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

November 28, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Nov-28 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 28 November 2001 Mercredi 28 novembre 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JOAN FLOOD

OSPCA PUPPY MILL RAIDS

PRIVATE CLINICS

ONTARIO MARINE INDUSTRY

STUDDED TIRES

CLEAR-CUTTING

NANTICOKE GENERATING STATION

FIREFIGHTERS

HEALTH PROTECTION AND

PROMOTION LEGISLATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

ALTERNATIVE FUEL SOURCES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NIKKEI HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LE JOUR

DU PATRIMOINE NIKKEI

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PRÉVENTION

ET LA PROTECTION

CONTRE L'INCENDIE

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

(CONSOLIDATION OF SPECIAL ACTS), 2001

LOI DE 2001

SUR LES COMTÉS-UNIS

DE PRESCOTT ET RUSSELL /

UNITED COUNTIES OF PRESCOTT

AND RUSSELL ACT, 2001

GRAVESITES OF FORMER

PREMIERS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LES LIEUX DE SÉPULTURE

DES ANCIENS PREMIERS MINISTRES

VISITORS

CLINTON SUZACK

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

FIREFIGHTERS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGN

FUNDING DISCLOSURE

CURRICULUM

BAY OF QUINTE WALLEYE FISHERY

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

BORDER SECURITY

CRIMINAL INJURIES

COMPENSATION BOARD

CHILDREN'S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

AND TRADES

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

MINING PROGRAMS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

VISITORS

PETITIONS

HOME CARE

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

EDUCATION FUNDING

HOME CARE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Wednesday 28 November 2001 Mercredi 28 novembre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JOAN FLOOD

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Her Worship Mayor Joan Flood, mayor of Essex, has died after a brief but courageous fight with cancer.

First elected mayor in 1999, Joan was re-elected last year. Previously, from 1981 to 1999, Joan was a trustee of the Essex County Board of Education, later to be

named the Greater Essex County District School Board, and served as chair of that board for 10 of those 18 years.

Joan and I were candidates in a provincial by-election in 1993, just eight short years ago. Joan was as tough a fighter then as she has been in her recent battle

against cancer. But then, as recently, Joan never lost her perspective of who she was, where she was going or why she was headed there.

In recalling our election campaign, Joan recently said, "It's well documented I can verbally spar with the best of them. Sometimes my jabs did hit below the

belt." I can attest to that, but we were always friends.

On tendering her resignation as mayor, Joan said: "I've learned that sometimes one's passion can be so strong that visually you are blinded by your own

sincerity. I will be forever grateful to the people of Essex who have bestowed the mayor's honour upon me."

Joan had passion. She had vision. She loved her Essex, and I might add, she loved her Tory party.

From this Legislature, the friends in this House who knew her, and from the citizens of the riding of Essex, our sympathy and our prayers go to her husband,

Charlie, and her supportive and loving family. God rest her soul.

OSPCA PUPPY MILL RAIDS

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to draw attention to the successful raid by the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals' special operations unit on three alleged puppy mills in my riding of Perth-Middlesex.

I'm obviously not proud that these alleged puppy mills were operating in my riding, but I am proud to be part of the government that funded the Ontario SPCA's

crackdown on these operations.

On Monday, the Ontario SPCA executed search warrants at three suspected puppy mills in the township of Perth East. Twenty-five dogs were taken from the three

locations. These were the first animals rescued from the puppy mills by the Ontario SPCA's special operations unit, which was established this fall with the help of a $50,000 grant from the

Solicitor General.

In two of these three cases, the investigation was assisted by tips from the public. I want to thank my constituents who helped in those tips.

These tips show the public's concern about the suffering caused by puppy mills. The two private members' bills dealing with puppy mills show that we in the

Legislature are in sync with public opinion on this issue. I want to thank the members for Eglinton-Lawrence and York North for keeping this issue on the front burner.

I tell you about this to assure members of this House and the public that while we debate what more can be done, this government is already acting to eliminate

puppy and kitten mills.

PRIVATE CLINICS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): A new private MRI clinic is about to set up shop in Ontario. It is certainly not likely to encounter any

opposition from the Minister of Health, who is a great believer in the benefits of private sector delivery of health care. The minister will, however, have some questions to answer about this

clinic. The first question: how will the minister ensure this clinic is not doing any MRIs for OHIP-covered services?

The minister will surely be aware of the history on this matter. His predecessor, just last year, had to deal with a concern about private individuals paying for

MRIs at the William Osler Health Centre. The private company doing the MRIs there insisted that all their billings were legitimate, but in fact it was found that there were a number of

inappropriate billings -- that means people paying privately to jump the queue.

At about the same time a year ago, there was a furor in Alberta where hundreds or even thousands of individuals paid privately for MRIs because of their

frustration with the waits. The Alberta government had to pay back the individuals who were supposed to have been able to get their MRIs in the public system, and then they were forced, because of

public outrage, to actually provide better access to publicly funded MRIs.

That's the second question for the Minister of Health. What is he prepared to do to reduce waiting times for MRIs on the public machines in public hospitals?

People are extremely frustrated with waits for MRIs that can be as long as seven months in some parts of the province. The province was adding 12 MRIs across the

province this year, but the waiting list grows by 1,200 patients a year. The association of radiologists says that we need 80 MRIs, not 12.

Two-tier Tony often talks about private delivery and private pay as the answers to rising health care costs. We agree with Allan Rock when he says, "If an MRI is

medically necessary, it should be provided publicly. It's as simple as that."

ONTARIO MARINE INDUSTRY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's my great pleasure to rise in celebration of Ontario Marine Day. Today in Toronto, representatives of marine

communities across Ontario are meeting with government officials to discuss how the government and members of the Legislative Assembly can work in partnership, a partnership that will ensure a

healthy, safe, efficient and competitive shipping industry.

Tens of thousands of jobs in Ontario communities rely on the ability to ship and receive goods by water. Men and women in the steel and construction industries,

mining and agriculture, in our ports and on our ships, have made a livelihood through the efficiencies found in moving goods through our Great Lakes-St. Lawrence waterway system.

Through technological advancements and a highly skilled workforce, the marine community continues to be an effective and efficient component of Ontario's

transportation infrastructure. In moving more than 75 million metric tonnes of cargo each year through Ontario, worth more than $5 billion, our province's marine industry plays an integral role in

Ontario's economic health.

As the most environmentally responsible mode of transportation, the marine industry that serves Ontario is well positioned to support the province's emissions

reduction goals in the coming years.

With more than half of Canada's international trade moving by waterborne transit through Ontario's ports, marine communities across the province are working with

all governments to prepare to meet the future environmental and economic challenges of our great nation. I am pleased to support those efforts here today.

I know it's not a point of order, but representatives of the Ontario marine association sitting in the members' gallery are John Greenway, Robert Paterson, and

Camille Trepanier. Please join with me in welcoming them.

STUDDED TIRES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Yesterday the first blast of winter hit my community of Sudbury. Yesterday the OPP in my area of northern Ontario

investigated 97 accidents, 30 of them involving serious personal injury and, tragically, six people lost their lives. The OPP has stated that road conditions and weather conditions were the

predominant factors.

Today I again call upon the Harris government to increase money for winter road maintenance. I also call upon the Harris government to pass my bill, Bill 119,

which will allow for the use of studded tires in northern Ontario.

All studies indicate that studded tires save lives. All studies indicate that studded tires reduce accidents. Olle Nordstrom, an expert in winter tire

performance, has stated categorically that cars with studded tires stop more safely and quickly than cars with winter tires or all-season radials. Sadly, Ontario is the only province which does not

allow the use of studded tires.

Today I demand, on behalf of the people of northern Ontario, that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines wake up and speak up and that the Minister of

Transportation act in the best interests of northerners. The firefighters from Sudbury who are in the gallery today, Chris Stokes, Marc Leduc and Mike Ouellette, have seen enough mangled metal and

broken bodies. They have seen enough tragedy. Pass Bill 119, the studded tire act, and help reduce the carnage and tragic loss of life, which are all too often the end result of poor road

conditions in northern Ontario.

CLEAR-CUTTING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Today, I had the opportunity to attend a press conference that was presided over by none other than John

Snobelen, the minister against forestry and for clear-cuts in the province of Ontario. The minister had the gall to go there and tell us, the Ontario public, that these guidelines were an end to

old-style cutting when it comes to clear-cuts in Ontario.

Talk about taking a step backwards. We're going back, we're going way back, to the old days when forest companies were allowed to go into the forest and

basically cut every tree that stood, without any regard for the environmental protection of our forests and environmental protection overall when it comes to forest policy.

Imagine this; get a load of this. Nobody is going to believe this, but it's true: the minister is saying that you're going to be allowed to cut every tree within

one hectare except for 25 of them. That's what his new guidelines amount to. He says he wants to emulate what forest fires do to the forests in Ontario. The last time I checked, we spend millions

of dollars to put out forest fires in the forests across Ontario. We're not out there trying to start them.

I say to Mike Harris and John Snobelen, get away from the lighters, because we know what you're going to do to forests from now on. We're saying get back to

sensible practices when it comes to forestry in this province and get away from what you're trying to do, because it is a step in the wrong direction. It will bring us back to the bad old days when

we couldn't get access to markets because our forests were not being cut in a sustainable way.

NANTICOKE GENERATING STATION

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I wish to inform members of the Legislature of the green energy thinking being put into action at the

Nanticoke generating station in my riding. This is a plant that a Liberal member opposite keeps referring to as "dirty coal-fired." We in my riding and the 600 men and women who work there are

proud of our plant and its environmental and efficiency record.

This past Monday this province made another step toward emissions reduction when Ontario Power Generation announced a $250-million investment into new

smog-reducing emission control technology for both the Nanticoke and Lambton generating stations. OPG has contracted with Babcock and Wilcox of Cambridge to provide four selective catalytic

reduction units to be split between the two generating stations. This equipment will remove 80% of the nitrogen oxide emissions from the coal-burning units to which they are attached. Total station

emissions will drop by 25%. Across the province, this week's announcement will mean an annual 12,000-tonne reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions, and this is the equivalent of taking 600,000 cars

off the road.

This commitment, coupled with $2 billion in emission control investments over the last decade, will better position Nanticoke to meet new environmental emission

caps that were announced by our Ministry of the Environment this past month. These are some of the toughest regulations in North America.

FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): It's a privilege and an honour to stand here today on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus to extend to the

Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, to each and every one of you here today, a heartfelt welcome. We in the Liberal caucus recognize and appreciate the job you do to keep our families

safe and secure.

We now have an even better understanding of the dangers you and your families face since the tragedy of September 11. We worked with you before this date and we

have continued to work with you after September 11 to ensure you are properly funded, equipped, trained, safe and appreciated. That is why we proposed the Firefighters' Memorial Act, changed the

Safe Streets Act to allow you to continue to do your good fundraising activities, the right-to-know legislation to keep you safe, and why I wrote to the Solicitor General on September 9 asking him

to join me to build a wall of honour around the monument in Gravenhurst. The names of all the firefighters who have given the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty should be and must be added to

that wall. As well, Dalton McGuinty's Ontario security fund will put $100 million into the safety and security of the families of our province.

Today I will further show how serious we are about our commitment to the communities and the firefighters of this province by introducing legislation making

inappropriate staffing levels a thing of the past. We support Bill 105 and look forward to its quick passage. We will continue to be an inclusive party that respects the province's firefighters.

Again we thank you, our firefighters and your families, for just doing your job.

HEALTH PROTECTION AND

PROMOTION LEGISLATION

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm honoured to rise this afternoon to welcome Ontario firefighters to Queen's Park on their annual lobby day

and to promote my private member's bill, Bill 105, the Health Promotion and Protection Amendment Act, 2001. The bill would allow emergency service workers, good Samaritans and victims of crime the

opportunity to request a blood sample from someone they have come into contact with who they suspect has an infectious disease.

My office has worked very hard to consult with stakeholders from across our province who have a direct concern about the lack of legislation in this area. I want

to make it clear that all our consultation was prior to the tragedies of September 11. September 11 emphasized to the world the contributions made by emergency workers and others to our

society.

Currently victims of crime, emergency service workers and good Samaritans, and their families and friends, are put in a lonely and frightening position when they

become involved in incidents where they come into contact with bodily fluids of someone suspected of having an infectious disease such as hepatitis or HIV.

I ask all members of this House to work together to see speedy passage of Bill 105. As a society and as legislators, we must do everything we can do to protect

those people who protect us.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice and social policy. I want to

commend the hard work of the staff of the committee and of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of the Environment for all their hard work. Over the past three years there's been an awful

lot of consultation on this legislation, and I'm proud to move it's adoption.

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

Bill 81,

An Act to provide standards with respect to the management of materials containing nutrients used on lands, to provide for the making of regulations

with respect to farm animals and lands to which nutrients are applied, and to make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 81, Loi prévoyant des normes à l'égard de la

gestion des matières contenant des éléments nutritifs utilisées sur les biens-fonds, prévoyant la prise de règlements à l'égard des animaux d'élevage et

des biens-fonds sur lesquels des éléments nutritifs sont épandus et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.

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

Pursuant to standing order 72(b), the bill is therefore ordered for second reading.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

ALTERNATIVE FUEL SOURCES

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I beg leave to present the interim report of the select committee on alternative fuel sources.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Galt presents the committee's report. Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Galt: Our interim report, which I am tabling today, is a

summary of our initial hearings. It is designed as a discussion paper to encourage

public debate on where the committee and the province should go from here. Some of the major topics discussed are water power, wind power, solar energy, energy derived from biomass, alternative

transportation fuels, hydrogen and fuel cells. We also looked at the role of energy conservation and efficiency, and how public policy and education can encourage alternative fuels and energy

use.

We face a world of rising fuel costs, dwindling resources and increasing concern about air quality. The task of this committee is to ensure that all the options

are explored, all the fuel sources examined and the best solutions for Ontario's future recommended. Our work is not complete, but we look forward to your feedback and to the feedback of the

public, environmental groups and the industry stakeholders on our interim report.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NIKKEI HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LE JOUR

DU PATRIMOINE NIKKEI

Mr Wettlaufer moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 140,

An Act to proclaim Nikkei Heritage Day / Projet de loi 140, Loi proclamant le Jour du patrimoine Nikkei.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Japanese Canadians who lost much of their property and who lost many of their civil rights during the

Second World War have made many contributions to the development of Ontario and to Canada. They presently have a cultural day that they recognize among their own community. It's the Sunday closest

to September 22 in each year and it is called Nikkei Heritage Day. This bill will proclaim the Sunday closest to September 22 in each year as Nikkei Heritage Day and give appropriate recognition to

that.

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PRÉVENTION

ET LA PROTECTION

CONTRE L'INCENDIE

Mr Levac moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 141, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la prévention et la

protection contre l'incendie.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): In respect to the citizens of Ontario and to the firefighters across the province, the purpose of this bill is to

require that any proposal to reduce or restructure fire protection services be approved by the fire marshal before implementation. The fire marshal would be required to report annually to the

minister on proposals that are reviewed, either accepted or rejected.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

(CONSOLIDATION OF SPECIAL ACTS), 2001

Mr Guzzo moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

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

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

LOI DE 2001

SUR LES COMTÉS-UNIS

DE PRESCOTT ET RUSSELL /

UNITED COUNTIES OF PRESCOTT

AND RUSSELL ACT, 2001

Mr Lalonde moved first reading of the following bill:

Projet de loi 142, Loi autorisant la réglementation municipale de la perturbation et de l'extraction de la tourbe dans les Comtés-Unis de Prescott et

Russell / Bill 142,

An Act to permit municipal regulation of peat disturbance and extraction in the United Counties of Prescott and Russell.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): The bill gives authority to the municipal council of the corporation of the united counties

of Prescott and Russell to pass bylaws to control peat extraction within the counties.

GRAVESITES OF FORMER

PREMIERS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LES LIEUX DE SÉPULTURE

DES ANCIENS PREMIERS MINISTRES

Mr Peters moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 143,

An Act to preserve the gravesites of former premiers of Ontario / Projet de loi 143, Loi visant à conserver les lieux de sépulture des

anciens premiers ministres de l'Ontario.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): This bill, if passed, would require the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to mark the

gravesites of former Premiers of Ontario and permit the minister to make arrangements for the care and preservation of such gravesites.

If passed, the province would, by means of flags of Ontario and Canada, plaques and signs, mark the 18 gravesites of former Premiers of Ontario in the

dignified and respectful manner they deserve.

This legislation is modelled after the federal Prime Ministers' gravesites act.

VISITORS

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to introduce to the House members of the York West Riding

Association, sitting in the west gallery. They represent part of the largest group to send a Liberal member to Queen's Park, election after election.

CLINTON SUZACK

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: following Corrections Canada's failure to move Clinton Suzack to a

maximum-security prison, I seek unanimous consent to move the following motion without debate:

The Legislative Assembly of Ontario denounces Corrections Canada's decision to transfer Clinton Suzack from one medium-security prison to another and renews

its call for his immediate return to a maximum-security facility.

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

Mr Bartolucci: I move that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario denounces Corrections Canada's decision to transfer Clinton Suzack from one

medium-security prison to another and renews its call for his immediate return to a maximum-security facility.

The Speaker: The Legislative Assembly of Ontario denounces Corrections Canada's decision to release Clinton Suzack from one medium-security

prison to another and renews its call for immediate return to a maximum-security facility.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

FIREFIGHTERS

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): It is a privilege for me to rise in the House today to pay tribute to Ontario's firefighters and to

acknowledge the tremendous contribution that the brave men and women of Ontario's fire services make every day to public safety in our province.

It takes a special kind of courage to respond to an alarm bell and go into a burning building, knowing that you are risking your life. Yet every day our

firefighting professionals, knowing the risks, understanding the danger of their work, put the safety of others first. There is no greater bravery than the bravery these men and women show every

day as they work to keep the people of Ontario safe.

Recently we remembered those who died while on duty with the first Firefighters' Memorial Day service at the Ontario Fire College in Gravenhurst, people like

Captain Pat Carey of the Toronto Fire Service and Captain Dennis Redman of the St Thomas Fire Service, who made the greatest sacrifice in the line of duty.

I'm proud to announce that their names will be added to the new wall of honour, which will be part of the new addition to the Ontario Fire College. The names

of all firefighters who have fallen in the line of duty will be inscribed on this wall of honour.

My government is proud to be creating this wall to keep the names of these brave individuals alive forever and to ensure that their sacrifices will not be

forgotten.

Just two weeks ago, the Lieutenant Governor presented this year's fire and police bravery awards. Six courageous firefighters from across Ontario were honoured

for their extraordinary sacrifice and service.

Ontario, as well, is one of the safest places in the world when it comes to fire, and that's because of the bravery and the dedication and the skill of our

firefighters. They are so good at their jobs that it's easy to forget just how vital they are to safeguarding our communities, but we must never take them for granted.

The shocking events of September 11 were indeed a powerful reminder of the risks firefighters on both sides of the border face every day.

Our firefighters cannot do their job alone. They need and they deserve our respect, our thanks and our help. That's why, for example, we're investing $2.5

million each year to train firefighters and other emergency workers in performing urban search and rescue, responding to chemical, biological and nuclear emergencies and dealing with hazardous

materials. These are just a few of the serious risks for which our firefighters must be prepared.

We are also spending $3 million to upgrade the Ontario Fire College in Gravenhurst to develop an emergency management training facility.

After the events of September 11, we are more aware than ever of the dangers our firefighters must face and the sacrifices that they and their families must

make.

These are challenging times, but despite the challenges, the difficulties and the problems we may face, we know that we can rely on our firefighters.

So today, on behalf of the people of Ontario, we pause to say thank you. Thank you for your professionalism, for your dedication, for your bravery. We depend

on you. We want you to know that you can depend on us.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent for this House to agree to the

singing or playing of our national anthem, O Canada, in this House at least once a week before the daily proceedings.

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

Responses? The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): On behalf of the members of the Ontario Liberal caucus, I want to offer my words of support and

praise for the men and women of Ontario's fire services.

Let me say to the representatives of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association present in the gallery today, and to all those watching these

proceedings on TV, thank you for your courage, your sacrifice, your dedication and your commitment to our communities.

The terrorist attacks on September 11 have provided us with a shocking reminder of the great sacrifices made by people who serve our communities. Few make as

great a contribution to our communities as do our firefighters. I know all Ontarians have been shaken by the terrorist attacks. We're all saddened by the immense loss of life. But since the

attacks, I've been particularly saddened by the terrible losses suffered by the New York City fire department. We now know that some 343 members of the New York City fire department died on that

day, and our hearts go out to the friends and families of those fallen heroes. I can tell you that I was heartened and proud to meet Ontario firefighters working at ground zero in New York City.

These people were there working in a volunteer capacity, giving expression to our collective desire to simply help a neighbour in a time of need.

The heroes in New York remind us that there are heroes in our own communities. Every Ontario community has dedicated firefighters who risk their lives and give

back to their communities. Ontario Liberals know that our firefighters put themselves at risk, put themselves in harm's way and spend considerable time away from their families. Firefighters make

these sacrifices so Ontario families can be safe. In turn, we on this side of the House believe we should be doing everything possible to ensure that our firefighters themselves are safe.

That's why we've demanded that the government adopt our plan to invest $100 million in an Ontario security fund. The fund I am proposing would make $50 million

available to municipalities for hiring additional firefighters and police officers and, more specifically, to ensure that all firefighters are adequately equipped and protected in any

situation.

The government has, to its credit, put aside $2.5 million in funding, including a new training facility. But sadly, that simply does not address the magnitude

of the challenges we are facing. The government hasn't provided one cent to help municipalities hire additional firefighters. That's not good enough for me and that's not good enough for our

working families, not when firefighters are responding to calls without adequate staff and equipment. So again today, I call upon the government to implement our Ontario security plan, a plan that

wouldn't add one dollar to the provincial budget. Our firefighters deserve nothing less.

Working families know that firefighters are constantly at risk of contracting a communicable disease when providing emergency medical treatment. We believe

that firefighters should be able to find out if they have come into contact with someone carrying such a disease. That is why we support Bill 105. My caucus and I have fought alongside the Ontario

Professional Fire Fighters Association against the government's Bill 84, the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, and we will continue to fight any other move that puts firefighters at risk by

allowing communities to send inadequate numbers of ill-equipped firefighters into dangerous situations.

We have felt for a long time now that the government should create a memorial to honour those firefighters who have fallen in the line of duty. We appreciate

that the government has followed our lead and will be creating this memorial. Ontario's firefighters make great contributions to our communities. Our firefighters not only keep us safe, but they

assist us as volunteers and through charity drives. Ontario's working families depend on our firefighters and our firefighters should be able to depend on us as legislators.

With a great deal of pride I say that we will continue to work with and for our firefighters and we will continue to propose policies that ensure their safety

and the continuing safety of Ontario's working families.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): This is an important day, and the events of September 11 have, I think, made it all the more

important. It is the day when we should remind ourselves and we should remind people all across Ontario of the broad scale of work that firefighters do in our communities.

What happened on September 11 in New York City and in Washington was an expression, a very vivid expression for everyone, that people could understand -- a

disaster, fire, explosions -- and while almost everyone was trying to leave the buildings in question, while everyone was trying to get out, firefighters were going in. I think that visually sent a

message to everyone of the incredible level of sacrifice, of dedication and of courage that it takes when your duty says, "You must go in when everyone else is trying to escape." We need to

acknowledge that dedication, that sacrifice and that courage.

We also need to recognize all of the other work that firefighters do. In some senses, the word "firefighter" is a very narrow description of the work that we

expect from our fire services. When you're on a lonely stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway and there is a very serious accident, the first or second people called to the scene will be the fire

service because in most cases it is the fire service that has the expertise, the knowledge, the experience and the equipment to extract people who are very seriously injured, perhaps critically

injured, from a car, a van, a truck or whatever other kind of motor vehicle. It is work once again that on a busy highway can be dangerous but it is work that requires a very special kind of

expertise and experience.

A few years ago I had the opportunity to spend a day riding with a paramedic crew in an ambulance, and as we responded to emergency directives, in almost every

case what I discovered was that the first people at the scene, whether it was a household or whether it was a downtown business, were firefighters. The people who were there, who offered the first

response, who provided in essence the first emergency medical service, were firefighters. I don't think many people in the public understand that, that in a majority of our communities where

someone calls for an ambulance in fact it is often the fire service which arrives first and may administer the oxygen or may do the first examination in terms of whatever the particular affliction

may be. It is obviously very important work.

On an occasion like this we also need to acknowledge that if we're going to continue to have these very good public services, we need to be willing to fund

them. And I use the word "public" service, because if we each contribute a little, we individually and collectively derive a huge benefit from this service. But we must have a willingness to fund

and to provide the financial resources if these public services are going to continue to be of very high quality. I regret to say that in Ontario today that is not the case. There are too many fire

services across the province that are struggling.

We also need to recognize the legitimate workplace issues, that fire services and people who work in fire services deserve a properly administered pension fund

and a pension fund which is at least partially under their control. I recognize the courage, the dedication, the sacrifice. We must similarly recognize our responsibilities here.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just wanted to ask for unanimous consent and I'd also like to thank all

the members of the House that have helped me draft this motion. The unanimous consent asks that this Legislature directs Bill 105,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act, 2001, to

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Sorry to interrupt the member. If we could, could we just ask for unanimous consent to move that? Agreed? Agreed.

Yes, now you can proceed.

Mr Dunlop: The motion that I'm asking for unanimous consent on reads: that this Legislature direct that Bill 105,

An Act to amend the Health

Protection and Promotion Act, 2001, to require the taking of blood samples to protect victims of crime, emergency service workers, good Samaritans and other persons, be considered by the standing

committee on justice and social policy on Tuesday, December 4, for one day, at the end of which the Chair shall put every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the

bill; and that it then be reported back to this House and ordered for third reading; and that when third reading of Bill 105 is next called, the question be put immediately without debate or

amendment.

The Speaker: We'll see if our high-tech system works here. Mr Dunlop has moved that --

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Dispense.

Interjection: It's working.

The Speaker: It's working very well, thank you. It was going to be very tough to read.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, yesterday you went too far. You threatened Ontario's

seniors. You said that if you didn't get your way -- you stamped your foot and you threw a tantrum -- you were going to take home care and drug coverage away from Ontario's seniors.

You've now had the time, you've had the benefit of a cooling-off period. Surely you now understand that if you actually follow through on that threat,

thousands of seniors would be forced into poverty. Surely you now understand that cutting off home care and drug coverage would mean sentencing thousands without the ability to pay to prolonged

sickness and worse.

Premier, will you now do the right thing? Apologize, and reassure Ontario's parents and grandparents that under no circumstances whatsoever will the health

care services they need be on the chopping block.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me indicate very clearly what I said yesterday and already confirmed today when I talked to the media:

under no circumstances under a Harris government, under six years of massive underfunding from the federal government, would I allow cuts. In fact, I provided for massive increases to home care and

to senior citizens and drug programs. I indicated very clearly that as long as I am Premier of the province of Ontario, I will continue to fund Ontario's share that I have continued for six years.

For six years I have made up the shortfall from the federal government. I will confirm to you and I make no apology for going to Ottawa and fighting for the disgraceful show from the Liberal

government in Ottawa in the underfunding of health care.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, why not inject some modicum, some semblance of honesty into this debate? This is not about money. If you scrapped your

$2.2-billion corporate tax cut, you could double our drug care plan. If you scrapped the $2.2-billion corporate tax cut, you could triple our investment in home care.

This isn't about money. Why not be honest? You're on the way out. You've got nothing to lose. Come out of the closet and tell the people of Ontario you are

against medicare. That's what this is all about. You are in favour of two-tier health care. You're in favour of user fees. Premier, why not be honest with the Ontario public? This is not about

money. It's about your right-wing ideology.

Hon Mr Harris: My record on health care is a matter of public record. During my term in office, we have increased health care --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Premier, take his seat. Order, please. Sorry, Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: During my term as Premier of this government, for six successive budgets we have increased total spending by $6.8 billion. Six

billion of that $6.8 billion has been for new health care funding: $3 billion of that is our share and $3 billion of that ought to have been the federal share, but since they slashed the funding, I

made it up. That is the record. The record is clear: more money for home care, more money for seniors, more money for drugs -- the Ontario share and the federal share.

What is disgraceful, in addition to the federal shortfall, is that the Ontario Liberal Party stands in its place and tells all the Premiers, "You should be

un-tax-competitive. You should hike taxes. You should find money from elsewhere to make up the federal funding shortfall." That is a disgraceful position for any provincial politician of any

party.

The Speaker: The Premier's time is up.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I enjoy the bluster. I really do. I made you an offer yesterday and I'll repeat that same offer today. I'll get on the

airplane with you. We will fly to Ottawa. We will make our request together for more health care dollars on one condition: you commit here and now that you won't proceed with your $2.2 billion in

corporate tax cuts; you won't put half a billion dollars into private schools; you'll stop spending hundreds of millions of dollars on partisan political advertising. Prove to me and prove to

Ontarians that you're prepared to put health care first and corporate tax cuts second. Let's get on the plane. Let's go to Ottawa. Let's ask for more money. Let's put tax cuts aside.

Hon Mr Harris: I want to say that nothing cuts me to the quick more than to have these questions raised today, to be able to talk about the

lack of Liberal commitment to health care, in Ottawa and here in the province of Ontario.

Last night in debate in this Legislature, the Liberal position was quite clear: not one more cent is required from Ottawa. We don't need any more money from

Ottawa. That was the Liberal position as articulated last night. Do you think I'm going to waste gas to take you to Ottawa to tell them, "Don't give the provinces any more money"? You are a

disgrace to your party. You are a disgrace to health care. You are a disgrace to provincial politicians everywhere in this country.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We'll just wait. I guess we won't have a question period and I'll just stand here. The only person who's happy with that

is my mother who gets to see me on TV. If you don't want any questions, that's fine. We'll just stand here and wait. Obviously both sides are rather feisty today. I'm not going to carry on. The

pages and I are not going to keep getting up back and forth for both sides. We'll just continue to wait till it's silent, and if that takes 53 minutes, then there will be no more questions today.

It's as simple as that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I say this to the government side as well. If you start doing that and start yelling across when I'm trying to maintain

order, you will also be thrown out, the member for Ottawa West-Nepean.

I believe it is now a new question, the leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: I've been so cut to the quick, I barely know where to begin now.

Premier, again I ask you, why not inject some honesty into this debate? You won't fix medicare because you don't believe in it. Deep down, you believe in

extra-billing. Deep down, you believe in user fees. Your record speaks to that already. You believe in a premium system for the well-off and a second-rate system for the rest of us. If you want an

honest debate about the future of medicare in our province and in our country, I think you owe it to Ontarians to plainly stake your ground. The fact is, as we have observed on this side of the

House for quite some time now, that you don't champion medicare because you don't believe in medicare. You believe in user fees. You believe in two-tier health care.

Why not, today, be honest? You've got one foot in the private sector. Don't drag the health care system there with you. Be honest. Tell us you stand against

medicare and you're for two-tier health care.

Hon Mr Harris: My actions speak for themselves. I refer you to the budget of 1996. I refer you to the budget of 1997. I refer you to the

budget of 1998. I refer you to the Ontario budget of 1999. I refer you to the Ontario budget of 2000, and I refer you to the budget of 2001. When you see those budgets, when you see the massive

increases in health care, when you see 100% total support for the Canada Health Act, you will see that, of the federal government in Ottawa and of the provincial government here, one government,

one leader, has stood up for the Canada Health Act, stood up for seniors, stood up for medicare, and that has been this government on this side of the House, as evidenced in six successive budgets

tabled in this Legislature and passed.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you can play with the numbers to your heart's content. I want to refer you to Ontario's families and the problems

they've been encountering under Mike Harris's Ontario when it comes to accessing health care. We have the fewest nurses per capita now in the country; that's a number I want you to keep in mind. We

have the second fewest hospital beds per capita in the country; that's a number I want you to keep in mind. Keep this in mind as well, Premier: when it comes to your record on home care, you are so

unhappy with the honesty coming forth from our CCACs and the volunteers who work in our communities on behalf of our parents and grandparents that you want to fire every last one of them. That's

something you should keep in mind.

Premier, this is not about money; it's about your ideology. Why not come clean? Why not be honest with the people of Ontario? Why not stake out your ground

honestly, in a forthright manner, and tell them about you and your government and your would-be successors? You don't stand for medicare; you stand for two-tier health care.

Hon Mr Harris: As I indicated in Ottawa and as I think would be confirmed by every Premier of every political stripe across the country, and I

believe by every leader of every opposition party save and except the Ontario Liberal Party, there is one threat to universal medicare as we know it. That threat is Jean Chrétien; that threat

is Paul Martin; that threat is Allan Rock. That threat is the federal Liberal Party in Ottawa.

Since you don't want to accept the actual audited statements that are in the Legislature and you don't want to accept the budget, let me quote from Allan Rock.

"I am part of the problem, not the solution. It was my government that diminished the size of transfer payments. I will not stand here and tell you that the cuts in transfer payments were

insignificant. They were not. And I won't tell you that they have not had an impact. They have." Allan Rock, acknowledging the significant impact of the massive cuts from the federal Liberal

government.

Check the record: who is the defender of medicare, who cares about our seniors, who cares about the drug plan, who cares about home care --

The Speaker: The Premier's time is up. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Speaker, I could not agree with you more: this Premier's time is up. He cannot leave too soon for the people of Ontario and for

the future of medicare in Ontario.

We've seen this movie before. It's all about fundamentally creating a crisis. It's a matter of taking any excess revenues that we have, plowing them into tax

cuts, and leaving us short when it comes to meeting our health care responsibilities. That's what this is all about. This is about a Premier who has used this ploy in the past. He wants to create a

crisis. He wants to tell Ontarians there's no way to fix medicare. The only thing that's lacking in this government is the kind of leadership that will champion medicare. That's what we need. I

have no further question for this Premier. His time is up.

Hon Mr Harris: The leader of the Liberal Party, which has been a non-advocate for health care funding, has asked me to resign. As you know, I

have indicated I intend to do that. In so doing, unfortunately for the people of Ontario, I will be the only leader, certainly in Ontario, nationally or provincially who has stood up for and put

his money where his mouth is on medicare year after year for six budgets.

I hear the bluff and the bluster of the member opposite, and yet on March 6, 2000, the Leader of the Opposition -- perhaps heading to third party status, I'm

not sure -- said, "I was personally disappointed with the budget because it did not assign the priority to health care that ordinary Ontarians are telling me they assign to it. The silence from the

federal government on medicare has been deafening." This is exactly what we've been saying. That's what you said in 2000. Is that your position or was it your critic's position in 1997? Gerard

Kennedy said that there is enough money, that we don't need more money. He said, "We want to make sure that we take some of the non-essential stuff out of the health care system." What is it that

your party wants --

The Speaker: Order.

LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGN

FUNDING DISCLOSURE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. I'm asking the Premier to open the financial books on the campaign to

replace him. Four cabinet ministers and a former finance minister want your job, Premier. That means five secret lists of contributors are funnelling cash into their campaigns. Who are these

mysterious financial backers? Who is pouring money into the health minister's pocket? Private health care corporations? Pharmaceutical companies? Who is bankrolling Ernie Eves? Private companies

who want to buy up our electricity system? We don't know. But we know there is a serious potential for conflict of interest. So I'm asking the Premier, will you immediately require each leadership

candidate to disclose the name and amount of each financial contributor to their campaigns?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate being informed that five people are campaigning for my job. That's valuable information for me

to have. I would also suggest to you, given the actions of the two opposition leaders, they are the only five I know of who are seriously campaigning for the job, particularly given the disgraceful

performance of the Liberal leader in not advocating for more health care money.

Let me say in response to the question, as the leader of the New Democratic Party will know because he went through this process, that I went through this

process and others have been through this process, the Election Finances Act specifically covers full disclosure of all donations that are made. I think it's everything over $100 that must be fully

disclosed. I can assure you that every one of the candidates of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party will comply with the legislation and fully disclose those contributions. I can't guarantee

that you won't be shocked at the number of union supporters that will be there, but I can tell you it will be disclosed.

Mr Hampton: The disclosure you talk about will happen six, seven or eight months after the event. What is happening now is that whoever wins

this leadership race immediately becomes the Premier of Ontario and gets to decide, should more of the health care system be privatized, should the electricity system be sold off and should our

water systems be sold off? I think the people of Ontario need to know now who the people are who are going to financially back the person who may become the next Premier of Ontario and make these

decisions.

You must know that the federal elections watchdog yesterday recommended that exactly this kind of thing happen in federal leaderships, that all of the

contributions be disclosed right away.

Premier, I can't understand why you wouldn't want to do this, unless you have something to hide. Why won't you require each candidate to disclose now where

they're getting their contributions from and how much?

Hon Mr Harris: As I indicated, we do have legislation that requires full disclosure. I would doubt that any of the candidates today knows

where a financial backer would come from. If they're worrying about that, they're not going to win. My experience in this is to leave the finances to somebody else and get out there and get

campaigning.

I would suggest to you that there will be full disclosure. I find it passing strange, though, that after having been through the process and the amount of time

you have been in the Legislature, you have not brought forward a single amendment to change the legislation. Even today, at the 11th hour, I have not seen any proposed amendment from you that

should be there. To suggest that we should make amendments to

an act partway through a race I think even you would agree would be retroactive and silly. But if you were serious about it, I think

you would have done that long ago.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you're the one who says that you believe in financial accountability to the taxpayer, and transparency, and that's what

this is about. That's exactly what this is about.

What you're proposing is that disclosure as to which corporations contribute to which candidate will happen eight months after the fact, after someone becomes

Premier and can say, "We are going to privatize the water system now. We are going to sell off the electricity system. We are going to privatize more of the health care system." That kind of

accountability that happens after the fact is completely inadequate. That's why you need to do something now.

You need to do something else in addition. You need to pass guidelines now -- and you've got the authority to do this -- to ensure that government cars,

government airplanes, government polls and government access to advertising are not used by the leadership candidates.

Are you or are you not interested in accountability to the taxpayer, transparency and ensuring that people can avoid a conflict of interest? What's your

answer, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: I say to the honourable member that I find it passing strange that you had no interest in amending this act up until the

leadership had already been called and is underway, which demonstrates a rather strange commitment, in fact no commitment at all, to be serious about it.

There will be full disclosure. Of course, every candidate will know they will be subject to the penalties of the law, should they be involved in anything that

is untoward or that uses their office wrongly, and there may be substantial penalties, criminal charges as well. I think all the candidates are well aware of that and I am sure they will be

conducting themselves accordingly.

With regard to government vehicles such as the vehicle that you have, I'm sure you make sure that vehicle is not used to attend NDP functions or partisan

functions. I'm sure that is the case. I'm sure that when your members travel on committees, they're doing committee work; they are not doing partisan NDP work in any of the towns they visit.

Nonetheless, I have insisted that the rules be followed. No aircraft and no vehicles are to be used for political --

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

CURRICULUM

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I just remind the Premier that you yourself exceeded the spending limits in your own leadership

race.

I have a question to the Minister of Education. Citizens of Ontario are alarmed at reports that grade 9 students are failing or are dropping out at levels

unknown in the past, and people are demanding some action from your government.

I will give you a proposal today for immediate action: create school teams for success in every school across Ontario where grade 9 students are struggling.

The teams would be made up of teachers with the most expertise in remedial techniques within each school to work intensively with those students who are at risk. Will you take immediate action,

creating school teams for success, or are you going to continue to allow grade 9 students to struggle with a curriculum that has been implemented too quickly without the necessary resources to back

it up?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Through you to the honourable member, Mr Speaker, I certainly appreciate his

concern for the students in high school who were not getting what they needed from the old curriculum. It's unfortunate that your government didn't adopt recommendations that were forwarded at the

time to improve that. We acknowledged that there was a need, that our students were not getting what they needed when they left high school. Colleges, universities, parents, employers were saying

they were clearly not getting that, so we have set higher standards through a new, more rigorous curriculum. It is asking more of our students, our teachers and our parents.

We have already acted and put in place considerable strategies to help those students who are in the transition years, who have not had the benefit of the new

curriculum in the elementary years, so that we can assist them by the time they get through high school to make sure that they have all of the skills and the knowledge they need to succeed. Parents

said we needed to do that. We were prepared to admit there was a problem in the system. Unlike previous governments, we've taken a series of steps to help all of our kids meet higher standards in

our schools so they can succeed.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you have been in the government for six years. For six years you have been in charge in education, and six years later

we now see that grade 9 students are failing and are dropping out of schools at an unprecedented rate. The question is, what are you as a government going to do about it, other than try to blame

someone else? Minister, these are young people who have their lives ahead of them, and what we've seen from you so far is that, notwithstanding that you implemented the curriculum too quickly

without the necessary resources, you don't seem to be concerned about what's happening.

I've given you an idea, an idea you can act on immediately. Are you prepared to do something to address this problem or are more young people going to fail at

the grade 9 level and perhaps the grade 10 level, and are we going to face more dropouts? Are you going to do something, or are you simply going to allow the situation to get worse?

Hon Mrs Ecker: You weren't very concerned about the fact that our high school students could not compete, could not succeed, were not able to

go out there with the basic literacy skills when you were in government. This side of the House, this party, recognized that, and we are indeed taking action to assist all of the students in grade

9, grade 10, grade 11 and grade 12. The curriculum in high school was phased in on a year-by-year basis; it was not brought in too fast. Second, we've made deals for extra remediation, extra money

for extra remediation for students, summer institutes for teachers and students, courses and training for teachers and students to deal with the new curriculum.

I know the NDP thinks, "Let's lower the standards; that's how we can solve this problem." That's how we got into this problem, and the goal of this government,

the goal of the parents out there in the system, is to have higher standards and help all of our students to meet those standards. The steps we are taking are indeed doing that, and that is the

commitment we will continue to meet.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I want to go to the same minister on the same subject. Madam Minister, let's take a look at the

record of your government when it comes to bringing about successful education reform and better results for our children.

It turns out now that after six and a half years on the job, one half of our children are failing to meet the basic standards in reading, writing and

mathematics -- that's your record -- and 40% of our grade 10 students are failing to meet the basic literacy standard that your government has established. Today we learn that almost one quarter of

our grade 9 students failed to earn the required eight credits -- this is the basic curriculum -- because they failed or dropped classes.

Madam Minister, that is your record, that is the record of your government. Why do you continue to fail Ontario's children?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, I think it's fair to put on the record that this is preliminary data. We are tracking a group of students so we

can track and have accurate information to assist students.

The party on the other side of the House, when they were in government, didn't think there was a problem. They didn't change the curriculum. They didn't set

higher standards. We have. Parents, employers and students themselves want higher standards. We're putting in place the supports to help those students meet those standards.

There's no question that for those students who have not had the benefit of the curriculum throughout their elementary school years, it is a challenge for them

to meet that curriculum in high school. That's why we've increased time for teachers with the remediation. That's why we've increased monies specifically targeted for remediation. This data

confirms what we've been saying: that our students were not able to deal with the challenges they need to deal with. That's why we've made the changes, to help those students succeed. When they

leave high school at the end of their high school career --

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

Mr McGuinty: Minister, the record speaks for itself. Painful as it may be for you to stare into this mirror, it is all about you. You're

failing our children. Some 24% of our grade 9 students failed the curriculum. That's close to 30,000 students, Madam Minister. Our kids are bright and capable. The problem does not lie with

Ontario's youth. It lies with your inability to support their teachers, to make sure they've got the necessary materials in the classroom. That's what this is all about.

Madam Minister, pay a little bit of attention to what Ontario parents are saying today. Do you know how much money they're spending on private tutorials now?

Do you know how disappointed they are that one quarter of Ontario kids have got to spend time in summer school? Do you know what that does to a family's summer plans? This has nothing to do with

the standards that you put forward in your curriculum. It has everything to do with your failure to put in place the necessary supports to help our kids succeed. Why don't you just admit that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member would have us believe that we can bring in a new curriculum that is more rigorous, that is setting more

standards, and somehow or other that's not going to ask more from our students, our parents and our teachers. Yes, that curriculum does. Teachers, parents and students are being asked to work

harder at that new curriculum. It's asking our students to learn more in earlier grades, because that is what they need to know when they leave school.

Your government didn't think there was a problem. We recognized there was a problem. That's why we are putting in the supports for students to better deal with

the new curriculum, for teachers so they can better teach the new curriculum. The honourable member was against our requirements for professional development for teachers. One of the requirements

has to do with curriculum. He's against summer school for students. Summer school has been a great support for those students who need extra help. We have school-to-work transition programs to help

students transfer into work, if that's going to be their destination. On this side of the House, we're prepared to recognize there was a problem. We're prepared to take steps, and that's indeed

what we're doing.

BAY OF QUINTE WALLEYE FISHERY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Natural Resources, and it is in regard to the Bay of Quinte fishery.

There has been mention by the media of a possible closure on January 1, 2002. This has been further enflamed by the unnecessary rhetoric of opposition members --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister of Education, your own member is asking a question. I would appreciate if you would listen. You've

answered the question. It's now the member for Northumberland's time.

Sorry, member for Northumberland.

Mr Galt: As I was saying, this has been further inflamed by the unnecessary rhetoric of opposition members in my area. They've created a

terrible concern among those constituents in my riding.

Minister, I want you to stand in your place today and either confirm or deny that the Ministry of Natural Resources will impose a moratorium on the walleye

fishing on January 1, 2002, in the Bay of Quinte.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to thank the member from Northumberland for the question, and go on record, Mr

Speaker, as saying that if your mother would prefer you to stand in front of this place for a full 60 minutes of question period, I could in fact support that.

The member has raised a very important question. The member brought this to my attention many, many months ago and in fact has been a very important source of

local knowledge about this issue. I can respond today by saying that I think he and the members of his community will be happy to know that the Ministry of Natural Resources will not impose a

walleye moratorium on the Bay of Quinte for January 1, 2002. We are in a public consultation process and no decisions regarding that fishery have been made.

Mr Galt: Thank you, Minister. I am encouraged by the fact that the Ministry of Natural Resources is engaged in a public consultation process

before --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Sorry again. The member for Northumberland.

Mr Galt: I guess the opposition can't take good news very well.

I am encouraged by the fact that the Ministry of Natural Resources is engaged in a public consultation process before making decisions. With the cold weather

fast approaching, some of my constituents are currently in the process of booking anglers for the upcoming ice-fishing season. They're concerned that the ice-fishing season is in jeopardy.

Minister, can you tell this House what the public consultations will be like, and is this year's ice-fishing season indeed in jeopardy?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I thank the member from Northumberland. He will know by now that my responses to questions in this chamber are always met

with a euphoric reaction by members of the opposition and I am pleased that continues.

With regard to the public consultations, the times, dates and formats are currently being worked out by the ministry. We will contact both interested

stakeholder groups and all the MPPs who are concerned with this issue, and other leaders of the local communities.

With regard to the ice-fishing season, Mr Speaker -- I know this will be of particular important to you -- I understand that it's a very important season, both

for tourism operators and for the local community, and I'm pleased to tell the member for Northumberland and the local tourist operators in his area to book the tours and get the huts ready -- the

ice-fishing season is on.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and it's a straightforward question on Ipperwash. You have said in

the past that you gave no direction, you gave no influence, you left it entirely to the OPP. However, we have recently learned that on September 6, the day of the shooting, you held a key,

high-level meeting involving 14 people, including the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, an OPP inspector and an OPP sergeant. At that meeting, according to the minutes we have, you said

something quite different than "no direction." The note we have says that the Premier instructed the group that you wanted the occupiers out of the park within 24 hours.

The simple question is this, Premier, at the heart of the Ipperwash affair: did you instruct the group that you wanted the occupiers out of the park within 24

hours?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): This is a matter of a court case in which I am being sued personally. I answered that question in discovery

yesterday.

Mr Phillips: It is a civil case and I hope the Premier isn't saying that the government's position now is that whenever a civil case is

launched, the government will not answer questions in the Legislature.

The public wants to know an answer to the question. You have said publicly that you gave no influence, that you gave no directions. The note we have suggests

something different. It says the Premier instructed that he wanted the occupiers removed from the park within 24 hours. The public wants to know a simple answer to that question, Premier, because

it's at the heart of the matter. Did you instruct that group that you wanted the occupiers removed from the park within 24 hours?

Hon Mr Harris: This is a matter of a court case and I'm responding to those questions as a sitting Premier with the right to refuse to attend

when the Legislature is sitting. I volunteered to participate, to help the George family try to get the answers they require. They have opted for this process and I am fully complying.

BORDER SECURITY

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. The debate about how best to protect

Canadians and Americans from the threat of terrorism has been ongoing since the attacks of September 11. Many experts, governments and businesses around the world have endorsed the idea of a North

American security perimeter that would still allow the free movement of legitimate goods and citizens between Canada and the United States.

Unfortunately the federal Liberal government in Ottawa has been sending out mixed messages. Last week, Minister Tobin was quoted as saying: "What we are asking

the United States to do is to catch up with us." Later in the week, Minister Cauchon said that solving border concerns would require a long-term solution that could take 10 to 15 years of

discussion.

Minister, could you share with us your thoughts on these latest comments from Ottawa?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I thank the member for the question and his continuing interest in these

issues.

I found the comments that came out of Ottawa last week passing strange and cause for concern. We have some ministers saying that the status quo is acceptable;

we have another saying that change would take over a decade to accomplish. It's regrettably clear that the federal government has no plan with respect to the continental security issue. The

government view in Ottawa seems to be that we can return to a September 10 world and that our closest friend and largest trading partner will, tragically, forget its concerns about the security of

its northern border. Our government profoundly disagrees.

Mr Maves: I also find their comments to be perplexing and concerning. I'm really not surprised to find them to be weak showing leadership on

this issue. They continue to sell out the people of Ontario as far as health care goes, and they certainly are not taking the lead in security issues since September 11.

Minister, can you indicate what our government is doing to encourage the federal government to seriously consider the North American security perimeter

proposal?

Hon Mr Runciman: Our justice ministers are in Ottawa today urging the federal government to make the security perimeter issue their number one

priority. I will be in Ottawa on Friday to meet with Industry Minister Tobin to discuss the border security and enforcement proposals that I released last week following our industry leaders' round

table on border issues.

We believe the federal government should now be developing a security perimeter proposal to present to our American friends. We have to be proactive on this

file. If not, we are playing a dangerous, high-risk game that could result in something being imposed upon us that could have detrimental impact on the long-term health of our country's

economy.

CRIMINAL INJURIES

COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a question to the Premier. The Ontario Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is there; it's supposed

to provide compensation for victims of violent crimes. Olga Baranovski is one of those victims. Her 15-year-old son Matt was brutally murdered two years ago. She sought compensation on an interim

basis to help pay for the counselling and some of the medical attention that she requires related to the incredible psychological stress she has been under. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

slammed the door in her face, didn't give her a penny, denied her even a cent of compensation.

Premier, would you explain to us how in your Ontario, Mrs Baranovski isn't entitled to compensation as a victim of crime?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No, I can't explain that to you, because the board, as you know, is an arm's-length board and I was not

there. I was not at the hearing, nor did I make the decision. I can tell you that an applicant who has been denied an interim award may ask the chair to re-examine the interim application. I would

expect that this would be good advice to give the applicant. I can do that, you can do it or we can both do it.

Mr Kormos: Premier, you, your Attorney General and your Solicitor General have on an almost weekly basis proclaimed your and your government's

support for victims here in the province of Ontario. One of the problems that Ms Baranovski had is that the process with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is an incredibly bureaucratic one

and she went there on her own. Joe Wamback, who is known to all of us, who lives in his own hell because of the serious and violent attack on his own son, came to her aid.

Premier, will you ensure that Ms Baranovski has access to the legal assistance that appears to be necessary for her or other victims of crime to access

compensation through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? Will you guarantee that she will have representation that will allow her to effect the appeal that you just spoke of?

Hon Mr Harris: I would be pleased to look into whether that is something that is appropriate in dealing with a quasi-judicial body. As you

know, I cannot guarantee success of outcomes. But you have expressed an interest in the case. You're a lawyer. You have more time than I. I might volunteer you, with my blessing, to go and

represent Ms Baranovski. If you're not willing to do that, I may be able to get another lawyer to do so. If that's your suggestion, I'll see if it's appropriate and see what I can do.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. You have been working with our

community with respect to children's mental health issues for some time. You have travelled to our community and met with the folks at Maryvale. Your government provided an additional $1.8 million

of funding with respect to these questions.

In the gallery today I am joined by George and Joanne Johnson and Jack and Shirley Haines, who have headed up the local Kids Campaign.

Minister, in spite of these actions and in spite of your attention to the issue, the waiting list for children's mental health services in our community not

only has not decreased, it in fact has gone up. I wonder if you would take an opportunity to explain to our community what steps you plan to take to help deal with a list of 800 children who are

waiting for children's mental health services in our community.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for children, minister responsible for francophone

affairs): Providing supports to children in Ontario is an incredible priority. I recognize, as minister, the challenges they're facing in Windsor-Essex with respect to the provision of

children's mental health services.

I have taken a significant personal interest in the file. I have met on a good number of occasions -- I visited Maryvale, the children's mental health centre

in his home community, not three or four weeks ago. I had the opportunity to sit down with officials at Maryvale to work with them on some potential solutions. They presented me with four

particular options with which I could work with my colleague the Minister of Health, and I have certainly committed, before Christmas, to close the loop on that and to try to find a way we can help

address some of the important challenges that are facing the Windsor-Essex community.

Mr Duncan: Minister, I am aware of your efforts to date, as is our community.

I'm going to present to you today 6,566 letters that have accumulated in our community in the last 30 days.

Minister, let me remind you, this waiting list, first of all, is an unduplicated waiting list. The Johnsons, the Haineses and others like them have confirmed

that there are no duplications. These are 800 unique individuals with families. Not only are they on waiting lists, but that's a waiting list just for an assessment -- an assessment for special

schooling, for counselling services, for daycare, for respite care, for residential alternatives.

I'm aware of your efforts on behalf of Maryvale. I'm aware of the challenge. But some six years ago we had more than 100 beds of this nature in our community.

Today there are 37.

Minister, can you please give us some assurance that you will again involve yourself to help deal with this crisis: 800 families waiting for an assessment,

waiting 18 to 24 months? I don't believe that you think that's acceptable. We certainly don't. What can you say to our community and the 6,500 people who have sent letters here today to reassure

them that we're going to deal with this crisis?

Hon Mr Baird: I can assure the member opposite that I'm going to continue to work in the coming days and weeks on this important challenge.

We've made some good success, we've had some good progress, and at last we're dealing with some of the challenges facing not just Maryvale but the Hotel Dieu hospital. In working with the

community, I certainly am impressed with the whole host of community agencies and leaders, whether it's the police chief, whether it's the CAW retirees' union, who have indicated their strong

support.

I would also indicate that Gloria Mitchell, the executive director of Child's Place, said last year, "I would like to express my appreciation for your

exceptional responsiveness to the dire need of adolescent crisis services in Windsor-Essex county. After many years of feeling that children's mental health is a second-class service, it is

heartening to see that the mental health needs of our children are gaining attention." That's very much the kind of approach we're going to continue to take, and I look forward to resolving the

issue.

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

AND TRADES

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question today is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Last week in this

House a member opposite made certain claims during members' statements that caused me great concern. The suggestion from the opposition benches was about the integration of foreign-trained

professionals into Ontario's economy. The statement suggested that the government of Ontario has kept the doors closed when new Ontarians arrive looking for work in their chosen field.

Minister, as you know, immigration is of vital importance to Ontario's economy and particularly important to my riding of Scarborough Centre. I'd like to know

what actions our government is taking to help new Ontarians find work in their field of expertise and study. Are we as a government simply studying this issue or are we taking positive steps in an

effort to help resolve this serious situation?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): I appreciate the

opportunity, not only to respond to my colleague from Scarborough Centre's question, but to remind the House of the actions the government is taking to solve this critical issue for Ontario's

economy and to improve and value the quality of the working life of our immigrants.

Where past Liberals governments spent valuable resources studying the issue and the NDP set up some temporary projects, we have taken serious action on this

issue. Having new Ontarians recognized for their skills is very important, but it's also very difficult for them. One of the projects we were very happy to launch just about a month ago is called a

bridging program. It was actually in Scarborough at the Yee Hong seniors' centre. That's where the nurses themselves took the opportunity through their Care for Nurses program to help each other,

and especially help immigrant nurses, to get the qualifications they need to be certified.

There is about $12 million over three years to help foreign-trained individuals quickly employ their skills. This is just one of the projects we're so very

proud of.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you for that, Minister. I appreciate the answer. It's particularly encouraging to see that Ontario is indeed taking

concrete steps to ensure that new citizens can employ their skills as quickly as possible.

Minister, I agree with you and would suggest that this issue is much broader than simply integrating new Canadians into Ontario socially, but ensuring that we

can promote economic integration as well. I know you've worked hard over the past several years to secure a labour market development agreement with the federal government, and recognize that they

are completely unwilling to enter into such an agreement. I also recognize how critically important such an agreement would be to help the Ontario economy, and the skills shortage specifically.

Minister, I don't believe that Ontario is alone in this process. The federal Liberal government has a responsibility for immigration, and I am curious to know

exactly what they are doing to help ease that transition for new Ontarians.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: This labour market development agreement, which has been signed with every province and territory, including Nunavut,

which wasn't even a territory when we started our negotiations with the federal government, is in a sense a shame, I think, for the lack of a good working relationship between the federal

government and the province of Ontario in this regard.

The federal government made us an offer in May which we accepted and still they lag behind with no reason for not signing the agreement. Just to let the

members opposite know, they could take the time to find out what this agreement is all about, but they don't do that. They just sit there like bumps on a log while immigrants are having difficulty

getting jobs, people on employment insurance don't get timely results and, worst of all, this is a time when we need to work together as governments. We have a critical skills shortage. I do want

that labour market development agreement signed and I will continue --

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

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. It is my understanding that

discussions have been held between your staff and officials of the Hamilton Health Sciences Centre regarding the redevelopment of the Henderson hospital. This needed redevelopment is necessary to

meet the demands on the hospital that will arise from the significant expansion of the Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre. Hospital officials have publicly stated that in the initial discussions,

ministry staff have proposed that such a project would be subject to a 50-50 sharing in the project cost between the province and the local community.

Why should this project not be subject to the same 70-30 sharing as is the case for the expansion of the Credit Valley Hospital in your own riding, or as is

the case for the Grand River Hospital in the riding of the previous health minister? Both hospital projects are required because of the development of cancer centres, as is the case in Hamilton.

Minister, would you consider the same 70-30 sharing for the Henderson hospital?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the honourable member may be aware, there are certain rules in place for the

commission-directed recapitalization of our hospitals and our regional cancer centres, which are directed by the Health Services Restructuring Commission. They follow a certain set of rules. It is

a richer set of rules because they are determined by population needs and by the restructuring orders that were directed -- legal directions by the Ministry of Health -- as a result of the HSRC

directions. That is a set of rules for that particular function.

I would be happy to work with the community if there is a problem because they are outside the HSRC directions. There are lots of ways we can work together in

partnership with the private sector and philanthropists as well as the public sector to make these things occur.

Mrs Bountrogianni: The Henderson hospital has not been updated since 1964. The restructuring commission was aware that upgrades were and are

needed. Cuts to health care by this government have meant that hospitals have been operating for years without enough in their budgets for capital upgrades.

It should also be noted that the Honourable Brad Clark posed the same question recently when interviewed by the Hamilton Spectator:

"`I have some questions that I will have to raise with the Minister of Health with regard to the Henderson.' ... He said a 70-30 split would be more

appropriate for the Henderson.

"`It was a government decision to maintain the Henderson hospital, so putting that additional burden on the community is a concern to me."

That was the Honourable Brad Clark, Tuesday, November 6.

The fact that municipalities are forced to consider levies to support health care speaks volumes of the disastrous cumulative effects of provincial downloading

on municipalities and taxpayers. When will this government make the tough decision to stop another $2.2 billion in tax breaks for corporations and put health care first?

Hon Mr Clement: She actually ruined a perfectly good question by continuing the line about how the Liberals are against every single tax cut

in the life of this Parliament, and in the life of the previous Parliament. That's their record. We know they're against tax cuts. They voted against every single one. They are against jobs and

opportunity and new prosperity for Ontario. They keep underlining it. They keep bringing attention to it. If they want to spend their time doing that, that's fine. On this side of the House, we are

for tax cuts. We are for, so far, $6 billion worth of tax cuts, creating $14 billion worth of taxable economic activity. That's our record.

Of that amount, I can tell you that the lion's share went into the provision of health care, which is not the case with their federal Liberal kissing cousins,

where they have not been living up to the expectations of the people of Ontario and Canada. They have not been putting the money back into health care. They don't seem to care that our health care

system is under threat by their --

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

MINING PROGRAMS

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question today is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I know my constituents are

concerned about our environment and the balance between our natural heritage and economic prosperity. They want to know what we've done to ensure that balance is maintained. They want to hear about

the specific actions we've taken to ensure public safety and environmental and economic prosperity. As the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, what have you done in mining to ensure that

economic and environmental prosperity are maintained?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I thank the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for his excellent question. In 1999

our government announced our unprecedented commitment of $27 million for the province's abandoned mine program. The Liberals, when they were in office, never had an abandoned mine program, and they

clearly failed to recognize that eventually production cycles end. When the NDP were in government, they spent more in administration than they actually did on rehabilitation field work. We're

spending more on the Kam Kotia site cleanup alone than they spent on the entire program. This commitment means that we can ensure these sites are secured from hazards and that these sites return to

their natural beauty or productivity for the enjoyment of future generations.

We want prosperity for all Ontarians, if prosperity means we can enjoy the benefits of mining jobs and ensure that we rehabilitate crown lands for the benefit

of generations to come.

Mr Miller: Thank you for that answer, Minister. I recently read an editorial in the Northern Daily News suggesting the government should

assist residents at the Toburn mine site. The editorial suggests we should provide assistance in terms of finding alternate accommodation and alert the public to the hazards on-site. Minister, what

have you done to ensure the public is protected and residents are not displaced?

Hon Mr Newman: It was as a result of the abandoned mines program that we became aware of the potential hazards at the abandoned Toburn mine

site. This is a program that is the most extensive and the envy of the rest of Canada. In fact, my ministry staff have been working in co-operation with staff from the Ministry of Natural Resources

to ensure the residents of the area are protected. Yesterday, we held a meeting with the public and the affected residents and assured them once again that we will work with them to find interim

and long-term accommodations. As well, my ministry has spent over $400,000 rehabilitating this single site to date, and we will continue to ensure there are proper fences and protection from

potential hazards on the site.

Our government should be very proud of our unprecedented $27-million investment in restoring abandoned mines to productive use. I assure you that my ministry

staff are working with the communities to address their concerns at the Toburn mine site.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Premier: Henry Redekopp, Gary Ferrier and Erich Schulz went to work in August 2000, but they didn't

come home, because, you see, they were killed in the workplace. Unlike most other workers in this province, these three workers didn't have any of the protection that would be accorded by

occupational health and safety legislation. The reason why is because your government doesn't believe agricultural workers, farm workers, deserve protection under occupational health and safety

legislation. As well, the coroner's jury has recommended that farm workers be among those workers in Ontario who receive the protection of occupational health and safety legislation. Will you

explain why you think farm workers don't deserve that protection, or will you tell us today that you're going to respond to the coroner's jury recommendations and in fact table those responses

before the House rises at Christmas?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Labour can respond.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): We take any inquiry, and results from any inquiry, very seriously. We'll be reviewing the

recommendations with the idea of looking at them to implement the ones we consider appropriate.

Although they aren't covered specifically under that part of the act, they are covered by the FSA, the Farm Safety Association. Leaving the impression that

they are not covered under some program is a false assumption; they are. It's a different approach. It's funded by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. In fact, they report to them and

directly through the Ministry of Labour.

The rationale, obviously, is that farming is a very different approach. It has different needs and very specific problems within that industry that are very

different from other workplaces. Yes, we will look at the recommendations and review them very carefully. But don't leave the impression they're not covered; they are covered under the FSA, and

that body is effectively working very hard to ensure safe workplaces at agricultural workplaces in Ontario.

VISITORS

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): On a point of order, Mr

Speaker: I'd like to welcome to this wonderful Legislative Assembly Joanne McNamara, Janice Palmer and Jeff Fitzpatrick, who are constituents of my riding of London North Centre.

PETITIONS

HOME CARE

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there have been major cutbacks in hospital services over the past few years; and

"Whereas although this government said that the effect of these cutbacks would be addressed by increased home care; and

"Whereas home care budgets have not been increased but have instead been frozen without the promised expansion of services; and

"Whereas frail and vulnerable seniors and their caregivers have been critically affected by the effects of this inadequate system,

"The Legislative Assembly is urged to immediately implement the required home care services to seniors.

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

"The full range of home care services must be available at a level that provides homemaking, personal assistance and care, rehabilitation, and preventive

supports to seniors living in their own or their relatives' homes, in seniors' housing and in retirement facilities so that, as far as possible, seniors do not require either acute care or

long-term services."

This has to be done immediately. I affix my signature to this petition as well.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

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

"Whereas the Criminal Code of Canada considers animal cruelty to be a property offence; and

"Whereas those who commit crimes against animals currently face light sentences upon conviction; and

"Whereas those who operate puppy mills should, upon conviction, face sentences that are appropriate for the torture and inhumane treatment they have inflicted

on puppies under their so-called care;

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

"That the Ontario provincial government petition the federal government to move forward with amendments to the cruelty-to-animal provisions in the Criminal

Code as soon as possible."

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

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

of effective professional learning,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that you repeal all clauses and references to professional learning from the Stability and Excellence in Education

Act, 2001."

I affix my signature to this.

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

that these important health services are maintained so that the health and safety of people throughout southwestern Ontario," such as Stratford, Kitchener, London, St Thomas and Woodstock, "are not

put at risk."

This signature contains the names of over 1,000 individuals. I have affixed my signature hereto in full support.

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas charities such as the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada, Goodfellows, the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, firefighters and many others

participate in fundraisers on streets, sidewalks and parking lots;

"Whereas the Safe Streets Act, 1999, effectively bans these types of activities, putting police forces in the position of ignoring the law or hindering

legitimate charities; and

"Whereas charitable organizations are dependent on these fundraisers to raise much-needed money and awareness;

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

"We ask that the government of Ontario amend provincial legislation by passing Bill 26, the Charity Fund-Raising Activities Act, 2001, to allow charitable

organizations to conduct fundraising campaigns on roadways, sidewalks and parking lots."

In support, I affix my signature.

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

EDUCATION FUNDING

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

"Whereas the Harris government's rigid education funding formula is forcing the potential closure of neighbourhood schools such as Consolidated, Dalewood,

Lakebreeze, Maplewood and Victoria in the city of St Catharines, and has centralized control for education spending and decision-making at Queen's Park, and will not allow communities the

flexibility to respond to local needs;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature. I'm in agreement.

HOME CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a petition signed by a number of residents from my community.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and request a withdrawal of Bill 130, Community Care Access Corporations Act, 2001,

introduced by the associate minister of health with responsibilities for long-term care, the Honourable Helen Johns;

"Bill 130 will eliminate community volunteer membership in local access centres, fire the CEOs, fire the volunteer officers and members of the boards of

directors. The cabinet will appoint a CEO, the directors and the officers of the local access centres, who will be paid by the taxpayers if they are no longer volunteers;

"We urge the government to withdraw Bill 130, initiate public consultations with the stakeholders that are transparent and accessible and to review the issues

of the current delivery of home care and options to improve the current system."

I hereby present the petition. I've signed it because I agree with it.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have literally hundreds of signatures on this petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the prices paid by community care access centres (CCACs) to purchase home care services for their clients are rising due to factors beyond their

control; and

"Whereas the funding provided by the Ontario government through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) is inadequate to meet the growing need for

home care services; and

"Whereas the funding shortfall, coupled with the implications of Bill 46, the Public Sector Accountability Act, currently before the Legislature, are forcing

CCACs to make deep cuts in home care services without any policy direction from the provincial government;

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

"

(1) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to take control of policy setting for home care services through rational, population-based

health planning rather than simply by underfunding the system; and

"

(2) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to provide sufficient funding to CCACs to support the home care services that are the

mandate of CCACs in the volumes needed to meet their communities' rapidly growing needs; and

"

(3) That the Legislative Assembly make it necessary for the provincial government to notify the agencies it funds of the amount of funding they will be given

by the government in a fiscal year at least three months before the commencement of this fiscal year."

I agree with these petitions and I'm happy to affix my signature.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I have a petition here from concerned citizens of Victoria county.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the citizens of Victoria county had no direct say in the creation of the new city of Kawartha Lakes; and

"Whereas the government by regulation and legislation forced the recent amalgamation, against the will of the obvious majority of the people; and

"Whereas the government has not delivered the promised streamlined, more efficient and accountable local government, nor the provision of better services at

reduced costs; and

"Whereas the promise of tax decreases has not been met, based on current assessments; and

"Whereas the expected transition costs to area taxpayers of this forced amalgamation have already exceeded the promised amount by over three times,

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario immediately rescind this forced amalgamation order and return our

local municipal government back to the local citizens and their democratically elected officials in Victoria county and remove the bureaucratic, dictatorial, single-tier governance it has coerced

on all local residents."

I also sign my signature.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): This is a petition to shut down puppy mills and to stop cruel animal breeding activities by passing MPP Mike

Colle's private member's bill.

"To the provincial Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas puppy mills and other cruel animal breeding activities are unregulated and unlicensed in the province of Ontario;

"Whereas the Ontario SPCA needs more power to inspect and control animal kennels or breeders;

"Whereas Ontario consumers have no way of knowing if the animals they purchase as pets have been abused;

"Whereas there are no provincial penalties to punish people guilty of abusing animals that are bred and sold to unsuspecting consumers;

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

"That the province of Ontario pass legislation that outlaws puppy mills and other cruel animal breeding activities in this province and that strengthens the

powers of the Ontario SPCA to establish a provincial registry of kennels and breeders subject to SPCA inspection, and to allow the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to impose fines

and jail terms on those found guilty of perpetrating cruelty to animals for the purpose of selling these animals to an unsuspecting public."

I happily add my signature to this petition.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): "Whereas puppy mills and other cruel animal breeding activities are unregulated and unlicensed in

the province of Ontario;

"Whereas the Ontario SPCA needs more power to inspect and control animal kennels or breeders;

"Whereas Ontario consumers have no way of knowing if the animals they purchase as pets have been abused;

"Whereas there are no provincial penalties to punish people guilty of abusing animals that are bred and sold to unsuspecting consumers;

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

"That the province of Ontario pass legislation that outlaws puppy mills and other cruel animal breeding activities and that strengthens the powers of the

Ontario SPCA to establish a provincial registry of kennels and breeders subject to SPCA inspection, and to allow the SPCA to impose fines and jail terms on those found guilty of perpetrating

cruelty to animals for the purpose of selling these animals to an unsuspecting public."

We're asking that individuals support Mike Colle's private member's bill. I'm in full agreement and have signed my signature hereto.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for children, minister responsible for francophone

affairs): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 127,

An Act to implement measures contained

in the Budget and to implement other initiatives of the Government, when Bill 127 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second

reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be ordered for third reading; and

That, notwithstanding standing order 28(h), no deferral of the second reading vote may be permitted; and

That, the order for third reading is called immediately; and

That, when the order for third reading is called, the remainder of the sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, to be divided

equally among all recognized parties, and at the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without

further debate or amendment; and

That, the vote on third reading may, pursuant to standing order 28(h), be deferred until the next sessional day during the routine proceeding "deferred votes";

and

That, in the case of any division relating to the proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Baird moves government notice of motion 97. Debate.

Hon Mr Baird: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the member for London West to be the first

government speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Baird has asked for unanimous consent that Mr Wood be the first leadoff speaker. Is there consent? It is agreed.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I would like to thank the members for their indulgence in indulging my schedule. I will do my best to not

disappoint the members in my speech. I do support the motion, because I think this is a good bill, and I'd like to explain why I think it's a good bill. The reason I think it's a good bill is that

it is another step toward the implementation of sound fiscal policy for this province.

Sound fiscal policy, to me, is to cut taxes to create jobs, to balance the budget and to keep it balanced in accordance with our balanced budget legislation,

and at the same time to meet the need for priority spending in those areas that truly need it, by which I mean health, education and public safety.

I would suggest that for such a strategy to be successful, it has to be long-term and it has to be consistent. As we look at the historical record of the last

20 or so years, we can see what works and what doesn't.

In the first half of the 1980s, we had, in essence, spending restraint and a moderate deficit. That policy wasn't disastrous, but it was not perfect

either.

In 1985, we switched to a policy of taxing and spending. The Liberals and the NDP entered into an accord in 1985 in order that the Liberals could take power,

and they agreed upon certain aspects of a political program. Basically in fiscal terms what that program amounted to was a tax-and-spend policy. The Liberals raised the debt by one third in five

years, and of course they raised taxes 60-plus times.

The NDP, from 1990 to 1995, in essence followed the same policy. They, however, were following that policy in bad economic times. They, in that time period,

continued to increase taxes, the debt more than doubled over a five-year period, and of course the results were there for everyone to see at the end of that five-year period. The results were the

worst economic performance of this province since the first half of the Great Depression of the 1930s. We actually had a net loss of 10,000 jobs over that five-year period.

In 1995, of course, we saw a different approach: we saw the approach of tax cuts and spending restraint and the results, which were economic growth and a

balanced budget.

It does bear comment that it does make a big difference to the people of this province what the fiscal policy of our provincial government is. It's important

to remember that the American recovery started in 1992. The United States started to do much better in 1992. We have to remember that, at the same time, we had extraordinarily weak economic

performance throughout the 1990s until 1997. I would suggest to you that the reason for that was that the policies of our provincial government were holding back what our citizens were able to

do.

In the last four years, of course, our growth rate has exceeded that of the United States. We have been leading the United States in the last four years. I

would suggest the reason for all of that, the reason we have seen such positive results for the people of this province -- and we've seen that in human terms, of course. We have seen the

800,000-plus net new jobs, 800,000 lives given opportunity and hope and the ability to fulfill their dreams. We have seen the very positive result of some 600,000 people being able to leave the

dependence of social assistance and achieve independence. I would suggest that those results relate directly to positive fiscal policy for our province.

Having offered an outline of why I think the overall policy is good, I would like to talk a bit about some of the specifics we have in the bill. One specific

of course is that we are accelerating the tax cuts that we have proposed. Many indeed are opposed to that. The Liberal opposition is opposed to tax cuts generally. They have voted against virtually

every tax cut we have proposed to this House since we took office in 1995. Their policy seems to be still wedded -- except at election time, when they're more favourable toward tax cuts -- to their

old tax-and-spend ways. Certainly from 1985 to 1990 they proved that they were indeed wedded to that policy.

I would suggest, however, that accelerating tax cuts at a time of economic slowdown is indeed good public policy, and that, of course, is why I support the

acceleration of the tax cuts in this bill. Most members will be familiar with the details, so I'm not going to talk too much about the details of the accelerated tax cuts other than to say that

this is part of sound fiscal policy. This is not anything more than pursuing an agenda of investment and jobs for the people of this province. Some would cast it in a different light, and I think

they're quite wrong.

I would just say to our friends in the opposition, who have been quite critical of our economic policies for the last six and a half years, that you have to

look at the results and look at the very positive benefits these policies have brought to so many people in this province. I would remind you that economic progress and economic good news are not

automatic. They were doing well in the United States in the mid-1990s, when we weren't. There was a reason for that; the reason, I would suggest to the House, was that our economic policies weren't

sound ones.

I'd also like to refer briefly to the repatriation of GO Transit. The matter of GO Transit ultimately has to be looked at as a regional problem rather than a

problem of a particular municipality. I think what we're doing in the area of GO Transit is going to make a difference for the better for the people of the greater Toronto area and, in some

respects, for the people of the province as a whole. The change is going to give them the opportunity to invest a further $100 million in local and regional transit priorities. This is of course

only part of a more overall strategy of more effective transit in the greater Toronto area and in the province generally, and I think it's very much a step forward.

I'd also like to touch very briefly on the further support that's being offered for small- and medium-sized businesses. We tend to forget how important those

businesses are to our province as a whole. They create large numbers of jobs every year. The creations are in relatively small amounts individually, but they're very big amounts collectively. The

fact that this budget bill helps them and recognizes them is a very important signal to send. It's also going to bring important dividends for the people of Ontario.

We are also accelerating the application of the small business income tax rate. We can talk about the details of that, and maybe I should briefly allude to

them. Currently the rate is 6.5% and applies to the first $240,000 of income. This bill proposes to accelerate a reduction from 6.5% to 6% and raise the eligibility threshold from $240,000 to

$280,000, effective October 1, 2001.

This is of course going to give help to individual small businesses, but I think the more important part of this is that it's going to send a signal to small

business that the government of Ontario and the people of Ontario are behind what they do, and we're going to offer some material help. Good wishes in any circumstance are not enough. We also have

to come forward with some tangible help that's going to make a material difference for the small business people of our province. I think this bill is an important step in that direction.

In this bill we also have simplifying tax filing procedures for small businesses. Currently, corporations are required to pay monthly corporate tax instalments

if annual tax payable in the current or preceding year is $2,000 or more. The proposal in this bill is going to simplify this. In the 2001 budget, we proposed to reduce red tape for Ontario's small

businesses by allowing businesses with corporate tax payable of at least $2,000 and less than $10,000 to remit tax instalments quarterly instead of monthly. This change would apply to taxation

years commencing in 2002.

This may seem like a relatively small thing, particularly to those who are not involved in small business. In actual fact, it's part of a much larger picture.

I'd like to remind the House and remind the people of Ontario that while tax policy is very important in attracting investment and jobs, so is good regulatory policy. Good regulatory policy means

reducing red tape and offering the most effective and efficient regulation possible. That, by the way, does not mean reducing the effectiveness of regulation. It actually means increasing the

effectiveness of regulation.

The changes we are making are not going to in any way weaken the ability of the Ministry of Finance to collect taxes, but what they are going to do is

introduce an efficiency for small business. To send a message that we're on the side of our investors and our business people, when it comes to the matter of red tape and good regulation, is a very

important signal to send.

Red tape reduction is a bit like a diet. Once you get off the diet, you start to get back to your old problem. It's the