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

November 26, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Nov-26 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 26 November 2001 Lundi 26 novembre 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOLTEACHERS

TRENT UNIVERSITY

PUBLIC HEALTH

COMMUNITY ENDOWMENT FUNDS

AIR QUALITY

DIAMOND MINE PROJECT

FUNDRAISING CALENDAR

HYDRO ONE

ROBIN MEDNICK

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TILBURY AREA PUBLIC SCHOOL ACT

(WILLIAM J. MILLER TRUST), 2001

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

WALKERTON INQUIRY REPORT

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOME CARE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

PLEA BARGAINING

PUBLIC HEALTH

DRINKING AND DRIVING

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

AIR QUALITY

RENT REGULATION

ONTARIANS WITH

DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

CUSTOMER SERVICE

CONTAMINATED SOIL

PLANT CLOSURE

EDUCATION FUNDING

YOUTH CRIME

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

LAKEVIEW GENERATING STATION

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TENANT PROTECTION

EDUCATION FUNDING

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

HIGHWAY 407

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

VISITORS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

QUALITY IN THE CLASSROOM

ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA QUALITÉ

DANS LES SALLES DE CLASSE

ONTARIANS WITH

DISABILITIES ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES PERSONNES

HANDICAPÉES DE L'ONTARIO

STUDENT PROTECTION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LA PROTECTION DES ÉLÈVES

Monday 26 November 2001 Lundi 26 novembre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOLTEACHERS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): In the next couple of weeks this government is going to bring in legislation that basically will

recognize the legitimate activity of hunting, but I want to say to this government that it is time to ban the open season on teachers this government has held for the last six and a half years.

Through Bill 80, and now through Bill 110, we see this government continually targeting teachers, having them in its sights all the time, thinking that teacher-bashing is not only good politics but

is somehow going to be good for the education system. Well, it's not. What this government has done is it has demoralized the teaching profession and made the education system the worse off because

of all that.

What this government has to do is to recognize teachers for the professionals they are and to work with the teachers so that they have a self-regulating

association and do their own assessment and testing over the years, but to work with the teachers to do that. The teachers know they have to do it and have always believed in lifelong learning.

They do that. They take their education days all year round. They take courses in the summer. They are one profession that has always been on the cutting edge of self-improvement, yet this

government decides it's a great idea to pick on them and demoralize them again.

Here we are with new teachers coming into the profession, some with a brand new two-year teaching course, and you're going to have to have 14 new courses on top

of that in order to get your certification. Over the 30-year lifetime of a teacher, many of these teachers are going to be required to take 98 courses that are being imposed upon them, rather than

working through their own self-governing association. It's time the government stopped targeting teachers.

TRENT UNIVERSITY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I am pleased to rise in the House today on behalf of the member for Peterborough, the honourable Gary Stewart, the

whip.

I'm also pleased to inform the House of the outstanding record of consistent accomplishment made by Trent University. Today I would like to thank the faculty,

staff, students, President Bonnie Patterson and the administration of Trent University for being recognized by Maclean's magazine as the top primarily undergraduate university in central Canada.

This is the 11th year in a row that Trent has achieved this ranking, proving once again that it is a centre of excellence in the liberal arts and sciences.

Trent University earned this recognition by also ranking first in many other factors: awards for students per full-time faculty; class size; scholarships and

bursaries available to students. Trent has established a proud track record in delivering quality education to its students, and its future looks even brighter. The faculty continues to achieve

prestigious honours and awards, such as the Honda Prize recently won by Professor Donald Mackay for his research in environmental chemistry.

No doubt more students than ever will apply to Trent to benefit from its rewarding experiences, and I'm pleased the university is prepared to meet this demand.

Through our government's SuperBuild initiatives and a provincial investment of $29 million in Peterborough, 1,295 new student spaces will be available as new academic space is created and joint

venture programs with Sir Sandford Fleming College are strengthened. The future looks bright.

I ask members of the House to join me in applauding Trent University for its contributions to success and the encouraging future being built for our younger

generation, our collective future.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I want to speak today about a shocking report in a Spectator investigation into the state of restaurant and

food inspections in the city of Hamilton. Last year, only 10% of the restaurant and banquet centres were inspected the minimum number of times as required by provincial legislation. In the year

2000, more than 100 restaurants went uninspected. This is a dangerous situation. I am here today to ask the province of Ontario to step up to the plate and properly fund public health departments

in Ontario so they can do the job that they're assigned to do. The province sets the standards, but they don't come through with the dollars. They've cut funding. We used to have a funding formula

of 75% provincial and 25% municipal for all programs at the public health level. Now it's 50%, and in some cases it's not even existent, it's at the province's discretion.

As a result, in the last couple of weeks we've had 12 new cases of non-water-borne E coli bacteria, mostly related to food, food safety and hygiene. I think it's

even more important today for the provincial government to do its job, not only to set standards for minimum inspections of restaurants but to ensure that those standards are being followed at the

municipal level. When they walk into a restaurant, people should feel comfortable that they're not going to get sick as a result of dinner or a meal they've had there.

The province has a responsibility to come through. Today I ask the Minister of Health to do his job, to step up to the plate and properly fund public health

departments so we can do proper food inspections so that people can have safety and comfort when they're in a restaurant in the city of Hamilton or anywhere else in the province of Ontario.

COMMUNITY ENDOWMENT FUNDS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Today I rise and wish to speak about an important community organization in Simcoe North called the Community

Foundation of Orillia and Area. Foundations like this are sprouting up across this country to provide a way to pool the charitable gifts of many donors into permanent, income-earning endowment

funds that benefit local communities. Canada's more than 100 community foundations hold combined total assets of about $1.4 billion and made over $70 million in grants to support local priorities

across this country.

The Community Foundation of Orillia and Area provides many bursaries and endowments funds, such as the Simcoe College scholarship and bursary award fund, which

helps students attend the many programs at Georgian College. There is also the Tom Parish scholarship fund, which is given to an Orillia high school graduate who will be attending a college or

university to continue studies in either business or the environment. In an effort to help our communities, there is the Trails for Life endowment fund, which is a permanent fund to help maintain

Orillia's Trails for Life, a 10-kilometre, multi-use paved trail built in 2000 as part of the millennium celebrations.

Recently the foundation announced the Ontario Endowment for Children and Youth in Recreation fund. From now until March 2002, donations to this fund will be

matched dollar for dollar by the provincial government up to a maximum of $200,000 for the Orillia area. The capital stays with the foundation in perpetuity and continues to grow, generating income

to meet the community recreation needs of our young people for years to come.

At this time, I would like to recognize the hard work of this foundation, and particularly its executive director, Ms Deborah Wagner.

AIR QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This morning Ontario Power Generation was trumpeting the moves it is going to make at the Nanticoke and

Lambton coal-fired plants. They are totally inadequate to protect the air of the province of Ontario. What they are planning to do is install selective catalytic reduction units in only four of the

19 coal-fired units to reduce their nitrogen oxides emissions.

There are two major problems with this plan. First of all, OPG's proposal will only reduce nitrogen oxides emissions for one quarter of its coal-fired capacity.

Second, the selective catalytic reduction will only reduce one of the more than 30 toxic air pollutants emitted by OPG's coal plants. Under OPG's plan, its carbon dioxide, mercury, sulphur dioxide,

heavy metal and cancer-causing emissions will continue to rise.

There are costs of staying with coal. According to the Ontario Medical Association, smog and poor air quality cost Ontario $9.9 billion a year in health care

costs, lost work time and other quantifiable expenses, as well as killing an estimated 1,900 Ontarians prematurely each year. Smog-related illnesses will increase, and mercury contamination is

going to increase considerably. Acid rain and global climate change are wreaking havoc on our natural environment and having a direct economic impact on everything from tourism to natural resource

industries. Clearly, the Sir Adam Beck hydroelectric generating station in Niagara Falls is the answer.

DIAMOND MINE PROJECT

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I want to take this opportunity to let members in the House know, but more importantly to let people in

the province of Ontario know, that this afternoon, as we speak, De Beers, the mining giant in the diamond business, is in Attawapiskat meeting with the community and community leaders to let them

know just exactly where they are with their diamond mine project at the Victor camp.

You would know that last year there was a great amount of drilling done at the Victor camp, just outside of Attawapiskat. Some 60 to 70 people worked there last

year. The interesting part, which I think is a credit to De Beers, is that about half of the people who work at that particular project are from Attawapiskat. So I want to give my congratulations

to De Beers for that.

Today we have the pleasure of knowing that De Beers is going to be announcing this afternoon that they are moving to a pre-feasibility study on the opening of a

diamond mine at Attawapiskat. That means we can cross our fingers even more that there's a good possibility that if things go well this year and the pre-feasibility study is able to answer a number

of technical questions about this mine, Ontario may indeed end up having its very own first diamond mine in the province.

That's good news for the people of Attawapiskat, good news for the Mushkegowuk people of the James Bay coast and also very good news for the province of Ontario

because it means that where you find one mine, who knows, there may be a second or third or fourth lying somewhere nearby.

I want to congratulate all those who are in Attawapiskat today -- the community leaders and the community -- for having worked well together on this project. We

look forward to hoping that the pre-feasibility study will actually bring us one step closer to a diamond mine.

FUNDRAISING CALENDAR

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to recognize the efforts of more than 30 physicians from the Northumberland Health Care

Centre. These doctors are raising money locally through sales of their annual Christmas calendar, with proceeds going to the new $60-million hospital being built in Cobourg.

Last year, in excess of $39,000 was raised from the photographs of these doctors, set in familiar locations around Northumberland county. This year, 6,000 copies

have been printed as organizers hope to break last year's record.

Some of the scenes in the calendar include humorous photographs of a fictitious drive-through medical clinic and a low-tech CAT scan featuring a number of

volunteer felines. Last year's calendar had the same concepts and received a warm response in areas as far north as Peterborough.

Toronto councillors will be glad to know our physicians will be keeping their shirts on for this calendar. I'm sure you will all agree that their criticism of

the Toronto firefighters for baring their chests to raise money through a similar effort was rather silly.

These doctors, like their firefighter counterparts, have recognized that even simple efforts can have a tremendous impact at the local level. These dedicated

personnel are an example of what can be accomplished through the efforts of a small, creative group. As a matter of fact, a copy of our calendar is being sent to the Ministry of Health to

demonstrate this novel approach to fundraising.

Please join with me in acknowledging the efforts of all calendar posers, both here in Toronto and in Northumberland, for taking this initiative.

If I might, I know it's not a point of order but I would like to introduce two of my constituents who are in the members' gallery, Suzanne and John Liptay.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I have one question for my friend the Premier on behalf of millions of Ontario taxpayers and

electricity ratepayers, and that question is simply this: what the hell is going on with Hydro One, that crown agency that holds about $10 billion worth of very valuable public assets?

I see from the weekend press that our old friend Ernie Eves is quite rightly saying that it is time for the public of Ontario to have a very thorough debate of

all the options, all the costs, and the consequences of exercising any of those options.

We know that this potential sale of the $10-billion asset base of the Ontario Hydro transmission grid presents a bonanza for special interests. We know from the

public press that the lobbyists and the investment bankers are drooling. They are salivating. The special interests are excited in ways they haven't been in a long time.

On behalf of the thousands of people I represent in the Ottawa Valley and millions of Ontario citizens and electricity ratepayers, I say to you, Mike Harris, who

is looking out for the public interests? Who is looking out for Main Street? Can you assure me that the interests of Main Street and the interests of the millions of average electricity ratepayers

are not going to be badly injured in some sell-off to accommodate the powerful interests of Bay Street?

ROBIN MEDNICK

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): I take this opportunity to recognize a very special constituent in my riding of Thornhill. Robin Mednick is

the co-editor of a new book appropriately called Heroes in Our Midst, featuring Canadians who have overcome adversity pursuing Olympic glory. Heroes is a collection of 110 anecdotes by Olympians

and Paralympians who tell compelling stories of overcoming various obstacles on their way to breaking world records.

When asked what writing the book had taught Robin after speaking to so many Olympians and Paralympians, she said, "When you know in your own life that you can

walk and do things that most people take for granted, then you start to put into perspective the small worries that you face every day that shouldn't trouble you at all." These are inspirational

words to live by.

The idea to create such a beautiful book was conceived in September of last year after Robin spent time collecting inspirational stories for her 13-year-old

son's bar mitzvah. It's also important to note that all the royalties from this book will be donated to junior athletes and a charity that promotes sports education.

Congratulations to Robin Mednick on an accomplishment that is worth its weight in Olympic gold.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr15,

An Act to establish the Sioux Lookout Meno-Ya-Win Health Centre.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TILBURY AREA PUBLIC SCHOOL ACT

(WILLIAM J. MILLER TRUST), 2001

Mr Hoy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr1,

An Act respecting the Tilbury Area Public School and the William J. Miller Trust.

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

Pursuant to standing order 86(a), this bill stands referred to the commissioners of estate bills.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45

pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, November 26, Tuesday, November 27 and Wednesday, November 28, 2001, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 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

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 70; the nays are 5.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

WALKERTON INQUIRY REPORT

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I believe all parties agree that the report of Mr Justice O'Connor relating

to the Walkerton inquiry should be released immediately upon its receipt, as stated in the opposition day motion that's scheduled to be debated tomorrow. At this time I would like to seek unanimous

consent to have that question put immediately without further debate, to have Mr Bradley move his motion in order that the House could demonstrate unanimous support for that motion.

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

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek clarification from you. Would we lose the opposition day

tomorrow? I'm sure it's not the intent to take an opposition day away from the opposition to deal with government business, because if it was, we would not be able to agree to that even though we

support in substance what's said. The debate's far too important to let go.

The Speaker: What could happen is the motion would give direction to the House, so if the motion indicated something along those lines, then

obviously it could be included in the motion. So we'd look for guidance from the House on that.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask the government House leader, we would agree to that provided we could continue to have an

opposition day and if the rules could be waived to allow the opposition to put another resolution with respect to that or any other issue. Clearly, if it's the government's intent to deal with

Walkerton, we can do that, but if it's the government's intent simply to play a procedural game to deny us one of our four opposition days, then we wouldn't support it and we'd welcome that

debate.

The Speaker: I often wish the House leaders could get this clarified so that we don't have to have House leaders' meetings during the House.

Having said that, maybe the government House leader could give us some clear indication.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I quite understand the House leader's concern. This was something that came up quite quickly today. I'd certainly be prepared

to try and work something out. I understand it could be rearranged with unanimous consent of the House. I'd be quite prepared to talk to the House leaders about doing that, because it was the

intent of the House to try and show unanimous support for this, and that was the beginning and the end of this particular request. We could certainly try and work that out.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do apologize. I would have preferred to have dealt with this at the House leaders' meeting as

well, and I apologize that this didn't happen. If the government House leader were to give us a motion that included both clauses at the same time, (1) that would provide that tomorrow could be

used for another opposition day, (2) that the rules could be waived to allow the tabling of that opposition day motion and (3) asking for our support for Mr Bradley's resolution, if that was all

dealt with in the same resolution, we could agree with it; if not, we'd simply have to say no.

The Speaker: Do you need some time to do that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Speaker, let's have the House leaders talk and see what happens on it in terms of where we are.

The Speaker: Are you withdrawing your request for unanimous consent until you iron that out, then?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I thought we had unanimous consent.

The Speaker: Let's do this: let's take a moment for the clerks at the table to work with the government House leader, if they could make it

not too long, though, and see if we can come up with a motion that would be acceptable to all sides. I know there is agreement, but there is some concern. If you do ask for unanimous consent later

on -- any member could do it -- there might be some problems there. I understand the clarification.

Mr Duncan: On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker: So there's no misunderstanding, we have not given unanimous consent to that at this

point.

The Speaker: We haven't actually asked for it yet. If we could take just a moment, we'll see if there's some clarification.

Hon Mrs Ecker: If there is an agreement, we'll work that out before.

The Speaker: As you know, what can happen is that it can come back at any point in time with unanimous consent, if we can get the agreement

worked out. I'm sure it's just a matter of circumstances. It did come up late, and hopefully the House leaders could get together and move it. I understand the concerns of the House leader for the

official opposition, that if you do ask for something, they need to have clarification. With that, we will move on and hopefully it can be ironed out between the House leaders.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOME CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, in a letter dated June 28 from my colleague MPP

Bartolucci, he wrote to you and asked if you had any intention of eliminating the community care access centre boards. Let me quote what you responded two days later. This question is for the

Minister of Health because he wrote this letter. In that response two days later you said you have "no plans to replace the board" and that your ministry "values the important contribution of our

CCAC health care partners," as you called them.

Minister, it was a flat-out no to eliminating those boards. What you've done now, when you dropped that bill in the House a couple of weeks ago, is a complete

reversal. That legislation is specifically designed to muzzle opposition to the cuts you're making in home care. Specifically, it's a gag order on volunteer boards. People, despite the gag order,

are starting to speak out. It's an enormous flip-flop on your part. One moment you're saying you have no plans to eliminate boards, that's crazy, and the next you drop --

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

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): To the associate minister of health.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): I'd like to thank the member opposite for the question. Let me say

that the Premier asked me to look at community care access centres in the fall of this year. We have done a thorough analysis after having the PricewaterhouseCoopers report and the operational

review report from Hamilton. In both of those reports it told us that there needed to be changes to community care access centres so we could provide the services that were necessary to provide

quality health care across the province. Since that time, we at the Ministry of Health have worked together to ensure that we have a plan that will strengthen community care access centres, that

will strengthen the systems within community care access centres, the accountability within community care access centres, and we will move together to provide more quality services to the people

of Ontario in the community service area.

Mrs Pupatello: My supplementary is for the Minister of Health. This bill is a shameful takeover of local CCAC boards. It's shameful.

Let's listen to the leading candidate for your PC Party, Jim Flaherty. This is what he has to say about where health care ought to be going in this

province.

"Doesn't it just make sense," Jim Flaherty said, "to let local people who understand local needs have more say about where health care dollars are spent?

That's why I believe that the time has come for more regional autonomy, and coordination, in our health care system." Jim Flaherty thinks your power grab, your gag order, your hostile takeover of

community care access centres is dead wrong.

Minister of Health, where are you on this? It's a gag order, a hostile takeover, but the finance minister of this province disagrees wholeheartedly. Where are

you on this today?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me say first off that I'm sure the member opposite doesn't know what Jim Flaherty thinks. I know Jim Flaherty is very

committed to ensuring that we have quality health care in the province of Ontario, that local needs and local people are providing those services.

Let me say that I'm not sure how the members opposite consider this a takeover. What happened in the past was that the people of Ontario funded community care

access centres. They are going to continue to do that through their tax dollars. We're going to have local people on these boards who are going to make decisions about local needs. We're also going

to have coordinated services so that quality health care is being provided to all in the community. I think what they say opposite is just not correct.

Mrs Pupatello: Well, here are some facts. The Minister of Health says on June 26 that there are "no plans" to take over boards. August 28, he

writes a letter and says there are no plans to take over boards. A couple of weeks ago, he drops a bill in the House that takes over community care access centre boards. Those are the facts.

The Minister of Finance runs for leader of that party and he stands up and says that local autonomy is what health care services need in this province -- not

hostile takeovers, not gag orders; real community advocates in the area of home care in this province -- and it's the opposite direction to where this government is now going.

I ask the Minister of Health, who is responsible for health care for working families in Ontario, where is the Minister of Health today? Is he busy running for

leader, or is he more caring about what happens to working families in Ontario? To the Minister of Health, will you eliminate this bill from the docket in this House? Hostile takeovers are wrong.

We don't agree. Where is the Minister of Health on this?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me say that this government is committed to ensuring that we have community services, CCAC services, that will be strong in

our community for many years to come.

What the member opposite fails to understand is that a hostile takeover is when someone takes over the shares, and they don't own those shares at that

particular time. This government sets up community care access centres. They fund community care access centres. We have been there to ensure that community care access is strengthened, and right

now what we're saying is that we need to make some changes to these community care access centres so that in the future they will have the strength to be able to continue on and to provide

good-quality services in their area.

I can tell you that all of my colleagues on this side agree that there needed to be changes to community care access centres, and we're moving forward to

ensure we have a viable and sustainable community system that will be here for our generation and our children.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Deputy Premier. You've sent the Premier packing to Ottawa to ask for health care

money. My question for you is simple, and we hope your answer will be very clear and unequivocal. Deputy Premier, we want to know just how much exactly you believe ought to be spent in health care

in the province of Ontario.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Our budget on health care this fiscal year in Ontario is in excess of $23 billion,

close to $24 billion. If the federal government is going to make the commitment it made to John Robarts when they brought in medicare in this country, a national program, it should be 50-50. That's

what it should be.

Mrs Pupatello: Deputy Premier, the answer is not clear. What we said was, how much money do you think has to be spent? We didn't ask you who

is supposed to spend it; we asked you just how much money you think has to be spent in health care. Do you need to spend $2.2 billion more, the same amount you're giving away in a corporate tax

cut, or do you have to add $500 million more, the same amount you want to give away for private school tax credits? The question, Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier, is simple: how much money

needs to be spent -- not who is spending it, but how much in total needs to be spent? Is it the same amount of money that you're giving away in corporate tax cuts? What is the amount you want to

spend in health care?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I think what the member is asking for is a figure on health care. The tax cuts, stretching out to 2005, over the course of

the next five years, are $2.2 billion. That's the plan for the tax cuts. What we need from the federal government over the next five years, just to maintain the federal government's 1994-95 share,

will be $10 billion.

Mrs Pupatello: The Liberal caucus thinks it's amazing that this guy sends his Premier packing with a suitcase to Ottawa but he doesn't know

how much he's asking for. As a matter of fact, the Deputy Premier doesn't even know how much this province needs to spend in health care. How much do you need to spend that's enough? We're not

suggesting who spends; we're saying how much.

You make a hole in your Ontario revenues with your $2.2 billion worth of corporate tax cuts and $500 million in private school tax credits and you go running

off to the feds to say, "We demand more health care." This province demands good health service. You are asking for money to cover the holes in revenue from your corporate tax cuts. We want to know

if you're going to tell the health minister the truth when you head up to Ottawa.

Hon Mr Flaherty: It's a sad day in the House when I have to listen to the number two person from the Liberal benches talking about health care

spending. It is Monday. We may get a different figure from the Liberals later on in the week.

She thinks, apparently, that what the federal Liberals are doing is OK, but what did Mr McGuinty say? When Mr McGuinty was asked what he thought after the last

federal budget, which was almost two years ago, he said, "I was personally disappointed with the budget because it does not assign the priority to health care that ordinary Ontarians have been

telling me they" --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister of Finance, take your seat. Sorry, Minister of Finance. The member for Hamilton East isn't sitting in

his chair. You're up close and you've got a loud voice. It's bad enough when you're two rows back. You're right up front. I can't hear the question.

Minister of Finance. Sorry for the interruption.

Hon Mr Flaherty: The Liberals don't believe what they're saying; they are just mouthing words. If you look at what the Liberal leader said

right after the last budget, here's what he said: "I was personally disappointed with the budget because it does not assign the priority to health care that ordinary Ontarians have been telling me

they assign to it. The silence from the federal government on medicare has been deafening." That's the Liberal position after the last federal budget. You have some different position today. I

wonder what it will be tomorrow.

PLEA BARGAINING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a question for the Attorney General. Last week we raised the tragic case of Michael Tilley, the

homeless man who was brutally beaten to death and whose murderer was able to plea bargain for a lesser charge of manslaughter and a reduced sentence of six years.

Today I ask you about the case of wife killer Kenneth MacDougall.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock, please. Minister of Finance, you had a chance to answer the question. I ask for order, please. We

need to have some quiet.

Interjections.

The Speaker: OK, that's it, folks. The next one is out. I've been patient with you, and you push and you push and you push. Now we're going to

start throwing people out. Every day you've got to do that, and every day we've got to come in here and do that because you get carried away. I ask for order; now I mean it. The next person who

shouts out is going to get thrown out. If you want to be thrown out, do it.

The leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Today I ask you, Attorney General, about the case of a wife killer, Kenneth MacDougall, who according to the evidence drugged,

raped and drowned his wife, Mitzi MacDougall. The crown attorney bargained away second-degree murder and then agreed to a mere six-year sentence for manslaughter. Your government's repeated

rhetoric is that you're tough on crime. I wonder if you can explain to the brothers and sisters of Michael Tilley and to the three young children of Mitzi MacDougall all about your rhetoric.

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Let me commence by once again expressing my condolences and

sympathies to the families of those involved.

As for the case of the Tilleys, the member is probably aware, but I certainly wish to inform you, Mr Speaker, that I met with members of the family late last

week, on Thursday afternoon. We had a good discussion. They aired a number of concerns they had about the system. We've undertaken to examine those concerns and to continue our discussion with the

family.

The member knows, should know because he was once the Attorney General of this province, that crown attorneys have to look at all the evidence when a case is

put in front of them. They have to make tough but necessary decisions. They have to consider the facts of the case -- all the facts, not a particular fact -- and ultimately they have to make

decisions based on the precedents that exist and the facts of the case in question. They do that to the best of their ability each and every day.

The Speaker: Supplementary? The member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Minister, today we're talking about Mitzi MacDougall, a 27-year-old mother of three young kids. You've

already heard that she was drugged, raped and drowned in the bathtub after she told her husband she was going to be leaving him. In this case there had been a preliminary hearing. A judge examined

the evidence that was there, the evidence to be put against MacDougall the murderer, and determined that the matter should be put forward for trial on the basis of second-degree murder. Your crown

attorney, notwithstanding that evidence, which included a confession, decided to drop the charge to manslaughter, and furthermore to agree to a sentence of but six years. That means a maximum of

four and parole eligibility after two years.

You and your government talk tough about protecting our communities. You talk tough about crime. Why don't we see that tough talk reflected in our courts?

Hon Mr Young: Once again the member opposite has chosen to pick a particular case. He knows I'm not in a position to comment on any particular

case. He knows I'm prohibited from doing so by law. He would be the first individual in this Legislature to rise and complain if I did comment on a case that was or is in front of the court. So he

has me at a disadvantage. There should be no doubt about that.

Having said that, I, for one, am very proud of the fact that I am part of a government that has in excess of 40 programs in place that each and every day, in

courtrooms across this province, help individual victims. I am very proud of the fact that we spend $145 million on those programs and support victims each and every day.

Mr Kormos: Attorney General, you don't understand. Michael Tilley's murderer is going to be out of jail in no more than four years. That

brutal, vicious murderer, who stomped a man to death on the streets of Toronto, is going to be walking in public in four years because your crown attorney agreed to a sentence of but six years. The

murderer of Mitzi MacDougall, who was given the benefit of a plea to manslaughter after evidence had been presented that warranted a committal for trial on second-degree murder, is going to be out

in no more than four years as well, because your crown attorney agreed, collaborated with a joint submission of but six years.

You're the Attorney General. You're responsible for what happens in your crown offices. You're responsible for the administration of justice in this province.

I put to you that there is an epidemic of plea bargaining of the most serious charges in this province, that you are accountable and that you owe it to this Legislature and this province to explain

why this is going on in our courts, in our communities, from Toronto all the way to Kenora.

Hon Mr Young: Thank you for providing me with an opportunity to respond. Let me read you a quote, if I may. "Crown attorneys independently

make their resolution decisions, and judges independently make or approve sentencing decisions, based on facts and information that the public may or may not always have access to." Who said that?

It was the member who just asked me the question. That is a quote from the member opposite. He talks the talk but he doesn't walk the walk.

In fact, in this case he does not have all the facts, but that doesn't prevent him, when he thinks there are political points to be made, from entering into

the fray and making wild accusations. I would suggest to him and to others that it is irresponsible for him to behave in this way.

The Speaker: New question?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): To the Attorney General: Kenneth MacDougall confessed to a police officer that he drugged, raped and

killed his wife, yet the charges were reduced to manslaughter and Mr MacDougall got six years in jail for killing his wife.

I want to remind you, Attorney General, that May-Iles recommendation 137 states that crown attorneys should avoid the staying, withdrawal or plea bargaining of

charges where there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. Attorney General, I will say to you that something went terribly wrong in this case. When are you going to implement that particular

recommendation from May-Iles so that this never happens again?

Hon Mr Young: First of all, I'm proud to be part of a government that has implemented in excess of 90% of the recommendations that came from

the May-Iles inquest. So that is important to say at the outset.

It's also important to remember that the system that we have in this province, the one that we have in this country, the one that is the envy of the world, is

one that allows for a judge -- an independent, impartial individual -- to review the sentence recommendation that is made to him by any crown or by any defence attorney. Ultimately, the judge has

the last word. He or she is the individual who makes that decision.

Ms Churley: Minister, in that case, why didn't you allow the judge to try the case? You said we didn't have the facts over here. Let me give

you the facts.

Mitzi was a 27-year-old woman who had three little children. That night, she was suffering from a cold and she told Kenneth MacDougall that she planned to

leave him. He gave her two sleeping capsules, telling her that they were Dristan. He also opened two of the capsules and poured the contents into her Neo Citran. He said that he "wanted to hurt her

emotionally and cause her the same pain that she had caused him ... and the way to do this was to have sex with her one last time." Then he threw this drugged woman on to the bed and raped her.

Then he held her down in the bathtub and drowned her.

Those are the facts of that case, Attorney General. I want to ask you now: you say you have a commitment to end violence against women, but you let this guy

who committed this horrendous crime against this young woman get off with a mere six years in jail. What are you going to do about it, Attorney General?

Hon Mr Young: Once again let me express my sympathies and the sympathies of the government to the family in what is obviously a tragic

situation.

But as the member opposite should know, these resolution decisions in court cases are made, and they're made bearing in mind all the facts of the case. The

member opposite suggests the facts are just that simple. She iterated them in all of about 20 seconds. I suggest to you that the preliminary hearing likely took a little longer than that. As the

member probably knows, preliminary hearings only represent a portion of the evidence that is usually called in trials. So, out of respect for the judiciary, out of respect for the system that we

have and out of respect for the very same crown attorneys that the member opposite holds up as a pillar of our system on other occasions -- out of respect to all of them, I would suggest that they

allow the system to operate in the way it does. If they have constructive changes to make, not about a particular case but about improving the system, I've always had my door open. I'm always happy

to meet with them to hear from them in that regard.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. The Northwestern Health Unit indicated to your ministry

early last June that the funding that you're providing to carry out the immunization program is totally inadequate. Some 60% of the immunizations that are done in the northwestern region are done

through the health unit. There is no question that the service is absolutely essential. In fact, physicians are asking the health unit to take over the whole immunization program. But, Minister,

the health unit cannot continue to deliver the current immunization program without additional funding. The medical officer of health, Dr Peter Saarsfield, has made it clear that the only way the

health unit can deliver the immunization program that you have mandated is to cut back on other essential programs.

Dr Saarsfield finally received a response from the chief medical officer of health on November 16, and the response said, "The concerns have been duly noted."

Minister, five months after a medical officer of health indicates to you that his public health unit is not receiving adequate funding to deliver the immunization program, he's told that the

concerns have been duly noted. Do you consider this to be an adequate response?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'd be happy to elaborate on the response and indicate to this House that, since

1995, public health spending has increased by 14%, and please keep in mind that this is a 50-50 funding arrangement. The local boards of health have approved budgets that are approved by the

municipalities, as well as by the province, and yet despite that arrangement, which has been the arrangement for a considerable amount of time, we fund 100% of key health protection programs, such

as flu vaccinations and so on. So we are pulling our weight. Certainly we get a lot of correspondence from public health unit partners on what their priorities are and we carry on with those

priorities along with the municipal governments.

Mrs McLeod: Ignoring the issue is not going to make it go away. You're underfunding home care, you're underfunding hospitals and you're

clearly underfunding public health. It's not just the immunization program that's threatened in the northwestern health unit.

Minister, last year, after the Walkerton disaster, you required health units to take on additional responsibilities for safe water. You gave the Northwestern

Health Unit less than half of what they said was needed to take on these new responsibilities. This year you're telling them that you're discontinuing the funding for safe water activities.

In September your ministry told health units right across this province that they should consider dropping one or more mandatory programs as a way of reducing

costs. I say to you today that in fact you're the one deciding what money the public health units are getting; you're going to have to decide what gets dropped. So I ask you today, what's it going

to be? Is it going to be immunization? Is it going to be safe water programs? Is it going to be anti-smoking initiatives? Will you just tell us, what are you cutting out of public health?

Hon Mr Clement: I can't comment on speculation and conclusions that are drawn from misapprehension of the facts. The fact of the matter is we

are spending more this year than when we took power in 1995. In a lot of programs that we have initiated, we are spending 100% of the dollars on behalf of the citizens of Ontario. That's been our

public record. That's our record that we're proud of.

I would hasten to add, since given the opportunity, that those are 100% provincial dollars. Not a dime comes from the federal Liberal government. Not a dime

comes from their priorities. At a time when health care is the number one priority, this Liberal government is spending less on health care than Brian Mulroney spent. They should be ashamed. They

should try to do their part on the opposite side of the House to get their federal Liberal cousins to live up to their responsibilities for the people of Ontario and Canada.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): My question is for the Solicitor General. Minister, it continues to shock me, and I'm sure it shocks every

member of this Legislature, that after all the public awareness, there are still people who drink and drive. When these thoughtless individuals get behind the wheel of a car after drinking, they

not only put themselves in danger but put all of the people on the road in danger. How is the message getting out to the public that this government and the police all over Ontario will not

tolerate drinking and driving?

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): This is a tremendously important issue. The message is very clear: if you drink and drive, you will be

the target for police in this province. Unfortunately, drinking and driving is the number one criminal cause of death in Canada. Police are always on the lookout for impaired drivers. In the year

2000-01, there were 650,000 people stopped in RIDE spot checks in this province, conducted by some 154 police services. There were 768 drivers charged with impaired driving, and another 2,500 had

their licences suspended. RIDE spot checks are a key component of our strategy for Ontario's safe roads. RIDE is considered to be a good strategy by both the public and the police services, so the

government will continue to support the RIDE program in Ontario.

Mrs Molinari: This government has always been tough on crime. Drinking and driving is a crime in this province, and I'm pleased to hear that

all of the offenders are being prosecuted. We support police services all over the province as they work hard to keep our streets safe.

As we approach the holidays, there will be many people who will be in festive celebrations with their families and at parties, and of course there will be much

more danger on the roads. What is this government doing to continue to show our commitment to safety and to the RIDE program?

Hon Mr Turnbull: Indeed, drinking and driving is a menace to the whole of our society. Since taking office in 1995, our government has doubled

the annual RIDE grants. To date, we've invested over $7 million in RIDE grants, providing police services throughout Ontario with funds.

On Thursday, I will be attending the kickoff for this year's annual holiday season RIDE program. In last year's check, 250,000 spot checks were completed

during the December blitz. I encourage everyone to be responsible this holiday season and indeed every day of the year. If you drink, don't drive. That's the law.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I have a question for the Acting Premier.

Interjection: Which one?

Mr Colle: Who is the Acting Premier? I'm not sure.

Mr Minister, while your government boasts about saving the Oak Ridges moraine, an army of bulldozers is illegally clear-cutting the Jefferson forest to make

way for the Bayview Expressway right through the heart of the moraine, from Stouffville Road up to Lake Wilcox.

Your government also told us that your land swap with land speculators to save the moraine would see a trade of land only off the moraine. But now we hear that

you've made a secret deal to upzone thousands of acres of farmland in Richmond Hill right on the moraine. With the stroke of a pen, your government has secretly rezoned land to build 10,000 homes

smack in the middle of the moraine, even before the legislation is in the House.

Minister, I want you to do three things for the people of the GTA: (1) use your powers under the Planning Act to put an immediate halt to the illegal

bulldozing of the expressway through the moraine; (2) place before the House all the details of the secret land swaps you've made with developers; and (3) allow for full legislative hearings so we

can plug the massive loopholes in your Bill 122. Will you do those three things?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I would, in reply, say that the government is committed to the protection of the Oak

Ridges moraine. The recent court decision allowing the road construction to proceed does not conflict with the Oak Ridges moraine legislation that is before this House. If the member opposite is

implying or inferring some sort of improper motives, I'm sure he would not want to do so toward the Ontario Supreme Court, because it was the Ontario superior court that made the decision that a

new environmental assessment is not needed for the road construction to continue. That decision was made by the highest trial court in this province.

Mr Colle: The simple question that the people of the Oak Ridges moraine area have for you, Mr Minister, is, if development is frozen and the

moraine is protected, why is the government allowing an expressway to go right through the middle of it? That's the question.

Secondly, why is the government allowing 10,000 homes to be built right on the moraine in the Gormley-Richmond Hill area? How can it be saved when you're

allowing 10,000 homes and an expressway right up to Lake Wilcox? How is that possible?

Hon Mr Flaherty: We do have a process in this province for those kinds of disputes. In this particular case, the Bayview extension dispute

went to our courts and was adjudicated, and people argued both sides of the issues. The Supreme Court of Ontario has made the decision that a new environmental assessment is not needed for the road

construction to continue. The Bayview extension has received all the required approvals to continue and does not conflict with Bill 122, which is the Oak Ridges moraine legislation that is before

this House.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): My question is to the minister of environment, science and technology. This morning, you and I were in

Cambridge for the signing of the contracts for the purchase of selective catalytic reduction units for Nanticoke and Lambton generating stations totalling some $200 million. Can you explain how

these units will help the environment?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): It's great news for the environment this morning with the first electricity

company in Canada to introduce the selective catalytic reduction units. They will reduce the emissions of nitrogen oxides by some 12,000 tons, or, put another way, they'll clean up the air. Eighty

per cent of the nitrogen oxides will be removed from the air, helping to reduce smog in Ontario and helping to reduce air pollution.

Again, it's the first of its kind in Canada, a significant investment by Ontario Power Generation in partnership with Babcock and Wilcox, a company from

Cambridge, Ontario -- a $205-million contract for Babcock and Wilcox, and about $35 million to $45 million are being spent by Ontario Power Generation in additional expenditures. It's great news

for the environment: clear air and more jobs, high-tech jobs. It's a winner all around and a great announcement.

Mr Martiniuk: My apologies to the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology for referring to him as the Minister of the Environment. You

don't look at all alike.

Babcock and Wilcox from my riding is responsible for the production of these environmental control systems. Can you tell us how Babcock and Wilcox will help

the economy and the environment of both Cambridge and the province?

Hon Mr Wilson: I also want to make it clear to my colleagues that I'm not running for anything yet.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Yet?

Hon Mr Wilson: The race is young.

Babcock and Wilcox has a long history with the former Ontario Hydro and with Ontario Power Generation. I'm just very pleased that, as their president announced

this morning, 85% of the over-$200-million contract will be spent in Canada, with much of that money spent in creating jobs and keeping jobs in Cambridge, Ontario. It's an extremely impressive

facility they have in Cambridge, and the honourable member should be proud of the workers there and proud of his constituents.

It's a high-tech company, a large manufacturing company: 80% of the boilers used in our nuclear fleet historically have come from Babcock and Wilcox. Now

Canada's first SCRs, selective catalytic reduction units, to bring down air pollution are being installed and are being built in Cambridge and are being installed by people from Cambridge, by the

honourable member's constituents, and he should be proud. I know I was proud to be there, along with Bill Farlinger, the chair of Ontario Power Generation, and to share the joy with the employees

there of that $200-million-plus contract.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Today, the new Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp rental market survey was released, and the numbers are

obscene. Tenants who rent two-bedroom apartments in Toronto today are paying an average of $2,500 a year more to their landlords than they did before your government killed rent control in

Minister, tenants' incomes haven't increased by $2,500 a year. Why does your government think it's OK to take $2,500 a year out of the pockets of tenants and

transfer it to landlords?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): When this government came to power, the rental housing industry in this province had

ground to a halt. It stopped building under the Liberal-NDP legacy of tax hikes and restrictive rent controls. This government has worked hard to reverse the damage done to the rental market by the

Liberals and the NDP and to get the industry going again and building for tenants.

Here's what has happened. We've provided $4 million in provincial sales tax relief on construction materials for new, affordable rental units; we've made

changes to the Ontario building code, reducing the red tape barriers for building rental units; we've implemented the Tenant Protection Act, which has reformed the rent system, improved the

maintenance of rental buildings and is helping to create a better climate for the construction of new rental housing.

We've also established a working group of government and industry representatives to develop a comprehensive strategy. We responded to the housing supply

working group this spring, and we await the federal government's response.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary? The member for East York.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Minister, the housing ministers are meeting in Quebec City this week. At that meeting the federal

government has already said they're coming forward with money, and that's a first because they haven't come forward with money for health and they haven't come forward with money for transit, but

Ontario appears to be heading to that meeting with empty hands. There has been nothing built in Ontario since 1995. The Tenant Protection Act has given a virtual monopoly to the landlords and rents

have gone skyrocketing. Minister, are we going there with money or should the tenants of this province just prepare to sign over their wages to their landlord?

Hon Mr Flaherty: As I indicated, we responded immediately to the recommendations of the housing supply working group and we're awaiting the

federal government's response to that. I hope we hear from them this week in Quebec City. With respect to the record, the legacy of the NDP and the Liberals was a $1-billion housing boondoggle:

$300 million for consultant fees; $550 million for architectural fees; $50 million for legal fees. That was the NDP and Liberal legacy. Under just the Liberals alone, the average rent increase was

12% per year when the Liberals were in power. The money wasted included $27 million for six housing projects in Toronto that were never even built.

ONTARIANS WITH

DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship. I have a constituent who needs to use a wheelchair,

not all the time but much of the time. There is simply no accessible housing for him. He has to be helped into his house. He can do that by standing up from the wheelchair, at times, and getting

into the home. He has to be helped into the house because the home and motor vehicle modification program has absolutely no funding to build a ramp into his house -- $900. When my constituent has

dialysis, he is not able to get up and help himself into the house, so he is sleeping in his car at nights. He lives in his car for two or three days until he is able to get enough strength to walk

into the house.

When he first heard there was going to be an ODA bill passed, he was excited. However, examining the details has caused him some concern. Minister, would you

tell me how, when the ODA is passed, it will help my constituent and others like him who require access to accommodation?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): First of all, I would hope that the member opposite,

understanding the issues as he has presented them with his constituent, would have contacted someone in the Ministry of Health, in the government, to consider looking into the case. That's the

first issue, and I hope you have done that in advance of trying to do something here on the floor of the Legislature.

Second, I want to reassure the member opposite that if you want to talk about access to special housing supports, this government will stand by its record,

which has been an extraordinary expansion: brain-injured repatriation from the United States after the millions and millions of dollars spent by past governments and sent to the United States. This

government made the historic commitment to repatriate every single brain-injured individual in this province, to find a program and a home and accommodation for them in our province, something

we're very proud of.

If you want to look at dialysis programs, it wasn't a Liberal government or an NDP government, it was a Conservative government that expanded the dialysis

program. It started under my colleague the Honourable Jim Wilson and expanded at unprecedented levels in this province.

Mr Parsons: Minister, you never once mentioned the ODA, but I believe you did in fact list everything it would do for my constituent and

others like him.

Certainly we were concerned about Bill. We called your home and motor vehicle modification program, which said they have no money. They said that because this

is almost a life and death situation, they would make him a top priority next year, in January. We thought, "Wonderful," so we said, "If he applies in January, does that mean he will be approved

and he'll get that $900 ramp and be able to sleep inside?" They said, "Well, no." Although he's a top priority, the program is substantially underfunded and they could not commit in any way that he

would get the grant.

Minister, we're not talking the theory of the bill. We're going to put actual names and faces on these people. The question I ask you is, will your bill help

people get access to accommodation, to their own house, or do they have to continue to sleep in their car?

Hon Mr Jackson: If the member opposite wishes to read the bill, he'll know that all social housing in this province is covered under this

legislation, under the ODA, and he may wish to pursue that further. It's very clearly in the language of the bill. It talks about all new subdivision planning and development, modifications to the

current building code, and all of that will be covered.

I want to remind the member opposite that when housing programs were under construction in this province, in all the time the Liberals and the NDP talked about

housing for the disabled, housing for seniors and housing for families, the persons they talked the most about and delivered the least to were, first, persons with disabilities, who didn't get

their fair share out of the billions of dollars spent in this province and, second, seniors, who were disadvantaged by those government decisions made by past Liberal and NDP governments.

I remind the member opposite that we have yet to hear one promise from the Liberal Party about what commitment they'll make to the disabled people of this

province -- not one financial promise, not one commitment for legislation; just politics.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

CUSTOMER SERVICE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Before I begin my question, Minister, earlier this year you attended at my

riding and made an informal presentation on the Employment Standards Act with employers and employees, including members of the CAW. That of course happened in Durham.

Minister, given the proclamation of the new Employment Standards Act, 2000, just this past September, could you tell the members of the House what the Ministry

of Labour has done to ensure the highest quality customer service, as well as to raise the level of education awareness about the new Employment Standards Act in the province of Ontario?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): We have taken many steps to improve customer service over the past few years. One of the first

avenues taken by many of our customers is to phone. Today people can call a toll-free number and get the services they need within minutes. I understand, with respect to the Employment Standards

Act, that those particular questions have been dealt with and the changes that we have made have been very productive. I have also noticed that we have taken a number of calls over the time in the

Ministry of Labour and the percentage of calls respecting the Employment Standards Act has been very low. We've dealt with it very carefully and we've also taken the calls, but upon proclamation

it's been reasonably well accepted and dealt with fairly.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Minister. I'd like to say I'm pleased but certainly not surprised with this development under your leadership. It's a

pleasure to hear that you are taking proactive steps in providing information on the new Employment Standards Act. But how do you know that you are meeting the standards with your clients and how

does your ministry compare with others in this particular area?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I'd caution the member for -- I don't know your riding, actually; sorry about that. The member whose riding includes

Smitherman House, I guess. I would caution the member to be careful what you wish for. It has a habit of jumping up and biting you on both your faces.

A recent survey of ministry clients across the province found that nearly --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I've obviously raised the hackles. That caterwauling continues. I'll take you on individually, one at a time. Just wait in

line.

We found that nearly 85% received --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Why don't you just put a target on your forehead, George?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. It's pretty tough when even his own members are involved. Minister of Labour.

Hon Mr Stockwell: A recent survey of ministry clients across the province found that nearly 85% received service and information that they

needed. This was one of the highest ratings of any government ministry or agency. It was also higher than similar ratings at the federal and municipal levels of government. In fact, last year the

call centre received an Ontario government Amethyst Award in recognition for service in the government sector. They're very proud of this at the Ministry of Labour.

CONTAMINATED SOIL

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, there is a portion of the city, on

the edge of High Park, that is contaminated. It has poisonous materials in it. It contains methylene chloride that came from the time it was a dump, and it spent 50 years as the site of two gas

stations. This site is dangerous and you have been made aware of it on a number of occasions, most recently in estimates about a month ago. At that time you were asked, and you made an undertaking,

to provide whatever protections your office could to the local citizens.

It has been too long. The Ontario Municipal Board has approved this development, and no one else -- not the city, not the conservation authority -- has the

ability to assure the residents that this will be safely handled. Minister, will you stand up in this House and guarantee that that site will be safe before it is disturbed and before the residents

can be damaged in any way from any of the poisons in that soil?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): If the member opposite would give me the additional information, certainly I would be

prepared to follow up and ensure that indeed all the safety measures will be undertaken in order to ensure the health of those residents.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, that will not do. I have three pages of telling you about this in estimates on October 16. This is on the edge of High

Park. Water runs underneath this property. That water leads into Grenadier Pond. It leads into Lake Ontario. There are poisonous elements in there. Do you know what the director at the Ministry of

the Environment, whom your staff told me to talk to, who said he was going to look after things, told me? Brian Howieson told me that they would not do anything unless and until some poison went

into the air, the water or the land, and had already affected the residents. Then you would be there.

Minister, you personally were made aware of this on a number of occasions. There is no excuse. You're the Minister of the Environment. There is no other body

-- not the city, not the Ontario Municipal Board, not the conservation authority -- that will test this property and make sure people aren't poisoned. The last time they tested this property, in

1998, they stopped. Why? Because poisonous gas was being released into the air.

Minister, I want your undertaking today. You're the Minister of the Environment. Will you act? Will you make sure the Ontario Municipal Board cannot make this

development happen until testing has taken place to make sure the residents in the area, the people who use High Park, the natural environment, the ducks that are nearby, the natural habitat, will

not be damaged? Will you be the Minister of the Environment?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member opposite knows full well that the entire issue is being reviewed by the Ministry of the Environment and we are

awaiting a recommendation. They are well aware of the issue. It is under review and a recommendation will be coming forward.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Last Friday I met with about 100 union

representatives and employees from Canadian Fabricated Products Ltd, a subsidiary of Johnson Controls, as well as three representatives from the Stratford city council.

As you know, this Stratford plant is closing in mid-December, putting approximately 400 people out of work. You can appreciate that closing a plant has a major

impact in Stratford and the surrounding region. I promised the employees that I would bring this to the attention of influential people like you to try to reach some solution. Minister, what

assistance can you provide the employees of Canadian Fabricated Products?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I represent a riding much like the member's and I appreciate his interest

in this issue. I too have suffered the closure of a plant in the last few years in the community of Brockville and several in the community of Prescott. It is a difficult time, and I want to

indicate our strong support for his riding and his community in any way, shape or form that we can help. Certainly in Ontario we have, through the past six years, dramatically improved the business

climate in terms of making Ontario a much more attractive place to invest and grow a business.

With respect to this particular company, we are assisting. MEDT and the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities have offered to sit on the company's

internal adjustment and advisory committee to help workers find ways to get new skills and be integrated back into the workforce. We have also offered to work with the Stratford economic

development officials to help displaced employees find other employment opportunities.

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

Mr Johnson: Thank you, Minister, because these people are in some ways desperate because their circumstances, especially at this time of the

year, are dreadful. Union representatives and employees of Canadian Fabricated are angry and upset with the way they've been treated by their head office, located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Indeed, they are being represented in court today to attempt to have their contract honoured. They feel there is a role for government involvement -- local

government, the provincial government and the federal government. What steps can our government and your ministry take to prevent these types of foreclosures from happening in our towns in

Ontario?

Hon Mr Runciman: I'm certainly more than prepared to work with the member to see if there is any role we can play in terms of intervention,

although the decision was made some time ago by head office outside of this country. I know the member and I share the concern about the movement of head offices out of this country, primarily into

the United States because of the acquisition of Canadian companies. We're seeing this in the energy sector as well.

The federal low-dollar policy is aggravating the situation. There are a number of areas in terms of capital taxes where this government is moving, but we're

not seeing the same kind of movement at the federal level.

The other concern in terms of the auto sector and the auto parts sector especially is their dependence on cross-border traffic -- smoothly operating border

crossings. Again, we are working very vigorously to improve that situation but we are not meeting with the co-operation --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Education. Virtually every swimming pool in the city of Toronto will be

closed next year. Sixty-two out of the 84 pools are scheduled to be closed. The reality is that all of these swimming pools are in the ground, all of these pools have been paid for by the taxpayers

of Toronto, and hundreds of thousands of people who use them every year will have nowhere to swim in Toronto. The board of education is in a funding straitjacket because of your funding formula.

When will you wade into this issue and give some hope to the people and their communities that they will have a decent and safe place in which to swim?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): The reason the Toronto school board is in a funding straitjacket is because

of some of the decisions they have made around how to allocate their resources. We only need to look at recent media coverage in the last year to see how they have exercised that judgment and that

authority.

Second, this government has never funded swimming pools in schools. Neither did the NDP government; neither did the Liberal government. That is not something

that has ever been funded through provincial education grants. I would encourage the board to do what other boards have done: to work out agreements with the community. That's how swimming programs

are offered in schools across this province. They can be a great recreational opportunity for students. I don't think there's a parent who would disagree with that. But I really believe that those

programs should be offered through support between the school board and the community, as they are across the province.

Mr Prue: Madam Minister, your government took away the board's ability to pay for operating the pools. In fact, your formula has sucked

millions of dollars from the citizens of Toronto, taxpayers, which could have been used to keep the pools open. You have instituted a one-size-fits-all policy and it simply doesn't work. The

children, the sports teams, the elderly, the disabled were all at Monarch Park school this week, trying to save their pool. Toronto is in a straitjacket. They need a life jacket. Madam Minister,

when are you going to help the people of Toronto, and when are you going to take into account that one size doesn't fit all?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, we took away the board's ability to tax the seniors, the disabled, the people who are on fixed incomes because

they had no respect for the fact that those individuals couldn't continue to pay increased property taxes. We took away their ability to tax, as many experts recommended, and we asked them to do

what Ontario's working families do: to live on a budget, to set key priorities, to manage their resources effectively, not to go out and rip up playgrounds when there was no need to do that, with

no plan to replace them; not to go out and refuse to make difficult decisions about empty administration buildings.

They have received additional funds. As a matter of fact, there is special funding for the Toronto school board that recognizes pressures for low

education? Absolutely. We will continue to support our public --

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

YOUTH CRIME

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): My question is for the Solicitor General. Youth crime has been reduced considerably over the

years, but you continue in your approach of attacking the young people of this province with your law-and-order rhetoric and your photo opportunities. What you have done is alienate young people.

You have driven a mistrust for the police, and hence no co-operation is forthcoming in solving crime in the community. Minister, wouldn't you then think that you are part of the problem and not

part of the solution?

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): We're extremely proud of our party's record in reducing crime and addressing the very serious

problems, and indeed of addressing youth crime, which is a tremendously serious issue. We have provided, across the province, 1,000 net new front-line police officers in a community police program

that partners with municipal police forces. The government implemented the adequacy standards that require every police service to have a policy for investigations of youth crime. We have put

forward considerable amounts of money specifically to address problems of youth crime.

Mr Curling: As usual, the minister has in his own way missed the question altogether. The fact is that there are young, ambitious and

law-abiding citizens out there, young people who feel very mistrustful about the position of this government and of yourself with all your rhetoric. They have not seen any support in any respect

that you have given. I again say to you that many of the crimes that are out there to be solved could have been resolved, but they have no trust in you or your government in that respect. They feel

you have driven all of our young people to live in fear. Again, don't you see yourself as part of this problem of not solving crime and not as part of the solution?

Hon Mr Turnbull: On September 18, I announced a $2-million program for a youth crime and violence initiative. This will enhance community

safety through prevention to help police forces, but also through prevention grants to community groups to work with youth who are at risk, because we believe very strongly it is important to

identify youth at risk and try and counsel them and help them through the problems. But we must ask the community to become involved in solving youth crime. That is key because we all have to be

responsible for part of the puzzle of solving crime.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

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

"Whereas the Harris government's rigid education funding formula is forcing neighbourhood school closures and has centralized control for education spending

and decision-making at Queen's Park, and will not allow communities the flexibility to respond to local needs;

"Whereas chronic underfunding and an inflexible funding formula are strangling the system and students are suffering the consequences;

"Whereas there is evidence that large schools do not automatically translate into cost-effectiveness;

"Whereas smaller, neighbourhood schools have lower incidences of negative social behaviour, much greater and more varied student participation in

extracurricular activities, higher attendance rates and lower dropout rates, and foster strong interpersonal relationships;

"Whereas small, neighbourhood schools in local communities, both rural and urban, serve as important meeting areas for neighbourhood organizations which help

bring individuals together and strengthen neighbourhood ties and the current funding formula does not recognize community use of these schools;

"Be it resolved that the Harris government immediately reconfigure their unyielding funding formula to restore flexibility to local school boards and their

communities which will allow neighbourhood schools in our province to remain open."

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

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

"Because we, the undersigned, believe in our responsibility as teachers to maintain a high degree of professionalism; and

"Because such professionalism is best served when professional learning is self-directed and based on teacher need, improves professional skills, improves

student learning, is based on best practice accountability and is funded by the appropriate educational authority; and

"Because we oppose the government's teacher testing program and the College of Teachers' professional learning program because they do not meet the objectives

of effective professional learning,

"We, the undersigned," from St Anthony school, from St Charles school, from St James school and from St Andrew's school, "respectfully request that you repeal

all clauses and references to professional learning from the Stability and Excellence in Education Act, 2001."

Of course, I affix my signature as I am in complete agreement with it.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I've received, over the last week, 1,500 signatures from a number of communities,

including Elmira, Aylmer, St Thomas, Dundas, London, Keswick, Tottenham, Alliston, Schomberg, Aurora, Beeton, Newmarket, Shedden, St Thomas, Ancaster, Woodbridge, Hamilton, Waterdown, Burlington,

Wallacetown, West Ward, Kitchener, Stittsville, Freelton, Palmerston, Clifford, Brussels, Waterloo, Sutton, St Jacob's, Bellwood, Brampton, Fergus, Toronto, Erin, Norval, Dundalk, Markham,

Hagersville, King City, Nobleton, Maple, Kettleby, Mount Albert and Mount Hope, Baldwin, Thornhill, Brantford, Kilbride, Guelph, Milton, Elora, Carlisle and Peterborough. They've all asked me to

present this to the government:

"Whereas services delisted by the Harris government now exceed $100 million in total; and

"Whereas Ontarians depend on audiologists for the provision of qualified hearing assessments and hearing aid prescriptions; and

"Whereas the new Harris government policy will virtually eliminate access to publicly funded audiology assessments across vast regions of Ontario; and

"Whereas this new Harris government policy is virtually impossible to implement in underserviced areas across Ontario; and

"Whereas this policy will lengthen waiting lists for patients and therefore have a detrimental effect on the health of these Ontarians;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to permanently fund

audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

LAKEVIEW GENERATING STATION

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads:

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Ontario is requested to reverse a draft regulation of July 3, 2001, to the original promise of cleaner, high-efficient

natural gas;

"Whereas the Lakeview generating station's gas emission rates should not exceed those of high-efficiency natural gas combined-cycle turbines after April

2005,

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

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario reverse its draft regulation of July 3, 2001, to the original purpose of cleaner, high-efficient natural gas. The

petitioners ask that the Lakeview generating station's nitrogen oxide and greenhouse gas emission rates should not be permitted to exceed those of high-efficiency natural gas combined-cycle

turbines after April 2005."

I am pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): People in northwestern Ontario are desperate for us to get our fair share of highway

infrastructure and we have a petition circulating. I've got many here from June Huston in Pass Lake. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traffic volume has increased dramatically on Highway 11-17 between Thunder Bay and Nipigon over the past 15 years; and

"Whereas the sections of Highway 11 between Nipigon and Longlac, Highway 584 to Nakina, Highway 17 between Nipigon and Marathon and Highway 527 to Armstrong

would benefit from a safety point of view from fully paved shoulders; and

"Whereas the Minister of Transportation has recommended that any major transportation infrastructure improvements on these stretches of the provincial highway

should focus on high-volume areas and enhanced safety features;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario and residents of northwestern Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to provide funding

support to:

"

(1) Twin the highway between Thunder Bay and Pass Lake as a first priority with the stated goal of eventually completing the twinning all the way to

Nipigon;

"

(2) Commit to fully paving the shoulders of Highway 17 from Nipigon east to Marathon, Highway 11 from Nipigon east to Longlac, Highway 584 from Geraldton to

Nakina, Highway 527 from the Thunder Bay Expressway to Armstrong;

"

(3) Commit to a serious re-evaluation from a design point of view of dangerous portions of the highway that have seen a higher proportion of accidents over

the years."

I'm pleased to have the support of the member for Kingston and the Islands, Mr Gerretsen, who supports this cause, and I'm very proud to sign my name to this

petition.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have here a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"Whereas the annual rent increase guideline for multi-unit residential dwellings in Ontario increases every year more than the rate of inflation and more than

the cost-of-living increase for most tenants;

"Whereas no new affordable rental housing is being built by the private sector, despite the promise that the implementation of vacancy decontrol in June of

1998 would encourage new construction;

"Whereas one in four tenants pays over 50% of their income in rent, over 100,000 people are on the waiting list for social housing, and homelessness has

increased as a result of unaffordable rents,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to implement an immediate province-wide freeze on rents which will stop all guideline

increases, above-guideline increases and increases to maximum rent for all sitting tenants in Ontario for a period of at least two years."

It's signed by approximately 50 people, and I would endorse it and sign it as well.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I am very pleased to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on behalf of my constituents in

Durham.

"Whereas we the residents of 145 Liberty Street South in Bowmanville wish to continue to rent our apartments and are not interested in purchasing condominium

units; and

"Whereas we the residents of 145 Liberty Street South in Bowmanville have invested considerable amounts of money in decorating, upgrading our apartments;

and

"Whereas we the residents of 145 Liberty Street South in Bowmanville were of the understanding that this was a rental property, not a condominium;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to review this matter and request the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

or any other relevant ministry to investigate these concerns to ensure that we the residents of 145 Liberty Street South in Bowmanville continue to rent our apartments."

Just for the information of the House, I've written to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and am working on this. I'm pleased to sign and endorse this petition

on their behalf.

EDUCATION FUNDING

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

"Whereas the funding for school boards is now based on student-focused funding legislative grants for the 2001-02 school board fiscal year;

"Whereas the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board is in a period of declining enrolment, a trend that is projected to continue over the next five

years;

"Whereas application of the student-focused funding model for 2001-02 does not allow sufficient funding for the Hastings and Prince Edward District School

Board for secretarial support in schools, principals and vice-principals, transportation, or school operations;

"Whereas costs in these areas cannot be reduced at the same rate as the enrolment declines,

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

"To reassess the student-focused funding legislative grants for 2001-02 school board fiscal year to provide additional funding for those areas where funding is

insufficient and to adjust future student-focused funding legislative grant to address the situation of the declining enrolment faced by the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board and

other boards in Ontario."

I'm pleased to add my name to this seven-page petition.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have yet again more petitions on adoption disclosure reform. This one reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in Ontario, adopted adults are denied a right available to all non-adoptees, that is, unrestricted right to identifying information concerning their

family of origin;

"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN

Convention on the Rights of the Child;

"Whereas these rights are denied to persons affected by the secrecy provisions in the adoption sections of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts of

the province of Ontario;

"Whereas research in other jurisdictions has demonstrated that disclosure does not cause harm, that access to such information is beneficial to adult adoptees,

adoptive parents and birth parents, and that birth parents rarely requested or were promised anonymity;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revision of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to permit adult adoptees

unrestricted access to full personal identifying birth information; permit birth parents, grandparents and siblings access to the adopted person's amended birth certificate when the adopted person

reaches age 18; permit adoptive parents unrestricted access to identifying birth information of their minor children; allow adopted persons and birth relatives to file a contact veto restricting

contact by the searching party; and replace mandatory reunion counselling with optional counselling."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): The petitions keep arriving and I keep representing the people of Durham as best I can.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario has proposed the extension of Highway 407 into the Durham region and the proposed route, designated as the technically

preferred route, will dissect the property of Kedron Dells Golf Course Ltd Oshawa;

"Whereas such routing will destroy completely five holes, and severely impact two additional holes effectively destroying the golf course as a viable and

vibrant public golf course;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to change this routing to one of the other identified alternate routes, thus

preserving this highly regarded, public facility patronized annually by thousands of my constituents, residents of Durham region and the GTA."

I've played this course. I'm going to sign this petition in support of those people.

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

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

"Whereas the London Health Sciences Centre is a world-class academic health sciences centre serving people throughout southwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has forced the London Health Sciences Centre to find $17 million in annual savings by 2005; and

"Whereas the London Health Sciences Centre has agreed to cut 18 programs in order to satisfy directions from the provincial Ministry of Health; and

"Whereas these cuts will put the health of the people of southwestern Ontario, and particularly children, at risk; and

"Whereas these cuts will diminish the London Health Sciences Centre's standing as a regional health care resource; and

"Whereas these cuts will worsen the continuing physician shortages in the region;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government take immediate action to ensure

that these important health services are maintained so that the health and safety of people throughout southwestern Ontario are not put at risk."

It is signed by a number of residents from Coatsworth and Chatham, and I too have affixed my signature to all these petitions.

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

"Whereas the London Health Sciences Centre is a world-class academic health sciences centre serving people throughout southwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has forced the London Health Sciences Centre to find $17 million in annual savings by 2005; and

"Whereas the London Health Sciences Centre has agreed to cut 18 programs in order to satisfy directions from the provincial Ministry of Health; and

"Whereas these cuts will put the health of the people of southwestern Ontario, and particularly children, at risk; and

"Whereas these cuts will diminish the London Health Sciences Centre's standing as a regional health care resource; and

"Whereas these cuts will worsen the continuing physician shortages in the region;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned" -- 2,600 individuals from Windsor, Shedden, Amherstburg, London, Dorchester, St Thomas and other places --

"petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government take immediate action to ensure that these important health services are maintained so that the health and safety of

people throughout southwestern Ontario are not put at risk."

I agree with these 2,600 people and will affix my signature hereto.

VISITORS

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: If I have unanimous consent,

the legislative page for the great riding of Burlington, Patrick Suter, is here today in the House, along with his mother and father, Fred and Cathy Suter. Patrick, who attends Pineland school,

brought one of the students, my daughter, Lauren. I'd like to acknowledge them in the House today.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

QUALITY IN THE CLASSROOM

ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA QUALITÉ

DANS LES SALLES DE CLASSE

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 25, 2001, on the motion for second reading of Bill 110,

An Act to promote quality in the classroom / Projet de loi

110, Loi visant à promouvoir la qualité dans les salles de classe.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 19, 2001, I'm now required to put the question.

Mrs Ecker has moved second reading of Bill 110,

An Act to promote quality in the classroom. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1520 to 1525.

The Speaker: Would members kindly take their seats, please.

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

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 46; the nays are 36.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the same order of the House, the bill is referred to the standing committee on general government.

ONTARIANS WITH

DISABILITIES ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES PERSONNES

HANDICAPÉES DE L'ONTARIO

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 20, 2001, on the motion for second reading of Bill 125,

An Act to improve the identification, removal and prevention

of barriers faced by persons with disabilities and to make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 125, Loi visant à améliorer le repérage, l'élimination et la

prévention des obstacles auxquels font face les personnes handicapées et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 21, 2001, I am now required to put the question.

Mr Jackson has moved second reading of Bill 125,

An Act to improve the identification, removal and prevention of barriers faced by persons with disabilities

and to make related amendments to other Acts.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1529 to 1534.

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

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 48; the nays are 37.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the same order of the House, this bill is referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

STUDENT PROTECTION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LA PROTECTION DES ÉLÈVES

Mrs Ecker moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 101,

An Act to protect students from sexual abuse and to otherwise provide for the protection of students / Projet de loi 101, Loi visant à

protéger les élèves contre les mauvais traitements d'ordre sexuel et à prévoir autrement leur protection.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I will be sharing my time with the member from Simcoe North.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Nothing is more important than the safety and security of our young people. Each and every one of those

children, as well as their parents, must be able to count on a school environment that is free from any kind of behaviour that may put people at risk of harm or injury.

The Student Protection Act, 2001, sends a clear message to those who would prey on children, and that is to stay out of our schools. This bill is part of our

government's response to recommendations made by Mr Justice Sydney L. Robins in his report, Protecting Our Students: A Review to Identify and Prevent Sexual Misconduct in Ontario's Schools. We have

worked with many stakeholders to develop legislation that will keep our schoolchildren safe. I'd like to thank our education partners who have devoted their time and resources to providing

thoughtful advice on this very important subject. I particularly want to thank the Ontario College of Teachers for its advice and for the action it has taken to respond to Mr Justice Robins's

recommendations. We have listened to the advice of the college given during recent committee hearings on this bill, and we are proposing an amendment to Bill 101 as a result. I will get to that

amendment in just a few moments.

All of us here today know that the great majority of Ontario's teachers are caring, law-abiding citizens. These teachers deserve the trust and respect of

students and parents. However, there is a small number of teachers who take advantage of their positions of trust in the classroom to victimize students. It is our responsibility as legislators, as

adults and as ordinary citizens to take every step possible to safeguard Ontario's students from these individuals.

Bill 101 proposes a series of amendments to the Education Act, the Ontario College of Teachers Act and the Teaching Profession Act. I would like to address

some of the bill's key provisions.

Part I of the bill proposes an amendment to the Education Act that is critical to protecting students from sexual abuse and harassment. It would place the

following important new duty on school boards: when a board becomes aware that a teacher has been charged with or convicted of an offence involving sexual conduct and minors, or any other offence

that might place students at risk, the board would be required to ensure that none of the teacher's duties involve contact with students. This would apply to all certified teachers and temporary

teachers working for school boards, school authorities and the Provincial Schools Authority. It would require immediate removal of the teacher from the classroom and from any other duties that

might involve contact with pupils.

The amendments contained in Bill 101 would also meet the need for a broader definition of "sexual abuse." It would define sexual abuse by a teacher as the

following: sexual intercourse or other forms of physical sexual relations between a teacher and a student; touching of a sexual nature of a student by a teacher; behaviour or remarks of a sexual

nature by a teacher toward a student. This broad definition would capture not only sexual assault and touching, but also inappropriate sexual remarks and behaviour, including the establishment of

inappropriate sexual relations with students.

Bill 101 proposes essential changes to the reporting relationship between employers and the Ontario College of Teachers.

First, employers of certified teachers would be required to report to the college within 30 days where a teacher's employment has been terminated or his or her

duties restricted for reasons of professional misconduct.

Second, in response to the feedback received from the college during their presentation on Bill 101 before the standing committee on justice and social policy,

we are introducing a new amendment to the Student Protection Act, 2001. The amendment would strengthen one of the reporting requirements to the college in the act. It deals with a teacher who

resigns while his or her employer is investigating an allegation that, if proven, would have caused the employer to terminate or restrict the teacher's duties for reasons of professional

misconduct. Under the new amendment, the employer would now have to report this to the Ontario College of Teachers. This provision is essential to help prevent potential abusers from moving

undetected from one board to another.

Third, the registrar of the college would be required to report back to employers on the actions taken by the college. This will help ensure that employers are

made aware of the disposition of cases involving their employees.

Finally, to enforce compliance, Bill 101 would make it a provincial offence, punishable by a fine of up to $25,000, for an employer to contravene the reporting

requirements contained in the bill. These reciprocal reporting relationships are designed to keep all parties who have an interest in the protection of students aware of any activity that might put

students at risk.

To summarize, the Student Protection Act would catch the following activities by certified teachers: acts that result in a charge or conviction involving a

certified teacher's sexual conduct and minors, or any other charge or conviction of an offence that in the opinion of the employer may put students at risk of harm or injury. It would also help

prevent teachers accused of sexual assault against a student from moving undetected to another school board.

The final area addressed by Bill 101 focuses on the particular responsibility of teachers to be vigilant and take action against sexual abuse. Under the

current legislation, certified teachers who are members of the Ontario Teachers' Federation are required to notify their colleagues if they file an adverse report against them. To ensure that

protecting students is the first priority, we're proposing an amendment to the Teaching Profession Act that would preclude notification of adverse reports when the report involves sexual abuse by a

teacher.

Bill 101 clearly demonstrates our commitment to the safety of our schoolchildren. The message to the public is very clear: protection of the students is

everyone's responsibility and we must all act on it.

This legislation is the latest step in our government's comprehensive effort to ensure the safety of our schoolchildren in Ontario. Since 1995, our goal has

remained the same: to ensure student success in a safe and respectful school environment. We're striving to build an education system that supports achievement and excellence through high standards

and accountability.

To make that possible, we have worked to ensure that schools are environments where teachers can teach and students can learn without fear for their safety. We

have already taken strong actions to ensure the safety of everyone in our schools. This past September, a number of new provisions came into effect regarding student suspensions, expulsions and

strict-discipline programs. These measures are all part of the Safe Schools Act, 2000, which also gave force to the Ontario schools code of conduct, and set standards of behaviour for everyone

involved in our school system. Principals now have the authority to expel students from their schools for up to a year for serious infractions under this act. In addition, teachers can now issue

one-day suspensions for a number of infractions.

We have also increased protection of our youth in the following areas: last December, we released a provincial model for a local police-school board protocol.

With this model protocol, we have ensured that school boards and their local police work together to develop policies and procedures on how they will respond to incidents at our schools. The

protocol sets out how and when parents will be contacted if an incident involves their children. In 1999, we strengthened the Child and Family Services Act to provide front-line child protection

workers with better tools to do their jobs. These changes make it clear that the paramount purpose of the Child and Family Services Act is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being

of our children.

The reasons for finding a child in need of protection have been expanded. For instance, the word "neglect" is specifically included, and the threshold for risk

of harm and emotional harm to children has been lowered. The changes encourage earlier action to protect children at risk and make it absolutely clear that professionals and the public have a duty

to report if a child is or may be in need of protection. School boards were also directed to provide opportunities for all staff to acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to recognize the signs

of physical, sexual or mental abuse and to know what actions they should be taking.

This fall, the Ministry of Education released a revised policy program memorandum to school boards to increase awareness of the child abuse reporting

requirements of the Child and Family Services Act. To help students recognize inappropriate behaviour, the personal safety and injury component of the new elementary curriculum introduces such

topics as sexual harassment, child abuse, and violence in relationships. This is done in a manner that is appropriate to their age and cognitive development.

Work continues within the ministry toward meeting another key recommendation from Justice Robins. As announced last spring, the ministry plans to introduce

criminal background checks for teachers and for school employees.

Each of these initiatives speaks directly to one or more of the specific recommendations we received from Justice Robins. The minister has been very active in

consulting with education partners to improve the safety of our schoolchildren. Minister Ecker has met with the Council of Directors of Education, trustees' associations, and principals'

associations in the spring of 2000. Strategies and work plans for addressing Justice Robins's recommendations were discussed during those meetings.

The minister also consulted with the Ontario College of Teachers. The college was asked to conduct a review of its policies and procedures in light of Justice

Robins's report and to provide advice to the ministry on how to implement its recommendations.

Finally, we also received useful feedback from the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, and the Ontario Teachers' Federation.

I had the opportunity to hear the recent presentations made on Bill 101 at the standing committee on justice and social policy. This allowed me to witness the

dedication and the efforts of our education partners in enhancing the safety of our school children. We listened carefully to what our partners had to say.

As a result of the presentation of the Ontario College of Teachers, we have introduced, as I mentioned earlier, an amendment to Bill 101. The amendment will

reinforce the reporting requirements in the bill. It will lessen the risk of teachers suspected of the sexual abuse of students moving undetected from one school board to another.

I would like to thank all our education partners, who have devoted their time and resources to providing thoughtful advice on this very important subject. I

particularly want to thank the Ontario College of Teachers for its advice and the actions it has taken to respond to Justice Robins's report.

Bill 101 is the latest step in our efforts to keep sexual predators out of our schools. Our commitment to student safety is, and must continue to be,

absolute.

Let me make one thing very clear: all of us here today know that the majority of Ontario's teachers are caring, law-abiding people, dedicated to enriching the

lives of students and protecting them from harm. These teachers deserve the trust and respect of students and parents.

The disturbing reality, as Justice Robins confirmed, is that sexual abuse does occur in our schools when a minority of teaches take advantage of their

positions of trust to victimize students.

It is therefore our responsibility as legislators to take every possible step to safeguard the safety of Ontario students. That is surely the most honourable

achievement anyone in this House could possibly strive to do. That is what Bill 101 will help us accomplish. I invite all members in the House here today to support Bill 101.

I thank you for the opportunity to make a few comments on this third reading today.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Further speakers for the government? Hearing none, members will now have up to two minutes for

questions and comments.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): First of all, I want to say to the member across the way that I listened to the comments made, and I

agree with more of what he had to say than he probably realizes. But I want to take the opportunity to remind him that a big part of what happened in regard to this legislation has to do with the

inquiry that was called when we brought in Justice Robins in order to take a look at that issue. It came from an issue that happened in the Sault Ste Marie area.

If you remember, it was Tony Martin, the member from Sault Ste Marie, and the then member from Algoma, Bud Wildman, who, on a number of occasions, had

approached the government to try to find some type of solution. As a result of that, Justice Robins was hired, the inquiry took place, and the justice reported back to the minister with

recommendations about what could be done. Much of what we see inside this bill comes from that. I'm sure the member wanted to take an opportunity to put on the record a congratulations and thanks

for the work done by the member from Sault Ste Marie and the former member from Algoma, who were quite instrumental in making sure something like this happened.

The other only thing I would say is that it's unfortunate that the bill doesn't go as far as it needs to. I will still vote for it because protection for

children is important, and that should be a non-partisan issue as far as I'm concerned. But I would hope that we could extend this bill to cover private schools as well. To me, it makes no sense

that we have a standard that we uphold in order to discipline, in order to remove teachers from the system if they are found to be sexual predators, and do not have a mechanism to prevent them from

moving over into the private system. We know that what will happen is that, in some cases, if a teacher is charged and their privileges are withdrawn from the College of Teachers, there is a very

good possibility that those people will end up in the private system. Even though I don't agree with the private system, we shouldn't allow those predators into any education system, including that

inside private schools. So I wish that as we go through the committee process, we're able to add that to the bill in order to protect children in both the public and private systems.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): This bill is very important to the young people in this province. We had a couple of situations in

Waterloo region in the past year that have come to light, and as you are aware, Speaker, there have been a number of instances throughout the province over the last few years. Justice Robins issued

his report last year highlighting some of the problems with sexual abuse of students by their teachers. One thing that was really brought home in my own riding in Kitchener was one student who was

perhaps not the most popular student in the school. He was intelligent but needed some help from a teacher, and the teacher used the dependence this student had on the teacher to repeatedly

sexually abuse this student over a period of years.

Quite frankly, I am disgusted at that kind of behaviour by any teacher. I have spoken to a number of teachers in Waterloo region over this particular incident

and a number of them were horrified this ever happened. They felt quite strongly that the government should take action to ensure -- Speaker, I know you're having a hard time understanding me

because the Liberals and the New Democrats are carrying on their conversations. I will try to speak a little louder to make it easier for you.

The teachers were horrified and they expected the government to bring something a little stronger to