

Let me remind people again of what has happened with enforcing the law under this government's watch. This is just about water pollution, which for obvious reasons folks are paying attention to right now because of what happened in Walkerton. Let's talk about water violations for a few minutes.

This is from a report-give them credit for it-Ontario's Environment and the Common Sense Revolution: A Fifth Year Report, put out just recently by the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy. These are experts and their research is impeccable. Nobody can argue with it. "Increased violations of water pollution standards: Violations of water pollution standards increased between 1996 and 1998. A total of 167 companies and municipalities violated water pollution standards, guidelines or regulations in 1998, with a total of 3,363 violations, up from 1,013." That's up from 1,000 violations in 1996.

Now get the second part to this, and this is what makes such a mockery of the bill that we have closure on today: "An analysis of water-discharge violations by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund found that from 1996 to 1998 there has been a tripling of water pollution standards violations by companies and municipalities in Ontario. In 1998, the last year for which data is available, there were more than 3,000 violations.... A total of 167 companies violated water pollution standards in 1998." Two thirds of those were repeat offenders.

Since 1998-remember all those numbers I just read to you, some of them being repeat offenders-there has been only one prosecution for a breach of waste water discharge laws. This is what we really should be dealing with in this Legislature. The horse is already out the barn door.

There is no problem with making the fines higher, but it doesn't make any difference, partly because of what I said-they're not prosecuting and they're not inspecting and enforcing. They don't have the staff to do it. Furthermore, I believe this government believes they should let these folks off the hook. They are their friends.

I think the proof is in the pudding. One of the second major reasons we object to this bill, and I ask the minister to make an amendment to actually bring in a law-I'd do it by a private member's bill but it would be a money bill and the opposition isn't allowed to do that by a private member's bill-is that there was a Supreme Court decision made just last year, I believe, which actually allows companies to write off fines. It doesn't matter if it's $500 or $5 million, they can write off a fine on their income taxes. So it's just a matter of doing business. They can claim it on their taxes no matter how high the fine is. They can claim it, write it off on their taxes.

Think for a moment about what that means to the taxes that we pay. It means that those corporations, if they're fined, can write the taxes off. They actually save money and we, the taxpayers, through the back door, end up paying the bill for the violations of a company polluting the environment.

Those are two very major flaws in this bill. One of them is at the government's own hand. They are actually removing a piece of legislation that one of their own ministers brought in some time ago. Now why? You have to ask yourself. This government brought in something that I applauded, and I don't get the opportunity to do that very much because of this government's record on the environment. But I said that was a good thing. I was pleased to see that.

Why would the government remove it and hide it? They didn't talk about it. We discovered it. We discovered it was hidden in the small print and not a word about it in the House. It was a strong aspect of the existing law where corporations, where the CEOs, a director or an officer of a corporation could suffer administrative penalties. That's gone now, so this bill is actually weakened.

We're in a real dilemma here. There's reason to support the bill on the surface beca