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

April 12, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Apr-12 (PDF)

L041 - Wed 12 Apr 2000 / Mer 12 avr 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROVISIONNEMENT DE L'ÉDUCATION / EDUCATION FUNDING

NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK

CHRISTOPHER PALMER

JOB CREATION

HAZARDOUS WASTE

HEART AND SOUL CAMPAIGN

FRUIT WINES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

TERRY FOX

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

DEFERRED VOTES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ORAL QUESTIONS

CANCER TREATMENT

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

NURSING HOMES

HEALTH CARE

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ONTARIO WORKS

WELFARE REFORM

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT

YOUNG OFFENDERS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

PESTICIDES

KARLA HOMOLKA

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

LORD'S PRAYER

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

ABORTION

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

KARLA HOMOLKA

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

OPPOSITION DAY

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

OAK RIDGES MORAINE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROVISIONNEMENT DE L'ÉDUCATION / EDUCATION FUNDING

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier) : Merci, monsieur le Président. Aujourd'hui je suis fortement préoccupée par la qualité de vie professionnelle de nos enseignants et enseignantes.

Our teachers' professional well-being is of great concern to me.

Beaucoup d'enseignants et d'enseignantes sont découragés et démoralisés. Le gouvernement continue de faire des coupures en éducation tout en insistant qu'il n'y aurait aucun effet néfaste dans les salles de classe ou à la qualité de l'éducation fournie à nos enfants.

The students are the first to suffer in such situations. Key ministerial policies and regulations do not favour ideal conditions in our education system. Parents are right in asking if their children are receiving the quality of education promised by our government.

Prenons comme exemple le nombre élevé d'élèves dans les salles de classe ; les coupures aux services de soutien dans les écoles ; les réductions au temps de gestion, surtout au palier secondaire ; le manque d'outils pédagogiques et de manuels, et j'en passe. Comment peut-on croire que tous ces éléments n'ont pas d'effet sur nos enfants, que tous ces effets, tous ces éléments n'ont aucun effet sur les relations entre les enseignants et les élèves, entre les enseignants et les parents ?

This leaves teachers saying that they have had enough. There are many more of them taking long-term leave and suffering from exhaustion and depression. Yet, teachers want the best for their students and they still care deeply about the quality of education in this province. Unfortunately, they are prevented from providing it.

Il est temps de reconnaître la contribution importante des enseignants et des enseignantes au tissu social de notre province.

NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): This week is National Volunteer Week. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the volunteers in Ontario, and particularly the volunteers in my riding of York North, who give their gift of time, talent and energy to make our community a better place to live.

Volunteering is part of a Canadian way of life. International studies confirm that Canadians give more of their time than most others in the world. Volunteering means stepping outside our private lives to make a difference in our public life. In Canada there are an estimated 7.5 million people who volunteered their time in the past year. From this, it is easy to see that health, recreation, culture, sports and the environment for people of all ages and walks of life benefit from the work of volunteers in our communities.

This week honours those people who make a difference. In my riding of York North, the township of King will be celebrating and recognizing three outstanding volunteers: Irene Palmer, Eileen Shaw and Margaret Brookes. These three women have made a difference. Their commitment to volunteering has enriched our lives.

In my riding of York North, thousands of volunteers give their time to hundreds of agencies and organizations that help make York North a better place to live, work and raise a family.

CHRISTOPHER PALMER

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): Oftentimes we see individuals in need of a home, in need of food, and we walk by thinking, "Oh, society's uncaring," but the true story is that we live in a compassionate society.

On the night of February 14, Christopher Palmer was murdered by a gunman who pumped five bullets into him in front of 300 people. No relatives or friends came forward to claim his body, which lay in a cold, stainless steel cooling cabinet in a Toronto morgue. However, there are compassionate and kind-hearted individuals in our community who want to extend the dignity of a proper and decent burial to Christopher, although he was a stranger to them.

A government is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable and deprived, and so are organizations and individuals. The action of organizations and individuals in this situation restores my confidence in humanity. Yes, there are good people out there. Though unknown, Christopher Palmer will be given a proper funeral.

Christopher Palmer's murder remains unsolved. Of the 300 patrons at the nightclub that evening, not one has come forward to assist the police in the investigation. As high school teacher Lennox Farrell said to his students, "The silence about wrongdoings and unlawful acts, goaded by a fear of revenge, is a plague that so afflicts our own students too."

I appeal to the people who were there that night to come forward and assist the police in investigating this case.

A trust account has been set up. Donations can be made to Roach and Schwartz in Trust to offset the costs. The visitation is Sunday, April 16, at 3 pm and the funeral is on Monday, April 17, at 10 am at the Ogden Funeral Home, 646 St Clair Avenue West.

JOB CREATION

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I am pleased to rise today to inform this House that the unprecedented job growth in Ontario is still continuing. In March, Ontario's unemployment rate continued to decline, just like the public's confidence in the leader of the Liberal Party. We should all be proud that the unemployment rate is at 5.6%.

The number of jobs being created is truly remarkable. Over 28,000 net new jobs were gained last month. That brings us to a total of 701,000 net new jobs that have been created since the throne speech in 1995. Most important, however, is that Ontario is gaining full-time jobs. Full-time employment rose by over 32,000 jobs last month alone.

According to Statistics Canada, Northumberland county and surrounding areas have witnessed the unemployment rate drop from 9.9% in 1995 to 7.1% in March of this year. But I can tell you there's still lots more to do.

Essentially, companies are recognizing that Ontario is a good place to do business. This government has cut taxes in order to attract investment and create jobs, and our plan is proving to be very successful.

On behalf of the government of Ontario, I extend sincere congratulations to the thousands of Ontarians who got jobs in March and were able to come home and say: "Guess what? I got the job."

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): The Safety-Kleen site in Sarnia-Lambton is still importing hundreds of thousands of tonnes of toxic hazardous waste from outside the province. Toxic hazardous waste has come in from the United States and from as far away as the Caribbean and Saudi Arabia. This site is still doing business as usual, even though the integrity of the liner has been breached, even though the company is in financial trouble in South Carolina and even though every tonne of toxic hazardous waste imported will mean millions of taxpayer dollars for eventual cleanup.

I brought this to the attention of the Minister of the Environment in October 1999. The minister announced changes, but this province is still accepting toxic hazardous waste at higher levels than ever before. Ontario has the jurisdictional authority to accept or reject toxic hazardous waste importation. Ontario should be moving forward to become a model for high environmental standards for the world. Instead, as is evident at the Safety-Kleen site, this province under the Harris Tories has been regressing when it comes to the environment. I wonder whom Harris will blame for the dismal track record.

HEART AND SOUL CAMPAIGN

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): On March 28 I was pleased to participate in the launch of our community's Heart and Soul Campaign. The campaign is a single fundraising effort by three community partners: the Sudbury Regional Hospital Corp, the Northeastern Ontario Regional Cancer Centre and St Joseph's Health Centre. Each is involved in a major health care capital project and must contribute a local share to project costs. The partners collectively must raise $45.7 million, the largest fundraising campaign ever undertaken by our community.

The three projects include the expansion and renovation of the Sudbury Regional Hospital, Laurentian site, as ordered by the Health Services Restructuring Commission. The bulk of the money to be raised is needed for this mandated government cost. The second is the increase in size and the addition of more linear accelerators at the cancer treatment centre to meet future cancer needs. The third is the proposal to develop 168 long-term-care beds at St Joseph's Health Centre to care for more seniors in our community.

Two of these three facilities serve people from across northeastern Ontario and, given the extraordinary local share to be raised, Sudbury regional council is approaching this government for help to ensure that we can meet regional health care needs. I trust ministers in this government will meet with our community leaders and listen carefully to what they have to say. We're prepared to do our share, but this government must recognize our additional burden as a regional centre for health care and agree to do more so we can all meet our responsibilities.

FRUIT WINES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to rise again today to congratulate two excellent wineries located in my riding of Durham. These wineries are on the cutting edge of a relatively new wine industry: fruit wines.

On March 6, the newly formed Fruit Wines of Canada Association held their first national fruit wine competition. At the competition, Ocala Orchard Farm Winery, owned by Alissa and Irwin Smith, brought home two gold and two bronze medals. Congratulations.

Fred and Sandy Archibald, owners of Archibald Orchards, located just north of my home in Bowmanville, also made Durham proud by winning nine awards, including two gold medals.

I encourage all members of the House to support this young industry by trying a bottle of fruit wine today. I can think of no better way to acquaint yourself with these wines than by trying one of the medal-winning wines from Durham region. Indeed, you won't go wrong with a fruit wine from Durham region. At this recent competition, Durham wines walked away with 21% of all awards presented.

As an addition to my statement today, I would also like to congratulate the Orono Lumber midget hockey team, as they won the Ontario Minor Hockey League's midget D provincial championship just recently.

As a member of the Legiskaters, who recently sampled the bitter taste of defeat in a match against Quebec, our counterparts, I am pleased that the sweet taste of victory has returned to my riding of Durham in the form of hockey championships, as well as the excellent wine industry in Durham. It makes me so proud to represent an important riding such as Durham and to occasionally share my speaking time with the member from Northumberland.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I think it's fair to say that many of us are only beginning to understand the long-term battle that people with eating disorders face. In fact, I was shocked to learn recently that people with eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of all people with a psychiatric problem, even more so than depression.

In northwestern Ontario, we are fortunate that the St Joseph's Care Group has a well-established program to help those with this serious disorder. But the problem is that St Joseph's has been forced to rely solely on its own operating funds to keep this important program going. So much more needs to be done.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Health provides funding support for eating disorder programs in other parts of the province, and in fact recently announced financial support for an expansion of services in eastern Ontario. Yet, despite an intense lobbying effort over the past several years, Health Minister Witmer refuses to fund our program in Thunder Bay. The minister's most recent response to our efforts is both stunning and infuriating.

In a recent letter, she indicated, "The majority of funding allocated in the last few years has been to increase specialized treatment services in parts of the province where the need is greatest." She then suggests that those in need should contact the program run by the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. How utterly appalling.

Minister, let me address you directly. Our needs are just as great as anywhere else in the province. To tell us to deal with a southern Ontario facility when a full-service program could be available in the north is absurd. Rethink this, Minister. We need and deserve this support.

TERRY FOX

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): This is a very dramatic day in the lives of Ontarians and Canadians. Today we celebrate and commemorate the 20th anniversary of Terry Fox's heroic run across Canada to raise money and awareness for cancer research.

On April 12, 1980, with little fanfare, Terry started his inspirational journey in St John's, Newfoundland. Although it was difficult to garner attention at the outset, enthusiasm soon grew, and the money collected along his route began to mount.

He ran 43 kilometres per day throughout the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and Ontario. He called his run the Marathon of Hope, and it became the inspiration for an annual charity run to continue the worthy cause started by Terry 20 years ago. I have been proud to be a participant in the Etobicoke North Terry Fox Run for the last seven years.

Sadly, in September 1980, Terry was forced to end his run outside of Thunder Bay. An entire nation was stunned and saddened. This true Canadian hero was gone, but his legacy was just beginning. To this date, the Marathon of Hope has raised an estimated $250 million worldwide for cancer research. Terry Fox is no longer with us, but his enduring spirit lives on.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg leave to inform the House that the Clerk has received the fifth report of the standing committee on government agencies.

Pursuant to standing order 106, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr3,

An Act respecting Peterborough Regional Health Centre

Bill Pr 5,

An Act respecting The Ross Memorial Hospital

Bill Pr 16,

An Act to incorporate Talpiot College.

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing at all stages be remitted on Bill Pr16,

An Act to incorporate Talpiot College.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

DEFERRED VOTES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We now have a deferred vote on the motion by Mr Harris relating to health care funding. Call in the members; this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1349 to 1354.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Eves, Ernie L.

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Palladini, Al

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Ramsay, David

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 57; the nays are 25.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would seek unanimous consent of the House to place a Liberal amendment to the Harris motion just passed as a principal motion.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. Doctors have repeatedly told us that it's unsafe for people with cancer to wait more than four weeks before receiving radiation treatment. My party and I believe we have a very heavy obligation to make sure that all Ontarians who are suffering from cancer have access to treatment in a timely way. That means, in Ontario, radiation within four weeks.

Minister, four months ago we learned that only-and this is terribly embarrassing-one third of Ontario cancer patients are getting access to radiation treatment within the recommended period of time. When I raised my concerns with you then, you promised that, come the end of March, this March past, you would ensure that one half of our cancer patients would be receiving timely radiation treatment in Ontario. March has come and gone, and we are very interested in learning from you, here and now, whether or not you reached your lofty goal to ensure that 50% of Ontario cancer patients are receiving their radiation treatment in a timely way.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Our government has made cancer care a priority for this province. We have invested over $155 million into cancer services and cancer care. In fact, we are constructing five new cancer facilities throughout the province in order that we can provide these services closer to home.

I would also say to you that Cancer Care Ontario indicated to us, through Tom McGowan, that he expected that, come the spring of 2000, "We will have broken the back of the radiation waiting problem." Under the leadership of Cancer Care Ontario, with the resources that have been given to them, they are doing everything they can in order to ensure that waiting times and waiting lists are reduced. They have actively and aggressively recruited-

Interjections.

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

Mr McGuinty: Let's just back it up for a moment. Four months ago, the Provincial Auditor made an unprecedented finding. He said that only one third of Ontario cancer patients were getting their treatment within the recommended four weeks. I raised that matter with you in the Legislature. You said, in the most solemn fashion, that you were going to ensure that we achieve the lofty target of 50% by this March immediately past.

The fact of the matter is-and you were too embarrassed, obviously, to admit it just now-we are only providing, today in Ontario, timely treatment to 40% of our cancer patients, not 100%, not 90% or 80% or 70% or 60%, not even your goal of 50%. We've only achieved 40% in Ontario. To make matters worse, Cancer Care Ontario is now telling us they will not be able to achieve your target of 50% for another 12 months. You have failed miserably in this regard. I ask you now, on behalf of Ontario cancer patients and their families, why did you fail them?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As the leader knows, Cancer Care Ontario was created in 1997 in order that standards and guidelines for the treatment of patients who require cancer services could be coordinated. I know that Cancer Care Ontario is doing everything they possibly can. One of the areas where they are more actively working now is on the recruitment of radiation therapists in order that the human resources are there. We have expanded the radiation therapist program from 50 students to 75. I know they will continue to do everything they humanly can in order to ensure-in fact, we are the only province in Canada that is moving toward the four-week standard.

Mr McGuinty: Ontarians understand that ultimately the buck stops with you. You said that by this March past, 50% of Ontario cancer patients could look forward to receiving radiation treatment in a timely way, within the four-week period recommended by their own doctors. Today, it's at 40% and we learn that it's going to take a further 12 months to get up to the lofty height of 50%. Today in Ontario six out of 10 cancer patients cannot look forward to receiving the treatment recommended by their own doctors.

To make matters worse, your cancer care experts are telling you they need $60 million this year. If you were genuinely committed to resolving this matter, you would give them that. But they tell me you're only going to give them $40 million. You have millions and millions of dollars to run completely useless, partisan television ads, but apparently you have no money when it comes to ensuring that Ontario cancer patients and their families can look forward to treatment in a timely way.

Minister, how is it that you can continue to tell Ontario cancer patients and their families can look forward to treatment in a timely way? How can you continue to tell Ontario cancer patients and their families, "Get in line"?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I guess I'm a little surprised to hear the leader of the third party talk about more money when we have already increased health care funding in this province, and when we asked the federal government for more money he refused to sign a letter that had been written by our Premier and signed by the leader of the third party. So where's the money from the federal government?

The Speaker: New question.

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Back to the Minister of Health for a moment: You should know that Ontarians are growing very tired of the blame game and are looking to you for leadership on health care in Ontario.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Minister, I want to raise with you the case of Barbara, a 23-year-old student in Ontario attending Ryerson Polytechnic University. She is a single mother. She is very bright, she's an exceptionally hard worker and she wants to be a success not only for her own sake but for the sake of her three-year-old boy. She's an engineering student, and she should have a promising future ahead of her. The problem is that so far she has accumulated $50,000 of student debt. She needs money for tuition, room and board, food, and day care for her child.

Tuition fees have skyrocketed on your government's watch. You have changed the rules so that she can no longer receive welfare. She's got to borrow every cent. And now, to make matters worse, Ryerson university is considering deregulating engineering. If they do that, she tells me she will not be able to finish her studies.

Minister, why are you letting Barbara down?

Mr McGuinty: Minister, let me tell you what is happening out there. There's a new study out of the University of Guelph. It shows that in 1987, 40% of students at that university came from families that earned $40,000 or less in family income. Ten years later, that number was down to 28%. Children of families with modest means are being left behind in Ontario. To become a lawyer in Ontario today will soon be $44,000 in tuition alone; to become a doctor in our province today, $44,000 in tuition alone; to become a dentist in Ontario today, $55,000 in tuition alone.

The professions are shortly going to become something that is handed down from generation to generation inside our wealthy families. I like the old rules you and I played by, Minister, the rules that said if you worked hard and had good marks you got to go on and it didn't matter how much money your parents had.

You promised that nobody in this province would be deprived of a post-secondary education because of financing. I am telling you, and the study is telling you, that children in families of modest means are being shut out of university. You're letting those families down. How can you justify that?

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to bring to the House's attention the last two ministers who have made comments responding to a question from the leader of the official opposition-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member. I am sure that all the members will be aware of the leader of the official opposition.

Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you are painfully out of touch on this issue. Let me tell you about the kind of conversation that is going on around Ontario kitchen tables. It goes something like this: Parents are looking at their kids and saying, "You're bright, you're hard-working, you've got good marks, but in our family, just so you know, kids, we can't afford doctors, we can't afford dentists, we can't afford lawyers, we can't afford engineers." That is what's happening, and this study is confirming that. Access to post-secondary education is becoming entirely dependent on the extent of a family's personal wealth. That's what is happening in Ontario today.

You specifically committed that no Ontario young person would be shut out of post-secondary studies because of money. The fact of the matter is, they are doing that.

I ask you again, on behalf of those families and those young people who are turning to less expensive careers, to less expensive university programs, what you intend to do to help them.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In response to the leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario, I would like to say that I believe it is he who is totally out of touch. What is going around, the talk at the kitchen table these days, is: "What do you want to be? You've got a job. You're paying down your debt. There's more money available than ever before for student assistance. You've got hope. There's a job." That's what the parents are talking about.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I will continue to say to the parents of the students and to the students in this province that there will be a space for every qualified and motivated student in this province in the years to come, as there have been in the past. There have never been more students-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Take a seat. Order. Would the minister take her seat, please. The member for Kingston and the Islands and the member for Sudbury, please come to order. I can't hear the answer.

Minister.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I would like to address the response today to the young students who are in this audience. These students up here have hopes and aspirations and dreams, and I want to give them the promise that there will be a space for every single one of them who is qualified and motivated to be there.

NURSING HOMES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, yesterday in question period you seemed unaware of your government's decision to suspend annual reviews of nursing homes. After question period, in the scrum, you told reporters that there was no requirement for annual reviews and that your government had introduced new service agreements, and you left the impression that you were moving to self-regulation. Then you got back to your office, you called all the reporters and said you didn't really mean that, that you were going to continue with annual reviews and that you would ensure that they would happen.

This morning, with yet again another version of your response, you said that it was in 1993 and that the NDP did away with the need to have annual reviews.

Duck, deflect blame; it's so classic from over there.

Here are the 1993 amendments; here's the 1999 Nursing Homes Act. I'll tell you what it does. It sets out the requirement for service agreements, which you tried to take credit for yesterday. It doesn't take away from any provision of licensing, of inspection or of posting.

Minister, just tell us why your government pulled compliance officers away from doing their job and tell us what you're going to do about it now to fix the problem.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): What I indicated yesterday was that there was not, as you had indicated, any requirement under the law or regulation-it was a matter of policy-for annual reviews. I never indicated in any way, shape or form and never mentioned the word "self-regulation." I know you were headed in that direction and you were also trying to talk about privatization.

However, let me say that I did appreciate the fact that I finally received a letter from you, after question period. It had the names of four nursing homes in it. I can assure you that all four of those had inspections in 1999. It might interest the member of the third party to know that since 1992, when you were in government and when you were Minister of Health, there has never been full compliance achieved at any time.

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

Ms Lankin: Minister, this morning, in response to some of the questions from reporters as you were entering the cabinet meeting, you said, "The licence renewals are not done on an annual basis." I'm quoting you. I'm taking that right from the tape of your interview. Subsection 5(8) of the Nursing Homes Act says, "A licence expires 12 months after the date of its issue or renewal."

Yesterday you said there was no requirement, although every other government has interpreted the legislation and the provisions for licensing, for inspection and for posting to say that you have to inspect to know if they're compliant, that you have to know if they're in compliance in order to give them a licence. But you said it's policy.

Frankly, we don't care at this point in time. We want to know, why did your government direct that the compliance officers be taken off the job of doing their annual reviews? Why did you stop it for virtually two years in this province? Why did you do that? How many were renewed without a licence and without an inspection? How many didn't get inspections? Those are the questions that were put to you in the scrum this morning. Those are the questions I put to you. You still refuse to answer them. Try again today.

Hon Mrs Witmer: If there was neglect of any seniors in this province, it was by your government. For 10 years prior to our announcement in 1998, there were no long-term-care beds undertaken until we made our announcement of 20,000 beds in this province.

Furthermore, not only do we undertake to implement service agreements with nursing homes, but we also have expanded to include the municipal homes for the aged and the charitable homes. We are doing more compliance, more service agreements than your government did. Those people were totally neglected. I would also indicate to you that our funding to the long-term-care sector has increased by 26%, so we are doing more. We are building beds, which you neglected, and we have included more homes than ever before.

Furthermore, I would like to indicate to you that I have asked for a complete assessment of the situation, because I don't believe that not achieving-

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

Ms Lankin: It's kind of hard to follow the bouncing ball here.

Minister, in response to your claim now that you're doing service agreements in the municipal sector which were never done before, I suggest you take a look at something like the 1995 Provincial Auditor's report and the comments made in 1993 and 1994, when service agreements were being done in the homes for the aged in the municipal sector.

I suggest that you take a look at the legislation, 5(8), which says that the licence expires every 12 months. I suggest you retract the statement you made to the media this morning saying that licences aren't done on an annual basis.

I suggest you stop ducking and weaving. I suggest that you admit your government directed compliance officers to do something else, that you tell us why, and that you say it'll never happen again. That's what the people want to hear, not blaming other people, not trying to blame other governments, not trying to deflect from yourself.

Finally, Minister, just take some responsibility for your own ministry, for those frail seniors, for their families, for compliance with the legislation.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have taken responsibility for these seniors. Let me tell you what the long-term-care minister, Mr Jackson, did on November 3, 1998, when he became aware of the situation at the Van Del Manor Nursing Home. He took over the operation of the nursing home because of the ministry's serious concern for the health, safety and well-being of the residents living in the nursing home. As I indicated to you before, we have expanded the responsibility and we today include the municipal homes for the aged and the charitable homes. We have gone far beyond the scope of interest you had in seniors.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. We understand that negotiations between your government and the Ontario Medical Association may be completed this weekend. This will be the real test of your commitment to preserve medicare, because since 1995 you've been saying, and study after study has been saying and report after report has been saying, that if we want to sustain and preserve medicare, we've got to change the way people have access to their family physician, the nurse practitioner and the nurse.

The people of Ontario deserve a system where the family doctor and the nurse practitioner are in for all of us, not just some of us. So we're asking you for a commitment. We're asking you for a commitment that in these negotiations with the OMA, people who don't have a family physician, people who can't get access to a nurse practitioner, will see that result from these negotiations and not a situation again where you simply give the doctors more money and we don't get the health care changes we need. What's your commitment, Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): First of all, let me thank the member for his support today for the resolution to get the health dollars slashed by the Liberals out of Ottawa. I appreciate a signal of real leadership in a non-partisan way, lacking by some others in the Legislature.

Secondly, I want to thank the honourable member for his support of our position on primary care reform. I think two parties in this Legislature have talked consistently of primary care reform. Some who don't want to get the funding from Ottawa, johnny-come-latelies, have started to talk about it lately. I think you have been sincere in that. I think your former minister was sincere in that. I'm actually very proud to have been able to be in a position where we can start implementing seven pilot projects, starting with a 24-hour telephone triage in a significant part of this province.

As you know, we are in negotiations with the doctors. I would hope that when those negotiations conclude, you will be equally effusive in your praise of our government.

Mr Hampton: Premier, let me underline how serious this is. In community after community across this province, people cannot get access to a family physician, people cannot get access to a nurse practitioner. This is crucial.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just a moment, please. Order. The official opposition has had their questions. It's the third party's turn, and I would appreciate it if there was some quiet when the member presents his question. Sorry to interrupt.

Mr Hampton: I realize that the Liberals have a problem with primary care reform because they believe it should be voluntary, in which case it'll never happen.

Premier, the reality is there are people across this province who do not have access to a family doctor and they don't have access to a nurse practitioner. In these negotiations you have the capacity to show some leadership, to say to the Ontario Medical Association: "We're going to move off fee for service. We're going to move to a situation where doctors work in teams with nurse practitioners and nurses. We're going to expand a number of community health centres, the number of health service organizations, and we're going to ensure that every family across Ontario has access to a family doctor, has access to a nurse practitioner."

That's within your capacity now. I want to hear that after this weekend your government will be standing to announce that in fact that's what has happened, not a couple of more pilot projects but that you've actually shown the leadership to ensure that people who need a family doctor, who need a nurse practitioner, are going to get one after this weekend. Where's the commitment?

Hon Mr Harris: Again, I appreciate the member's understanding and commitment to ensuring that we have 24-hour physician care and that those who do have challenges now in many parts of this province in accessing a family doctor have that access. I reiterate that support is appreciated, unlike a party who, I might add-Don Boudria, the federal Liberal whip, seems to have more influence on this party than on his own members, even attending committee meetings. They don't listen to Don Boudria in Ottawa, but this gang does, which is why we're having challenges getting dollars. So I appreciate that.

I want to say that if, after failure by Liberals for five years and New Democrats for five years in spite of your unwavering commitment, there is a Minister of Health anywhere in the country who is able to achieve meaningful primary care reform, it will be this Minister of Health.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Today there was an outrageous decision, and this decision was made by your OMB. Your OMB rejected the city of Toronto's and Peel region's requests to have standing at the upcoming, enormously important hearing to decide the fate of the Oak Ridges moraine in Richmond Hill. Incredibly, the OMB denied Toronto and Peel the right to join conservationists in the town of Richmond Hill in their fight to stop the development of the moraine.

Minister, Richmond Hill has said no to development, along with its residents, environmentalists and 465 scientists. Given that Richmond Hill and environmentalists have very limited financial resources to fight these developers at the OMB, and given that Toronto's and Peel's participation was their last hope to mount an effective defence to save the moraine, will you now intercede, using the resources of your ministry and your government, and step in to protect the moraine?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I hope the honourable member will understand that because the OMB is a quasi-judicial tribunal, I'm not going to be commenting on any decisions they are making on a particular case.

I can inform the House, and perhaps the honourable member, that less than half of the members of the current OMB were appointed by this government. Indeed, neither of the members of the OMB who are hearing the pre-hearings in the particular case that he mentions were appointed by this government. So if he has any allegations to make, perhaps he should be a bit more explicit.

Mr Colle: It's very clear: What has happened today is incredible. The city of Toronto and the region of Peel wanted to help protect the moraine because the people of Peel and the people of Toronto know that we're all interconnected through the Humber River, through the Credit River, that we're all in one bioregion. What the OMB did today basically said they don't want to hear the other side of the story now because it takes so much money. In fact, one developer, Mr Lebovic, has spent half a million dollars already on studies before this application.

Now the environmentalists and the local residents won't have the money to hire the Bay Street lawyers and the planners. Now it looks as if it's all on the side of the developers at the OMB.

Would you step in with your government resources to ensure that the environmentalists and the town of Richmond Hill can afford to pay for the very, very expensive studies to bring forth the case of the moraine? Right now basically it will just be on the side of the developers. Would you step in and help-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member's time is up. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon Mr Clement: I would appeal to the honourable member to understand that this is a quasi-judicial process. I would appeal to the honourable member to understand that certainly on this side of the House we have to allow a quasi-judicial process to take its course. I hope the honourable member understands that. He aspires to be a member of the government some day, and yet he leads with rhetoric, which can perhaps be detrimental to the effective administration of justice in this province. I know that isn't what he meant but that could be the effect.

The honourable member wants this side of the House to protect provincial interest. I can announce to this House, as I've announced on previous days, that the provincial government is a party to the hearings, to represent the provincial interest, to protect the provincial interest, to represent the provincial policy statement, which is very clear with respect to the protection of natural heritage in our province. That is the position of the provincial government. We are at the hearings to protect that interest.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. When the job numbers came out on Friday, I was so pleased to see that the unemployment rate in my great riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale declined to 5.4%. That's down from 8.7% when we took office in 1995. I'm sure it has something to do with the two major investments that have recently come to Brampton; namely Coca-Cola investing $150 million to build a new facility at the 410 and 407, and Old Navy locating its national warehouse and distribution centre on McLaughlin Road. What is your ministry doing to facilitate increased investment in the province?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'd like to thank the honourable member from Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale for the question. Ontario now has an open-for-business attitude. We have created a positive economic environment by cutting taxes and eliminating barriers to growth, and businesses have responded by creating over 700,000 jobs since June 1995. The Market Ontario campaign that we launched in 1996 has also been very successful, in that now Ontario attracts nearly 60% of any investment that comes into Canada. We are definitely on target to create those 725,000 jobs that the opposition members said we couldn't create.

Mr Gill: Those are certainly very good numbers that my constituents would like to hear. There's no question that our economy is firing on all cylinders, especially in my riding. The tax cuts we brought in are certainly fuelling that growth, but what measures are our government and your ministry, in particular, taking to maintain the momentum of this impressive growth?

Hon Mr Palladini: Now that we have achieved that type of growth, I can assure you that we will not sit back and rest on our laurels. We have many programs that our government has initiated, and one of the programs, which is called the Wisdom Exchange, allows an opportunity for business leaders to get together and discuss their concerns and also take a look at how we can become more efficient and productive. This government has brought in a key account manager for the very first time in the history of Ontario. We actually have people knocking on businesses' doors to see, what can our government do?

How can we create a better, positive economic environment so they can create more jobs? Businesses have done a tremendous job in creating all those jobs in Ontario, and yes, we are booming, and we're going to continue to make sure that we're going to have that type of growth.

ONTARIO WORKS

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My question today is for the minister responsible for community and social services. I've become aware that people on Ontario Works are being forced to sign liens against their homes. As I understand it, these liens for basic financial assistance will include not only benefits paid for accommodation, but also for food, clothing, dental and drug expenses, our most basic needs. Even those who are participating in community placements have been targeted and are being forced to mortgage their only asset-their home-for food, shelter and other basic needs.

The small amount of equity which recipients are allowed to keep would be eaten up by fees to pay lawyers and real estate agents when they sell their home. If the Ontario Works program is really a hand up and not a boot out, explain the justice of applying liens for basic needs, even to those who participate in community placements.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): This government's view is that welfare is a program of last resort. Our government is committed to ensuring that every dollar in the welfare system is spent helping those people who are genuinely in need. We're keeping our commitment to meet people's needs by ensuring that that money goes to support those people with no other alternative.

It is my judgment and the judgment of those of us on this side of the House that if someone owns their own home, there is another alternative. But we don't want anyone to have to lose their home because of a policy of the Ontario Works Act. That is why for the first 12 months, while someone goes out to get back into the working world, there's no change whatsoever in the policy, but if they are on welfare for more than 12 months, they're required to pay the taxpayers back for the help the taxpayers have offered them.

You can't say to someone sitting on a home with $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 in equity that they can keep that equity and get subsidized by the taxpayers at the same time. There are other people in that community who are working hard to build up a down payment so that they can realize the dream of home ownership. For us, welfare is for those who are truly in need, with no alternative.

Mrs Dombrowsky: Hastings county has been pressured by your ministry to issue liens to over 130 families on Ontario Works. These families must sign liens on their homes by today or their benefits will be terminated. Many of these homes have been passed down from one generation to another. They are not just buildings, but homes filled with love and memories.

I'd like to tell you about a single mom from Hastings county who is working three part-time jobs and still volunteers 40 hours a month in her daughter's school. She owns a very modest home and sees this asset as the only way she might be able to provide for her daughter's post-secondary education. Each month she requires only a small amount of assistance from Ontario Works to top up what she earns juggling three part-time jobs. Now she must sign a lien on her home.

Minister, how can you implement a policy that will ultimately make this woman choose between food, necessities and shelter and her daughter's future?

Hon Mr Baird: It will come as no surprise to the member opposite that I don't accept the premise of her question. There is no element of choice involved. If someone, as the individual she told the story of, is working on three jobs-and we have more than 60,000 people in the province participating in the government's earnfare program, so that is something that is quite common. If they are working at three jobs and require a modest amount, $100 or $200, to supplement that, in addition to the drug benefit and the other benefits under social assistance, it would be a matter of a very small lien.

Our view is, if you own your own home-you mentioned a situation where someone would have passed that home down three times. If someone is sitting there with a home worth $50,000, $60,000 or $100,000, they should not be expecting a handout from their fellow citizens. One of the fundamental premises is that welfare is a program of last resort for people with no other alternative. I know the members opposite don't support that. They believe people on welfare should be allowed to own cottages, for goodness' sake.

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

WELFARE REFORM

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question today is also for the Minister of Community and Social Services. There has been a lot of discussion lately about our government's policy of zero tolerance. I can understand that measures are needed in order to ensure that our welfare system is not abused. We also heard today how the welfare system in the last decade, between 1985 and 1995, was nothing but a bottomless money pit with no safeguards against fraud.

However, some people have expressed concern that your implementation of a zero tolerance policy demonstrates a lack of flexibility.

Can you please tell me if you have any knowledge of any other jurisdiction in Canada that has a zero tolerance policy that punishes people for fraud with a lifetime ban?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): The bottom line for our government is that we will not tolerate fraud. In our view, welfare is for the needy and not for the greedy.

To answer the question that the member asked, is there any other jurisdiction in Canada-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Take a seat. Order. Both of the oppositions have asked questions; it's now the government's turn in the rotation. I would appreciate if there was some quiet when they ask a question. I can't hear the question being asked.

Hon Mr Baird: To the member who asked the question, this has been a criticism. Is there any other jurisdiction in Canada that has a zero tolerance for fraud? The member opposite will undoubtedly be surprised, as will my colleagues in the Liberal Party be most surprised, to learn that the federal government in Ottawa has proposed a zero tolerance policy. In fact, last week the federal minister of immigration, Elinor Caplan, unveiled a zero tolerance policy for people who commit fraud or misrepresent themselves during the immigration process.

I know that imitation is the highest form of flattery. We're very proud to see that the federal Liberals in Ottawa are watching the good example of the Harris government-

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

Ms Mushinski: Minister, I appreciate your answer but I still have a few concerns. Our government promised in the Blueprint to continue to crack down on fraud. Now your rules say that anyone convicted of defrauding the social assistance system will be cut off for life. I understand the need to have penalties for people who rip off the welfare system, the system that should be there for people who truly need it. Nevertheless, how do I respond to constituents who tell me that this is too much and that there is no other crime in the country that receives a life sentence? After all, Liberals let convicted murderers out of jail after only 15 years.

Minister, are you worried that you have gone too far?

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): What a disgraceful comparison.

Hon Mr Baird: We believe that we've got to take a whole bunch of initiatives to ensure that-

Mr Agostino: You should be ashamed of yourself.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Baird: Our government believes we have a responsibility to ensure that every taxpayer's dollar they bring to us to support people on social assistance is spent wisely and is spent well. That's what the taxpayers expect.

The members opposite may be interested to learn that in a recent COMPAS survey, 76% of social services workers said there was a continued need to work hard to address fraud. I'll be the first to admit that because of our welfare reform, a lot has changed in the province of Ontario. The Liberal and NDP governments gave cheques to people in prison-

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Let's talk about an open-ended, $180-million contract. Let's review the contract, Minister.

The Speaker: Would the member for Windsor West come to order as well. We can't have question period if I can't hear the questions and the answers, and we can't have a situation where members are shouting across at members when they're trying to answer. Everyone has an equal opportunity to ask questions in this House, and it's only polite that we listen to the answers and the questions.

Minister, continue, please.

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

The Liberals and the NDP gave cheques to people in prison. The Liberals and the NDP believe in giving cheques to cottagers. The Liberals and the NDP believe in giving cheques to fraud artists.

This government takes a very different view. It's those welfare reforms which have helped see more than 485,000 people leave the system, which is-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat. Order. Member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale, come to order. This is his last warning as well. We can't continue to have that. The members for Hamilton East and Toronto Centre-Rosedale, come to order. It is the last warning for both of you.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier, and he's supposed to be here, but he's not.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The Premier is here.

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: Well, it is so unusual to see the Premier here.

The Speaker: Order. Take your seat for a quick second.

Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Premier, today New Democrats are putting forward an opposition day motion to save the Oak Ridges moraine and green Ontario's land use planning system.

In 1971, your predecessor, Bill Davis, surprised and delighted thousands of Ontario citizens by stopping the Spadina Expressway. That battle was a defining issue for the thousands of people fighting for good urban planning and liveable communities.

Today, the decision is the Oak Ridges moraine. You have a chance to be like Bill Davis and rise to the occasion. Premier, will you come through for the people and do the right thing and freeze development on the Oak Ridges moraine?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): It seems a number of ministers want to answer this question, but I'd be pleased to answer. Let's review a little bit the history of the Oak Ridges moraine. In 1990, I think it was the Peterson government that declared a provincial interest in the moraine. We agreed. In 1991, your government introduced implementation guidelines. We agreed.

Bud Wildman, minister of the day, said this about those guidelines, "They would ensure that significant features and functions of the moraine are protected for future generations because they were designed to accomplish the following eight principles." I could read those out but the Speaker might not give me time to read all eight of them. We agree with that. We agree with the eight principles. We agree with protecting all the values of the moraine. We agreed with your government. We agreed with the Peterson government.

At the time, Glenn Harrington of the Conservation Council of Ontario said, "Some of the NDP guidelines were quite strict." The fact is that both the 1990 interest and the 1991 provincial guidelines, taken by the two governments of the day, are fully supported by our government. Since those steps have been taken, all regions across the moraine have incorporated the 1991 guidelines into-

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

Mr Hampton: Let's cut to the chase on the supplementary. What your government did right away in 1995 was, you took the teeth out of the Planning Act which would have ensured that on the Oak Ridges moraine the kind of ecosystem planning with environmental integrity could happen. In so doing, you opened the door to your developer friends. Here's the reality: Since 1995 it is reported that your party has accepted over $700,000 in contributions from developers who are active the near the Oak Ridges moraine, and we all know that public land is being manipulated for private gain at the Ontario Realty Corp.

Here is your chance to rise to the occasion, as your predecessor Bill Davis did, to stop listening to the developers and to do the right thing. If we had the good Planning Act provisions in place, which your government took out in 1995, then much of this wouldn't be happening. Will you do that, Premier? Will you freeze development on the Oak Ridges moraine and then ensure that Planning Act changes are put in place that will protect these kinds of important environmental situations?

Hon Mr Harris: I'm disappointed that you seem to disagree with your former government's policy, your former minister's policy. I thought Bud Wildman has a substantial interest in the environment. I'm really disappointed now that you don't have confidence in that. Since the provincial steps were taken, I said to you, all regions across the moraine have incorporated the NDP 1991 guidelines in their official plans. Because of our changes, they now have substantially more authority than they had before.

Further, regions have moved to develop a coordinated strategy to protect the moraine, something we support, something we encourage, something we are assisting with and something we applaud. As to your allegations with the ORC, they're not allegations that you will repeat outside because they are totally false.

Finally, let me talk about donations. We also have looked at donations, not that they ever affect our government policy, because they never have, and we're alarmed actually that we don't seem to get as much in corporate donations as the Ontario Liberal Party gets.

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

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): My question is to the Premier. Yesterday we heard from your Minister of the Environment that your government has absolutely no plans to deal with the low water levels of the Great Lakes, and that you have absolutely refused to place a moratorium on all water-taking permits. You know that this affects not only farmers-

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister of the Environment on a point of order, and if he could get to it very quickly.

Hon Mr Newman: Mr Speaker, I said no such thing yesterday.

Mr Gerretsen: I would suggest that the minister check Hansard.

You know that this affects not only farmers-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. We need to be able to hear the question as well.

Mr Gerretsen: Premier, this not only affects farmers but it also affects many tourist operators. As a matter of fact, it threatens our fastest-growing industry: our $14 billion tourist industry. Premier, this affects our environment and our economy. The cleanup of the Great Lakes simply must continue, including the 15 toxic hot spots, including the one in Kingston. Why has Ontario not signed the Canada-Ontario Great Lakes agreement, which expired in March, not only endangering the health of Ontarians but also affecting our tourist industry?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): First of all, in response to the

preamble to the question, let me say the Minister of the Environment said no such thing yesterday. Second, I can tell you that from the Ministry of the Environment's point of view, from our cabinet's point of view and from our government's point of view we enthusiastically would like to be able to renew the Great Lakes agreement with the federal government. We are at the table, at their ready to do so, and we hope we are successful.

I don't want to point fingers; I'm not saying any side or the other is slowing things down or to blame. But I have been assured by federal officials in the Prime Minister's office, I believe, as well as has been reported to me, that they too would like to conclude an extension and a new agreement on the Great Lakes. So we're all on the same wavelength. Perhaps if, as an oversight body to that, we can have backbench participation-

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): OK. Time is up.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): It's been over a minute.

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

We do have people watching the clock. I would appreciate it if the members wouldn't shout when the question is over. If that starts, it continues on. We have people watching it. I try my best; we sometimes miss it. But we do have people at the table and I would appreciate it if the members wouldn't shout "Time." I will watch the clock; you can ask the questions.

Mr Gerretsen: The Premier will probably know this matter was raised in the federal House the other day as well. The federal minister said that he is ready to sign the agreement; he's got the money on the table. What I want from you are the same assurances. Are you going to sign the agreement this week so there's not a lag in the time factor by the fact that the agreement expired on March 31? Are you prepared to sign and put in the necessary funding?

Hon Mr Harris: Given that he's a federal politician and a Liberal, you should take with a grain of salt anything he said in the House of Commons or anything he said to you. Nonetheless, unlike the federal Liberals, who wish to assess blame when they fail to come to an agreement, I said both parties are interested in signing an extension of the agreement or a new agreement and we will continue to work towards that without assessing blame.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Attorney General of Ontario. Minister, during a recent period of intersession here at the Legislature, I had the opportunity to touch base with a number of my constituents. I compliment the member for Cambridge, Mr Martiniuk, and the Crime Control Commission for visiting my riding. One of the concerns that was raised again and again was the issue of youth vandalism. In fact, youth violence and increasing youth violence were addressed and, more recently, threats of violence over the Internet in my riding.

I know that citizens across Ontario have witnessed a startling trend of youth crime. Particularly, it seems to be on the rise. Unfortunately, your friends the federal Liberals have avoided the subject for years and have failed to show any form of leadership.

Minister, can you stand today and apprise the citizens not just of Durham but of Ontario of the weaknesses of our Liberal friends dealing with youth crime and the youth justice system?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank my colleague from Durham for the question. Violent youth crime is a very serious concern in Ontario and across Canada. The reality is that the incidence of violent crime has increased by about 77% over the past 10 years. Not only has the incidence increased, but the violence is more intense and the crimes, when they do occur, are more violent. Also, the use of weapons has increased in violent youth crime. In addition, we're seeing more incidents of ganging up, of gang activity in violent youth crime. These are all reasons that we should have serious concern in this regard.

The other part of it is, when we're talking about young people, the usual victims of violent youth crime are other young people in our schools, in our parks and in our streets. We need to intervene in the lives of young people to make a difference. Young people have the right not only to be safe but to feel safe in their schools and in their communities. The Young Offenders Act fails to do that-

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

Mr O'Toole: I'd like to thank the minister for the answer. I think the federal Liberals can learn a lot from the effective policies that you, our Attorney General, have brought to combat the issue of youth crime.

The federal Liberals refuse to get it, really. I was appalled but not surprised that the federal Liberals refused to even hear Ontario's delegation in the recent hearings on youth crime legislation. Imagine the arrogance, refusing to listen to one third of Canada's population. While they don't want our input, they have taken more than $200 million out of Ontario's youth justice system by freezing funding for young offender services since 1989. It seems that they just don't consider youth crime to be a priority.

I know you would like to be able to let my constituents in Durham know how you are dealing with the fact that for too many years, victims of youth crime in Ontario had no recourse to recover damages and that no voice in the justice system was effective. Minister, could you share with the House today what this government has done and is doing to put the rights of victims at the forefront of the justice system?

Hon Mr Flaherty: We have taken concrete steps with respect to victims, certainly, by hiring 59 new crown attorneys, at a cost of over $8 million. The time there is to be spent with victims, so that the crown attorneys have more time to spend with victims, including victims of violent youth crime. We have proceeded with the pilot projects with respect to youth justice committees and of course we've established the strict discipline facilities.

The parental responsibility bill was introduced last week in this House and will be debated, I understand, at second reading. That gives victims of crime, including property offences, the opportunity to go through the Small Claims Court process with presumptions in their favour, which should be an effective system of calling for parents to take responsibility for the conduct of their children with respect to property crimes.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Gilbert and Laura Baker from Moosonee, since 1966, have made 17 trips to Sudbury for his cancer treatment, at a total cost of $35,000. They only receive $197 per trip. Their trips average between $900 and $3,000, depending on the length of stay in Sudbury. As you know, southern Ontario patients who are directed to Sudbury, Thunder Bay or Buffalo for their cancer treatments receive full reimbursement for travel, including airfare, accommodation and meals.

I believe this is totally unfair. This is an example of clear-cut discrimination against northern Ontario cancer patients. In fact, when I contacted the Ontario Human Rights Commission, they agreed that the situation falls under their jurisdiction and that they have begun to receive complaints. Minister, when are you going to ensure that northern Ontario cancer patients receive the very same assistance that cancer patients from southern Ontario receive?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the member knows, the mechanics of applying for the grant and the process that is used today is the very same process that your party found acceptable when it was introduced in 1985, and to which you made absolutely no changes.

As you know, our government has worked very hard to ensure that there are more specialists and more facilities available in northern Ontario. We're building a new cancer centre in Sault Ste Marie, and certainly work has been ongoing to ensure that we have the people in the north to provide the appropriate level of service.

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

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

"Whereas we, the consumers, believe fuel prices are too high throughout Ontario; and

"Whereas we, the consumers, support the Ontario Liberal caucus's attempt to have the Mike Harris government pass legislation that addresses this concern; and

"Whereas we, the consumers, want the Mike Harris government to act so that the consumers can get a break at the pumps rather than going broke at them; and

"Whereas we, the consumers, are fuming at being hosed at the pumps and want Mike Harris to gauge our anger;

"Furthermore, we, the consumers, want Mike Harris to know we want to be able to go to the pumps and fill our tanks without emptying our pockets;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 16, the Gasoline Pricing Act, introduced by St Catharines MPP Jim Bradley; Bill 18, the Gas Price Watchdog Act, introduced by Eglinton-Lawrence MPP Mike Colle; and Bill 52, the Petroleum Products Price Freeze Act, introduced by Sudbury MPP Rick Bartolucci."

I am in complete agreement and sign my signature to it.

PESTICIDES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the following cities in Ontario-Toronto, Waterloo, Ottawa, Kitchener and Cambridge-already have in place restrictive policies for the landscape/

cosmetic use of pesticides on publicly owned land; and

"Whereas synthetic chemical pesticides and fertilizers now routinely used for landscape/cosmetic use are harmful to human health and the environment; and

"Whereas these products are unnecessary because sustainable, healthy and effective lawn care alternatives are available,

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

"The province of Ontario phase out the landscape/

cosmetic use of synthetic chemical pesticides on both public and privately owned land by the year 2001 and immediately develop and implement a comprehensive public education program to demonstrate the efficiency of sustainable lawn and garden maintenance practices."

I completely agree with this petition and I will affix my signature to it.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

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

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

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

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

I put my signature to this petition.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas, agriculture and agri-food is the second-largest industry in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Harris government has cut the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs budget to the bone, despite their 1995 commitment that, if elected, they would not make any cuts to the Ministry of Agriculture; and

"Whereas farmers in Prince Edward-Hastings support their MPP, Ernie Parsons, in his fight to reverse the Harris government's decision to close agricultural offices and dismiss field staff,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the dismantling of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and restore funding to keep our local agriculture offices open."

I am pleased to add my signature to this petition.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I present a petition supporting the Lord's Prayer as a valued tradition for many people in Ontario, a petition similar to yesterday's petition from the riding of Simcoe North.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer, also called `Our Father,' has been used to open the proceedings of municipal chambers and the Ontario Legislative Assembly since the beginning of Upper Canada in the 18th century;

"Whereas such use of the Lord's Prayer is part of Ontario's long-standing heritage and a tradition that continues to play a significant role in contemporary Ontario life;

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is a most meaningful expression of the religious convictions of many Ontario citizens;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings in accordance with its long-standing, established custom and do all in its power to maintain the use of this prayer in municipal chambers in Ontario."

I am in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed in the petition and hereby affix my signature.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, these petitions are being signed by dozens of concerned constituents in northwestern Ontario, and I have affixed my signature in full agreement with them.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Mr Speaker, I certainly hope you saved time for the member for Scarborough Centre, because I know she's most deserving.

I am presenting petitions on behalf of the CWL of my riding of Durham, and Pat Wilson specifically.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas we have recently learned that our tax money is being used to pay the rent on the Morgentaler abortuary; and

"Whereas by the end of this lease this amount will be $5 million;

"Whereas we strongly object to this use of our tax dollars;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to immediately cease these payments."

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

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas Ontarians with a developmental disability are growing in danger of inadequate support because compensation to staff not-for-profit agencies is, based on a recent survey, on average, 20% to 25% less than compensation for others doing the same work in provincial government; and

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

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

"Whereas these parents live with constant anxiety and despair; and

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

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

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

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

I agree with this petition and I have affixed my signature hereto.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): This is a continuation of the petition regarding Karla Homolka and it reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to attach my signature to this petition.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I have a petition "To protect and maintain the natural features of the Oak Ridges moraine in the town of Richmond Hill for future generations."

"To the Ontario provincial Legislature:

"Whereas the Oak Ridges moraine in Richmond Hill is the headwaters for the east Humber, Rouge River and the east Don River watersheds, as well as being a critical recharge area for huge aquifers on the Oak Ridges moraine; and

"Whereas the Oak Ridges moraine in Richmond Hill contains five areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSI) including Bond Lake and bog ANSI, Wilcox Lake wetlands ANSI, Jefferson Forest ANSI, White Rose bog ANSI and Simeon Forest ANSI; and

"Whereas this area has the largest concentration of kettle lakes and kettle bogs in the GTA supporting numerous fish species and regionally rare plants; and

"Whereas this area supports the highest biodiversity in the GTA with 925 plant species, 99 breeding bird species, 16 reptile and amphibian species and 15 mammal species; and

"Whereas the natural water aquifer recharge functions of the moraine will be replaced by storm water management and infiltration ponds resulting in the concentration of pollutants from urban streets and lawns; and

"Whereas now is the last opportunity for the creation of a major natural park on the Oak Ridges moraine along the east-west Yonge Street corridor;

"We, the undersigned, petition the provincial government to immediately enact strong measures to protect the Oak Ridges moraine corridor in the town of Richmond Hill within an established kettle lakes park."

I'll affix my signature to their signatures.

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):

"Whereas the Parliament of Ontario contracted out road maintenance from the department of highways, especially the winter plowing and sanding to the private contractor; and

"Whereas winter travel is very hazardous, and due to the many highway deaths this year; and

"Whereas many people making their living using Highway 11 and would like it brought up to proper standards; and

"Whereas the level of maintenance has declined and the state of Highway 11 is very dangerous in slippery sections and the condition of the road surface is unsafe;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to reconsider their decision to privatize the winter plowing and sanding or salting of highways in our area, especially Highway 11 to Atikokan and reinstate the department of highways to their former positions of patrols and being in charge of call-outs for proper road clearing and sanding."

This is signed by no less than 155 concerned citizens of northwestern Ontario. I've affixed my signature in agreement with their concerns both for next winter and for the current storm situation in April.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London):

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas Mike Harris promised an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the 1995 election and renewed that commitment in 1997 but has yet to make good on that promise; and

"Whereas the Harris government has not committed to holding open consultations with the various stakeholders and individuals on the ODA; and

"Whereas Helen Johns, the minister responsible for persons with disabilities, will not commit to the 11 principles outlined by the ODA committee; and

"Whereas a vast majority of Ontario citizens believe there should be an Ontarians with Disabilities Act to remove the barriers facing the 1.5 million persons with disabilities;

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

"To pass a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act that would remove the barriers facing the 1.5 million persons with disabilities in the province of Ontario."

I gladly affix my signature.

OPPOSITION DAY

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I move:

That this House affirms the necessity of protecting the Oak Ridges moraine and the importance of having a planning system in Ontario that protects our drinking water, wildlife habitats and other natural features; and

That this House calls on the government to freeze development on the Oak Ridges moraine, until a detailed policy statement protecting the moraine from inappropriate development is adopted that is binding on all government decision-makers; and

That this House endorses a return to binding policy statements under the Planning Act that would require all government decision-makers to give priority to environmental values in their planning decisions, as was done under the amendments to the Planning Act passed in 1994. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

I'm proud to be leading this debate off today, not just on behalf of the NDP caucus but on behalf of 165 scientists, the waterfront regeneration trust agency, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Greater Toronto Services Board, which represents all of the GTA municipalities, the Don Watershed Council, over 100 citizens' groups in Ontario, and thousands and thousands of others across the province.

I want to tell all of those groups that we are aware of the tremendous efforts they have put and continue to put into saving the Oak Ridges moraine. Debbe Crandall and others from the Save the Oak Ridges Moraine-and she's been in this from the beginning. That coalition, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the Sierra Legal Defence Fund-those are just a few of the many who are out there fighting hard to save the moraine, and I congratulate them all. In fact, I believe this resolution represents the views of almost everyone in Ontario except for the developers who want to develop the land and the Mike Harris government.

Incidentally, let me say, as revealed by Earthroots yesterday from their research, that developers'-to the Tory party since 1995, when the Harris government was first elected, have jumped from 312,000 to 1.13 million in 1999. From 1995 to 1999, the Tories received at least $2.5 million from developers and at least $700,000 from companies with direct interests in developing the Oak Ridges moraine. Those are the only people I know of who are opposed to saving the Oak Ridges moraine.

I'm here today to say that it's time for Mike Harris to do what Bill Davis did with the Spadina Expressway and just say no to development on the Oak Ridges moraine. Tony Clement should freeze development now; no more excuses.

Mr Speaker, let me remind you why everyone should support this resolution today. The Oak Ridges moraine is one of the last continuous corridors of green space left in southern Ontario. The 160-kilometre moraine contains the headwaters of 35 rivers and streams, including the Don, Humber and Rouge. Its most precious resource is hidden underground in the water; it is the water. The moraine acts like a gigantic sponge as the sands and gravel absorb rain and snow. It delivers this water to aquifers in the ground. These aquifers then store, filter and slowly release water to 65 rivers and streams.

It comes down to this: The moraine-and we've all heard this before-is like a big rain barrel that provides clean, fresh water to rivers and wells that supply water to over a quarter of a million people. Urban development even with expensive technology, despite what the developers say, cannot duplicate the sensitive, complex natural interaction that protects the integrity of that water supply.

More development in the Oak Ridges moraine will also mean the loss of hundreds of plant and animal species. It will contribute to urban sprawl which is already lurching out of control, creating more congested traffic and contributing to smog.

As my leader indicated in his question today, the NDP government undertook a massive, three-year, $2-million planning study on the Oak Ridges moraine. It was presented to us in 1994, but we never had the opportunity to act on it because an election was called and Mike Harris, as we all know, was elected in 1995. This comprehensive study has been gathering dust ever since.

As well, the NDP brought in a new green Planning Act after two years of consultation around the province. One of the first things the new Harris government did was to repeal that bill. I remember; I sat on the committee. That was Bill 163 and they completely gutted it. They tore the heart right out of that bill. Indeed, if our Planning Act were still in place today, most of the proposed development for the Oak Ridges moraine could not even be on the table.

I'm going to mention one of the most relevant sections the Tory bill took out. I call that bill, by the way, and called it then, the destruction of the environment act, because that's really what it did.

Section 3 of the destruction of the environment act changes the requirement that planning decisions "must be consistent with provincial policy" to "must have regard for provincial policy." I can tell you, Mr Speaker, with all of the groups who had concerns about the changing of this Planning Act, that was the

section they all spoke about. We warned the government at that time that it was going to create these kinds of problems, and it's contributed greatly to it.

This was a most significant change which, as I said, many citizens and organizations warned the government about. It meant the loss of a key planning tool for municipalities because there is no clarity to "have regard for" as opposed to "be consistent with," where it's very clear. It leaves an out for developers and it makes it harder for municipalities, when under a lot of pressure from developers, to say no and mean it and have good legislation to back up their no. It means the OMB does not have to give much weight to that section. That's what we're seeing now.

Another

section of our Planning Act said: "Development may be permitted only if the quantity and quality of groundwater are protected. Development that will negatively impact on groundwater recharge areas will not be permitted." The Premier and his Minister of Municipal Affairs say, "It is up to the municipalities to make the land use decisions," and then have the gall to say, "We gave them the tools to do just that," when in fact they took away the very tools, most of the tools. The sledgehammer they had in the toolbox is gone. They do not have that opportunity any more to just say no. Your government, this government, the Harris government, took those tools away.

Now what do we have? A big mess. The population along the moraine would grow by nearly 100,000 in the next 20 years based on development plans approved by York, Durham and Peel regions. Another 20 development proposals would bring those numbers up by another 56,000. Then, and of course we all know about this, there are 11,000 new homes developers want to build on agricultural land along Yonge Street which would divide the moraine in two distinct sections. Most of the final decisions made on these developments are going to the OMB, an unelected body with no accountability, a body which has already said it will not consider community opposition in its decision-making.

Today we learn that the OMB denied status to the city of Toronto and Peel region. This decision today by the OMB shows how unacceptable the current planning system is. Toronto's rivers are at stake here, but the OMB does not think that is relevant. On top of that, the government cancelled the intervenor funding program which allowed community groups to participate in a meaningful way in hearings. The citizens before the OMB are now up against developers with very deep pockets, with millions of dollars to spend-it's change to them-to get their way.

The issues on the moraine are complex. We desperately need a freeze. Everybody, let me state again, everybody supports that, except this government and the developers who want to build there. We need a freeze on development while a binding plan specifically for the moraine is put together. Indeed, the moraine is so important that a specific agency modelled on the Niagara Escarpment Commission is also necessary and is being called for. But the moraine should also be a lesson in what is wrong with the planning system in the province as a whole as a result of this government's changes that suit the developers.

If we want to protect our headwaters, our aquifers, our wildlife habitat and our wetlands, we need a planning system that reflects those values, the kind of planning system that was there before, after John Sewell went out for two years consulting with people. Developers should not be able to use the unelected OMB as a way to ignore the public cry to respect those values and the values for our children and our grandchildren.

I will shortly be presenting a private member's bill that, if passed, will bring back the features of the former planning system that are most essential to protect the moraine and other natural areas across the province. I hope that everybody concerned about saving our water, our environment and the future health and well-being of our children and their children will write to the Premier, phone the Premier, e-mail the Premier, and ask him to support this bill, or, even better, do it himself.

Finally, I would ask all members of this Legislature to support this resolution today as an interim step to stop development while an appropriate green planning act is brought into place.

In closing, I know government members will rise today, as the Premier did and the Minister of Municipal Affairs continues to do-the Minister of the Environment won't even answer questions on it-and say they have the tools to do this themselves. We've all seen what's happened in Richmond Hill. They do not have the tools any more. You took them away. The OMB is unelected and is not accountable, and they are making decisions that have massive repercussions for southern Ontario.

I would urge all members today to support this resolution and to think very carefully before they decide to oppose it.

Mr Brian Coburn (Carleton-Gloucester): I'm pleased today to participate in this debate and have an opportunity to speak to the well-recognized important issue of the Oak Ridges moraine, and to recognize that the moraine is indeed a vital resource.

Our government believes, without a doubt, that it is important to protect the environmental interests relative to the hydrogeology, the terrestrial features and the linkages of the Oak Ridges moraine. We know, as everyone knows, that the moraine serves a fundamental purpose. The water that seeps through the ridge, down to the underground streams, feeds many rivers and is a source of drinking water for about a quarter of a million people. The moraine itself is home to the greatest concentration of forests, wetlands, kettle lakes and wildlife habitat in the GTA.

This is indeed a sensitive, significant and important land form and there has long been a desire and a commitment to protect that land form. Back in the 1980s, an ecological strategy was prepared by Mr Ron Kanter called Space for All. It strongly recommended the establishment of a green space framework for the greater Toronto area, one that included the Niagara Escarpment, the Lake Ontario waterfront and the river valleys running north from Lake Ontario, as well as the Oak Ridges moraine. That report took note of the ecological importance of the moraine.

It drew specific attention to the fact that the moraine was the only part of the greater Toronto area green space not protected by legislation or planning controls.

All that changed in 1991, when implementation guidelines on the provincial interest in the Oak Ridges moraine for the greater Toronto area were put into place. These guidelines recognized the unique features of the moraine and worked to protect them. It was absolutely recognized that the guidelines were needed, for while the Oak Ridges moraine is a valued green space, it is home to resort and recreational development as well as urbanization.

These guidelines were intended to give sufficient protection against any development that would endanger the moraine. They involved eight key principles to help determine whether development would be allowed. I just want to go over those eight key principles:

(1) Prohibit development in significant, natural areas;

(2) Restrict scattered development;

(3) Encourage maintaining or enhancing ecological integrity;

(4) Encourage landform conservation;

(5) Encourage the protection and the management of the woodlands;

(6) Prohibit unacceptable development in and around water courses and lakes;

(7) Restrict expansion of settlements into highly permeable soils;

(8) Prohibit development that had unacceptable impact on groundwater resources.

When the former minister, Bud Wildman, introduced the 1991 implementation guidelines into the Legislature, he said, "The guidelines will make the municipal land-use planning system more sensitive to environmental concerns and will help ensure that significant features and functions of the moraine are protected for future generations." These are the guidelines we continue to use today.

The three regions of York, Peel and Durham and 15 local municipalities are located in the part of the GTA where the guidelines apply. They have consistently used these guidelines to address planning or development issues. All three regions and many municipalities have incorporated these guidelines into their official plans. The guidelines have been upheld both by municipalities and by the province whenever any application for development or change in land use has been considered on the moraine.

In 1996, our government brought in the Land Use Planning and Protection Act. We brought in a planning system that is policy-led, that provides upfront identification of interests and balances economic development and environmental protection.

We also gave municipalities the autonomy they had long asked for and deserved. Under the Planning Act, municipalities gained new roles and responsibilities, including making local planning decisions to determine the future of their communities, identifying where development makes sense, making decisions on local development applications and protecting environmental features such as the Oak Ridges moraine.

In conjunction with this legislation, our government also issued a provincial policy statement. This policy statement helps municipalities make decisions on land use planning and development issues, and it recognizes that well-managed growth can be both economically and environmentally sound. It calls on municipalities to develop strong communities and to expand urban areas only where there is not enough land supply to accommodate projected growth.

The provincial policy statement asks for a coordinated approach to growth. It includes such statements as: natural heritage features and areas will be protected from incompatible development; developments must show there is no negative impact on the natural features or on the ecological functions of the area; the diversity of natural features and the natural connection between them should be maintained or improved where possible; the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water will be protected or enhanced.

Currently, both the 1991 implementation guidelines and the provincial policy statement are in place, and together they provide the tools for municipalities to protect the Oak Ridges moraine. Together with other planning tools, they assist municipalities to make local decisions on developments within the jurisdiction.

Going back to the provincial policy statement, revised on February 1, 1997, when we talk about implementation and

interpretation, I'll just point out to the members a couple of items. There are number of them, but there are a couple that I think are important and relevant.

"There is nothing in this policy statement that is intended to prevent planning authorities from going beyond the minimum standards established as specific policies in developing official plan policies and when making decisions on planning matters, unless doing so would conflict with any other policy. The provincial policy statement is to be read in its entirety and all pertinent policies are to be applied to each situation."

It goes on to say that these policies are to be applied in dealing with planning matters. Official plans will integrate all applicable provincial policies and apply appropriate land use designations and policies. Since the policies focus on end results, the official plan is the most important vehicle for the implementation of the policy statement.

Municipalities: This is goes back; in my former life I have little experience at the municipal level. Municipalities had for a long time wanted to control the destiny of their own communities and have the ability to make decisions that were based on the local uniqueness of their communities, rather than having decisions made from afar, such as Queen's Park here in Toronto or the government of the day. They could make decisions better because they understood local situations. They have that opportunity with the tools that we have given them with which to operate.

The official plan in each and every community is, of course, the bible to the development of that community. The official plan is not something that's written on the back of a napkin; it is something that is developed through extensive consultation with your community to determine where development should take place, to determine the areas that you should protect and to highlight the significance of protecting the environmental concerns of that particular area. As we know, that varies from area to area, and community to community across this province.

In my own community I've certainly had the experience of working with good planning principles. When you come to expanding your community and development, you must adhere to those planning principles for a very definite reason, so you can have some certainty as to a process for those who are the proponents and for those who are the opponents to whatever project is being applied for, so that you know you are operating on a level playing field at the local level when dealing with your local elected officials who are to be in tune and have a responsibility to be able to deal with those needs and concerns and demands within their own community.

Part of that process then becomes the OMB, a quasi-judicial body that bases decisions on facts and good planning principles; that levels the playing field for those who have an interest in a particular issue to put forward their case for and against; and bases those decisions on the integrity of the planning system so that they recognize the uniqueness of particular situation in a community, so that it can be explored to its fullest and then measured with the benchmarks in the Planning Act and good planning principles.

I know that the regions of York, Peel and Durham have each shown that they respect the moraine and understand the need to protect it. In fact, all three regions have agreed to work together on a common, long-term strategy for the protection and management of the Oak Ridges moraine. I certainly commend them for taking that step.

There will indeed be challenges ahead, for there has been increased pressure to build on the moraine, but by establishing a common long-term strategy, that lays out the principles, process and terminology by which people can then project their arguments for or against a particular development or protecting a particular area. They know they have some certainty in implementing under this process and are not being prejudged before they present.

We encourage councils to meet those challenges-this is not a responsibility to be taken lightly by the locally elected officials; it is a very challenging situation to make those decisions amidst the emotion of the debate in local communities and to try and get beyond that emotion so that you will make good, sound decisions that your residents can depend on and not have change from situation to situation-to use the authority that the provincial government has provided to make good local planning decisions reflective of their own community and protect the local ecosystem.

Once again, our government believes that the 1991 implementation guidelines and the provincial policy statements give councils the tools they need to make those decisions. Through those tools, councils have the power to protect the moraine or any other significant area in this province.

I'd like to take a moment to reference a situation that is currently in the media. There are currently a number of development applications proposed on the Oak Ridges moraine. However, these applications are before the OMB, so I can't comment on them in their entirety. The province is a party to these matters and will present its case to the board in the same manner as each and every other party. Once more, the OMB is an independent adjudicator which will make a decision on the matter that is based on the evidence.

Ontario is enjoying new-found prosperity right now, and this means increased pressures on areas like the moraine. This means increased pressures on local councils that they live up to their responsibilities and meet their obligations under the Planning Act, meet the obligations they have approved in their official plans, and provide adherence to the provincial policy statements. It is the role of the provincial government to ensure there is a balance between the development we face, based on our prosperity, and the environmental sustainability we all hold so dear.

There's no doubt that the moraine must be given careful and urgent attention. This is an environmentally sensitive area, and we all want to ensure that it continues to absorb water and recharge the rivers as it has done for so many thousands of years. We all want to ensure that our children and our grandchildren are able to enjoy the forests, wetlands, lakes and wildlife of the moraine well into the future.

This is why our government gave local councils the tools and the decision-making capability to make the right decisions when it comes to considering development such as is being proposed on the moraine. I have every confidence that York, Peel and Durham regions, as well as the 15 local municipalities, will continue well into the future to make those right decisions and to protect the Oak Ridges moraine.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I welcome this opportunity to speak to this motion by the third party. I think it's very timely and I commend them for putting it forward.

It's so timely today that I think actions speak larger than words. Today the government's so-called arbitrator neutral party, the Ontario Municipal Board, made an amazing decision. Two unaccountable, appointed people at the OMB said that the city of Toronto and Peel region, which wanted to help protect the moraine and bring forth studies to protect the moraine, and defend Richmond Hill which is trying to stop development of the moraine-the Ontario Municipal Board said, "No, you can't have standing"-in other words: "We don't want to hear from you and what your interests are.

We don't want you to help Richmond Hill. We don't want you to help the moraine." That is exactly the truth, in terms of how we are now governed in this province.

The member for Carleton-Gloucester talked about the uniqueness of local municipalities. This is a government that is swallowing up local municipalities by the dozens every day. His own municipality has been wiped out. They talk about uniqueness, and then they talk about, "This is about giving municipalities the tools."

Do you know how many tools the municipalities have? Essentially they have very few, and the few they have mean that they have to protect the decisions they make as municipalities at the Ontario Municipal Board, because locally, whether it's Richmond Hill or Uxbridge, whatever they decide can be overruled by thus unelected, unaccountable board, the OMB. In fact, the other night, on April 6 in Richmond Hill, there were about 500 citizens of Richmond Hill at the Richmond Hill council. They emphatically and unanimously said no to the development application on Bond Lake.

They want to build 2,800 homes on Bond Lake, which is right in the middle of the moraine. They said no. Everybody in the audience said no. You know, the developers didn't even bother to show up at the meeting of town council for that application? They sent a letter basically saying: "We're not going to be there. We will see you at the OMB." So when you talk about local autonomy and local power, developers in this province are now saying: "It doesn't matter what citizens say. It doesn't matter what councils say, unanimously or otherwise. We are going to take the fight, the decision, to the OMB."

The OMB is a very interesting body. It's a body which now is basically caught in a position, because the provincial government refuses to put down any comprehensive plan, that they end up making planning decisions. They're a body that now overrules local decisions and, in a vacuum of provincial decisions, makes provincial planning and local decisions. The important ones are now made by the OMB and not by council and by this province. That's the way this government likes it. It's a matter of benign neglect, and they like it that way, protecting the status quo, which means it's a free-for-all in the 905 and the Oak Ridges moraine areas. There is no plan.

The member talked about the 1991 guidelines. He knows, the OMB knows and every lawyer in this province knows that the 1991 guidelines were interim guidelines. They were put in for a temporary period until more comprehensive permanent guidelines were put in. They were interim. In certain rulings the OMB even said that the guidelines were not at all binding; they were voluntary. The member knows that. So to give the impression that those 1991 guidelines are worth anything is really stretching it. We and the environmentalists and local councils-and it's not just three regions.

The Oak Ridges moraine stretches across nine regions, from Peterborough to Peel, and 26 cities. They've all said: "We need more than the 1991 guidelines. We need some comprehensive, sustainable plan that will protect this very fragile bioregion." It's where our water comes from. It's where there's wildlife habitat and fish habitat. There are rare species of birds, fish, trees-the Jefferson Forest and the Ganaraska Forest.

By stepping back and having no plan, this government is allowing the ad hoc carving up of this precious natural masterpiece called the Oak Ridges moraine. It is really unconscionable that they pretend to have a plan when they know full well that local councils have been begging them for help. Regional governments have begged them to intervene. The only people who agree with them that the 1991 guidelines are adequate are the developers and the UDI. They love the 1991 guidelines, because they know those guidelines are a sieve. They're useless.

We need a comprehensive plan based on the 1994 plan, which was put forward and never adopted, to make that stronger. Put in a strong plan. But you can't put in a plan until you put in a freeze because, as I said, right now it's the Wild West out there. Whoever has the deepest pockets goes to the OMB and pays for the best planners and consultants money can buy. They are spending millions at the Ontario Municipal Board to get their way.

The little town of Uxbridge has to raise its property taxes to fight development in Uxbridge. Durham region has to raise its property taxes, or at least get more out of its mill rate, to fight the OMB. The town of Richmond Hill has to spend $1 million by itself, because at the OMB you don't win unless you've got the money. These lawyers are expensive. In fact, I've always said that OMB hearings are basically a pension plan or an actuarial plan for lawyers and planners. They love it. They're smiling to the bank as much as the developers are.

They're in court every day charging $300, $400, $500 or $600 an hour, while decisions about the moraine are being made by unelected, unaccountable members who are faceless and nameless, who make the decisions about the future of our province.

It's not just the future of Caledon or of towns like Goodwood. The moraine is essentially the water barrel for five million people in the greater Toronto region. Sixty-five rivers and streams originate from the moraine. They go north to Lake Simcoe and south to Lake Ontario. Whether you're in Caledon or Cobourg or Cabbagetown, the moraine connects us all. Like someone in Richmond Hill mentioned the other night, the moraine has to be looked upon as our Central Park of the future.

At the turn of the century in New York, there were people who wanted to pave over a green space in the middle of New York City. They said: "We've got progress and prosperity. Pave it over and put buildings on Central Park." There was a group of citizens, like there is now-I think MPP Churley mentioned that. There is a group of citizens from Cobourg to Caledon who are attending meeting after meeting. They are darned angry because they know their water is being contaminated and that their wildlife is being destroyed, and they have forests, like the Jefferson Forest, that are being bulldozed. They're darned angry.

When they see that their government is on the side of the developers, they get even more angry. They say: "Why are we paying taxes and why are we electing people, when you won't stand up and defend Bond Lake or Wilcox Lake, you won't do anything about the Ganaraska River, and you don't care about the Credit River and Palgrave?" That's what they're saying. Go to these meetings in Caledon and go to Goodwood. They all say the same thing: "Why isn't the government doing anything?"

Who is right: the developers or the scientists? Look at what some of the scientists are saying. These are some of the most renowned people, who came to Queen's Park and said, "Listen to us." Four hundred and sixty-five scientists from all over Canada and the world said that the 1991 guidelines are useless to protect the moraine. One scientist, Alan Goodwin, a professor of geology at the University of Toronto said: "I strongly support any effort to prevent excess development and exploitation of this unique and priceless natural phenomenon. It would be unmitigated folly to tamper with this source of pure water for the GTA."

Here's another professor, Andrew Stewart, a PhD in anthropology, from the Royal Ontario Museum: "As a practising archaeologist working in Ontario, I value the cultural heritage aspects of the moraine almost as much as the natural heritage values. As a resident of Toronto, I think the preservation of the moraine is critical to the future healthy development of cities that surround it and to the quality of life of people living in these cities."

Here's another scientist, Karl Konze, BSc, from Guelph: "I would recommend that other alternatives be investigated in already existing urban areas before proceeding with more residential and industrial developments in the Oak Ridges moraine. Higher density housing would also be preferred as it tends to have fewer impacts on the natural environment."

Scientist after scientist condemns this government for its inaction. These are people without political parties.

If you go to meetings in Richmond Hill, Oak Ridges and King City-another incredible place where ordinary people are raising their own money to fight the OMB. They're now going to basically stop a major sewer extension that they feel is going to destroy the environmental integrity of King City. Jane Underhill, the councillor up there, is taking them all on by herself. You've got another brave councillor in Richmond Hill, Brenda Hogg. You've got Debbe Crandall, Linda Pim and Ben Kestein. All these heroes are saying no to developers and no to unbridled development that doesn't make any sense.

If you read the Golden report from a couple of years ago, it said this speedy, reckless development is costly and senseless. If you develop too fast, it costs you more money-in fact it's part of the Blais report, which said that if you don't control this sprawl, it's going to cost over $14 billion in extra infrastructure costs, because you're just sprawling all over the countryside.

If you plan properly, with a plan, you save money. You don't have to duplicate roads, sewers, schools and libraries. Right now there is no plan. All we have is sprawl. Whoever has the most money buys a piece of farmland-and talking about farmland, we're about to lose 70,000 hectares of farmland in the GTA. For the most part, all these new developments are farmland, open space that is going to be turned into cookie-cutter homes with driveways, more cars and more roads, and you're going to lose something irreplaceable. How can you replace water? How can you regrow forests like the Jefferson Forest?

Right now, this government is allowing the paving of Bayview Avenue right through the Jefferson Forest. That's got to be stopped. That's nonsense. You don't have to extend Bayview Avenue through a forest. You're going to contaminate adjoining water and wells.

To get back to what the Golden report said: "A more compact and efficient development pattern could save an estimated $12.2 billion in hard infrastructure capital costs over the next 25 years. These potential savings represent roughly 22% of the projected $55-billion capital investment required to sustain current development patterns. This translates into an annual savings of about $500 million in capital and maintenance expenses alone. An additional $200 million could be saved in costs related to air pollution, health care and policing associated with automobile accidents.

When lower congestion, parking and land acquisition costs are also factored in, the total annual cost savings of containing sprawl are about $1 billion annually."

The experts are saying you can save $1 billion annually if you have a plan in place. From an economic perspective-never mind the environmental perspective-you can save not only the trees, the watercourses and the aquifers, you save $1 billion a year. But this government wants that quick-fix development, because they're getting a lot of pressure from people in the development industry who want to build now. It's a land grab up there. That's why we need to come to our senses and support a freeze and then put in a plan.

As you know, I've introduced a private member's bill which basically reflects the plan we have in the Niagara Escarpment. We would put in a comprehensive plan protected by a group of representative stakeholders who would make sure this plan was in place. That plan has worked for the Niagara Escarpment. That's why we've been able to protect that jewel that's been recognized by the United Nations as an international biosphere. We've got to do the