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

November 5, 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-05 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 5 November 2001 Lundi 5 novembre 2001

WEARING OF RIBBONS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROAD UPGRADE

VOLUNTEERS

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

MICRO ENTERPRISES

LUMBER INDUSTRY

CTV LOCAL PROGRAMMING

SKEENA SEA CADETS

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

REMEMBRANCE DAY

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES PERSONNES

HANDICAPÉES DE L'ONTARIO

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

ONTARIO ECONOMY

CORRECTION OF RECORD

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ACADEMIC TESTING

ONTARIO ECONOMY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

FRANCHISE BUSINESSES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ENERGY COMPETITION

TENANT PROTECTION

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

LOW-INCOME ONTARIANS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PETITIONS

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

OHIP SERVICES

HIGHWAY 407

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

PROTECTION OF MINORS

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

OPPOSITION DAY

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

Monday 5 November 2001 Lundi 5 novembre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: November is Wife Assault Prevention Month, and a white ribbon campaign is being

spearheaded by Men Against Violence Against Women. They are asking for a white ribbon campaign for the month, and I'm seeking unanimous consent for permission to wear the ribbons.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): That would be for the month? Is there unanimous consent? I'm sorry, I heard a no, unfortunately.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Oh, he is seeking clarification.

Mr Levac: It's Wife Assault Prevention Month.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed. I thank the members.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROAD UPGRADE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Once again I rise to bring to the attention of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the

Minister of Transportation and this House the need to make the Ramsey industrial road, sometimes called the Sultan road, a provincial highway.

As members would know, this road is a critical transportation link for health care, business and tourism. For too long, this Domtar industrial road has impeded

safe and expeditious travel to the east.

I have asked the Minister of Northern Development and Mines to form a partnership with the communities involved, with Domtar and with the provincial government

to upgrade the 80-kilometre stretch of road in a staged, safe and expeditious way. He has told me this is not a priority.

Chapleau Mayor Earle Freeborn continues to work on this important issue for his community and others. Mr Freeborn has the support of communities from Sudbury

through to Thunder Bay, including Wawa, Dubreuilville, White River, Manitouwadge, Hornepayne, Schreiber, Nipigon, Marathon and a multitude of others.

Clearly, for northern people this project is a priority. Mr Newman needs to rethink his government's priorities. The status quo is not acceptable. We need

action, and we need it now.

I was in Chapleau a week ago, and Mr Freeborn, the mayor, told me that it was almost impossible to navigate the Sultan road and that the mayor of Sudbury, Jim

Gordon, was coming to meet Mr Freeborn in Chapleau and he wasn't sure that the mayor from Sudbury would get there.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): Today I want to join with members of the Legislature in saluting volunteers from my riding, who have done a

tremendous job, and as a direct contribution in recognition of the United Nations International Year of the Volunteer. We want to express that in the form of a poem that was written by one of our

distinguished volunteers from Albion Lodge. Here we go.

Ode to Our Residents

Volunteers are here to stay,

We like your thanks, we take no pay.

You see, we are a special breed,

Tending to your every need.

How often have you asked yourself?

Have I been put up on the shelf?

As volunteers, we know you've not,

And yes, we feel your not forgot.

We're there to listen and to talk,

And even take you for a walk.

We like to go to church with you,

And even share a joke or two.

You know, they say a volunteer,

Is one, who comes and gives good cheer,

We thank you for this special day,

God's speed be with you, this I pray.

I'd like to salute these great volunteers, who are on our right, Speaker, who have contributed enormously to the caring community at Albion Lodge in Etobicoke

North.

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): As we head into winter, I think members on both sides of the aisle would admit that the Ontario

economy is heading into some difficult if not stormy weather. My constituents in the upper Ottawa Valley are telling me that they are most concerned that their governments, federal and provincial,

focus their attention at sensible stimulus packages and particularly programs that concern themselves with maintaining and expanding job opportunities.

I want to take this opportunity on behalf of my constituents in Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke in asking the Harris government to bring forward sensible capital

spending, the so-called public works spending that is already on the books. In my area, for example, we have a major hospital renovation at Pembroke that is awaiting a green light from the Ontario

province, and certainly in my part of eastern Ontario -- many smaller municipalities have now been waiting 12 to 15 months to hear from the Ontario government as to when the Harris government is

going to put its money on the table to allow very important water and sewer upgrades, very important local road and bridge improvements, culture and recreation improvements.

It's time for the Ontario government to bring forward capital spending that's going to stimulate job creation in the province.

MICRO ENTERPRISES

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): Recently, Home Business Report magazine, in co-operation with the RBC Financial Group and Canada Post,

conducted a survey of communities that recognize the importance of home-based businesses and other micro enterprises and that have proven to be the most supportive and helpful to this sector. This

is the third year that a nationwide survey has sought to identify those communities that help small and micro enterprises to flourish.

Today I'm proud to say that my community of Brampton was one of three that were presented the Home-Based Business Friendly Community Award last Tuesday at a

reception in Toronto. Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell was on hand to accept the award.

Part of the success of the entrepreneurial spirit is the Brampton Small Business Enterprise Centre, which partners with the city's economic development

corporation and the Brampton Board of Trade to deliver to new and growing businesses the skills and resources that are needed to succeed.

Presenting the awards were Barbara Mowat, publisher of Home Business Report, Jim Rager, vice-chairman at RBC Financial Group, and Francine Conn, director of

product development for small business at Canada Post.

I would ask all members of the Legislature to join me in congratulating the city of Brampton for creating a supportive environment for small and home-based

businesses, the heart of our economy.

LUMBER INDUSTRY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): It's important that all members of this Legislature understand the negative impact of the

American imposition of a now-32% export duty on the softwood lumber industry in this province. It's particularly important, I believe, for the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development and

Trade to recognize that unless it is successfully rolled back very soon, we may be seeing the shutdown of various sawmills in Ontario and the loss of thousands of jobs. Entire communities that rely

on the industry as their major tax base could be truly threatened unless this issue is resolved very soon.

Having said that, I'm somewhat taken aback by our provincial government's rather low-key approach to this very serious problem. It's almost as if they do not

grasp the ramifications of this unfair imposition of duties on this export-dependent industry. We have seen the immediate impact this has had on the industry in British Columbia, and while affected

companies in Ontario have not as of yet reacted in a similar fashion, there is no question that they cannot afford to wait for a hoped-for favourable trade ruling by the WTO before they are forced

to make some tough and clearly devastating decisions.

I've spoken to representatives of the softwood lumber industry, and they made it very clear to me that they need the strong support of the province as well as

the federal government in order to win this trade dispute. Therefore, I want to ask the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development and Trade to more publicly support the industry in their

fight against this unfair export duty. Let's not wait to speak up, Premier, until it is too late and the mills and the jobs are gone.

CTV LOCAL PROGRAMMING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today to bring to the attention of this House and people across this province the very unfair decision

by CTV to consolidate news services in some larger centres, particularly in northern Ontario, where communities like Timmins and Sault Ste Marie and North Bay are losing their ability to tell their

story both to themselves and to the world.

It was no more than two months ago when CTV went through our communities asking for support for the renewal of their licence, and many well-meaning charitable

groups in those communities wrote letters of support, only to find out shortly thereafter that CTV in fact intended to withdraw those very important news collection services, the ability to have

local community groups tell their story, educate the public and involve the community in their activities; that they were going to get rid of their studios, laying off workers and depleting their

ability to be a participant in those communities in the ways we've come to expect and to depend on as we grow our economies, respond to the challenges of the world we live in today and tell our

stories.

I'm asking you and others to please send your letters, cards and e-mails to the CRTC and tell them to stop CTV from doing this, from reneging, backing away from

their commitment to our communities to have local programming, to have a presence of some significance in our communities.

Timmins, North Bay, the home of the Premier, my own community of Sault Ste Marie, even the council of Sudbury, where most of this activity is now going to be

operating out of, have passed a resolution saying to CTV that they should stop this backing away from a commitment that they believe they have to us and our communities and to make a decision to

rule against CTV.

SKEENA SEA CADETS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): This weekend, the alumni of the Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps, Skeena, will gather in the town of Port Hope to

celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the corps. They will renew old friendships, celebrate at a dinner-dance and march in the Remembrance Day parade on November 11.

To commemorate the anniversary, alumni and present-day cadets will plant a Skeena Tree of Remembrance on the town parkland opposite the ship. The tree will be

accepted by Port Hope Mayor Rick Austin, and engraved pavers will be presented to Cobourg's Mayor Peter Delanty to be laid in Cobourg's Victoria Square.

This outstanding youth organization, sponsored by the Navy League of Canada's Northumberland branch, has provided opportunities and development of good

citizenship and leadership for over 3,000 young people in Northumberland county during the past 60 years. It is organizations such as this that teach young people the importance of community life

and help in the development of personal values.

Last year I had the opportunity to attend the Skeena Dedication Day on Saturday, October 21, to mark the reopening of the hall. A memorial of a bronze plaque and

a stained glass window were also presented, a reminder of the 15 crewmen who died serving their country in October 1944.

Please join me in acknowledging the efforts of the Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps, Skeena, and their six decades of achievements.

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I rise today to urge the government to put the political rhetoric aside and roll

up its sleeves to work with the federal government to assist local municipalities across Ontario. Municipalities in my riding have sent a resolution to indicate that federal and provincial

financial support for public infrastructure is essential.

Municipalities are calling on this government to stop the blame game and get to work. It is time to speed up the infrastructure funding process under the

Canada-Ontario infrastructure program to provide a much-needed economic stimulus in the face of the current economic downturn.

The federal Minister of Industry, Brian Tobin, shared with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario the fact that Ontario is abysmally behind all other

provinces in accessing federal monies already designated for infrastructure programs.

In my riding, the township of Central Frontenac, Loyalist township, Frontenac management board and the township of Stirling-Rawdon have all called for a

co-operative effort between the federal and provincial governments to provide the much-needed capital dollars to municipalities across Ontario. It is time for this government to stop the

finger-pointing, stop the blaming and stop dragging its feet and start working with the federal government for Ontario's working families.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): This Sunday, November 11, people in communities from all across our province and our country will be

celebrating Remembrance Day and acknowledging two minutes of silence for the hundreds of thousands of people who have given their lives for our great country. In fact, 66,000 men and women gave

their lives in World War I and another 44,000 in World War II.

Many communities across our province have already started holding Remembrance Day celebrations with parades, banquets, services and the laying of the wreaths.

For example, I was out twice on the weekend with Royal Canadian Legion Branch 316 in Waubaushene, and I want to acknowledge the hard work of President Robert Land and Father Carl Matthews of the St

John's Roman Catholic Church, who put on a service yesterday in Waubaushene, attended by members of the armed forces of Base Borden, the Girl Guides, Brownies, Sparks, Boy Scouts, Cubs, Beavers,

and pipes and drums organizations from across our riding as well.

I want to acknowledge that many small communities cannot hold their services on November 11, so they have to hold them early for the sake of allowing other

people to attend the function. I appreciate having the opportunity to make this statement today.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we continue, I would like to inform the members that we have with us today in the Speaker's gallery a

delegation from the Midwestern Legislative Conference led by Senator DiAnna Schimek from Nebraska and Senator John Hottinger from Minnesota. Please join me in welcoming our American friends.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES PERSONNES

HANDICAPÉES DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Jackson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 125,

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

Acts / Projet de loi 125, Loi visant à améliorer le repérage, l'élimination et la prévention des obstacles auxquels font face les personnes handicapées et

apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.

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

The minister for a short explanation?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): I'll reserve it for ministry statements.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

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

6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, November 5, Tuesday, November 6, and Wednesday, November 7, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

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

All those in opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Sorbara, Greg

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 73; the nays are six.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin statements, we have in the east members' gallery Mr Keith Norton, who was the member for

Kingston and the Islands. Please join in welcoming our former colleague.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The performance of our economy is important to Ontario families, it's important to this government and it's

important to me.

On Friday, the job numbers for October showed that Ontario experienced a net loss of 2,900 jobs. While the unemployment rate in Ontario stayed the same, we are

down some 28,000 jobs over the past few months, and the short-term trend is not positive.

Ontario families want their government to keep our economy strong and to create a climate that supports the creation of good, well-paying jobs. They know that

a strong economy is the foundation for a strong province, because only a strong economy allows us to invest new dollars into priorities like health care and education and to protect our province's

safety and security.

Earlier this year, the North American economy entered a period of slower growth. Beginning September 11, terrorist attacks have further weakened the economies

of all nations. Unfortunately, Ontario is not immune to these developments.

Tomorrow, the Minister of Finance will present to the members of this House and to the people of Ontario the first detailed economic statement since those

tragic events of September 11. Today, I will outline our government's intentions as we move forward.

As the minister will show tomorrow, the province's fiscal outlook for this year is lower than budgeted for last spring. However, because of prudent and

conservative planning as well as contingency planning, we will be able to manage this year's lower revenues.

Unlike previous governments, however, we are always prudently planning into the future. Already we're thinking ahead, preparing for next year's budget, and as

we do so it is becoming increasingly clear that Ontario will face significant fiscal challenges in 2002.

Now, we could choose to abdicate our responsibility. We could choose to act as previous governments did, who threw prudence out the window, who spent

recklessly and who left Ontario at the brink of bankruptcy. We could act like they did, but that could easily lead to the same financial mess that we inherited in 1995. As I said, we could do that,

but I want to be abundantly clear today that we will not do that. Instead, we will continue to demonstrate the same resolve, the same determination, the same fiscal responsibility that Ontarians

have witnessed now for the past nearly seven years.

Since 1995, we have brought a new approach to setting Ontario's priorities and managing our province's finances and economy. We cut taxes. We helped to create

over 824,000 net new jobs. We balanced the provincial books three times in a row. We cut wasteful spending to allow us to reinvest in priorities like health care and classroom education.

These steps have benefited all Ontarians, and they are signs of strength in Ontario's fundamentals. But despite all this success, which has made us far better

prepared to deal with an economic downturn than ever before, events around the world mean that we cannot afford to be complacent. Around the globe, western democracies are at war against terrorism.

While it is our hope that this war will not be prolonged and that the North American economy will be able to quickly return to a cycle of growth, we must prepare for this period of uncertainty to

be longer than originally expected. That is the prudent thing to do, and it is the right thing to do.

Our government's commitment to fiscal responsibility means that our spending can increase only if our revenues increase. A slower economy means slower growth

in government revenues. As we prepare for an extended counterterrorism war, our government will ensure that we live within our means. It would be irresponsible today to count on revenue growth in

2002-03. It would be irresponsible to spend money we don't have. Previous governments did that; we will not.

In the coming weeks, we will continue to monitor our economy and our finances. Tomorrow's economic statement will provide the latest information on the state

of the economy, and we will continue to keep Ontarians informed of further developments in the months before the next budget. We will continue to move forward with tough decisions to keep both

government spending and the size of government under control. We will continue to consult about how to keep government living within its means.

Tomorrow, the Minister of Finance will announce that pre-budget consultations for next year's budget begin immediately. These consultations will involve all

ministries and all transfer partners. Given the challenges that Ontarians may face next year, we need to work with our partners to review and set priorities, to do better for less and to ensure

that we are getting value for each and every dollar we spend.

Of course, preparing for next year's fiscal challenges is not made any easier by the refusal of the federal government to set the right priorities. Since 1995,

we've made health care our number one spending priority. Without any help from the federal government, we have aggressively reformed our health care system. We have launched primary care reform. We

have expanded community and home care, making important services available to people closer to their homes. We've opened up thousands of new long-term-care beds, the first in over a decade. We've

started Telehealth Ontario, a 24-hour-a-day telephone service to provide free medical advice. We've reformed hospitals to move money away from bricks and mortar and toward front-line patient care.

The list goes on and on and on.

Unfortunately, the federal government has not made health care one of their top priorities. Previous to 1993 and the election of the current Liberal government

in Ottawa, Ottawa historically funded an 18% share of health care spending through the CHST transfers to the provinces. Since their health care cuts in the early 1990s, the federal government has

cut that traditional historical funding level, resulting in a very significant federal funding shortfall. Since 1993, the federal government has increased their own spending substantially, yet they

have continually failed to address their health care funding shortfall, the number one spending priority of Canadians. That federal funding shortfall has actually been picked up year after year for

the past six years by your provincial government. The federal shortfall is now $2 billion per year and growing.

For many years, provinces have called on the federal government to make up this shortfall and to provide an appropriate escalator to deal with the new costs so

Canadians can enjoy the benefits of new technologies, new research, new therapies and an improved quality of life. This is not a partisan issue; this is a call from Canadians from coast to coast.

Year after year, Premiers of all political stripes have called on the federal government to make up their funding shortfall, and now more than ever, a sustainable health system that can take care

of people is absolutely necessary.

Unfortunately, we have not yet succeeded in getting the federal government to make health care their top priority. As a result, our government continues to pay

for the federal shortfall dollar for dollar, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. Today I am calling on the federal government to use the opportunity of the federal

budget in early December to set new priorities by making up its health care funding shortfall and committing to an appropriate escalator.

The December federal budget must include a measured plan to return federal funding to its traditional 18% share. Without a commitment from Ottawa to fund its

historical and fair share of health funding, like every other province in Canada, Ontario will no longer be able to make up the federal shortfall in next year's budget. If the federal government

does not make health care a top funding priority in this year's pre-budget consultations, we will have to ask for input on how to make up the federal shortfall for the 2002-03 fiscal year and to

preserve the sustainability of health care for Ontarians.

Ontario has faced difficult economic circumstances before, and we will again in the future. Recent terrorist acts have made the challenges ahead that much more

difficult, but I want to reassure Ontario families that our government will not fail them. Although tougher times make the job that much more difficult, we are always looking to make the government

more efficient. We will redouble our efforts to keep our economy strong and our province's finances in good shape, we will act to protect all the gains we have made in the past six years, and we

will never allow the province's finances to deteriorate the way they were allowed to prior to 1995.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): Today marks a very historical and proud day for the 1.6

million persons with disabilities who live in our province and a very proud day for our government.

All Ontarians should enjoy equal opportunity and the freedom to participate fully in the lives of their communities. Today we embark on a journey to a more

inclusive Ontario with the introduction of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001. I might add, Mr Speaker, that in a very first for this assembly, the legislation is available in Braille,

audiotape, electronic disc and large print.

I am joined today in the House by some very remarkable individuals and supporters who have shown me what we can do when we work together: Keith Norton, the

chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission; Carolyn Williams, Dean LaBute and Joyce Zuk of the Windsor advisory committee on disability issues; Ottawa ODAC member Barry McMahon;

lawyer David Shannon of Thunder Bay; Sheila Jarvis, president of Bloorview MacMillan Children's Centre; Ray Cohen, of Abilities magazine; Barry Munro, from Canadian Spinal Research; Paralympian

athlete Jeff Adams; Cliff Goodall, chair of the physically challenged committee for Burlington; Charlotte Gibson, president of the Easter Seal Society; Paul Rayner, from the Ontario March of Dimes;

Thunder Bay Mayor Ken Boshcoff; the Ontario Association for the Deaf; Penny Hartin, from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind; and the Ontario Association for Community Living.

Ontarians understand the need to work together to share the responsibility to change, and in doing so, to reach our goal of full citizenship for persons with

disabilities. Persons with disabilities deserve the right to lead lives with dignity and quality, justifiably seeking the same rights to experience the same fullness of opportunity, experience and

participation as all other members of our society. All around the province, our partners in the broader public and private sectors have been working to make their buildings, products and services

more accessible to and more inclusive of persons with disabilities. They have been doing what is right, what makes sense.

The people of Ontario recognize, however, that more work needs to be done and that there is a strong need for change. Over the past few months, I have met with

more than 100 individual disability organizations and additional individuals representing this community and the municipal, broader public and private sectors. I wanted to hear their voices, and I

wanted to benefit from their expertise and their personal experiences.

In Ontario we are blessed with strong legislation such as the Ontario Human Rights Code. We have a wide range of government-funded programs and services in

health care, children's treatment, respite care, research, development, transportation, special education, tax incentives, income and employment supports, and many more programs.

Yet this government knew that much, much more had to be done. Persons with disabilities want to be able to get into and around their communities safely: to go

to their local library or recreational centre, to attend and participate in town council meetings, to go to the mall, to eat in a restaurant. They want the right to get to a job that nurtures their

skills, to journey to the next community and be able to get around there. They want to live as independently as possible, to do the things so many people in society enjoy every single day.

Last week our government unveiled Independence and Opportunity: Ontario's Vision for Persons with Disabilities. The Vision, signed by the Premier and myself,

will act as a visible and public reminder of the challenges we have undertaken. It is also a firm commitment based on what we have heard and what we have learned.

The proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act represents the important legislative component of the framework that will achieve that vision. It would mandate

foundation for sustained and effective long-term partnerships. In particular, the knowledge, expertise and contributions of persons with disabilities would be called upon as never before in this

province.

committees, and the bill would expand them to every single corner of our province.

Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, and its job would be to oversee the day-to-day efforts required to fulfill the laws to help Ontarians with disabilities.

Chief among the directorate's tasks would be providing information, knowledge and support to all sectors; taking the lead in planning and policies that would

begin and engage this important first phase of the legislation.

resources. I have seen, first-hand, success stories around the province and would like to acknowledge the leadership of communities like Windsor, under Mayor Mike Hurst, and Thunder Bay, under

Mayor Ken Boshcoff. All Ontario municipalities affected by this bill will be held to the same high standard or even higher.

I want to emphasize how absolutely vital it is that persons with disabilities have a full and active voice in the changes we are setting forward today in

legislation. My belief, as their minister, is that a policy or a law will work much better if the very people it affects are directly involved and are working with it on a daily basis. For the

first time, disabled citizens will be driving the changes and reforms we create together in Ontario. This legislation does not just talk about persons with disabilities; it includes them as active

participants.

Persons with disabilities understand the barriers they struggle with and confront on a daily basis. Their knowledge, expertise and experience are the singular,

most important contributions to our understanding of these necessary reforms. Their involvement in the planning process outlined in the bill would ensure the government views activities through

their disability lens.

For persons with disabilities, this legislation offers an unparalleled opportunity to make positive change happen in our province, not just now but long into

the future. We are creating an alternative future filled with anticipation, with hope and with change. More importantly, it will be filled with dignity for all Ontarians, understanding the needs of

our citizens with different abilities.

Many of us will be able to leave this Legislature today without giving a thought to how easy it is for us. There must come a day when access here and

everywhere in our province is just as easy for persons with disabilities. This legislation is a major step forward in achieving that vision and for gaining full citizenship for all our

citizens.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I want to congratulate the minister and the government for getting religion on this issue. It's

something we've been working actively on for some six years now. The fact of the matter is that it was on May 24, 1995, that the Premier sent a letter to the disabled community specifically

committing to enacting an Ontarians with Disabilities Act in his first term of office, and that was some six and a half years ago. We are pleased that the government, as I say, has finally found

religion.

There are some people who should be thanked with respect to this: first of all, David Lepofsky and the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, who have been

absolutely tireless in making this government accountable for their broken promise.

In addition, I am very proud of the efforts made by some specific members in my own caucus. Ernie Parsons, Steve Peters and Dwight Duncan have kept the

government's feet to the fire on this matter. They've had extensive consultations. They put a number of questions to the ministers involved. We put forward resolutions.

We haven't had an opportunity to review the legislation, but we look specifically to ensure that it reflects the 11 principles unanimously supported by the

members of this Legislature. We of course expect that the committee will travel and enable the 1.6 million strong membership of the disabled community to have a full opportunity to comment on the

legislation.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): On the matter of the Premier's statement, perhaps more aptly described as the Premier's lament,

once again he plays the blame game when it comes to the federal government. He says that if only the federal government would send the province more money, then things would be better off here. But

there's a new component to the lament this time. According to the Premier, the failings in our economic circumstances here are entirely due to the acts of terrorists on September 11.

Well, it is time for the Premier and this government to stare into the face of their own economic failings. We had the best of times in Ontario. We had the

very best of times, and this government failed to anticipate the inevitable downturn. Everybody knows there is something known as the economic cycle. We knew that at some point the bubble would

burst. We knew that at some point revenues would go down. We knew that at some point expenditures might go up when people lost their jobs. This government failed to anticipate that and it failed to

secure our future.

It's important to keep in mind that before September 11, we had the slowest growth in the country right here in Ontario. We were at the greatest risk of

running a deficit right here in Ontario. We were experiencing the largest job losses on a per capita basis right here in Ontario.

Now, what does this government propose to do, given that they're concerned about the shortfall in revenues? What does the government propose to do in the face

of that? The government says they are going to spend another $2 billion in corporate tax cuts. The government says they are going to spend half a billion dollars on private schools. And the

government has spent so far a quarter-billion dollars on partisan political advertising.

So instead of this tired, listless lament to the federal government to send more money, I would ask the Premier to keep in mind what it is that he has in mind

for Ontarians and instead to act responsibly, to cancel the corporate tax cuts, to stop spending money on partisan advertising, and to stop sending money over to private schools.

I wish this government would make up its mind when it comes to advice that it offers the federal government. At the time of the last budget, the position taken

by this government was that the federal government should proceed with another $7 billion in corporate tax cuts. Now, either you want them to cut corporate taxes further or you want them not to cut

taxes and to send more money to the provinces so that we could meet some of our health care needs. It's up to this government to get their act together.

In the interim, I want to tell Ontarians that we have put forward a positive, substantive plan. It involves going ahead with investment in infrastructure. It

doesn't cost the budget one extra cent. It's a matter of investing dollars that this government has already committed but which it continues to stockpile for electoral purposes. These are not usual

times, and the responsible thing to do now is to implement an Ontario security plan.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I want to refer first to the proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001. In responding, I want to

congratulate all of those individuals and all of those groups who have worked very hard to push the government forward. I include and mention, of course, all of those people who have worked with

David Lepofsky.

I want to point out, though, that in the few brief moments that we've had to look at the act, there appear to be some glaring holes in it. For example, it

would appear as if private sector operators will not be covered by this act in any mandatory way. It would appear, in fact, that in terms of requiring buildings which are not now accessible to

become accessible, there is nothing in the act. It would appear that all that municipalities have to do is to prepare a plan. If they prepare a plan, then technically they comply with the act.

There is nothing in the act which says, "You must now do this and this"; just, "Prepare a plan."

I ask, then, what does the disability community do? There are to be these local advisory committees. I put it in the place of the community I come from. The

disabled community there, I take it, is to work through that committee and to lobby the multinational employer to make their premises more accessible, to lobby an international hotel chain to make

their premises more accessible. But if they are unsuccessful, it would seem that all they can do is to go back and file a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The commission has

already indicated they have neither the money nor the staff to follow through on those investigations.

At the end of reading this, I'm left to conclude that what is really in this presentation today is about one third substance and two thirds media spin. Now, it

may be that members of the disabled community will say it is better to take this small loaf, because they may believe that's as much as they're going to get under this current government. But I

have to say, I don't believe that this act meets either with the resolution that was passed in this Legislature or meets with the promises that were made by this government back in 1995.

We need to look at the details in this bill for some time. We need extensive public hearings so that there is a clear understanding out there of the very

definite limitations in this bill and the committees and structures of committees that flow from it.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I want to say just a few words about the government's lead-in to its financial statement. The Premier

said, "It is becoming increasingly clear that Ontario will face significant financial challenges in 2002." For those who are not expert in media spin, that means a deficit. It then says that this

is a government that has cut taxes. In fact, let's recognize that the mantra of this government has been that if you cut corporate taxes and you cut taxes for the well-off, it will create jobs.

Well, Ontario has lost 29,000 jobs since May of this year. You would think, after all of those corporate tax cuts and all of those tax cuts for the well-off, that it would be virtually impossible

to have a loss of jobs. There must be something wrong with the mantra.

The statement also talks about how the government has been responsible. People across Ontario need to know that from 1995 until last year, the government was

actually borrowing money to finance its tax cuts. In 1996, in 1997, in 1998 and even into 1999, this is a government that was borrowing money to finance tax cuts.

I just want to point out that the government should have used these good economic times to set aside money for health care and education. It's signalling today

that it hasn't, and we're in trouble because of it.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Speaker: I rise for an opportunity to correct my record.

On Thursday, November 1, here in this Legislature, during the course of the third reading debate around Bill 30, I made considerable comments that were

critical of the leader of the official opposition with respect to his treatment of the member for Ottawa-Vanier. I characterized him as having disregard for the people of that riding. Among other

things, I indicated that the conduct which resulted in Ms Boyer's facing a charge, which resulted in a conditional discharge -- no conviction, no criminal record -- took place before she was

elected. In fact, it took place after she was elected but before she began sitting.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the associate minister of health. Minister, we've just been informed that 600

expectant mothers who had planned to deliver their babies at the Queensway Carleton Hospital in Ottawa have been told that they will have to go elsewhere. There are three hospitals in Ottawa

capable of accommodating deliveries. One is the Queensway Carleton. The other two, the Ottawa Hospital and the Montfort Hospital, have indicated they have no room to accommodate the 600 expectant

mothers.

Where should these mothers go to have their babies?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): Let me be very clear: when we talk about hospitals, no government

has invested more in hospitals in the province of Ontario than this government.

Let me say that the Queensway Carleton Hospital had a new investment of $12.8 million just in June of this year. We believe that services should be provided in

the hospitals that best meet the needs of the people of Ontario and the area that the hospitals represent.

Mr McGuinty: I don't know what that was, but it was not an answer to my question. I'll ask it again on behalf of 600 expectant mothers in

Ottawa. They have just been informed that there is no room for them at the Queensway Carleton Hospital. We have three hospitals in Ottawa which allow for the delivery of babies. The Ottawa Hospital

and the Montfort Hospital are saying they cannot cope with these 600 mothers who are being kicked out of the Queensway Carleton Hospital.

I have a question to you on behalf of those 600 expectant mothers: where are they going to be able to deliver their babies?

Hon Mrs Johns: As everyone knows, babies are delivered in the province of Ontario as close to home as they possibly can be with the services

that are there.

Let me say that the Queensway Carleton delivered 2,100 babies last year. It's expected that 2,100 will be delivered again this year. No budgets have been cut

at the Queensway hospital and in fact they've had an increase of $12.8 million.

We know that this is an essential service. We believe that we have funded the hospital so that they can provide these services for the women of Ottawa and we

expect them to do it.

Mr McGuinty: On October 25, the chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the Queensway Carleton Hospital sent a letter to the

minister, and they say very specifically in here, "We feel strongly that these cuts jeopardize the health of women in our community." They go on to say, "There must be an immediate return to a

commitment to perform 2,700 births a year" at this hospital.

The question I have again for you, Madam Minister, and that you have failed to answer in any satisfactory way whatsoever -- 600 expectant mothers are being

shut out of hospitals in Ottawa -- what are you going to do to ensure that these mothers in my community can deliver their babies in an Ottawa hospital?

Hon Mrs Johns: I need to reiterate again that 2,100 deliveries were in the budget for last year and were paid for by the Ministry of Health.

We have at least that many in the budget again this year and we expect that to work within the realm. There's a $12.8-million increase in the budget. Let me say that the minister will not approve a

health care budget from a hospital if it doesn't provide essential services such as the ones we're talking about today.

I can tell you the women of Ottawa will be taken care of. There will be a place for them to have babies in their area as close to home as possible.

ACADEMIC TESTING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): This question is to the Minister of Education. You will be aware that the latest standardized

test results were made public last week and they continue to be a source of tremendous disappointment for parents and our families generally. Madam Minister, you have yet to assume responsibility

for these test results. You have yet to say that is a direct result of your government's failings when it comes to education policy that have contributed to these results.

Our students are short of textbooks, our class sizes are too big, particularly in the early grades, you have conducted an ongoing war with teachers and you

have this terrible misplaced sense of priorities where you now want to invest $500 million in our private schools.

Will you now admit that these poor results, these poor showings in our standardized tests are not the failing of our teachers or our parents or our students or

the people who write the tests or the people who conduct the tests; they are the direct result of your government's failings?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Let's be very clear here. You're the party that said there wasn't a problem

in education. You're the party that said we didn't need to change the curriculum because everything was fine. You said we didn't need testing because everything was fine. You said we didn't need to

put in place specifically targeted strategies to make sure that there was accountability for these results.

Everything is not fine. The reason we changed the curriculum, the reason we put tests in place, the reason we are doing all of these things is because we know

that our students were not getting what they needed. The changes we're putting in place are starting to measure that need. They are starting to show tangible improvements.

If he wants to say that the teachers and parents and students who are working so hard to improve student learning are not seeing tangible improvements, then he

should stand up and say that. But there are tangible improvements. Do we need to do more? Absolutely, and that's why we brought in the Ontario early reading strategy for this year. Did they support

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the time is up, Minister. Supplementary?

Mr McGuinty: I know this is painful for you to have to stare into, Madam Minister, but it has been six years, and nearly half of our children

in public education are failing to meet the basic standards in reading, writing and mathematics. That's your legacy, Madam Minister. That's what you stand for. That's what you've accomplished after

six years.

Do you know what I wish you'd do, Madam Minister? I wish you'd do what the Minister of Education did in England. He stood up and said, "I will get you

substantive improvement in our standardized tests or I will resign." He said he would not blame the teachers, he would not blame the parents, he would not blame the school board trustee equivalents

over there, and he wouldn't blame the kids. He said he would get the results or he would resign.

Madam Minister, why is it that after six years of your government's reforms to public education, our children still aren't passing the standardized tests and

you continue to refuse to admit that the fault lies with you and your government?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The new curriculum came in in 1998. Now maybe the Liberal opposition, who love to criticize this government and say we do too

much, too fast, are demanding of our teachers that overnight they should be able to correct 20 years of neglect, 20 years of no accountability, 20 years of lack of standards in our education

system.

Well, this government recognizes that you first need to measure. We're not afraid to do that. Secondly, we also recognize that you need to put in place

strategies which will fix this: the early reading strategy; the investments in early literacy; the training for teachers; the new resources for kids; the over $100 million invested in smaller class

size. We on this side of the House did this because we knew there was a problem. We're taking steps to fix it.

The honourable member's head-in-the-sand approach that they took for years, and now demanding that somehow or other by waving a magic wand he's going to have

the solution, is not doing a good service to our parents, our teachers --

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

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, I say again, it's been six years. Sure, you brought us the tests, but what we want are the results. We're after

results.

Check out the latest poll results published in the National Post global release which came out just a couple of weeks ago. Do you know what it says? This is

particularly telling. It says the only province in which the public has made the assessment that the government's policies are failing in education -- the only province where they've made that

assessment -- is right here in Ontario. People are on to you now, Madam Minister. They know that a failing, when it comes to public education and our children's inability to achieve success when it

comes to our standardized tests, lies with your government and your policies.

We have an alternative. I put it forward some many months ago now. Let's have smaller classes for our children in the early years. Let's bring into place

lighthouse schools. Let's ensure that our children have access to other schools, not just the one in their immediate community. There is a positive alternative, Madam Minister. My question to you

is, why won't you implement that positive alternative?

Hon Mrs Ecker: If the honourable member really thinks that somehow going around the province and saying, "Gee, this is a lighthouse school.

Let's have 20 lighthouse schools" -- there are over 4,000 schools in this province. If he thinks that just waving that magic Liberal wand is going to make all of those schools succeed, he is wrong.

What it takes are investments, which we've made. What it takes are high standards, which this government put in place and his party said we didn't need. What it takes is more training for teachers,

which we are putting in place. What it takes is better supports for parents and students, which we are putting in place.

That party said there wasn't a problem; we had the courage to say there was. We've got the courage to measure it, and we've got the courage to admit that we

are fixing the problem that his party and the NDP allowed to develop in our schools. The parents and the teachers and the students are producing tangible results. Look at the results --

Interjections.

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Finance. We understand that you intend to send out one-time-only

$100 cheques to 222,000 low-income families with children in the province, apparently to help them purchase Christmas presents and winter clothes. We're puzzled, though, because your plan would

leave out the lowest-income families in the province, those families that are forced to rely on social assistance or the Ontario disability support program. If the strategy of your plan is to help

the poorest families with children purchase winter clothes and perhaps buy their children a Christmas present, why would you exclude the very poorest families in the province?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The member speculates about what may or may not be the contents of the fall economic

statement, which will be delivered tomorrow. We've certainly heard, during the course of consultations in the past couple of weeks, about the impacts on tourism and the restaurant sector in

particular and also in the retail sector and on workers in those sectors as a result not only of the economic slowdown this year but also of the effects of September 11. There has been some

recovery from the economic consequences of the tragedies of September 11, but that is only some recovery to date. These are issues that have been raised with me as Minister of Finance during the

course of the past couple of weeks.

Mr Hampton: I asked why the Minister of Finance would exclude the very poorest families with children in the province, and he didn't answer.

So let me ask him: since you've become Minister of Finance, 29,000 people in this province have lost their jobs. They have no jobs at all. Why would you exclude them? You talk about this as if it's

some sort of stimulative package for the economy. But a $100 cheque to some 200,000 families has hardly any stimulative impact at all. Maybe you should try to explain this a bit better. If you're

going to exclude people who have recently become unemployed and people who have to rely on the Ontario disability support program or on social assistance, this doesn't make sense, and as a

stimulative package it will cause nary a dint. What's your real strategy here?

Hon Mr Flaherty: Again, the member speculates about the contents of the fall economic statement, which will be delivered tomorrow. I can tell

you that we are very concerned about job losses in Ontario. When a family breadwinner loses a job, or both parents are working and someone loses a job, it has quite difficult consequences for that

family, for them trying to maintain mortgage payments or pay their rent, make car payments, keep food on the table and buy clothing. These are difficult times in the western world. There is an

economic slowdown. The economic effects in Ontario have been significant with respect to the tragedies of September 11. I'm sure none of us in this place would want to make light of the effects of

those realities on families in Ontario. It is important that we be conscious of that and make some attempt to address those issues.

Mr Hampton: If you're really interested in addressing those issues, then I suggest you take the $2.5 billion corporate tax cut, your gift to

your corporate friends, who will only get it if they're already making a profit, put it in the bank and provide a reduction in the sales tax for the 11 million people across Ontario who need some

help. If you did that, you'd be helping families who have to rely on ODSP, families who have to rely on social assistance, families who have lost a job and families who have to work for the minimum

wage. You'd be helping a lot of other modest- and low-income families who are also facing a difficult time, plus you'd be helping retailers. Your strategy doesn't help the poorest families, doesn't

help the unemployed and doesn't stimulate the economy either. I suggest to you that all it does is provide you with a little bit of public relations cover while you funnel off another $2.5 billion

to your corporate friends. If you really want to help people, reduce the sales tax.

Hon Mr Flaherty: The member opposite again raises the question of reducing the sales tax. I must say that with respect to tax cuts, I agree

with Paul Martin. With respect to reducing the GST federally and the RST provincially, I also agree with the federal minister, and we've talked about this. All you get is a short-term hit, quite

frankly. You accelerate spending. You pull it ahead by a month or two. It has no long-term positive gain for the economy.

On this side of the House -- and I say this with respect to the member opposite -- we're interested in long-term, sustainable economic growth and the creation

of permanent jobs in Ontario. That's what grows the economy. That's what helps people. That's what helps retailers in Ontario, not short-term, knee-jerk actions.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: To the Minister of Finance: I'm not surprised that you and the federal Liberals in Ottawa agree on most of these issues. You've

been singing the same mantra for the last five years now, "Tax cuts create jobs." But we're seeing now, as the recession hits, that tax cuts aren't creating jobs, and you need to provide some

relief to all those families out there that will give them an enticement to get back into the economy.

I want to ask you this: we saw that Quebec brought forward a strategy to provide municipalities with some money so they can begin an ambitious project of

fast-forwarding construction projects and other infrastructure projects. We've asked you to do the same here. Is that something you're going to announce tomorrow? Are you prepared to bring forward

some SuperBuild funding quickly, so that municipalities can begin those projects and put people back to work?

Hon Mr Flaherty: As the member opposite knows, I can't talk today about what will be in the economic statement tomorrow. But I can say to the

member opposite that since 1999, more than $8 billion worth of construction projects have been caused to happen in Ontario through SuperBuild. It's a remarkable story. As you travel around Ontario

today, at our colleges, at our universities, at our hospital sites you see all this construction underway now. It's the future of Ontario, this infrastructure that's happening right now. Are there

going to be more announcements? You bet there are, in the next 30 days with respect to OSTAR and culture and recreation.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you may hope that by repeating that story, some people will believe it, but in fact SuperBuild is not building anything

across this province. What you see in community after community is a hospital that is half built, the community trying to figure out, "Where do we get the money to cover the construction deficit?"

and your government nowhere to be seen.

We've also asked you to indicate that you're not going to sell off our electricity system and create price increases and less stability there. We've also asked

you if you would come forward with a readjustment fund for communities that have been hard hit by layoffs or are being hard hit by the recession. We ask you frankly to take an example from Quebec,

which announced that through their own variety of SuperBuild they're going to construct 22,000 new child care spaces and 13,000 new affordable housing units -- and renovate 27,000 older ones -- and

provide the lowest-paid people in the province with a $250-million sales tax credit, which wouldn't be a bad idea here, except we don't have a sales tax credit in Ontario. Would you consider any of

those options as a way of helping modest- and lower-income families and Ontario industries deal with the recession rather than just giving another $2.5 billion in corporate tax cuts?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I'm sure the member opposite knows that we consider many opinions. Many options are brought forward to us with respect to

budgeting and fall economic statements. There are many ideas out there, and that's why we meet and consult and listen to the various ideas.

But the concern we have is with long-term economic growth built on a firm foundation in the province of Ontario. We're fortunate now we have that firm

foundation as a result of the difficult decisions that have been made over the course of the past six years. But you can't exchange this program or that program for low, competitive taxes, for

prudent fiscal planning, for three balanced budgets in a row. That's what creates the firm foundation that we can build on in the future in our vision of Ontario.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): My question is for the associate minister of health. Minister, your ministry has justified the

hatchet job that's taking place in London, saying that this is what the experts have recommended, but one thing that you've never done is release the recommendations that led up to this

decision.

I have been able to secure a copy of the pediatrics cluster report, under scoping recommendations, and on page 4 of that it says that the children's hospital

deserves continued support as a unique cost-effective tertiary program of the LHSC and an essential member of the academic community. They go on to say that limiting care in London will compromise

the health of the sickest and most vulnerable children. To me, that doesn't sound like a mandate to slash children's programs at LHSC.

Minister, this is what the experts are truly saying, the experts that you and your ministry constantly keep referring to, but these experts are singing a

different tune. Why are you allowing the opposite to happen and compromising the sickest and most vulnerable children in southwestern Ontario?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): I think I need to be very clear today that this side of the House is

concerned about patients. They're concerned about the kids and their going to the hospital and having great services when they get to the hospital. That's the concern on this side, not some

political agenda that's happening over there, but a true concern for the kids of London and surrounding areas. And that's what we're doing. We're working with the London Health Sciences Centre to

ensure that they provide top-quality services for the people of our area.

Mr Peters: Talk about top-quality services and recommendations and doing what's best for patients, this is what the cluster group recommended.

They recommended that two programs be cut. They recommended pediatric burn and rheumatology be cut. Somehow it leaves this cluster group and it goes to the steering committee, and then at the

steering committee these recommendations aren't endorsed; the recommendations change. All of a sudden now we're seeing scoped out not only pediatric burns and rheumatology, but those two plus

pediatric major facial surgery and pediatric cardiology surgery.

Minister, how does it change? How does it go from the experts recommending this in their template report to going to the steering committee, the executive

leadership team to the hospital, and ultimately to the board of directors? How do they change? How do recommendations change?

Minister, again, why, why, why are you allowing this program to be discontinued? And this isn't political. This is for kids; this is for patients. You're not

listening. Your members aren't listening. Why won't you stand up for the kids in southwestern Ontario, and why don't you start asking some questions about why we have two conflicting reports that

make a decision in the hospital?

Hon Mrs Johns: The member opposite can scream as much as he wants at me, but the bottom line is we have to be concerned about children in

southwestern Ontario. My children could be going there tomorrow, anybody's children in southwestern Ontario could be going there tomorrow. We have to have the best services for them. As a parent of

children who may go there, I want to know that when I send my children to that hospital, they're getting excellence that they could get at any children's hospital across the province.

It so happens, in these two cases, they're not getting those services, and we need to do better as politicians and as people who are in charge of taking care

of the children of the province. It's the intention of this side to ensure that the best services are offered, or we move children to where the services are the best, because the children are our

future in the province of Ontario.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Solicitor General. Last week our government made our antiterrorism and emergency measures

announcements. These announcements were made following province-wide consultations and an unprecedented review of existing government policies.

As we all heard in this House last week, the opposition felt that the brave women and men who make up Ontario's firefighters had been left out. Minister,

please clarify for all members of this House and all Ontarians how our plan will benefit firefighters, thereby keeping us all safe.

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): I'd like to thank the member for York North for this question. The government certainly recognizes the

value of the work of firefighters.

On September 11, hundreds of firefighters were entering the burning buildings in New York as other people were rushing out. They are our first responders and,

indeed, last week we responded to their needs.

Firefighters will benefit from $1 million worth of commitment for equipment to deal effectively with chemical, biological or radioactive crises, and $2.5

million annual funding for training in urban search and rescue, chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear response and hazardous material handling; as well as that, $600,000 to work with the owners

and operators of large buildings to develop evacuation procedures. These new measures will benefit firefighters and will benefit all Ontarians.

Mrs Munro: Minister, you and your ministry have been working very hard to ensure Ontario and Ontarians are safe. How do we compare to the rest

of the country in terms of announcements and commitment to safety?

Hon Mr Turnbull: In Saturday's National Post there was actually a review of all of the arrangements across the country in the various

provinces, and Ontario is clearly leading the pack. We were the only province to have a formal anti-terrorism plan prior to September 11. We're one of only two provinces that have a formal

bioterrorism plan. We're the first province to commit significant funding to emergency preparedness. We have committed over $20 million for such things as doubling the budget of Emergency Measures

Ontario; $3.5 million for an anti-terrorism unit; $2.5 million to enhance intelligence gathering; and $4.5 million for a provincial emergency response team.

We are committed to ensuring that Ontario remains one of the safest places in the world to raise a family and to live.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, you will be aware that today the Sierra

Legal Defence Fund released a report called Ontario, Yours to Pollute. The report stated that polluters broke Ontario water regulations nearly 10,000 times between 1996 and 1999, but only 11 of the

facilities dumping toxic and other harmful chemicals into waterways were charged. It goes on to say that your ministry shows that there were 9,906 waste water violations in four years, starting

with 1996 to 1999. It finds, among other things, that big Ontario companies routinely produce effluent so contaminated with dangerous chemicals that it kills wildlife exposed to it; that Darlington

nuclear station had 58 effluent samples that killed test animals; Pickering, 19. It's a condemning record.

When is your government going to stop playing footsie with the major polluters in this province and start prosecuting all of those who are in violation of our

laws?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): Our government is committed to very strong enforcement. We know it is the backbone of our

efforts to protect our environment and also human health. We did pass legislation in November 2000. It was called the Toughest Environmental Penalties Act. I'm very pleased to say that our track

record has improved tremendously. We have a SWAT team in place that is fully deployed.

I'd just like to share with you some of the highlights and the improvements that have been made. Total fines have increased by $1 million, or 118%, in the

first half of 2001. Fines issued in 2000 cost the polluting industry more than $3 million, more than a 75% increase from 1999. Investigators have laid 23% more charges in the first six months of

2001. The number of charges laid in 2000 increased by 48% from 1999.

The member can surely see that our government takes enforcement very seriously. We have introduced legislation. We have hired more --

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

Mr Bradley: The minister's answer is like saying there were 1,000 people who went through a red light, you prosecuted one out of the 1,000 and

now you're prosecuting 10 out of the 1,000. It's a huge percentage increase, so we should be satisfied. The report speaks for itself.

But there's a second issue that is equally important to the results of this report and that is the fact that people in Ontario and organizations have to pay

money to receive the information from your ministry. In fact, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment tried to block the Sierra Legal Defence Fund from receiving this information by charging

thousands of dollars to obtain what should be public information. Fortunately, the Information and Privacy Commissioner ruled against the Harris government on this and you were forced to give the

information.

Minister, why did you try to prevent the Sierra Legal Defence Fund from obtaining this information by putting in place many financial penalties; and second,

will you now undertake to end the habit of trying to block information coming forward into the public domain from your ministry?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We believe that it is in the public interest to share information with the public. Recently there have been steps taken in

order that we can commit to provide the public with information about companies that are out of compliance with environmental laws. We now publish this information on a Web site and information

about non-compliant facilities is available. We believe this is a significant improvement. In fact, I can remember that when I made the announcement about the fact we were going to share this

information about some air quality emissions there was disapproval from the opposition, and I can't understand why, because this is the very question that you're asking me today.

FRANCHISE BUSINESSES

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. I hope you're aware that we've

got a problem in Ontario with Grand and Toy and their franchise stores. Grand and Toy has decided to terminate at the end of this year their franchise agreements affecting 23 franchise operators

throughout the province. One of these franchise operators is in my riding. This affects the investment that these franchise operators have made in their stores. It affects them considerably. It

affects their future financial wherewithal.

I have a franchisor in my riding who would never believe in operating this way. They're called M&M Meat Shops. They're the nation's best franchisor. I was

wondering if you could use them as an example. I wonder if you're aware of the situation involving Grand and Toy. If you are, what are you doing about it, and can the franchise act offer any

assistance?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): This is an important issue to many members of the Legislature. Mr O'Toole

and Mr Tascona also raised this issue with me weeks and months ago when it first arose.

I feel very much sorry for the Grand and Toy franchisees who had this sprung on them as a great surprise to them. They have taken an action through a class

action suit, and although many of them entered into contracts which were made prior to the passing of the franchise act, that act still allows them to use provisions of it to include it as part of

their suit, and they've done that in their statement of claim.

Mr Wettlaufer: I wasn't able to hear all of the answer because of the heckling on the other side, but I would like to ask the minister if

there is not a mandatory dispute resolution mechanism provided in the Arthur Wishart Act, and if not, why not? Why would there not be any dispute resolution mechanism in the legislation, and what

other options would the franchisees have?

Hon Mr Sterling: The Arthur Wishart Act, of course, was passed about two years ago. At that time, there was not included mandatory

arbitration. But in our general civil litigation process there is the option for the Attorney General to demand that a mediation process take place. I understand that is the case with regard to

this lawsuit, and in fact the franchisor and the franchisees are going through a mediation process right now.

The legislation we passed two years ago was the first legislation to protect franchisees in terms of dealing with unscrupulous franchisors. We don't know what

the total effect of that legislation is. This is a good test of that particular act. If it proves not to be enough, we'll bring it back and change it.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, despite Walkerton and despite perhaps

hundreds of violations of industrial lethal wastes in our water, including, may I add, your own nuclear and coal-fired plants, for the year 2001 you have laid charges against exactly three

companies out of compliance. Incredibly, you say charging polluters doesn't work. Your own staff said taking a company to court doesn't clean up the problem. The rest of us know that's exactly what

does work.

A year and a half ago, in a leaked cabinet submission your senior staff asked for SWAT teams to tackle this problem. They asked you to send the teams after 79

industrial companies that were out of compliance for over two years for poisoning our drinking water supplies. Minister, you didn't do it. Why not?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): We are very committed to protecting the environment and human health in this province. We

have demonstrated that we have taken some very significant steps in order to ensure that enforcement is the backbone of everything that is done in this province in order that we can protect the

environment and protect human health.

I would just remind you of what has been accomplished, particularly in the last couple of years. We simply have to take a look at the new legislation that has

been passed that ensures we will have the toughest environmental penalties in this province. The maximum fine for a corporation's first offence has increased from $1 million a day to $6 million a

day. The maximum fine for an individual's first offence has increased from $100,000 a day to $4 million a day, and the jail terms have increased from two years to five years. Our government is

making sure that Ontario becomes less and less hospitable to polluters.

Ms Churley: You increased the fines, but now you say you won't prosecute. Minister, let me point out to you that we're talking about poisoning

the water we drink here. The NDP government used to publish the information about this; your government hides it. You know the public has a right to know what's going on. It is their water and,

despite orders from the freedom of information commissioner, you are still trying to hide this important public health information.

The Sierra Legal Defence Fund filed yet again a freedom-of-information request for your 2000 data on waste water violations. Once again, you are not complying.

It is now overdue and, once again, they're being forced to appeal. Minister, I am asking you: will you table the 2000 data on waste water violations today in this House?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I have shared with this House on several occasions the fact that we are now making information available to the public

regarding companies that are out of compliance.

I would just hearken back to the statements that were made by the member in the original question. The member knows full well that when it comes to activities

of enforcement, to the process and to investigation, that is arm's length. However, I can assure you that our government has increased the number of investigators in place. We have increased the

orders issued. We have increased the fines that have been levied, and we have taken very rigorous steps in order to ensure that this province does take every measure possible to make sure that

those who pollute are fined.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the associate minister of health. On Friday, the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp, which

runs the Chedoke-McMaster, the General and Henderson in Hamilton, announced the closure of 62 acute care beds permanently and four more on a temporary basis. They sent layoff notices to 30

registered practical nurses. This cut represents almost 10% of the acute care beds in that particular system. This hospital, through great efforts, has tried to cut costs, as directed by this

government, but with their best efforts they are still going to run a deficit of maybe up to $12 million. This particular move is going to save $3 million. The reason they have to do this is clear:

you're not giving them enough money. There's a problem in funding at the hospital level, and all this is going to do is continue to add to the backlog we have in emergency departments, in

redirects, in people waiting for beds.

Minister, can you stand up and justify how you think it is acceptable in our health care system today to have 62 acute care beds in Hamilton shut down because

of your moves and your cuts?

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

the member understands that's not quite the way it truly is. When the government made some decisions a number of years ago as a result of the health restructuring commission, it was decided that

there were too many acute beds in Hamilton and that there was a need to have more long-term-care facilities and some rehabilitation beds.

I'm happy to report that those beds are up and running in the Hamilton area. We have 20 rehabilitation beds that are all ready to go and they have been funded

through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. We also have 248 long-term-care beds up and running. So you can see there are more beds but they're in different locations, because the goal of

this side of the House is to make sure that there are integrated health services available for the population at every stage and that their health care needs are met: another wonderful thing done

by the Mike Harris government.

Mr Agostino: Minister, you must be the only person in the world who believes an announcement of closing 62 acute care beds is good news. It is

unbelievable.

The long-term-care beds we need are not a gift, the rehab beds we need are not a gift you're giving us, and I'm not going to stand here and thank you for that.

But the 62 acute care beds that are being cut are going to cause a problem in our health care system. I can't believe that as health minister in Ontario you would stand up and say that you think

that's a good move and you believe that's in the best interests of Ontarians.

Minister, they're doing it in order to cut a further $3 million from the health care costs because of what you have done. It is not good news. It is not good

news for the patients. Again, I say to you, if you can find $2.2 billion for corporate tax cuts, why can't you find the money to ensure that these 62 acute care beds in Hamilton stay open and that

these 30 nurses don't lose their jobs?

Hon Mrs Johns: It's obvious that this member opposite is just trying to create headlines. Let me say one more time that we don't believe that

all the beds in the province of Ontario should be acute care beds. We believe that there should be beds so that seniors can go in and have activities, as opposed to being in a hospital. We believe

they should be up and doing recreational things. We believe they should be in a homelike setting -- hence, 248 beds.

We believe that some people in this province shouldn't be in a hospital for a long term, that they should be in a rehabilitation centre getting the

occupational therapy they need, getting the services they need, the rehabilitation services, so that they can get back out and lead productive lives. We have done that because we believe that you

need to provide the best-quality services for the people in Ontario.

I understand a press release is going to come out of this, but the member opposite knows that you have to have --

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

ENERGY COMPETITION

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. We all know that in the coming months we will

see the opening up of the electricity market in Ontario, which of course is good news for all electricity consumers. But, Minister, could you tell us what is being done to promote, encourage and

assist environmentally friendly or green energy initiatives in Ontario?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): Two of the guiding principles in the government vision for Ontario's electricity

sector that were announced by the Premier on February 28 are protecting the environment and supporting the search for alternative sources of power. Green energy -- there's a new era beginning in

Ontario with the opening of the energy market.

In the brief moment I have, let me just tell you some of the projects that are publicly announced in this sector that wouldn't be possible without the changes

we're making in the electricity sector: a biomass project in Thunder Bay for $35 million; another biomass project using wood waste in Hearst by TransCanada Power Services for $120 million; new wind

turbines for Ashbridges Bay in Toronto at $1.3 million; Toronto Exhibition Place for the Toronto Renewable Energy Co-op, a $1.3-million wind turbine project; North America's largest wind turbine,

by Ontario Power Generation, a $3.5-million project already up and running in Pickering; a wind farm for $50 million in Prince Edward county; landfill gas projects in Toronto northwest for $2.8

million; Brantford for $8 million; Waterloo, phase 1, $7 million --

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

Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much, Minister, for outlining all those very important and excellent programs and projects that are ongoing. That

will all be good news for our environment, for using more green and environmentally friendly energy, but could you also tell us what we're doing to promote energy efficiency in the province of

Ontario?

Hon Mr Wilson: There are dozens of new projects, in fact, $3.6 billion in new projects, and hundreds of new jobs as a result of our plans and

our vision to introduce competition. All of this was illegal under the Ontario monopoly system called Ontario Hydro. If you had a windmill, like the fellow who has one on the top of Blue Mountain

in my riding, and you wanted to get that power to willing customers, Ontario Hydro wouldn't let you do it. Under the new system, billions of dollars of new green energy are coming on-line. Plans

are in the works, projects are already being built and hundreds of jobs are being created -- a fantastic record for any jurisdiction in this stage of the competitive process.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, in a recent interview with

the Peterborough Examiner, your cabinet colleague the member from Peterborough made some very interesting comments about tenant protection in Ontario. In speaking about the practice of charging

illegal deposits, the Minister without Portfolio said the following: "Sometimes landlords get the first and last month's rent and nothing in between." He went on: "We may have to pass legislation

to offset these things."

Minister, has your cabinet colleague let the cat out of the bag? Will you confirm whether you plan to make changes to make it legal for landlords to charge

additional deposits to tenants, as the Minister without Portfolio from Peterborough advocates?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'm not sure if I got the whole question, but I'll try to answer what I think

he asked. In terms of the Tenant Protection Act and the rules around that, we haven't changed those since the Liberals and the NDP were in power. The rate of increase is lower, on average, than was

in place under the previous two administrations. But I'll wait for the supplementary to hear the details of the question.

Mr Caplan: Minister, you wrote the Tenant Protection Act; you've betrayed tenants. You have whittled away tenants' rights with red tape and

government efficiency bills. The fact that you refuse to condemn your cabinet colleague's remarks can lead to only one conclusion: that you support Mr Stewart's position.

Minister, I want to give you one more chance. Will you confirm whether you will make changes to the existing legislation to make it legal for landlords to

charge additional deposits from tenants? The Minister without Portfolio from Peterborough thinks so. Do you agree?

Hon Mr Hodgson: We do review legislation from time to time and we keep an open mind to all suggestions. Our party is an open party; we allow

for suggestions from members of society and our own caucus. At least we're thinking about the issues. I think he recognizes there's a balance. You want to have more housing in this province, but

you also want to respect the rights of the tenants. We have found that balance in the current act, but it's always open for review to see how we can improve it.

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

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

Sound-Muskoka have been closely watching the media reports regarding the economic challenges facing Sault Ste Marie. I know you've been working hard on behalf of northern community leaders to

encourage diversification of their economies and to build strong communities. Could you tell the members of this House and my constituents in Parry Sound-Muskoka what communities can do to ensure

they are prepared to face these economic challenges?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I thank the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for the very important question. I can

assure him that the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines remains committed to working with all northern communities to find ways to diversify their economies and to work with other partners

to build strong communities.

The challenges that face Sault Ste Marie can be met. Those individuals with an entrepreneurial spirit that challenges the status quo and looks for

opportunities to expand into new sectors may find success to be theirs in the Soo and beyond.

We will continue to work hard to create an economic climate for job creation and to attract investors and tourists to northern communities such as Sault Ste

Marie.

Mr Miller: Minister, my constituents want to know exactly what the government has done recently to assist the Soo to attract investment and

tourists to its community. What has the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines done recently to assist the community of Sault Ste Marie?

Hon Mr Newman: On Thursday, November 1, Premier Harris and I announced a new marketing strategy for the Soo to help create jobs and

opportunity. We were joined at that announcement by John Snobelen, the Minister of Natural Resources, as well as by Ted Chudleigh, the MPP for Halton. We were also joined by Sault Ste Marie's

mayor, John Rowswell.

The Mike Harris government's commitment of $260,000 through the northern Ontario heritage fund is part of a $1-million investment by the provincial, federal

and municipal governments as well as private sector partners. The three-year marketing project will identify companies that could benefit from the city's skilled and experienced workforce.

I remain committed to working with community leaders to identify ways to diversify their economies and to build strong and prosperous communities. I want to

take this moment to commend Sault Ste Marie's mayor, John Rowswell, for his commitment to this very important issue.

I'm certain this strategy will help Sault Ste Marie's long-term prosperity and will help create new jobs by promoting Sault Ste Marie as a great place to do

business.

LOW-INCOME ONTARIANS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Finance. I saw him a second ago. I'm not sure where he got to.

Interjection: There he is.

Mr Martin: Minister, this weekend you decided to play Santa Claus, but your Grinch tail is sticking out a mile. You say you're trying to help

families with a Christmas bonus, and yet once again you exclude the people who need it the most. People are losing their jobs. Families on Ontario Works have lost buying power, when you factor in

the cuts and inflation. People on disability support programs have had their benefits frozen since 1995. The cost of food, clothing, housing and other necessities has jumped 9.5%. Yet once again

you've excluded our poorest families from money they desperately need.

Minister, if you truly want to help the families hardest hit in this recession, you'll stop the clawback of the national child tax benefit, you'll fast-track

my bill to give increases to people on ODSP and you'll include the most vulnerable and at-risk families -- women and children -- in your Christmas present to the poor of this province.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I didn't hear a question. I was waiting for a question.

The member raises the issue of the fall economic statement, which will happen tomorrow, and we won't deal with that today.

In terms of the needs of vulnerable people in Ontario, I'm very proud of the record of our government, particularly in the budgets. In the most recent budget,

we addressed the issue of housing for developmentally disabled children who are now adults: $67 million, so that their parents don't have to worry about what they'll do when they're gone and their

developmentally disabled children, now adults, need a place to live.

I'm very pleased that we addressed the issue of funding required by the 19 children's treatment centres around Ontario, which help babies with spina bifida,

autism and other developmental disabilities. We addressed that in the budget this year, giving them the funding they asked for in the amount of $20 million. That's practical assistance to help

persons who are vulnerable.

Mr Martin: Minister, you're giving Christmas bonuses to families in this province, and we think that's great. But again, you're excluding the

most vulnerable and at-risk of our women and children, our families on supports in this province. Children are suffering. Families can't put food on the table, can't afford the winter clothing they

need and are terrified by the upcoming stresses of Christmas. Stopping the clawback would give back almost $100 a month for every child of a family in dire need. Surely you don't think children

should be penalized for being born into poverty.

Passing my Ontarians with disabilities legislation would mean a cost-of-living increase every April 1. This would mean a 2.9% increase this coming April.

Again, Minister, surely you don't think that people should be penalized for living with a disability.

The time has come to really help people. Stop the clawback of the national child tax benefit, tell us you will support my bill to raise the ODSP and put it on

the fast track. Will you do that, Minister, and will you include those most vulnerable and at-risk families?

Hon Mr Flaherty: Of course we are concerned with job losses, particularly during a time of economic slowdown, complicated and compounded by

the tragedies of September 11 -- there's no question. I heard in the consultations before the fall economic statement that, particularly in the tourism and restaurant areas and in the hotel

business, there have been some significant layoffs, and yes, we're concerned about that.

In terms of welfare, thank goodness, because of sound economic management and difficult decisions, hundreds of thousands of people are off the welfare rolls in

Ontario today compared to previously.

Also, hundreds of thousands of people are not paying Ontario income tax today, although they're still paying federal income tax. These are lower-wage earners

who are trying to find a better way for themselves and for their families.

I would think the member opposite would support the policy of reducing the Ontario tax rolls to exclude them and would encourage the federal government to do

the same thing.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the associate minister of health. You were asked earlier this afternoon by my leader

about cuts to the obstetrical program at Queensway-Carleton Hospital in Ottawa. I want to make sure you know exactly what has happened here. Your government closed the Grace Hospital in Ottawa.

When you closed the Grace Hospital, you transferred the women's health programs to Queensway-Carleton. Unfortunately, you didn't transfer enough money to Queensway-Carleton to keep the programs

going. Queensway-Carleton has a $1.8-million deficit. Your government has said to Queensway-Carleton: "You have to balance the budget. You're going to have to make some cuts." That is why

Queensway-Carleton has made the decision to cut 600 deliveries. They have a birthing centre for 2,700 deliveries. They're cutting it back by 23%, almost one quarter.

Minister, no other hospital in Ottawa is able to take these 600 additional deliveries. I ask you the same question my leader asked earlier: where are the women

in Ottawa who can't deliver their babies in an Ottawa hospital supposed to go?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): Mr Speaker, as you're cognizant, I've already answered this

question, but let me once again say that there will be no cuts in services, especially in the important services we're talking about today. What we have done is guaranteed there will be the same

kind of deliveries in the hospitals as there was in previous years. We have increased the funding at the Queensway-Carleton Hospital by $12.8 million. We transferred some services not only to the

Queensway-Carleton but also to the Ottawa Hospital, and funding has flowed with those transfers.

We intend to have women of this province serviced, to be able to have babies where they intend to have them. We intend to ensure there are patient services for

all women in Ontario, and we will continue to do that.

PETITIONS

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it's entitled, "Listen: Our Hearing is

Important!"

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned," from Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie, Timmins, North Bay and Cochrane, "petition the Ontario Legislature to

demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to permanently fund audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

I affix my signature to it and give it to Chadd, our page, to bring to the table.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have petitions signed by about 2,418 people. I'll read the petition into the record.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

family of origin;

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

Convention on the Rights of the Child;

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

the province of Ontario;

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will affix my signature to this petition.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly on behalf of my constituents in the riding of

Durham.

"Whereas the provincial Durham riding, including Clarington, Scugog township and portions of north and east Oshawa comprise one of the fastest-growing

communities in Canada; and

"Whereas the residents of Durham riding are experiencing difficulty locating family physicians who are willing to accept new patients; and

"Whereas the good health of Durham riding residents depends on a long-term relationship with a family physician who can provide ongoing care; and

"Whereas the lack of family physicians puts unnecessary demands on walk-in clinics and emergency departments;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: that the government of Ontario will:

"Do everything within its power to immediately assess the needs of Durham riding and the Durham region and work with the Ontario Medical Association, the

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, local health care providers and elected officials to ensure there are enough family physicians available to serve this community;

"Make every effort to recruit doctors to set up practices in underserviced areas and provide suitable incentives that will encourage them to stay in these

communities;

"Continue its efforts to increase the number of physicians being trained in Ontario medical schools and also continue its program to enable foreign-trained

doctors to qualify in Ontario."

I'm very pleased to support and sign this on behalf of my constituents in the province of Ontario.

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I have petitions here from in excess of 3,500 residents of southwestern Ontario. These residents are

petitioning the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"Whereas the London Health Sciences Centre is a world-class academic health 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," like these 3,500, "of southwestern Ontario, and particularly children, at risk; and

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

"Therefore ... we, the undersigned" 3,500 residents "petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government take immediate action to ensure

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

Look at these numbers, Speaker.

OHIP SERVICES

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

"Whereas the Harris government's decision to delist hearing aid evaluation and re-evaluation from OHIP coverage will lead to untreated hearing loss; and

"Whereas these restrictions will cut off access to diagnostic hearing tests, especially in geographic regions of the province already experiencing difficulties

due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

"Whereas OHIP will no longer cover the cost of miscellaneous therapeutic procedures, including physical therapy and therapeutic exercise; and

"Whereas services no longer covered by OHIP may include thermal therapy, ultrasound therapy, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, electrotherapy, magnetotherapy,

nerve therapy stimulation and biofeedback; and

"Whereas one of the few publicly covered alternatives includes hospital outpatient clinics where waiting lists for such services are up to six months long;

and

"Whereas delisting these services will have a detrimental effect on the health of all Ontarians, especially seniors, children, hearing-impaired people and

industrial workers; and

"Whereas the government has already delisted $100 million worth of OHIP services,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately restore OHIP coverage for these delisted services."

I agree with the petitioner, and I affix my signature to the petition as well.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): It's my pleasure to present this petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

vibrant public golf course,

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

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

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"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 the children..., at risk; and

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

In support, I affix my signature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

This is signed by a number of constituents from southwestern Ontario. I sign my signature in full agreement with their concerns.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of citizens from Burlington, Stouffville,

Hamilton, Mississauga and Maple.

"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 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."

I sign this petition as well.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): This petition comes to me from communities like Brantford, Fenelon Falls, Burnt River, Sturgeon Falls, Lindsay,

Kawartha, Oakwood, Mount Forest and others, and it's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Listen: Our Hearing is Important!

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

I sign my name to this petition and give this petition to Katherine, our page.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas children are being exposed to sexually explicit materials in many commercial establishments; and

"Whereas many municipalities do not have bylaws in place to protect minors and those that do vary from place to place and have failed to protect minors from

unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials;

"Whereas uniform standards are needed in Ontario that would make it illegal to sell, rent, loan or display sexually explicit materials to minors;

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

"To pass Bill 95 (Protection of Minors from Sexually Explicit Goods and Services Act, 2001) as soon as possible."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to that as well.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"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 of animal provisions in the Criminal

Code as soon as possible."

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Lieutenant Governor's Administrator has

been pleased to assent to certain bills in his office.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour did assent:

Bill 56,

An Act to encourage the revitalization of contaminated land and to make other amendments relating to environmental matters / Projet de loi 56, Loi

visant à encourager la revitalisation des terrains contaminés et apportant d'autres modifications se rapportant à des questions environnementales.

Bill 65,

An Act to permit the Minister of Transportation to delegate to persons in the private sector powers and duties and responsibilities to deliver

services relating to road user programs / Projet de loi 65, Loi permettant au ministre des Transports de déléguer à des personnes du secteur privé des pouvoirs, des

fonctions et des responsabilités pour fournir des services liés aux programmes à l'intention des usagers de la route.

Bill Pr23,

An Act to revive 1205458 Ontario Ltd.

The Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk at the Table: Opposition day number 3, Mr McGuinty.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Doesn't the government itself have to move what the orders of the day

are normally?

The Speaker: It's an opposition day, so the table reads it and then the member will proceed.

OPPOSITION DAY

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I move the following opposition day motion:

That the Ontario Legislative Assembly calls on the Conservative government to keep its specific campaign promise to working families across southwestern

Ontario by maintaining and protecting the specialized pediatric and other specialty programs now at risk at the London Health Sciences Centre.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr McGuinty has moved that the Ontario Legislative Assembly calls on the Conservative government to keep its

specific campaign promise to working families across southwestern Ontario by maintaining and protecting the specialized pediatric and other specialty programs now at risk at the London Health

Sciences Centre.

Mr McGuinty: I am pleased to -- "pleased" is not the right word; I wish we didn't have to do this. The government made a specific promise

prior to the time of the last election and it appeared in the newspaper. There was a specific commitment that these programs would not be cut. The minister and the members of the government,

particularly those in the London area, were aware of just how heavily this weighed on the minds of the families, and parents in particular, living in London and southwestern Ontario. There has been

much debate on this issue and many questions raised by members of my caucus, but it was all brought home to me in a very meaningful way when I had the opportunity to visit London and meet with a

group of parents.

One of the young fathers there, as he put it to me, had been informed that he was not going to be allowed to touch -- literally touch -- his very young infant

child who was in intensive care because to touch the child, to carry the child, to hold the child, would be too traumatic an experience for this young infant, this fragile infant. As he put it to

me, he said, "If I can't hold my child, why is the government proposing to transport my baby, either by helicopter or by fixed-wing aircraft or by ambulance, to the city of Toronto?" Of course

that's a very important question, and it touches on so many aspects of why this issue is so important.

We're talking about, when it comes to these pediatric programs, ensuring that children who are born into this world who are struggling to overcome some

condition, which is already a tremendous burden on the family, a burden which they accept out of love and assume every responsibility for -- the question then becomes, why wouldn't the government

help those families in the way that it has in the past? The people of London aren't asking for anything more here. They're not asking for frills or additional benefits. They're simply asking for

maintenance of programs that had been there in the past and that this government specifically promised would remain there into the future.

A London Free Press story was published March 24, 1999, and the headline read, "Children's Hospital Won't Lose Cardiac, Transplant Services." The minister is

quoted in the story as saying, "It's our intent to continue to ensure those programs are provided through London Health Sciences Centre, both now and in the future." The minister concluded by

saying the hospital made "a very compelling case" for keeping the programs in London.

I want to underline those words used by the minister. The minister said the services would be provided "both now and in the future." It seems to me that kind

of wording constitutes an ironclad promise, and parents and families in the London area and southwestern Ontario were entitled to rely on that promise. Surely many of them did rely on that promise

when they cast their ballots at the time of the last election. They fully believed and expected that this government would honour its commitment, knowing that this was not some kind of frill, that

this had to do with the health and well-being of families and, more specifically, children who are born into this world who are struggling to overcome some condition or other.

Now, that was then. It saddens