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

November 20, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Nov-20 vol. A (PDF)

L104A - Mon 20 Nov 2000 / Lun 20 nov 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SOCIAL HOUSING

PARALYMPICS

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

LONDON POLICE SERVICE

COMMENTS OF CANADIAN ALLIANCE CANDIDATE

RESTRAINT OF HOSPITAL PATIENTS

PARALYMPICS

CHILD POVERTY

DIALYSIS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CORRECTIONS ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RESPONSABILISATION EN MATIÈRE DE SERVICES CORRECTIONNELS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

CHILD POVERTY

HEALTH CARE

CHILD POVERTY

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

MEAT INSPECTION

COMMUNITY SAFETY

PROPERTY TAXATION

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

LABOUR LEGISLATION

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

PARENTAL LEAVE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

CAMPING

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PROTECTION OF MINORS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PROPERTY TAXATION

PENSION INDEXATION

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

EDUCATION REFORM

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ROAD USER CUSTOMER SERVICE IMPROVEMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES OFFERTS AUX USAGERS DE LA ROUTE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SOCIAL HOUSING

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): Today we begin hearings on the Harris government's housing downloading legislation, Bill 128. A grand total of five hours has been allotted to gather input and hear deputants. In other words, out of the hundreds of individuals and organizations that wish to comment on Bill 128, only 19 are going to have an opportunity to do so.

It's no surprise to me, because no one supports Bill 128-not public housing tenants, not public housing providers, not municipalities, not even Mike Harris's own hand-picked adviser, David Crombie. I'm certain that Minister Clement did not even send this legislation to the Red Tape Commission, because Bill 128 contains enough red tape to choke even the biggest Tory dinosaur. Bill 128 is a disaster. It will hand municipalities a ticking time bomb, leaving local ratepayers to face enormous property tax increases.

The Social Housing Reform Act ensures that no new housing will be built. This is especially reprehensible at a time when we have a housing crisis in Ontario and-get ready for it, Speaker-we will now face an Ontario-style ethnic cleansing of the poor. If Mike Harris and Tony Clement are serious about ensuring that Ontarians have safe, decent and affordable housing, they will do the proper thing and withdraw Bill 128, the Social Housing Reform Act, today.

PARALYMPICS

Mr Brian Coburn (Ottawa-Orléans): I rise today to congratulate three extraordinary athletes living in my riding of Ottawa-Orléans. Jason Lachance, Chantal Benoit and Caitlin Renneson have just returned from Sydney, Australia, where they took

part in the Paralympics. In fact, they didn't simply take part; Jason, Chantal and Caitlin were outstanding in each of their events. After capturing gold in the 100-metre sprint, Jason climbed the podium two more times for silver medals in the 200-metre and 400-metres sprints. Jason is also the defending world champion in the 400-metre sprint. Chantal and her basketball teammates took home the gold medal, their third straight Paralympics first-place finish. Caitlin captured a bronze medal in the 400-metre. Caitlin set a 1,500-metre world record back in 1998 and has set the Canadian records in 800-metre and 1,500-metre.

Caitlin, Chantal and Jason exhibit some of the true spirit of the sport. The Paralympics are not brought to the world stage the same way as the Olympics are. It is unfortunate that there is a lack of television cameras there to broadcast all the glory. Paralympians compete with the same desire and determination and as hard as any other athlete in the world, and they are all champions.

I congratulate all three in their accomplishments and I wish them the best of luck in future competitions. I know they'll succeed on and off the court and the track.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): In the spirit of National Child Day, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about our children. I'm sure every member, even the members across the aisle, will agree that our children are the future of the province. I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that every child is given the essential tools to make their future as bright as it can be.

Numerous studies, including the Fraser Mustard report commissioned by Mike Harris in 1998, have stated that a child's early years, especially the first three years, set the foundation for lifelong learning, behaviour and health. The government's answer to the Mustard report is the early years challenge fund. The government allocated $30 million to spend on early childhood development, but there are strings attached. In order to qualify for the provincial funds, a pre-school program has to raise half the money it needs from private sources. So far, no school has been able to do that, and the money is still sitting at Queen's Park.

In large urban areas and in other larger areas in the province, the childhood program could become much easier because they have a larger population to draw from, but communities like mine in smaller rural Ontario are already stretched to the limit with fundraising initiatives. In my riding the community is already being asked to raise millions of dollars for hospital restructuring and other infrastructure programs. Why should communities be forced to foot every part of the bill for another Mike Harris scheme?

Children in my riding and other small and rural ridings deserve access to the same advantages as children in big cities, but apparently the Ontario government feels differently. This is just another example of the government ignoring the people of rural Ontario. It's programs like this that make the people of Ontario question the commitment to children of the Mike Harris government.

LONDON POLICE SERVICE

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): I rise in the House today to congratulate members of the London Police Service. Last week I recognized sworn members of the London Police Service. Today I wish to recognize civilian members of that service.

During constituency week I attended the awards ceremony for the London Police Service. I attended the ceremony as parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General and as one of the area MPPs. Thus, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the long-standing members of the London Police Service:

With 40 years of service: Arthur Springett.

With 30 years of service: John Marcin and Frances Melville.

With 20 years of service: Eldon Amoroso, Catherine Brennan, William Butler, Judith Campbell, Jeffrey Craigmile, Debra Dodds, Verna Fleuelling, Randolph Forsythe, Laurie Gassewitz, Judith Graybill, Angela Haggerty, Barbara Hornick, Linda Johnson, Catharina Jones, Diane Lansdowne, Paul Lasenby, Lorraine McDonald, Lori Nosko, Kathryn O'Flynn, Catherine Porter, Avril Potts, James Rae, Gloria Rogers, Christina Ross, Brian Sharpe, Catherine Sharratt, Penelope Stallan, Suanne Thompson, Willem VanWelzen, Dianne Whitelaw, Robert Wilson and Susan Wood.

I ask the House to join me in congratulating these long-standing members of the London community. Without the contribution of this police personnel, my riding of London-Fanshawe and the city of London would not be the safe and beautiful community that we live in.

COMMENTS OF CANADIAN ALLIANCE CANDIDATE

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to register on behalf of my leader Dalton McGuinty, my Liberal caucus colleagues and I hope all members of the Legislature our profound distress about the comments made by a federal Alliance candidate about new Canadians of Chinese and Tamil background.

Canada has been built over its history by immigrants from around the world joining our aboriginal community in a spirit of enormous mutual respect. This now-former candidate made several comments that are offensive to all of us and while this is strong language, they were racist comments. Canada has been blessed to attract enormously talented people who want to come our country from Hong Kong, the People's Republic of China, Taiwan and Sri Lanka. We invited them, they came and they are doing great things for Canada.

It is my fervent hope that the voices of all Canadians-all of whose roots, except for our aboriginal community, trace to other countries-will in a deafening roar drown out the racist comments of a few so our Chinese and Tamil communities clearly hear that, like everyone else in this country, they are welcome, they are at home, we want them, they are respected citizens of this country and racist comments will not be tolerated by anyone in our land.

RESTRAINT OF HOSPITAL PATIENTS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): I'm rising today to speak to members of the Legislative Assembly about a private member's bill I have coming forward on Thursday, Bill 135. It's a bill that would stop the physical restraint of the confused elderly in our acute care hospitals, older people who are not being tied up for any medical treatment purposes but simply because they are old and because they're confused.

I've sent every member of the Legislative Assembly a copy of the bill and some background information, research information about the medical problems with the use of restraint, as well as some of the other jurisdictions that have moved to prohibit this.

I want to draw your attention to an

article this weekend that was written by Star columnist Helen Henderson. Helen did a profile of some of the cases over the years that you should be aware of.

For example, at a Toronto-area hospital, Marion Post, described as a confused elderly woman, became the second patient in five years to strangle while trying to escape restraints in which she had been confined.

Lau Szeto, who spoke only Cantonese, burned to death when she tried to free herself by setting fire to her restraints. She had been placed in them because she was bothering people, trying to speak to them in a language that none of them understood.

In British Columbia, Lily Lee, who had been forgotten by staff, choked to death on her own vomit when she had been restrained to a toilet. As she struggled to get up, the restraints got tighter and tighter.

Geriatricians, the Geriatricians' Alliance, the psychogeriatric association, many seniors' organizations and the Alzheimer Society are all supporting this bill. I urge every member of the Legislature to do the same.

PARALYMPICS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My colleague in the riding of Ottawa-Orléans just brought your attention to the Year 2000 Paralympics in Australia. I too rise today to pay tribute to all the athletes who represented Canada at these games, but I rise specifically to talk about one of my constituents who had the honour and privilege of competing at the Paralympics.

The athlete that I speak of is Kyle Pettey. Kyle Pettey returned home from Australia a champion. His outstanding performance, energy, and remarkable drive to succeed earned him a silver medal in the discus competition, and another silver in the men's shot put. Kyle's experience at these games is something I'm sure he'll remember for the rest of his life.

But while I'm particularly struck by Kyle's tenacity, hard work and devotion, I admire too the dedication of his coach, John Potts. A wise philosopher, Ralph Waldo Emerson, once said, "We all need someone who can help us do what we already can." Therefore I believe it was John Potts's winning, committed and visionary style of coaching that aided Kyle in his pursuit of an Olympic dream.

Speaker, I know that you join with me and thousands of others, particularly in the town of Campbellford and Seymour, as we congratulate both Kyle Pettey and his coach, John Potts, for their outstanding success at the Year 2000 Paralympics.

CHILD POVERTY

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Today is National Child Day. We are encouraged to celebrate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Times are good in Ontario, according to some. The economy is booming. So why is it we hear that there are more poor children than ever in Ontario?

This is the second report this month that has indicated that Ontario's children, those who need us the most, are being left behind by the Harris government. The Early Years Study has given very clear recommendations to the government about how to support children in Ontario. A report issued today by Campaign 2000 indicates that the number of poor children in Ontario has increased by over 90% since 1989, and the number of poor children with parents who work has increased by 50%.

It is time for the Premier to act. Campaign 2000 urges the government to increase parental leave, ensure that parents have access to quality child care, support and build more affordable housing, and ensure that parents receive a living wage.

Child poverty has increased under Mike Harris's watch. The statistics speak for themselves. Mike Harris is obviously not a leader or an advocate for Ontario's children.

DIALYSIS

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I recently attended the opening of the Scarborough Hospital satellite dialysis unit in my riding of Scarborough Centre. This satellite will serve over 400 additional new patients in the east Toronto area.

A lot of hard work and planning went into creating this unit. A number of dedicated people and organizations must be thanked, but I especially want to commend the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, for her interest and financial support.

In 1998-99, this government allocated more than $7.6 million to treat dialysis patients at Scarborough Hospital. In 1999-2000, an additional $10.7 million was allocated. In 2000-01, we've projected an expenditure of a further $13.2 million to the program.

Health Minister Witmer's announcement of an additional $22 million to expand dialysis treatment around the province will also have a positive impact for the many people who require dialysis treatment in east Toronto. The Scarborough Hospital will assist the Toronto East General Hospital in its establishment of a new dialysis treatment facility at the hospital in the near future.

I am proud to be a member of a government that is committed to improving the quality of health care in this great province of Ontario.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Standing order 62(

a) provides that "The standing committee on estimates shall present one report with respect to all of the estimates and supplementary estimates considered pursuant to standing orders 59 and 61 no later than the third Thursday in November of each calendar year."

The House not having received a report from the standing committee on estimates for certain ministries on Thursday, November 16, 2000, as required by the standing orders of this House, pursuant to standing order 62(

b) the supplementary estimates before the committee of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care are deemed to be passed by the committee and are deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

Standing order 62(

a) also provides that "The standing committee on estimates shall present one report with respect to all of the estimates considered pursuant to standing orders 59 and 61 no later than the third Thursday in November of each calendar year."

The House not having received a report from the standing committee on estimates for certain ministries on Thursday, November 16, 2000, as required by the standing orders of the House, pursuant to standing order 62(

b) the estimates before the committee of the Ministry of Tourism, the Ministry of Labour, the Management Board Secretariat, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Ministry of Correctional Services are deemed to be passed by the committee and are deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice and social policy and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Mrs Mushinski from the standing committee on justice and social policy presents the committee's report as follows and moves its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 69,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 in relation to the construction industry / Projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1995 sur les relations de travail en ce qui a trait à l'industrie de la construction.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1348 to 1353.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion for the adoption of the report of the standing committee on justice and social policy please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

Ecker, Janet

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hodgson, Chris

Jackson, Cameron

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Palladini, Al

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Martel, Shelley

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 38; the nays are 34.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Tuesday, November 14, 2000, the bill is ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CORRECTIONS ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RESPONSABILISATION EN MATIÈRE DE SERVICES CORRECTIONNELS

Mr Sampson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 144,

An Act to establish accountability in correctional services, to make offenders demonstrate that they are drug-free, to set rules for offenders to earn their release, to give the Board of Parole a say in earned release decisions, and to change the name of the Board of Parole / Projet de loi 144, Loi visant à instituer la responsabilisation au sein des services correctionnels, à obliger les délinquants à démontrer qu'ils ne font pas usage de substances intoxicantes, à fixer les règles que doivent suivre les délinquants pour mériter leur libération, à permettre à la Commission des libérations conditionnelles d'intervenir dans les décisions en matière de libération méritée et à changer le nom de la Commission des libérations conditionnelles.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The minister for a short statement?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): I'll wait for ministers' statements.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, November 20, Tuesday, November 21 and Wednesday, November 22, 2000, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion regarding private members' public business.

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

Hon Mr Klees: I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following change be made to the ballot list for private members' public business: that Mr Patten and Mr Levac exchange places in order of precedence, such that Mr Patten assumes ballot item number 74 and Mr Levac assumes ballot item number 54.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): In 1867, the Fathers of Confederation believed that the principles of peace, order and good government would offer a new nation its best hope for growth, prosperity and civility. Crime was different then. In fact, a review of the logs at the Don Jail in Toronto reveals that offenders were arrested for offences such as stealing horses, committing high treason and owing debts. Needless to say, times have changed. Or have they?

It may surprise Ontarians to know that when this government was elected in 1995, fully one third of all jails operating in this province were older than this country itself. In many ways those jails stand as crumbling relics of an age when governments were content to ignore the challenges of correctional services.

Since 1995, this government has committed to spend more than half a billion dollars to construct new and modern jails, to retrofit other jails with security upgrades and to begin the process of mothballing jails that predate Confederation.

But it's not enough to simply replace bricks and mortar. By ignoring the realities of criminal behaviour we would be short-sighted and self-defeating. Approximately 80% of adult inmates and 60% of those who have been sentenced to community sentences have some form of drug or alcohol dependency. You cannot hold down a job and be fully functional as a member of society if you are shackled by drug and alcohol addictions.

To combat the scourge of drugs that plagues our institutions and our communities, this bill will establish a program of random and regular drug and alcohol testing for all offenders. If an offender fails to demonstrate that he or she is drug-free, then the response would be swift and sure. That offender would find himself losing his earned remission or he would be back in jail if he was serving his sentence in the community.

Drug use, especially in institutions, is a serious matter. Inmates who are high on drugs and alcohol pose a danger to correctional staff and other inmates. Drugs and alcohol destroy the will of offenders to break the cycle of criminal behaviour. Drugs and alcohol will only serve to sink an offender deeper into despair.

We will help. We will offer our treatment programs so that offenders can re-enter society with confidence that they can conquer their addictions. These measures will go a long way to holding offenders accountable for their actions, but we will go further.

This government has been calling on the federal Liberal government to follow Ontario's lead to stop coddling criminals and to finally get tough on crime. We have joined our voice to the cries of victims and the outrage of Canadians. The responses from the federal Liberals are a dismissive shrug and a deaf ear.

This government has urged the federal Liberals to scrap their statutory release law, or "discount law," as it has come to be known fondly to criminals. Federal legislation generously offers criminals one third off their sentence as if to be rewarded for going to jail. This reduction is known as "earned remission." Currently, earned remission is only taken away for bad behaviour.

The Ontario government believes that its generosity of spirit should be shared with the victims of crime and not the criminals. We can no longer wait for weak-kneed Liberals to embrace common sense. We warned the Liberal government not to doubt our resolve and today we have acted. In Ontario, inmates will have to earn their freedom. In Ontario, inmates will no longer be granted this gift at the end of their sentence. Criminals will earn their freedom by actively and positively participating in treatment and work programs, demonstrating that they are free of drugs and alcohol, and by abiding by the rules and standards of positive behaviour.

In 1993-94, the NDP government's parole grant rate was 59%. I am pleased to announce in this House that in 1999-2000, due to this government's emphasis on public safety, the parole grant rate has been reduced to 28%. Parole is now a privilege to be earned, not a right to be granted.

To ensure that every inmate is fully accountable for his or her behaviour, this bill will reconstitute the Ontario Board of Parole into the Ontario Parole and Earned Release Board. This board would retain the authority to make all parole decisions. In addition, this board would make decisions on all early and conditional releases except for short-term treatment and work programs or other administrative releases such as medical appointments. The Ontario Parole and Earned Release Board will ensure that offenders have earned the privilege to be released early.

The board will be responsible for making early-release decisions for high-risk offenders-those serving sentences of 18 to 24 months-as well as have the authority to audit, review and reverse earned release decisions made by correctional institutions for lower-risk offenders.

This government can no longer rely on a correctional system that has often shown itself to defeat initiative and discourage innovation. Some people-even some people in this House-believe we have a model correctional system in Ontario. But how can this correctional system be a model when our best estimate is that eight out of every 10 offenders who come in the front door leave the institutions and re-offend? How can this correctional system be a model when we have the second-highest cost of any jurisdiction in Canada?

Some critics of this government cling to the fiction that everything will be all right if we just leave it alone. I say to those critics that their stubborn refusal to consider bold and innovative solutions renders their thinking as outdated as those relics of a distant age.

Last week, I had the honour of presenting 27 Ministry of Correctional Services employees and volunteers with awards for exceptional achievement. I have also come to meet many other dedicated professionals in the ministry. But we mock their dedication if we accept the status quo. I have faith in those employees who have truly made corrections their vocation. Correctional staff are not failing us; the correctional system is failing us.

To ensure that public safety is assured, we are introducing this bill to create a no-frills correctional system that is safe, secure, efficient, effective and publicly accountable. We will encourage innovation and creativity in the way correctional services are delivered. We will introduce more public-private partnerships to establish efficiency in the correctional system.

We do not believe that the public sector has a monopoly on effectiveness and success in correctional services. By introducing competition to correctional services, we believe this will create an incentive for publicly run institutions to strive harder and work harder. This will create a healthy and vital competition between publicly and privately run jails. The net effect of a mixed private and public system will be more efficient and more effective correctional services.

There are those who think that a private jail would never work here in Ontario. They are wrong. Private jails already exist. Project Turnaround near Barrie has been in operation for more than three years. Preliminary reports indicate that this facility is having a positive and significant impact on the lives of young offenders. We will build upon that success.

I have already introduced a bill today which establishes a framework for tough standards for services delivered through partnerships; in fact, for all services delivered in correctional services. To properly ensure that public safety is maintained, we will introduce stringent accountability measures into the Ministry of Correctional Services. We will do this by setting tough standards for the operation and performance for all jails, whether they be publicly or privately run. These standards will be the strictest of their kind in the country.

How will local citizens know their communities will remain safe? We intend to maintain a ministry official, an on-site monitor, at any privately run jail, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We intend to establish local monitoring boards comprised of professionals and local citizens who would have full and free access to all areas of the jail, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We would retain the right to step in immediately and take over the delivery of correctional services in an emergency or if public safety were ever at risk.

The local boards would monitor the safety and security of the public, the offenders and the staff at the jail. These boards will first be established at the central north correctional centre in Penetanguishene and the central east correctional centre in Lindsay. These boards would eventually be established in every community that hosts a correctional facility.

The local boards of monitors would report directly to the Minister of Correctional Services, and the Minister of Correctional Services would make those reports available to the public.

This bill shows that this government is serious about public safety and will take measures to hold criminals accountable for their actions.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): I rise today to celebrate the most incredible people in our society, our children. In Ontario, our government has made children a top priority, leading the country in our support of children and working to ensure they have every opportunity to reach their full potential.

In the past five years, the Harris government increased funding to key programs for children, despite federal Liberal government funding cuts to Ontario's education, health and social programs. The 2000-01 estimates indicate that Ontario's spending on children's services is the highest it has been for the last 10 years.

This remarkable achievement has been the result of the commitment and dedication of our Premier, Mike Harris. It was this Premier who took the initiative to appoint the first minister responsible for children in the history of our province. Premier Harris further demonstrated his commitment to Ontario's children when he commissioned the groundbreaking Early Years Study, which gave us new insight into the critical importance of early child development. He has since presented the study at two annual Premiers' conferences, helping to make early child development a national priority and raising the understanding of the importance of the early years internationally.

Our government is also implementing a concrete early years action plan, including the establishment of five demonstration projects and the appointment of a 10-member advisory council task group. We have also committed $6 million in funding for early years community co-ordinators and $30 million in an early years challenge fund to help implement early child development and parenting centres province-wide.

Our government values the contributions young people make to our communities. We are very interested in engaging them directly in discussions and decisions on the future of Ontario. I'm very excited to report that we have received almost 400 applications for our new Ontario Youth Council, and I expect to announce the council's first members later this year.

Our government believes that in Ontario we have the capacity to make sure no child is left behind, no child falls through the cracks and every child has opportunities to grow into a successful, happy, healthy adult-tomorrow's leaders.

On November 3, Premier Harris launched Ontario's Promise, a tremendously important call to action to all Ontarians to help our children achieve these goals. Ontario's Promise will bring together individuals, community service providers, volunteers, charitable organizations, business and governments to secure a brighter future for all Ontario's children and youth.

This groundbreaking initiative focuses on five fundamental promises to all Ontario's children and youth: a healthy start; an ongoing positive relationship with a caring adult; a safe place that offers positive, meaningful activities outside of the home; marketable skills through effective education; and an opportunity to give back to the community. Ontario's Promise, just two weeks old, has already attracted $22 million in support from the business sector in Ontario.

While we have made great progress in supporting Ontario's children, we know there is more to do to ensure that all children have the opportunity to grow into strong, healthy and successful adults. We believe that one child living in poverty is one too many. Our government feels that the best way to improve the lives of children living in poverty is to improve the economic circumstances of their parents. We are working hard to create an environment where parents can have jobs and be financially independent.

Since 1995, 795,000 net new jobs have been created and 565,690 people have stopped relying on welfare in Ontario, including 247,820 dependent children. We also have established and expanded programs for children and families who need additional assistance. We are providing a better start for Ontario's 139,000 newborns and their families each year through our $67-million Healthy Babies, Healthy Children early intervention program.

Our partnership with the Canadian Living Foundation helps over 135,000 Ontario schoolchildren receive a nutritious meal each day through our $4.5-million contribution to the Breakfast for Learning program. Since 1995, our government has increased spending on child care by approximately 30% and 19,000 new regulated child care spaces have been created in this province.

We have brought about powerful legislative and funding changes to better protect children at risk of neglect and abuse. We have increased spending on child welfare by 80%, to over $650 million, allowing children's aid societies to hire 1,000 new child protection workers.

Our government has shown, and will continue to demonstrate, an unwavering commitment to the children of Ontario. I am proud to be highlighting this commitment today, National Child Day, a day to commemorate the United Nations' adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Ontario will continue to be a leader in supporting the healthy, positive development of children and giving them every opportunity to reach their full potential.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I would seek unanimous consent to make an announcement today about the strike in Hamilton-Wentworth and back-to-work legislation.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Correctional Services for making a commitment to fix the infrastructure of the jails and prisons in our province, and as I have told him, I thought that was a very worthwhile thing to do, because the Fathers of Confederation who built some of those jails would probably be ashamed of the fact that they're still in existence and use.

That speaks to the problem that we do have, and that problem is the working conditions of the correctional officers, which has been pointed out to the minister time and time again; the fact that the working conditions of the correctional officers have been jeopardized by overcrowding, that this government has spent time to close 743 beds across the province and at the same time cancels the program that would have seen them go into programs on the weekend that were valuable to the people who needed the rehabilitation that he wants to talk about.

The idea that he wants to do one thing and says another seems to be becoming very, very apparent. I'll show you how apparent it is. He talks about pride in the fact that he's running a private institution now in our province, the fact that he wants to take a great deal of credit for the Camp Turnaround project in Barrie, which we like to call Camp Run-Amok. The very first day of operation we had an escape. It's unbelievable.

Let's talk about the real issue here, the fact that they cherry-pick those students; that they want to claim that the high recidivism rate comes down because of that camp. Let's talk about who he puts in there: if they're violent, they're not allowed to come in; if they've got a long sentence, they're not allowed to come in; if they have mental health problems, they're not allowed to come in. They cherry-pick that situation and they make the camp sound as if it has a great success rate.

In actual fact, when we take the numbers that the ministry is forgetting to add in there about where else they're being transferred to, the recidivism rate is actually higher at Camp Turnaround than it is in regular institutions that have been running already. So there's your private success story.

Let's talk about another private success story. Let's talk about the youth detention at Genest in London. In their 18 months of operation as a private institution, there have been three reported escapes. Before that, in a 10-year period, zero escapes.

Let's talk about the pride that he takes in private partnerships. Let's talk about private partnerships, the private partnership that he established with the canteen company that last year was caught smuggling drugs into the correctional facility. Good private operation.

Let's talk about the partnership they want to have with Wackenhut-another failed experiment. Ohio, California etc-a failed experiment. This government doesn't want to learn the lesson that the rest of the world knows: privatization is a sham.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I appreciate the minister's comments with regard to National Child Day, but let's get one thing clear on the record: children are not a priority for this government, because there are more children falling through the cracks than ever before.

Since 1989, the number of poor children in Ontario has doubled, to 538,000 children. One in five children in Ontario lives in poverty. This government is no friend to children, and the statistics speak to that. This is no accident. This is the result of your government's cuts to social assistance.

The jobs that have you have created are low-paying, and many are part-time and benefit-free. These jobs have increased the number of children living in poor working families by 48%. Children make up 42% of those who visit Ontario's food banks, and families with children are the fastest-growing group of homeless people.

What do these poor children have to look forward to? They are more likely to have speech and hearing problems, less likely to participate in organized sports and recreation, and less likely to live in safe neighbourhoods. That is what our children can expect without action.

This government first refused and now waffles over whether or not it will extend parental leave.

The education funding formula prevents the use of school facilities for early child development and parenting centres, in direct opposition to the recommendations of the Early Years Study.

There are nearly two million children in Ontario, and 1.4 million of them have moms who work, yet there are only 67,000 subsidized child care spaces in this province.

In September of this year, a new federal early childhood development accord was signed that will bring over $800 million to Ontario. The Better Child Care Coalition has challenged Mike Harris to match those funds. They are worried that he will not do it. The challenge fund sits in a bank waiting to be announced for the third time, while the American-style Ontario's Promise program has been described as icing without a cake.

The statistics indicate that when it comes to children, they are not a priority for this Tory government. I urge the minister to put children first and respond positively to the recommendations of the report.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): The Minister of Correctional Servicess confirms today that he has no interest in or familiarity with corrections, with rehabilitation or, quite frankly, with what has been going on and is going on right now in correctional institutions across the province of Ontario. His passion for privatization and his intimacy with his corporate partners, Wackenhut Corrections Corp of America and who knows how many other private for-profit corporate operators that want to come into Canada and Ontario so they can drain huge profits out of our correctional system and out of Ontario into Texas, Arkansas and the ilk, is apparent.

I would ask the minister to please have read his own statute before he made the announcement today. It's naive to the point of outright wrong to suggest that he's introducing any sort of new regime. The fact is that superintendents of prisons across this province had the power, by way of discipline, to extend prison sentences beyond the two thirds and revoke portions exceedingly in greater numbers of the statutory remission for decades. The reality is that Mr Sampson hasn't had enough interest in the correctional system here in Ontario to call upon superintendents in our prisons to in fact do that.

This government is still reeling from the blow it delivered itself when it called for a 42% salary increase for the Premier and his backbenchers. What do they come up with to counter the negative spin they created for themselves? They had the minister of corrections last week detailing lineups of women, kids, parents, young folks and old folks with their urine specimen bottles in hand at welfare offices across the province. Now the minister of corrections is indulging in the same passion for bodily waste of Ontarians, but he wants to collect it from prison inmates rather than from welfare recipients.

There are going to be buckets of urine, tanker truckloads of urine criss-crossing this province from one test lab to the next until this government abandons its obsession with bodily output.

The question the minister should be asking is how the drugs are getting into the jails in the first place. If he sat down and talked to correctional officers instead of to his corporate friends, he'd start to understand that because of his understaffing of prisons across this province, because of the overpopulation of prisons across this province, because of the under-resourcing and this minister's elimination of effective rehabilitation programs, you bet your boots there are drugs getting into jails.

With increased privatization with your corporate buddies, more and more contraband is going to be smuggled into our prisons. You aren't solving the problem. In Snobelenesque style, you are creating a problem so you can justify privatization. We'll take you on in committee, Minister. Just watch.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): On this National Child Day, this Harris government should be embarrassed by its appalling track record on children. Today we learned that even in good economic times child poverty is more extensive and deeper in this province than ever before. This morning, Campaign 2000 revealed the shocking level of poverty in this province.

Using the most recent statistics from Statistics Canada, we know that 470,000 children in this province live in poverty; one of every five children in this province remains poor, despite the good economic times; one in three poor children come from working families; and since 1996, Newfoundland and Ontario are the only two provinces where families are sinking deeper into poverty. What a record to be proud of.

What has the Harris government done? This is the list the minister didn't refer to: cut social assistance rates by 22%, cut the $37 nutritional supplement for pregnant moms, closed the family responsibility offices and made sure thousands of women didn't get the support they were owed, ended counselling at second-stage housing for families affected by domestic violence, cancelled drug cards for working poor families and cancelled youth funding for youth programming.

Ontario's promise is nothing but a front for this government to off-load even more of its responsibilities for kids on to volunteers, service organizations, the business sector, the faith communities etc. Where is your leadership when it comes to providing for Ontario's youngest and most vulnerable kids?

If the government wanted to do something about kids, if they really cared about kids, they would increase the minimum wage, provide affordable housing, stop the clawback of national child benefits, have rents frozen in the province and give back drug cards to working poor families. But it's clear children aren't a priority. This government is more interested in big tax cuts for its wealthy friends than it is about Ontario's youngest citizens, and that's a fact.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin oral qquestions, I'd like to announce that we have with us today in the Speaker's gallery the federal interns from Ottawa, accompanied by our provincial interns. Please join me in welcoming our special guests.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand the government has changed its mind with respect to extending parental leave. I would ask for unanimous consent to deal with Bill 138, the Fair Parental Leave Act, by the New Democrats, so we could have second and third readings in this House today.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some "noes."

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Minister of Health. In January this year, Joshua Fleuelling, 18 years of age, suffered a severe asthma attack. He couldn't breathe. He was rushed by ambulance. They tried to take him to the closest hospital but were informed in the ambulance that that one was full and he should be taken to a hospital further away. Pretty well everyone is aware that Joshua died as a result of the delay in getting him to the hospital.

The coroner's inquest jury responded with recommendations last Friday, Madam Minister, and those recommendations represent nothing less than a stinging indictment of the way you have mismanaged health care in Ontario during the past several years. Are you now prepared to admit it was wrong to cut $1 billion from our hospitals, it was wrong to close 8,000 hospital beds and it was wrong to fire thousands of nurses?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): First of all, let me take this opportunity to express our sincere sympathy to the Fleuelling family. This certainly was a very tragic situation.

I would also, on behalf of the government, like to express our sincere appreciation to the jury. I know the deliberations were very difficult, but I have to say we very much welcome their recommendations. We welcome their acknowledgement of the fact that problems are being encountered in the health system, and these problems are not just provincial and not just Canadian. They are worldwide. Certainly they are problems which have developed over a period of time, and they are problems which, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, we are working very hard to address in a timely manner.

We want to do everything we possibly can to ensure that every Ontarian gets the best health treatment possible.

Mr McGuinty: This is the sixth year of your government, Minister, and you've done nothing but cut and hack and slash, and Ontarians are paying the price.

It would be bad enough if this were the first coroner's inquest, but it's the third. In 1997, a 35-year-old mother, eight months pregnant, suffered a severe brain hemorrhage. There was no room for her in a Toronto hospital-there were no beds-so they transported her to Hamilton and she died. In 1998, five-year-old Kyle Martyn died after waiting three and a half hours in an emergency room to be seen. Joshua Fleuelling was not the first, and it pains me to say it is likely he won't be the last.

We will not turn the health care ship around until you begin to acknowledge, here and now, that you have made some serious mistakes. I want you to admit it was wrong to cut $1 billion, it was wrong to shut down 8,000 hospital beds and it was wrong to fire thousands of nurses.

Hon Mrs Witmer: It is extremely unfortunate that we cannot all move together, as the jury has recommended, in a co-operative and collaborative manner. It pains me to say that since 1994-95 the federal government took millions and millions of dollars out of the health system in Canada. Throughout that period of time you did not once join us in demanding that-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the Minister of Health take her seat. The member for Windsor West, come to order. The Minister of Health obviously has a voice we're not going to be able to hear too well today. I would appreciate co-operation. She won't be able to yell and I won't be able to hear her, and I'm going to be up very quickly.

Minister of Health, sorry for the interruption.

Hon Mrs Witmer: It pains me to say that over the period from 1994 to 1995, the Liberal opposition in this House declined to support us in our efforts to encourage Jean Chrétien to restore the millions and millions of dollars he had taken out of the health system in Canada.

Mr McGuinty: If the minister is looking for more money, then take the $190 million you're putting into partisan political advertising and put that into health care.

On your watch, Madam Minister, we have had three coroners' inquests. You've had countless reports prepared by everybody from the Ontario Hospital Association to nursing groups to the opposition parties and a variety of others interested in protecting and enhancing public health care in Ontario. You have refused to move forward. Again you tell us today that you welcome these recommendations. You've been welcoming recommendations for six years now. What we want you to do is to act on them.

Here are a couple of specifics for you: (1) hire back the nurses you fired;

(2) I want you to reopen the 1,600 hospital beds that are needed immediately to clear our emergency rooms up. There are two specific recommendations. Will you do those, Minister?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The Leader of the Opposition knows that despite the fact that the federal government cut billions out of health care, our government has increased funding from $17.6 billion to $22 billion. Despite the fact that your government and other governments cut nurses, we have put together a task force and we are hiring back the nurses. We have hired more than 6,000 nurses in this province. We are also moving forward with strategies on asthma. We have been moving forward since 1998 on an emergency room plan. We have been moving forward to restructure health care. We have been moving forward to increase the number of hospital beds and long-term-care beds in this province.

The recommendations that have been provided to us are recommendations that in many ways we are currently addressing and the initiatives are well underway. We welcome these recommendations and we will determine how we can implement them all in-

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

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Parkdale-High Park, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: He was yelling for the whole question. I appreciate the opposition House leader-I'll look after it.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Last warning to the member for Windsor West; her last warning. If you shout out again, you're going to be out. If you want to shout when I'm standing up, I'll throw you out right away. It's as simple as that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It doesn't help to have the other side yell when I've made a ruling like that.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the minister responsible for children's issues. Today is National Child Day. It's a day when we should be celebrating our children and our collective efforts to make sure they get everything they need in their lives so that they can achieve their greatest potential. Unfortunately, in Ontario we have very little to celebrate. On your watch, on the watch of your government, the number of children living in poverty has doubled.

According to Campaign 2000, which released its report card today, the number of poor children in Ontario jumped 91% while in the rest of the country it grew by 28%. Close to 500,000 Ontario children are growing up in poverty. This year, 42% of food bank users are children. The fastest-growing group of homeless today in Ontario are families with young children.

In a time of unprecedented prosperity, unprecedented numbers of children are growing up in poverty. Why are you failing Ontario's children?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): First of all, let me say on behalf of our government, as I referred to in my statement, our government is very concerned about one child living in poverty. Attention has been referred to by the leader of the official opposition to the Campaign 2000 report that came out today. I wish for his sake that his staff had really done their research. Had they done their research, they would know that according to this report, the highest number of children living in poverty occurred in 1993 under the NDP government and, more important to us, today fewer children are living in poverty than when we took office.

Mr McGuinty: I disagree with your numbers, Minister. Close to 500,000 children are growing up in poverty today. Here are a few other numbers that you may want to take into consideration in your capacity as the advocate for children here in Ontario.

Since 1995, annual government revenues have increased by $13 billion. Since 1995, our GDP has gone up by $97 billion. We are nearly $100 billion richer today than we were when you first took office.

Notwithstanding that, you cut welfare by 22%. You've gotten out of the social housing business entirely in Ontario. You have abdicated your responsibility when it comes to rent controls in Ontario. You've abdicated your responsibility when it comes to child care in Ontario.

The message you are essentially sending to children in Ontario who are growing up in poverty, Minister, is, "Kids, tough luck; you're on your own."

I ask you this again in your capacity as the advocate for children in Ontario: why are you failing our kids?

Hon Mrs Marland: I'm glad that the leader of the official opposition places before us his view and his

interpretation of facts that are there for everyone to see. We understand very clearly that the best way to help children living in poverty is to get jobs for their parents. Since 1995, this government has created 795,000 net new jobs.

Since you refer to welfare, I would like to remind you that we have 565,690 fewer people relying on welfare. But the best part of that news is that 247,820 of those people dependent on the welfare cycle are children who are no longer on that dependency.

Mr McGuinty: Those parents that you have driven away from social assistance have gotten menial, poor-paying jobs. They've become our working poor, and what they have to do to feed their children is go to food banks.

Madam Minister, here's an opportunity now for you to move beyond rhetoric to action. Here's an opportunity for you to put a little bit of money where your mouth is.

You cut welfare for the parents of poor children in 1995 by 21.6%. There are 437,000 children today on social assistance, living in families with incomes that are somewhere between 50% and 60% below the poverty line. You can make just a bit of a difference. As the advocate for-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. The member for Brampton Centre, I heard that. Withdraw it.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker: Sorry for the interruption. That'll be his last warning as well.

The member for London-Fanshawe, since I am up and I'm getting out of shape-I can't keep getting up-this will be his last warning as well. Last warning to both of you.

Sorry for the interruption. The leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: You cut the welfare in 1995 by 22%. The cost of living has gone up since that time. I'm asking you now, as the advocate for Ontario's children-you are the sole provider for children who find themselves in families where the parents are dependent on social assistance. Why would you not agree right now to increase welfare in Ontario so that it takes into account increased costs of living? Will you do that, Madam Minister, on behalf of those 436,000 children who have parents who are dependent on social assistance? You're their sole provider. Why can't you do that for them?

Hon Mrs Marland: I can't believe that the leader of the official opposition has just insulted the people who have had the courage and determination to get off welfare and be financially independent. For you to stand in this House and insult those people is beneath you.

I would suggest to you that when we say we are getting them jobs and giving them training so that they are equipped to get jobs, and you stand up and say they're better off on welfare, you stand in this House and say we should increase the rates of welfare, I'd like to remind you that the number of children, the 247,000 children I have said are no longer dependent on welfare, is more than the combination of North Bay, Thunder Bay and Sudbury-

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

HEALTH CARE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Health. Joshua Fleuelling lived only 18 years, but last Friday the jury investigating his death left what may become a fitting legacy for a young life cut short. The answer to that rests in your hands.

I've been in touch with Joshua's family and their lawyer throughout this inquest. Let me tell you, they believe his death will be in vain if you don't take action and implement these recommendations. Key among these recommendations is a call for an immediate moratorium on hospital closures and hospital bed closures, emergency, acute care, mental health and chronic care. Again and again in this Legislature, we have asked you to call a moratorium, and yet emergency rooms and hospital beds continue to close.

Minister, you won't listen to us. Will you listen to the jury? Don't let Joshua's death be in vain. Will you implement an immediate moratorium on your plans to close hospital beds in Ontario?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As I indicated in my response earlier, again this is a very tragic situation. Certainly we welcome the recommendations that have been put forward by the jury. In fact, we indicated on Friday we would be moving forward to review the recommendations to determine exactly how we could implement them in a timely, efficient and effective manner.

I would indicate that today in this province we have more hospital beds than we had last year. As the member knows, we saw a decline of many beds over many years. In fact, we had seen 10,000 hospital beds close between 1985 and 1995. I'm pleased to say that we are moving forward now with more beds, not only in hospitals; we're also building 20,000 new long-term-care beds. As you know, my predecessor, the honourable-

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

Ms Lankin: This is a tragedy all right; it is a tragedy the way in which you represent history in this province with the facts you state in this Legislature. You still have plans on the books for closures of more chronic care beds and emergency rooms coming up. The recommendation was clear, and you know it's not the first time. Other inquests-the Kyle Martyn inquest made the same recommendation. How many times do you have to hear it? How many more people have to die before you will listen? There are other measures the Fleuelling jury said must be taken to address the current emergency room crisis.

We've been saying over and over again and calling on you to stop the privatization of our home care system. We've been telling you that you must end the competitive bidding model. The jury now says you must end the competitive bidding process in order to alleviate the pressure on our emergency services.

Minister, you won't listen to us. Will you listen to the jury? Will you end the competitive bidding model in our home care sector?

Hon Mrs Witmer: It's obvious perhaps in the member's questioning that she isn't aware of the fact that many of the recommendations that were put forward are very consistent with initiatives our government already has underway in order to ensure that every Ontarian has access to the best health care services possible. I would just like to remind the member that there are more beds in the system today than there were last year, in 1999. I would remind her of the 800 new permanent hospital beds that were announced in November and also the 1,200 additional beds that were announced this year for across the province.

When it comes to home care, again as the member knows, we in this province lead as far as our per capita spending on home care is concerned. In fact, recently there was a report that indicated there would be millions more dollars required for the rest of Canada if the other provinces were to meet the same standards that have been set in Ontario.

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

Ms Lankin: Minister, I've put to you two direct recommendations from the jury and you have refused to respond to either one of them. The verdict is out and you and your government have been found guilty. You introduced the competitive bidding model. The jury is telling you to throw it out. You still have plans to close emergency rooms. They're telling you to put on a moratorium. My leader, Howard Hampton, revealed how you put a cap on nursing hours for home care. They're saying get rid of that cap.

You're the government that put a policy in place that made it unnecessary to have an RN 24 hours a day in long-term-care facilities with minimum nursing hours. The jury is saying you should reverse your bad policy.

Don't tell me what you're doing is consistent with the recommendations. There are four policy recommendations from that jury that directly contradict your government's actions. They're asking you to take a stand, to reverse it, to make sure Joshua's death is not in vain. They called their report "a legacy," Joshua's legacy. Will it be, Minister? You won't listen to us. Will you listen to the jury? Will you implement those recommendations immediately?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Obviously the member isn't hearing anything. I have said now a number of times in the House that we welcome the recommendations. They are very consistent with many of the initiatives that are already underway. Again, I remind the member that the jury recognized there are some issues that are world-wide that are being addressed; they're systemic problems.

I would remind the member opposite, as far as home care is concerned, I am very proud to say it was our government which brought the standard of nursing care in the home to the same level. Before this time, there were five hours, 15 hours, 27 hours. We have come and we are delivering the consistency of 43 hours. In fact, we call on the federal government to develop national standards for home care, national standards for pharmacare. Maybe you should consult with the your federal leader, because your federal leader seems to think it's the fault of the federal government that this whole situation happened in Ontario.

CHILD POVERTY

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the minister responsible for children's issues. Minister, I'd like to know why your government has turned its back on 470,000 children who live in poverty in this province.

In a report that was released by Campaign 2000 today, it was revealed that there are shocking levels of poverty in this province. Since 1996, Ontario and Newfoundland are the only two provinces in Canada where families are sinking deeper into poverty. In other words, in booming economic times in Ontario we have almost half a million children who are worse off, living in deeper poverty than ever before. You've got money to give your corporate friends a big tax break, and it's clear Ontario children are paying the price.

If you really cared about kids and wanted to do something for children, you could raise the minimum wage, you could freeze rents, you could extend job protection for parental leave, you could stop your clawback of the national child benefit. When will you do any of these important things, Minister?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): Let me reconfirm for this member in the third party. You are choosing to read this Campaign 2000 report selectively. Because we are restricted in this House from using certain words, I might refer you to the fact that we are down from last year. There are 60,000 fewer children dependent on the cycle of welfare and other supports. I would remind you that the downward trend in the number of children reported to be living in poverty is since 1996-that was our first full year in office-the downward trend we now expect to continue.

But I will say again for this member that it's not a matter of numbers when we look at children living in poverty. We are concerned about one child living in poverty.

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

Ms Martel: The fact is that Campaign 2000 used the most recent statistics from Statistics Canada, 1998, when your government was in power, Minister. Since 1996, only Ontario and Newfoundland have families that are sinking deeper into poverty. What a record to be proud of.

We've got one in five children in this province living in poverty. One in three of those children are actually from families that are working; they are the working poor. That's probably because the minimum wage has been frozen for the last five years. We have 470,000 children who are poor in the province during good economic times, Minister, and you are doing nothing to help them.

I ask you again: you could raise the minimum wage, you could freeze rents, you could stop the clawback of the child benefit, you could restore drug cards to the working poor, you could do any of these things and finally start to eradicate child poverty in these very good economic times. When are you doing to do something and show you do care about kids?

Hon Mrs Marland: I would like to tell you exactly what we have done, which was actually an opportunity that party could have had when they were the government.

We now have an estimated 220,000 low-income people who no longer pay any income tax at all as a result of this government's cuts to personal income taxes and the increase in non-refundable credits. We also have the child care tax benefit, which helps the working parents of middle- and lower-income families pay for their child care.

While I'm responding to this question, I think we need to look at the numbers Campaign 2000 used. They used the Stats Canada numbers, and Maryanne Webber, director of income statistics for Stats Canada, says, "Stats Canada itself insists that LICOs are not intended to be used as the poverty line."

They even go further to say that regularly-

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

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question's to the Minister of Management Board regarding his role in the shooting death of Dudley George at Ipperwash. He will remember that the Premier said in the Legislature that no direction was given to the OPP before, after or during any situations, no direction by the government, by staff or by any minister.

We now find under new information that on the day of the shooting you were at a meeting with the Premier, the Deputy Attorney General and the Deputy Solicitor General. I found that a memo was sent to an OPP superintendent that day, the day of the shooting, summarizing the meeting, pointing out that the Deputy Attorney General argued that the government shouldn't meddle with the police at the park. But the notes go on to say the Premier and Hodgson came out strongly-strongly in favour of action, I gather. Are you continuing to say that you and the Premier gave no direction to the OPP in this matter?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I know the Attorney General wants to answer this.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): As the member opposite certainly knows, the issue he raises, or raises in part, relating to the alleged involvement of the then Minister of Natural Resources with respect to Ipperwash is being litigated in our courts in Ontario. As I understand it, a motion was heard last week in the Superior Court of Justice and was reserved by the judge who heard the motion. Clearly this matter is not only before the courts of Ontario but has been reserved by a judge of those courts.

In those circumstances, I suggest to the member opposite that the timing of his question endangers judicial independence. We ought not to deal with that kind of subject at this time, given that the matter is reserved by a judge of the Superior Court.

Mr Phillips: We've heard repeatedly from the Premier that he and none of the ministers gave any direction to the OPP. We now have information coming forward of a secret meeting that took place on September 6, the day of the shooting, with notes that indicate that the Deputy Attorney General was arguing one course of action and, I gather, that the minister and the Premier, according to this, were perhaps arguing a different course of action.

We have argued all along that the way to get to the bottom of this is by you and the Premier committing to holding a public inquiry at the earliest possible date. To date we've had the Premier refusing to even commit to holding that public inquiry.

Minister, with the latest revelations, will you, on behalf of the government today, commit to holding a public inquiry, to begin at the earliest possible moment when no one's right to a fair trial is jeopardized? Will you make that commitment to the people of Ontario today?

Hon Mr Flaherty: As the member opposite no doubt knows, the allegations that he makes in this place are matters that are being litigated now before the Superior Court of Justice in the province of Ontario, including the production of documents, including the

interpretation of documents, including notes. All of those matters are before our courts in the province of Ontario now, as recently as last week.

The member probably knows, or should know, that there is a judge of the Superior Court who has been directing the case management of the litigation. She has assigned dates, or dates have been agreed to, with respect to examinations for discovery. The issues related to production of documents have been to-I say respectfully to the member opposite, it is not for us in this place to substitute our view for the view of the courts dealing with the litigation arising out of that situation, or to prejudge the result thereof.

MEAT INSPECTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, on the weekend the always newsy Toronto Star published a story outlining problems with the provincial meat inspection system. The reporter, Robert Cribb, alleges that there are problems relating to some of the abattoirs that are regulated by the province and that tough penalties are rarely handed out to offenders.

Minister, you would know that food safety is a very important issue in my riding of Durham. You would also know that I have several very responsible abattoirs in Durham.

Can you give us a factual report on what you and your ministry are doing to ensure that meat coming out of provincially inspected plants is indeed safe for the public?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I thank the member from Durham for the question. Food safety is a top priority of our government. I want to assure the member that Ontario has one of the best meat inspections in the country-in fact, in the world. Ontario is one of the few provinces where all meat slaughtered must be slaughtered in licensed and inspected facilities. If an Ontario plant poses a significant risk to food safety, it is shut down until the problems have been fixed. Provincial inspectors are highly trained individuals, whose top priority is to make sure food is safe.

In 1993, there were 143 inspectors. There are 125 inspectors today, a change that has come about because 130 abattoirs closed over that period of time. These changes were brought about because in 1991 the Provincial Auditor's report and in 1994 a follow-up at KPMG called for increased efficiency in provincial meat inspection.

Contrary to what you've read in the Toronto Star, there has been no decrease in inspection hours. My ministry works very hard to ensure that provincial abattoirs are producing safe food. When problems do arise, Ontario has strict regulations that bring plants into compliance.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for that thorough response, Minister. The always newsy Toronto Star isn't always factual, by the sound of things. I appreciate the assurance that your ministry is very much involved in the sense of keeping watch over the food we eat and the meat that comes out of provincial plants.

In addition to inspecting provincial abattoirs and charging those involved with selling illegal meat, what other initiatives does your ministry have to improve and protect food safety? What is the government doing to make sure that we are on top of the latest developments in new technologies that can help protect people from food-borne diseases that potentially could enter the marketplace? Minister, what are you doing to protect the consumers of Ontario?

Hon Mr Hardeman: We are working very closely with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Natural Resources on developing a strategy that gives Ontario consumers more trust and confidence in food safety. This new strategy is a co-operative effort that allows Ontario to stay abreast of international and scientific developments to ensure food production from field to port.

In addition, my ministry supports food safety initiatives through our four-year, $90-million healthy futures for Ontario agriculture program. For example, in September I had an opportunity to announce our government's $1.7-million participation in partnering with three firms to further develop and market a new packaging material that turns colour to warn consumers of dangerous pathogens such as E coli and listeria. Just last week I announced a new project that will increase the comprehensiveness of food safety in the pork industry.

These are just a few examples of our commitment to improving food safety in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question, the member for Windsor-St Clair.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I too have a question to the Minister of Agriculture about the inspection of abattoirs in Ontario. We did a little research beyond what was in the Toronto Star, and I know the member for Durham would want to be aware as well. We looked at other provinces in terms of the number of inspectors they have. Let me give you a for instance. In Alberta they have one inspector for every 1.3 plants, versus one inspector for every 2.5 plants in Ontario. That is twice the inspectorate to look after their needs in Alberta. In the state of Michigan they have 209 inspectors to look after 114, versus 80 here in Ontario to look after 220 plants.

There are simply not enough inspectors. The number of inspectors was cut, and we recognize that the number of abattoirs declined over that period of time. Are you satisfied that compared to other jurisdictions, Ontario is doing enough? And why wouldn't you have put that

part into your answer to Mr O'Toole's question earlier?

Hon Mr Hardeman: I thank the member opposite for the question. Inspectors from our ministry are on site every day at an abattoir if they are slaughtering livestock. The number of inspection hours has not changed since 1996. We continue to employ highly qualified inspectors who have the ability to shut down plants if there are serious safety risks. In 1993 there were 143 inspectors and there are, as I said earlier, 125 today, and we have one hundred and some fewer plants to inspect.

I want to assure everyone in this House that if there is kill going on in the province of Ontario in a provincially licensed plant, there will be an inspector on site to make sure that the quality of meat is assured for the people of Ontario.

Mr Duncan: We did a little other research too and we found out that not only did you go from employing full-time people, you now contract out the inspecting positions. The total budget went from $12.5 million to $7 million.

The question we have, based on your response, is this-and you'll also be aware that there's a hodgepodge, and we recognize you're consulting about this now and about the resources that local medical officers of health have available to enforce at their end of it. Minister, how is it that you can say you're satisfied with the way things are? Will you agree today to appoint a select committee of the Legislature to look at, among other things, the role of the provincial inspectorate? You'll be aware that you gave up the inspection to the Ministry of Natural Resources; we don't know why.

Second of all, part of that mandate would also be to look at the role of medical officers of health and whether or not the province provides adequate compensation to municipalities to ensure the safety of our meat processing system from the time that the animal is brought into the slaughterhouse till the time it reaches people's tables right across Ontario. Will you agree to that?

Hon Mr Hardeman: First of all, as it relates to the change in the way we do inspections, in fact in 1991 the Provincial Auditor suggested that the way inspection was being done in the province was not effective and efficient. He suggested that we have people inspecting and not people spending their time between inspections. That is the reason for the change.

As it relates to the reference to the Ministry of Natural Resources, I want to point out to the members of the House that in fact only the follow-up enforcement is being done by inspectors or enforcement officers from the Ministry of Natural Resources. I want to say that's indeed working much better. In fact, in the last year they have laid 62 charges under the inspection act, which was considerably more than over the same period of time last year. Of these, 18 cases were convictions and 40 are still waiting for their day in court.

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

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr Brian Coburn (Ottawa-Orléans): My question is for the Solicitor General. Constituents in my riding, as in many others, have consistently told me that community safety is something they take very seriously. At local events, door-knocking and other goings-on in my riding they want to feel free from fear of crime in our community. Our government has made a commitment to the people of Ontario to improve safety in our streets, like our Partners Against Crime initiative that invests $150 million in putting 1,000 net new officers on the front lines.

In Ottawa-Orléans, we have given almost half a million dollars to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service to put more officers on the streets. That results in another 22 officers on the front lines in Ottawa-Orléans. More police officers on our streets and providing the police with the tools they need is one of our government's priorities in helping to make the streets safer.

Minister, can you tell my constituents about some of the other initiatives and investments our government is making to make our street safe?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): There are so many things to speak about. I think we'll start with what the member is referring to in terms of our community policing grants, where almost half a million dollars was given to the Ottawa-Carleton regional police to assist them in getting more police officers out on the streets of the province.

Just last week, during Crime Prevention Week, I was able to go to the York Regional Police Service and announce the fact that the 1,000th police officer under our $150-million grant program had been awarded, and that's a milestone. This is part of our commitment to get 1,000 new police officers to assist municipalities. Certainly we look in terms of the numbers of the OPP, which have increased, but we felt it was important for us to support our municipal partners, to show them that we think it's important to get police officers on the streets of this province. A thousand police officers are bound to make an impact on community safety.

Mr Coburn: Thanks for that comprehensive answer.

Another important issue to my constituents, of course, is road safety. In 1995, we launched the comprehensive road safety plan that gave the police the tools they needed to help make our roads safer. Other initiatives we took to help make our roads safer include the Sergeant Rick McDonald Memorial Act, which increased the penalties on criminals who take reckless flight from the police; the creation of five regional traffic management units; and since 1998 we have allowed municipalities to designate community safety zones in areas where safety is of particular concern, like schools.

Minister, can you tell the House and the people of Ottawa-Orléans how our government is addressing the issue of safety when it comes to driving on Ontario's roads?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Road safety is a priority for all of us. Let's talk about one segment, the RIDE program. Since 1995, this government has doubled the amount of money going to RIDE to $1.2 million a year. What this has meant to the member's area is that since 1995 about $200,000 has been going to the RIDE program specifically.

This morning I was at the launch of the Toronto Safe and Sober Driving Coalition campaign again. People don't know that in the city of Toronto, for example, there were 48 murders committed but there was almost double that in traffic fatalities. These traffic fatalities are preventable. Clearly, the program now is intended to address not only impaired driving with alcohol but other types of bad driving and impairment of your abilities as well.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Finance. I want to tell you that the property tax bill that you tabled last Thursday has been a huge disappointment in Hamilton. You will know-you should know-that Hamilton businesses pay 60% more in business education tax than our neighbours in Burlington. It has been identified that equalizing the business education tax for Hamilton business would require about $41 million, and yet your bill throws only a measly $5 million at this issue.

Meanwhile, while you delay, businesses are leaving Hamilton and the existing businesses in downtown Hamilton are struggling to survive. The main issue in the last election was in large part about downtown Hamilton and you introduce a bill that will continue to see business bleed away from downtown Hamilton.

Minister, let me ask you on behalf of the small businesses in downtown Hamilton why, with so much money in surplus, are you only throwing crumbs at such an important economic issue in our local community of Hamilton?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The inequities in the city of Hamilton proper with respect to business property taxes are, as I'm sure the honourable member is aware, a result of many decades of non-reform of the assessment system in the city of Hamilton. Hence, local governments in the past have chosen to tax businesses in Hamilton as opposed to taxing residents, more so than they have in other areas of the province.

However, we decided to reform the property taxation system in Ontario. We are not going to be able to correct 60 years of inequities over a few years or months. Surely the member must understand that. But he also understands, which he didn't say in his question, that we are reducing the provincial business education portion of business taxes by half a billion dollars over eight years. We have expedited that by a year, and next year there will be $325 million a year in assistance to those businesses.

Mr Christopherson: I've heard you, on a number of occasions, make the argument that because it has taken so many years for the inequity to be created, you need X number of years to phase in a correction. But what you're failing to take responsibility for is, number one, your government wanted and took 100% total control of education and education taxes. Number two, you're running a huge surplus. In the last budget you gave away almost $4 billion in corporate tax cuts. Lastly, Minister, the children in Hamilton and the children in Burlington receive exactly the same education. It's of no use to them whatsoever for you to say things will be fine a few years down the road.

You have the money. You say you have the commitment. You certainly have the control. Why won't you acknowledge that this blatant ignoring of Hamilton's downtown business crisis is something you can do something about, and why won't you step forward and ensure that you provide the money necessary so that our downtown business can survive? You have the power. You have the money. Minister, act. Downtown Hamilton needs you to act.

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, tax cuts do not result in lack of revenue. I know you preach that. Now we have over $8 billion more a year in revenue coming into the province of Ontario as a result of 166 tax cuts than we had when you raised taxes. That is totally inaccurate, not even close to being accurate.

Number two, we are doing something about the education portion of commercial business taxes in Ontario. The overwhelming majority of the $500 million a year, half a billion dollars a year, will go to two municipalities: Toronto and Hamilton. The reason is very simple. They were most out of whack, inequitable systems over the last five, six or seven decades. We can't correct 70 years of mistakes in a couple of years. It's just that simple. We will do it as quickly as we can. What would you suggest we do? Take the tax burden for the businesses in Hamilton and move them to Peterborough? Would that be fair?

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. There was a time in this province that when it came to public education, turmoil was the exception; it has now become the rule on your watch. The straitjacket you've imposed on school boards through Bill 160 has resulted in half of our high school teachers and a third of our elementary teachers being still without contracts for this school year. Bill 74 has resulted in fully 75% of the schools in our province now facing disruptions in their extracurricular activities.

Not only are students going to lose more time now to strikes and lockouts, and presumably we'll be dealing with the first one later today in this House, our students are also going to be losing basketball and football, school plays and a host of other extracurricular activities.

You were forced to admit on the weekend that in the face of this constant turmoil you are helpless. You have thrown up your hands, Minister. I want to tell you as a legislator and as a parent, that is completely and absolutely unacceptable. What I want to know from you is, what are you going to do to bring our parents and our teachers and our trustees and our principals and our students and all supporters of public education in Ontario together to resolve this constant turmoil?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I'm very pleased to hear that the honourable member's party is going to support the back-to-work legislation. I'll certainly take that from his comment, that he is going to support the back-to-work legislation that the Minister of Labour would like to introduce so we can relieve the parents in the Hamilton-Wentworth community from the pressures they have been under because of this particular strike. I'm glad he has agreed to do that.

Secondly, I admitted no such thing on the weekend. Again the honourable member might want to check his facts and check the research.

Thirdly, it is not unusual-unfortunate, but not unusual-that collective agreements are still being negotiated in November of this school year. Again, if he checks his facts, he will see that is indeed the case.

The other thing is, I was very pleased to hear that there are many thousands of schools and teachers who are providing extracurricular activities to our students, as they should be, as they want to. That was one of the things I heard very clearly in the meeting on Friday. Unfortunately, we still have teachers who are choosing to work to rule, and we find that unacceptable. It's penalizing-

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

Mr McGuinty: Minister, it has become very clear that your legacy when it comes to public education in Ontario will be nothing less than a permanent state of crisis. I hope you take a great deal of pride in that knowledge.

Let's be honest. Let's understand now that you personally have so poisoned the waters, you have generated so much ill will among all of the players, you have demoralized to such a great extent all of the supporters of public education in Ontario that it is completely impossible for you to act as any kind of a consensus-builder. It seems to me that given that sad reality, the appropriate thing for you to do in all of these circumstances, the best thing you might do in the interests of Ontario students, is to step aside.

Admit you've been the cause of these problems, that it is your bills and your legislation which have generated this mess. I'm asking you now, do the right thing and step aside.

Hon Mrs Ecker: What has poisoned classrooms in this province are those individuals who think it is a legitimate form of protest against a board, against a government, against a government policy, to take it out on the kids. That is what the problem is here.

Secondly, what part of this legislation doesn't the honourable member support? The legislation that starts putting limits on average class size-would he like us to withdraw that? Because that's in the legislation he says is a problem. Limits on taking special education money out of the special education budget-does he agree with that? Because that's something in the legislation he's now asking us to withdraw. Limiting the ability of a board to take money for smaller classes and spend it on something else-is that something he disagrees with?

Does he think somehow or other our teachers are not capable of meeting the same kind of workload standard that teachers across this country are meeting and still providing extracurricular activities? If that's what he's saying, he should say so.

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Earlier today you asked for unanimous consent to make a statement regarding the labour dispute which has so adversely affected the Hamilton-Wentworth elementary school students. Minister, would you like to take an opportunity now to explain what this government plans to do about this disruption that has gone on far too long and is causing students in the Hamilton-Wentworth area to miss very valuable school time?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I thank the member who asked the question. I'm sorry I couldn't get unanimous consent at the time.

The request was simply to enlighten the House, the members of the public and those involved in this particular circumstance in Hamilton-Wentworth that today the Minister of Education received notification from the ERC, the Education Relations Commission, that it has in fact determined there is jeopardy with respect to the students in the Hamilton-Wentworth area.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I know the members opposite are cackling, and I would ask that they allow me to finish.

The letter states clearly at the bottom of the very first paragraph, and I'll refer to it if you'd like: "This letter is intended to serve as advisement of jeopardy."

Upon receiving that, I think we have a fiduciary obligation to begin the process of introducing legislation to order the teachers back to work. I'll try to summarize in the supplementary.

Mr Chudleigh: This strike has gone on since October 30. Students can't afford to miss class time, especially now that they have a much more demanding curriculum. How quickly do you expect this legislation to be ready, and how quickly do you expect this legislation could pass through this House?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I think there's some misunderstanding here. We understand what the letter says, and we understand that the board has requested a vote by the union. We have built into the legislation the opportunity for the union to vote on the final offer part of the bill. If that's accepted, then no arbitration process will be put in place. We've accepted that point. We planned for it and built it into the legislation. This is splitting hairs.

What we need to discuss here today is the fact we've been advised there's jeopardy at this board. We don't want the kids to lose their year. We don't want the kids to be penalized because of a labour dispute. All good minds should come together at that point and adopt back-to-work legislation to ensure children in the Hamilton- Wentworth area won't lose their year because of a labour disruption between teachers and a school board.

Any fair-minded individual who reads the letter I have provided to the opposition and looks at it with fair comment would clearly understand the final sentence of the first paragraph: "This letter is intended to serve as advisement of jeopardy."

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: The one clause that I know the member for Parkdale, who knows little about the issue, will comment on is suggesting there is a final offer on the table. If you take the copy of the bill I provided to your caucus, we have built into the legislation that if that offer is accepted by the union, then all bets are off. But in the meantime, we can't wait.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is for the Minister of Labour as well. Today, joining us in the gallery are 26 individuals who got up at about 4 o'clock this morning to take a bus to come down here because they thought Bill 139 was going to be debated today. They're concerned about 139, and they're concerned about Bill 69 and some of the amendments being proposed in this bill.

If the minister isn't worried about the amendment he's put forward, which has such vast implications and such an undemocratic set of principles, is he not worried about those who may follow him if he's mixed up in any kind of cabinet shuffle? We know the Premier and some of his top aides are certainly anti-union. Does that not worry you?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): Many things worry me. That's just not one of them. I have great faith in the people who make up this caucus and in their knowledge and goodwill.

I welcome the people who travelled all that time to come here.

I will tell you that I have no fear. I have great faith in each and every man and woman who sits in this caucus that if they are Minister of Labour they will wear this mantle well and do the best thing for the workers of Ontario.

Mr Patten: Last week, in response to a question from our labour critic and also from our leader, Dalton McGuinty, you said that if "we pass a regulation that's different than I committed to, then yes, you can probably get up and get exercised and scream and yell," blah, blah, blah. In other words, you're acknowledging there is more power available to you than you require. I suspect you feel personally uncomfortable with this, because I know you. But others may not. The unions are extremely worried about this. That's why they came here today. I hope you will take a few moments afterwards just to say hello to some of them and listen to some of their concerns.

Can you explain how anyone in the Ottawa district area is going to benefit by this particular amendment you're proposing?

Hon Mr Stockwell: This amendment is grandfathered. It's one year. It's not forever; it's for one year. I say to those members who have come here today that the decisions taken by this government are not individual decisions. They're decisions canvassed before caucus; they're decisions that are made in cabinet. That may be difficult. I understand that's not how your group operates, but ours does.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature and it deals with northerners demanding that the Mike Harris government eliminate the health care apartheid which they're practising and that discrimination which they continue to practise.

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

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

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

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

"Whereas we support the efforts of OSECC (Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care), founded by Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario, Northeast Region, to correct this injustice against northerners travelling for cancer treatment" who are being discriminated against in this health care apartheid;

"Therefore,

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

I sign and submit this 3,000-name petition to Victor to bring to the table.

PARENTAL LEAVE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas Ontario's Employment Standards Act provides vital job protections for new parents on parental leave, including reinstatement to their previous pay and job or a comparable one, accumulated seniority while on leave, continued participation in workplace pension and health benefit programs, and prohibitions against discriminatory treatment; and

"Whereas unemployment insurance parental benefits have been extended from the current 10 weeks to 35 weeks effective for a child born or adopted on or after December 31, 2000, changes long sought by women's groups, labour unions and others and in keeping with the modern provisions in many European countries; and

"Whereas parental benefits are distinct from pregnancy benefits (15 weeks), this means that a total of 50 weeks EI benefits will be available to a natural mother who qualifies for EI benefits and serves a two-week waiting period; and

"Whereas the federal government and the Quebec government, and more recently the governments of British Columbia and Nova Scotia, have amended their legislation to allow for 52 weeks' combined pregnancy and parental leave for a natural mother and at least 35 weeks' parental leave for a natural father or adoptive parent; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has refused, without just and good cause, to amend the Employment Standards Act in a timely manner, effectively denying parents access to the new EI benefits since they would otherwise risk their job at a time when the security of their employment and working conditions is most critical;

"We, the undersigned, petition the legislative Assembly as follows:

"To amend the Employment Standards Act of Ontario forthwith to extend the current parental leave and normal protections of workers' jobs and working conditions by 17 weeks, effective December 31, 2000."

I agree with these petitioners and I've affixed my signature to it. I urge this government to pass my Bill 138, the Fair Parental Leave Act.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): "Whereas there are a higher number of elderly people and people with disabilities living in the Hamilton-Wentworth region, because of the excellence of the health care system in the area; and

"Whereas the case managers and placement coordinators in the Hamilton-Wentworth Community Care Access Centre have higher caseloads than other community care access centres in the central-southwest region; and

"Whereas the staff at the Hamilton-Wentworth Community Care Access Centre are paid less than their counterparts in the central-southwest region; and

"Whereas the health care system in Hamilton-Wentworth is a self-contained seamless system; and

"Whereas increasing funding will be needed to provide health care services to citizens in the future in this self-contained seamless system; and

"Whereas all workers working in the health care system, and the citizens of Hamilton-Wentworth, expect adequate funding for the health care system in toto in Hamilton-Wentworth, both now and in the future and recognize the equal importance of all the parts of the seamless health care system;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to provide adequate funding immediately to the Hamilton-Wentworth Community Care Access Centre so that pay and conditions of staff will be equal to those in other community care access centres in the central-southwest region; and that adequate funding will continue to be provided in the future according to the needs of the community."

CAMPING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have a petition here signed by over 1,000 of my constituents who are very upset about the 21-day limit on camping on crown land. They have a petition which also moves toward a solution. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the provincial government introduced a 21-day limit on camping on crown land in 1970 but has never felt it necessary to enforce that limit because the vast majority of campers on these abundant lands respect the habitat and pose no environmental threat; and

"Whereas the vast majority of campers frequently provide real benefits and support to the areas in which they camp; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources began this year to enforce the 21-day limit, causing massive inconvenience to campers, many of whom have gone to significant expense to set up their camps and have caused no harm or damage to the natural habitat, nor inconvenience to their neighbours; and

"Whereas many of the reasons the Ministry of Natural Resources have given to support their recent crackdown, including concerns regarding overcrowding, are largely unsubstantiated;"-particularly in the north-

"Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Ministry of Natural Resources stop its unreasonable crackdown on the responsible campers who are using crown lands, and work toward an agreement that would eliminate the 21-day limit for responsible Ontario residents."

As I said, there are over 1,000 names on my petition, and I'm very pleased to sign it as well.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas it has been determined that recent funding allocations to the developmental services sector in the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent, and Windsor-Essex have been determined to be grossly inadequate to meet critical and urgent needs;

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

"That the Ministry of Community and Social Services immediately review the funding allocations to the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent, and Windsor-Essex, and provide funding in keeping with the requests made by families and/or their agents."

In support of these several hundred petitioners, I affix my signature.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): This is a 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 exposure 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."

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

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

"Whereas it has been determined that recent funding allocations to the developmental services sector in the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent and Windsor-Essex have been determined to be grossly inadequate to meet critical and urgent needs;

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

"That the Ministry of Community and Social Services immediately review the funding allocations to the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent and Windsor-Essex and provide funding in keeping with the requests made by families or their agents."

This petition is signed by a number of residents from Ridgetown, Chatham and Tilbury, and I affix my signature to it.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the property owners of Lamarche township, part of the newly amalgamated town of Cochrane, feel the doubling of our property taxes doesn't recognize the additional costs rural ratepayers are faced with;

"Whereas we do not have the services that urban ratepayers do;

"Whereas we have to pay for our wells and septic systems, that are expensive to install and maintain;

"Whereas we do not have street lights, sidewalks or even garbage pickup and some of our roads in the country are not well maintained;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to implement a tax rate that recognizes the differences between rural and urban taxpayers."

I affix my signature to this.

PENSION INDEXATION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have another petition in regard to the demonstration in front of the Ministry of Labour's office. It reads as follows:

"Whereas injured workers petitioned the Legislature of Ontario from 1974 to get full indexation of their benefits and pensions; and

"Whereas in 1985, all political parties in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario agreed to enact full annual indexation in the Workers' Compensation Act; and

"Whereas in 1998, Bill 99 restricted indexation of pensions and benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act; and

"Whereas the Canada pension plan is fully indexed annually;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore full indexation on an annual basis to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act of Ontario."

Since I agree, I'm delighted to put my signature to this petition.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

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

"Whereas patients requiring eye care in Niagara are faced with a shortage of ophthalmologists and, as a result, are compelled to wait several weeks to secure an appointment with an ophthalmologist;

"Whereas Niagara patients who require potentially vision-saving eye surgery have to, in many cases, wait for several months to have that surgery scheduled;

"Whereas, while the shortage of ophthalmologists is occurring, the removal of billing caps on these medical specialists provides a temporary but essential easing of the health care crisis;

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Health's solution of removing the exemptions of the billing cap and forcing patients from Niagara to travel along the very busy Queen Elizabeth Highway to receive treatment in Hamilton is unacceptable;

"Be it resolved that the Ontario Ministry of Health remove the cap on billing for ophthalmologists in Niagara until such time as Niagara is no longer an underserviced area."

I affix my signature as I'm in agreement with the petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I'm very pleased to tell you that petitions related to the northern health travel grant and the inadequacy and unfairness of it keep coming in. I want to thank Olga McDaid for sending me these petitions today, and I will read them.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We will continue to fight this battle. Hopefully the government will finally listen. I want to sign this petition as well.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition addressed to the Minister of Education.

"We believe that the heart of education in our province is the relationship between student and teacher and that this human and relational dimension should be maintained and extended in any proposed reform. The Minister of Education and Training should know how strongly we oppose many of the secondary reform recommendations being proposed by your ministry and by your government.

"We strongly urge your ministry to delay the implementation of secondary school reform so that all interested stakeholders-parents, students, school councils, trustees and teachers-are able to participate in a more meaningful consultation process which will help to ensure that a high quality of publicly funded education is provided."

Since I agree with the sentiments in this petition, I am delighted to sign it as well.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We continue to read petition after petition signed by concerned residents of our communities in northwestern Ontario who are anxious to see the government act on this very important matter. I affix my signature in full agreement with the concern of my constituents.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would seek unanimous consent of this House that we adjourn the proceedings and revert back to introduction of bills so the government may introduce a bill entitled

An Act to resolve the labour dispute between the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario and the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, so that we may order the teachers back to work and allow the children to go back to school tomorrow.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is there unanimous consent? There is not unanimous consent.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Can I seek some clarification then? Is that request for unanimous consent out of order for the duration of the day, or is it just a fact now that the students will not be allowed to go back to school because Mr Kormos decided not to let them?

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry, I can't answer that question. Question period is over, and we'll enter into those things that we properly do. Right now we're in orders of the day.

ROAD USER CUSTOMER SERVICE IMPROVEMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES OFFERTS AUX USAGERS DE LA ROUTE

Mr Turnbull moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 137,

An Act to permit the Minister of Transportation to delegate powers and duties and responsibilities to deliver program services with respect to road user safety to persons in the private sector / Projet de loi 137, Loi permettant au ministre des Transports de déléguer à des personnes du secteur privé des pouvoirs, des fonctions et des responsabilités pour fournir des services liés à des programmes en matière de sécurité des usagers de la route.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes Mr Turnbull, the Minister of Transportation.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): Mr Speaker, I'd just like to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the members from Etobicoke North, Peterborough and Northumberland.

It's my pleasure today to introduce Bill 137 for second reading. This bill is all about improving customer service while ensuring road user safety. If passed, the Road User Customer Service Improvement Act would enable the ministry to transfer certain services to a new provider. As a first step in this process, we are seeking expressions of interest from qualified candidates to deliver driver examination services. This bill supports our government's intention to focus on setting standards, developing policy and managing services. At the same time, we remain committed to maintaining road user safety as the ministry's top priority.

Members will be aware that demand for driver examination services is especially high as hundreds of thousands of new drivers are seeking to complete the graduated licensing process introduced across the province in 1994. In October 1999, I announced a package of measures to reduce waiting times for driver examinations. As part of that initiative, the ministry committed to hiring approximately 300 temporary driver examination staff, opening temporary test facilities and offering driver testing on weekends. The result was a significant increase in the number of road tests and a reduction in the waiting times for driver examinations.

When I announced the new measures, I also made a commitment to finding ways to further improve customer service. This legislation, if passed, would build on these improvements by seeking innovative customer service proposals from outside providers. At the same time, this in