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

December 13, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Dec-13 (PDF)

Wed 13 Dec 2000 / Mer 13 déc 2000

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

OF ONTARIO DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 13 December 2000 Mercredi 13 décembre 2000

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

EVENTS IN DURHAM

HOUSING CO-OPERATIVES

HOLIDAY DISPLAYS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

HANUKKAH

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

OPPOSITION PARTIES

MINISTRIES’ WEB SITES

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

DEFERRED VOTES

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

OVERTIME

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

TIME LIMITS IN CIVIL DISPUTES

GIFTS FOR CHILDREN

VISITOR

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

OVERTIME

SCHOOLTEACHERS

SNOWMOBILE SAFETY

BERNARDO FILM

MANDATORY DRUG TESTING

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

GREEN ENERGY

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

INTENSIVE LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I don’t think anyone in this Legislature would argue that one of the most pressing issues we are facing in northern Ontario at this time is the increasing physician shortage crisis. In my hometown of Thunder Bay, as many as 20,000 people are without a family doctor right now, a reality that is both frightening and intolerable. I get calls every day from people desperate to access a family doctor.

That is why it was disturbing to hear yesterday that a provincial plan designed to ease the doctor shortage, which we expected would be made public by now, may be delayed a few more months.

If anything, this only makes it all the more important that the Premier and the Minister of Health put their support behind the establishment of a northern and rural medical school. The issue of physician recruitment and retention has been one we have grappled with for decades now. What is becoming very clear is that a northern medical school may truly prove to be a long-term solution for a problem for which we must find a solution.

Experts in the field such as Dr James Rourke, the director of rural medicine at the University of Western Ontario, tell us that the location of medical training is a major determinant of where new doctors will eventually set up practice and that we can expect more than 50% of those graduates will ultimately end up practising in northern or rural areas.

A great deal of work has been done by many people over the last year to see that a northern and rural medical school comes to fruition. Today I ask the Premier and the Minister of Health to get on board and support this exciting initiative. Everyone in this province should have a family doctor, Premier. Perhaps it can happen with your support today.

EVENTS IN DURHAM

Mr John O’Toole (Durham): I’m very pleased to stand in the House today and talk about the many positive events taking place in my riding of Durham. For instance, last Thursday, December 7, one of the municipality of Clarington’s most active community organizations, the Clarington Older Adult Centre, was the recipient of a community grant from the Trillium Foundation. The Durham, Haliburton, Kawartha and Pine Ridge division of the foundation presented the cheque in the amount of $75,000 over three years.

This allowed the organization to hire a program co-ordinator, Laura McDonald, to support the development and implementation of physical and social programs and information seminars as well as activities for seniors in Clarington.

Representing the Trillium Foundation at the ceremony was David Cook, who presented the cheque to the association’s executive director, John Coffey. Also present were the mayor of Clarington, John Mutton, the president of the Older Adults Association board of directors, Don Welsh, and board members Joan and Glen Prout.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to personally thank the Clarington Older Adult Association, their staff and many, many volunteers like Annabelle Sissons and Mavis Carleton, who have put a lot of time and energy into making this a very successful, volunteer-based community organization. It’s organizations like this that make Clarington, in my riding of Durham, a great place to live, to work and to raise a family.

HOUSING CO-OPERATIVES

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): The most successful social housing is non-profit co-operative housing. Today it is in jeopardy. As you know, co-op housing is a mix of low and middle-income families housed together in the same community, giving everyone a sense of pride and ownership. Furthermore, it provides them a sense of self-governance because of the rules and regulations that they themselves develop. Co-op residents themselves are responsible for setting and enforcing rents and charges for their accommodation.

All these principles of co-op housing have been under attack for years. Most importantly, the fact that some governments do not appear to understand the difference between co-ops and other forms of social housing makes the issue more complex. They don’t appear to understand that co-ops are self-governing. This separates co-ops from other non-profit housing providers.

As long as co-ops properly manage their own projects within the financial parameters of the operating agreements which govern their financial relationship with the province, it would appear that the co-ops are free to manage themselves. However, there are many other variables that now adversely affect their ability to do so. What has happened over the last several years is that the tightening of financial parameters is evident.

The withdrawing of funds from the co-ops and requiring co-ops to make up financial differences from their resources has put an upward pressure on rents to be charged for the co-ops to such an extent that availability to those in need of affordable housing is just too expensive. Rather than housing needy families and individuals, they sit empty.

The financial crisis here is evident. We want the government to address their concern. I have spoken to the minister, who allowed me to say that he will co-operate with me to address this problem.

HOLIDAY DISPLAYS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): There is a Christmas attraction in Northumberland that brings people in by the busload. Several communities in my riding decorate their town halls and historic buildings with dazzling lights, creating a sea of colour and beauty.

Every year, the town of Campbellford-Seymour has its Showcase of Lights. More than 100 displays are erected on Old Mill Park and along the historic Trent Canal. Many of these are animated. This year, several businesses in the community have also taken part by placing extravagant displays on their property and buildings.

Other communities in Northumberland show their holiday spirit as well. Cobourg’s is Christmas Magic, which includes a massive display of lights in the park, as well as bringing historic Victoria Hall to life with a festive light display. Brighton also decorates its community with many colourful lights, while Port Hope complements its historic architecture with thousands of them.

While I congratulate these communities, I also commend this government for its support through the Ontario rural jobs strategy fund. This program is providing more than $1.6 million to Northumberland’s economic renewal initiative to help promote Northumberland as a tourist destination. This, of course, includes the Northumberland lights.

I take this opportunity to encourage everyone to come and visit Northumberland and enjoy the displays, the surroundings and the wonderful seasonal hospitality.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I rise today to raise grave concerns about this government’s lack of commitment to community-based mental health care. As the Harris government continues to rush to close down psych hospitals, you have failed to put the adequate community supports in place.

The Minister of Health continues to promise that not one hospital bed will close until proper community supports are in place. Assertive community treatment teams are slowly being put in place across this province. The move away from institutional care is commendable, but the ministry must commit necessary dollars to provide true community-based care.

Unfortunately, community-based care is being sacrificed in the interest of cost-cutting. In October of this year, all call-backs for community health care program workers have ceased. If a psychiatric patient experiences a crisis, they cannot contact their worker. They must, and I am quoting here from a Ministry of Health letter dated October 6, 2000, “call the ... hospital switchboard and be transferred to the officer in charge. It is acknowledged that these individuals may not be familiar with the individual resident....”

This hypocrisy is outstanding. Either this government wants community-based mental health or they don’t. They cannot have it both ways. As we move away from institutionalized care, we have to respect the trust and care relationship developed between patients and workers. You cannot say that we only want services in the community when it is convenient or not too costly just because we don’t want to pay overtime. Caring for the most vulnerable in our society requires putting people first, not policy, not budgets. Elizabeth Witmer, listen, please.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Last Friday, I held a news conference with representatives from the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Conservation Council of Ontario, Save the Rouge and Earthroots to talk about the need for public hearings on the NDP’s Bill 71, the Oak Ridges Moraine Green Planning Act.

This is what the Federation of Ontario Naturalists had to say: “There needs to be open public discussion about the various options for how best to protect the Oak Ridges moraine’s natural features and water resources from unchecked urban sprawl. An opportunity for such discussion now presents itself in Bill 71, the Oak Ridges Moraine Green Planning Act.”

Save the Oak Ridges Moraine said something similar, as did the Conservation Council of Ontario and others.

The public is saying, loud and clear, that this government should hold public hearings on Bill 71. They must take place, and they must take place now. In fact, in order to avoid having to deal with Bill 71, the government spent six days on something called the Motorized Snow Vehicles Amendment Act.

Interjection: In committee.

Ms Churley: In committee, six days.

In the meantime, this bill, the Oak Ridges moraine bill, has been kicking around for six months. There is no excuse not to put it on. The agenda for the general government committee is open for next week, before this House probably prorogues.

I call on the public to call Mike Harris’s office—the number is 416-325-1941—and urge the Premier to put the Oak Ridges moraine bill on the agenda next week.

HANUKKAH

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): Starting next week, on December 22, Jews all over the world will celebrate Hanukkah, the festival of lights. Hanukkah commemorates the victory of a group of Jews against the Syrian army. This victory was notable because the army was so horribly outnumbered that few could imagine them being victorious. This is the true miracle of Hanukkah, that a small group of Jews could resoundingly defeat a technologically and numerically superior Syrian army.

The second, and the more commonly acknowledged miracle, came after the fighting. As the Jews were cleaning the holy temple, they found that there only remained enough oil to burn for one day. This was a major problem, as more oil wouldn’t be available for temple use for eight days. The Jews started burning the holy oil and prayed for a miracle, and another miracle did arrive. The oil that should have lasted for one day lasted for eight.

In commemoration of this Hanukkah miracle, the holiday lasts eight days. Each day of the celebration is marked by the addition of one extra candle in the menorah, a candelabra placed in Jewish windows and homes all over the world to mark this festival. Jewish children play with dreidels, small tops inscribed with the letters for the Hebrew words meaning “a great miracle happened there.”

As people from all over the province gather to celebrate their winter holidays, including Christmas and Diwali, I take this opportunity to wish Ontario Jews, particularly those from Thornhill, a very happy and healthy Hanukkah. Chag Sameach.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): It was only 10 days ago that the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission board decided to break up the transportation and communications agency that has served the economy of northeastern Ontario for the past 86 years. Since then, I’ve twice asked the Minister of Northern Development and Mines in this House to meet with the business and municipal leaders of northeastern Ontario before he proceeded with any recommendation.

On behalf of the residents of northeastern Ontario, I have asked for the consultant’s report to be released and for a series of public hearings in communities along the rail corridor before any decision was made.

Under the Harris government’s direction, the ONTC board has arbitrarily decided to break up and sell off most of the transportation and telecommunication businesses that have opened up northeastern Ontario. Now the minister, two days before he was planning to meet the Northeastern Ontario Mayors Action Group, with the board chair, has given the go-ahead to divest most of these businesses.

This is another example of the arrogance and total disdain the Harris government has for the residents of northern Ontario. This is another nail in the coffin of our economy.

This is typical of the arbitrary nature of this government, that you don’t listen to the people, you try to run this whole thing as a business, and you don’t consult with the people. There was still a democracy in this place the last time I looked. You don’t treat this province as a democracy. It’s about time you did. You’re going to rue that day when the next election comes.

OPPOSITION PARTIES

Mr David Young (Willowdale):

’Twas the end of the session,

and all through the House,

The vote bells were ringing—

the members wanted out.

The Liberals had hung

their stockings with care,

In hopes that some policies

soon would be there.

The Dippers were seated

behind their nine desks,

While tax-and-spend visions

danced in their heads.

While past NDPers taxed dirt

and the weather,

Us Tories balanced the budget

in springtime together.

When up in the gallery

there arose such a bustle,

I craned my neck upward

to see what the fuss was.

The Grits and the Dippers

must have thought they were dreaming,

“Keep cutting our taxes!”

the people were screaming.

“Keep reforming our health care, our welfare—

cut crime,

“Make our young offenders

serve all of their time.

“Stand fast, Mr Harris,

you’re on the right track,

“Ontario’s much better,

we’re not going back!”

“Point of order,” screamed Dalton,

“this just isn’t fair!”

“I want to be Premier,

and sit over there.”

The Speaker stood up and said,

“Government members, stop laughing,

“I’m the boss of this place

and must prevent that from happening.”

“But really,” said Dalton,

“I really can lead,

“I’ve got positions on everything,

usually two, sometimes three.”

Then the Premier stood up,

and the other shoe dropped.

“Dalton, you’ll not have my job,

because you flip-flop.”

The Premier turned to the gallery

and stated quite clearly,

“This government believes in its plan

quite sincerely.

“We’ll continue reform,

spend on health care and kids,

And I know you’ll be proud

of all that we did.”

To conclude this brief speech,

I look forward to being able to say

We’ll be back in the spring.

Enjoy the holiday!

MINISTRIES’ WEB SITES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On Monday, December 5, 2000, the member for Windsor-St Clair rose on a question of privilege in order to express his concern about information on a government Web site. In particular, the member was of the view that a press release on the Web site of the Ministry of Community and Social Services was partisan political propaganda that should not be funded by his constituents or by other taxpayers, and that the press release was also delivered to members by way of the legislative mail service instead of being mailed by the caucus.

The next day the member rose, also on a question of privilege, to indicate that the Web site of the Office of the Premier, as well as the Internet communications of the Minister of Labour, also contained partisan material. The member was of the view that the material was a violation of

section 28 of the Public Service Act, that the government was trying to intimidate the opposition with taxpayer dollars, and that the material violated not only the privileges of members, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, but those of the people of Ontario. The government House leader also made a submission.

I’ve had an opportunity to review the member’s supporting documentation, and I will address all points.

First, with respect to the allegation that members are being intimidated, the fact that the government Web site contains information that members object to does not in itself establish a prima facie case of privilege; some of the material may well be partisan in nature, but none of it suggests to me that the members are being intimidated in a manner that constitutes a breach of privilege.

Secondly, as members well know from previous rulings on the subject, it is for the courts, not the Speaker, to interpret laws like the Public Service Act, although I’m sure the Chair of Management Board will take the appropriate steps to deal with the allegations.

Thirdly, the right of members to government information is limited to what the standing orders provide. The standing orders do not provide members with the right to information, reliable or otherwise, from a government Web site.

Fourthly, as to the distribution of partisan material via the legislative mail service, I am more concerned with the content of the material than with the method of delivery.

And finally, members will know that there are many rulings to the effect that the Speaker cannot prevent the government from communicating an allegedly partisan political message using political funds.

“At this point in my ruling, I want to express some personal concerns about the propriety of public funds being used to advocate, through advertising, a particular position on a matter that is before the House. Let me be clear,” and that again is Speaker Stockwell speaking, “I am not speaking here about politically paid-for advertising, but rather about funds that are contributed to by every Ontarian, regardless of his or her political view.

“Personally, I would find it offensive if taxpayer dollars were being used to convey a political or partisan message. There is nothing wrong with members debating an issue and influencing public opinion; in fact, it is part of our parliamentary tradition to do so. But I feel that it is wrong for a government to attempt to influence public opinion through advertising that is paid for with public funds—which, I might add, are not available to the opposition—instead of through debate in the House.”

My own personal concern about the information is quite simple and perhaps I am being too obvious, but I’d like to state it. Publicly funded Web sites, as opposed to politically funded Web sites, should be used to communicate with the public in a fair, reasonable and meaningful way. A line is crossed when a government uses a Web site or, for that matter, any publicly funded mechanism as a vehicle to launch a provocative attack on any member of this House.

And so, while I find a prima facie case of privilege has not been made out, in my view this is an inappropriate use of government Web sites, and I hope that all members clearly understand the difference between what is publicly funded and what is politically funded communication, and that they will use each accordingly when they communicate to Ontarians.

I’d like to thank the member for Windsor-St Clair and the government House leader for their submissions on this matter.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Minister of Correctional Services, Government House Leader): I heard your ruling with regard to there not being a formal breach of privilege. I do want to apologize on behalf of those ministers who had Web sites which appeared to be politically motivated press releases which were reproduced on those Web sites.

This will not happen in the future. We agree with your synopsis with regard to the use of this kind of material. It should be on our party Web site and it should not be on our provincial ministry Web sites.

The Speaker: I sincerely thank the government House leader for that.

VISITORS

Mr John O’Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I beg your indulgence and the indulgence of the House. I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce four of my six sisters who are visiting today: Catherine Stevenson, Jane Goodman, Ruth Ciraulo and Monica Audia. I’d like you to join in me welcoming them.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We’re very pleased to have members of the family. I’m sure the member’s performance today will be something that’s very honourable for all of the family here to watch.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I beg leave to present a report on provincial highway maintenance from the standing committee on public accounts and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Gerretsen: This is the last of six reports that the public accounts committee has presented, based on the 1999 Annual Report of the Provincial Auditor.

I would like to start off by thanking the staff who have worked on it, both Erik Peters’s staff and Erik Peters himself, the clerk and the clerk’s office staff and of course the legislative researcher for the work they’ve done for the committee this past year.

The current report had eight recommendations in it, and if I could just highlight two of them: it recommends that the Ministry of Transportation should report on its province-wide highway assessment to determine whether the maintenance program is meeting its goal of preserving and prolonging the life of the provincial highway network; and also, that the Ministry of Transportation should report to the committee on its highway monitoring activities and their effectiveness in ensuring that minimum standards of highway safety and contractor performance expectations are achieved; and finally, that the ministry should report to the committee on the overall highway maintenance costs for the last two fiscal years, including the reductions in overhead achieved through outsourcing.

We hope that the ministry will take these recommendations and implement them as soon as possible.

With that, I move adjournment of the debate.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Brian Coburn (Ottawa-Orléans): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

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

Bill Pr33,

An Act respecting Idlewyld Manor.

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

DEFERRED VOTES

HOUSE SITTINGS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We now have a deferred vote on the motion to extend the House sitting until Thursday, December 21, 2000.

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

The division bells rang from 1356 to 1401.

The Speaker: Would the members take their seats for the vote, please.

Mr Baird has moved government order number 10. All those in favour 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

Bisson, Gilles

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Clark, Brad

Cleary, John C.

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O’Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Kormos, Peter

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 83; the nays are 1.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I request unanimous consent to reconsider the time allocation motion regarding the Employment Standards Act, Bill 147. Today we’ve just been tabled the amendments from the government. They constitute 24 pages, in addition to the 88 pages of the bill itself, and we have effectively one hour this afternoon to deal with this. It is totally impossible. I seek unanimous consent to reconsider the time allocation motion and allow us substantive time at the committee level to do the job that needs to be done on this bill.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I heard some noes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. In the early 1990s, there was talk of a pedophile ring in Cornwall, so in 1992 the Cornwall police conducted an investigation. No evidence was turned up and no charges were laid. Talk persisted on the street, so in 1994 the OPP conducted an investigation. No evidence was found and no charges were laid.

As you are well aware, Premier, a citizens’ committee went to work and collected evidence. They turned that evidence over to the OPP, and subsequently 115 charges were laid against 15 people. There are allegedly close to 50 victims. Some were as young as 12 years of age at the time, victims of some very terrible and horrific sexual assaults.

Premier, the people of Cornwall and the victims in particular and their families want justice in this matter. Your colleague Garry Guzzo has put forward the solution: Bill 103. He believes, as I believe, as this House believes, that we should hold a commission of inquiry. Garry Guzzo tells us the only reason we’re not moving forward on this is because you are blocking it. Premier, why do you feel that the people of Cornwall and the victims of this abuse are not entitled to justice?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Attorney General can respond to this.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): It is the opinion of counsel involved in the prosecution of the pending cases, and there may be further cases, that there would be potential prejudice to those court proceedings were some other proceeding, such as a commission of inquiry, to take place at this time. I said so in the Legislature some weeks ago when Bill 103 was debated.

As the Leader of the Opposition knows, there are prosecutions underway. There has been a very substantial commitment of resources by the Ontario Provincial Police through Project Truth. That investigation is for the most

part complete, although there may be other matters for the OPP, I’m advised, to look into, and there is the possibility of further charges.

Mr McGuinty: You’ll be very much aware of the precedents in Mount Cashel and Westray and even, in our province, in the case of Walkerton, all cases where independent inquiries were conducted at the same time as criminal investigations and proceedings were underway. What you’re offering is an excuse.

You must have seen the statement of claim that was issued against this government on behalf of 12 men who were victimized as boys, some as young as 12. The statement of claim describes the sexual assaults in sickening detail. They also tell us that their lives were devastated as a result.

Minister and Premier, this should not be a partisan issue. I think we all understand what is the right thing to do under these circumstances. Listen to your own colleague. I had the privilege of appearing before Judge Guzzo when he was sitting on the bench and I can tell you, regardless of what you may think of him, that he is a passionate defender of the interests of children. He has put forward a very important solution to this matter which hangs like a cloud over the community of Cornwall.

Minister, why is it that we can’t proceed with the passage of his bill? Why is it that we can’t proceed with a commission of inquiry into this matter which hangs over the community of Cornwall?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I’m sure the member opposite, who is a lawyer, knows that it would be inappropriate for us as a government to take action that would potentially interfere or prejudice or in some way jeopardize criminal prosecutions arising out of very serious events that are alleged to have taken place in the Cornwall area over the course of some years.

Very substantial police resources have been committed to this investigation for some years, and I’m sure the Leader of the Opposition would not wish to have any of that effort jeopardized by any steps being taken which would potentially interfere with the administration of justice, with the prosecution of persons who have been charged or may be charged arising out of these events.

In terms of other inquiries, as he knows or should know, the terms of reference, for example, in the Walkerton inquiry, provide for the potential of a criminal proceeding—

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

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you are continuing to make excuses. We can tailor this commission of inquiry so that it doesn’t in any way unduly prejudice any criminal investigations. That can all be done. It has been done in Newfoundland, it has been done in Nova Scotia and we’re doing it at this very time in our own province.

Mr Guzzo tells us that the government has vital evidence you won’t release. In his letter to you he says, “Why should our government feel that we could keep this type of evidence from ... any citizen of this province?” He goes on to add, “One might also ask why it is necessary for alleged victims, such as the ones in this most recent lawsuit, to be forced to go to the expense and the difficulty of bringing forward a claim such as this when the method suggested in Bill 103 would have been less cumbersome and less complicated and less expensive to the government as well as to the plaintiffs herein.”

My question is, why can’t we just end this cover-up? Why can’t we go ahead with a commission of inquiry, understanding that we can tailor it so it doesn’t unduly prejudice criminal investigations? Do we not owe that at a minimum to the victims and the people of Cornwall?

Hon Mr Flaherty: Just to be clear, there are no charges pending in the Walkerton situation. Were that to eventuate, that situation would have to be addressed by the commissioner pursuant to the terms of reference in the Walkerton inquiry.

The Leader of the Opposition suggests that I, as Attorney General, ignore the advice I’m getting from the crown prosecutors and those responsible for the administration of criminal justice in the crown’s office. I’m not going to do that. I accept their advice. I made it clear when I spoke to Bill 103 in this House precisely what the government’s position is, based on the criminal prosecutions that are ongoing, and that is in Hansard for the Leader of the Opposition to read. I’m sure the last thing the people in Cornwall want would be to have criminal prosecutions thrown out because of actions taken by politicians.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Through your changes to the Employment Standards Act, you are about to impose some dramatic changes in lifestyle for five million non-unionized Ontarians and their children. Tell me, why is it you are afraid to conduct public committee hearings looking into your bill?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): Previous to this bill being drafted, the Ministry of Labour and myself issued a white paper. The white paper was a very complete and comprehensive package that talked about exactly what would be in the legislation and asked for comments. Subsequent to releasing that—it was out for a month or two months—we then went on a tour and held public consultations in about six or seven cities and met with everyone who requested to be met with. We met with the unions, the labour leaders, the authorities, the legal clinics, with all of them.

As the culmination of that work, we drafted the Employment Standards Act, revised. We introduced it in this House with those comments that were put in.

As far as the public consultation process is concerned, it was also done two years ago by the then Minister of Labour, Elizabeth Witmer. On this public consultation process, we have been very open and very public, and very interested in hearing from the public. I think we’ve done a very good job of that.

Mr McGuinty: This Legislature has not had the opportunity to listen to people comment on your specific bill. Listen to what somebody said in this Legislature back in 1994 in the context of a debate on a labour bill:

“Opportunities for people like yourself to come forward and tell a government what you think about a piece of legislation weren’t there.

“What’s democratic about that? What’s fair about that? Why is it you say to me this is a fair process to go through, it’s equal and upfront, when people in this province don’t get a chance to tell you what they think? What is more fundamentally democratic than that?”

Do you know who said that? One Chris Stockwell. There was the grand lover of democratic principles, the man who was most righteous and indignant when he stood on this side of the House.

What happened, Minister? Why is it that you no longer hold the principles of democracy in such high regard?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Quite candidly, the piece of legislation the leader of the official opposition is talking about wasn’t canvassed like this bill was. We didn’t travel the province. We didn’t go to London, we didn’t go to Windsor, we didn’t go to Sudbury, we didn’t go to Thunder Bay, we didn’t go to Ottawa, we didn’t sit in Toronto, we didn’t go to Sarnia and we didn’t go to Oshawa. We didn’t go to those places when we were talking about that bill. With this bill, we did talk about it.

As far as the members opposite having the opportunity to sit in and hear these concerns, an invitation was given to all members of this House. The NDP took advantage of that on occasion. Your caucus didn’t. Don’t ask me to explain why they chose to ignore them, because the public certainly didn’t.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. We’re not going to have shouting across. The Minister of Labour has it.

Minister of Labour. Sorry.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Other than the member from Windsor-Essex, there wasn’t another Liberal who decided to show up.

All I can tell you is that we had the public hearings; we did our job. On the bill you speak about there wasn’t any public consultation. I see a very serious difference in the two.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, stop thrashing about. You drown faster when you do so much thrashing.

If you don’t want to listen to what you said in the past, if you won’t take your own advice, then listen to what one Michael Harris said back in 1994: “One of the fundamental rights of those who are affected by legislation is to have the matter referred to a committee and to have hearings so you can hear from those affected by it.”

Minister, do you know what I think? I think you are afraid to shine the light of day on your own bill. You’re afraid to take it around the province. You’re afraid to allow people inside this precinct to take a close look at your bill, which is going to mean longer hours and less pay. That’s what it’s all about. I think you’re afraid. You’re ashamed of your own bill. Prove me wrong, Minister. You prove me wrong and hold public committee hearings.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I don’t take a lot of advice from the member opposite, but I will take the advice on how not to drown so quickly, that’s for certain, because if there’s one guy who thrashes about and drowns, it’s got to be you.

Second, I’m not ashamed of this bill. I’m proud of this bill. I took—

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We need to hear. Minister of Labour.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I’m proud of this bill. Simply put, we carried this bill across the province to seven separate cities. I met with the union leaders, I met with the executives in that—

Interjections.

The Speaker: It’s getting toward the end of the week. I hate to do it but I’m going to have to start warning people. It is getting too noisy. I allow a little bit of it, but we get carried away, as usual. We push it a little bit too far. I’m going to start to warn people.

The Minister of Labour. Sorry.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Simply put, this bill was out in a white paper. We addressed these issues in seven or eight cities. We also went out after and discussed it in public forums. We talked about this bill.

I have no shame. This is a good piece of legislation—

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

Stop the clock. A point of privilege.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): On a point of privilege, Speaker: Just to correct the record, I did attend the hearings in Thunder Bay, although I was not invited.

The Speaker: This is not a point of privilege.

OVERTIME

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. If workers in Ontario weren’t already shocked by your new employment standards law, they will be today, when they learn you’re adding a further clause which would have the effect of locking them into a situation where they could not get overtime pay for overtime hours worked if they sign a document saying they agree to average their overtime.

This new clause would mean that a new worker, on his first day on the job, could be pressured into signing an agreement to average their overtime, and then later, when they realized they’re being screwed out of thousands of dollars of overtime pay, they would find out they can’t change anything with respect to that for two years. In other words, it locks them in for two years.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I could never justify that. That’s why it won’t happen.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Further to the Premier, I would suggest there’s maybe a lack of communication between you and the Minister of Labour, because that very clause is exactly what was in the list of amendments that were tabled with us, just this morning, I might add, and will become law within a matter of days. The fact of the matter is that according to your amendment, once such a document is signed it runs for up to two years, and the only way an employee can get out of this new formula that denies them overtime pay they otherwise would have been entitled to is if the employer agrees.

So the fact is they’re locked in for two years. We ask you again, Premier, how can you justify having workers sign off their right to overtime for up to two years and can only be let out of it if their employer agrees?

Hon Mr Harris: I think that’s a silly suggestion and we’re not going to follow it.

Mr Christopherson: We’ll see what happens at committee this afternoon. We’ve got the Hansard of the Premier’s remarks, and tomorrow may be a very different day in terms of the question and answer on that issue.

I want to ask you further about an amendment we proposed that’s going forward this afternoon. Basically it would have put into law all this protection that you and your Minister of Labour say people have in terms of saying no to 60 hours and no to averaging the overtime whereby they would lose the overtime. We put in a clause that explained very carefully that it would indeed be a violation of the law to coerce someone, and we spell out very specifically those areas where the coercion can take place.

I’m informed by the minister that you’ve chosen not to include that. Premier, my question to you is: how can you stand in this place and say that workers have the right to say no, and yet when it comes time to put it in the law, the only place it really matters, you refuse? How do you justify that?

Hon Mr Harris: I think if you show up at the committee hearing today the minister will explain the bill and how it works.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Premier. Your government today announced what is basically the ultimate demise of the Northlander train service in northeastern Ontario. You announced today a two-phase plan. The first

part is that you’re going to move on privatizing those money-making sections of the ONTC that helped to pay for services such as the Northlander.

In your press release you say you’re going to explore, under the second part of your plan, which is going to take place this spring, alternative delivery of the Northlander, the Little Bear and the Polar Bear Express rail services. Why don’t you admit it? You have already made up your mind that you’re going to get rid of the Northlander. Why don’t you, for once, stand up in this House and tell us exactly what you’re up to when it comes to the Northlander rail service, and stop playing games with the people of northeastern Ontario?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I’m sure the minister will want to respond and I will let him through supplementary questions, but let me say something that’s very different from the way you acted in government with transportation and the ONTC in northern Ontario than the way we acted. We allowed and approved a commission request to have a study, called the service improvement study, to see if we could improve the quality of service provided to the people of northeastern Ontario.

Let me tell you what your record is with the ONTC. In 1990 you reduced the subsidy of the ONTC from $22 million to $15.8 million. In 1994 you reduced the level of bus service, without providing any alternative, from Timmins to Chapleau and Wawa. These were cancelled, you said, to save money. Star Transfer, the trucking arm of the ONTC, was eliminated by the NDP in 1993 as a cost-saving measure. The new ferry was docked by the NDP in 1993 as a cost-saving measure. You cut the norOntair service to six communities as a cost-cutting measure.

What we have clearly indicated is we’re interested in improving service. We have committed—

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The Premier’s time is up.

Mr Bisson: Clearly, what the leader of the government was talking about was the Tory agenda. You’re the ones that got rid of the subsidies to the ONR. You’re the ones that got rid of norOntair across northeastern Ontario, where communities are now without any air service whatsoever. That’s the legacy of the Mike Harris government.

It’s exactly for those reasons that we’re saying to you, as northerners, you have to invest in the Northlander, you have to invest within the Ontario Northland, to make sure that it remains a viable service for people of northeastern Ontario.

Every government before you, including the NDP, had faith in the ONR, invested and made sure that those services were in place for people in northeastern Ontario. I’m asking you again, Premier: will you do the same, especially as a person who lives in North Bay, whose people work at that commission and who is supposed to represent northern Ontario?

Hon Mr Harris: I think you are aware that the minister made an announcement in North Bay today aimed at how we improve service to northern Ontario. Perhaps you could explain to me how the NDP government, going from $22 million in 1990 to $15.8 million in 1994, could slash and cut that money out of the ONTC budget. How did that improve services to northern Ontario? I wonder if you could tell me how reducing the level of bus service with no alternative from Timmins to Chapleau and Wawa helped the people of northern Ontario. I wonder if you could tell me how cutting out Star Transfer helped the people of northern Ontario. This was the record of your government.

We have clearly indicated that we are interested in improving service. To that extent, we have had a consultant give us advice. The minister reacted to that and responded. We are interested, not in saving money but in how we can improve service to those people in northern Ontario.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I have a question today for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. In regard to the ONTC, it was only 10 days ago that the commission had decided to divest most of the operating businesses that make up the commission. Twice in this House I’ve asked the minister to consult with the business and the municipal leaders of northeastern Ontario before he makes any decision about our telecommunications and transportation agency in the north.

On behalf of the residents of northern Ontario, I also asked the minister to release the consultant’s study and to make sure that he carries on some public hearings in the communities along the rail corridor. But today the minister has arbitrarily made the decision, two days before the chair of the ONTC was to meet with the northeastern mayors’ action group about this, to get rid of this agency, to divest most of the assets in it and basically to put a big hole in the economy of northeastern Ontario. Minister, why are you acting in this arbitrary manner and not talking to the people who are shareholders of this agency?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I’m very pleased to respond to the member from Timiskaming on his question. As members of this House well know, this issue has been studied time and time again. In fact, in my tenure as minister, this is the second study in 18 months, among seven or eight in the past few years alone. It’s time for action, to move forward, to help improve services in northeastern Ontario, whether that’s rail, bus, ferries or telecommunications.

In my 18 months as minister alone, I’ve had many conversations with mayors, with the union representatives, with the board members, with the member opposite himself. I’ll read you one of the lines from the consultations in the responses we’ve had: “I’ve proposed a casino in the train—snowmobile cars, and to really get back to the idea of providing ... a northern adventure. We have the mechanism here. It probably should be run by the private sector.” That’s from the member from Timiskaming before the cabinet committee, so we are pleased to take his advice in our recommendations brought forward today.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): To the same minister: as the minister would be aware, the Chi-Cheemaun service from Tobermory to South Baymouth is critical to the people I represent. In the ONTC announcement, the minister suggests this will be a spinoff corporation. I’m here to ask the minister a couple of things.

Seeing as the minister, without any advice from the people of Manitoulin or Tobermory or the Bruce Peninsula, saw fit to sell the Nindawayma, the second ship on that run, and seeing as the minister in his service improvement plan has not indicated in any way that the plan will actually improve services, would the minister commit to allowing the governance of this to have a large number of residents of the district of Manitoulin on the Owen Sound Transportation Commission board, and would the minister commit that all ferry services will be improved?

Hon Mr Hudak: That was the goal of this service improvement strategy: to look at the array of services and determine how we can improve the value customers are getting in that area. I think the member should be very pleased. The decision announced today was to separate the marine ferry services from the general corporation so it can specialize and be more independent and provide better services to the area. We’re going to have the Owen Sound Transportation Commission in the Owen Sound area. I’ve asked them to consult with residents of the area to determine how best to improve services, and to get local residents involved in making that a better service.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. When your colleague the Minister of Energy introduced Bill 35, the Energy Competition Act, he indicated there would be provision to ensure consumers had the option to choose green power suppliers. My constituents are asking me how they can help the environment by choosing cleaner forms of electricity. Can you please update me on what we can do to support cleaner air through our electricity suppliers?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I want to thank the member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale for the question. Indeed this government is supportive of alternative sources of energy that reduce overall emissions to the atmosphere. As you indicated in your question, Bill 35 facilitates the development of green power by requiring disclosure of generation sources to consumers. In addition, the Ministry of the Environment introduced a regulation that requires all electricity generators to monitor their emissions and report to the public on an ongoing basis on their environmental performance. This regulation has been in effect since May of this year.

We’re already reaping the benefits of these policies. Just today this government approved a declaration order to allow the development of two wind-powered turbines. This project is a partnership between the Toronto Renewable Energy Co-operative and Toronto Hydro, and I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the proponents for offering the citizens of the city of Toronto a green power alternative.

Mr Gill: Minister, does that mean you will not be conducting an environmental assessment of these kinds of wind-turbine projects, should one be proposed in my riding?

Hon Mr Newman: The ministry is currently evaluating these kinds of alternative energy sources on a case-by-case basis. In the case of this project, we felt that since the federal environmental review process had already been completed, and because it would have addressed the same concerns we would have looked at, conducting another environmental assessment would have caused undue duplication without providing any added environmental value. Based on the merits of the proposed wind turbine, such as reducing emissions of climate-change-causing greenhouse gases and smog, we felt the project deserved a green light.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues across the floor—the member for Toronto-Danforth and the member for Beaches-East York—for their support of the declaration order that will allow this very worthwhile project to go ahead. I’m very pleased, as this demonstrates once and for all that when partisan differences are set aside, the environment benefits.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. It has to do with the shooting death of Dudley George at Ipperwash Provincial Park. We believe there is a need for a full public inquiry. We’re concerned that with the passing of time, key files will go missing. It has already happened in one case, as you probably are aware, and the Solicitor General, when asked about it, acknowledged that indeed a key file did go missing. He said at the time, “Indeed we are concerned about the loss of these files in terms of our ability to retain very important and critical files.

I share your concern with respect to that. The current deputy has initiated a review of the retention policy.”

We sent you a letter today, Premier, asking that you issue a directive to your cabinet and to the public service ordering a retention of all files related to Ipperwash, pending a public inquiry. My question to you is, will you do that today? Will you issue to the cabinet and to the public service a directive ensuring that all files are retained, pending a public inquiry?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Sure.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate that answer. Just a couple of details on that then. Because it is of significant importance—frankly, we haven’t heard back on the investigation of the loss of those other files—will you give us a date when you will issue that, and will you assure us that that directive will be made public, Mr Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: I don’t know anything more public than the Legislature right here in the province of Ontario. So let me say to all who are looking and let me say to you that absolutely no files or any memos or anything at any time ought to be destroyed that may pertain to this. If this has occurred and you have an example of that, show us who is responsible and who is involved and we’ll take the appropriate action.

In the meantime, let me repeat that that has always been the direction of the government of Ontario and I’m happy to repeat that for you right here in the Legislature.

Mr Phillips: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I’m happy to table the evidence and to say that it was the Solicitor General who—

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): You can send it across. It is not a point of privilege, but you can send it across.

TIME LIMITS IN CIVIL DISPUTES

Mr John O’Toole (Durham): My question is to the Attorney General. Minister, I’ve dealt with numerous calls from my constituents in the riding of Durham, both plaintiffs and defendants, who have raised questions about unclear and unfair time limits to law, specifically civil lawsuits.

I would like to ask the Attorney General what the new legislation, the Limitations Act, will mean for Durham constituents, as well as all constituents of the province of Ontario, to settle civil disputes. How will this legislation strike a balance between the rights of plaintiffs and respondents in civil court proceedings?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for Durham for the question. The legislation, if it’s passed, will consolidate dozens of outdated and non-cohesive limitations legislation in Ontario into one clear, updated piece of legislation. It proposes two clear and fair time frames. In consulting widely with stakeholders, we have struck a balance, we believe, between reasonable discovery times, a reasonable time for a victim to launch a suit and the reasonable expectation of potential defendants to end uncertainties surrounding potential suits.

So, first of all, there’s a two-year basic limitation period, subject to the discoverability rule, and then a 15-year ultimate limitation period, with some significant exceptions relating to children, sexual assaults, persons with a disability and environmental matters.

Mr O’Toole: Thank you very much for that, Minister, because often my constituents, and I’m sure most Ontarians, find some of the legal procedures confusing and disconnected. I was pleased to hear there was a special emphasis on protecting minors, persons who may have difficulties bringing a claim, as well as victims of sexual assault.

I wonder if you could expand upon the specific special measures which have been launched to protect victims of sexual assault and specifically protecting children in the province of Ontario.

Hon Mr Flaherty: We are, of course, concerned with protecting the interests of vulnerable persons. As a general rule, the basic limitation period does not run while the person with the claim is unable to pursue it because he or she is a minor or incapable. The legislation does provide for the appointment of a litigation guardian to provide a mechanism for defendants to start the limitation period running, and there are certain safeguards regarding court process with respect to that issue.

There’s another important exception, and that is with respect to sexual assault at the hands of people who are in a position of trust to the victims. No alternate limitation period is proposed in those circumstances. This makes the strongest possible statement against this kind of sexual assault.

GIFTS FOR CHILDREN

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the Premier. I want to ask you about your generous offer to personally make sure that every child in Ontario gets a Christmas gift. Your phones have been ringing off the hook as desperate parents take you up on your offer. But you know what they’re discovering, Premier? You’ve built a Harris Claus into your Santa Claus offer.

Get this: parents who call for a gift are subjected to a screening interview to make sure their kids won’t get one other gift from any other possible source. Your Harris Claus offer puts children through as rigorous a screening process as your welfare program.

Premier, I’ve heard of Santa Claus checking his list twice, but for you to be doing this is ridiculous. What’s next, Premier? Are you going to start warning Ontario’s poor children that if they get two gifts this Christmas, they’ll be cut off your Santa Claus list forever?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The whole area of kids, of any kid in Ontario not getting a toy at Christmastime bothered me. So I did offer to use my office, to use the Office of the Premier of Ontario, to use my name with whatever influence we could to ensure that did not happen.

I would encourage all members of the Legislature to join in that offer to the best of our ability. We have had a number of calls. We have been able to refer them to appropriate agencies.

I can tell you there have been a number of private sector companies, which is consistent with the philosophy of Ontario’s Promise, Zellers, Wal-Mart, Canadian Tire, which already run successful toy drives, a number of media outlets, both newspapers and radio stations, television stations.

Ms Churley: More downloading, Premier. Premier, you should call the North Pole and get some advice from the real Santa Claus. You see, he can tell you what it’s really like.

Get this, Premier: not only do parents face this screening interview under your offer, but they won’t even really receive the gift from you. As you’ve just said, your office is simply referring parents to charitable and volunteer organizations that are already snowed under with so many gift requests this Christmas that they can’t meet them all.

You’re a fake Santa Claus, Premier. You’re ripping the gift tags off gifts raised through the efforts of volunteer firefighters and charitable agencies that have been raising money for months to help out. You’re falsely advertising that these gifts come from you.

It’s a ho-ho-hoax, Premier. Many of those organizations are already suffering from the cutbacks your government has inflicted on them during your time in office. These groups have been left holding the bag while you’re playing Scrooge. Now you want to take credit for their efforts.

I’ve got some advice for you, Premier. If you so badly want to play Santa Claus, why don’t you raise the minimum wage and raise welfare rates so parents have the dignity of going out and buying gifts for their—

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member’s time is up. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Certainly no government in recent history in Ontario has done more to give people the dignity of a job than has this government.

In fact, we heard yesterday where 250,000 children dependent upon welfare under your government are no longer dependent upon welfare in the province. This is a record of accomplishment unparalleled and, I might add, being pointed to across Canada, indeed in North America, the record of success of ending that dependency. Poverty, as you know, is down. The United Nations says that. Olivia Chow says that.

In spite of all that, I have to say to the member that there still exists, as shameful as it may seem in this prosperous province, the possibility that there is a child who will wake up on Christmas morning without even a toy. I would like your assistance, and the assistance of all members of the Legislature, to respond, as many agencies and private sector companies have responded—

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The Premier’s time is up. If we could stop the clock here for just a moment.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just in case he has to leave, in the members’ gallery east we have the former member Mr Jack Carroll, from Chatham-Kent, a member of the 36th Parliament.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. I want to read to you clause 36(3)(h.1) from your privacy bill. It says, “A health information custodian may disclose personal health information ... to the Attorney General, if the custodian believes that the disclosure would assist in determining whether a proceeding should be commenced under the Remedies for Organized Crime and Other Unlawful Activities Act....”

Minister, you have said that you will take that clause out of your bill and you claimed it was a drafting error. It was not a drafting error. In my meeting with your legal advisers earlier this week it was made clear that this clause was in your bill because the Attorney General wanted it there.

Your office has now said that the clause isn’t needed because it duplicates what is in the Attorney General’s own bill. In other words, the Attorney General is giving himself the power to look at confidential health information and there is nothing in your bill to stop him. The Attorney General keeps referring to

section 6 of your bill to try and create a smokescreen so that he can get exactly what he has wanted all along, which is access to the confidential health records that you’re entrusted to hold.

Yesterday, Dalton McGuinty asked you what protections were in your bill that would prevent the Attorney General from getting confidential health records that are in your keeping. You sloughed off the question because you know there are no protections in your bill. So today I will ask you, what protections are you prepared to put into your bill to make sure that the Attorney General has no legal right to get private health records on suspicion alone?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): This is unbelievable, and I’m going to refer it to the Attorney General to answer.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I suppose what I should do, since this has been explained in the House I think three times now, is offer to the member, if you’d like to come and meet with counsel in the Ministry of the Attorney General who will explain the bills to you, you’re welcome to come over to the ministry at 720 Bay Street. I will arrange the appointment for you. They will explain it to you.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Health. I would be pleased to debate with the Attorney General on any occasion the fact that the issue he is raising is totally irrelevant because of the content of his own bill.

I say to the Minister of Health again, the fact is that your so-called health privacy bill, the one that you have tabled, is so wide open that it could be called the access to records bill. It doesn’t matter what smokescreen the Attorney General puts up, because the protections that your bill is supposed to offer can be stripped away by any other act of this Legislature, including the bill that has been tabled by the Attorney General.

Minister, you know that in your bill the Ontario Disability Support Program Act takes precedence over health privacy provisions. The Ontario Works Act takes precedence over health privacy.

Section 11 of your bill goes so far as to say, “In the event of a conflict ... in this act respecting confidentiality and one in any other act, this act ... ” takes precedence “unless this act or the other act specifically provides otherwise”—some other act such as the Attorney General’s bill.

Minister, there’s no protection here at all. Your officials told me they basically put into this bill whatever people thought they needed, and we’re supposed to decide what stays and what goes.

What I tell you today is that what we need is a new act that truly is a health privacy act. I ask: will you withdraw this bill and give us a new one that actually protects the privacy of confidential health records?

Hon Mr Flaherty: With the greatest respect to the member opposite, I rather doubt that any drafters of legislation would have said to you they would throw anything into a bill that they thought might be appropriate. I rather doubt that accurately reflects that discussion.

Having said that, it’s quite clear from

section 6 of Bill 159 what personal health information is protected. If the member doesn’t understand that, is confused about it, or any other members of her caucus are confused about it, I welcome them to come and meet with the legislative drafters, with counsel informed on the issue, who will explain it to them.

OVERTIME

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Minister of Labour. First of all, I think all would agree that labour issues are fairly intense in my riding of Oshawa, as they are for a lot of other members. After seeing the amendments this morning and hearing the comments and concerns from the third party, I’d like the Minister of Labour to maybe bring some clarification to this question regarding the overtime averaging for the two-year period. Minister, if you could answer that question for us?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): The allegations made across the floor are absurd. The absurdity is that you’re suggesting that somehow an employee would have to agree to overtime averaging for two years and they’d have no way of getting out or agreeing to anything else but. That’s absurd, absolutely absurd.

What the legislation says is that there needs to be a time limit on how long these agreements can run. What we said in the legislation is that they can run no longer than two years, but the employee can sign for any duration they like. If they want to sign for one month, they can sign for one month. If they want to sign for four months, they can sign for four months. It is completely up to the employee how long they determine they want to average their overtime.

Under the old system that the NDP ran, they would issue a permit and the permit would average overtime forever. You could never get it back. We are saying that’s not a good system. They need controls and abilities to govern their workweek. What we are saying is that they are best to make that decision, not the NDP.

Mr Ouellette: Before I go any further, I’d like to thank the minister personally for coming to the riding of Oshawa and giving the opportunity to answer the direct concerns and questions of my constituents and all those people who work in the labour force out there.

As well, the members of the third party brought forward some questions regarding the amendments they had put forward. Having seen those amendments, I wonder if you might give us some clarification on what is right and what is wrong in regard to their amendments.

Hon Mr Stockwell: The problem with the NDP amendment is that it is so restrictive and penalizes the employees to such a high degree that we in this caucus said, “We can’t do that to the workers of Ontario. We can’t restrict them to simply three issues that they would have to get the signature on.” This legislation allows employees a broad opportunity on everything in the Employment Standards Act. They get to make a decision on how their workweek works, and they get to make that decision on the context of the entire bill.

My poor friend from Hamilton over there would rather see workers only be allowed to make decisions on three issues that affect their workplace. I think that is shocking and absurd and I would not stand for that.

SCHOOLTEACHERS

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I want to ask today a question of the Minister of Education. The question is about the mess you’ve got in schools. You’ve got another lockout taking place in Sudbury. You’ve got a situation where parents send their kids to school and they don’t know any longer whether or not there’s a qualified teacher dealing with their kids. In fact, as memos from the Toronto District School Board show, parents are no longer even assured that the teacher to whom they entrust their kids’ education has had a criminal background check, has been qualified by anyone as being capable to stand at the front of the classroom.

On Thursday, Minister, I gave you a lot of notice to tell us how many unqualified teachers you are sending into the classroom. Your ministry has to approve them, and yet neither you nor your ministry will tell us how often you’re doing it in this poisoned atmosphere, where you’re scaring people out of the province who don’t want to teach here any more, where new graduates are in record numbers not teaching in this province. Tell us, how many unqualified people are you foisting on young people in this province?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): If the honourable member has concerns about the hiring practices of any school board, he should take those up with the school board. As the newly elected chair of the Toronto District School Board said very recently, Ontario, as is the rest of Canada, is facing what is a worldwide problem in the teaching profession. Even the College of Teachers said recently that the near-retirement age group continues at historic high numbers. That is a challenge. We are working with the College of Teachers and the teachers’ federation.

It is a priority for them, as it is for this government. We’ve taken significant steps, and will continue to do that, to assist school boards in having teachers standing in front of our classrooms who can do the job that we all expect them to do.

I think the honourable member would want to help support school boards in doing this rather than standing up and scaring the heck out of parents that somehow or other there are people who are threatening their kids in classrooms. That is not true. The honourable member should know that.

Mr Kennedy: If you want to reassure people, then be the Minister of Education. Act under the Education Act and tell us how many people you, as the minister, and your ministry have put into the schools around this province with a letter of permission that acknowledges your failure as the minister to attract and keep qualified teachers in this province, your failure to make sure there’s an environment where children can learn positively.

Minister, this is your fourth opportunity in the last week of the Legislature to tell us very simply—you want to assure parents; you don’t want to be scaremongering—how many letters of permission you have given out from your ministry, because otherwise you’ve simply got your head stuck in the sand and you’re trying to ignore a problem for which you are responsible.

Hon Mrs Ecker: As the honourable member knows, of course the ministry has all kinds of data about what’s happening in the school system. If he had only asked in a legitimate fashion, perhaps we could have provided a full briefing for him so he would have recognized that letters of permission are not an unusual process. It is a flexibility mechanism that was in place when his government was in power and when the NDP were in power. For example, last year we issued 801 letters of permission, but do you know what? When the NDP were in power, they issued over 2,000; when the Liberals were in power, they issued over 1,400 letters of permission.

I think the honourable member might wish to check the research once in a while before he tries to tell parents that school boards are not exercising their responsibilities. They take them very seriously. I expect them to and parents expect them to. Even the chair of the Toronto school board, who certainly is not a fan of this government, acknowledged very clearly that the board is doing what it needs to do to make sure the classrooms are safe and that we all need to work together to solve what is a worldwide—

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

SNOWMOBILE SAFETY

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. A lot of us here in Ontario are pretty excited to see all this great snow. Certainly in my riding of Guelph-Wellington, and particularly in Guelph-Eramosa, people are already out enjoying it. We’ve got about two feet and we can hear snowmobiles buzzing around at night. People are having fun and enjoying our winter.

Across Ontario, people use snowmobiles for hunting and they use them for travel, trapping and angling. They are exciting vehicles and lots of fun, but they are not toys. I think all of us can think of some terrible accidents that have occurred in our ridings while people were out on their snowmobiles, and it is a serious problem that requires our attention. Would you outline for members of the House and for my own riding constituents in Guelph-Wellington what our government is doing to promote and ensure snowmobile safety?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): I thank my colleague the member for Guelph-Wellington for this important question at this time of the year. Of course any fatality on snowmobiles is a tragedy. MTO is continuing to do a great deal about snowmobile safety. This year we’re flowing $60,000 to the Ontario Snowmobile Safety Committee. As well as that, we are working with them and the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs to promote safe and responsible snowmobile activities.

The Ontario Snowmobile Safety Committee’s public education activities this year include television and radio public service announcements, awareness activities, and distribution of educational material, with particular reference to ice thickness cards and brochures on the important issues of safety. The Ontario Snowmobile Safety Committee is also providing night riding and riding on ice information.

Mrs Elliott: I’m glad to see we’re taking this seriously, but there is always room to do more. We have a bill before the House, Bill 101, the Motorized Snow Vehicles Amendment Act, and I understand this will be going before the committee on general government shortly. What in this bill specifically will improve snowmobile safety?

Hon Mr Turnbull: MTO is certainly committed to implementing safety enforcement and enhancement through Bill 101. The changes include helmets that must be worn both on and off the trails and that meet motorcycle standards; lights must be used both on and off trails; reflective material for trailers towing snowmobiles; driving while the licence is suspended will now create a special offence and a penalty for driving the snowmobile without a driver’s licence; and we are giving new provisions to help the police enforce safety.

BERNARDO FILM

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Your government claims to care about victims of violent crime. You will know that an American film company proposes to come to Toronto to make a movie about Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka and the young women who were raped and murdered by Bernardo and Homolka. I’ve asked your Attorney General and your Minister of Culture to guarantee that no Ontario government building, no courthouse, no Ontario government facility will be made available for the making of this movie and to ensure that no taxpayers’ money from the government of Ontario will go toward the financing of this movie.

Your Minister of Culture and your Attorney General say that there is nothing they can do. Premier, I’ve watched your government close hospitals, I’ve watched your government threaten school boards, all in furtherance of your agenda. How is it then, when it comes to protecting the victims who are still hurting from these horrendous crimes, that your government now, suddenly, can’t do anything?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The Attorney General did not say we can’t do anything. In fact, the Chair of Management Board has issued a directive to the ORC that no government buildings will be used for any film that has anything to do with Paul Bernardo. That has already been done. So I can assure you that there will certainly not be any co-operation from this government, because I think all members of the Legislature have indicated our abhorrence with this crime and any profiting from this crime by way of a movie, particularly at this time.

I think the Attorney General expressed from a legal point of view what legally we can do and cannot do to prevent such a film from taking place, either in the province of Ontario or anywhere else around the world for that matter. But there are things that we can do, and we are doing everything we can to express our concern, including not making any government facilities available.

Mr Hampton: Premier, I’m glad you clarified some of the remarks made by your Minister of Culture, but I want you to address one further issue. The other issue I raised is that no Ontario film and television tax credits be made available to this company, that no one should be profiting in this province or in this city as a result of those horrendous crimes and no one should get taxpayers’ money to make this kind of film.

I’m asking you—and we know that the budget bill is still before the House—to put a simple amendment into the budget bill before it is next dealt with by this Legislature that will ensure that this movie company will not receive any Ontario tax credits, any Ontario taxpayer money, to finance the making of this film. We can, by unanimous consent, deal with that amendment here now, today or before the House rises for Christmas. That will ensure that no taxpayers’ money is used. That will ensure that your government does show some respect for those victims. I’m asking that commitment from you, Premier.

Will you agree to that amendment to the budget bill which is still before the House, which already contains clauses dealing with the film and television tax credit? We can amend it before the House rises to ensure that no taxpayers’ money is used. Will you do that, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: I’m prepared to look at anything that makes sense and is constitutional. I have received preliminary indication that we cannot and that bill is not amendable in that way. You say “this company”—we don’t know which company; we don’t know who. There have been rumours that everybody is responding to, and I think it’s maybe appropriate that we send a signal out for anybody, anywhere, at any time in the future who may be considering this movie and how they may or may not proceed, particularly in the province of Ontario.

Ultimately, all films that are considered for a credit first of all must be completed before they are considered for the tax credit, so it is difficult sometimes to prejudge. On the other hand, the guidelines say that to be considered they must not violate public policy. Such violations include inciting hatred against—

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

MANDATORY DRUG TESTING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. As you may know, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, the leading addiction counselling agency in this country, recently came out very strongly opposed to your mandatory drug testing and treatment for people on social assistance. They made it very clear that such an approach would perpetrate a stigma associated with poverty and addiction and may lead to detrimental individual and social consequences. They want to get your ear on this, Minister.

They also have some suggestions for how you may approach this. Some of their recommendations are that you should be looking at having existing caseworkers in the welfare system trained to appropriately screen and identify people with addictions and mental health problems. They have asked you to provide adequate housing, child care and vocational supports. They also say you should direct the resources designated for this mandatory testing to expanding the capacity of the current treatment system.

Minister, this is an agency you should be listening to. I trust that you will. I’d like to ask you today whether you will withdraw your plans to go forward with mandatory drug testing, listen to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and take another approach that would be far more sensitive to the needs of people.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): The answer is no. We are always prepared to listen to groups who provide support to vulnerable people in our community. I have, over the last week, had the opportunity to meet with more than four or five drug addiction treatment professionals. I had the opportunity last evening to visit one clinic here in the city of Toronto and talk to people who had in the past been drug addicts.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Baird: I answered the question very clearly at the outset: no.

The question the member opposite asked was, will we listen? You bet we’ll listen. We’ll listen on how we can provide supports, on how we can provide training to our caseworkers, on how we can provide supports to people to allow them to obtain addiction treatment. The one thing we will not do is give up. The one thing we will not do is turn our backs on people who obviously need our help. We’re committed to providing people with the tools to get their lives back on track.

One thing that is clear is that the Liberal Party opposes all of our welfare reforms. They oppose work for welfare; they oppose our efforts to combat welfare fraud; they oppose our efforts to provide a hand up through mandatory drug treatment, through mandatory literacy programs. They oppose all of our welfare programs, but we will continue to work hard to try to provide people the dignity that comes with a job.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature and it concerns northerners demanding that the Harris government eliminate health care apartheid.

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

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

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

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

“Whereas we support the efforts of the newly formed OSECC (Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care), founded by Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario, Northeast Region, to correct this injustice against northerners travelling for cancer treatment;

“Therefore,

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

This is another 1,000 of the 60,000 we will be presenting to the Legislature; 30,000 more will be presented next week. I sign this and give it to Andrew to bring to the table because I am in complete agreement with it.

GREEN ENERGY

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

“Whereas Ontario needs a green energy policy to protect the environment, improve health and strengthen the economy;

“Whereas the introduction of electricity sector competition in 2000 provides an excellent opportunity to implement a green energy policy;

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

“That the Premier and the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology implement renewable energy quotas for all electricity suppliers; labelling of key fossil and nuclear station pollutants on electricity bills; a fee on electricity sales toward energy conservation and efficiency programs; strict mandatory caps on all fossil-generating stations and all electricity imports; permanent shutdown of the Pickering A and Bruce A nuclear plants; and no stranded nuclear debt bailout for Ontario Power Generation, formerly Ontario Hydro.”

This has been sent to me by Irene Kock of the Nuclear Awareness Project and it’s signed by hundreds of individuals in the GTA.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mr John O’Toole (Durham): Speaker, a small

preamble, with your indulgence. This may be the last time I have to read this petition on Bill 99, because it will be debated tomorrow and hopefully it will be passed.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there are many Ontarians who have a passion for perfection in the restoration of vintage vehicles; and

“Whereas unlike many other jurisdictions, Ontario vintage automobile enthusiasts are unable to register their vehicles using the original year of manufacture licence plates; and

“Whereas Durham MPP John R. O’Toole and former MPP John Parker have worked together to recognize the desire of vintage car collectors to register their vehicles using the year of manufacturing plates; and

“Whereas the Honourable David Turnbull as Minister of Transportation has the power to change the existing regulation;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to pass Bill 99, amending the Highway Traffic Act to allow vintage auto enthusiasts to register their vehicles using year of manufacturing plates.”

I am pleased to give this to my page, Jared, who is from the riding of Durham, who will bring those to the table. Thank you for your service to the Legislature, Jared.

INTENSIVE LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned residents of the county of Prince Edward, petition the government of Ontario expressing our concerns relating to the uncontrolled spread of intensive livestock operations and the field application of liquid manure which poses a profound threat to our water, both ground and surface, to our air and to our quality of life; and

“Whereas under the existing laws of the province of Ontario there are no adequate controls directing the operation of such industrial farming operations; and

“Whereas municipal bylaws are inadequate or non-existent and therefore controls should be exercised at the provincial level; and

“Whereas the Ontario Environmental Commissioner recognizes in his recent report the potential for serious pollution of both our air and water from these operations;

“Now therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislative Assembly to expedite the passing of legislation to meaningfully regulate the operation of intensive livestock operations and the spreading of manure therefrom, and to distinguish such industrial operations from traditional farming practices and to recognize that the adverse effects of industrial livestock operations are widespread and have a deleterious effect on our environment.”

I am pleased to add my signature to this petition.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there are many Ontarians who have a passion for perfection in the restoration of vintage vehicles; and

“Whereas unlike many other jurisdictions, Ontario vintage automobile enthusiasts are unable to register their vehicles using the original year of manufacture licence plates; and

“Whereas Durham MPP John R. O’Toole and former MPP John Parker have worked together to recognize the desire of vintage car collectors to register their vehicles using vintage plates; and

“Whereas the Honourable David Turnbull as Minister of Transportation has the power to change the existing regulation;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to pass Bill 99 or to amend the Highway Traffic Act to be used on vintage automobiles.”

I support this petition wholeheartedly.

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I have a petition about a very good bill that will be debated tomorrow.

“Whereas charities such as the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada, Goodfellows, the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, firefighters and many others participate in fundraisers on streets, sidewalks and parking lots;

“Whereas the Safe Streets Act, 1999, effectively bans these types of activities, putting police forces in the position of ignoring the law or hindering legitimate charities; and

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

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

“We ask that the government of Ontario amend provincial legislation by passing Bill 64, the Safe Streets Amendment Act, 2000, to allow charitable organizations to conduct fundraising campaigns on roadways, sidewalks and parking lots.”

I am in total support of this petition and sign it, and I give it to Heather to deliver to the table.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition regarding this government’s ongoing discrimination against northern cancer patients. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

“Whereas we support the efforts of the newly formed OSECC (Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care), founded by Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario, Northeast Region, to correct this injustice against northerners travelling for cancer treatment;

“Therefore,

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

This has been signed by hundreds of residents of North Bay, the Premier’s own riding. I would like to thank Gerry Lougheed Jr for all his work on this. I affix my signature to it.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I have petitions here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas there are many Ontarians who have a passion for perfection in the restoration of vintage vehicles; and

“Whereas unlike many other jurisdictions, Ontario vintage automobile enthusiasts are unable to register their vehicles using the original year of manufacture licence plates; and

“Whereas Durham MPP John R. O’Toole”—known by other names—“and former MPP John Parker have worked together to recognize the desire of vintage car collectors to register their vehicles using vintage plates; and

“Whereas the Honourable David Turnbull as Minister of Transportation has the power to change the existing regulation;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to pass Bill 99 or to amend the Highway Traffic Act to be used on vintage automobiles.”

I’m pleased to submit this to the Legislature on behalf of the constituents of Mr O’Toole in Durham county.

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a petition here as well on a matter that will be debated in this House tomorrow, when we’ll be debating Bill 64 put forward by the member from Essex. It deals with the Safe Streets Amendment Act. I’ll read it to you because it has been signed by a number of people both in my riding and in the riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. It states as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas charities such as the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada, Goodfellows, the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, firefighters and many others participate in fundraisers on streets, sidewalks and parking lots;

“Whereas the Safe Streets Act, 1999, effectively bans these types of activities, putting police forces in the position of ignoring the law or hindering legitimate charities; and

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

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

“We ask that the government of Ontario amend provincial legislation by passing Bill 64, the Safe Streets Amendment Act, 2000, to allow charitable organizations to conduct fundraising campaigns on roadways, sidewalks and parking lots.”

It’s signed by about 20 individuals, and I agree with it so I’ve signed it as well. I’m handing it to Tim here, our page.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have petitions forwarded to me by UAW local 251 in Wallaceburg, and the petitions read as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the proposed changes to the Employment Standards Act would take us back to the standards of the late 1800s; and

“Whereas most jurisdictions in the world are reducing the level of overtime required; and

“Whereas these changes would allow companies to force overtime up to 60 hours per week; and

“Whereas the proposed changes will allow companies the right to average overtime over three weeks to escape paying the appropriate level of overtime pay;

“Therefore, we, the undersigned, demand that the Ontario government implement the following improvements to the Employment Standards Act:

“Tough, proactive policing of standards.

“A living wage to ensure no one lives in poverty.

“Overtime pay after an eight-hour day, 40-hour week.

“Three weeks’ vacation after five years of service.

“More paid holidays.

“Paid breaks. We need a guarantee of rest breaks in each half-shift;

“Above all, we’re calling for the right of all non-union workers to vote to join a union.”

I’m proud to add my name to those of these petitioners.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mr John O’Toole (Durham): Mr Speaker, with your permission I’d like to take a moment to introduce Mr Peter Minnis, who is a teacher at Clarke High School in my riding, and his OAC students who are attending in the visitors’ gallery.

I will also read a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Hopefully, this will be the last time, as this will be part of the business tomorrow.

“Whereas there are many Ontarians who have a passion for perfection in the restoration of vintage vehicles; and

“Whereas unlike many other jurisdictions, Ontario vintage automobile enthusiasts are unable to register their vehicles using the original year of manufacture licence plates; and

“Whereas Durham MPP John R. O’Toole and former MPP John Parker have worked together to recognize the desire of vintage car collectors to register their vehicles using vintage plates; and

“Whereas the Honourable David Turnbull as Minister of Transportation has the power to change the existing regulation;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to pass Bill 99 or to amend the Highway Traffic Act” to allow vintage auto enthusiasts to use year of manufacturing plates to register their vintage vehicles.

I’m pleased to present this to Geoff, one of my favourite pages here at the Legislature at this Christmas time of year, and it’s my bill as well.

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I have petitions signed by constituents from Timmins-James Bay, Prescott-Russell, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, Huron-Bruce, Leeds-Grenville and Thunder Bay-Atikokan. It reads:

“Whereas charities such as the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada, Goodfellows, the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, firefighters and many others participate in fundraisers on streets, sidewalks and parking lots; and

“Whereas the Safe Streets Act, 1999, effectively bans these types of activities, putting police forces in the position of ignoring the law or hindering legitimate charities; and

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

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

“We ask that the government of Ontario amend provincial legislation by passing Bill 64, the Safe Streets Amendment Act, 2000”—standing in the name of Mr Crozier—“to allow charitable organizations to conduct fundraising campaigns on roadways, sidewalks and parking lots.”

In support of this petition, I add my signature and give it to Rose to take to the Clerk’s desk.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): That completes the time allocated for petitions. I would just like to remind members that we’re taking a little bit of liberty with the standing orders, editorializing a little bit too much on petitions. In the future, we may want not to do that.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to call orders 11 to 23, inclusive, so that they may be moved and debated simultaneously.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Klees has requested unanimous consent. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Klees: I move concurrence in supply for the following ministries and offices:

Ministry of the Environment

Ministry of Education and Training

Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and its supplementaries

Ministry of Community and Social Services

Ministry of Tourism

Ministry of Labour

Management Board Secretariat

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Ministry of the Attorney General

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines

Ministry of the Solicitor General

Ministry of Correctional Services

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Klees has moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Education and Training, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care—

Interjections: Dispense.

The Deputy Speaker: Dispense. Debate?

Mr John O’Toole (Durham): It’s a real pleasure to be asked to debate at this particular time of year. I hope all party members are able to express thanks to their constituents and to make positive comments about what is actually happening at this time of year. For all people, I want to put on the record that I extend season’s greetings and best wishes for a safe, happy and family-oriented, prosperous Christmas and/or Hanukkah and other times being celebrated by all different faiths that make up this wonderful province of Ontario.

In concurrences and in debates with respect to that, I will not be specifically commenting on the minister’s budget allocations, which basically permit ministries to pay sums of money that have been allocated within their budgets. That in itself is somewhat dry. I think there will be liberty by members on all sides of the House this afternoon to bring to the attention of this House, as well as to the people of Ontario, initiatives in their ridings that in some respects are relevant to the debate.

The very first thing I did today was to comment to the press about an event happening in my riding under the auspices of the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. There was a debate in the riding. In fact, the ministries were there meeting with the people and dealing with the very important issues. The citizens’ group was known as the Protect the Ridges group. That group was getting explained to them the details of the spreading of paper sludge from Atlantic Packaging on farmland.

This is an ongoing study before my constituents and it affects a great part of the riding of Durham. This study is to report to them where the findings are at this point, midway in that study. You might say the Ministry of the Environment is working—and I could mention Debbie Vice, who has been the leader of Protect the Ridges, and I noticed other members there such as Tony Pratt, another very well informed citizen. I know that there were other members of the riding of Durham there listening. Representing the Ministry of the Environment was David Beach, the York district office person who was on the scene.

Thinking through things that have happened recently in my riding, I don’t want to go on too much here, but in the limited time I have I will mention a couple of important highlights. Last night on the way home from the Legislature, I had been invited to attend the annual recognition dinner for the local sea cadet corps. Mr Ray Abernathy, who, by the way, has served 20 years voluntarily for that organization, was being recognized as part of that community event.

So I publicly say that I was late getting there, but I did get to the event and said thank you to Ray Abernathy and to others who are a great inspiration and leadership for the youth in the riding of Durham. Again, I thank them for that. It was a very optimistic event made up of families: Mr and Mrs Harold St Croix; I met them. They are constituents of mine who have been involved in a number of things. I think of my riding and it’s a real privilege to be here speaking and, in some respects, representing my constituents. That’s a very important part of this job that I take very seriously.

If I move back to earlier in the week, I was very fortunate to be invited, almost a week ago now, on behalf of the Honourable Cam Jackson, whose tourism ministry is in concurrence here, to present a cheque to the Bowmanville Zoo. That cheque was being presented—I think the amount was $7,500—as part of the tourism partnership program. The Bowmanville Zoo is one of the oldest privately operated zoos in Ontario, if not Canada. It also puts out an important kind of recognition of Christmas: the animals of Christmas and what they bring to the season. I think it’s important to recognize that.

I also think of the other things going on within the riding. I want to thank people like Garth Gilpin, who put on the tree-lighting ceremony in downtown Bowmanville a couple of weeks ago. I want to thank the members of the BIAA, not just in Bowmanville, but all of the merchants in Bowmanville, Newcastle, Port Perry and Orono. I think of many of those volunteers that make the downtown so at festive this time of year. Those are just some of the glancing highlights I can recall that have happened in the last several days that are worth mentioning, not just respectfully about my riding, but I’m certain are happening throughout the communities that make up this great province.

I think back in government terms of what’s actually happening. I think that even today and yesterday in the House there were questions, and one of the ministries on concurrence here is the Ministry of Health, which brought in the initiative on health privacy. That is the whole issue of the ability to collect, use and disclose personal health information. People would know that for perhaps the last 10 years or so, there have been discussions on that, everything from mental health to other areas.

Interjection.

Mr O’Toole: I was just wondering if perhaps the members next to me could move somewhere else so I don’t have to hear them talking while I’m trying to speak. I think that—

Interjection.

Mr O’Toole: No, no, it does interfere, it does interrupt. I hope I’m not being rude, but it was interrupting.

On that health privacy information issue that I was just speaking of, Elizabeth Witmer, as you know, has had three different consultations since, I believe, 1995 on that issue and it is controversial, there’s no question about it. Mr Phillips is certainly here listening and he would say that people in Scarborough-Agincourt take the protection of their personal health information very seriously. I know our minister recognizes that. Yet, if you look at the reality today, there is exchange going on between doctors and long-term care facilities, between labs and pharmacies etc, and it would be wrong to assume that this information is totally secure today.

All we’re doing is moving toward more demands in the health care system and the need to transfer information reliably and securely. These are the very fundamental issues that we’re dealing with. I think that often the questions in question period don’t help the people of Ontario realize that it’s incumbent on the government, whichever government, of every stripe, to take steps to ensure that privacy, above all, is respected with regard to health care—and for that matter, all information.

If you want, you can expand that just one step to the whole issue of privacy in the electronic environment, in commercial transactions. During this time of year we pass our credit cards out rather liberally in some cases, and we all know that today there is a certain amount of fraud in that whole area. It’s incumbent on the government to protect consumers, whether that’s a health consumer or just a consumer in the commercial marketplace.

So that’s something that’s going on and is extremely important. We have heard questions recently about another ministry here that’s under these concurrence discussion, and that is education. I believe the Ministry of Education has had a very difficult time to ensure that we focus on the students in the classroom. All of the other things we could talk about have arguably been talked about since I was a trustee in the early 1980s. I think we can focus on the students and quality in the classroom, and I guess I publicly realize that teachers—as I say, my wife, and my middle daughter is a new high school teacher. I know it’s difficult.

We, as taxpayers and as legislators, must make sure we put the resources in the classroom. I want to be on the record as saying that anything I can personally do to be positive and supportive of front-line teachers—as the EIC report that was issued just a couple of weeks ago said, we’ve got to sort out this difference of view and difference of ideology, if you will, between the teachers’ unions on the one side and the government on the other side.

I, as a member of this government, would like to be on the record as saying that if there’s anything I can do to improve the respect and respectful relationships—I didn’t say we’d always disagree, but we should show respect and appreciation for one another. That would be another statement I would like to have on the record this afternoon.

I really think Minister Eves in his economic outlook, his balanced-budget kind of comment here—I believe it was last week—stressed how important the fundamentals are, the importance for all members of the House to recognize that without a strong economy, many of the things we’re doing, the additional money, some $23 billion in health care—I may speak at some length about what that’s doing in our riding—are all about having the economic fundamentals.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt may want to mention this, as he’s a critic for the opposition in that area, and I have a lot of respect for that. The most important thing is to look at the over 800,000 net new jobs that have been created, not by the government but by creating the right environment. There’ll be those who argue it’s an export-based drive and recovery, but that to me is not the most important issue. Being competitive in the global economy is absolutely fundamental.

That competitiveness starts, as Jean Chrétien said at Duke University just last week, and Ontario is an example, with federal and provincial tax rates that put us at a very definite competitive advantage. It was the Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, who said that at Duke University. So he’s beginning to recognize—while at the same time there would be those who argue against tax cuts—that our basic mantra for some time was, “Tax cuts create jobs.” I think there is a relationship between cutting taxes and creating jobs.

It’s economic investment that we should be measuring and holding the private sector accountable for. There’s no free ride for anyone, including them. I suspect, just dwelling on this for a moment, that the whole argument about whether tax cuts are appropriate is really a very serious question. I think that making the proper investments and having mechanisms for accountability are fundamentally more important than the semantics of the original question of whether we should cut taxes.

Cutting taxes and making the proper investments, as we have—we’ve committed record numbers of dollars, the most dollars per capita, capital and operating, to the people of Ontario for our health care system. I could expect just as much from the federal government.

Allan Rock, or whoever the new health minister is, needs to listen not just to Mike Harris but to all the Premiers. They made it very clear that they’ve got to start to put back more than 14 cents on the dollar in health care to have the finest, most successful health care system in the world, with an aging population and new technology and all the other motives at risk there, and at the same time have an education system that invests money in students and front-line teaching and some of the other things. They should be questioned. We need high standards and we need to make sure our children’s future is being assured. That struggle goes on. I hope it ends as soon as possible.

Minister Eves was talking in his statement of having the fundamentals that provide a healthy economy, that provide opportunities for everyone to share in a much more prosperous economy, a much more prosperous society with fewer people, as the Premier said today—especially children and the most vulnerable in our society. The wealthier the province is, the more prosperous it is, the more it can support those who are most vulnerable. That’s, I think, a difference of opinion here.

With the previous governments—we often refer to the 10 years as the lost decade—the problem was that they felt tax policies were the old thing, that governments can fix things by taking more money or resources out of the bucket. They thought they could tax and spend their way out of this economic spiral they were in. It started in 1989-90 when they had record employment, record revenue, and yet had the most number of people on welfare because they made it almost an advantage to be on welfare as opposed to getting a job.

These differences of views probably will continue to exist, because in many ways the opposition mostly has opposed all the reforms to welfare. What we said with our welfare reforms was that people deserve an opportunity for a job as opposed to a cheque. We called it a hand up instead of a handout. Let’s get down to it. The most important, the most empowering thing you can do for an individual is to give them an opportunity to earn their own dignity and their own daily bread.

I think that goes beyond ideology. It’s a complete difference of view, that government can do it better than the individual. I don’t support that and I don’t think members of this caucus do, but I think that when all is said and done, many strategic investments were made as part of Mr Eves’s and Premier Harris’s remarks. I’m going to mention a few of them.

We would be wrong not to recognize the importance of agriculture. The diversity of agriculture is one of the fundamental strengths of this province, not just in the wines and tender fruits but in the field crops and the livestock area. Agriculture is the second-largest industry in Ontario and it is in some peril. Many of the programs, whether it is MISA or GRIP or market revenue or whole farm relief, in many cases are very complex financial support programs. Many of them are shared by the farmer, the federal government and the provincial government. Many have insurance-based principles within them.

Minister Hardeman has met with constituents in my riding. Dr Doug Galt has been instrumental in leading consultations on rural economic development. With his background, his experience and his riding next to mine—hopefully he’ll be speaking this afternoon and will fill that out a bit more—he is a person who takes it beyond just a job as an MPP. He has worked as a veterinarian all his adult life, and in a public sense as well he has a lot to offer. He will offer an awful lot. I believe in the future we will hear more from Dr Galt with respect to prioritizing this government’s agenda on agriculture.

Clearly we need the federal government to get on board as well and make sure that the supports, when we are dealing with market prices that are set in Chicago, in the United States, where the subsidies under the—I call it a liberal government, soon to be changed. That may help things a bit. I think the government in the United States has been unfairly subsidizing market products to our disadvantage. We all know that trade issues, trade subsidies, trade wars, and where there’s GATT agreements or whatever kinds of trade agreements, free trade and otherwise, are a federal responsibility. Mr Bradley often holds up these humorous little cards that have “

(1) Blame the feds.” It is an absolute failure of leadership at the national level.

We’ve just been through a federal election. What I saw was disdainful in terms of indifference to or ignoring the agricultural plight. There are fewer and fewer farmers. To them, that means fewer votes that really matter. They do matter, not just in my riding of Durham but they matter to this province, to Dr Galt and to Minister Ernie Hardeman.

With this Christmas message on concurrence, agriculture ranks right up there in protecting the land, the soil and the water, part of the Ministry of the Environment’s responsibility, working hand in hand—I would like to hope that in the next few days they will introduce legislation that may be debated over the break after Christmas: the nutrients management plan that municipalities are looking for, not just in Durham but across the province, for guidance on standards for animal units and how much effluent and how to manage it, and have accountability in that. It is very difficult. This government has never shied away from difficult decisions.

There are some issues I’ve mentioned, without trying to become too heavy, in the agricultural sector. Most important is to state that the agricultural sector is the backbone of this economy. Our freedom as a province and as a country is to have our own food supply not at risk. Farmers who have bad years need to be supported. We have to look at the averaging of those income supports. That is the issue that at the current time I believe lacks some clear federal leadership.

The provincial leadership is clearly in place. I think this government has held Mr Lyle Vanclief to task, as we have Allan Rock, when he was the health minister.

As everyone knows, Ontario is about 30% of the country’s population. I think it’s about 50% of the country’s economic plan. All we would ask for from the federal government is to keep Ontario healthy—a fair share, not one cent more than our fair share based on some per capita formula, but they always discount. Ontario is the industrial heartland of this country. It has a responsibility to our national redistribution of wealth, and that’s understandable.

In Ontario, if we see the economic cycle repeat, and it will, in times when our agricultural community, which has a larger gross than the rest of Canada’s provinces, needs to be supported, we need to have our fair share. It was Minister Hardeman who held the federal government to the table and their feet to the fire to make sure that Ontario farmers, for the first time in years, got their fair share of that whole thing.

Interjection.

Mr O’Toole: I hear the member from the other side, from Elgin-Middlesex-London, disagreeing with me. I’m not sure what his position on this is, because yesterday he was asking a question to the Minister of Health and in fact it was an agricultural issue.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): It was a health issue, a public health issue.

Mr O’Toole: It is clearly a matter of misunderstanding and not directing his interest and concerns in the right area.

Another part that was mentioned clearly is tax strategy, and the advantages in tax strategy are such that I think the government has made some provisions, in its budgetary wisdom, to provide new educational technology tax incentives. Let me expand on that for a moment. It encourages businesses to support Ontario’s universities and community colleges in acquiring new equipment and technology through a tax credit system. I think this is absolutely fundamental, to have the right tools in the right place at the right