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

October 16, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Oct-16 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 16 October 2001 Mardi 16 octobre 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOME CARE

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

ONTARIO ECONOMY

GENE DOMAGALA

FEDERAL RESPONSE TO TERRORISM

CANADIAN FOSTER FAMILY WEEK

STUDENTS AGAINST

IMPAIRED DRIVING

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

PUBLIC LIBRARY WEEK

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY APPOINTMENT

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

MINISTER OF HEALTH

TAXATION

LITERACY TEST

PUBLIC HEALTH

SMALL BUSINESS

NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM PLAN

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

AUTISM SERVICES

PROJECT TRUTH

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

COLLÈGE DES GRANDS LACS

SILICOSIS

PETITIONS

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

OHIP SERVICES

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

OHIP SERVICES

HOME CARE

FOREST INDUSTRY

OHIP SERVICES

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOME CARE

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): There is no question there is a crisis in home care in my riding and across the province and it's affecting some of our most vulnerable citizens.

In my riding, a 65-year-old woman has experienced a number of health problems over the years. Most recently she has been hospitalized with pneumonia and congestive heart failure. Once released from the hospital, she went home to discover that she couldn't get the home care service she needed. When she asked for further service, she was told that due to government cutbacks, she was not eligible for assistance and to go to a nursing home.

Home care was set up for people to stay in their homes longer. Now patients are being told they are unable to stay in their homes. This 65-year-old woman, who owns her home, should be in her home and not in an institution. Cuts to health care are an absolute disgrace.

Not only are the cutbacks to local CCACs affecting the chronically ill and seniors, but also younger children who depend on CCACs to look after their special needs. For months I have been working with Mr and Mrs Hambly of Ingleside. Their son Lucas has dyspraxia, which can be overcome if he has access to a speech pathologist. Lucas is not even on the waiting list yet because the waiting list is too long. If the government would cut out some of their advertising and spend some of the money to help our most needy in this province, things would be a lot better in future.

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I rise in the House today to honour a remarkable gentleman on this sad day, but also a day of new beginnings. I would like to give my very best wishes to the Premier of Ontario and to thank him for the many years he has served the people of this great province.

This morning the Premier mentioned that perhaps the greatest legacy of our government would not be visible for another 10 years. Mike Harris is leaving with us a legacy that will benefit the people of Ontario long into the future, and he deserves to derive great personal satisfaction from that legacy long after he leaves this House.

Mike Harris restored confidence in our province as a place to invest and do business. He has laid a solid foundation for the children of this province to prosper long into the future.

Some may be surprised that the Premier announced he would complete his term as he started, as the MPP for Nipissing. If you will recall, he was sitting up here beside me in the backbenches last week. I guess he was just trying it on for size. It takes great humility and courage to do this, and it's a great example for all of us to remember the people who elect us into office.

Our Premier served in this House with my late father, Frank Miller, and he has said he considered him to be a mentor and a friend. I feel fortunate indeed that Mike Harris will be here for a while yet, and will serve in the same capacity for me.

The Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris, has put our province on the right track. He has succeeded in making Ontario the best place to live, work and raise a family. I think I speak for all of us when I say thank you to the leader of our province for providing a better future for ourselves and our children. I look forward to having him as a colleague for the next few years.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to talk a little bit about the challenges Ontario faces as we look ahead over the next few months. You will recall the budget called for 150,000 new jobs in Ontario this year. In just the last four months, before the September 11 tragedy, Ontario actually had lost 26,000 jobs. We heard from economists who are telling us now that Ontario will have the weakest economy this year, 2001-02, of all the provinces in Canada. We see in the budget that unfortunately we've added $20 billion to the debt of the province. We find that we are the most export-oriented jurisdiction in the world, but our exports, obviously, are struggling.

We have found it unusual that the government has decided, with this uncertainty and the uncertainty about maintaining our services, to proceed with two very questionable policies. One is to invest $500 million of public money in private schools starting in just a few months. The second is that corporate taxes in Ontario are 25% below the US. As we look at the need to compete with those jurisdictions for quality health care and education, in our opinion, 25% lower taxes than the US is unsustainable.

GENE DOMAGALA

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I rise to talk about an award that is given each year by Beach Metro News, a local newspaper in Beaches-East York, to commemorate or to single out a person who's made a lasting improvement to the quality of local life. This year that person is Gene Domagala, nominated for his contributions to heritage walks, for saving the boathouse, for saving the Leuty lighthouse and for making the Beaches a great place for people to live.

He's also active in the East Toronto Historical Society and in Heritage Toronto. Also, he is a person who contributes very much to the poor. He hands out Toronto Star boxes and works giving out Christmas hampers for Centre 55. He sits on the Beaches rec centre and works with the anti-racism group and anti-Semitism activists. He also volunteers for Corpus Christi school and St John's schools. As the editor of the Beach Metro News, Carol Stimmel, has so rightly pointed out, if something needs to be done, just give it to Gene and he goes off and does it. We congratulate him.

He's a tremendous, tremendous citizen of Beaches-East York and I think a model to all of us of what we can do to help the community, what we can do to further the better cause of all of the people who live in our respective communities, but especially in Beaches-East York.

FEDERAL RESPONSE TO TERRORISM

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to express concern -- concern for our country, for our safety and for the lack of meaningful action by our federal government.

The people in my home riding of Northumberland are disappointed, shocked and embarrassed by the reaction of the federal Liberal Party to the tragic events of September 11. The government has foolishly refused to accept the gravity of the situation, and with this latest attempt at damage control, they are in danger of making the problem worse.

Anti-terrorist legislation announced by Justice Minister Anne McLellan is like giving chicken soup for a cold. It's a feel-good exercise but everybody knows it doesn't really work. You cannot legislate to prevent terrorism. You must provide intelligence, funding and personnel to do the job. Then you must take strong, decisive action. On all these accounts the federal government has failed us. What will this new legislation do that is not already covered? We have the CSIS Act; we have new anti-gang legislation in place; we've seen the sweeping powers of the War Measures Act.

I call on the members of both sides of this House to send a strong message to Jean Chrétien and the federal government: stop the window dressing, allocate the needed resources and provide the leadership that this country needs. Join hands with our American cousins to fortify our borders and ensure the free passage of goods and services. Recognize that responsibility is a price that everyone must pay for freedom, and then take that responsibility.

CANADIAN FOSTER FAMILY WEEK

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): On the occasion of Canadian Foster Family Week, I would like to pay tribute to the hundreds of foster families that we have in Ontario. These are people, average working families or retired individuals, who take into their home and provide a home for children who need protection from their own natural family. In many cases for these children, it is a first occasion where they will have three meals a day. It is a first occasion where they will know affection. It is a first occasion where they will be dressed appropriately for the weather.

I have seen movies portraying foster families as problem families. I've never met one in all of my 15 years of fostering. These are people who truly make a commitment to the children in their care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Indeed, for families that foster, it is extremely difficult for them even to get babysitting or to get some days away with their natural children. Invariably, foster families take the children in and they become a close, complete part of their family.

I wanted to pay special tribute, though, to the children of foster families, who share their toys, share their home, share their family secrets and share their parents with these children. The only bad day for a foster family is the day that the child leaves. The bond is established, caring takes place, and the children return, hopefully, to a home that's been restored or to an adoptive home.

This province could not function without foster families, and I pay tribute to them today.

STUDENTS AGAINST

IMPAIRED DRIVING

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Earlier today, the Student Life Education Company, along with staff and students at Westlane Secondary School in Niagara Falls, kicked off the third annual National Students Against Impaired Driving Day. In 1999, at a Youth Against Impaired Driving conference in Ottawa, over 500 participating high school students chose the third Tuesday in October, today, as the annual National Students Against Impaired Driving Day.

In its first year, National Students Against Impaired Driving Day 1999 had over 150 schools from across Canada participate. Some 250 schools participated in 2000, and today over 300 schools representing every province and territory were expected to join in the fight to stop impaired driving. I encourage any schools that are interested in participating to contact Student Life Now! at www.studentlifeeducation.com.

As proud hosts for this prestigious day, Westlane students and staff put together a great program. An assembly was held with the telling of a victim's personal story followed by a student presentation. Some of the demonstrations included an impaired vision obstacle course and a computerized personal blood-alcohol concentration analysis.

I'd like to say congratulations to Westlane students and staff on their efforts today. It's important for students all over Canada to recognize the consequences of impaired driving and to look at ways to avoid drinking and driving.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): When this government came to power, it started to decimate government programs to the point of crippling our effectiveness. The cuts caused huge problems in various ministries. Look at environment. What comes to mind is Walkerton. Look at the Ministry of Health. What comes to mind is long lineups, services for seniors that have to be charged for and firing of nurses. Look at citizenship and education. What comes to mind in education, of course, is confrontation with our teachers. What about the Ministry of Citizenship? What comes to mind is the gutting of major programs and the foundation of multiculturalism.

So in this Ontario harbour are two boats. The Conservative boat is not inclusive. The Liberal boat is inclusive. It includes the rich and the poor. It includes those who are employed and unemployed. It includes the young and the old. It includes the employed and unemployed. So that's our boat.

What we want to do is, we have a captain. Our captain has a vision of Ontario, and that vision is to open the doors of this government, to open the doors to this Legislature and to make sure that every Ontario citizen who has an idea or wants to participate has a stake in the system. That's our vision. This vision, of course, will materialize this evening at 6 o'clock. I invite all of you to participate in the new Ontario.

PUBLIC LIBRARY WEEK

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I rise today to mark Ontario's Public Library Week. Libraries are important to the lives of many Ontarians. They are also a vital component of our education system. We don't often talk about libraries when we speak of education, but I know how important a library is to a student. A library is a portal giving access to knowledge and information for learners, young or old.

There are 1,215 libraries in Ontario, and 6 million Ontarians are active library users. In 1999, Ontario made 62 million library visits. In Ontario, our public library system offers books and other media to everyone equally. Less wealthy patrons can borrow information which they might never be able to afford to buy. They can use public e-mail and Internet terminals. This is an important method of levelling the playing field and spreading learning to all levels of society.

This morning I was happy to welcome Ontario's culture minister, Tim Hudak, to the Chinguacousy branch of the Brampton Public Library in my riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale for the launch of Public Library Week. Minister, thank you for coming to Bramalea and for recognizing the excellence and innovation of Ontario's libraries with the awards you handed out this morning.

I am happy to sell you the contribution of our librarians, the thousands of library volunteers and our library system as a whole to the quality of life in Ontario.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY APPOINTMENT

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a copy of an order in council appointing the Honourable Rob Sampson as a commissioner to the Board of Internal Economy, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council from among the members of the executive council in place of the Honourable Frank F. Klees.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.

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

Bill 56,

An Act to encourage the revitalization of contaminated land and to make other amendments relating to environmental matters / Projet de loi 56, Loi visant à encourager la revitalisation des terrains contaminés et apportant d'autres modifications se rapportant à des questions environnementales.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

VISITORS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Today we are joined in the gallery by the parents of our page from Kingston, Emma McGuire: Alan Compeau, her mother, Sandra McGuire, and her little brother, Henry McGuire. I'd like to welcome them to these proceedings.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Our first question is for the Minister of Health. We were given to understand he'd be here today.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We did wrap up rather quickly. I'm wondering if maybe the second question could go first. Any clarification? Maybe go to the second question.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Education. Last session, you promised Ontario's working families extensive consultation on the implementation of your private school tax credit. Now we're learning that this consultation on the private school tax credit is going to be in secret. In fact, you are not going to make the results of these consultations known. In fact, the individual heading up your committee on consultation is going to take the report and hand it over to the Minister of Finance. In fact, he may not even write down the report; he may just go and knock on the door and give him the report verbally.

How is that you're going to allow the most significant change in education policy to be handed over in this manner to the Minister of Finance, where we and you, apparently, don't even get the results of consultation on the private school tax credit?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I understand that the honourable member is trying to create some great issue here, but this government said we would consult; we have consulted. We've received a lot of information and input. There have been meetings held. I know I've received a great deal of input from the education sector. That information is being reviewed. You might wish to ask the finance minister as to the next steps on your supplementary, if you will. That information is being reviewed by the government, as all of this input is on every issue.

We will make the appropriate decisions about what accountability measures and changes in eligibility will be required for this particular initiative that respects parental choice.

Mrs Pupatello: First, to the Minister of Education, it's been about three hours since a major announcement in your caucus and you finally have not turned the question over to the Minister of Finance. Congratulations, first.

Second, let's just say this: we are hearing that Mr Hardeman will be turning over his report to the Minister of Finance. We are well aware, as is your caucus, of what consultation may have happened, who agreed and who didn't agree. The point is clear. Here's a document that you presented to your caucus, the back-to-school plan. In it, you described what was lacking in our public education system. You described to your caucus that we are lacking textbooks, that the schools are crumbling, that the children are failing the tests, that those test results are not improving.

In light of what you reported to your own caucus, Minister of Education, will you please now stand and say that this is not the time, nor may it ever be the time, for a private school tax credit in a public system in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Given some of the strong answers this finance minister has given that opposition, I understand why she's afraid to ask him the question.

First of all, what I have told caucus, what I have told the public, is that this government has a strong priority on the public education system. We continue to invest new monies into public education because we think it's an important building block for our economic prosperity, for the future of our kids.

This government -- she may find it terribly revolutionary over there -- respects parental choice. We have done more on this side of the House to encourage parents, to give them a strong role, to give them a strong voice in the education of their children across the board, and this government stands behind that commitment.

Mrs Pupatello: Parents' confidence is at an all-time low. How do we know this as opposition MPPs? It's in the report you submitted to your own caucus. So all of the changes you have brought to bear in the public school system have not instilled confidence in the parents across Ontario.

When will you stand up to the Minister of Finance, who insists that this is the time for a private school tax credit? When will you agree with us that taking $500 million of taxpayers' money and pouring it into a private system when you yourself, as the Minister of Education -- not only did you agree with us; you put it in writing and you submitted it to your own caucus: you have crumbling schools; you are lacking textbooks; the kids are failing the tests. When will you stand up to the Minister of Finance and say, "That's enough. Money belongs in the public system"?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The positioning of the opposition party is just beyond belief. They sit here and say that somehow or other there's a secret report about whether kids are passing or failing our tests. We publicly report what is happening in our schools, how well our kids are doing.

We stood up in 1995 and again in 1999 and we said the education system needed to be changed. We said our kids weren't learning what they needed to learn. We said they needed a new curriculum and tests. You know what they said? They said, "No, not necessary." So when those tests showed that our kids were not getting what they needed, that what we were putting in place was needed for our kids to succeed, they stand up and say, "Oh gee, oh dear, isn't this dreadful?"

Public accountability is incredibly important in our public education system. We are not afraid of it. We encourage it. And unlike the members on that side of the House, we don't believe in respecting parents here and not respecting parents there, like the Liberal Party in this province.

MINISTER OF HEALTH

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Health. Today we had a significant announcement by the leader of your party. What concerned us immediately harkened us back to last March when the Premier of Ontario gave you a specific rebuke because of your involvement in the Canadian Alliance and in its leadership race at the time. Last March, Mike Harris said specifically that being Minister of Health was a full-time job. He told you very clearly, "Do your job."

Our concerns are clear. We couldn't agree more. In fact, with everything that is happening in the health system, with hospitals across the board in deficit, with home care services not being implemented, with every sector of the health segment being told that they are under review, with you refusing to fund at appropriate levels, I ask you this: are you prepared to be a full-time Minister of Health?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The good news, Mr Speaker, is that even if I spent half my time on it, I'd do twice as good a job as she would do as Minister of Health. We're getting a real bargoon in this cabinet.

Let me say this: every single member of this executive council works 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the common sense Ontarians who want change in our health system, want better education, want more tax cuts, want an economy that works. We are proud of that. We'll give you our Daytimer or our Palm Pilot and we'll compare how much time we spend working for the people of Ontario against any one of you any day of the week. We're proud of that.

Mrs Pupatello: I won't be running against this Minister of Health in the next several months.

I've got to tell you, Minister, actions speak louder than words. You and I are fully aware that every segment of health is in trouble. Your primary care reform has stalled. Your hospitals are in deficit. Home care is not being delivered across the board. This is happening across the province. You have an opportunity to help, so you decide to boost your own political staff. You didn't boost your political staff with experts in health; you decided to hire Stockwell Day's EA and bring him in here as your communications director, some expert in leadership as opposed to an expert in health.

We actually agree with Mike Harris. We think the Ministry of Health needs a full-time Minister of Health. I want you to commit today: will you be a full-time Minister of Health or will you be traversing the province acting as a leadership candidate instead of taking care of the business that is the most important in the minds of working families in Ontario?

Hon Mr Clement: Let's take one day; for instance, October 1. Perhaps the honourable member would like to take that day. On that day I was with the Premier of this province in Windsor, Ontario, announcing that Windsor gets its new medical campus so that we have more doctors, more medical professionals. On the same day, the Premier and I laid the foundation stone for the brand new emergency wing for the new Windsor hospital. We were proud to be there. Where was Sandra Pupatello on that date? She was there folding her arms at the front, saying, "This is terrible, this is horrible.

How can Windsor take this?" Nobody was listening to her. Everyone was proud that Mike Harris and the government of Ontario were there for the people of Windsor. We are proud of that day, October 1. You cannot say the same thing.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I say to all members, I know the going back and forth is fun-loving. There isn't any anger and there isn't yelling, but it is getting rather loud, even though we are doing it with a sense of humour on both sides. I hate to be one who tries to tone that down because it is done with smiles on the faces, but it does get a little bit too loud; if we could tone it down just a wee bit, because it is getting a wee bit too loud.

I believe we're on the final supplementary.

Mrs Pupatello: Maybe the Minister of Health will recall that last week my leader asked you about a document on public health, and you couldn't remember the document. Not only could you not remember the document, you had already heard about it and had to respond to my colleague raising it at estimates the week before. You've been so busy that you forget what happens in your own ministry within the week. Your famous trip to Windsor -- you forgot to mention that our hospitals are begging you. One hospital alone is suffering a $20-million deficit. Let's talk about the facts of what you're doing in my city.

CCACs across Ontario are looking at a $175-million deficit, and all you have to say is that you're going to see what happens in a report. That's what you've got to say to the people of Ontario. We're asking you a serious question. We are telling you today that we want a full-time Minister of Health. That last announcement three hours ago has changed things for you. We want to know just how committed you are to the major, serious health problems that plague Ontario families.

Hon Mr Clement: We are second to none in terms of our commitment to the hospitals in Ontario. The Ontario Hospital Association has been our partner. We want more accountability, we want more efficiency and we want better results for our hospitals in Ontario, and we are willing to pay for that kind of investment.

She brings the case of her leader forward. What did Dalton McGuinty once say was the solution to health care for Ontario? He said the system would be better, the problem would be solved, if people took better care of themselves and avoided getting sick. That's all they have to do, according to Dalton McGuinty, just avoid getting sick and everything would solve itself.

We know on this side of the House, just as common sense Ontarians know throughout Ontario, including Windsor, that the issues are tougher than that. They need tough and necessary leadership. That's what this caucus, this cabinet and this government have supplied year in, year out. You can pretend to know the answers; you don't know the first meaning of leadership.

TAXATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Restaurants across Ontario are about to start a wave of layoffs. You would know that hundreds, if not thousands, of servers and cooks are going to be out in the cold this winter, because they're on the front lines of the economic recession. The restaurant industry is taking a nose-dive and yet you continue to refuse to act on the NDP's proposal to cut the provincial sales tax from restaurant meals until January 1 to give this ailing industry a boost.

Interjections.

Mr Christopherson: Obviously your backbenchers think this is a great idea. The NDP thinks this is a great idea. The people who work in the restaurant industry think this is a great idea. Why don't you act now and save these jobs?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The issue of tax cuts involves choices and which taxes one addresses. We know from experience in Ontario, under the leadership of Premier Harris since 1995, that the reduction of personal income taxes has a direct, long-term effect in encouraging consumer spending and in bolstering economic activity.

Corporate taxes also create more jobs, create more investment. Indeed, that was the approach taken by Floyd Laughren in his budgets, with respect to reducing payroll taxes, when he was the Minister of Finance for the NDP government.

Mr Christopherson: You assured us at the time, much against our criticism and opposition, that the measures you took would ensure that a day like today didn't arrive. We told you that you were wrong then, and we're telling you today you're wrong now.

The fact of the matter is that you've taken care of the wealthy in Ontario, you've taken care of your corporate friends, but the vast majority of ordinary working people and their families are about to be devastated by the recession that's affecting us.

The vice-president of research for the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association said in today's Globe and Mail that establishments that rely on tourism and business travel are bearing the brunt of the slowdown right now.

Minister, the proposals we are making to cut the provincial sales tax would stimulate that industry right now, and they would save those jobs right now. Why won't you act right now?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I appreciate the member opposite's dedication to tax cuts. I'm glad that that conversion has happened with you, as it has with the leader of your party. It took a long time for the New Democratic Party to come to the position that tax cuts actually help the economy, actually help the people of Ontario. What we're talking about now is which tax cuts are more beneficial in which areas of the economy.

I can tell you that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association is firmly of the view that the reduction in taxes, the acceleration of tax cuts is the right way to stimulate the economy. In fact, they say it's the best thing to do in order to help boost business confidence and spur new investment in Ontario.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, the rhetoric wears thin when you're one of the workers in the restaurant industry. You have said that ensuring our tourism industry stays alive and thrives is important to you. We're offering a suggestion that works well with that. It will stimulate the restaurant business. It will save the jobs of servers, cooks, cleaners and other people in the restaurant industry, and it will do that now.

The

article goes on to say that the vice-president of research also said she expects this industry -- meaning the restaurant industry -- to nose-dive in the fourth quarter. All your tax cuts for corporations and your wish and hope that it will all trickle down on front-line people like those who work in restaurants are not going to do a thing to save jobs today. Minister, on behalf of the NDP, I call on you again to cut the provincial sales tax for restaurant meals and save those jobs.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I certainly agree with the member opposite on the importance of saving jobs, of investing in the economy, of doing what we can as a provincial government in a time of economic slowdown to stimulate the economy, to create and preserve jobs. We've chosen to accelerate the corporate income tax cuts from January 1 to October 1. The Premier made that announcement. We've chosen to boost productivity through the reduction in the personal income taxes, moving those tax reductions from January 1 to October 1, and we've accelerated the capital tax change, which I announced in the budget on May 9.

All options are always being considered, and I appreciate the advice of the member opposite. We certainly feel that what we've done on the tax side as well as the announcements made by the Minister of Tourism to assist the tourism sector are important steps forward in a time of economic slowdown to help the people of Ontario and to preserve jobs.

LITERACY TEST

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Minister of Education. What an unfortunate way for you to kick off your Conservative leadership campaign. You completely mismanaged the security of the grade 10 literacy test, and quite frankly your bungling has wasted approximately seven million bucks that otherwise could have gone to our education system. How is anyone supposed to trust you as leader of a party or a government if you can't even keep a test safe?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): To the honourable member, I'll remember to put you down as undecided.

The EQAO, the Education Quality and Accountability Office, has security protocols in place. We have a case here where people deliberately flouted those security protocols, where they put the interests of students at risk. This test is an important graduate requirement for these students. It determines whether they will get their high school certificate diploma or whether they will not get that diploma. What is important here is the validity, the credibility of that test because of its importance to students, but secondly, the fairness to all students.

So if the honourable member is suggesting that we should have allowed people to deliberately violate the security of that test, to deliberately undermine the credibility, and then say to high school students, "Your high school diploma depends on that," well, I reject that position absolutely. The interests of our students come first in this case. Police are investigating. There have been laws broken here. You may not take it seriously across the way, but this side of the House does very much.

Mr Marchese: Madame, I know it's hard for you to appreciate this, but I'm just trying to help you. I've got to tell you that Mr Flaherty, another leadership contender, who is running the Minister of Education by remote control, is going to exact more cuts from all the ministries, including yours, due to the fiscal failures of your government.

I've got a suggestion for you. My suggestion is that you anticipate these cuts and that you abolish the Education Quality and Accountability Office. Save a whole lot of money so that you can send those savings back into the classroom. That's what I want to offer to you as a suggestion. What do you think, Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: To the honourable member, if the NDP keeps helping us the way they've helped us in the past, we're here for another majority government, I've got to tell you.

It's really interesting that the honourable member from the NDP is saying, "Abolish the Education Quality and Accountability Office, abolish testing." So he is prepared to continue to put money in public education and not ever ask the question, are our students learning what they need to learn? Are they getting what they need to receive from our education system? Well, we think that education for them is so important that that testing allows us to know who's doing well, who needs extra help. The NDP is opposed to that. I'm rather shocked that they would be opposed to that, but they clearly are.

This government is going to continue to do what we said we would do: to bring in higher standards in our public education system, to help our students meet those standards, to improve student learning. That's how in this province economic prosperity and quality of life will continue.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is to the Minister of Health. Yesterday my leader asked you about cuts to public health programs. You accused him of, and I quote, "fearmongering and scaring and over-theatrics." You insisted that you didn't know what he was talking about. Well, Minister, you definitely know a lot about over-theatrics, but you should also know something about public health.

On October 9 in estimates committee, I asked you about your ministry's plan to cut mandatory health programs. You clearly knew nothing about the issue then, but Dr Kurji from your public health branch did. He said, on the record and in your presence, that you are in the process of revising the mandatory programs and that you will bring some new ones in and you will drop some.

Minister, you were present when your ministry official said that. Why did you try to deny any knowledge of this issue?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Quite frankly, there's a difference between reviewing all programs -- which we do as a matter of course in the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Education or any other ministry in this government -- and the leader of the official opposition's contention that we have a plan to cut, we have already made up our mind, we have already made a decision to cut. That is absolutely untrue. That could be the furthest from the truth. So that is the difference between what was asked of me yesterday and what you are asking me today.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, my information about cuts to public health programs came from a presentation made by Ministry of Health officials. I showed you these same documents from that presentation at the estimates committee. This document, Minister, discusses dropping one or more mandatory programs as a potential cost reduction strategy. Your official confirmed at that meeting on October 9 that you are in the process of revising the mandatory programs, that you plan to drop some and add others. It was also confirmed at that same committee meeting on that same date that you're planning to spend at least $6 million less on public health programs this year than you did last year.

Minister, you weren't concerned enough about public health to follow up on this issue two weeks ago. You've now had another 24 hours to find out what's happening. Will you now tell us and tell the public what public health programs you are planning to cut?

Hon Mr Clement: There is no plan for this fiscal year for the programs that she is alleging we are cutting. That is far from the truth. Indeed, our portion of 100% funding -- 100% funding -- for things like Healthy Babies, Healthy Children, speech, education and development has increased in the previous government from $5.6 million to $54.6 million last year alone. That is the commitment we've made: 100% provincial dollars. Not federal dollars, no federal money in there -- 100% provincial dollars.

Not municipal dollars -- provincial dollars, a tenfold increase for these programs, because we think it is important that public health remain a priority. That is our commitment, and it continues to be our commitment.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question today is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. As you know, on October 2, our Premier, Mike Harris, along with the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, Bob Runciman, kicked off Small Business Month. As the MPP for Parry Sound-Muskoka, I'm very proud of the small businesses in my riding. Could you tell the members of this House today more about what you're doing to recognize small businesses in northern Ontario?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for the question. As indicated by our Premier, Mike Harris, and by Bob Runicman, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, some estimates indicate that small businesses create nearly 80% of all new jobs in our province. Our government has worked hard to create a climate of economic growth by cutting taxes, by reducing the regulatory burden and by making significant investments in infrastructure.

In northern Ontario, I commend the efforts of all entrepreneurs who have taken risks and have worked hard to promote their small businesses. I know that our government will continue to make efforts to create a climate where businesses can compete and succeed, not just across the province but in northern Ontario as well.

Mr Miller: Many of the constituents in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka are involved in small businesses. I believe about 80% of businesses are small businesses. I'm proud to stand here today and represent them. I'm also aware of their tenacity and efforts. Could you tell my constituents and all members of this House today how you will be recognizing the efforts of all those hard-working northern risk-takers?

Hon Mr Newman: On Thursday, October 18, I will be attending the Northern Ontario Business Awards in Timmins. This annual event provides a forum for all of us to commend the efforts of those across the north who have made sacrifices in order to succeed. However, while there will be winners announced at the Northern Ontario Business Awards, each entrepreneur across the north should know that as their voice at the cabinet table, I am proud to represent them and I commend them for their hard work and their determination.

In advance of the awards I'd like to thank all of the volunteers, organizers and sponsors for making this year's ceremony not only possible, but I also know it will be another great northern Ontario success story. I can assure you that our government remains committed to working hard to build strong northern communities and I look forward to being in Timmins on Thursday night to recognize the north's best.

NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM PLAN

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I have a question for the Solicitor General. You'll know from the January 1999 report of the special committee on security and intelligence that the committee recommended that it be imperative for each province to actually sign the national counterterrorism plan developed by the federal government. It further reported that the province of Ontario had not signed on to the national counterterrorism plan and, furthermore, that it had not provided its final response to that plan.

On October 11, Emergency Measures Ontario indicated that that is still the case, that the province of Ontario still has not signed on to the national counterterrorism plan a full month after the events of September 11. Can you tell us why?

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): There are still some discussions going on with the federal government. Let me say we have done everything necessary to make sure that this province is safe. Not only have we done that, but we have co-operated very well with the federal government. I think you will find, if you speak to federal friends, that they will indeed say that they've been pleased with the support and co-operation from this province.

Mr Bryant: Even more troubling than this province's failure to sign on to the national plan was the finding by the special committee of the Senate that the Ontario counterterrorism plan, in its words, had "inconsistencies with the national counterterrorism plan that are troubling." These are the findings of the committee.

Can you tell us now whether the various conflicts and inconsistencies listed in January 1999, including jurisdictional conflicts over who is in charge of what during a terrorist incident -- can you confirm today that these inconsistencies still have not been worked out, and that a full month after the events of September 11, Ontario's counterterrorism plan is not working in support of the national counterterrorism plan?

Hon Mr Turnbull: I think if you were to make a phone call to your federal cousins, you would find that they are very satisfied with the arrangements we've been making. Let me say that all the arrangements we have made to date have ensured the security of this province. We clearly recognize that from time to time there may be differences between the views of various bodies, and to that end we will work with the federal government to ensure that we have those finished. But let me assure you that Emergency Measures Ontario has worked very well, and the federal government has certainly recognized how satisfactory the co-operation with this province has been.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. In the throne speech, the government confirmed our commitment to introducing an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. This is good news for the disabled community in Ontario and their families, and I fully support this important initiative. What programs does the government already have in place to improve the lives of people with disabilities?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): I'm pleased to report that Ontario is a national leader in terms of its support and services for persons with disabilities. It's an enviable record and one that we're building on.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Jackson: I know the member from Kingston trivializes the issues around the disabled community, but he should be listening to the facts, because it's gone unnoticed by him that this government has put $67 million into housing for persons with mental illnesses, $20 million into children's treatment centres, $35 million into employment support services programs, an additional $50 million for persons who have developmental disabilities, new dollars for autism, and the Treasurer has even put forward a new tax incentive for builders to build more accessible housing.

We know that the $1 billion of additional spending by this government in the last five years has improved the quality of life for persons with disabilities. We know there is more we can do as well, and that's why we're committed. Within the next few weeks, we will be tabling in this House Ontario's first Ontarians with Disabilities Act, something that all members of this House will be proud of.

Mr Gill: A number of municipalities have advisory committees on disability issues and they have been implementing the committee's suggestions for helping disabled persons reach full citizenship. We should all salute their achievements. As we work toward equal opportunity and full access for the disabled, how would you compare our role to that of the federal government?

Hon Mr Jackson: When I began my consultations six months ago, the first city I went to in this province was Windsor. Windsor has had an advisory committee operating there for some 30 years. It's extremely effective; it has done tremendous work to not only remove barriers but to ensure that no new barriers are built. But even in Windsor, the concern was expressed that the national leadership for an Americans with Disabilities Act was initiated in Washington, DC, and that is why that model worked in the United States.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): -- is having a devastating effect on families, adults, children and seniors across this province. I had three full-house public meetings in my own community of Sault Ste Marie and everyone --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. The members couldn't hear.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): The member's microphone wasn't on. We didn't hear who he was talking to.

The Speaker: Yes, if you could start over. They didn't hear who the first one was for. It's on now; it just wasn't at the beginning. You can start over.

Mr Martin: My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, the delisting of audiology services is having a devastating effect on families -- adults, children and seniors -- across this province. In Sault Ste Marie, my own community, I met three times -- public meetings, full house -- over the summer. Everybody I met agrees that your decision is having devastating effects on people's lives, especially in northern and rural Ontario, where underservicing already exists.

In Sioux Lookout, where 300 patients a year require audiology services, they're concerned that the whole system is going to collapse if you don't do something about it. In Thunder Bay, parents of children requiring these vital services are raising similar concerns. Will you today tell these families, tell these people, these children, these seniors, that you will do the right thing and reverse yourself on this devastating delisting of audiology services?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for the question. I always appreciate that if there are particular circumstances that honourable members feel deserve the attention of the ministry, that they bring those to my attention. I'm taking the honourable member's comments in that vein. I can assure this House again that hearing tests and other audiological services remain available in this province. They are done through either hospitals or qualified physicians and they are paid for out of OHIP. That is certainly the system we're supporting.

There are certain areas of the province, we know -- and we have been working to fix this -- where there is underservice for particular specialist programs or functions. We've been working very hard in the north, for instance, with the new northern medical school, of which we're particularly proud, and all of the recruitment and retention programs we use for medical physicians. If there's a particular instance and a particular circumstance where we should work together toward a better solution, then I'm certainly willing to take the honourable member's suggestion under advisement.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Minister, if you want a suggestion, here's one. I've got a letter from Cochrane District Early Childhood Speech and Language Services. They provide services to the people of the northeastern part of the province.

They're saying, "Going ahead with what you have done has put children at risk when it comes to the ability to identify a problem in the early years." They're saying that in the longer run, because they don't have access to services, because there are long waiting lists at the hospitals, we're underserviced as far as doctors in northern Ontario, these children are falling between the cracks and as a result we're not able to identify effectively in the early years the problem that's going to happen with these children when it comes to the ability to participate in the schools and to be able to learn.

Minister, we're saying to you, it's not just us, it's not just Gilles Bisson standing up as member for Timmins-James Bay; it's the people like Cindy Wilson from Cochrane district early childhood speech-language pathology who are saying to you in the end that you're wrong, you have to change your decision and you have to reverse yourself, otherwise these kids are going to fall between the cracks and we're going to have to pay a much higher cost at the end. Are you willing to listen to Cindy?

Hon Mr Clement: I do understand that the honourable member opposes the policy. It's a policy that's been in existence for 30 years; it's a policy that is based on the fact that medical professionals should have access to OHIP billing numbers. Under circumstances that has been expanded, but not very many circumstances. I understand their opposition to that policy, which was around, incidentally, when they were in power as well. But if the honourable member has a particular instance or circumstance where he thinks that there is a risk of someone falling through the cracks, give that information to me and we'll certainly take it under advisement.

AUTISM SERVICES

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, I ask you about lack of resources, support and programs for autistic kids in the city of Hamilton and, I would venture to say, across Ontario. In August you announced an expansion of the intensive intervention program, but that only covers kids up to the age of five. Frankly, after that, kids are left on their own, parents are left on their own and there is very little support available for them.

The programs that are there are full, there are waiting lists for programs for kids, therapy is not covered, and parents who need a break on weekends and try to get some help can't get that help. So basically after the age of five, what you have said to these families and their kids is, "You're on your own. You take care of the problem."

Parents are getting frustrated. Last year, there was a $75-million lawsuit launched against the government by parents trying to force to pay for therapy and support programs for kids beyond the age of five. You're clearly discriminating against these kids and their families. Will you commit today to look at and increase funding for programs, support service and therapy for kids who are autistic and their families when they go beyond the age of five, as it is covered right now?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for children, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Providing supports to young children with autism is something on which we've worked tremendously hard. Six years ago in Canada, no government was providing preschool supports to young children with autism. In the 1999 budget, we committed to spend more than $19 million on the early intervention program because the Autism Society Ontario, represented at the time by Trevor Williams, came forward and made a very passionate argument to say that it would make a huge difference in the lives of these young children by making a strategic investment.

I think we would all have liked to have seen these investments made five, 10, 15, 25 years ago under any political party. We're pleased it was the leadership role that we've taken in Canada. We were able to double that investment this year in the budget with the support of the National Children's Agenda and the support of the federal government, which I think shows the benefits of all levels of government working together.

We spend considerable amounts of money both through the special education part of our Ministry of Education in education supports, as well as through supports to people with developmental disabilities, which got a really unprecedented increase of more than $200 million in this spring's budget. But I'm happy to take the honourable member's suggestion under advisement.

Mr Agostino: Minister, your self-platitudes mean very little to kids beyond the age of five. You've known there's a problem here. Constituents of mine like Anna Ferrelli, who's struggling with two autistic kids, are doing a great job. She was in my office, frustrated at the lack of services. The programs that are now out there are at the limit. In Hamilton, you have Woodview Centre with a long waiting list with 50 kids in there right now. The Hamilton Association for Community Living, which provides support on weekends and evenings, are at their limit and have a waiting list.

The special services at home program that your ministry operates has 15 families currently on the waiting list. That clearly is a problem.

You've been told about this before. We can't let this situation continue. Parents should not have to be forced to take this government to court to get the most basic therapy and support for kids over the age of five. If it's good enough and right to provide those therapy and support programs for kids under the age of five, why isn't it good enough to provide those same services and support to those families and those kids beyond the age of five?

Minister, I'm not asking you to take it under advisement. I believe you know that this request is fair and reasonable and right. Will you today commit your government to increase the funding so that these kids beyond the age of five get the support and help they need in order to go on and become productive citizens, and help their families and help these kids so that they can go on and have the kind of future we all want for our kids?

Hon Mr Baird: I'm certainly prepared to take any suggestion from any member of the House, including the honourable member, under advisement as we look at the expansion of supports to people with developmental disabilities and children.

The member asked a number of questions. The first question he asked was why we singled out young children under the age of six. It's because the Autism Society Ontario came forward and made a very powerful statement: "We could do so much with these young children, with the malleability of their brains in terms of what we can do at that early age to make a huge difference in their lives."

Not too long my colleagues and I went to the treasury and said, "This program is an outstanding success." We doubled it from $19 million to $39 million a year. We said we could do more to help people with autism, people with Down's syndrome and people with other developmental disabilities. In the budget presented by the Minister of Finance not more four months ago we got an unprecedented commitment to this area, the biggest increase in supports in Canadian history to people with developmental disabilities.

They said they wanted not only a budget increase this year but a multi-year funding commitment, which was made. Step by step we're making some tremendous progress in this area and we're continuing to work hard to improve the lives of people with autism and other developmental disabilities, regardless of their age.

PROJECT TRUTH

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): My question is for the Attorney General. During the Leduc trial in Cornwall in the months of February and March of this year, a previously sealed Ontario Provincial Police file was left open for over 24 hours. Mr Leduc is a lawyer in Cornwall. He'd been charged with 16 counts of sexual abuse of children. He's also the lawyer for the Archdiocese of Alexandria and was the lawyer when they paid over $32,000 in hush money to have a criminal charge withdrawn.

People with access to that previously sealed file have reported over 30 sections were included, each one pertaining to an individual under investigation by the OPP. Some of these people have been charged with criminal offences and some have not. Of those who have not been charged, one is reported to have contained over 1,000 pages of evidence and another 600 pages of evidence. Interestingly enough, some of those who were charged are reported to have files limited to less than 30 pages.

You reported in August that there would be no further charges forthcoming. I have to accept that. I haven't seen that file; you have. But I would ask you today, sir, if you would assure the House and the residents of eastern Ontario that this file, this evidence, will be secured and remain in the hands of your department pending criminal cases before the courts, civil actions before the courts and any private prosecutions which might follow.

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): As the member is undoubtedly aware, the Project Truth investigation has concluded that at this juncture there are no further criminal charges to be laid. That conclusion was made after consultation with the Attorney General's office. That is a usual way of proceeding. The crown was asked for some advice; that advice was provided. But ultimately, it is up to the investigating police officers to decide whether or not to lay a charge. In this instance, the decision was to not lay any further charges.

I will say to the member that any information that was shared with the crown attorney's office was returned to the police, as is the usual course. But I will also say to you that the crown attorney's office will maintain and retain copies of the files, as is appropriate, pending completion of the court process that's in place now and for any additional period of time that is appropriate.

Mr Guzzo: If I have an undertaking from the Attorney General that this material is going to remain in his hands, I accept that. I think it's rather significant, though, and very important to notice that it's difficult: it's obviously difficult for the crown and the police to get convictions on matters that are 30 years old, even if in fact the alleged victims went to the police and crown attorney 25 and 20 years ago and were rebuked by the people in the CA's office and the police department at that time. But we also know that some of the corroborative evidence that is necessary was destroyed.

The films that would provide the corroborative evidence were destroyed. They were illegally seized; they were not returned to their appropriate owners and they were illegally destroyed. You have this evidence and you have control of this evidence, and it's for that reason that the people of eastern Ontario look to you, sir, to maintain not copies but the originals that will aid in other prosecutions that might come forward.

Hon Mr Young: I can assure the honourable member that any information shared with our ministry in the course of the investigation will be appropriately retained pending completion of any and all court proceedings relating to this matter. I also say to you that this material will be retained for an additional period of time as is warranted.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. In my riding, the CCAC that serve the area of Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington was forced to restrict the admission of new patients for community care services. In Hastings and Prince Edward counties, the CCAC regrettably has had to reprioritize the eligibility requirements of their patients who might qualify for home services. My offices have been deluged with calls from people who have had home services reduced or denied.

The decision to freeze CCAC budgets at last year's levels is, in reality, a reduction in the dollars that you actually provided to them last year. Since this regressive policy decision, people in need of community health care in my riding and throughout Ontario have been made to suffer because of your lack of commitment to provide for the care they need and deserve. The additional dollars you have invested in CCACs since 1995 have not kept pace with the demands within the community.

Minister, you have a responsibility to recognize the crisis in community health care and act immediately to provide the resources that CCACs require to meet the needs of the sick people of Ontario. Will you do it?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'll refer it to the associate minister.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): I'd like to thank the member opposite for the question. As the member across knows, there has been unprecedented funding in the CCACs across the province since 1995. I'd like to remind the member that the budget of her CCAC has gone from $20 million to $25 million and that those dollars have gone to improve the quality of care in her area.

I also want to remind her that we have undergone a review process, because we have some concerns about the way that funding is spent in CCACs. When we did an operational review in Hamilton, there were some concerns about management, there were some concerns about expenditures, the equity funding across the province, so we've entered into a review because we intend to make health care in the province of Ontario stronger, and a better quality of care for the people of Ontario.

Mrs Dombrowsky: Let me tell you about the quality of care in my area. Last week, in the Kingston Whig-Standard, Tanya Ambrose, from the riding of Leeds-Grenville wrote about her 75-year-old mother, who was released from hospital after surgery. The patient was released into the care of her 85-year-old husband. She returned to emergency the next morning because her incision was open, bleeding and draining profusely. The doctor cleaned her wound and sent her home again. Ms Ambrose requested that a nurse visit just twice a week to check on her mother's progress and she was told that all new home care visits had been terminated in order to save money. Ms Ambrose wrote to the Whig-Standard:

"My parents worked all their lives, helped others selflessly, paid taxes honestly -- and now, when they should be able to expect some of those taxes to pay for a few hours of nursing care, the government slammed the door in their faces." Further, in her letter she states, "A year ago, the Ontario Conservative government told us that we had such a budget surplus that it could afford to send $200 [cheques]....Even today the government can afford to give ... a tax cut. Where are its priorities?"

Minister, will you make the pressing needs of CCACs a priority and provide the resources they need to help sick people?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me be very clear that this government has made community health care and community care access centre funding a priority. The dollars have increased --

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Johns: I think you should listen. The dollars have increased --

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Johns: You're not interested in this, are you? The dollars have increased in community care access funding, in community spending, 440% since the Liberals were last in power. We have a commitment to making sure that we fund community care access centres.

Let me say that the community care access centre in this area chose an unprecedented way of controlling health care in their area. They said that they would stop funding within the community care access centre and would only fund for people with cancer, palliative care and elderly patients. In this particular example it sounds like they should have received care, because that's what community care centres are all about -- ensuring that people get the care they need in their home when they need it. That's why there's been a 22% increase in funding in this area and that's why this area has a 34% increase in funding over every other area in the province of Ontario.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. As a citizen of this province and as a representative of the people of Perth-Middlesex, I know that environmental protection is of paramount importance, particularly water, air and soil, as the quality of the environment has a direct relation to quality of human health. I would ask the minister if she could describe to this House what specific actions and programs the provincial government is carrying out to ensure that environmental quality is maintained --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): You could at least wish her a happy birthday, Bert.

Mr Johnson: -- even in Kingston and the Islands -- and compliance with the regulations is enforced.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): Certainly, the environment is a very significant issue for our government. We take the issue very seriously. That's why we have increased the number of individuals, in order that we can better enforce the rules and regulations. We've hired an additional 130 individuals in investigative and enforcement-related activities. We've introduced the SWAT team. This is a highly mobile compliance inspection and enforcement unit and it is the very first team of its type in Ontario's history.

They have been conducting a province-wide compliance and enforcement program and they have primarily been focusing on those individuals and those companies that deliberately pollute our environment.

Mr Johnson: My supplementary is in two parts. The first one is, if today is your birthday, Minister, can I, on behalf of all of us here, wish you a very happy one?

The other part of it is, due to the SWAT team being made permanent, there's been an increase in government staff in the field of enforcement and investigation. Could you please comment on how the statistics and figures on the number of fines and charges laid have been altered in relation to this increase in enforcement staff?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We've increased the number of individuals who deal with enforcement and investigation since the year 2000 by 130. The SWAT team comprises 65 people. I'm very pleased to say that as a result of the increased enforcement and compliance activities, in the first six months of this year, the number of fines has increased by $1 million, or 118%. The investigators also laid 23% more charges in the first six months. The number of charges laid in 2000 increased by 48% from 1999.

Thus, I am very pleased to say that as a result of the additional resources, the new SWAT team and the activities that are ongoing throughout the province of Ontario, we are better protecting the natural environment and public health.

COLLÈGE DES GRANDS LACS

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James) : Ma question est adressée au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones. Monsieur le ministre, vous savez la grosse controverse qu'on a présentement avec le Collège des Grands Lacs. Un conseil d'administration a décidé de prendre une décision, quand il n'y pas même eu un quorum à leur meeting du CA, pour fermer le Collège des Grands Lacs ; un CA qui dit qu'il va y avoir un meeting demain soir du CA sans avoir aucune participation par le public, ce qui est contraire à la loi, comme vous le savez bien, qui gouverne ce collège.

La question qu'on a pour vous est très simple. On a présentement avec nous aujourd'hui ici à l'Assemblée des représentants des étudiants et autres du Collège des Grands Lacs. On vous demande, êtes-vous préparé à intervenir dans ce dossier directement pour les étudiants pour les assurer qu'ils vont continuer leur éducation à un établissement ici à Toronto pour finir leur éducation ?

M. Bisson : Monsieur le ministre, j'ai un peu un problème avec votre réponse. Vous savez, comme moi, que le Collège des Grands Lacs a un budget d'au-dessus de six millions de dollars. Avec ces six millions, certainement ils sont capables d'offrir des programmes aux étudiants ici à Toronto.

Si j'entends bien ce que vous me dites, vous dites que vous acceptez la décision du CA. Comment êtes-vous capable de faire ça quand la loi est claire ? Il y a eu une décision qui est contraire à la loi, selon la loi qui gouverne les meetings du CA. Il n'y a pas eu de quorum. Là, ils veulent se rencontrer à huis clos, sans la participation du public, fermé complètement au public, ce qui est contraire au règlement sous la loi elle-même.

Je vous demande simplement deux affaires. Premièrement, je veux qu'on se rencontre avec les étudiants cet après-midi après la période des questions. Oui ou non ? Deuxièmement, êtes-vous préparé à intervenir pour les assurer qu'ils vont continuer leur éducation ici à Toronto, non à Sudbury ?

L'hon M. Baird : Je suis, bien sûr, toujours prêt, comme j'ai dit dans ma première réponse, à continuer de travailler avec le député du Nouveau parti démocratique. Ma collègue la ministre des Collèges et Universités a eu une lettre qui avait été écrite par le chef du conseil qui a dit qu'il y a eu un quorum dans la réunion dont le député a parlé.

Cette décision que le conseil a prise, c'est leur décision. C'est une décision qui a été très difficile pour les membres du conseil à prendre. Notre challenge était de travailler avec tout le monde pour --

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

SILICOSIS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I want to ask you about a very alarming issue in the Hemlo Gold Mines in my riding related to the issue of silicosis. Silicosis, as you know, is a disabling, irreversible, often fatal disease that we all thought was part of a bygone era. Yet at the Hemlo Gold Mines in the last few years we've seen an extraordinary increase in the number of cases of people who have been diagnosed with silicosis. In fact, there were five authenticated by the Ministry of Labour last year. We think there are many more. There is a great deal of concern about this, because it shouldn't be happening.

We're also very concerned about the actions that have been taken by the government. We know, for example, that this trend has taken place when we saw the medical monitoring that was controlled by the Ministry of Labour decentralized, which we think was a big mistake. In fact, the mine management and the union people all agree on that one issue. We also know that the air monitoring has been very inconsistent and is often being done with lots of warning being given, which we don't think is a good idea, and often in places where there is no equipment.

My question to you is, because this is an issue of extraordinary concern to many of my constituents, what are you doing about this? Have you been involved in this? Will you at least work with the Minister of Labour to see that the medical monitoring is returned to the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour? Clearly that is one of the reasons why this has happened.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I do share concern with the member on this issue. I know the Minister of Labour can best answer that question.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): We certainly agree that it's a very serious issue. I think everyone understands the importance of the health risk and those issues that go with it.

I will note that I've spoken to you about this issue personally; we've talked about it. You were quoted very recently in the paper as saying that you're hearing good things about how the ministry is dealing with this from workers and unions and officials in the north. I thought that we had a relationship, that we were trying to work to the same ends. The ministry's inspectors have been in there. I've also had my opportunities to meet with Nancy Hutchison and deal with the issue straight up.

I'm not here to make any political partisan points; I know you aren't as well. If you'd like to sit down and chat about this -- we'll update you on how we're monitoring, how many more inspectors are going in, how we're dealing with the issue -- I'll be very happy. This is not a political issue. I know you treat it that way. I feel the same. Let's sit down and see if we can work out an arrangement.

PETITIONS

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): To the provincial Legislature of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals needs more power to inspect and control animal kennels or breeders;

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

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

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

"That the province of Ontario pass legislation that outlaws puppy mills and other cruel animal breeding activities and also strengthens the powers of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to establish a provincial registry of kennels and breeders subject to SPCA inspection, and to allow the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to impose fines and jail terms on those found guilty of perpetrating cruelty to animals for the purpose of selling these animals to an unsuspecting public."

I affix my signature to this petition.

OHIP SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition sent to me by Dave Johnson, who is the recording secretary for the United Steelworkers of America, local 677, in Kitchener. I thank him for it. It reads as follows:

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

"Whereas these restrictions will cut off access to diagnostic hearing tests, especially in geographic regions of the province already experiencing difficulties due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

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

"Whereas services no longer covered by OHIP may include thermal therapy, ultrasound therapy, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, electrotherapy, magnetotherapy, nerve therapy stimulation and biofeedback; and

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

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

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

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

This is signed by hundreds of people in the Kitchener area. I agree with the petitioners and I've affixed my signature to it.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's entitled:

"Listen: Our hearing is important.

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

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

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

"Whereas this new Harris government policy is virtually impossible to implement in underserviced areas across Ontario" -- such as northern Ontario -- "and

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

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to permanently fund audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

I affix my signature to this petition, as I am in complete agreement with it.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That the province of Ontario pass legislation that outlaws puppy mills and other cruel animal breeding activities and also strengthens the powers of the Ontario SPCA to establish a provincial registry of kennels and breeders subject to SPCA inspection, and to allow the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to impose fines and jail terms on those found guilty of perpetrating cruelty to animals for the purpose of selling these animals to an unsuspecting public."

I affix my signature, as I am in complete agreement with this petition.

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the recipients of benefits under the Ontario Disability Act have not received a cost-of-living increase since a $2.50 increase in 1987; and

"Whereas the cost of living in Ontario has increased in every one of the years since, especially for basic needs such as housing, food, utilities, transportation, clothing and household goods; and

"Whereas disabled Ontarians are recognized under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, and as such have the right to have their basic needs met, including adequate housing, a proper and healthy diet, a bed that does not make them sicker and clothing that fits and is free of stains and holes; and

"Whereas their basic needs are no longer being met because the Ministry of Social Services has not increased the shelter and basic needs allowance of disabled Ontarians eligible to receive benefits under the Ontario disability support program to reflect the increased costs of shelter and basic needs (and in fact have reduced these benefits for those recipients who receive a disability benefit under the Canada pension plan); and

"Whereas a new Ontarians with Disabilities Act has yet to be introduced to help protect the thousands of vulnerable people in Ontario who are dependent on others for their basic needs and care and who are eligible for benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, request the Ontario Legislature to urge the government to respect their own definition of basic needs and provide a cost-of-living increase to recipients of benefits through the Ontario Disability Support Program Act that is sufficient to cover the increased costs of their basic needs as of 2001 prices, and that this benefit not be reduced as a result of increases in the Canada pension plan benefit."

As I'm in support, I add my name to those of the petitioners.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

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

"Whereas the November 2000 announcement of massive privatization of Ministry of Transportation services will have a significant detrimental effect on citizen road safety, confidentiality of citizens' information and on the economy of Ontario; and

"Whereas the employees of the Ministry of Transportation are recognized in writing by the provincial government to have provided excellent service on the government's behalf; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is taking away the livelihood and decreasing the standard of living of thousands of employees and families by its actions both directly and indirectly through spinoff effects; and

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are entitled to safe roads, consistency in driver testing, and competent inspection of trucks, school buses and vehicles carrying dangerous goods; and

"Whereas communities continue to need to retain decent-paying jobs if they are to maintain viability and vibrancy; and

"Whereas we taxpayers have entrusted the provincial government with the maintenance of public safety with an apolitical and efficient public service, a service free of profiteering and protected from conflicts of interests; and

"Whereas privatization is an abdication of such public trust;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to place a moratorium on all further privatization and to restore and promote public service as being of significant value in our society."

I have signed this petition.

OHIP SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that has been sent to me by the AWIC Seniors' Club here in Toronto. It reads as follows:

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

"Whereas these restrictions will cut off access to diagnostic hearing tests, especially in geographic regions of the province already experiencing difficulties due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

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

"Whereas services no longer covered by OHIP may include thermal therapy, ultrasound therapy, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, electrotherapy, magnetotherapy, nerve therapy stimulation, and biofeedback; and

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

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

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

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

I agree with the petitioner. I have affixed my signature to it.

HOME CARE

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

"The government of Ontario is reducing homemaking hours for the elderly and special cases. It is also reducing stays in hospital after surgery or illness by promising more homemaking at home, and yet the government is reducing those hours. The elderly are on a fixed income and cannot afford to pay privately to supplement the lost services.

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario review their intention to revise their home care policy and we also request that they reinstate the services withdrawn to this point."

That's signed by 1,100 of my constituents.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have more petitions from the town of Wawa.

"To the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources called for proposals with respect to surplus northeastern Ontario hardwood;

"Whereas Wawa Forest Products submitted a proposal for this surplus northeastern Ontario hardwood which included the building of a manufacturing facility in Wawa within the township of Michipicoten;

"Whereas on April 6, 2001, the Ministry of Natural Resources announced allocations of a portion of the surplus northeastern Ontario hardwood to Grant Forest Products in Timmins and Englehart, and Algoma Mill Works in Blind River;

"Whereas the residents of the township of Michipicoten believe that the proposal submitted by Wawa Forest Products is viable and will result in a desperately needed economic boost to the community and provide the industrial assessment needed for the continued viability of the community;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Minister of Natural Resources arrange a meeting between officials of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Wawa Forest Products and the township of Michipicoten. The reason for such a meeting is to coordinate a consensus on minor differences that may exist in the plan submitted by Wawa Forest Products. It is the hope of the township of Michipicoten and its residents that such a meeting would result in the construction of the Wawa Forest Products mill in Wawa."

I affix my signature to this petition.

OHIP SERVICES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Further petitions from Hamilton:

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

"Whereas these restrictions will cut off access to diagnostic hearing tests, especially in geographic regions of the province already experiencing difficulties due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

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

"Whereas services no longer covered by OHIP may include thermal therapy, ultrasound therapy, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, electrotherapy, magnetotherapy, transcutaneous" -- that's why we've all avoided that one -- "nerve therapy stimulation and biofeedback; and

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

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

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

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

I add my name to this petition.

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government take immediate action to ensure that these important health services are maintained so that the health and safety of families and children throughout southwestern Ontario are not put at risk."

I'm in full agreement and will affix my signature hereto.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 65,

An Act to permit the Minister of Transportation to delegate to persons in the private sector powers and duties and responsibilities to deliver services relating to road user programs, when Bill 65 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That no deferral of the second reading vote pursuant to standing order 28(

h) shall be permitted; and

That when the order for third reading is called, the remainder of the sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, to be divided equally among all recognized parties, and at the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

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

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

I'm very pleased today to rise in the House and bring forward a motion for time allocation on Bill 65, the Improving Customer Service for Road Users Act, 2001. The honourable members of the House know that our government believes that the essential and proper role of government for the most

part is to manage public services rather than deliver them directly. We have promised to explore alternative approaches to service delivery. We said so in our 1999 Blueprint document. We repeated that promise again in this year's speech from the throne. Bill 65 builds on that promise. We also made it clear, in bringing this bill before the House for first and second readings, that if passed this bill will deliver on some key issues that Ontarians have come to expect from their government. Those issues include better customer service, protection of privacy for all citizens and continuing support for road user safety programs in this province.

We believe that a clause-by-clause examination is not required, as this bill has already undergone extensive scrutiny. Since this bill was first introduced in the House, it has been significantly changed to address the feedback that we have received. We have met with our stakeholders, such as the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. We have listened to their concerns. We have also heard and responded to the concerns of the opposition. We have amended the bill to reflect these concerns and we believe no further amendments are called for.

We believe that time allocation will ensure that this bill will not be held up in repetitive debate, and if this bill is passed, the people of Ontario will realize its benefits. We believe it is in the best interests of the people of Ontario to move this legislation forward.

This legislation is, first and foremost, about better customer service. Better customer service is and always has been our intent. Bill 65, which we have before us now, would deliver on our goal to improve customer service in this province through alternative service delivery. It's all about customer service. It's also about accountability. Alternative service delivery of public services is an important part of this government's commitment to accountability. We have also pledged to provide high-quality services to Ontario's taxpayers while ensuring that they receive value for their money.

Our actions are also about strengthening the economy. Premier Mike Harris reinforced that pledge recently when he stated that this government will continue to take the strong action necessary to keep Ontario safe and prosperous. That included a commitment to greater security province-wide and to protect Ontario's trade and economic growth potential, a call for harmonization of rules and customs procedures with the US as well as meetings with other leaders to boost trade and reinforce relations.

As members know, the government has also accelerated the timing of personal income, capital and corporate income tax cuts, which were originally planned for January 1, 2002, and implemented these tax reductions immediately.

Alternative service delivery would build on those measures designed to improve service and boost the economy. Alternative service delivery would ensure that the services received by taxpayers are modern, safe, efficient and cost-effective.

I can tell you that we have worked hard to make the promise of alternative service delivery a reality. We currently have more than eight million licensed drivers in Ontario, out of a population of 11.5 million. Increased growth in population is estimated at an additional two million more by 2015. There are currently more than nine million registered vehicles in the province. These numbers continue to grow every year. A large part of that growth is due to the overwhelming economic success of this province.

It demonstrates that this government has put the right economic building blocks in place by focusing on sound financial management, a competitive economy, jobs and growth. And as our population continues to grow, we will find increased demand for driver services.

The Ministry of Transportation is responding to an established need. By permitting my ministry to transfer the delivery of some road user services and programs to other providers, this bill would improve customer service to the public. At the same time, my ministry will still be mandated under the proposed legislation to protect the public interest.

The bill includes important provisions to protect the privacy of individuals and to safeguard the confidentiality of their personal information. Yet some concerns have been raised about the bill, especially with respect to privacy. I would like to put some of those concerns to rest right now. For instance, it has been suggested that personal information in databases would be at risk in the hands of the private sector. The fact is that MTO would retain custody and control of all databases related to driver and vehicle information. Service providers would have access to limited information only.

They would only be allowed to see the information required to conduct specific transactions, as delegated by my ministry.

Another opposing point is the argument that the public, rather than the private, sector can better protect privacy. This is patently not true. Privacy would be protected to the same level under Bill 65, as it specifically ensures that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies to all new service providers. Therefore, the applicable records would always remain under the control of the ministry.

One of the first initiatives under this proposed legislation would be the transfer of driver exams. Yet it has been suggested that privatization would result in the inconsistent delivery of these exams. Again, the facts speak for themselves. To ensure a consistent approach and to ensure effective contract management and adherence to consistent standards, Ontario would seek one service provider to deliver driver examination services across the province. The ministry would maintain a strong role in ensuring that the new service provider fulfills its obligations as per its contract with the government. As well, the government would continue to set and enforce standards.

Some detractors would also suggest that driver licence testing is, by its nature, strictly a public service. The truth of the matter is that there is nothing in the concept of driver licence testing that makes it inherently a public service. Many professionals, such as teachers, doctors and lawyers, are licensed under a variety of systems, including private institutions. We have also heard the erroneous accusation that under Bill 65, patronage would be rampant -- again, not true. Every contract awarded under Bill 65 would be awarded through an open, competitive and fair process.

To those who might suggest that privatizing road safety and driver examination services risks safety, I would like to offer my assurances that at no time will road safety be compromised. Under new service providers, the ministry would continue to develop policies, legislation and regulations, just as it does today. We would continue to safeguard the public interest at all times, regardless of what services are delivered by ministry staff or other service providers. My ministry's role would be one of ensuring the service providers meet all legislative and contractual obligations. We would continue to establish standards and set curriculum, as well as train the service provider trainers.

The risk of increased incidence of fraud and corruption has also been raised as a possible problem with respect to the bill. On that issue, it should be noted that measures are currently in place to address the issue of fraud, and those measures would continue under any new service provider. We would also institute a performance management system that ensures accountability. We would rigorously audit and monitor the service provider to ensure standards are met. And, as it is dealt with today, any instances of fraud would involve a police investigation and ultimate prosecution.

Under the proposed legislation, alternative service providers would be required to abide by the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act with respect to their actions on behalf of the ministry. Additionally, alternative service providers would be mandated to create the position of privacy officer. The privacy officer would be responsible for securing all customer records related to the delegated business. I am very pleased and proud to advise the members of this House that this legislation has received accolades from Ontario's own Information and Privacy Commissioner.

In a letter to me, dated June 11, 2001, the privacy commissioner states, "The manner in which private service providers have been made subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is laudable.... This legislation, as well as the process through which privacy has been addressed, will serve as a good example to other government institutions, in the event they decide to provide services through private service providers."

We're proud of this support. As well, we have received support from other parties interested in protecting the public interest. The Canada Safety Council president, Emile Therien, says, "Privatizing driver testing makes a lot of sense. It will improve safety by providing testing when it is needed. Driver testing is a government function which can and should be privatized in the interests of safety." That from the Canada Safety Council president, Emile Therien.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada had similar praise. Mark Yakabuski, the bureau's Ontario vice-president, says, "Allowing alternative service delivery for driver examinations will solidify the enormous success that Ontario's graduated licensing program has already achieved in its few short years of existence. We hope that other jurisdictions will emulate Ontario's leadership in this important area."

I again want to stress that as we transfer the delivery of services to other providers, road safety in this province will not be compromised. Indeed, the safety of all road users remains a high priority for this government and for the Ministry of Transportation. In terms of road safety, I am pleased to let the honourable members know that Ontario has moved into first place in Canada; in fact, in North America, Ontario is second only to Massachusetts. Even though there are more vehicles and licensed drivers on our roads than ever before, Ontario has the best record in Canada, with the fewest number of fatalities per 10,000 licensed drivers.

The priority this government has placed on road safety in the past several years has contributed to this important milestone. We have implemented new road user safety programs, including an immediate 90-day suspension for drivers who have been drinking, impoundment of any vehicle being driven by a person who is suspended under the Criminal Code for driving-related convictions, impoundment of critically defective commercial vehicles and higher fines and sanctions for a wide range of offences. Our fatality rate in 1999 dropped to 1.10 per 10,000 licensed drivers, marking the 11th consecutive year of improvement.

It goes without saying, however, that even one fatality is too many. Clearly, road safety is a priority that must be addressed through a commitment by the ministry to the highest standards possible in developing and delivering effective programs. Part of delivering effective programs is providing quality customer service. The ministry has already made some significant customer service improvements that would address the growing population of Ontario drivers.

In 1999, for instance, the ministry introduced several measures designed to effectively address customer service issues at our provincial driver examination services. Under those new measures, the ministry hired more than 300 driver examination staff on a temporary basis. The ministry has also opened temporary driver testing facilities and expanded the hours of operation at several provincial testing centres. As a result, the Ministry of Transportation was able to offer more road tests and we have reduced the average waiting time province-wide for driver examinations.

But it was also clear that we needed to do more. That is why the transfer of driver examination services to a new service provider is being considered as the first major initiative under this bill. It is clear that alternative service delivery of driver examinations would bring innovation and greater flexibility in the way the services are delivered. Under a new service provider, the ministry is committed to reducing the wait time for road tests to six weeks or less across the province.

As all of the honourable members know, this government has already taken a number of measures to address the growing service pressures around driver examinations. In particular, we have sought to reduce the long waiting times faced by people in some parts of the province when booking their driver exams. We have made clear progress in this regard, but we also believe there is further room for improving service delivery. By transferring the ministry's driver examination business to another service provider, the Ministry of Transportation would build on customer service improvements that have already been achieved and offer enhanced service to the public in the future.

The Ministry of Transportation has done its homework and has studied how driver exam services have been improved by the private sector elsewhere. Jurisdictions like Alberta and Michigan report high customer satisfaction after adopting alternative service delivery models. The ministry learned from other jurisdictions' successes and from their failures. As a result, we can be confident that our made-in-Ontario solution for the delivery of driver exams will reflect the best of all experiences.

Although the transfer would affect many ministry staff, we can also be confident that a new service provider would need and want to take advantage of the considerable skills and professionalism of our existing staff. A new provider of driver examination services would need a flexible, multi-skilled workforce, people who can perform in a high-demand environment with new and changing relationships. It has been suggested by some that we are dismantling a service in which vital civil service jobs would be threatened. There is no dismantling.

In fact, we are strengthening my ministry's role in the delivery of services, as I mentioned earlier, through maintaining a strict control over how private sector agents would do business.

With respect to jobs, it should be noted that job offers, as required under the collective agreements of those affected staff, would be a mandatory part of any contract with a service provider and many ministry driver examination staff may find opportunities with the new employer. This has been fully discussed with the governing union.

As I a advised the House when I introduced Bill 65 for first reading, the proposed legislation has been written to address a number of important issues. For example, as part of the driver examination model, provisions would be in place to ensure that driver testing in Ontario continues to be fair and objective. As well, checks and balances would be in place to ensure that drivers who receive a licence from the province of Ontario continue to be required to meet our high standards for driving skills, as well as knowledge of the rules of the road.

Clearly, a new service provider would ensure consistency and support for our driver examination programs. For instance, the new system would provide support to, and enhance, Ontario's graduated licensing system. In itself, the graduated licensing system has been an unparalleled success story since it was introduced six years ago. A new service provider would help this program continue to build on its successful track record.

To ensure that driver testing in Ontario is delivered consistently in all parts of the province, the ministry would seek a single service provider to deliver driver testing services province-wide. Taxpayers would know exactly who is responsible for providing these services and who is accountable for their timeliness, cost and quality.

Under this new service delivery model, MTO would continue to play a vital role in the licensing of drivers on the province's roads. The ministry would establish the standards and curriculum for driver licensing. It would also train the service provider's trainers, and MTO would ensure the service provider's compliance with all of its legal and contractual obligations. As the service manager, the ministry would continue to develop policy, legislation and regulations on driver examination services, just as it does today. Moreover, the government would continue to set regulated fees for driver testing.

Under the new service delivery model, the service provider could elect to offer new value-added services to the public and would have the right to determine what fees it would charge for those value-added services. However, those services would first require approval by the Ministry of Transportation before they could be implemented. It should be emphasized again that no new services would be allowed before my ministry has had an opportunity to review them.

As I said earlier, alternative service delivery is all about serving customers better and finding more flexible and innovative ways to deliver the services. It's about dealing with growing demand in ways that are smarter and more effective. The Ministry of Transportation will continue to be accountable for establishing quality standards throughout Ontario's transportation sector and for ensuring that every driver -- every driver -- who receives a licence is qualified to hold one.

Our government remains committed to examining the province's assets and the services it provides to the public, and if there is a better way to deliver those services, rest assured we will pursue it. This bill would bring us closer to that goal, and I therefore ask for the full support of this House.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Further debate?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on the time allocation motion. The minister has talked a lot about the advantages of privatization. I just want to talk about the one that the government quotes most often, and I will tell the people of Ontario my experience with it, and that is the 407.

This was a deal where the provincial government sold the highway for $1.6 billion more than it cost to build. How were they able to do that? They were able to do it by essentially selling 407 toll road users down the road. It was no coincidence, by the way. If you look at the 407 press release, which I have here -- when do you think the closing date was on the 407? When do you think the cheque was dated for the extra $1.6 billion? May 5, 1999. The day the election was called, $1.6 billion came in for a pre-election slush fund for the Harris government.

The taxpayers may say, "Isn't it great that we sold it for $1.6 billion more than it cost to build?" Believe me, the only way that was able to happen was because the users of the 407 are going to pay for 99 years. I remember the discussion here in the Legislature -- and the reason I'm raising this is that the minister has indicated the great advantages to the public of privatizing these things, but we were told in the Legislature that the 407 might be sold for 30 years and then revert back.

I want to go over several things we were told at the time when it was sold that then turned out not to be the case. This is what the government said when they sold it, "Tolls can be adjusted by 2% per year plus inflation for the first 15 years and thereafter by inflation only." This would mean that tolls could increase by about three cents per kilometre over the first 15 years; in total, after 15 years, up three cents a kilometre. Lo and behold, as I say, the thing sold on May 5, 1999, and then the 407 owners -- and I don't know how they were able to do this, because the government told us they couldn't do it.

The first big increase was on September 27, 1999. This was like five months after they bought it. The next big increase was on May 1, 2000; the next big increase, January 1, 2001. In most cases the tolls went up by 57%. You remember what I read, and the government said, "Listen, trust us. Tolls are only going to go up three cents a kilometre." They've already gone up four cents a kilometre.

Originally the peak hours -- and this is when you pay the extra money. The peak hours when the road was originally sold were from 5:30 am to 9:30 am and from 4 pm to 7 pm through the week, five days a week. Do you know when the peak hours are now? The peak hours are now every single day from 6 am to 11 pm. That's the peak hours now, seven days a week, Saturdays and Sundays. The cute little arrangement here, the 407, in my opinion, is ripping off the poor users of the 407.

The minister mentioned that you can use freedom of information to find out. The 407 owners have been raising money on the market and in that prospectus there's a paragraph that says, "In order to understand this prospectus" -- it's about that thick because they're raising hundreds of millions of dollars -- "you must come to our office and read something called the 'tolling agreement.'" I phoned them and said I'm coming out to read the tolling agreement. I told them who I was, an MPP, and I'd like to read the tolling agreement.

The vice-president said, "All right, come on out, but you have to be prepared to invest." I said, "That's possible." "Yeah, but it could be $100,000." "All right." Then when he realized he was trapped, he said, "Oh, by the way, you have to sign a confidentiality agreement saying you will never reveal anything that you see in this deal."

I have been fighting now for a year and a half, coming up to two years, to get access to that tolling agreement. I would just say that every investor in Ontario who has $100,000 has access to it, but I and the public can't get it. I smile when the minister says, "This is all subject to freedom of information." I've been at it almost two years to get access to something that investors who have $100,000 can get. I would just say to the people of Ontario, the great 407 privatization has been for the users of the 407, a 99-year rip-off, and I feel badly.

What should have happened in that case was that the road should have been sold for cost to whoever would guarantee the best long-term deal for the users -- they deserve a profit -- but that isn't what happened.

The reason I raise it is because the minister today said, "Privatization is a huge advantage." I'd say that is not the case for 407 users. "Don't worry about freedom of information, because we'll make sure you get it." I've been trying. I still have appeals over there. I'm fighting the best lawyers that toll road users' money can buy to keep me from getting that information.

I might add, I have reason to believe -- again, I can't find this out -- that the 407 owner pays Ontario $5 million a year for confidential information on people's driving. As I read their prospectus, it appears to me that they are acting on behalf of toll road owners in the US to collect tolls up here for them and in turn get them to collect tolls down there for Americans who have used the 407 tolls. So when the minister says, "Trust us on privatization; this is all a great deal," I would just say to the 407 users, beware.

The minister also talked today about, "This is simply part of our economic plan." I have the budget here, and in the budget the government says that in Ontario we're going to see job growth this year of 150,000 and job growth next year of 175,000. I would just say, in the last four months alone -- and the statistics that came out were not influenced by the September 11 tragedy -- Ontario has lost 26,000 jobs. We haven't been gaining, we've lost, and this was before September 11.

Two major banks have done their economic forecasts for Ontario and over the two-year period, using their numbers, Ontario is going to fall between 200,000 and 250,000 jobs short of the predictions in the budget. I raise this because with September 11, obviously, the problems have been exacerbated, but before that we were running into problems. So the minister said, "Trust us on the economy."

I would also say I do pay attention to the budget. For those who are interested in it, for those who like finances, it's worth looking at. But I look back: when the Premier became Premier, the debt of Ontario was $90 billion. Today it's $110 billion. The debt has gone up by $20 billion. I say we have funded many of the tax cuts by deciding we would borrow money for them. The government doesn't like to hear that and we get into a big argument about it, but if you talk to economists, the money for the tax cuts -- and, by the way, you will never find an economist anywhere who says tax cuts pay for themselves.

I'll buy dinner for anybody who can find that, because the economists say, "Tax cuts don't pay for themselves. That's fiscal foolishness." But the Premier has decided to add $20 billion to the debt of the province.

I would also add that in 1990, the credit rating of Ontario was AAA, the best you can get. Today, after six years of the Premier, it's two rating points below that, still substantially below what it was in 1990. Again, I make that point because when the minister talked about the advantages of these things, it is because that's how they have run the province: 26,000 job losses in the last four months and $20 billion more in debt in Ontario.

If you look at the economic forecasts by the major banks, of the 10 provinces, Ontario will be the weakest in terms of economic performance in 2001 and 2002. This gets me to the concern about a couple of policies the government is pursuing that I think will exacerbate our fiscal problems. One is deciding that we are going to spend $500 million each and every year funding private schools. Believe me, our public education system, now and in the future, is struggling. It needs support. Yet, starting in now less than three months, we are going to begin to spend $500 million a year.

Finally, I would say that the other policy is that the government has decided that corporate taxes in the province of Ontario are going to be 25% lower than our competitors' in the US. I have this thing in my mind where I see Governor Ridge of Pennsylvania. He's saying, "Come to Pennsylvania because we have the best education system around." That's how he's competing. And we've decided we're going to compete on the basis of corporate taxes 25% lower than the US. In our opinion, that makes our health care system and our education system fiscally unsustainable.

I appreciated the minister's comments on it, but for those reasons we have some significant concerns on this legislation and the time allocation.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It gives me great pleasure today to rise in this House to speak about the Improving Customer Service for Road Users Act, 2001. As many members already know, the proposed legislation is designed to allow some Ministry of Transportation services to be delivered by another service provider. This is in keeping with a promise that this government made, in its Common Sense Revolution and Blueprint, to ensure a smaller, more efficient government. This legislation fulfills that promise.

It is a bill designed to improve customer service without compromising safety. It gives the Ministry of Transportation the authority to transfer the delivery of some road user programs and services to other providers. This legislation also ensures th