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

June 19, 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 Transcript 2001-Jun-19 vol. A (PDF)

L032A - Tue 19 Jun 2001 / Mar 19 jun 2001

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 19 June 2001 Mardi 19 juin 2001

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Northern cancer treatment

Senior citizens

Cemetery maintenance

Lobo Township annual picnic

Elise Harding-Davis

Northern cancer treatment

Events in Simcoe North

Hazardous waste

Dr Robert Elgie

Speaker’s ruling

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on General Government

Speaker’s ruling

Introduction of Bills

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (HERITAGE PROPERTIES), 2001

Standing Orders

ORAL QUESTIONS

SENIORS’ HEALTH SERVICES

Red Tape Commission

Walkerton tragedy

Air quality

Walkerton tragedy

Post-secondary education

Corporate taxation

Seniors’ health services

Community Care Access Centres

Organ and tissue donation

Highway 400

Community Care Access Centres

Merc switch-out program

Energy rates

Petitions

Home care

Education tax credit

Province of Ontario savings office

Education tax credit

Sale of schools

Education tax credit

Education funding

Education tax credit

Proposed industry site

Orders of the Day

MPP Compensation Reform Act (arm’s length process), 2001 loi de 2001 portant rÉforme de la rétribution des députés (processus sans lien de dépendance)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Northern cancer treatment

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): Mr Speaker, as you know, I and all the other northern members in this assembly have tried to press the point to the government that their two-tier travel system is discriminatory against northern Ontarians. We have debated this issue in this House through resolution, through questions and through statements, to say that the re-referral program of southern Ontario cancer patients to northern Ontario being given the full benefit of all their travel discriminates against northerners, who, as you know, are only paid a one-way mileage fee for wherever they travel in the province for their cancer treatment.

Last week, as you also know, we had third party validation of that argument through the Ontario Ombudsman, Mr Clare Lewis. He said, as we have said in this House, that the program the Ontario government has discriminates against northern Ontarians.

We think it’s time that the government own up to this discriminatory policy and fix it, to make sure that northern Ontarians receive the very same benefits that southern Ontarians receive when they have to travel to seek radiation treatment for breast and prostate cancer. Basically, this policy is rubbed in the faces of my constituents when they are in a waiting room in Sudbury and meet up with southern Ontarians who invite them out to dinner, saying, “All our expenses are being paid,” and yet they come there with a very meagre allowance, hardly enough to even get home. It’s time this policy is changed. It’s time to end the discrimination.

Senior citizens

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It is a pleasure to rise today to acknowledge and thank our seniors for the contributions they have made to our province. For more than 20 years, the month of June has been Seniors’ Month in Ontario.

This week, in our riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, the first intergenerational volunteer initiative took place in Huntsville. This initiative, funded by our government, brings together high school students and seniors to develop a variety of programs to help people with Alzheimer’s. This is a great opportunity for seniors and youth to come together to help one another.

I would briefly like to mention and thank some of my constituents who were directly involved in organizing the intergenerational volunteer initiative in Huntsville: Linda McElroy, Debbie Deluca, Jackie Latham, and the coordinator for the intergenerational volunteer initiative, Trudy Bauer. The project was tremendously successful in Huntsville because of the energy of those involved in planning and carrying it out and those who volunteered in the project. These projects are invaluable because they increase our understanding of ways in which community involvement can make a positive difference.

The province of Ontario has committed $68.4 million over five years to develop a comprehensive strategy to help people with Alzheimer’s disease and their families.

I believe all seniors should be recognized for the contributions they have made in the past and for what they continue to give our communities today.

Cemetery maintenance

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I rise in the House today to bring to your attention a very serious issue that must be addressed immediately: the inadequate funds for proper care and maintenance of small, rural Ontario cemeteries.

As a nation, we’ve always approached the death of our loved ones with both dignity and respect. Over the years, 5,000 cemeteries have been established in this province. Unfortunately, many do not have sufficient funds for their proper maintenance.

In the May 2000 edition of Municipal World, the situation was described as a “real ticking time bomb.” The lack of sufficient interest income from inadequate trust funds could eventually mean that smaller church- or community-based private cemetery boards would have to declare these cemeteries abandoned. If this occurs, the acquisition and maintenance of these cemeteries falls upon municipalities. These additional financial burdens could be devastating. Translation: more unnecessary downloading.

In my riding, the Fingal Cemetery faces such a dilemma. What did the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services officials do? They referred the cemetery chairman to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario. Why? So we could stage bingos and sell beer to bury our loved ones? Minister Sterling pointed out in a May 31 letter that the responsibility for upkeep of a cemetery falls first to the owner of the cemetery and, if unable to maintain the cemetery, to the local municipality. There is no provincial funding available for cemetery operations.

This is not a simple matter of dollars and cents, nor should it be another opportunity for more downloading of services on to our municipalities. We are not about to stage bingos or erect beer tents to ensure an eternal resting place for our loved ones.

Lobo Township annual picnic

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to inform my colleagues that the community spirit is alive and well in Lobo township.

It was my pleasure recently to take

part in the 113th Annual Lobo Union School picnic. Since 1888 the children and adults of Lobo township, now part of Middlesex Centre, have been getting together once a year to enjoy a fun-filled day that includes events and activities enjoyed by the whole community, young and old.

This year’s picnic featured a number of events, including children’s races, a baby show, a euchre tournament, a parade with a Christmas theme, and a community challenge. Proceeds of the picnic are directed toward many worthwhile groups and projects in the area.

I’d like to recognize Heather Bradley, Marilyn Campbell, Lorie Davis, Bob Dale, Wendie Dale, Heather Grieg, Cathy O’Brien and Marilyn Thomas for helping to organize this year’s picnic and for their commitment to preserving this annual celebration. In fact, they’ve already started planning for the 114th annual picnic next year.

I also want to commend the Poplar Hill and District Lions Club and many other local sponsors that make the event such a great success year after year.

Please join me in recognizing the residents of Lobo township for keeping this long-standing tradition alive.

Elise Harding-Davis

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I am pleased to advise the House that Elise Harding-Davis, curator of the North American Black Historical Museum in Amherstburg, has been named a recipient of the Windsor-Detroit International Freedom Festival’s 2001 Freedom Award. Previous award recipients include former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, former President of the United States Gerald Ford and freedom fighter Rosa Parks. Ms Harding-Davis has, among other recognition, received a lifetime achievement award from the Ontario Museum Association and is the 2001 Amherstburg Citizen of the Year.

Elise was instrumental in the recent restoration of the Nazrey African Methodist Episcopal Church which, also through her untiring effort, has been declared a national historic site, the first dedicated to black history in Canada.

Reflecting on her love of the Nazrey AME church Ms Harding-Davis said, “It is a beacon and it will remain so. A beacon of freedom. The very freedom that this country stands for.”

I ask the members of this Legislature to join me, Elise Harding-Davis’s family, friends in the riding of Essex and indeed all Ontarians in extending our congratulations and our pride in her having been named a recipient of the 2001 Freedom Award.

Northern cancer treatment

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Last Thursday, northern Ontario cancer patients were vindicated by the Ombudsman when he clearly noted in his report to this Assembly that the government has discriminated against these patients.

He concluded, “The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care’s omission to provide equal funding for breast and prostate cancer patients who must travel for radiation treatment is improperly discriminatory.” His remedy was, “The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care should provide equal funding to breast and prostate cancer patients who must travel for radiation treatment.”

The source of the discrimination was the government’s refusal to fund northern cancer patients in the same way as southern patients who had to travel far from home to access timely cancer care. Specifically, this government paid 100% of the travel, accommodation and food costs for southern patients but would only compensate northern cancer patients for a fraction of their travel costs. This discrimination continued for over two years, from April 1999 to mid-June 2001, when the last southern cancer patients were referred out of province for cancer care.

This government has a moral obligation to respond to the Ombudsman’s recommendations. This government must retroactively compensate northern cancer patients for the very same costs as southern patients had covered when they travelled far from home: that is 100% of their costs of food, travel and accommodation. No other solution is acceptable. Northern Ontario cancer patients have waited long enough. This government should do the right thing and do it now.

Events in Simcoe North

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I am pleased to rise this afternoon and invite all Ontarians to visit beautiful Simcoe North this summer. There are a number of events occurring this summer that may be of interest to most of our Ontario residents. To begin with, I’m honoured to be participating in the official opening of the new entertainment centre at Casino Rama. Country star Faith Hill will be feature entertainer when the 5,000-seat facility opens on July 18.

On the weekend of July 6 to 8, the city of Orillia will host the Mariposa Folk Festival and on the same weekend, the town of Penetanguishene will host the Huronia Open Fiddle Contest. On July 20 to 22, the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 34 in Orillia, will host their annual Scottish festival, followed one week later on July 28 when Burl’s Creek Family Event Park will host their annual Celtic games. On July 27 to 29, the Georgian Bay Poker Run, featuring some of Ontario’s finest boating will be held at the town dock in Penetanguishene. On August 23 to 26, the Battle of Georgian Bay, featuring tall ships and hundreds of soldiers dressed in 1812 clothing, will be held in Huronia.

These are only a few of the dozens of events that the communities of Simcoe North are hosting this summer. Whether you enjoy boating, boat cruises, golfing at any of our 16 golf courses, shopping on our beautiful main streets or enjoying theatre and dinner at a number of theatres, you will enjoy the hospitality and friendship that our citizens give to our guests.

Hazardous waste

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Yesterday I asked the Minister of the Environment about stricter rules regarding standards for landfilling of toxic hazardous waste in Ontario. It is my view that these rules should be at least as stringent as those of the United States legislation that requires treatment of hazardous waste before it is landfilled. By her response the minister either did not understand the question or she made an error in her response. She responded, “We test more stringently, and we expanded the list of toxic chemicals,” but the minister forgot to say that landfill hazardous waste is simply dumped into the ground.

Her ministry has the authority to not accept hazardous waste from outside the province. The lax standards for incinerating and landfilling of hazardous waste in this province ensure that we’re open for toxic waste business in Ontario. No, the minister has not put into place rules to safeguard and protect public health, safety or the environment when it comes to accepting toxic hazardous waste from outside the province, nor do we have better regulations for landfilling or incinerating hazardous waste. This government is endangering our groundwater, people’s health and doing irreparable damage to the environment in St Clair township by the current approach, which is simply to talk a good line.

Dr Robert Elgie

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): It gives me great pleasure, as chair of the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus, to rise today to honour an alumnus of this House. Robert Elgie was a PC member for the riding of York East from 1977 to 1985. As well, he was a lawyer, a neurosurgeon and even occasionally a civil servant.

Just this past May 23, Dalhousie University awarded Bob Elgie an honorary degree for a lifetime of achievement and public service—fitting recognition of someone personifying a true Renaissance man. Dr Elgie served Ontario as an MPP, as Minister of Labour, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Relations and Minister of Community and Social Services. He was also chairman of the Ontario WCB for six years. Presently he chairs the Patented Medicine Price Review Board. He has taught at both the University of Toronto and Queen’s medical school.

He is also the founding director of Dalhousie University’s Health Law Institute. The Dalhousie citation grants an honorary degree “in recognition of his pursuit of excellence in law, medicine and public service and his lifetime of achievement.”

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus of the 37th Parliament of Ontario, I congratulate Dr Robert Elgie on his latest degree and I wish him the very best in his ongoing endeavours.

Speaker’s ruling

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On June 13, 2001, the member for Chatham-Kent Essex raised a point of privilege concerning purported activities of the Minister of Transportation relating to the possible forthcoming passage of Bill 65,

An Act to permit the Minister of Transportation to delegate to persons in the private sector powers and duties and responsibilities to deliver services relating to road user programs.

The member asserted that a draft letter, a copy of which was provided me, was apparently recently sent by a regional director in the Ministry of Transportation to some staff in the ministry who would be affected by Bill 65 if the bill is passed by this House. The letter describes options and decisions these staff will be required to make for themselves regarding their employment with the Ministry of Transportation, and the member is of the view that this improperly anticipates a future legislative outcome.

The member for Chatham-Kent Essex asserts that the issue he raises is different from ones ruled upon by Speaker Edighoffer on December 20, 1989, and by me last November 27, in which the validity was confirmed of plans being made in the public service to prepare for the possible passage of legislation. I respectfully beg to differ with the member on this point. In my view this matter is identical with those other times. I can in no way come to the conclusion that providing ministry employees with advance information about their employment status, if Bill 65 passes, infringes the rights or privileges of members of this House.

In my view, the letter from the Ministry of Transportation not only did not improperly assume the outcome of this House’s deliberations on Bill 65; the letter in many passages goes to some lengths to indicate how conditional these changes will be upon the passage of Bill 65. As well, the template form that accompanied the letter contains blank spaces where dates will be required, clearly indicating the prospective nature of the document. These documents explicitly and thoroughly acknowledge the prior and superior role of the Legislature in this matter.

Such an approach has been repeatedly called for in numerous Speakers’ rulings, and I applaud the Ministry of Transportation for heeding those calls.

I therefore cannot agree with the member’s view that the ministry’s action constitutes a case of contempt, and would further note my view that the employment relationship between the Ministry of Transportation and its civil servants is a matter of law and beyond the competence of the Speaker to address. I thank the member for his submission.

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on General Government

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.

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

Bill 25,

An Act to amend the Public Service Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993.

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

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1349 to 1354.

The Speaker: Mr Gilchrist has moved the adoption of the report from the standing committee on general government respecting Bill 25.

All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Gilchrist, Steve

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

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 to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 37; the nays are 36.

The Speaker: I almost had to break the first tie. I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated May 30, 2001, the bill is ordered for third reading.

Mr Gilchrist: We had so much fun the first time, I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table: Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 33,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit persons from riding on the outside of a motor vehicle / Projet de loi 33, Loi modifiant le Code de la route pour interdire à des personnes de circuler à l’extérieur d’un véhicule automobile.

The Speaker: Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

This bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

Speaker’s ruling

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On June 13, 2001, the member for Niagara Centre (Mr Kormos) and the member for Elgin-Middlesex-London (Mr Peters) rose on separate but related questions of privilege concerning the 2000 annual report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who is an officer of the Legislature. The commissioner’s report expressed concerns about some aspects of the government’s management process on freedom-of-information requests made by journalists, special-interest groups and politicians for information on politically sensitive issues.

The member for Niagara Centre and the member for Elgin-Middlesex-London were particularly concerned about the part of the report that indicated that there were inappropriate delays in complying with such requests, and they gave specific examples of where they and other members had encountered such delays.

Both members were of the view that the government or unnamed government officials were in contempt of the House by obstructing not only the commissioner but also members of the House. The government House leader (Mrs Ecker) also made submissions.

I have had the opportunity to review the Hansard of the day, the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s 2000 annual report, the written submissions of the member for Niagara Centre and the member for Elgin-Middlesex-London, and the relevant authorities and precedents.

Both members recited the general authorities on contempt in the course of their submissions, so let me proceed by applying them to the case at hand.

Dealing first with the concern that an officer of the Legislature was being obstructed, there was no mention in the commissioner’s report that the commissioner was being hindered or obstructed. The report was simply expressing serious reservations about the impact of the government’s policy, and it was requesting a change in that policy.

Unlike the situation that was the occasion of my May 18, 2000, ruling respecting the commissioner’s Special Report on Disclosure of Personal Information by the Province of Ontario Savings Office, Ministry of Finance, this report does not specifically state, in very clear terms, that the government was deliberately obstructing her investigation of a specific file.

Indeed, on page 6 of the current report, the commissioner indicates that, “We recognize that the Ontario cabinet’s contentious issues management process was designed so as to not interfere with the administration of access requests within the time limits specified in the act.”

Turning to the concern that members were being obstructed, there can be no question that members of this House have special rights that non-members do not have. For example, they have entitlements under the standing orders, such as being able to request information from the government pursuant to those standing orders. However, when it comes to requesting information from the government under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, members of this House stand in the same position as non-members. In this regard, I refer to rulings dated June 7, 1988, at page 219 of the Journals, and October 6, 1992, at page 2458 of Hansard.

I understand that the member for Niagara Centre and the member for Elgin-Middlesex-London contended that their effectiveness as members of the provincial Parliament was being compromised by delays in receiving information that they had requested from the government. However, it is very clear to me that the government’s management process on contentious issues did not obstruct the members in their strictly parliamentary duties in this chamber.

For these reasons, a prima facie case of contempt has not been established.

I want to thank the member for Niagara Centre and the member for Elgin-Middlesex-London for their submissions.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I just want to thank you for your consideration of that matter.

The Speaker: I thank the member.

Introduction of Bills

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (HERITAGE PROPERTIES), 2001

Mrs Mushinski moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr20,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

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

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

Standing Orders

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I refer the Speaker to standing order 59(

e) on page 48 of the standing orders. Paragraph 59(

e) reads, “No estimates shall be considered in the committee while any matter, including a procedural motion, relating to the same policy field is being considered in the House.”

Members of the NDP caucus have been very busy preparing for the standing committee on estimates, meeting today in room 228 at 3:30 pm. This is our only opportunity to grill the Minister of Education on the very controversial tax credit for private schools proposed in this government’s budget legislation before it’s rammed through the House next week. We have a lot of questions for the minister, and we believe the people of the committee and of the province deserve answers.

However, we were informed late this morning that the government plans to call Bill 80, legislation introduced by the Minister of Education, under orders of the day this afternoon. We’re asking you, Speaker, to find that the government has violated its own standing orders and created chaos and contradiction by having this education bill in the House at the same time as the Minister of Education is called before the estimates committee.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member, and I will confer over that standing order.

I thank the member for his submission. He is correct; the standing orders do say we cannot have a bill in the House and at the same time before a committee. However, on the order paper today, what is expected to be called is Bill 60, which does not deal with a related matter.

If in fact Bill 80 is called in the House, what would have to happen is that the committee would have to deal with the fact they are dealing with something that is in the House. The House could proceed, and the committee would have to deal with the issue of the same bill being in committee as well as in the House at the same time. But as I said, on the order paper, what is expected to be called today is Bill 60.

As a follow-up on that, the member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Kormos: Merely for direction, Speaker: would the Speaker entertain—and we’re not expecting you to indicate what your ruling would be—a point of order, when the government is called upon to call orders of the day, for instance, with respect to Bill 80 being called?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I would just like to add my comment to this procedural issue that’s before the House. Firstly, it isn’t the same bill. We’re dealing with estimates on one hand and the bill on the other. Secondly, the bill being called today is a finance bill, with respect to the tax credit to the schools. Therefore, we have two distinctly different issues being dealt with here.

Interjection: Wrong bill, Chris.

The Speaker: Order. The Minister of Labour is familiar with the procedures, and I’m sure he knows what he’s trying to say. Sorry, Minister of Labour.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I’m just talking about the estimates with respect to a bill. They’re different issues. It’s the same bill or a related bill for the ministry.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): It’s Bill 80, Chris.

The Speaker: As you know, on a couple of occasions I’ve said it’s fine to heckle over political issues. This is something dealing with the House. The opposition obviously feels the Minister of Labour is incorrect in what he’s saying. That’s why we have rulings by the Speaker, because members don’t often agree. I would appreciate it if they wouldn’t interrupt him. It’s not like dealing with a subject matter where it is political and you can yell at him. I would like to hear the Minister of Labour’s input on this point of order. Sorry again, Minister of Labour.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I’m presuming the argument is with respect to estimates being in committee. Estimates are a distinctly different issue from what is being debated, or potentially could be debated, in this House this afternoon. Of course, nothing is debated until the order is called, so there can be nothing out of order. Nothing can be out of order, because nothing has been done at this point in time. So there’s not necessarily a need for a ruling from the Speaker at this time, considering the fact that no bill has been called. No order has been called by the government; therefore, nothing can be out of order at this time.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, I refer you to the orders and notices of the day. The orders do call for order G60 to be called. However, the government House leader’s office did advise the opposition parties this morning that in fact Bill 80 would be called this afternoon.

The other concern I have, sir, given what you ruled initially, is that if the government calls an education bill, the time in estimates not be lost to the opposition parties because of the way the scheduling has happened. I point out again that last week we were informed by the government House leader’s office—indeed, it was reported on Thursday afternoon in the House—that in this afternoon’s session we would be dealing with Bill 60. This morning we were informed, without any other notice, that in fact we would be dealing with Bill 80, the so-called stability in education act.

The challenge from our perspective as well is that if the government, without any notice and without consulting the opposition party, calls Bill 80 and the estimates committee is forced to contend with that, we will not lose the hours that are contemplated today for the Ministry of Education in the estimates committee. We will be calling upon you, sir, if that’s the case, that those hours would be restored.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his input as well.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Again, I would make the point that nothing is out of order until it’s called. If it makes the opposition feel better, then we will call Bill 82 and give them as much notice as possible now that we’ll be calling Bill 82 for this afternoon’s debate.

Mr Duncan: The other concern you need to be made aware of, sir, is that these estimates were called over a week ago. The Chair of the committee has informed me that the concern would be that the government could call a bill related to that portfolio simply to preclude those hearings from happening. Again, in the context of what happens later this afternoon, my hope would be that the government would call a bill not related to the estimates committee, legislation before estimates; and if in fact an education bill is called, sir, we will be back here to you in addition to deal with those issues that are properly the purview of the Legislature and not of the committee itself.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his point of order.

Just for clarification for those who aren’t familiar with 59(e), I will read it out for you. Standing order 59(

e) is very clear. It says, “No estimates shall be considered in the committee while any matter, including a procedural motion, relating to the same policy field is being considered in the House.” So, as I said earlier, if in fact it is a bill in this House and estimates is dealing with the same policy field, the committee would not be able to proceed. Now that all members are aware of that and clarified, I’m sure they will take that into consideration. The only way around that is to have unanimous consent in here, which all members could do on any issue. But the member is correct on that.

There isn’t need for a ruling now, because in fact it hasn’t been called, but now that everybody understands that, we may not need to have a ruling later on.

I thank all members for their input. Hopefully, we’ve been fairly clear, and for those who are not, as you know, you have standing orders in your desk, and I would encourage you to read 59(

e) very clearly. Again, I thank the member Niagara Centre, the Minister of Labour and the member for Windsor-St Clair for their input.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SENIORS’ HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the associate Minister of Health. Our seniors are very concerned with all the talk about means testing in drug coverage. I’d like you to tell us today whether you are not only considering means testing for drug coverage but whether you are also considering increasing user fees and copayments for drugs for our seniors.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): I’m pleased to stand up today and tell you that this government, the Mike Harris government, takes the concerns of seniors across the province very carefully. What we do is try to provide high-quality programs for seniors in Ontario and we look at ways that we can do that.

As everyone in the House knows, and as the seniors all across this province know, we have invested heavily in services that seniors use in Ontario, and that includes supplementing and increasing the drug plan so there are drugs available for all seniors, increasing the funding that goes to home care and facilities. We have done our best to make sure that seniors, who have made a great contribution to Ontario, continue to be able to live and have a great quality of life in the province.

Mrs Pupatello: Seniors wanted to hear you say no, but you didn’t say no. Instead, you said—well, we don’t know what you’re saying but we do know that seniors are very worried about what it is you’re going to be introducing or doing. Even through sleight of hand, in the heat of the summer, when the House recesses, after the by-election in Vaughan, all you need to do to increase user fees and copayments is change the regulation—it’s not even

an act of this Legislature. We want to know exactly what you’re intending to do. Are you intending to raise the user fees and copayments in drug coverage for our seniors? That’s the question, and we are asking you to answer that question.

Hon Mrs Johns: I have to admit that it seems ironic that the Liberals would be asking this question when they funded the drug program, back when they were in power, at $600 million, and we’re now spending $1.8 billion. I have to say that was with not one federal Liberal dollar. Without one federal Liberal dollar, this government is committed to making sure the quality—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Sorry, Minister. They’re getting a little carried away there. I’d appreciate it if all members would allow us to be able to hear the associate minister.

Hon Mrs Johns: As I said, the Liberals put $600 million into drugs, the Mike Harris government, $1.8 billion into drugs, and that is without one cent from the federal Liberals for drugs.

Mrs Pupatello: Minister, I think most of us realize that seniors don’t make all that much money. In fact, the average income of a 64- to 69-year-old in Ontario is a little over $16,000. If this government is intending to save money on the backs of seniors in their drug program, what would you do? Save 10%? To take 10% off, that means you would have to drop the bar in means tests to $30,000. Do you think that is a rich senior in this province, when seniors who may be afflicted with Parkinson’s spend $10,000 on drug coverage just for that disease?

I am asking you again, and we are demanding to know, what you’ll do by sleight of hand again, this summer when you think no one is looking, to our seniors and their drug coverage. Will you be intending to change by regulation, just like you did last time? Nothing in your Blueprint talks about seniors’ user fees or copayment. Nothing in the Common Sense Revolution did either, and yet that’s what you did.

We are asking you again: are you intending to raise the copayment? Are you expected to raise the user fees in drug coverage for seniors?

The Speaker: The member’s time is up.

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me say that I find the question amazing when we have 1,200 new drugs on the formulary—

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member take her seat. The member for Kingston and the Islands, come to order, please. You can’t shout across and pound the table when we’re trying to hear.

Interjection.

The Speaker: This is the last warning to the member for Windsor West, who has asked the question. It is her last warning. If she speaks out again, she’s going to be named.

The associate Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Johns: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, the Ontario drug benefit program, which assists seniors to be able to have drugs in Ontario, has 1,200 new drugs listed on it since 1995. Those are new drugs that increase the quality of life for seniors all across this province. If you’re talking about the Liberal plan when you’re talking about all of the things you’re talking about today, we’re not interested.

Red Tape Commission

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Chair of Management Board and it concerns the Red Tape Commission. Yesterday in a response to a question of mine you said, and I quote from yesterday’s Hansard, “The Red Tape Commission deals with processes; they don’t deal with confidential information.”

Minister, are you aware that in recent times your cabinet office, in a submission to the Information and Privacy Commission, said that the Red Tape Commission is inextricably connected to the cabinet’s decision-making process, that ministries are asked to appear before the Red Tape Commission to discuss their policy proposals and their draft legislation before they appear at cabinet or any of its committees? Furthermore, according to the cabinet office submission to the Information and Privacy Commission, the Red Tape Commission serves now as a screening process for cabinet and its committees on a wide range of policy items.

Surely, Minister, you are aware of that. Would you not agree that according to that cabinet office submission, the Red Tape Commission obviously deals with substantially more than just process?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The Red Tape Commission deals primarily with process. They deal with other issues as well, but I might say to the member that the members of the commission are required to give the same oath of secrecy as do members of ministries, as do ministers’ staff. That’s to protect certainly the confidentiality of the information that’s dealt with.

The end result of all this of course is that the Red Tape Commission assists us with removing roadblocks to economic growth in this province. This is something we keep constantly hearing about out there in the business community. Of course, they’re required to have an oath of secrecy, the same as members of ministers’ staff and the the staff of the ministries themselves.

Mr Conway: I’m going to have a page take over to the Chair of Management Board some documentation, and I’d like him to respond to it. I have in my hand, Minister, a letter sent to the environment minister, Norm Sterling, on March 2, 1998, signed by Mr Frank Sheehan, then as now, chair or co-chair of the Red Tape Commission. In this letter, Frank Sheehan upbraids the Minister of the Environment about the prosecutorial activities of the Ministry of the Environment. Let me just quote from the letter, which you now have:

“Dear Minister,

“I would like to bring to your attention the case of a landfill operator being prosecuted by your ministry.” The Ministry of the Environment, according to Mr Sheehan’s letter, “is continuing to pursue enforcement of this matter with a vigour that might be better applied elsewhere.”

Minister, do you think it is an appropriate function of the Red Tape Commission to be aggressively pursuing the Ministry of the Environment, or any other government department, in the discharge of its enforcement or prosecutorial functions?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: What I will say is this: the Red Tape Commission is there to provide advice to the government and, in fact, they have provided us with very good advice on many issues—issues, in fact, that the business community was identifying prior to 1994. We identified that as a very important part of our platform. We thought it was very important to have the creation of jobs. We thought it was very important to make sure the economy does well. That way, we have money to spend on our priority issues such as health care and education.

Clearly, we require all members of the Red Tape Commission to sign an oath of secrecy. If that’s the concern, which it certainly was in the first place, that confidentiality is the same type of oath that’s required by all members of ministries and all people on ministers’ staff who are required to have access to confidential information. This advice has been good over the years. It certainly has had its effect on the creation of jobs.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Final supplementary?

Mr Conway: I just want to bring the minister and his colleagues back to the evidence. We have a letter from Frank Sheehan in 1998, in his capacity as chair of the Red Tape Commission, aggressively upbraiding the Minister of the Environment for the prosecutorial activities of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. How many times have we all heard the Attorney General rightly observe that none of us, as elected officials, has a right to interfere in the prosecutorial functions of the government?

We also have, as part of the package of evidence, the response from the Ministry of the Environment. We have Mr Merritt’s response, from which I will quote briefly. Who is Mr Sheehan intervening on behalf of? He is intervening on behalf of a landfill operator who had been previously convicted, and one of the principals of which had, just months before, been convicted of uttering a death threat to Ministry of the Environment supervisors.

So, my question remains: what is this Red Tape Commission up to? Do you condone that this commission, now headed by Frank Sheehan, private citizen, should be aggressively inserting itself into the prosecutorial activities of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I certainly can repeat what I’ve already said, but I might remind the member that in 1998 Mr Sheehan was an MPP in this Legislature. Many MPPs in this House do provide advice and their opinions on matters, whether it’s opposition members or not, including the member who is sitting there as well.

What I might say is this: the Red Tape Commission has had a very positive effect. We believe it has. The Red Tape Commission has repealed more than 50 outdated acts and amended more than 200 acts. It has eliminated more than 1,700 unnecessary regulations which the business community out there has identified as blockages to the creation of jobs that certainly existed under the previous two governments.

This government decided to do something positive to create jobs, to boost the economy, to make sure that Ontario certainly does strive. We believed cutting red tape then was a good idea; we believe cutting red tape today is a good idea.

Walkerton tragedy

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier. The Walkerton inquiry has revealed another example of how your government wilfully ignored an important warning that might have prevented the tainted water tragedy.

Last week we learned that your government ignored direct warnings from the Minister of Health about the need to protect water quality. But yesterday we learned that your own Minister of the Environment warned the agriculture minister as far back as 1998 that he had “serious concerns” that the Farm Practices Protection Act would “severely limit a municipality’s ability to protect its water supplies.” Sadly, the Minister of Agriculture simply shuffled off that warning.

My question, Deputy Premier, is this: on the important question of protecting Ontario’s water quality, can you tell us how many people in your government shuffled the responsibility and simply shuffled the decision?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): As the member knows, there has been a production of—I believe the number is something like a million documents. An incredible number of documents have been produced. There has been full co-operation by the government of Ontario, by the ministers of the government, by the ministries of the government, in providing the documentation requested by Mr Justice O’Connor and the inquiry he has been conducting at Walkerton. That co-operation continues to the present time.

As the member opposite also knows, there are some ministers and former ministers who will be giving evidence directly, viva voce, at the inquiry within the next couple of weeks, I believe.

Mr Hampton: This was a specific warning from the Minister of the Environment, saying that he had “serious concerns” about the capacity of municipalities to protect their water quality. Do you know that the Minister of Agriculture didn’t even dignify that warning with a response? He totally ignored it. Your own Minister of the Environment says, “Look, we’ve got serious concerns here that this could severely damage the capacity of municipalities to protect municipal water supply,” and your Minister of Agriculture ignores it. You had a responsibility to act. You were warned. Your government did nothing.

Minister, tell us, why did your government fail to protect the water quality in this instance? Why did the province fail to protect the people of Walkerton when you had warning after warning?

Hon Mr Flaherty: What I do know and what I can assure the member opposite is that we want answers to what happened at Walkerton, to the tragic events that happened at Walkerton. That’s why we called the inquiry quickly last year. That’s why the terms of reference for the inquiry headed by Mr Justice O’Connor are very broad and encompass the activities of this government and other governments in Ontario; the governments that preceded our government as well as this government since 1995. That’s what I know.

I also know that this government has co-operated fully with Justice O’Connor’s inquiry to ensure that from the beginning there has been the degree of co-operation that’s essential so that he is able to arrive at conclusions.

I would not, as suggested by the member opposite, usurp the function of the commission and of the commissioner in purporting to come to conclusions before the judge has an opportunity to assess all of the evidence and come to his own informed conclusion.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Final supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Minister, stop stonewalling this House. You have a responsibility to the members here—

The Speaker: Order. You can’t use language like that.

Ms Churley: Stonewalling?

The Speaker: No, you can’t use that. We ask you withdraw it, please.

Ms Churley: You have a responsibility to tell this House what happened. You had all kinds of warnings about your right-to-farm legislation, but your government, as usual, was too arrogant to listen. I know, because I sat on the committee that looked into the right-to-farm bill, and I was one of the people throwing up warning flags that something like Walkerton could happen in Ontario. I even put forward amendments to address these concerns, but your backbenchers literally laughed them off. They said, “Don’t worry. This is not going to happen in Ontario. Be happy. We’re all responsible here. We’ll take care of it. Don’t worry.”

Well, Minister, it did happen. And now we learn that your own Minister of the Environment expressed serious concerns that it could happen. It did happen. Why did you ignore his concerns, Minister?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I think it’s probably likely that the member opposite would be quite concerned if anyone on this side of the House were to jump to conclusions about what Mr Justice O’Connor and his commission ought to conclude or not conclude, based on the evidence he has been gathering and that he has heard over the course of time since he began his work last year.

It’s not our place, I say respectfully, to substitute our views for the views of Justice O’Connor. The entire purpose of appointing His Lordship to conduct the commission of inquiry was so that he would be able to gather all the evidence, assess it in time and report fully, not only to the members of this House, but to all of the people of Ontario, about the events at Walkerton.

Air quality

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Minister of Energy: your air pollution policy is redefining the words “dirty deal.” Ontario Power Generation’s coal plants have exceeded voluntary pollution caps for greenhouse gas by more than 12 million tonnes. Why? Because of a loophole you created: pollution credit trading. It’s the worst of all worlds: people get more pollution, and it adds millions of dollars to hydro bills. Meanwhile, you’re so out of touch on this issue that you identified the dirtiest plant in the fleet as the, “cleaner Nanticoke plant.” Today the Sierra Club of Canada says your government is the worst in Canada on climate change. They gave you an F minus.

Minister, will you do something right? Will you today suspend your program that allows Ontario Power Generation to buy the right to exceed pollution limits?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): Emission trading is a requirement. In fact, it’s accepted worldwide by all the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol. I’d also note that today’s Toronto Star article, quoting the Sierra Club, talks about the energy and environment ministers’ meeting in Quebec City just last April.

Mr Newman and I attended that meeting, and what the federal government wanted us to sign were emission standards that were lower than are currently the standards in the province of Ontario. We challenge them today, and we challenge every province and jurisdiction in this country, to come up to the high emission standards we have today in Ontario and the new high standards the Minister of the Environment is currently putting in place—not voluntary submission standards but tough new standards—that exceed those of the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States.

Mr Hampton: Minister, the issue is fairly simple: your government’s shameful refusal to curb pollution at the dirtiest coal plants, both for greenhouse gas and for smog.

In light of today’s announcement about pollution overruns by OPG, I want to ask the question your government refused to answer all last week during the smog alerts: when will you implement the policy you announced in this House on May 3 that Ontario Power Generation curtail its production at all coal plants during smog alerts? It’s your policy, Minister. You have an obligation to tell us when it will be implemented.

Hon Mr Wilson: I’ve answered this question before for the honourable member, but I’m happy to do so again. That policy went into effect last year, in the year 2000, and it’s in effect today.

Also, I remind the honourable member that Ontario has five coal plants. Again, our emission caps, our standards, are tougher than anywhere else in Canada. When the new standards come in, certainly they will be tougher than in the United States, and meet or exceed anything the EPA has today or may come up with in the future. That’s the commitment of the government.

There are five coal plants in Ontario. In our US-Ontario airshed there are 205 coal plants, and remember, their air comes up here and pollutes, particularly southern Ontario and Toronto. Every one of those coal plants is dirtier than our fleet in Ontario. The Americans have to clean up their act. We’re cleaning up our act. We’re leading this country and we call on the federal government to get their facts right and to challenge other provinces and the international scene and make sure others follow the lead of Ontario.

Walkerton tragedy

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Deputy Premier. Day after day at the Walkerton inquiry some very revealing and embarrassing documents are brought forward and there is some devastating and embarrassing testimony that points the finger directly at the Harris government for its neglect and negligence.

Today we heard of another bizarre and unheeded exchange of warnings between the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture that “would severely limit the ability of municipalities to deal with the protection of water supplies and the anticipated impacts of highly intensive agricultural operations that could have a devastating impact if located near homes.” Earlier we heard of Jim Wilson running to Norm Sterling about the danger to the water supply. We have some kind of WWF wrestling match going on here, some performance going on where the only power the ministers seem to have is to write memos to file to protect their own posteriors.

Isn’t the real truth that the Premier’s office knew all about these files going back and forth and failed to take action because you were determined to pursue cuts at any cost?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): It’s apparent that the leader of the third party doesn’t discuss his questions with the member for St Catharines. The same question was asked just a few minutes ago by the leader of the third party.

The answer has to be the same. Mr Justice O’Connor is conducting the inquiry. I say respectfully to the member opposite that it’s not for him and it’s not for me to prejudge the conclusions the judge may or may not arrive at after he’s heard all the evidence. I say respectfully to the member opposite that he should have the patience to wait and the caution to ensure he has all the facts and all the evidence, as the commissioner will have, before jumping to conclusions and jumping to whatever other conditions or thoughts he may have about the matter.

The purpose of having the inquiry, as the member opposite will remember from last year when Mr Justice O’Connor was appointed, was to have a highly respected judge in Ontario hear it all, balance what he hears and come to informed conclusions.

Mr Bradley: Sheila Willis, assistant deputy minister, writes to Richard Dicerni, deputy minister, about your cuts, “Increased environmental risk resulting from our inability to conduct proactive inspections” and “reduced level of responsiveness resulting in lowering of ministry credibility and damaging of our community relations” and “reduced ability to investigate and successful prosecution resulting in increased non-compliance and illegal activity.” It says, “The government is prepared to accept increased risk (legal/environmental/public health) in the short term to achieve the desired levels of reduction.”

Minister, here’s the one that is the most revealing, “There are health and environmental risk associated with changes of this magnitude; and without significant legislative changes, that can only be expedited through an omnibus bill, this scale of downsizing exposes the government to unprecedented legal and public challenge.”

Does that remind you of Bill 26? Was the purpose of Bill 26, hatched in the Premier’s office, really to bury all the warnings about the consequences for the people of Ontario, their drinking water and their public health and safety? Wasn’t that the real purpose of Bill 26 and wasn’t that the gem of the Premier’s office?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The member opposite refers to one document. The government of Ontario alone has provided the commission of inquiry with a million documents, in fact more than a million documents, and those are only the documents that have come from the government of Ontario. There are many other sources of documents and there is all the in-person evidence that has been heard by the commissioner at Walkerton.

He is conducting a thorough examination of the issue, and I’m surprised, quite frankly, that the member opposite would want to take one document and then make such a large leap to such a large conclusion, without wanting to take a balanced and informed view, as I’m sure we’ll have from the commissioner.

Post-secondary education

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, I was troubled this morning to read an

article in the National Post suggesting that our country is facing a decline in the number of students who are attending college and university, according to the OECD. The

article went on to suggest that Canada is facing a drop in financial support for post-secondary education. When the world trend is toward a greater investment in post-secondary education, this would certainly be a concern.

While the national numbers are cause for attention, and I can certainly understand why a national newspaper would want to dwell on Canada-wide averages, before anyone draws the wrong conclusion about post-secondary trends in Ontario, could you tell the House whether the national averages apply here or what the true situation is here in Ontario?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women’s issues): I appreciate the question from the member for Scarborough East. While the OECD study focused on all of Canada, right here in Ontario all members of this House know that we have more students in our post-secondary system than we’ve ever had before. The numbers basically have remained stable but the rate of 18- to 24-year-olds has increased.

To prepare for the increased enrolment, which all of us are doing as we look at the double cohort and the increased number of 18- to 24-year-olds, we have invested about $1.8 billion, along with our private sector partners, to increase the number of our buildings. It’s the highest infrastructure capital announcement we’ve had in over 30 years. So this is a historic time in Ontario for all the members in this House as we look to prepare for some 73,000 new students. Ontario is not facing a decline in post-secondary enrolment.

Mr Gilchrist: It’s good to know that whatever the national trend, Ontario continues to have a good, strong demand for post-secondary education. What I found particularly disconcerting about the media suggestions of diminished support by our government for post-secondary was the glaring inconsistency with the announcement this morning of increased operating funds to support the growing number of students in Ontario.

While operating funds are important, I know you’ll agree that we must support post-secondary education in a variety of ways. Minister, what are you doing to ensure that Ontario’s colleges and universities are ready to meet the challenges of increased enrolment in the years ahead?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We have made a promise to all the students and their parents that every qualified and willing student will find a place in our post-secondary system. I will repeat that over $1 billion in public money has been invested to create some 73,000 new spaces.

Today and at budget time we announced some $297.5 million over three years. This is for the operating dollars. We’ve worked these numbers out with the chairs of the colleges and the university boards and of course the presidents. This is going to upgrade existing buildings for a new generation of students. We have invested $228 million to expand the access to opportunities program, which will accommodate some 23,000 new students, and these are in areas where industry really needs them: in science and technology, computer science.

We have increased funding through the Ontario research performance fund, $30 million; the Premier’s Research Excellence Award, $85 million over 10 years; the Ontario Innovation Trust, $750 million; the research and development challenge fund, $550 million—

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): You couldn’t quite get it all in.

Corporate taxation

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. The 2001 budget announced that corporate taxes in Ontario were going to be moving to 25% lower than our competitors: 25% lower than the US, 25% lower than neighbouring US states.

Recognizing that the business community will locate and will grow in jurisdictions where they have a quality workforce, where there is investment in our universities and colleges, a quality health care system and a good environmental community, I want to ask the question: why has the Harris government concluded that in order to compete we now need to have corporate taxes 25% lower than our competitors?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): As the member opposite knows, the proposal in the budget is to legislate the remaining steps to reduce the corporate income tax rate to 8% by 2005, and the small business tax rate would be 4% by 2005. Yes, that would make the combined corporate tax rate in Ontario as low as any other corporate tax rate in Canada, and it would be lower than any of the corporate tax rates in any of the 50 states. It’s important to be competitive. Our taxes are high; our taxes have been historically high. In 1995, Premier Harris led Canada when he began to reduce taxes.

Every other provincial government and, finally, the federal government in October last year, having something to do with the federal election, I suppose, got on board and realized you have to reduce taxes if you want economic growth in this country. The government of British Columbia, a Liberal government, just got elected last week. The first thing they did was reduce personal income tax by 25%. Lower taxes create jobs and economic growth. I wish the members opposite would understand that.

Mr Phillips: I return to the question of why Ontario needs corporate taxes 25% lower in order to compete? I go through a few things. According to your budget, we are now spending $200 million less on our universities and colleges than five years ago. We heard earlier today that you’re considering putting means tests on seniors to purchase drugs. We know the crisis we have in health care. We know the crisis we have in education. We know the crisis we have in the environment.

So I return to you: the business community says to us, “We want competitive taxes,” and we agree 100%. But the business community also says, “We want a quality education system, a quality health care system and a quality environment.” I want you to answer this question very directly, Mr Minister: tell me again why Ontario, in order to compete for the future, needs to have corporate taxes 25% lower than our competitive states, with a result that $2 billion less is available to the province to invest in our universities, our colleges and our health care system? Why 25%?

Hon Mr Flaherty: In 1994-95, the member opposite was saying the same thing. They still don’t get it on the other side of the House: if you reduce taxes, you will increase government revenues. They said it wasn’t true then. I’m surprised he’s still saying the same thing now. In fact, the revenues of the province of Ontario have gone up about $15 billion since our government started reducing taxes in 1995. That’s why you reduce taxes. It increases government revenues.

It allows us to spend more than $1 billion to create the spaces in our community colleges and universities, so those spaces will be there in 2003 and 2004. It permitted the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities and me, as finance minister, to make a three-year commitment in this budget to our community colleges and universities. Listening to Howard Rundle from Fanshawe College, listening to Paul Davenport from the University of Western Ontario—

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

Seniors’ health services

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): My question is for the minister responsible for seniors. As you know, on July 10, I will be hosting a seniors’ lunch and seminar at the beautiful, historical Heintzmann House in Thornhill. I want to thank you for accepting the invitation to be our guest speaker at this luncheon. Health care and services for seniors will be topics they will want to talk about.

Last week, provincial finance ministers from across the country met in Montreal with the federal Minister of Finance, Paul Martin. I’m aware that health care funding under the Canada Health Act was a priority on their agenda. It is my understanding that the Ontario government challenged the federal government as to why the costs of drug benefits, nursing home and home care for seniors are not included in the Canada Health Act, leaving all provinces to pay—

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I’m afraid the member’s time is up. Minister?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): I’d like to thank the member for Thornhill for her question and reassure her of what I think all people in this House know: that Ontario is a leader in providing health care services to seniors. In fact, in my 15 years in this House, I recall well over a decade ago that under the McGuinty Liberals we were not even getting as much as $600-million worth of financial support for the drug program for seniors. In fact, they held up the formulary for over two and a half years, not allowing new drugs into the formulary for seniors.

The Liberals, in both their 1995 and 1999 election red books, were absolutely silent about expanding the drug program, access for seniors, home care or nursing homes.

The truth of the matter is that the Mike Harris government, which has increased funding to the drug plan to historical levels of almost $1.9 billion, three times—

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

Mrs Molinari: York region has experienced tremendous growth in the last 15 years, while in some parts of Ontario the population has actually dropped. What efforts have been made to ensure that care for seniors is consistent where seniors choose to live?

Hon Mr Jackson: This government has expanded home care to the highest levels in Canada. Not only did we increase the drug program threefold, we’ve increased in some parts of the province fivefold over the Liberal government’s commitment of home care.

The member for St Catharines will remember that he was receiving some of the lowest levels of care. So was Greg Sorbara in York region receiving some of the lowest care. In fact, the last year that Greg Sorbara served in a Liberal government in this House, they actually cut the funding to the York CCAC. This government, under the leadership of Mike Harris, Al Palladini and Tina Molinari, has increased it five—

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

Community Care Access Centres

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the associate Minister of Health.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock, please. We’ve finished with that question. We’re now on to the member for Beaches-East York. I’d appreciate giving her consideration.

Ms Lankin: Minister, you will know that for the last number of weeks I have been raising the issue of cuts to home care for our seniors in communities across this province, and every time your government has very artfully sidestepped the issue and talked about your base budget levels or your investments over the last number of years. I want to really bring it home because there are community care access centres that are receiving less money this year than last year. I wish you would admit that.

Let me talk about my community, East York. The East York CCAC is receiving $1.4 million less this year to provide services than your government gave them last year to provide services. Today there are home care workers here from Community Care East York. They are on the front lines. These wonderful workers know the heartache their clients are facing with the decisions that have been made to cut their services.

I just want to ask you today, will you explain to them why you are providing East York with $1.4 million less in home care? How do you defend the consequential cuts in services?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): Let me say first of all that when I look at the statistics from the Ministry of Health, they tell me that in 1995 Metropolitan Toronto region received $111 million and now they’re receiving $238 million. Let me say to you that I think across Metropolitan Toronto it’s indicative of the fact that we have invested into home care more than 72% increases. We want to make sure that quality services are as close to home as they possibly can be and we’re working hard to do that. We’ve put dollars into that to ensure that the Mike Harris government shows its commitment to health care in Ontario.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Minister, listen: this question is about my community of East York. Because of your budget freeze, in order to continue to care for the women and men currently receiving services, East York has had to cut out homemaking, reduce personal care to all but the most at risk—as you know, that’s very narrowly defined—and will have to turn down 100 patients recently released from hospital every month—100 every month.

These 100 people cannot expect to get care from the Toronto East General Hospital in their community, because you’ve underfunded our hospitals by more than $700 million this year. The frail people served by East York CCAC will not get the range of services they need because of your funding freeze. Tell me, what are these 100 people a month going to do?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me say that we stand by the numbers. In 1995 Metropolitan Toronto received $111 million, and it now receives $238 million.

We have quotes from a number of CCACs across the province, and I want to say that The Liberal, the paper the minister talked about yesterday, said, “How many private corporations can say their budgets have grown 193%”—

Ms Lankin: Would you talk about East York?

Hon Mrs Johns: That’s the growth in the York CCAC budget, so it’s not specifically East York, but it’s since 1995—“over the past seven years because they are serving a growing clientele?”

“The province and the entire country is re-evaluating how health care services are delivered,” because of these large increases in population and growth demands. “Perhaps Ottawa will take home care agencies into account” when they decide how they are going to hand down funding to the province.

That’s the problem. The province of Ontario and the Mike Harris government have made a substantial commitment—

The Speaker: The associate minister’s time is up. New question.

Organ and tissue donation

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My question is also to the associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Your government is committed to doubling the number of organ transplants in this province. I hope you’re successful, although at the present time the numbers are actually declining. For an organ transplant recipient, the operation is just the beginning of a new life. They are faced with having $25,000 to $35,000 worth of anti-rejection drugs every year. Without a drug plan or an extremely good income, the recipient is not able to obtain those drugs in this province.

If they are low-income or retired, it becomes absolutely worthless to have the transplant without the follow-up drugs.

My question to you is, what are you doing to ensure that every Ontarian has equal access to an organ transplant and an absolute guarantee that they will have the life-saving drugs they need for the rest of their life?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): As a result of the commitment by Mike Harris, we have moved by leaps and bounds. We have made a substantial commitment to make sure that organ and tissue donations in this province continue to increase and that more and more needy people receive these. In fact, I want to say that I was at the Hospital for Sick Children’s event in the last month, and they have already gone through 100 heart transplants for young children this year in Ontario, an amazing statistic.

What that really means is that people and young people across the province are getting life-saving organ transplants, which is what we should all be working toward. I say to everybody, if you haven’t signed your donor card, it’s time you do.

Let me say that the Trillium Gift of Life Network has been working to make sure people across the province have all the services they need to be able to receive organ and tissue transplants in Ontario.

Mr Parsons: That’s a nice answer to some question, but it’s not the question I asked.

I would like to tell you what is going on out in the real Ontario. I have a constituent who had a transplant a year ago. She now is faced with $25,000 worth of drugs that she must purchase each year. She has a good job with a partial drug plan, but she must now work two part-time jobs in addition to her full-time job just to pay for the medication. It is somewhat ironic, you must agree, that having had the live-saving operation, she can now not afford to live.

Minister, I want you to solve not her problem, but every problem. I want you to forget about the corporate tax cut that is your obsession. Will you immediately commit to ensuring that every Ontario citizen has quick, easy and affordable access to the necessary drugs after the organ transplant?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me say first off that we on this side of the House and the people of Ontario know that tax cuts allowed revenue to increase in the province. That allowed us to increase spending in Ontario. That allowed us to invest $5 billion more in health care in the province, and we all know that.

Let me also say that in 2000 we introduced legislation that talked about the Trillium Gift of Life Network. It’s a new organization, and we’ve asked them to come up with a plan that will plan, promote, coordinate and support organ and tissue donation across the province. They came into effect in February 2001. I was at their opening, where their members came together. Let me say that they are going to do a terrific job to ensure that people across the province get the services they need so that we can begin to double heart transplants in the province of Ontario.

Highway 400

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Highway 400 and associated interchanges in the Barrie, Innisfil and Bradford areas are experiencing considerable traffic growth due to development pressures. The minister recently retained Cole Sherman and Associates to carry out a planning study for the Highway 400 corridor, from one kilometre south of Highway 89, northerly 30 kilometres to the junction of Highway 11.

Minister, can you update us as to the status of this planning study?

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): I thank the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford for this question. In the area of Barrie, Highway 400 is experiencing development pressure beyond anyone’s wildest imagination. The growth has been absolutely phenomenal. Because of this growth, improvements to Highway 400 and its interchanges need to be evaluated in order to accommodate the current and future expansion in the Barrie area and the commercial and tourism traffic to the north.

The study my ministry is undertaking is examining the improvements required over the next 10 years to address traffic operation, capacity and safety needs that have been identified for the Highway 400 corridor. The study follows an environmental assessment process which includes full public and municipal consultation. The first public information centre was held May 22 and 23 in Stroud and in Barrie.

At these events, the public have an opportunity to review and comment on alternatives under consideration, which encompass widening, interchange improvements, commuter parking lots etc. I stress, however, that our—

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

Mr Tascona: Thank you, Minister. I and many of my constituents are opposed to and very concerned with an alternative that is being considered for Highway 400, which could result in the widening of the highway from six to 12 lanes. Minister, can you give us your position with respect to this proposed alternative?

Hon Mr Clark: I appreciate the member’s concern and that of his constituents, and I say, at this date, that no decisions have been made as to the final configuration of the highway. Some public consultations have already been conducted, and my ministry is now reviewing the public input that we’ve received.

I assure you this input will be instrumental in our work to evaluate the alternatives under consideration. Once a preferred alternative is identified, we’ll go back to the people once again for more consultation. This gives the residents and the municipalities an opportunity to provide direct input on the proposed plans. Even then there’s another opportunity for another 30 days of study, which enables the residents and the community leaders again to consult with the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Transportation.

I’m confident that the concerns of the member and his constituents will be fully addressed through the avenues that we have outlined.

Community Care Access Centres

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, we’ve had a situation where there has been a clear crisis in home care in the city of Hamilton. You’ve had a report you’ve been sitting on since April 2, which was leaked to the Hamilton Spectator, which is starting to unveil some of the difficulties. Minister, you have sat on this report now for three months. You’ve hidden this report from the public; you have failed to act.

The report clearly has a number of recommendations that are marked “urgent” as a result of the health care crisis and the fear that seniors, the elderly and disabled individuals are being forced back into hospital because they’re not receiving the adequate level of care that they need in their home.

Minister, you have had three months with this report. It was submitted to you on April 2. The crisis continues, and you have been irresponsible in not acting.

Will you commit today to release the report and take the necessary steps to deal with the situation and fix the situation you have caused in home care in Hamilton?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): I’d like to thank the member opposite for the question, and I’d also like to thank the Minister of Transportation, who has continually been raising this issue as a concern in his community.

It certainly is an important report that we have received, and as the member opposite knows, the Ministry of Health takes time to review reports that they’ve received, so that we can have a close look at them. As soon as we’ve reviewed the report, we certainly have every intention of releasing it to the public, because we think it’s important that the public knows what’s going on in the CCAC in that district.

Mr Agostino: The report is out there in bits and pieces. You are the ones who failed to act. It was given to you on April 2, Minister.

Let’s get some facts on the table. Since 1998, the shortfall between what you have funded for home care in Hamilton and the need is a 22% gap between the need and the funding. Minister, do you understand that people who are released from hospitals, who are sent home, can’t get the level of care they need and are being forced back into the hospital? You have known about this at least since April. You’ve had three months. It is irresponsible not to act on such a serious concern. The recommendation will be marked “Urgent.”

The media, the public, home care workers and patients now have bits and pieces of the report. You have a responsibility and a duty, Minister, to release that report today, to act on it and to take the necessary steps, because someone will die if you don’t act. People aren’t getting the care they need and are being forced back into the hospitals. Again, Minister, will you step in today, release the report and commit to implementing those recommendations to fix the problem that you have caused as a result of your lack of funding, directions and initiatives?

Hon Mrs Johns: I’m actually surprised by the members opposite. Let me say that this government entered into the operational review—we commissioned the operational review—because we wanted to ensure that the people of Hamilton and Wentworth were receiving the services, the service delivery and the financial wherewithal to be able to provide those services.

Let me tell you, the important thing to remember here is that in the Hamilton area, funding has increased dramatically, from $35 millions in 1994-95 to $53 million. It’s an incredible increase. It should be good news for the people of the community.

What the report says is that some things need to be changed within the Hamilton CCAC. We certainly intend to release that report. We intend to follow through with the Minister of Transportation, as the member opposite has asked us to do. But let me say that that kind of increase, from $35 million to $53 million—

The Speaker: I’m afraid the minister’s time’s up.

Merc switch-out program

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I read this morning that Pollution Probe has announced Switch-Out, a program to recover mercury. I understand that the Ministry of the Environment is involved in this initiative. This seems to be an excellent example of a partnership between government and industry, as recommended by Val Gibbons in her report Managing the Environment.

Minister, can you tell us who was involved in this partnership and how this compares to Val Gibbons’s report?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): We were very pleased yesterday to be involved as a partner in the initiative entitled the MERC Switch-Out program. It’s intended to reduce the amount of mercury that is emitted into the air. We were very pleased to partner with Pollution Probe, Environment Canada, OPG, the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association and the Ontario Automotive Recyclers Association. In fact, the Canadian Auto Workers and the steel producers are involved as well.

I think this is a very good example of what Val Gibbons talks about: moving forward voluntarily in order to ensure that steps are taken in partnership to protect our environment. In this case, what we’re trying to do is to ensure that we reduce the emission of mercury into the environment.

Mr Gill: This sounds like a great initiative. Initiatives like this will certainly add to the protection of the environment in Ontario, as well as in Canada. I understand that the release of mercury from switches when they are not extracted from cars is responsible for polluting Ontario’s lakes and streams and may be a concern for aquatic life.

Minister, are there any other jurisdictions in Canada that are moving forward with this type of initiative, and can you tell the House what this will mean for Ontario?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I’m very pleased to say that Ontario is the first and only province that is taking steps to remove mercury switches from cars when cars are recycled. This is a pilot project, and we hope the project will be expanded across the entire province. We also hope this will be expanded across all of Canada.

I don’t think people realize the tremendous negative impact when just one mercury switch is removed from a car, the damage that it can do to our lakes, and in turn, the damage it can do to human health when fish that contain mercury are ingested. So this is a very, very worthwhile project and I want to compliment all of the partners for their participation.

Energy rates

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Minister of Energy about his job-killing policy of hydro deregulation. In meetings with Falconbridge back in Timmins, I am being told that energy industry analysts are telling them that after the opening of the market, after your deregulation policies take effect next summer, they’re expecting that peak power costs will more than double by the summer of 2002. If that happens, they’re telling me it puts in jeopardy hundreds of jobs at the metallurgical sites on the property at Timmins.

My question, Minister, is simply this: when are you going to stop this job-killing policy of deregulating Ontario Hydro and privatizing the same?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): It’s not been the experience in most other jurisdictions. Some 40 jurisdictions in the world that have undergone deregulation—in our case, it’s reregulation. Electricity never was regulated in the province of Ontario, so it’s not deregulation here, it’s reregulation. It’s introducing competition, it’s trying to get rid of a $38-billion debt legacy that’s dragging down our economy and costing us unnecessary interest charges on our electricity bills every month. It’s all about trying to get rid of the sins of the past and moving forward.

In 40 jurisdictions in the world, prices are lower today than they otherwise would have been under the old monopoly systems. That’s been the positive experience.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): California? Alberta?

Hon Mr Wilson: California and Alberta are anomalies. It’s recognized around the world that the politicians in those jurisdictions simply failed to build enough power plants to keep up with demand. That’s not a problem we have in Ontario at this time, and we expect that we’ll move forward and have a very competitive and robust market.

Mr Bisson: Anomalies? I think the minister has been smoking what’s coming out of those smokestacks and is starting to hallucinate.

The reality is, there are plants in this province that are saying they’re going to be in a position of having to shut down their operations in Timmins, part of the metallurgical sites, and move off those properties either to Quebec or Manitoba, where there is publicly owned hydro, where it is regulated. Why? Because it’s cheaper for them to do business there because of the competitive advantage of hydro prices.

I say to you again, Minister: we see jobs being killed in Kenora, and there’s a possibility of jobs being killed in the city of Timmins. I want to know from you, when are you going to stop this policy that is leading to the loss of jobs across this province?

Hon Mr Wilson: Indeed, Falconbridge is one of the companies that’s represented on the minister’s electricity transition committee and also on one of the regulator boards—the independent electricity market operator. Falconbridge from the top down has consistently urged this government to move forward, to introduce competition so they can better manage the challenges they’re having with respect to energy prices, particularly in the northern part of our province.

Those companies that this member is to represent—he is in fact not representing their views in this House with this question. Those companies have said very clearly in writing and in meeting after meeting, as recently as two weeks ago, to this minister and this government, “Please open up the market as quickly as possible so that we can take advantage of competition and move to expand our presence in Ontario.”

They look forward to a very robust and competitive electricity market. In fact, the experience in some 23 states in the United States is that the number of jobs in the electricity sector has doubled since deregulation or competition was introduced in those jurisdictions.

Petitions

Home care

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have petitions from hundreds, if not thousands, of my constituents.

“To the Legislature Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the need for home care services is rapidly growing in Ontario due to the aging of the population and hospital restructuring; and

“Whereas the prices paid by community care access centres to purchase home care services for their clients are rising due to factors beyond the control of community care access centres; and

“Whereas the funding provided by the Ontario government through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is inadequate to meet the growing need for home care services; and

“Whereas the funding shortfall, coupled with the implications of Bill 46, the Public Sector Accountability Act, currently before the Legislature are forcing CCACs to make deep cuts in home care services without any policy direction from the provincial government;

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

“

(1) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to take control of policy setting for home care services through rational, population-based health planning rather than simply by underfunding the system; and

“

(2) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to provide sufficient funding to CCACs to support the home care services that are the mandate of CCACs in the volumes needed to meet their communities’ rapidly growing” demands; and

“

(3) That the Legislative Assembly make it necessary for the provincial government to notify the agencies it funds of the amount of funding they will be given by the government in a fiscal year at least three months before the commencement of this fiscal year.”

These are signed by constituents from Mindemoya to Killarney and places like Webbwood.

Education tax credit

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I’ve got a standing-up-for-public-education petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas tax credits for private schools will create two-tier education;

“Whereas the government’s plan is to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools;

“Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society of narrowly focused interests;

“Whereas tax credits for private schools will steal money from an already cash-starved public system and deliver public money to special interests who do not have to account for its use;

“Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario;

“Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure,

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

“We call on the government of Ontario to withdraw its plan for two-tiered education and properly fund public education in Ontario.”

I have signed that petition as well.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I have a petition here from Ted McMeekin’s riding of Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot. It’s signed by 397 people.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

“Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or another religion, is best for their children; and

“Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children; and

“Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

“Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

“Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of the tuition fees paid for that education;

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

“To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible.”

I will be signing this in support of it and I will be replying to each one of those people.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): A petition against tax credits for private schools:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas tax credits for private schools will create two-tier education;

“Whereas the government’s plan is to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools;

“Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society of narrowly focused interests;

“Whereas tax credits for private schools will steal money from an already cash-starved public system and deliver public money to special interests who do not have to account for its use;

“Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario;

“Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure,

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

“We call on the government of Ontario to withdraw its plan for two-tiered education and properly fund public education in Ontario.”

It’s signed by hundreds of people, and I affix my name to it and provide this to Sarah, our page.

Province of Ontario savings office

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

“Whereas the Province of Ontario Savings Office was created in 1922 by united farmers and labour as a unique banking facility that allowed Ontarians to invest in their province; and

“Whereas the Province of Ontario Savings Office enjoys a strong popularity among Ontario residents, with over 100,000 accounts and over $2.8 billion on deposit; and

“Whereas the Province of Ontario Savings Office offers customers attractive interest rates, generous chequing privileges and personalized efficient service, and every dollar deposited is guaranteed by the province of Ontario; and

“Whereas POSO has 23 branches serving 17 communities across Ontario, including Hamilton, Windsor, Ottawa and small communities in northern Ontario not served by other banks or trust companies. Places like Pickle Lake, Armstrong, Killarney, Gogama and Virginiatown; and

“Whereas the Harris government announced in its latest budget that it will put the Province of Ontario Savings Office on the auction block, even though it is a consistent revenue generator, and even though this revenue could help Ontario’s crumbling infrastructure after years of Tory neglect;

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

“To save the people’s bank, the Province of Ontario Savings Office so that it can continue its historic role of providing excellent banking services to families in communities across Ontario; so that people in small towns will not be forced to go farther afield for banking services and forced to go to private, for-profit banks.”

On behalf of myself and my NDP colleagues, I add my name to this petition.

Education tax credit

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

“Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

“Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Sikh, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or other religion, is best for their children; and

“Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children; and

“Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

“Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

“Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of these students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of the tuition fees paid for that education;

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

“To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible.”

I am pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

Sale of schools

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario and it reads as follows:

“Whereas Hughes Public School at 17 Innes Avenue in the city of Toronto closed down and its premises have been declared surplus by the Toronto District School Board;

“Whereas the city of Toronto has issued a building permit to the Toronto District School Board permitting the reconstruction of Hughes Public School for an entity called Beatrice House, for the purpose of a private academic school;

“Whereas the Beatrice House is not a private school registered with the Ministry of Education, nor a mident has been issued to that organization;

“Whereas local taxpayers’ concerns have been ignored…

“Whereas other locations, such as the Brother Edmund Rice School … or the Earlscourt Public School … which are being closed down, have been offered to Beatrice House to no avail;

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

“That the Honourable Minister of Education investigate the leasing arrangement between the Toronto District School Board and Beatrice House inasmuch as:

“

(1) Boards are to seek fair market value when selling, leasing or otherwise disposing of schools…

“

(2) Boards are to offer the property to coterminous boards and other public agencies operating in the area…

“

(3) Toronto District School Board has not dealt in good faith with our neighbourhood residents;

“Therefore, we respectfully ask you to consider our plea for justice. The Toronto District School Board has ignored our concerns and due diligence. We as a community tried everything within our power to fight the glaring and obvious wrong done to us, to no avail.”

Since I am in agreement, I’m ready to sign this as well.

Education tax credit

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“Whereas the tax credits for private schools will create a two-tier education system;

“Whereas the government plan is to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools;

“Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society of narrowly focused interests;

“Whereas tax credits for private schools will steal money from an already cash-starved public system and deliver public money to special interests who do not have to account for its use;

“Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario;

“Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure,

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

“We call on the government of Ontario to withdraw its plan for a two-tiered education system and properly fund public education in Ontario.”

I sign that petition.

The Speaker: Petitions?

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I have a petition that’s signed by 1,058 people.

“Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

“Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or another religion, is best for their children; and

“Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children; and

“Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

“Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

“Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of the tuition fees paid for that education;

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

“To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible.”

Education funding

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition. I want to thank M. Georges Albert for circulating it.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas we believe that all education resources should be directed to our public schools, not private schools;

“Whereas Mike Harris has been attacking public education for six years, chopping $1.8 billion from the classroom and now wants to pay parents to leave public education for private schools;

“Whereas we believe that a voucher plan for private schools is wrong, unfair and steals money from public education;

“Whereas we believe that these funds being invested in private schools would be better spent on rebuilding public education through such measures as bringing class sizes down to 20 students per class in the early years;

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

“Do not turn your back on Ontario’s working families. Fight Mike Harris’s voucher system for private schools. Fight for smaller class sizes. Fight for public education.”

As I said, these signatures are mostly from the Blind River area in my constituency. I support this petition.

Education tax credit

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): This time I have a petition from the town of Kapuskasing. It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas tax credits for private schools will create a two-tier education system;

“Whereas the government plan is to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools;

“Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society of narrowly focused interests;

“Whereas tax credits for private schools will steal money from an already cash-starved public system and deliver public money to special interests who do not have to account for its use;

“Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario; and

“Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure,

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

“We call on the Ontario government to withdraw its plan for a two-tiered education system and properly fund public education in Ontario.”

I sign the petition.

Proposed industry site

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is signed by 6,036 people from in and around my riding of Kitchener Centre.

“Regarding the applications by General Environmental Group Inc ...

“Whereas the proposed site is in the middle of several long-standing residential neighbourhoods;

“Whereas the proposed site is within 600 metres of a major hospital, and the largest public park in Kitchener-Waterloo, as well as numerous schools and churches, and is within 100 metres of a public outdoor swimming pool and the TransCanada Trail;

“Whereas the high volume of heavy truck traffic associated with this industry would worsen the already seriously poor air quality in the city core;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment for the province of Ontario as follows:

“We call on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment for the province of Ontario to immediately suspend consideration of this proposal;

“Further, we call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to initiate a full environmental assessment and open public hearings before any further consideration is given to the proposal.”

I’m pleased to affix my signature.

Orders of the Day

MPP Compensation Reform Act (arm’s length process), 2001 loi de 2001 portant rÉforme de la rétribution des députés (processus sans lien de dépendance)

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 18, 2001, on the motion for second reading of Bill 82,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act to provide an arm’s length process to determine members’ compensation / Projet de loi 82, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l’Assemblée législative pour établir un processus sans lien de dépendance permettant de fixer la rétribution des députés.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Further debate? The member for Nickel Belt.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Thank you, Speaker. In the time that I have today to deal with Bill 82, I’m going to try and deal with two areas of concern that I have. They are serious areas of concern and I will do this in as serious a manner as I can.

The first has to do with my concern with respect to the process the government has introduced through Bill 82. The second has to do with my concern with respect to the context, or the environment, within which the government would bring forward a bill that would lead to an increase in pay. By the environment, I mean the environment out in Ontario with respect to other workers and what other workers have experienced in terms of pay over the last two years.

Let me deal first with my concerns about the process. I don’t think I have an overwhelming concern with respect to an outside body dealing with what will always be a very controversial issue: members’ pay. Let me begin there. The concern I have with the proposal the government brings forward, however, is that at no point in time will that outside body, charged with making a recommendation about pay, ever have to bring that recommendation back to the Legislature for MPPs to ultimately vote on.

At the heart of my concern really is the question of accountability. If, as legislators, we deal with the pay of other people in this province, and we certainly do, with respect to the pay particularly of public servants, where we have to have votes about what those increases would be, why is it that we are not prepared to also exercise accountability when it comes to a vote on our own pay? It seems to me we have a responsibility to be accountable in that way. We should be fully prepared to say to our constituents, “Yes, I voted for that increase and here is why I voted in the way I did,” or, “No, I did not vote for that increase and here is the why and the reason for that.”

We are elected by our constituents. On every other issue of public policy, when we vote, we are accountable, whether that’s voting with respect to changes in social assistance, changes to MNR policy or changes that affect privatization. In every way we are accountable for the decisions that are made in this place that affect all of the public of Ontario, so there should be no reason why, in the same way, we would choose not to be accountable for the issue of our own pay.

I don’t understand the distinction the government would like to make, to have a separate body deal with the issue and for us not even to be accountable enough to vote on that at the end of the day. I think we should be. I think that’s our responsibility as legislators. We would expect that in every other jurisdiction, I gather, except for Nova Scotia, which has a proposal that is similar to the one this government brings forward in Bill 82. We should bring those things back to this place as an amendment to the Legislative Assembly Act, have a debate and have a vote. That’s the right thing to do. That demonstrates accountability. That demonstrates responsibility.

The government will have this issue, which I admit is a controversial issue no matter what day of the year it is, go to an individual, the Integrity Commissioner, and he will make a decision. Herein lies my second concern. The Integrity Commissioner is an officer of this House, of this assembly. He is, at the end of the day, chosen by the members of this assembly, as is the Environmental Commissioner and the other officers of the assembly.

It seems to me that if the government wants to go down this road, and it seems that they are prepared to go down this road, then the government would at least want to give every perception that there is no link between that body or that individual making a decision about pay and us as MPPs.

I’m not questioning the integrity of the Integrity Commissioner, whoever that may end up being on a permanent basis. But it seems to me there is a very legitimate public argument that there is too strong a link between the two. We as MPPs select the Integrity Commissioner. We deal with his or her pay. We deal with all the rules surrounding that position. And now we would be asking that individual to make recommendations about our pay too. For too many members of the public, I think, that is too close, too cozy, a relationship for comfort.

It gives the impression, completely unwarranted I argue, that if we do something for the Integrity Commissioner, then he or she would do something for us with respect to pay. I don’t like that link. I don’t like it at all.

I think there’s an obligation on the part of the government, if they’re going to proceed in this way, to make a choice about who will deal with the issue and have someone who has no link back to us, who is not beholden to us for his or her position, not beholden to members for his or her pay and not beholden to members for his or her conditions or terms of employment. I think it is incumbent on the government to recognize that a perception of conflict will exist if this continues to be the individual who will be responsible for dealing with this issue.

The government would be wise—very wise—to cut our ties with respect to having any officer of the assembly deal with the issue of pay and instead move it to a truly independent commission, a body of individuals who are not beholden to us as MPPs for their pay or conditions of employment, who have no link back to us whatsoever, so clearly there is no room for even the slightest perception of a conflict of interest between the two.

Thirdly, the bill, as I read it, lists nothing with respect to the comparators the Integrity Commissioner would be asked to examine in dealing with the issue of pay. It seems to me there are some likely comparators that this individual should be charged to look at. For example, there are any number of other provincial jurisdictions which have provincial MLAs, as they are usually described in other provinces, who also deal with the issue of pay.

It seems to me that some terms of reference should be clearly outlined that say the comparison will be to other MPPs, to men and women in other provinces across this country who do the same work we do, who have the same responsibilities that we do, who deal with the kind of travel between their ridings and the assembly that we do and who deal with provincial budgets that are similar to ours.

If we were to do that, we might give the public a clearer sense that the comparison would be a fair one, would be an appropriate one, would be a reasonable one. But there are no guidelines in Bill 82 with respect to the comparators or the comparisons. As I read it, there’s no direction given at all to the individual who will come back with a recommendation about our pay to say to whom it is legitimate to compare us in terms of pay.

Again, I think there is some kind of obligation on the government, if it wants to proceed down this road—and surely they do—to set in place some really clear rules about comparators, so that the public of Ontario can make realistic decisions about whatever pay comes back. Is it appropriate? Is it reasonable? Is it legitimate? Does it reflect the pay of other provincial politicians doing similar work in other provinces across this country?

None of those things has been taken into account by the government. Instead, we are facing a process whereby the thorny issue of pay will be taken out of our hands. I guess that makes it easier, or is supposed to make it easier, for all of us. But it takes away our accountability and our responsibility in that effect. If we are accountable and responsible for every other bit of business we do in this place, then we should be accountable for the issue of our pay.

I continue to be very concerned that we set up different rules in the province, a set of rules for ourselves as MPPs where an issue will be decided out of this place, where a recommendation will be made. There will be no debate; there will be no vote. It will be automatically implemented even if it’s retroactive, regardless of the amount of salary and the situation with other people in the public, where we have to make a decision about their level of pay, where there is debate, where there is a vote. Why are we setting up a completely different structure for ourselves?

Doesn’t anyone else worry about the public perception of setting up very different rules for ourselves when it comes to the issue of pay?

I think we should be voting on the issue of pay. I think there should be a debate. If there is going to be an independent commission, then I think the individuals involved have to be separate and apart from officers of this assembly, no connection whatsoever. If they bring that recommendation back, it should come back in the form of a report. Its recommendations should be included as amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act, which has been the practice that we have followed in this province for many years. Those recommendations should then be the subject of debate and public scrutiny and, finally, a vote. That’s the way it should be done.

My second concern outside of the process has to do with the environment in which the government brings this bill forward. I ask members of the assembly to consider the following. The government brings this bill forward at a time when many other people in our society have not had a raise in pay for many years now, and in some cases—the people I am going to reference—a decade. I wonder about the government bringing forward a bill that I think is going to lead to probably a substantial increase in pay, if the comparator becomes the federal House, at the same time that any number of individuals have not seen a change in their pay despite the economic times that this government has boasted about.

A couple of groups, if I might: minimum wage earners in this province, who last saw an increase in pay January 1, 1995, under our government. I was proud to be part of a government that every year during our mandate raised the minimum wage and recognized that people who were making the minimum wage were the lowest paid in the province and deserved to get a pay raise every year so they could keep up with trying to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads.

Our party has on two occasions moved forward a private member’s bill to increase the minimum wage to $7.50 an hour, which would be the comparator to the minimum wage in the United States. It’s interesting that in the United States on two occasions, under a Republican Congress, those congresspeople voted to increase the minimum wage to what would be a comparable $7.50 an hour, and it is clear that when they did that, the economy continued to boom. There was no negative consequence or impact whatsoever.

Yet this government and this Minister of Labour continue to insist that there is no need to raise the minimum wage, which is now $6.85 an hour and which is not even a living wage in this province. We know that people who are on minimum wage in Ontario don’t have a pension plan that they’re contributing to, don’t have their benefits paid for. They are trying to make ends meet on $6.85 an hour, and even over a 40-hour workweek would be lucky to pay their rent at the end of the month, much less having much money for much else after that.

So I say to the government as it brings forward a bill that’s going to raise our pay, what happened to minimum wage earners in this province? Why are you leaving them behind yet again? You’ve done nothing for them, the poorest-paid in this province, for six years now, but it seems we’ve got some money to increase our own pay. What about people earning the minimum wage? Where do they fit in?

Let me deal with those people who receive a personal needs allowance. We had a group of them from Hamilton in the gallery last Thursday. They made it clear that they have received $112 a month to meet their personal needs, be they in nursing homes, their long-term-care facilities, hostels, shelters, homes for special care, and that has been the case for a decade now. For a decade, these same individuals have received $112 a month. The last time they got an increase was in 1991 under our government. They have been frozen at $112 a month since then.

In the good economic times that we’ve had, why hasn’t this government been able to do something for these people, the seniors, the disabled, some of the people receiving the lowest amount of income in Ontario? As we bring forward Bill 82, which will no doubt lead to an increase, we say nothing to these people, we have nothing to offer. The government brings forward nothing with respect to doing something about the personal needs allowance.

I refer the government to women who are waiting for proxy pay equity, 100,000 women in the province who are the lowest paid, who work in the public sector doing incredible work in child care centres, in homes for the aged, in nursing homes, in libraries etc. One of the first actions this government took was to cancel pay equity for these women, the amount of money that would bring them up to recognize the important work they do.

You will recall, Speaker, that Mary Cornish and other Ontario trade unions took the government to court and won at the Court of Appeal in 1997, and the government was told, “Pay pay equity to these 100,000 of the lowest-paid women working in the public sector in this province.” What did the government do? The government made a payout up until the end of December 1998 and then put a cap.

We see now that Mary Cornish and those same five unions went back to court in May of this year because, as they said clearly, the government owes another $140 million to these women, and the current $500-million payout, which has been capped, will cover only the non-proxy pay equity workers. Mary Cornish said another $505 million is required to bring all female workers up to par over the next five years.

So they’re back in court for the second time, trying to force the government to do what it should have done after the first court ruling, which was to pay these women the money they were owed under the pay equity law in this province.

Here we are again. The lowest-paid women in Ontario, doing incredible work in the public service, working with our seniors, working with our kids, our most valuable resource, and they haven’t seen their pay equity increases. They’ve been froz