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

November 16, 1999

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 1999-Nov-16 vol. A (PDF)

L012A - Tue 16 Nov 1999 / Mar 16 nov 1999

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

POLICE OFFICERS

EDUCATION FUNDING

CRIME PREVENTION

SCHOOL CLOSURES

POLICE BRAVERY AWARDS

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MORE TAX CUTS FOR JOBS, GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 RÉDUISANT DE NOUVEAU LES IMPÔTS POUR STIMULER L'EMPLOI, LA CROISSANCE ET LA PROSPÉRITÉ

GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION ENVIRONNEMENTALE DES GRANDS LACS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

GRANDVIEW TRAINING SCHOOL FOR GIRLS

ORAL QUESTIONS

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

CANCER TREATMENT

HEALTH CARE

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

CHILD WELFARE

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

HEALTH SERVICES IN NIAGARA

HIGHWAY 17

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

FORT HENRY

VISITORS

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

CORRECTION OF RECORD

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

ANIMAL PROTECTION

LANDFILL

HIGHWAY SAFETY

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

PROTECTION OF MINORS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

PROTECTION OF MINORS

OPPOSITION DAY

SPORTS FACILITY TAXATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My statement today is in the form of a direct plea to the Minister of Education for her to understand that the province's funding for special education simply is not working for children in my riding, and it's also an urgent call for her to rectify the funding problem now so that children will not be deprived of the support they deserve in our schools.

The situation is particularly acute for the Thunder Bay Catholic District School Board, a board that has clearly documented the needs for the children in their system to the satisfaction of the ministry but was then shocked to learn that no new money to meet those needs was forthcoming. This was worked on in good faith as part of the intensive effort by the Catholic board's special education staff, despite their real concerns about the rigorous and in many cases inappropriate student profiles required by the ministry before any funding will be approved. Yet it appears to have all been for naught.

As Joleene Kemp, chair of the Thunder Bay Catholic board, put it to you, Minister, in a letter last month, "Why was such a huge task undertaken that yielded nothing but high expectations on the part of parents and dashed hopes on the part of the board?"

The Thunder Bay board is in a terrible position, because they have employed the needed additional support persons by transferring money from a reserve fund, money that is now gone and will only pay wages up to December. The clock is ticking.

The Catholic board is very keen to work with you, Minister, on this urgent matter, and I hope you take them up on their offer so that all students in need of special support can continue to receive the education they need and deserve regardless of their own personal challenges.

POLICE OFFICERS

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I want to welcome the representatives of Ontario's police forces who are here at Queen's Park for the third annual lobby day. This morning I met with officers from the Waterloo region police, and I welcome the opportunity to further develop the bond of co-operation and partnership as we work to strengthen policing in this province.

In September, I joined the celebration of another important partnership as 20 officers from the former police departments of Fergus, Harriston and Palmerston were sworn in as Ontario Provincial Police officers. This was a historic ceremony, because Wellington became the first county in Ontario to engage the OPP in a long-term contract for policing services.

The occasion was best captured by Mr Murray Langdon, chairman of the Wellington County Police Services Board, who said, "The consent to abolish means the end to three fine police services which have served with distinction for more than 100 years, but it also means the start of county-wide policing-making Wellington county a leader in the province." I am certain that the citizens and taxpayers of Wellington county will benefit immensely from this new partnership for community safety.

The work of the OPP is vital and I will continue to be their strong supporter. This includes working with the Wellington OPP force and the province to address the need to have greater access to services provided by justices of the peace in our area.

I would like to say in closing, to the new OPP of Wellington county and to police officers in Waterloo region and throughout Ontario, you have our sincere thanks.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): On November 5, 1999, the United Nations human rights committee released the decision which said that Canada, and specifically Ontario, violates a 1976 international human rights covenant by funding Catholic but not other religious-based schools.

The ruling was seen as vindication of those who support faith-based schools that the present position of the Ontario government is unfair and discriminatory.

In the ruling, the UN said that differences in treatment between Roman Catholic religious schools, which are publicly funded as a distinct part of the public education system, and schools of other religions, which are private by necessity, cannot be considered reasonable and objective.

The UN also gave Canada 90 days either to comply with the ruling or to propose a remedy.

Those who are urging compliance with this UN decision are not advocating removal of funding from the Catholic system, but rather extending funding to all independent denominational schools.

Although the UN resolution calls for compliance or a proposed remedy within 90 days, the Ontario government quickly indicated that it would not be complying with this landmark ruling. Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories do not discriminate on the basis of religion in allocating education funding. Indeed, nowhere else in the western world does a government provide public funding to one religious denomination and not to others.

I now call on the government of Ontario to respond in a positive way to this United Nations human rights committee ruling.

CRIME PREVENTION

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to share with the House today, and in fact the province, a very excellent prevention and promotion program developed by a constituent of mine, Mr Ross Mervyn.

Mr Mervyn is a retired Algoma Steel worker and a volunteer in the prison system, both in Canada and the USA. He has recognized that drugs are a major problem in our society today, with lives ruined and wasted, and high medical costs to the public health system. Drugs result, he says, in a lot of crime. In fact, 70% of crime is drug- or alcohol-related, with a high cost of incarceration of about $50,000 per year.

Mr Mervyn has put together a program that was primarily developed by himself, and he has been its driving force. Following an introduction and some background to groups in various communities, a stand-up presentation is given, followed by a video. The video covers interviews with actual prison inmates. A question-and-answer period then follows. This program has proved to be very successful in many communities across the USA and Canada.

Mr Mervyn has been recognized by almost every level of government for the work he has done on this program. It is, as I said, essentially a prevention and promotion program, something we should be doing more of, it seems to me, if we're going to keep people out of trouble before they get into it.

If you're interested in this program, you could call my office either here in Toronto or in Sault Ste Marie, or call Mr Mervyn at (705) 253-0503.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): This government stands firmly on the side of victims of crime rather than the offenders. We stand behind those who protect our families and serve our communities. Many Ontario citizens also work tirelessly to support our law enforcement agencies.

Today I would like to recognize one such agency, the Neighbourhood Watch of Waterloo region. Working in partnership with the Waterloo regional police, this organization is on the leading edge of crime prevention. Through the hard work of many volunteers and a grant from the Partners Against Crime program, they have developed a state-of-the-art community alert system. This system dials the homes of Neighbourhood Watch members and alerts them with a recorded message about break and enters, vandalism, vehicle thefts and other non-violent crime in their neighbourhoods. Using state-of-the-art software, this group serves as the eyes and ears of the local police.

The Neighbourhood Watch program works. The Waterloo regional police have recognized the contribution of Neighbourhood Watch since 1990 with an office in each detachment.

Today I would like to thank Chief Larry Gravill and members of the Waterloo Regional Police Service as well as Marietta Gassewitz from Neighbourhood Watch for their dedication to this program. I would also like to recognize the over 28,000 Neighbourhood Watch members in the Waterloo region who take an active

part in this program.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): This is directed to the Minister of Education. Students, parents and grandparents in Sault Ste Marie and Algoma-Manitoulin are desperately trying to find a way to prevent the closure of 10 schools.

The Harris government cutbacks to education are forcing the Algoma District School Board to look at closing these schools. To have you stand in this Legislature and to hear you blame the school board for these closures is both irresponsible and not factual.

Five of the schools on the verge of closing are in the riding of Algoma-Manitoulin. These schools are in the communities of Spanish, Batchawana Bay, Desbarats, Searchmont and Elliot Lake. The students in these communities should not be shipped out of their hometowns or forced into portables. Some of these students would be forced to ride a bus for over an hour a day. This is unacceptable. The people of Algoma-Manitoulin deserve quality, accessible education.

Minister, I call on you to reclassify the Algoma District School Board as a low-density board. It is. Look at a map. I am currently receiving letters from concerned parents from all corners of Algoma demanding that your ministry halt its plans to close over 20% of the schools in this district. Are these Ontario's tax dollars at work? Take action now so that 2,000 students won't be forced on to buses and so that they can remain in the classrooms in their own home communities.

Do the right thing. Give the funding back that your government has stolen from the children of Ontario.

POLICE BRAVERY AWARDS

Constables Miller and Merrison also received citations from the London Police Services Board and a Canadian Police Association Award of Excellence for Ontario for what they did. When the officers arrived at the scene, smoke was pouring out of the two-storey home and they could hear screams coming from inside the house. They found an 80-year-old man about two metres from the back door and another older man calling for help from another room. Both officers had to be treated for smoke inhalation after the rescue. The fires were found to be the work of an arsonist.

What these officers did on that occasion is typical of what the men and women of our police services do, day after day, year after year, to make our province safe for all.

Constable Miller is with us in the gallery today. I know that all members of the House will want to join with me in recognizing constables Miller and Merrison on their outstanding achievements.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I'd like to take this opportunity to commend the Hamilton-Wentworth regional police for their proactive approach to youth crime. I'll be speaking more about this tonight in the debate.

My statement today is addressed to the minister responsible for colleges and universities. I'm sure all the members were shocked to read the press of November 6, in which it was reported that the RCMP had charged a Toronto private vocational school with fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud. Over $18 million in loans from the Ontario student assistance program and the Canada student loans program, both programs administered by this government, have apparently been obtained fraudulently by this school using the names of over 1,000 students not actually attending this institution.

In my view, $18.32 million is a very significant amount of money. In fact, it represents 3% of total OSAP spending for 1998-99. It seems very clear that we have another classic example of the government having its priorities upside-down. While they focus on ganging up on squeegee kids, they ignore their responsibility to practise diligence in the administration of these funds.

It's a shame and a disgrace that legitimate students and institutions are being underfunded while this kind of scheme goes undetected by the government. It is not as if they weren't warned. In the 1997 Provincial Auditor's report he warned, "The risk of abuse of this program is high." Why was this warning ignored? Why haven't the necessary checks been put in place? How can the students of this province trust this government?

PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I stand to join with my colleagues in support of the men and women who serve in our police forces.

This year, the Peel Regional Police Service is commemorating its 25th anniversary after the amalgamation of the police forces from Chinguacousy, Brampton, Mississauga, Port Credit and Streetsville.

Under the admirable leadership of Chief Noel Catney, the Peel Regional Police Service has been recognized for excellence in conduct and ethics and has won over 300 provincial, national and international awards for innovation, crime resolution and crime prevention.

In September, constables Wayne Drew and Dave Haggarty of the Peel force finished first and second in the main skills event at the inaugural greater Toronto regional police motorcycle competition.

The outstanding work done by the Peel police has contributed to the positive relationship between officers and members of my constituency. It is no wonder that local citizens of Peel continue to show their strong support for our police officers.

Last Friday, as part of our government's commitment to put 1,000 new front-line police officers on our streets, the Peel Regional Police Service held a swearing-in ceremony for 36 new officers.

I would like to personally congratulate these new officers and, at the same time, offer my deep gratitude to all the men and women on the Peel Regional Police Service and their families for the excellent work they're doing to make Ontario one of the best places to live, work and raise our families.

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table the 1999 annual report of the Provincial Auditor.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I would also like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a number of guests from the Office of the Provincial Auditor, including the Provincial Auditor, Erik Peters, and Ken Leishman, the assistant Provincial Auditor, as well as some of the directors. Please join me in welcoming our special guests.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MORE TAX CUTS FOR JOBS, GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 RÉDUISANT DE NOUVEAU LES IMPÔTS POUR STIMULER L'EMPLOI, LA CROISSANCE ET LA PROSPÉRITÉ

Mr Eves moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 14,

An Act to implement the 1999 Budget and to make other amendments to various Acts in order to foster an environment for jobs, growth and prosperity in Ontario / Projet de loi 14, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre le budget de 1999 et à apporter d'autres modifications à diverses lois en vue de favoriser un climat propice à l'emploi, à la croissance et à la prospérité en Ontario.

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

The Minister of Finance for a short explanation.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Just very briefly, this bill, if passed, will deliver of course on the first instalment of the 20% income tax cut referred to in this past May's budget. It will take care of the Ontario child care supplement for working families. It will extend and expand the land transfer tax refund on first-time homebuyers of new homes.

It will deliver on the retail sales tax rebate on building materials for farmers. It will provide enhanced capital tax exemption for small businesses. It will provide incentives for businesses hiring apprentices. It will present incentives for Ontario school bus safety.

It will also level the playing field in the area of property taxation for newly constructed commercial and industrial properties, and it will strengthen the regulatory powers of the Ontario Securities Commission, which are both-

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. The Minister of Finance will know it is supposed to be a short explanation.

GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION ENVIRONNEMENTALE DES GRANDS LACS

Mr Ouellette moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 15,

An Act to regulate the discharge of ballast water in the Great Lakes / Projet de loi 15, Loi réglementant le déchargement de l'eau de lest dans les Grands Lacs.

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

A short explanation from the member for Oshawa.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): In order to reduce the occurrence of invading species, the bill prohibits ocean-going vessels on the Great Lakes system from docking in Ontario if they have not complied with the ballast water control guidelines prescribed by regulation.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following change be made to the ballot list for private members' public business: Mr Gilchrist and Mr Wettlaufer exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr Gilchrist assumes ballot item 78 and Mr Wettlaufer assumes ballot item 14.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I rise today with good news for the health and safety of Ontario workers. For the first time in 13 years, the exposure limits for hazardous chemical substances used in our province's workplaces will be updated.

Workers in Ontario deserve to be protected by exposure limits that are current and up to date. Down the road, it will mean fewer occupational illnesses among workers and lower compensation costs for employers. Over the next 90 days, our government will educate industry and labour about the mandatory new exposure limits.

I will also be meeting with both labour and industry to discuss updating occupational exposure limits on a regular basis. I give you my commitment as minister that we will work to keep occupational exposure limits current. Most of the new limits we are proposing today are those recommended by the internationally recognized American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. More than 80 countries, most Canadian provinces, 36 American states and the federal government use these limits, and many Ontario companies implement them today voluntarily.

I emphasize that compliance with the new occupational exposure limits will be required, and it will be enforced. When the new limits are in place, Ontario will not only be up to date, it will be ahead of the pack. That's because we are bringing an additional 69 hazardous substances under regulations for the first time in Ontario's history. By doing so, Ontario is regulating occupational exposure to a significantly higher number of hazardous chemicals than the majority of jurisdictions around the globe.

Responsible, reasonable, progressive change: That's good for investment, that's good for productivity, and it goes without saying that it's good for the working men and women who handle these chemicals on a day-to-day basis.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Responses?

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I rise today to congratulate the minister for taking a step 13 years later. You'll realize that 13 years ago the Liberals added to this list and the gap between adding to this list has been far too long. I'm glad you learned from the Liberal government of 13 years ago. I'm glad you're finally doing this but you know, Minister, there is still so much more to be done, and although this is just simply a very, very small step, you have been confronted by several other groups with several other initiatives that we would have hoped you would have acted upon already.

For example, I talk about the workplace carcinoma committee, which you are aware of, on which you've met with the United Steelworkers of America and the Canadian Auto Workers, but the reality is your government so far has been negligent in not establishing this carcinoma committee. This committee will save lives. As you know, 9% of the people who go to work every year die because of workplace conditions. We know that's avoidable. Workers know that's avoidable. Unions know that's avoidable. Companies know that's avoidable.

The reality is Cancer Care Ontario has urged you over the past several years to establish this workplace carcinoma committee. If in fact your commitment is to the health and safety of workers, I suggest that tomorrow you stand up in the Legislature and announce that there will be the establishment of a workplace carcinoma committee.

I look at the recommendations from the coroner's jury with regard to the tragic deaths of John Hewson and Robert LaPolice. We ask that you act on those recommendations, certainly the second recommendation, and I read from the report:

"That the government of Ontario completes as soon as possible the review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act initiated in 1997. The revised act should be given the highest priority on the legislative agenda."

I would like you to take that to the P and P committee and suggest to them that instead of squeegee legislation, they should be finalizing this so that indeed your government will save lives in the workplace.

I would suggest as well that you learn from the father of Dave Ellis, the 18-year-old student who died on his second day on the job trying to get some money to go to university. Rob Ellis, his father, has raised a number of issues around workplace death causes, including prevention, enforcement, prosecution, accountability and workplace insurance. Certainly, some of these issues must be addressed by your government and by you as the minister as quickly as possible.

That brings me to the next item that I implore you to ensure passes through the House very quickly, and that's my colleague Mike Gravelle's Bill 10,

An Act to bring health and safety programs to Ontario students.

I would suggest to you, Minister, to listen to the words of Rob Ellis, who said: "It is time that students got over simply asking, `How much will I make and how many hours will I work?' They should be asking the important question, `Is the workplace safe?'"

Mr Gravelle's bill will ensure that students are provided with the opportunity to ensure that they are brought up to date on what is expected of the employers, of the employees and of the workplace. I would suggest, I would hope, I would plead that you meet with Mr Gravelle to ensure that this will happen, that this bill will pass through the House quickly and that it will become law for Ontario workers.

I would suggest as well that you look at your own record of accountability when it comes to what you've done. Bill 49 changes the Employment Standards Act, which erodes minimum provisions for overtime pay; Bill 99 makes changes to WCB and cuts benefits to injured workers; Bill 136, the public sector union legislation, strips bargaining rights; Bill 31, the construction, trade and workplace bill, eliminates protection for construction unions. You've cut your occupational health laboratory, chest clinic and materials, testing laboratories, employment practice operations; office of mediation, cut by 23%; office of arbitration, cut.

The reality is, as the new Minister of Labour you have a lot of work to do correcting the faults of your government over the course of the last four years.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Let me first of all, since this is my first opportunity in addressing the new minister, offer to him my personal congratulations on his ascension to the cabinet. I think I would have been one of those who, when there were long-shot odds being offered up, would have taken that long-shot odd that if anybody could have accomplished getting into cabinet from where you were, you would have. Personally, I'm pleased to see it happened.

Let me also identify that as probably being the last time I intend to be nice to you in this place, beginning with your opening comment, Minister, that you rise with good news for the health and safety of Ontario workers. You haven't been here long enough to develop your own reputation but, let me tell you, the one that your predecessors have left for you causes Ontario workers, the second any Minister of Labour stands up, to have shivers down their spine. There's absolutely nothing this government has done that has helped or made things better for the working people of Ontario.

Some of the litany of those issues has been raised and I intend to raise more of them in the next few minutes. Specifically with regard to the announcement you're making, Minister, it would have been nice if you had at least acknowledged the fact that the reason you're doing this is because of the unrelenting work and effort of the labour movement in lobbying your government and your ministry, particularly your predecessors, to make these moves. You know that these moves do not achieve all that the labour movement feels needs to be done in terms of protecting workers. You didn't say anything about that.

In fairness, if you're trying to create a new atmosphere in your ministry, and I hear that you are, then I would strongly suggest that when you've got credit to be given out there in terms of things that are to be changed, you offer it up.

The labour movement has made this a cornerstone, particularly the Ontario Federation of Labour. Under the leadership of Wayne Samuelson, they have done everything they can to put this front and centre, and you failed to even acknowledge that they had anything at all to do with it. The reality is that without them, you wouldn't be making even this meagre announcement that you are making today.

Further, you go on to say that down the road it will mean fewer occupational illnesses among workers and lower compensation costs for employers. Of course, we know that the lower compensation costs for employers is your number one priority. It hasn't been that long since we watched the debacle of Bill 99, which ripped away $15 billion in money that would be owed to injured workers, only to see your government, Minister, give $6 billion of that back to employers, who don't need it.

Tell that to the families in Sarnia, where workers have died and family members are dying from exposures that were brought from the workplace to home. Tell them that you're doing wonderful things for the people of Ontario, for the workers of Ontario.

Bill 15: You talk about caring about compensation. We finally, under the NDP, had a situation where the WCB had 50% of the seats designated for workers and their representatives: just justice, fairness. Your government wiped that out and now we're back to the bad old days where employers and their friends and cronies form the majority of seats on the board of what you call WSIB, thereby pulling injured workers right out of the equation. That's the way you've dealt with workers.

What else have you done in this province? You can't deal with this announcement in isolation. The Workplace Health and Safety Agency, which your government took great pride in extinguishing, again, was an agency dedicated to training employers and employees in how to provide a safe workplace and how to avoid exposures and illnesses and accidents and death. And yes, 50% of those seats were guaranteed for workers and their representatives. But you weren't satisfied with just wiping out fairness there. You wiped out the whole thing, you killed it, and you put it back inside the WCB, where it had failed for 50 years. That's the track record of this government.

You killed the Occupational Disease Panel, a jewel in the crown of the legislation that we had in this province. We had advocacy from around the world saying: "Please, don't kill this. It's the model we're trying to get in place in our workplace and in our state or province."

It allowed arm's length identification of exposures to the harm that it can do to workers. Your government killed that, Minister. You didn't think it was important enough to provide the kind of expertise the ODP did, and then somehow you expect to stand up today and get a big fanfare. It's not going to happen. You've got to change your record, Minister.

GRANDVIEW TRAINING SCHOOL FOR GIRLS

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to move a resolution regarding an official apology to the survivors of Grandview and for a representative from each caucus to make remarks on the resolution.

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

Hon Mr Flaherty: I move:

That this House, on behalf of Ontario and pursuant to the 1994 agreement reached with the Grandview Survivors Support Group, apologizes and expresses sincere regret for the harm caused by the physical, sexual and psychological abuse at the Ontario Training School for Girls, Galt, also known as Grandview, in Cambridge, Ontario, between the 1930s to the 1970s; and

That this House acknowledges that the abuse suffered by the students at Grandview, who bear no responsibility for the abuse they suffered, caused lifelong physical and emotional pain, distress and trauma to the women themselves and to their families and community and that such abuse of children is deplorable and intolerable.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I rise on behalf of this assembly and this government to address a serious issue involving victims of abuse. It involved the horrible abuse of more than 300 young women at the Ontario Training School for Girls, Galt, also known as Grandview, located in Cambridge, Ontario. The school opened in 1932 and closed in 1976.

The Grandview survivors suffered physical, sexual and psychological abuse at the hands of staff at the school who were entrusted with their care. These horrendous acts not only traumatized the women themselves, but also their families and the community.

I wish to express on behalf of the Legislative Assembly sincere regret for and condemnation of these events.

While the past cannot be changed, we have endeavoured to create a process to give a voice to those directly affected.

The province consulted and negotiated an agreement with the Grandview Survivors Support Group, signed in 1994, that we hope has offered opportunities to heal and to introduce real hope for a better future. The agreement is based on recognition that abuse or mistreatment cannot be tolerated or condoned. It's also based on the recognition that society has a direct responsibility to provide the supports necessary to facilitate the healing process for survivors of sexual and institutionalized abuse, particularly when the abuse occurs in an institution housing children.

Hundreds of women with great courage and strength came forward and told their stories. Their allegations of sexual and physical abuse were adjudicated and the truth of their claims was acknowledged. Compensation was awarded. However, that doesn't change the fact that the pain they endured can never be erased. What we seek to do today is to attempt to bring a further measure of closure to these survivors.

My predecessor the former Attorney General has written personal letters to those survivors who so requested to express our regret. This statement fulfills the government's final commitment to these survivors.

The abuse at Grandview should never have happened and there can be no excuse or justification for it. It is a source of shame for all of us. The survivors bear no responsibility for the abuse that they suffered. This Legislature and all of its elected members acknowledge it and apologize.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I rise today on behalf of the official opposition in this House to speak to this resolution and to offer our apology. I regret that the survivors who have come to this House are sitting behind me in the gallery; I apologize that under the rules of parliamentary procedure, I have my back to you, but I am looking at you in spirit.

It is with great regret that I say it has come to my attention that a scintilla of a shadow lies over this apology and I'm compelled to bring it to the attention of this House.

Negotiations were over five years in the making for this settlement and a 60-page settlement resulted, which included, quite rightly, a public apology. Notwithstanding a five-year process and an eternal nightmare for the Grandview survivors, it is unfortunate that there was no consultation with the survivors as to the timing and the wording of this apology in the House. Most of the survivors could not simply pick up and zoom over to Toronto from wherever they lived in Ontario on a few days' notice.

The survivors learned of the apology of today just last Friday, with the unceremonious arrival of a courier informing them of today's event. The undignified arrival of this courier unfortunately was a long time in coming, marked by a not insignificant delay subsequent to the conclusion of the criminal trials. That is unfortunate. That is no way to treat survivors. That said, I applaud the Attorney General for what he has done today. The horrible abuse at Grandview took place under someone else's watch. The school closed in 1976.

We are properly standing in the House today offering this act of imperfect contrition. This apology will never repair the damage done, but as I stand here and as we sit here, we can recommit ourselves individually and collectively to try to improve the safeguards against such horrific abuse in the future.

Finally, please allow me to offer on behalf of the official opposition to each and every one of the survivors here in the House today and across Ontario our sincerest apology and regret for the years of unimaginable pain and suffering you have experienced. Both you and your families remain an extraordinary example to all Ontarians of perseverance and determination and courage. We wish and pray for your continued heroic survival, healing and, we hope, reconciliation with a tragic

chapter in the history of this province.

I'm in no position to stand here and thank you for this perseverance. I'm in a position only to thank you for coming to this House and hearing our apology.

I would ask all members to rise and thank them now. Thank you.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): This day has been a long time coming for the survivors of the abuse that took place at the Grandview Training School for Girls, for their families and for their communities. This apology, while never sufficient to make up for the injuries done to them, marks nevertheless an historic day for this province. It recognizes government's and society's obligation not only to seek out cases of abuse but also to implement measures to prevent such abuse. It is essential for those of us who have participated in government to acknowledge that over many years people who were placed in good faith under the care of the government suffered as a result.

I must also comment for a moment on how the government has chosen to handle this matter today. We know that many of the survivors did not receive notice of this statement until last Thursday, some last Friday. This has not left enough time for many of those women to find a way to get here today. Many live in other parts of the province, have health problems, have family responsibilities or have to survive on very low incomes. In fact, their lawyer only received the wording of this apology yesterday. I wish that the government had handled this matter somewhat differently. I wish there had been more thought and attention paid to the needs of these survivors here today.

It is important that all three recognized parties in this Legislature recognize that we have all been in government and that we have all had responsibility for those who are in institutional settings, and that responsibility remains today.

This apology does not take away the pain; we are all aware that it does not. But what it does is make it clear that we are responsible, that the government of Ontario is responsible for what happened to those children. It reminds us that when we come upon situations where institutional abuse has occurred, as we did with the provincial schools for the deaf and the blind and in the case of St John's and St Joseph's, we must continue to have the courage to acknowledge our responsibility and to do what we can to redress the damage that has been done.

Furthermore, as we recognize very clearly the suffering that occurred at Grandview over the years, we must renew our commitment to ensure that this kind of abuse does not occur again in the institutions over which we have authority.

I would like to recognize for a moment the courage and the strength that have been required by those who came forward to break the silence about this abuse, and I would like to commend too the work of the Grandview Survivors Support Group, which played an essential role in collectively advocating for the interests of the survivors.

The long and painful healing process never really begins until the truth is told. For many of these women the truth had been blocked from their minds for many years, out of horror, out of embarrassment and in some cases out of necessity. But in

an act of remarkable courage, they were willing to face and to relive the darkest periods of their lives.

We are here today to acknowledge publicly that as a society we recognize that you were wronged, that something was taken away from you that could never be replaced and never be made right. We are here today to say that you must remember that not one ounce of responsibility rests upon your shoulders for these acts. The guilty are those individuals who abused their positions of authority and took advantage of children who were incapable of defending themselves. Society too must take responsibility for not providing the safety and protection that every child deserves, for not protecting the most defenceless and vulnerable in our society.

We know that healing childhood abuse is a lifelong process that requires the active support of society. As these survivors begin to rebuild their lives, we must not forget that we all-members of this Legislature, men, women, society-have a responsibility to be part of the solution. Abuse is a social problem that requires urgent attention. We must dedicate ourselves to setting up systems, policies and procedures to ensure that this kind of abuse does not occur in the future. We must promote public education of the lasting injuries that abuse inflicts. We must pursue prevention and early detection. When abuse does occur, we must provide support immediately and ensure that abusers are punished.

On behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I would like to express to each and every survivor of Grandview our deepest and most sincere regret and apology for the years of pain and suffering that you have experienced. I commend you for your strength, your courage and determination and extend our hope that you are all able to put these terrible experiences behind you and lead meaningful and happy lives. I assure you that we will dedicate ourselves to ensuring that this kind of abuse does not ever happen again in our province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Attorney General. Today the auditor released his report and he provides a very damning indictment of your government's handling of the Family Responsibility Office. He tells us that there exist today 128,000 cases in arrears. He tells us that two thirds of the cases in arrears have been outstanding for more than a year. He tells us that the number of cases in arrears has stayed at about 75% of all managed support cases since the last audit in 1994. He's telling us that you're doing no better a job than the NDP did.

He's telling us that you have institutionalized NDP mediocrity when it comes to the handling of the Family Responsibility Office.

Minister, my question is very simple: Why is it that you have let 128,000 families down, representing over 200,000 children in Ontario?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): We recognize and take very seriously the issues raised in the auditor's report with respect to the Family Responsibility Office. We have built the most aggressive family support enforcement program in all of Canada, and we are constantly trying to improve it. It is a difficult endeavour and, as I say, we take seriously the comments made by the Provincial Auditor in the period with which he dealt, which took us to 1998, I believe.

Dealing with 1999, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that improvements have been made, and that I am told as of this time 25% of the orders are in full compliance and 34% of the cases have payments made each month.

It is necessary to make improvements, I acknowledge that to the member opposite, but I also point out that this is the most ambitious program of its type in Canada.

Mr McGuinty: Let's understand that when this minister wants to move, he can move exceptionally quickly. When it came to the 200 or so squeegee kids who frequent the streets of downtown Toronto, he's got a bill that's been tabled here, he's ready to move, and he will spare no expense and no energy whatsoever to make things happen. But when it comes to 200,000 Ontario children who have been let down by their fathers, we now discover that this minister is, in his turn, letting them down as well.

What we're asking you to do is to accept responsibility for this crisis, to step up to the plate and to start going to bat for these kids. You're great at being aggressive with panhandlers and squeegee kids. When are you going to start stepping up to the plate and going to bat for these kids and dealing with their deadbeat fathers?

Hon Mr Flaherty: There's no question that the Family Responsibility Office can do better. This is a serious issue. It's not one with respect to which I would make political commentary. This is an office that deals with the recovery of money for spouses and for children in need.

I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition must have read the report. He would have noted that the auditor's report acknowledges the satisfactory management of the program's trust fund, which disbursed last year a record $500 million. That's in the last fiscal year.

The report also acknowledges, as I'm sure the leader noted, the improvements that have been made since the previous audits. No other program in Canada serving spouses and children distributes that level of money to those persons who are in need of those funds.

Mr McGuinty: The facts here are undeniable: You are $1.2 billion in arrears; 75% of the cases are in arrears; 128,000 families are affected, involving more than 200,000 Ontario children. Those are the undeniable facts. On top of that, the auditor says you are not being nearly aggressive enough in pursuing deadbeat fathers.

He also tells us, to add insult to injury, that he did some testing and he found that 43% of their calls didn't go through even after three successive attempts, due to busy signals. You simply don't have the capacity to deal with mothers who are phoning from across this province, who are their wits' end, who are pulling out their hair and trying to figure out how they're going to come up with enough money to buy their kids some Christmas presents.

How come you've got all kinds of energy and all kinds of drive when it comes to dealing with squeegee kids, but when it comes to 200,000 Ontario kids who have been let down by their dads you just can't do anything for them?

Hon Mr Flaherty: Improvements have been made. The auditor's report deals with a period to 1998.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Flaherty: As the honourable members will want to know, as of September 1999 FRO sent out over 10,000 driver's licence suspensions. In addition to the driver's licence suspensions, $22 million have been collected from families as a result of that initiative alone. Then we moved forward with the collection agency's pilot project last year, following the auditor's analysis of the FRO, which indeed has collected over $8 million of found money for spouses and children in Ontario. Improvements are being made; there's more to be done.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. The auditor today tells us something that we have been telling you all along: Only 32% of Ontario's cancer patients are receiving treatment in the recommended four-week waiting period. In some centres across the province it's as low as 24% of Ontario cancer patients.

It seems to me that the people of the province work hard, pay their taxes and play by all the rules, and they are entitled to expect that at the end of the day, if their mother or their father is stricken with cancer, or anybody in the family or any of their loved ones become ill because of cancer, they will be entitled to the best possible treatment, including treatment in a timely way. Minister, why is it that only one third of Ontario's cancer patients get treatment in a timely way in Ontario?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the Leader of the Opposition probably does know, since he has obviously read the report, the work of the Provincial Auditor in looking at Cancer Care Ontario was conducted between February and September 1998. As he may also know, it was in November 1998 that Cancer Care Ontario first brought to this government the issue of waiting lists. Now, this is a problem that you probably also remember has occurred three times in the last 10 years. However, our government is determined that-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Would the minister take her seat. Order, member for St Catharines.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The Leader of the Opposition also knows that this is a problem that has occurred three times in the last 10 years. In fact, it occurred when his government was in office. I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that our government is determined that these waiting times and waiting lists not happen again, so since November 1998 we have undertaken a nine-point plan to ensure that we can eliminate the waiting time problem.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I cannot hear the answer by the minister. I would ask the members for Windsor-St Clair and Windsor West to please come to order.

Hon Mrs Witmer: One of the first initiatives that our government did in responding to the need for the waiting list was to set up a task force. That task force reported to the Ministry of Health, and we have expanded the number of human resources. As you know, we expanded-

The Speaker: The minister's time has expired.

Mr McGuinty: Your government has been responsible for health care in Ontario for closing in on five years now. I'm not sure which is more disgraceful: your handling of this matter to date or the lofty goal that you have set for us. You tell us that right now, although we're only able to treat one third of Ontario patients in a timely way, the goal you've established for your government by March 31, 2000, is to provide timely treatment-that's treatment within four weeks of diagnosis for cancer patients-to 50% of our cancer patients.

Fully one half of Ontario cancer patients, once we've achieved the goal that you have set out, will still not be getting treatment in a timely way as recommended by our doctors.

Minister, you tell me, what does that tell us about your health care standards in Ontario? One third is acceptable today, and tomorrow the goal that you have established for yourself and for our province is one half. Stand up and justify that.

Hon Mrs Witmer: What that says about the government in this province is that this government is leading the way. We are the only province in all of Canada to implement this high standard of a wait time of no more than four weeks as recommended by the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, take your seat. Order, member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I say, we are the only province to adopt this high standard, and I am very pleased to say that based on the initiatives that have been undertaken throughout 1999, our nine-point plan, our plan is on track. We are recruiting and we are retaining the radiation therapists. We are recruiting and retaining the oncologists and the physicists. In fact, we are working very collaboratively with our partners. We have expanded and we have announced the addition of additional cancer centres in this province. We are going to see the opening of centres in Kitchener-Waterloo and in Mississauga and in Durham. We are expanding into St Catharines and into Sault Ste Marie. And now we're-

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

Mr McGuinty: The only thing that counts here today is that this minister accepts that the lofty goal she has established for all Ontarians, for all of our mothers and our fathers and our brothers and our sisters and our loved ones who are stricken with cancer, who our physicians tell us ought to be treated by radiation within four weeks of the time of diagnosis-this minister tells us that as far as she is concerned 50% is a good enough result. Well, I can tell you from our perspective that it's not nearly good enough. The only result we should be striving for in this province is 100%.

Minister, will you now, here and now, stand up and acknowledge that you have failed and continue to fail Ontario cancer patients and their families?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The Leader of the Opposition seems to forget that this has been an ongoing problem that unfortunately was not tackled by his government or the prior government. It is now being tackled today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, take your seat. This is the last warning to the member for Windsor West. I cannot hear if she continues to shout across when the answer is coming. This will be her last warning.

Hon Mrs Witmer: It is our government that has now indicated we don't want to see this problem again. We have taken nine steps and they're working. In fact, I would like to quote Dr Tom McGowan, who on February 26, 1999, said: "We've actually seen in the last few months that the waiting times have started to come down. We are working very hard and the waiting list has actually dropped." And, referring to the announcement that our government made, it "is going to allow us to bring it even closer." In fact, recently he said, "Provided that we continue doing as well as we are at present, we will have broken the back of the radiation waiting problem by the spring of 2000."

So the plan to bring in more human resources-

The Speaker: The minister's time.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is also for the Minister of Health. The Provincial Auditor's report today is a devastating account of your government's record in health care. First, the auditor's report shows that hospital restructuring is going to cost $2 billion more than you admit and is years behind schedule. Then the auditor's report says that your funding of hospitals bears absolutely no relationship to the needs of Ontario citizens for health care. Meanwhile, emergency rooms are piling up and people are sent home quicker and sicker than ever.

Minister, how can your government screw up the Ontario health care system so badly in just four and a half years?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the leader of the third party knows full well, this province was the very last province in Canada to tackle the reform of our health care system.

I'm very pleased to say that as a result of the work that has been done, we have managed to ensure that services are being brought closer to home. We are constructing new cardiac centres in the province again in Mississauga, in Kitchener and in York county. We are expanding the number of cancer centres by five. We have added at least 25 dialysis centres in this province to bring services closer to home. We have a diabetes strategy that continues to expand, to meet the needs of Aboriginals, northern communities and children.

We have a new Alzheimer strategy of $68 million to meet the needs of those with Alzheimer's and their caregivers. We have a heart health program, and the list goes on and on.

We have taken steps-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Time. Minister of Health take your seat please.

Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: I want to congratulate you on being able to stand here today and reannounce stuff that you announced three and four years ago and much of it hasn't been delivered.

This is what the Provincial Auditor points to: With respect to your so-called health care restructuring he says that there is an example of a hospital, a new hospital, where $110 million was made available for the construction of the hospital. That should be good news, but following the construction of the hospital, you refused to provide enough operating funds so that the facilities in the hospital can be used. What's the result? Four of the eight operating rooms are idle and people have to travel to other communities to get treatment.

Then the auditor says that restructuring cost overruns in hospital restructuring are likely to negate a significant portion of the so-called potential savings expected from hospital restructuring.

Minister, the Provincial Auditor-

The Speaker: Order. Member's time.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Maybe we want to focus first on the estimates that have been made by the Provincial Auditor where he talks about restructuring costs exceeding what has been predicted. Unfortunately, the auditor has looked at an exceeding of the estimates by 90%. Hospitals have actually indicated to us that they may exceed the estimates by 35% to 90%. He has taken the very worst scenario-so our estimates continue to be right on target. In fact, they have been confirmed by the Ontario Hospital Association, but as I say, the auditor has taken the absolute worst scenario of looking at all of them as being in excess of 90% over what has been estimated.

Mr Hampton: There's a reason why the auditor is taking the worst scenario. He's been watching your government. He's watched you on the Family Responsibility Office, he's watched you with persons with disabilities, he's watched you in terms of cancer care, he's watched you in terms of the shortage of nurses, the shortage of physicians, and he knows, because of your track record, to expect the worst.

It goes on. The fact of the matter is that what you're doing to the health care system is going to give us a health care system that costs more. Turning over much of the delivery in the health care system to private American corporations is going to cost more. The hospital restructuring system is not going to save money; it's going to cost more. Sending patients to the United States to get cancer treatment is going to cost more and give us less cancer treatment.

Minister, I ask you the question. The auditor points out your sorry record. What are you going to do to fix the mess you've created in Ontario's health care system?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I would again emphasize, unfortunately health system strengthening and improvement was not undertaken by their government; we, unfortunately, came into this job. We did undertake the job. We recognized that based on the fact that we had a growing population, we had an older population and needs were changing, new drug therapy was changing the delivery of services, new medical technology, that we had to continue in the same way as the other governments throughout Canada. So we undertook to strengthen and improve our health system, and we have done so.

We have made tremendous progress in bringing the services closer to home. We have made tremendous progress in making sure that we respond to the needs of individuals at all stages of their lives. Despite the fact that no one had-

The Speaker: New question.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Attorney General. There have now been three separate independent reviews of your Family Responsibility Office and each, including the one released today, confirms that your government is failing to deliver court-ordered support payments to families in the province.

With respect to enforcement, the audit today shows that at the end of November 1998, 75% of cases registered with the FRO were in arrears. It showed that most enforcement action only took place when a recipient or their advocate called and demanded action. It showed that when action is finally taken, there are gaps of more than six months between enforcement activities on the same file. It also showed that aggressive enforcement-like the suspension of drivers' licences, like default hearings, like garnishment of bank accounts-are rarely used by your staff. As a result, the amount of arrears under your government has almost doubled to $1.2 billion.

Minister, it's clear the enforcement activities at the FRO are not working. What are you going to do to guarantee that families who are owed and need support payments finally get them?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): There's no doubt that there are serious issues raised in the report by the auditor covering the period that the auditor covered, into 1998.

For the member opposite, though, to say that the Family Responsibility Office is failing to deliver the funds the people need, that is just not so. The current statistic, as I've given it, is that about 59% of payments are either on time or some payments are being made on a monthly basis. So it's not accurate to say that there's a 75% arrears situation, as we speak today, in 1999.

Improvements need to be made. Some improvements have been made. Certainly there are more to be made.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): A 59% success rate isn't that impressive when it means that 41% of the files at the FRO continue to suffer from this government's negligence in getting the office up and running. It's been over three years since we brought back videotape showing you your FRO in packing crates. The phone calls still aren't getting answered and, on the rare occasion when they are answered, your over $2 billion blown in 1998 on front-end interface is either fully or partially inoperable.

You now have increased staff levels to more than what they were when the eight family responsibility offices were functioning as regional offices across the province. There have been no savings for any taxpayer, you won't track down deadbeat dads and you punish paying fathers by losing the cheques or the monies they send in. When are you going to fix it?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I point out that since 1998 there have been three initiatives that are quite important in terms of effecting further recovery of arrears for the spouses and children that need them: first of all, the reporting of arrears to credit bureaus; second, the suspension of drivers' permits; and third, the retention of collection agencies in the private sector first of all to go after arrears more than three years old-and that's been successful to the tune of $8 million-and now more recently, this year, to go after debt that is six months old and more. These initiatives are being taken.

More needs to be done. We have to be vigilant in terms of trying to collect the arrears that accrue from time to time. But we are taking these steps in the interests of the spouses and children in Ontario who are entitled to the payments.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. One of your government's first actions was to cut hospital budgets by $800 million. Now half the province's hospitals are running deficits, and your response has been to tell them to cut even more services in order to get their budgets balanced.

The auditor's report today tells us that just isn't good enough. The auditor tells us that your funding formula for hospitals is completely out of whack. I quote the auditor's report: "It does not take into account the demand for hospital services." What that means in people terms, Minister, is what we've all seen: ambulances coming to hospitals and being told that their patients can't go into that emergency room, they've got to go somewhere else; as many as 30 people lying for days on stretchers in emergency room hallways; people who do get a hospital bed waiting months to get surgery.

Minister, do you now understand what the hospitals of this province have been trying to tell you: that you have created absolute chaos in hospital care?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The member I think is aware of the fact that we recognize, and we have publicly been on the record as stating, that a new hospital funding formula is necessary. In fact, we have been working very aggressively this past year on developing a new funding formula. We've been working with the Ontario Hospital Association through a committee called the joint policy and planning committee.

As the member also probably knows, this new funding formula is a complex issue. We are the only province, again, in Canada that is creating a new comprehensive funding formula for our hospitals which will address the growing and the aging population. It will be based on a formula that takes into consideration age, gender, sex, growth, aboriginal status, mortality rates and fertility rates. That will be ready by the end of the year, and we plan to begin to implement-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister of Health, take your seat. Supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: Let's try to deal with the facts as we know them today. Your answer to hospital funding problems was to cut $800 million from their budgets. Your plan for this year, in response to half the hospitals in this province having deficits, is to cut another $100 million from hospital budgets. Your answer to the hospital funding problem was to let your hospital restructuring commission go out and find so-called savings by shutting down hospitals.

The auditor's report tells us that the whole restructuring plan is a mess, just like your funding formula. You need to spend $1.8 billion more on capital than your restructuring commission said you should. You know that, Minister, because your ministry is busy trying to fix the problems the commission created for you. The auditor says that many hospitals have been unable to realize the savings that the commission had intended them to make, another mistake you're going to have to fix.

I ask you, will you now begin to fix the real problems by stopping the cuts you plan to hospital budgets, go back to the drawing board and make sure our hospitals have enough funds that they can provide emergency care and beds when the people of this province need hospital beds?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just remind the member opposite that hospital budgets this past year have increased from $6.8 billion to $7.2 billion. I've also just indicated to her that we are doing exactly what has been recommended: We are developing a new funding formula. It will be ready by the end of this year. We will begin to use it next year.

I would just tell you where the additional $400 million in hospital budgets is going this year: $130 million for nursing; $9.1 million for neonatal care; $27.9 million for new mothers; $86 million in base funding increases; and $20 million for high-growth areas. I would also add that there has been one-time funding of $279 million for Y2K compliance issues; $100 million for restructuring pressures; $87 million-

The Speaker: The minister's time is up. New question.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Barrie Raceway is an important attraction for my constituents, and the horse racing industry is a vital contributor to the local economy in my riding.

Across the province, horse racing provides 25,000 full-time jobs and contributes $2 billion to Ontario's economy each year. Important as this industry is to several communities across the province, horse racing has experienced declining attendance in the past and faces competition from other gaming alternatives in the future.

Minister, what steps is this government taking to revitalize horse racing in Ontario and give racetracks the tools they need to compete?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'd like to thank the member for the question. As the member indicated, horse racing is an important part of local economies in communities like his-Barrie, Sarnia, Sudbury and Windsor-and the government has taken action to help the industry grow.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Runciman: First of all, our government did what it does best, which the Liberal member for St Catharines dislikes intensely, and that's reduce taxes. We dropped the parimutuel tax from 7.4% to 0.5% in our last mandate. This means that $54 million in revenue is returned to the industry each year.

Secondly, our government, through the good offices of my friend Mr Hodgson, announced that racetracks, with municipal approval, could install gaming machines, and that has resulted in a significant turnaround. Fort Erie, for example, was doomed to closure; it has now had 25 more racing days-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Minister's time. Supplementary.

Mr Tascona: Thank you, Minister, for acknowledging how much the horse racing industry contributes to local economies in Ontario.

Combining horse racing and gaming machines at racetracks is having a positive impact on local job creation, but there are concerns expressed that charity gaming revenue from activities like bingo may not be able to compete with an alternative gaming environment.

What effect would these changes at racetracks have on local charity gaming?

Hon Mr Runciman: There's no doubt that in the broad sense this has certainly helped the Ontario economy-1,000 new jobs-as well as helping the horse racing industry.

Jane Holmes of the Ontario Horse Racing Industry Association told the Windsor Star that these improvements have been "very, very positive." The racetracks have not benefited at the expense of local charities.

What I can tell the member is that the experience with opening the Windsor Casino has indicated that any slowdown at charity bingo halls is very short lived. Charity bingo activity in Windsor returned to about the same pre-casino level within the first year of operation of the Windsor Casino.

I can also tell the member about the experience in Sarnia, where the local lottery licence officer told the Sarnia Observer that she has not seen "a significant drop in revenues."

The government is monitoring very closely any impact expanded gaming may have on local charities and we're working with-

The Speaker: Order. Minister's time.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Today's auditor's report provided damning evidence that your government is compromising public safety on our provincial highways.

In the area of road maintenance, Ontario Liberals have always feared that your drive to privatize would compromise public safety. Your response has always been you would only privatize if cost savings were achieved and safety maintained. Yet the auditor's report states (1) that your government did not achieve the 5% savings you said were your minimum to privatize, (2) that your government sold off ministry vehicles and equipment to the private sector without public auction or tender and (3) that your government has risked public safety on our highways by creating patrol areas too large for ministry staff to monitor in order to ensure that our highways are safe.

We have phantom savings, ministry equipment sold off at fire-sale prices, compromised safety standards on our highways. Minister, what do you intend to do to correct this unacceptable situation?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): I'd like to thank the honourable member for his question. Our government is committed to finding efficiencies and indeed we have found efficiencies. The area maintenance contracts have given us savings of 5% or more.

While we certainly appreciate the good work that the Provincial Auditor does in bringing things to our attention, I would point out that in fact the auditor has not taken into account the costs of capital equipment or maintenance which is required by the government if the government is conducting such activities. Therefore, to compare apples with apples, you have to consider the costs that the government incurred in capital equipment and maintenance.

Mr Gravelle: Minister, you need to get out of Pleasantville. I'm telling you, these are very serious matters of public safety raised by the auditor and your response is simply not good enough.

Why are you so hell-bent in your determination to privatize area maintenance work across the province without any guarantees of public safety or cost savings? It's very simple. The auditor's report is very clear: Your privatization may be costing taxpayers more and standards of maintenance have declined. The ministry is paying $1 million per year to maintain roads that are not even being done by ministry staff any more. They've been downloaded to municipalities. You're paying a million bucks for that.

Minister, my question to you is very simple: Will you put a moratorium on any further privatization of maintenance work in this province, or will you continue to risk lives by this reckless abandonment of your responsibilities?

Hon Mr Turnbull: I would point out that the MTO's accounting practices are supported by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the member take his seat. Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, member for Kingston and the Islands, member for Sudbury. Minister of Transportation.

Hon Mr Turnbull: I would fully understand the Liberals having such jollity. The fact is, you don't understand saving money. All you understand is spending taxpayers' money.

Our government is committed to finding efficiencies in government, and indeed we are finding them: 5% on area maintenance contracts.

CHILD WELFARE

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): My question is for the minister responsible for children. There seems to be an increased interest and concern by members of my constituency about the need to better provide protection for children. I am also aware that the children's aid societies face many challenges in providing children with the protection and support they need. As minister responsible for children, would you please tell us what is being done to strengthen our child welfare system?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): I thank the member for Thornhill for this really important question. Earlier, at the beginning of this afternoon's session, we recognized what needs to be done for children, and certainly the abuse or neglect of any child is disturbing for everyone in this government; indeed, everyone in this chamber. That is why we've committed ourselves to improving the child welfare system in Ontario. In fact, several coroners' inquests that took place over the last number of years highlighted the need to reform the child protection system.

Our government has worked very closely with the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, as well as individual CASs, in developing and implementing these reforms.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Answer.

Hon Mrs Marland: We have made significant improvements to key areas, including funding for the training of more front-line workers. We've introduced a risk assessment model and-

The Speaker: Order. Minister, time. Supplementary.

Mrs Molinari: Minister, last year the provincial government passed amendments to the Child and Family Services Act. Can you please tell us how this new act will provide greater protection for our children?

Hon Mrs Marland: Our motivation for beginning child welfare reforms, first and foremost, was to protect vulnerable children from abuse and neglect. The amendments we made to the Child and Family Services Act last May represent the first major changes to child protection legislation in 10 years. We strengthened our ability to protect children, and we are clearly putting the child's best interests first. Those amendments provide stronger tools for the courts, professionals and front-line workers to do their jobs. They also improve access of children's aid societies to information they need to protect children at risk.

We need to ensure that stakeholders like the children's aid society are ready to implement these changes. Given the new threshold of risk, and this is the most important point that-

The Speaker: The minister's time has expired.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): The question is for the Minister of Transportation. Three years ago, the Minister of Transportation told the people of Ontario that by turning highway maintenance over to private corporations, you were going to save money.

Today the auditor tells us that in three of the four highway districts that have been turned over to private companies, it is costing more. Then he says, "Outsourcing may ultimately result in a significant increase in the cost of highway maintenance in these contracts."

Minister, can you tell us why you're sticking the people of Ontario with a private highway maintenance system that is going to cost them more money and deliver them less service?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): I'd like to respond to the leader of the third party by pointing out that we are getting better value for the taxpayers of Ontario.

The Provincial Auditor ignores the cost of capital equipment or maintenance, and these have to be considered. If you do not consider them, you're not comparing apples with apples. We are committed to continuing on with an excellent program of outsourcing which is saving the taxpayers of Ontario money, which we, sir, are investing in the highways of this province at a record rate beyond that which either of the two previous governments ever invested in the highways.

Mr Hampton: We see again that according to this government, the auditor doesn't know what he's talking about. The team of accountants in the auditor's office don't know what they're talking about.

Minister, this is what the auditor found: When you turned those contracts over to your private corporate friends, you double-counted and tried to inflate what your own ministry employees would cost you if they did the work. Second, they also found that you tried to cook the books by selling off the equipment and then somehow counting that equipment as revenue that would go on in the future.

When you factor those two things out, your privatization scheme is going to cost the people of Ontario a lot more money, is going to deliver a lot less service, and is putting the quality of highways and the quality of public safety at risk.

Minister, will you shut down your privatization system so that the people of Ontario don't have to pay more for highway maintenance and don't have to risk public safety because that maintenance isn't being-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister of Transportation.

Hon Mr Turnbull: I'd like to first of all comment on safety. Safety is our top priority. We will continue to emphasize it. Our roads today in this province are the fourth-safest in North America. That's an improvement from either the time that you were the government or the Liberals were the government. The fatality and accident rate is down at 1950s levels. We are committed to continuing the safety blitz that will continue to improve our roads, and we are spending on roads.

With respect to the auditor's report, I have pointed out that he is not counting the cost of capital equipment or maintenance equipment. You cannot make a comparison unless you include those in the cost.

HEALTH SERVICES IN NIAGARA

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Minister of Health. Thousands of patients in the Niagara region are going to be forced to travel down the very busy Queen Elizabeth highway in order to receive the services of an ophthalmologist.

You would recognize, Minister, that per capita, the Niagara region has the oldest population in the province. We have only 13 ophthalmologists, not all of them are full-time, and we have a present waiting time of four to six months for individuals who wish to have an appointment with an ophthalmologist.

Your solution is to lump them in with Hamilton and say, "See, there's no shortage." It won't work because Hamilton is already backed up with patients and with time for operating.

Minister, will you now do the right thing for the people of the Niagara region, for patients, particularly elderly patients in the Niagara region? Will you now remove the cap on ophthalmologist billings in the Niagara region so that patients in Niagara can receive the kind of eye care they need and they deserve?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The member is talking about the specialist retention initiative, and as I think the member knows, each year the criteria for that program are established through the Physician Services Committee, which means that it is staff at the Ministry of Health and it is physicians themselves who determine the criteria.

Each year they review them and they approve them, and based on the criteria that have been approved this year, it was determined that physicians would be exempt only if they are in a unique specialty or in a geographic underserviced area where there could be a service access problem. So that was a decision that was made by the Physician Services Committee.

Mr Bradley: Clearly the purse strings are in your government's hands, not in those doctors' hands. Let me share with you what the St Catharines Standard editorial has to say:

"Ontario's health ministry has to take a more honest approach to dealing with the shortage of eye doctors in Niagara. To simply lump this region in with Hamilton-Wentworth and say the two regions are not underserviced is an absurd shell game....

"It doesn't matter to them that patients, many of them seniors, face either longer delays for treatment here or the prospect of driving down the QEW to Hamilton in order to see a doctor....

"The health ministry has to stop pulling the wool over our eyes. Trying to solve this problem by cavalierly erasing a boundary line doesn't take into account the hardships the people involved will face. The only way we're going to see some quick relief is for the ministry to lift the patient care cap and declare Niagara an underserviced region."

You can talk about all the committees you want; the purse strings are in your hands. Will you quit your obsession with tax cuts and reinvest in the health care of this province so that our people in Niagara can receive appropriate eye care?

Hon Mrs Witmer: First of all, I think it's absolutely essential that I stress the fact that our government has increased funding for health care to the highest level ever in the history of this province. We are currently spending about $20.6 billion. That is a tremendous increase and we've indicated we will spend 20% more in the next few years, so for anyone to pretend that we are spending less, it is not so, and it is based on the fact that we have created and helped to create an economy where we do have taxes and they are being paid and it is for that reason that we can support the health system that we have today.

Again, I remind you that we work co-operatively with our partners. In this case it is physicians who work with the Ministry of Health who have designed the criteria for this program, and each year those-

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

New question.

HIGHWAY 17

Mr Brian Coburn (Carleton-Gloucester): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Many of the residents of eastern Ontario, particularly the western part of the Ottawa-Carleton region and up the valley towards Renfrew, are concerned about the safety of Highway 17. This government, to give credit where credit is due, has made a great deal of progress in the area by expanding four-lane highways, particularly to Antrim.

Last May, the previous Minister of Transportation committed to continue this expansion from Antrim to Arnprior of the four-lane highway, and to initiate the process that would lead to the highway's future expansion through to Renfrew. Will the government honour this important commitment?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): I thank the honourable member for his question and I'm delighted to reconfirm our government's commitment to four-lane Highway 17 through to Arnprior. I would like to comment on the excellent work of our former colleague Leo Jordan in making sure that this money was available for it.

As well, I would like to report that preliminary design studies will begin very shortly from Arnprior to Renfrew. This government honours its commitments. A nine-kilometre

section was completed last month on 417 and designs for the four-laning of the next section, from Regional Road 20 to Regional Road 22, is currently underway.

Mr Coburn: I'm sure the residents of that area will find those words very encouraging.

Clearly, this government has proven its commitment to eastern Ontarians by enhancing our transportation infrastructure, particularly with the completion of Highway 416, enhancements to Highway 7 and the continued four-laning of Highway 17. The federal Liberals, on the other hand, seem to be missing in action.

Minister, will you now call on the federal Liberals to join the province in making a commitment to this important part of our safety and economic well-being and encourage them to invest in our transportation infrastructure for future prosperity?

Hon Mr Turnbull: You ask a tremendously important question. We're spending record amounts this year, at close to $700 million. This year alone the federal government will take out of Ontario in excess of $2 billion in gasoline taxes. Last year they invested $20 million, after taking $2 billion out of the province.

The provincial premiers reaffirmed, and just last night the provincial ministers of finance reaffirmed-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Will the minister take his seat. I cannot, with the two sides going back and forth, hear.

Is the minister done?

Hon Mr Turnbull: Perhaps I should repeat: The federal Liberals took in $2 billion and spent $20 million on the roads of this province.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. This is a memorandum dated November 5 regarding the Ontario Real Estate Corp real estate sales program. I've read it with great interest. Seeing your press release, you've outlined eight approximate items regarding the process of sales. I think you've missed one, and I want to bring it to your attention right now.

I want to remind you of an announcement that was made on March 23 of this year by your colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services with great fanfare when she said the province would be making lands available for affordable housing projects. I'm going to quote that release to you. It said the Harris government would be "making vacant or underused public lands available to create at minimum 500 units of affordable rental housing." It goes on: "More affordable housing is needed and the private sector is in the best position to build it. However, the cost of land can be a barrier. These lands will be provided at reduced prices...."

Minister, confirm the process for me. Tell me what specific arrangements you've made for the affordable housing projects, and finally, for the record, please tell this House which lands have been set aside-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Member's time.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The member of the opposition knows the announcement was made by a different minister, but I will endeavour to explain the policy. On the specifics, he can ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing exactly which properties.

The Ontario Real Estate Corp is reviewing a whole number of properties that the government no longer needs. We don't wish to tie up our dollars maintaining or upgrading those pieces of property that are not needed by the taxpayers to deliver services that the public expect. In that regard, there is a whole list of properties that will be reviewed to create a business case to see if we should sell them or not, and those dollars can be utilized by the government of Ontario to provide services that the public care about.

In terms of the homeless strategy, we have been quite clear and upfront on that: There are a few pieces of property that, with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, we'll consider for sites to help the homeless.

Mr Caplan: Interesting. We should all be concerned about the answer the minister has given us today, because in March your colleague gets up and makes a splashy pre-election announcement saying you're going to do something about homelessness in the province. Then of course your government goes ahead and guts rent controls and tenant protection; you've slashed shelter allowances.

Here it is, eight months later, and you're selling off assets without any consideration to the promises you made eight months ago. The time for action is now. I've met with many groups from around this province who are anxious to access public lands for affordable housing, and these groups want to hear what your plans are today.

Minister, why don't you just admit that you're never planning to give up any lands for public housing, that there is no proposal you're interested in? Why don't you tell this House that it's another in a list of broken promises? Admit today that when you come to write press releases, you know how to talk the talk, but when it comes to living up to the meagre commitments you made in March, you have no idea how to walk the walk. Admit that the announcement in March was a sham. Admit that you have-

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

Hon Mr Hodgson: The answer to his

preamble is no.

In answer to his announcement on the homeless strategy, it was announced that it's in co-operation with other levels of government. I know the federal Liberal Party has been accused of dragging its feet on this, but I've heard rumours that they're getting involved. The municipality of Toronto is quite concerned. It is a municipal responsibility and other levels of government have been working with this. The announcement in the spring was, "If we can be helpful, we will." We've announced how much effort we've put into this.

There has been the Ministry of Health as well as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and they certainly don't need to take a back seat to any of those false accusations that you've been suggesting.

FORT HENRY

Mr Brian Coburn (Carleton-Gloucester): My question is for the Minister of Tourism. There is a concern in eastern Ontario regarding the future of Fort Henry, which is located in Kingston. It is my understanding that Fort Henry is owned by the federal government through Parks Canada but has been operated under lease by the province through the St Lawrence Parks Commission. This fort is designated as a national historic site by the federal government and is an important part of our national heritage. Can the minister tell me what steps are being taken to preserve Fort Henry?

Interjection.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism): I want to thank the member opposite for the question. I noticed the interjections from the member for Kingston and the Islands, who hasn't found time to ask a question about a fort in his own riding.

The fact is that this fort is operated by the provincial government, yet it is the only example in Canada of a national heritage property owned by the federal government but subsidized by the taxpayers of a province to the tune of $1.2 million. This government is committed to ensuring that it has an outstanding program at this site, but we're not getting the commitment in order to ensure the preservation of this historical site. As I say, we're providing about a $1.2-million subsidy to operate the program at Fort Henry every year.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Why doesn't the minister just put back the money he took out of the system and out of the St Lawrence-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the member take his seat. Supplementary?

Mr Coburn: I have expressed concern about the structural integrity of the fort and the St Lawrence Parks Commission have expressed concern about the lack of capital investment in Fort Henry. Can the minister bring us up to date on the discussions with the three levels of government?

Hon Mr Jackson: The people of eastern Ontario should be concerned about this important historical site. After all, for the last two years our government has been sitting at a table, sitting down with residents of the Kingston area, with their municipal council, and with the federal government. We have to realize that this property used to be a Department of National Defence property and it was only recently that the federal government determined it wasn't essential to the security of our nation. It has now been transferred over to Parks Canada, but they're not putting any money into it in terms of a long-term commitment to ensure its preservation.

Our responsibility is to the taxpayers of Ontario. We are maintaining our commitment to our historical sites that we've developed in this province. We are very proud of the fact that we're putting $2.5 million into Ste-Marie-among-the-Hurons and Discovery Harbour, $3.2 million into Old Fort William in Thunder Bay, and over $4 million has gone into the St Lawrence Parks Commission, which includes Upper Canada Village. These are important heritage properties that this government has continued to commit taxpayers' dollars to preserve.

VISITORS

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it's appropriate for me at this point in time to point out to you that we have visitors in the east gallery from the centre of the universe, the Swan Lake retirement community in Markham.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It's not a point of order.

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday, the members of the standing committee on justice had its organizational meeting. At that time they elected a Chair and a Vice-Chair, and as well at that time the members of the subcommittee were determined. The subcommittee adjourned its meeting until today, at 3:30 of course.

My office received a telephone call from the clerk's office indicating that today's meeting is cancelled, and the proposal was that the meeting be held on Thursday at 3:30, in the alternative. The explanation that was given was that Mr Mazzilli, who is the member for London-Fanshawe, was going to be substituting for Ms Elliott, who was the person named to the committee and who was the person on the subcommittee.

I spoke with Mr Mazzilli and I take everything he told me, quite frankly, at face value. I have confidence in what he's explained to me, that he is a member of the committee that's meeting today to deal with the municipal affairs estimates.

My question to you, Speaker, and the point of order is that I find it an interesting twist of the rules to adjourn a meeting to a certain time, date and place, and then, without having that meeting occur, to just simply say, "Well, the meeting's not going to happen there and let's try Thursday at 3:30."

Mr Mazzilli explains that he's the parliamentary assistant, of course, and would be interested in this matter. I appreciate that and I understand that. But today was only a subcommittee meeting. I will make myself available Thursday, of course I will, and quite frankly I'm prepared to consent to having this meeting transferred or adjourned from today to Thursday.

But I raise this, Speaker, first of all to make a record of what happened, because you understand I'm a little suspicious about these sorts of things. But fair enough, and I attribute nothing other than the best of motives to Mr Mazzilli. I want to make that very clear. But I say to the Speaker that the Speaker in this instance should indicate on this point of order that a committee hearing can't just be adjourned out of thin air, that you can't just over the telephone say, "Oh, well, we're not going to be there on Tuesday, so let's do it Thursday."

In any event, though, I'm going to consent to the matter occurring, because I understand why Mr Mazzilli should be at that committee. But I'm concerned about this and I don't want the record to indicate that I'm accepting it as any sort of precedent-far from it. It's only by unanimous consent, in my view, that the committee or subcommittee can do this.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member will know it's not a point of order. With respect, he may want to raise it with the committee Chair in dealing with committee matters. I'm sure the members will be able to work it out.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would appreciate some clarification as to why it's not a point of order. I don't want to belabour it. I was the other member attending the committee meeting yesterday. There was an agreement of all three parties to have the meeting on a date. But if there is an abandonment of that consensus, if involvement of all members on the committee is altered, why is that not a point of order for the Speaker?

The Speaker: I ruled it was not a point of order. This is something that should be dealt with by the committee Chair in dealing with that. I'm sure that the members will be able to work it out. In situations like this it is not a point of order dealing with procedures in this House.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: It was a subcommittee of the committee that was to meet. It could very well be a point of order. It has to be taken up at the committee level and a ruling has to be made. What I'm trying to say, Mr Speaker, is that-

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Fine.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could you explain to me, was the last speaker a consultant to the Speaker in giving advice to this House?

The Speaker: I thank the member for his help on that.

Hon Mr Klees: On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe that your ruling is appropriate and it's up to the committee, as you say, to deal with this matter.

The Speaker: I'm sure the members will be able to work this out.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): Mr Speaker, I rise today on a brief point of privilege. Yesterday in the House, in response to a question from the honourable member from Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, the Hansard records me as saying, "In Ontario, we consider parole to be a right and not a privilege." That of course is not what I intended to say. That may well be-

Interjections.

Hon Mr Sampson: I hear the members from the Liberal benches heckling. That of course would be their particular view of parole in this province; I certainly know it's a view of the federal Liberal government in this country. But this government and this minister-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Would the member take his seat. The member is trying to change the record and I cannot hear. I'd appreciate it if all the members would let the minister make the correction.

Minister.

Hon Mr Sampson: Thank you, Speaker. What was recorded in Hansard may well be the position from the Liberal benches, but this government, this minister, believes that in Ontario parole is a privilege and not a right, and it's a privilege to be earned. I want that record corrected. Thank you.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Help me, Speaker. Is he suggesting that the record from yesterday ought to be corrected, or is he simply correcting the error that he made yesterday? I'm being quite-

The Speaker: I think the member is, if I follow, directly trying to correct the record of what he said yesterday.

Hon Mr Sampson: Just to be clear, Speaker, I'm correcting the record, and it's my record, so I believe that's within the realm of the privilege. I was just pointing out that what is recorded in Hansard may well be the view of the Liberal Party, but it's not the view of this minister that parole-

The Speaker: Order. The minister has made the correction.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Surely to goodness the record of these proceedings is whatever the record says. A member can come in here the next day and say, "What is being recorded is not what I meant to say," but he cannot correct the record of what he actually said on the day when he said it. I'm quite serious about this, Speaker. Surely the record of this House is the record of this House.

The Speaker: You know the procedure is that he is allowed to change the next day, and what he is very clearly saying is that the record today will reflect the change that he is talking about. The member has, I think, tried to do that and make the point of privilege and change things, which all members are allowed to do in this House.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I just wanted you to know I keep receiving hundreds of petitions from residents who are against the closing of schools in Toronto. This one reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government's decision to slash education funding could lead to the closure of many neighbourhood schools"-and indeed has led to the closure of schools-"including one of the most community-oriented schools like Earlscourt public school; and

"Whereas the present funding formula does not take into account the historic and cultural links schools have with their communities nor the special education programs that have developed as a direct need of our communities; and

"Whereas the prospect of closing neighbourhood community schools will displace many children and put others on longer bus routes; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools; and

"Whereas Earlscourt public school is a community school with many links to the immediate neighbourhood, such as day care, a games room, an open gym, fitness classes and a site for sports activities;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, demand that the government changes the funding formula to take into account the historic, cultural and community links that Earlscourt public school has established."

I'm signing this document because I'm in total agreement with this.

ANIMAL PROTECTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm very privileged to present a petition on behalf of the honourable Janet Ecker, who is not able to present this petition on behalf of her constituents. Specifically, Donna Craig has presented here a very large number of petition signatures from such constituents as Irene Wilson, Janet Ellis, Sebastian Angelo, Barbara McLeod, just to name but five.

"We, the undersigned residents of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following:

"That lately there has been a distinct increase in animal cruelty in Ontario;

"That the antiquated laws and punishments must be amended in order to deter animal abusers from inflicting pain and agony on defenceless animals that are only wanting unconditional love;

"That by having stricter laws would discourage an abuser of domineering a defenceless animal because of the cost and time spent in jail if convicted;

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario" to introduce laws which would provide longer jail sentences, larger fines, no further ownership of animals within a lifetime and publication of accuseds' names and addresses.

I'm pleased to present these on behalf of Janet Ecker.

LANDFILL

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I have a petition here for the Premier, signed by almost the entire community of Tyendinaga, and it reads:

"We, the residents of Tyendinaga township, strongly object to the development of a mega garbage dump in our area. Please stop the proposed expansion of the Richmond landfill site by Canadian Waste Systems."

I'm signing my name to this petition as I support the residents of Tyendinaga in their fight to stop this dump. There are over 700 names on this and I'm pleased to add my name to them.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I'd like to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas 13 people died during the first seven months of 1999 on Highway 401 between London and Windsor; and

"Whereas traffic levels on all sections of Highway 401 continue to increase; and

"Whereas Canada's number one trade and travel route was designed in the 1950s for fewer vehicles and lighter trucks; and

"Whereas road funding is almost completely paid through vehicle permit and driver licensing fees; and

"Whereas Ontario road users pay 28 cents per litre of tax on gasoline, adding up to over $2.7 billion in provincial gas taxes and over $2.3 billion in federal gas taxes;

"We, the undersigned members of the Canadian Automobile Association and other residents of Ontario, respectfully request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately upgrade Highway 401 to at least a six-lane highway with full paved shoulders and rumble strips; and

"We respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario place firm pressure on the federal government to invest its gasoline tax revenues in road safety improvements in Ontario."

This petition has been signed by many residents of Mississauga and I'm pleased to present it to you.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, this is signed by another 100 concerned constituents in my riding and I have affixed my signature in full agreement with their concerns.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

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

"Whereas children are exposed to sexually explicit material in variety stores and video rental outlets;

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials;

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

"To enact legislation which will:

"Create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to sexually explicit material in retail establishments;

"Make it illegal to sell, rent, or loan sexually explicit materials to minors."

I've also signed the petition.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

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

"Whereas 13 people died during the first seven months of 1999 on Highway 401 between London and Windsor;"-and the carnage continues-"and

"Whereas traffic levels on all sections of Highway 401 continue to increase; and

"Whereas Canada's number one trade and travel route was designed in the 1950s for fewer vehicles and lighter trucks; and

"Whereas road funding is almost completely paid through vehicle permit and driver licensing fees;

"We, the undersigned members of the Canadian Automobile Association and other residents of Ontario, respectfully request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately upgrade Highway 401 to at least a six-lane highway with full paved shoulders and rumble strips."

This is signed by a number of residents of St Thomas and Elgin county area, and I gladly affix my signature.

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 13 people died during the first seven months of 1999 on Highway 401 between London and Windsor; and

"Whereas traffic levels on all sections of Highway 401 continue to increase; and

"Whereas Canada's number one trade and travel route was designed in the 1950s for fewer vehicles and lighter trucks; and

"Whereas road funding is almost completely paid through vehicle permit and driver licensing fees; and

"Whereas Ontario road users pay 28 cents per litre of tax on gasoline, adding up to over $2.7 billion in provincial gas taxes, and over $2.3 billion in federal gas taxes,

"We, the undersigned members of the Canadian Automobile Association and other residents of Ontario, respectfully request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately upgrade Highway 401 to at least a six-lane highway with full paved shoulders and rumble strips; and

"We respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario place firm pressure on the federal government to invest its gasoline tax revenue in road safety improvements in Ontario."

This is signed by a number of residents from Morpeth, Chatham and Thamesville. I add my signature to it.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

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

"Whereas children are exposed to sexually explicit material in variety stores and video rental outlets;

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposures to sexually explicit material;

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

"To enact legislation which will:

"Create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to sexually explicit material in retail establishments;

"Make it illegal to sell, rent, or loan sexually explicit materials to minors."

I've also signed the petition.

OPPOSITION DAY

SPORTS FACILITY TAXATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I seek unanimous consent to read the motion on behalf of our leader.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Christopherson: On behalf of Mr Hampton, I move that:

Be it resolved that, in the opinion of this House, professional sports operations should not benefit from special property tax reductions.

I'm pleased to provide the leadoff debate for my caucus on this issue. I would advise the Speaker that our leader, Howard Hampton, will be doing our wrap-up debate just prior to the vote later this afternoon.

The issue we have here on the floor right now is one that, for the second time since this Parliament has sat, in a very short time, sees the official opposition and the government joining hand in hand, trotting down the same economic path. In this case, it's a question of whether or not there will be tax breaks, of course something this government claims to be a real expert at, and it is, in terms of making sure that the very well off get lots of tax breaks, and that's what we have again.

This is all about cracking under the pressure that's being put on the government, and obviously on the official opposition, the Liberals too, to provide further benefits to NHL millionaires. This is what upsets us. The minister talks about the fact that he wants to create a level playing field. Yet it disturbs us that at this time of massive cuts in order to pay for their tax cut neither the minister nor any of his colleagues ever talk about a level playing field for the homeless.

Or how about a level playing field for workers or a level playing field for those individuals in our communities who are watching and experiencing our health care system deteriorate? How about a level playing field for the kids with special needs in Hamilton who aren't getting the supports they need in the classroom, through educational assistance, so that they can fully participate in the education system, as they have up until now and as they are entitled to under law, because there's not enough money?

The government changed the funding formula and now our board doesn't have enough money to hire the necessary education assistants to help these special-needs kids go into the classroom and learn. Where is the government standing up and saying there has to be a level playing field for our kids? We need to make sure that kids with special needs have the same opportunities for an education that every other child has. Why aren't they talking about that level playing field?

Again, in Hamilton we're talking about $3.5 million. That's a lot of money; in the context of a budget of $60 some-odd billion, which I believe is what the revenue number is now, it's not. But if it was your child, all the money in the world wouldn't seem big enough to justify why your child can't be participating in a classroom the way they have in the past and the way they're entitled to. No, this government doesn't want to have that level playing field debate.

They want to have a debate about a level playing field that is going to see, ultimately, if the option is taken up, $32 million-$16 million from the province and $16 million from the municipalities involved-and I'll speak to that in a moment.

With all the problems we've got in our communities, which, by the way, they've either created or exacerbated by virtue of their cuts, billions of dollars given back to the very wealthy, they've decided that $32 million will not go to health care, won't go to help the homeless. God forbid they should do anything to provide an infrastructure to support those squeegee kids, because their answer to that, of course, is to throw them all in jail and treat them like criminals. They don't think it's important enough to spend this money on social services. Where is the Ontarians with Disabilities Act they've promised?

None of those things get any attention by this government, not in a meaningful way. But, boy, when it comes to tax breaks for hockey millionaires, they can't get an announcement out fast enough, they can't get that legislation through quick enough. Because $32 million is nothing for them to worry about when it comes to providing tax breaks for millionaires. They're already probably the best at it in Canada.

But God help you if you're not one of those chosen few and you don't have the means to have private health care, private education, live in a gated community, the only roads that are left to what everyone used to have access to just a few years ago under Mike Harris's Ontario.

None of those things is a priority. Is it just the NDP saying that? Well, it is in this House, that's for sure, because the Tories are proposing it and the Liberals are trotting right on side just like they are with the very extreme balanced budget legislation that's coming down.

The only ones who are saying-here anyway-that this is a wrong idea, wrong priority, and not the best use of $32 million of taxpayers' money are the NDP. But outside? According to an Angus Reid poll that was released, conducted on behalf of the federal Department of Industry, only 37% of the population supports this. How did this become one of the biggest, most important fiscal matters facing this government? How the hell did that happen?

Again, we're not the only ones who have some real concerns. Walter Robinson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation states something very interesting. He's on record as saying, "The money people in business spend on games is disposable income and they'll just spend that elsewhere."

I know the economic arguments are going to come up about why this should be done. If I lived in a locale affected by this, purely to represent my home community I might try and make those arguments too. Objectively, in fairness, an MPP has to do what they have to do for their community. If you don't do it, who else will? I have lots of time and respect for that. But that's a whole lot different from a caucus uniting around a position or, in this case, a government saying that the policy for them is that the best way to spend $32 million is to give it to hockey millionaires. That's the problem with this.

Two last things before I sit down. One, I find it-I can't use the language that describes how I find it, but I will say that I find it curious that the government has involved the municipalities in this. They're going to argue partnerships or "We don't want to be telling municipalities what to do," which of course is a joke, because you've taken over just about everything. Whatever they say is really not the point. The fact of the matter is I think they're doing this because they want political cover. That way it's not just them.

If the government believes in it that much, spend the whole $32 million. No, no, they split it 50/50 between them and the municipalities. I think it's to provide political cover. They just want to be able to say: "We're not the only government. It's not just us. Here's this local city council; they've decided it's their biggest priority."

It's interesting that it seems that Toronto-which is of course one of the key communities affected by this. It would appear at this point that their council has absolutely no appetite for this, for the simple reason that, unlike the Mike Harris cabinet ministers, the Toronto councillors, when they walk down the street, acknowledge and see and have some compassion for the fact that there are people sleeping on the street because they don't have anywhere to live. Again, if not directly caused, it's certainly exacerbated by the policies of this government-the vicious, mean-spirited policies of this government.

So it would appear Toronto council has looked at this issue and said, "How in God's name would we justify spending $16 million on hockey millionaires, when we're trying to find every scrap of available dollars to put into some of the social services that we so desperately need in our community, given the fact that the Harris government has dumped all these issues on us and has set in place policies that are causing more and more people to be homeless?" Bear in mind, that's just an indicator.

When we talk about the homeless, it's the most blatant example of what's happening in the economy to the vast majority of people in terms of starting to fall downward. It's only those at the very top, those who are already doing well, who are getting the real benefit of this government's agenda.

So it doesn't look like it's going to happen in Toronto but where it may happen in other communities, make no mistake, the minister of the day responsible is going to stand in his or her place and say: "It's not just us; it's also the local community. They decided it's a priority." Again, more political smoke and mirrors.

The other thing I expect, since we're the only ones opposing this and we've put this issue forward, is that we're going to face some criticisms and some attention today, and that's fine. We welcome that, because I'm sure somebody is going to want to talk about some of the programs and supports that we put in place in some communities, such as your own in Sault Ste Marie, Speaker.

We will be reminding all the Tories and Liberals who want to talk about that today that the period we were in, from 1990 to 1995, represented the most serious economic recession across North America and indeed most of the world, but most severe in North America-and, by the way, ultimately most severe in Canada thanks to the policies of that wonderful Tory, Brian Mulroney-so we did help out. We helped out de Havilland, Algoma Steel, St Marys Paper, Spruce Falls, Provincial Papers and others, but it wasn't just some kind of a giveaway. It certainly wasn't off the property tax base.

The fact is tha