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

November 21, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Nov-21 vol. A (PDF)

L105A - Tue 21 Nov 2000 / Mar 21 nov 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ST JOSEPH'S VILLA

SCOUTS CANADA

TAX REBATE

POLICE ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

ANTI-CRIME LEGISLATION

YORK UNIVERSITY LABOUR DISPUTE

ROYAL AGRICULTURAL WINTER FAIR

POLICE ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

TORONTO MUNICIPAL ELECTION

SPECIAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CANADIAN NATIONAL EXHIBITION ASSOCIATION ACT, 2000

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (ADULT ENTERTAINMENT PARLOURS), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (LOCAUX DE DIVERTISSEMENT POUR ADULTES)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

APPRECIATION OF POLICE

ORAL QUESTIONS

SPECIAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

AMBULANCE SERVICES

MANDATORY DRUG TESTING

AGRICORP

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE

LABOUR LEGISLATION

AGRICORP

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

LABOUR LEGISLATION

PROVINCIAL PARKS RESERVATION SYSTEM

PETITIONS

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

HIGHWAY SAFETY

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

PARENTAL LEAVE

LONG-TERM CARE

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

FRAIS DE TRANSPORT AUX FINS MÉDICALES

REMEMBRANCE DAY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BACK TO SCHOOL ACT (HAMILTON-WENTWORTH DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE RETOUR À L'ÉCOLE (HAMILTON-WENTWORTH DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ST JOSEPH'S VILLA

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I rise this afternoon to speak about St Joseph's Villa, a

schedule D non-profit long-term-care facility in Dundas, which currently serves some 389 residents. The demographics of this facility are changing considerably. Increasingly, the residents are older and more vulnerable. Because of those changing demographics, like some other

schedule D facilities in Ontario, there's a need for facility enhancements or rebuilding. In fact, some 13,500 units are scheduled to be rebuilt. To this government's credit, there has been a commitment of some $18 million of $29 million in funding. They're doing a good thing but too slowly.

The problem is that the non-profit sector, unlike acute care facilities, is hamstrung in terms of their ability to raise funds. In this particular case, because the provincial government funding is over 20 years, the total cost of the project will approach $51 million.

I'd like to call on the provincial government today to revisit this policy and see if there's some way these kinds of facilities could be treated in a fashion similar to acute care facilities like hospitals, where 70% of the funding is front-loaded. That would make it easier for the very good thing this government wants to do to happen more quickly.

SCOUTS CANADA

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my privilege to rise today and speak about Saturday, November 18, when Scouts Canada had their awards ceremony for the White Pine region. It was held at Bowmanville High School in my riding of Durham. It's just a wonderful opportunity to speak positively about youth in our community.

Scouts Canada has long been known for its contribution to communities throughout Ontario and indeed across this great country. It teaches our young people the values of co-operation, resourcefulness and civic responsibility, among many other things. In short, it helps them become good citizens, and that is a goal to which we all aspire. These values were honoured at this year's awards in Bowmanville.

I would like to recognize and thank Hugh Coutts, the district commissioner, for his role in the ceremony and his contribution to this wonderful organization. I'd also like to recognize those who received some 64 chief scout awards, including Michael Stroyan, Donald Bark, Jesse Gilbert, Derek Shafer, Benjamin Ronson, Mark Noel, Matthew Bowler and Lambert Barr.

Also on the chief scout list this year were Kevin and Sarah Connelly, Ryan Knowler, Andrew Norton, Matt Rodgers and Bobby Skan. Finally, I want to recognize David Baxter as the sole recipient of the Queen's Venturer award for the riding of Durham.

I know that all members of the House will join me in congratulating these young leaders for their achievements over the past year and in wishing them well in the future. This is another example of Ontario at work and the young people leading the way.

TAX REBATE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I want once again to bring to the attention of this House that approximately 800,000 senior citizens in this province will not be receiving the "Harris cheque." My office and the offices of my colleagues have been inundated with calls and inquiries regarding these cheques. To be clear, the Harris government does not believe the very people who worked hard, fought for this country, raised families in this province and built this province deserve the cheque. According to Mike Harris, 800,000 seniors don't deserve a cheque because they don't make enough money.

After all, in the Mike Harris Ontario, only income taxpayers count. These seniors, many of whom are facing escalating property tax bills, heating costs which might rise up to 50% this winter and who face a myriad of new user fees, will not receive a dime from the Mike Harris government. Income taxpayers will receive this Jesse Ventura-inspired vote buyer.

In fact, one of my constituents in a small town had his cheque hand-delivered by a neighbour. The cheque and all his personal, private tax information was conveniently sent to one of his neighbours so they could peruse it and deliver it personally. Now we know, seniors and any regard for personal privacy don't exist in Mike Harris's Ontario.

POLICE ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): I rise today, as I have in the past, to recognize the efforts of police services in making our communities safe in Ontario. Today I recognize the Police Association of Ontario, which has worked hard to keep our communities safe. The Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Police Association of Ontario have worked together with one common objective: to reduce crime in Ontario. As a government, we think we've been successful, but we could not have done it alone, without the hard work of the Police Association of Ontario.

I ask the House to recognize the members from the association: President Bruce Miller, Ted Thornley, Bob Baltin, Dave Kingston, Brenda Lawson, Brian Miller, Terry Ryan and Rick Houston.

The Police Association of Ontario was founded in 1933. It is the official voice and representative body of Ontario's front-line police personnel. It provides representation, resources and support for Ontario's 70 municipal police associations. Its membership is approximately 13,000.

I thank the Police Association of Ontario for sharing their commitment to safe streets and safe communities.

ANTI-CRIME LEGISLATION

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I am pleased to rise today and say, on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals, we on this side of the House aren't just talking about crime, we're actually doing something about it.

Bill 6, introduced by Rick Bartolucci, the member for Sudbury, would have cracked down on child prostitution, pimps and johns. Yet that bill, which was supported by all members of the House at the end of the day, stalls. It will not go to third reading because this government won't let it become law.

Bill 67, supported by police associations all across Ontario, as is Bill 6, supported by police chiefs and associations, the Toronto Sun and the Toronto Star, would crack down on guns; 40% of the guns that end up being picked up by the police in cities like Toronto, Ottawa and Windsor. We would stop the proliferation of these BB guns, air guns, pellet guns and starter pistols. But this government wants to play politics. It has the support of everybody: the police, the chiefs, Ontarians. It has passed second reading. I urge the government: stop playing politics on this issue.

Get out of your partisan bunker on behalf of the gun lobby and pass Bill 6 and Bill 67. The sooner they are passed, the sooner police and victims in Ontario will be safer.

YORK UNIVERSITY LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I have a letter from a Ms Ruppert, which I endorse, and I want to read for the record.

"Over 2,400 teaching assistants, course directors, and graduate assistants have been on strike since October 26, 2000. One major issue of the strike is job security for course directors, some of whom have been teaching at York University for 15+ years and still have to reapply for their jobs every year. In addition, teaching assistants like myself are resisting the administration's decision to remove tuition indexation from our contract. Tuition indexation has served to help offset rising graduate tuition.

Graduate assistants at York University are asking for their first contract and have thus far only been offered a wage of $4,500 for eight months' work. To define the context further, it is important to mention that graduate students at York University pay approximately $5,200 of tuition per year. The administration's current offer leaves graduate assistants unable to pay tuition from their wages and teaching assistants with close to $700 per month to live on.

"This is not a dispute that centres on wage increases that a fledgling employer cannot afford. Currently, York University is running an $18-million surplus ... and the retention of qualified employees who have dedicated decades of their life to York. Instead, this dispute centres on York administration's unwillingness to ensure that graduate education remains accessible to all who wish to pursue it and that Canadian students receive the best possible learning environment."

I urge York University to deal fairly with these workers. I hope they come up with a settlement that treats them fairly.

ROYAL AGRICULTURAL WINTER FAIR

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to recognize the world champion farmers from Perth county who received top honours at this year's Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, the highest-regarded fair in the world, I might say.

Lorne Fell, from Staffa, won first place for wheat seed. It was Lorne's 22nd world title. Brian Miller, also from Staffa, won his sixth title for oats. Warren Wolfe of RR5, Mitchell, was champion in white and coloured beans, and Warren's wife, Bernadine, placed second in this category.

Eileen Haig, of the St Marys area, was grand champion and reserve champion in both the classical male llama and classical female llama categories. Gerry De Groot, from the Wartburg area, did very well in the hog competition.

Seventeen-year-old Heather Anderson, a 4-H member from RR2 Tavistock, placed third in the intermediate showmanship category out of more than 140 competitors from across Canada.

I'd also like to congratulate 20-year-old Brian Innes, from the neighbouring county of Oxford. Brian won the Young Speakers for Agriculture competition. He spoke about the changing face of agriculture and preserving family farms.

I want to commend the farmers from Perth county, and indeed those from the surrounding area, who took

part in this year's Royal Agricultural Winter Fair. Winning at this year's fair was especially gratifying for many farmers, given the low commodity prices and poor weather conditions they've had to endure.

Please join me in congratulating the award-winning farmers from Perth county.

POLICE ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I would like to take the opportunity today to welcome in all our galleries all the police officers and staff who are present for the Police Association of Ontario's annual lobby day here at Queen's Park. A particular note to my good friends and colleagues, people I've grown up with as students and safety officers and everything, Mr Len Ellens and Mr Mark Ireland: I appreciate your presence here, gentlemen.

The Police Association of Ontario represents 13,000 police and civilian members of municipal police forces across the province who work hard day in and day out to ensure our communities remain safe and secure. Some have even lost their lives in the performance of their duties. To them and their families, I offer my heartfelt gratitude and prayers.

Today the PAO has come to Queen's Park, where they will speak to various members throughout the day, to discuss their concerns about both community and policing issues. These issues include amendments to the Employment Standards Act of Ontario to extend maternity and paternity leave to one year, so that it falls in line with new federal guidelines. They remain vocal in opposing the privatization of our jails and of themselves.

Furthermore, as a result of downloading, the OPP and municipal police forces are forced to compete for police contracts. There are now 30 fewer police forces in Ontario than there were five years ago. I firmly agree with the PAO that communities have the right to select the type of policing that is right for them.

I look forward to discussing these and other issues with members of the police association today and hope they can convince the government that their needs are the needs of our communities.

TORONTO MUNICIPAL ELECTION

Mr David Young (Willowdale): I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the candidates for Toronto city council, the Toronto District School Board, the Toronto Catholic District School Board and, of course, the 26 candidates for mayor of the city of Toronto.

Municipal campaigns present special challenges for candidates. Unlike provincial and national candidates, who tie their political fortunes to party accomplishments, party platforms and party machinery, municipal candidates have only themselves and their records to rely on as they approach each and every door in their constituency. That's why municipal campaigns are very daunting, and often humbling, experiences.

The candidates in Willowdale included John Filion and David Shiner, both of whom were returned as councillors. Against them were Ron Summers, Youval Zilberberg and Bernadette Michael. Judi Codd will be returning as the public school trustee. Dave Shory, Raj Manucha, Michael Del Grande, Tommaso Stenta, Joshua Colle-another successful candidate-Marnie Ferguson, Phillip Horgan and Scott Cusimano also put their names forward, as did Nick Dominelli, Ryan Ward and Bill Higgins.

I'd like to take a moment before I conclude my remarks to also mention the fact that Joan King and Norm Gardner will be retiring, both of whom have served their respective communities for a considerable period of time. They will be missed.

I know that over the next three years I'll have the opportunity to work with the successful candidates, all of whom I consider excellent individuals, and I look forward to having that opportunity.

SPECIAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the Special Report of the Provincial Auditor on Accountability and Value for Money.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CANADIAN NATIONAL EXHIBITION ASSOCIATION ACT, 2000

Mr Kells moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr32,

An Act respecting the Canadian National Exhibition Association.

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

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (ADULT ENTERTAINMENT PARLOURS), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (LOCAUX DE DIVERTISSEMENT POUR ADULTES)

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 146,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act with respect to adult entertainment parlours / Projet de loi 146, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les municipalités à l'égard des locaux de divertissement pour adultes.

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

Carried.

The member for a short statement.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This bill amends

section 225 of the Municipal Act relating to adult entertainment parlours. It prohibits a person from operating such parlours unless they are issued a licence to do so by the municipality. It includes a requirement that the applicant for a licence not have been found guilty under the Criminal Code of Canada of keeping a common bawdy house, of living off the avails of prostitution in relationship to the adult entertainment parlour or of participating in organized crime.

The bill also prohibits a person licensed to operate an adult entertainment parlour from employing a person who is under 18 years of age or who does not hold a licence to work or perform or provide services in the parlour.

The bill amends the definition of "adult entertainment parlour" to include premises from which dates, escorts or nude or partially nude dancing are arranged for a fee and in which telephone, electronic or Internet sex lines are available.

The bill adds

section 226 to the act. This

section gives local municipalities the power to pass bylaws requiring persons to be licensed to work, perform or provide services in an adult entertainment parlour.

A person is prohibited from providing such services in a municipality unless a person holds a licence issued by that municipality. A person must be at least 18 years of age in order to be issued such a licence and have qualifications similar to those required to hold a licence to operate an adult entertainment parlour.

The licence issued by the municipality must contain a picture of the licensee and the licensee's date of birth. A person who works in an adult entertainment parlour must have that licence available at the parlour at all times while working and produce it for inspection upon request by a peace officer.

A person who is under 18 and is working in an adult entertainment parlour may be apprehended by a peace officer and brought to a place that is a place of safety within the meaning of the Child and Family Services Act. A person who is conveyed to a place of safety under these provisions may be detained for up to five days and shall be subject to

part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

In conclusion, the penalty for any violation is, "on a first offence, a fine of not less than $20,000 and not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment not exceeding six months," and, "on a subsequent offence, a fine of not less than $50,000 and not more than $250,000 or to imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both."

Finally, the municipality will revoke the licence upon conviction and also inform the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario of that revocation.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

APPRECIATION OF POLICE

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I wish to rise today to speak on behalf of all the people of Ontario. I want to pay tribute to Ontario's police officers, the brave men and women who risk their lives in the service of others. Like so many in this province, I consider the work of our police officers to be a noble calling, one of the highest forms of public service.

Here in Ontario, we are especially fortunate because we are served by outstanding officers of the law, the dedicated men and women of our province's police forces. They are, in my opinion, the best of the best. They are our everyday heroes and we depend on them every day. To them, risking their lives is part of the job. They do it without question and they do it without hesitation.

That's why I want to take a moment to say on behalf of the people of Ontario: thank you.

We count on Ontario's police officers constantly. We count on them instinctively. That's why I want them to know they can count on us. The overwhelming majority of the people of Ontario share, I believe, this sentiment-not all of them, and I say that sadly. To those who disagree, I want to ask you a couple of questions. What kind of society have we built if we forget or if we disregard those who risk their lives to protect us? What kind of society have we built if we tip the balance against the police and in favour of those who commit crime?

What kind of message does harsh and constant criticism of our police send to those who choose to live outside the law? What does it say to our children? They must understand from the outset who are the good guys and who are the criminals.

When it comes to taking sides between lawbreakers and those who enforce the law, or between victims and their assailants, let there be no doubt where this government stands. We stand for the victims, and we will continue to work to uphold and enhance their rights. We stand for the men and the women who risk their lives to enforce the law and to keep the public peace. We will continue to give them, to the best of our ability, all the support and resources they need to do their job, which is to ensure the safety of the people of this province.

That's why we've moved to meet the changing needs of police officers all across this province. That's why, through the community policing partnership program, Solicitor General David Tsubouchi has announced a long-term commitment of $35 million per year that is putting more than 1,000 new police officers on Ontario's streets. I'm pleased as well to announce to the House today that we reached our initial goal of 1,000 new officers on November 6 of this year.

Later in this session, Attorney General Jim Flaherty will be introducing legislation designed to address organized crime and to seize and freeze assets that have been acquired through illegal activity. Yesterday, Correctional Services Minister Rob Sampson introduced new legislation to further reform our prison, parole and probation system. These reforms include drug and alcohol testing for parolees and prisoners and the requirement that prisoners earn any remission of their sentences.

We have also launched a new and determined $4-million-a-year campaign to fight organized crime in Ontario. We've improved public safety with initiatives such as the Sergeant Rick McDonald Memorial Act, which imposes tough new penalties for those who flee the police.

Our police officers not only serve our communities; they and their families are also valued members of our communities. When these families suffer a tragedy, we all feel the pain. That's why we have established and continue to support the public safety officers' survivors scholarship fund. This fund grants scholarships to relatives of officers killed in the line of duty, enabling them to complete their education despite the loss of an important family member.

We have also renewed the mandate of the Crime Control Commission. One of the commissioners is Frank Mazzilli, the member for London-Fanshawe, who is a former London police officer and now the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General. David Tilson, the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey and the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, also serves as a commissioner.

Already in this term we have fulfilled our Blueprint commitment to introduce a Parental Responsibility Act.

Together with police officers and concerned citizens across Canada, we will continue to fight for changes at the federal level as well, including scrapping the existing laws governing young offenders and replacing them with tough and effective new measures; repealing the "discount law" that routinely lets offenders out of prison after serving only two thirds of their terms; repealing the "faint hope" clause that causes victims and their families so much trauma and so much grief; and stopping the practice of giving federal pardons to sex offenders.

Last spring I helped unveil the memorial to 200 Ontario police officers killed while serving others. At the time we all hoped and we all prayed that no new names would be added to that number. Sadly, since that time another officer, OPP Sergeant Marg Eve, was killed in the line of duty. Like her fallen colleagues, Sergeant Eve will be missed dearly by her family and by her colleagues and friends. As with all police heroes who have fallen, she will be remembered by all of us in this Legislature. The people of Ontario indeed will not forget the price these brave men and women have paid.

The police officers we pay tribute to with this memorial have made the ultimate sacrifice. They have earned our gratitude, our respect and now the place of honour we have created for them a thousandfold. The police memorial ensures they will forever be regarded as heroes in life, not death.

Today I urge every member of this assembly to recognize the contributions made by the members of Ontario's police forces past and present. I invite them all to find the time in their busy schedules to visit the police memorial and to take a moment to remember the more than 200 brave men and women who served their communities at the cost of their lives. At the same time, I encourage the people of Ontario to support their local police, to remember the dangers they willingly face every day and to give them the respect they have earned.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): Today I rise not only to support the Premier in his comments concerning our police services, but also because I want to bring to the attention of the Legislature a fact that the Premier omitted from his remarks.

I'm sure the members will be interested in learning that earlier today the Police Association of Ontario honoured the Premier with a special award, recognizing his continued commitment to law enforcement.

In presenting this award, Bruce Miller, president of the PAO, cited many of the government's achievements under the leadership of Mike Harris, achievements that help to create an Ontario in which citizens not only are safe, but also feel safe.

As part of the Mike Harris team, I've been privileged to support the initiatives that are giving our police the tools they need to do their job, a job that is sadly becoming more difficult and more dangerous every day.

As the Premier has mentioned, we've kept our promise to put 1,000 net new police officers on Ontario's streets. In fact, just last week I presented a cheque, along with Tina Molinari, to the York Regional Police Service, to Police Chief Bob Middaugh. Also present, of course, was the association representative, Dave Kingston. This cheque represented the one thousandth police officer, as the Premier has indicated before. We also introduced the Sergeant Rick McDonald Memorial Act.

It was at the very sad occasion of the funeral of Rick McDonald that the Premier and I had a chance to speak to the family, and the representative there as well, Brian Kingsley. It was at that time that both the Premier and I committed to bring forward legislation that would address the problem. I'm happy to say that we did pass the Sergeant Rick McDonald Memorial Act with the support of all members of this Legislature.

We have also honoured our fallen police officers with the Ontario Police Memorial. All this shows is that we are on the side of the police officers and we care about our police officers.

We've also taken action to enhance public safety in Ontario when the federal government has refused to act. For example, I was proud to introduce Christopher's Law,

an act which received the unanimous support, again, of the members of this House, which establishes Canada's first provincial sex offender registry.

I know I speak on behalf of my colleagues Attorney General Jim Flaherty, Correctional Minister Rob Sampson and all of my caucus colleagues as well when I say that we are committed to ensuring that Ontario has safe streets in safe communities.

At the same time, we must all understand that while the government passes laws and provides resources, it is the brave men and women of our municipal and provincial police services who are on the front line every day. We rely on their dedication and bravery, and I welcome the opportunity to join the Premier in saying to them, thank you for your work; thank you for your sacrifices on our behalf.

In closing, let me once again congratulate the Premier on receiving this very special recognition award from the Police Association of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Responses?

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): On behalf of the members of the Ontario Liberal caucus, I want to offer my words of support and thanks to the men and women of Ontario's police services. Let me say directly to the officers present in the gallery today and to all those watching these proceedings on TV, for your courage, your sacrifice and your dedication, for your strong commitment to serving our communities, we thank you.

Words are important, but we in the Liberal caucus know that words alone will never be enough. We believe that fighting crime starts with actions, not words. That's why we took the lead on banning replica guns in Ontario. When Michael Bryant first proposed it, the Solicitor General and Attorney General laughed. I am proud to say that our bill will soon be law and our police and our broader public will be the safer for it.

Because we believe fighting crime takes action and not words alone, we fought hard to end the Harris government's practice of allowing criminals sentenced to jail for fraud and drug trafficking and drunk driving to serve their sentences outside of jail, in a place much more comfortable, like their homes. When we first raised this matter, the corrections minister said we were wrong. After we provided additional evidence, it was the minister who was forced to admit that he was wrong. I am proud to say that because of Ontario Liberals and the work of my caucus colleague Dave Levac, the drive-by window has been taken out of Ontario's jails.

When it comes to victims of crime, it was Ontario Liberals who came to the aid of the surviving family members of that tragic OC Transpo shooting. You will recall that when I first raised the fact that Mike Harris's transition team was attempting to thwart the will of the people of Ottawa to give compensation to the families of those who had survived a terrible shooting, both the Attorney General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs refused to stand up for victims.

There is so much more that this government could be doing to fight crime and make our streets safer here in Ontario.

The Harris government talks tough about young offenders, as the Premier just did, but when it comes to enforcing the law, it becomes clear they are all talk and no action. In 1998-99, that fiscal year, Ontario only bumped up six young offenders into adult court. During the same period of time, Manitoba moved 29 young offenders up to adult court, Alberta moved 20 young offenders up to adult court and Quebec moved 23 young offenders up to adult court. But apparently here in Ontario, there is no such desire or appetite on the part of this government.

There is so much more this government could be doing to fight crime and make our streets safer here in Ontario. They could support tougher penalties for customers of child prostitutes, as Rick Bartolucci has proposed in his private member's bill. They could adopt Pat Hoy's school bus safety bill. They could listen to our police who oppose this government's plan to privatize our jails because, like us, they understand that privatization means a greater number of escapes, putting our public at greater risk.

This government might join us in putting a stop to the expansion of private police services in Ontario. Unlike the former Solicitor General, who thought private policing was an appropriate way to reduce government costs, I understand that there is a world of difference between a trained police officer and a security guard.

If the Harris government was really interested in public safety, they would take themselves out of the holster of the gun lobby once and for all. That means taking guns out of the hands of our 12-year-olds. It means allowing judges to take guns out of the hands of men who beat their wives, something this government refuses to do. It means supporting, not opposing, gun control.

Ontario Liberals have offered real solutions to both prevent and punish crime. While we've been tough on crime, the Harris government has proven time after time that it's just tough on talk. The Harris government is content to lay blame at the feet of Ottawa, but we happen to believe there is still much more for this Legislature to do when it comes to making our families and our police safe. I assure you that we will continue to do that work on behalf of those people.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I want to say a word directly to police officers across Ontario. I think police officers across Ontario ought to know that they enjoy the support and the respect of citizens across this province, that every day we thank them for the work they do, every day we thank them for their devotion to our safety, our security. We especially appreciate their devotion to their duty. I want every police officer in the province to know that.

I also want to take the time to respond directly to some of the Premier's comments, because while the Premier said that he wanted to congratulate and support police officers, there are a number of problems with his statement.

First of all, the Premier says that his government stands for victims. The only piece of legislation passed by this government with respect to victims was in fact reviewed by judges in Ontario courts who have said that you've done nothing for victims, that the legislation you passed is hollow. It is superficial. It grants no rights and no protections to victims. There is an ongoing need, if this government says that it stands for victims, to actually do something-not just to say something, but to do something.

The government says it is proud that, through the community policing partnership program, new officers will be added to police forces across Ontario. There's a little bit more information that needs to be made open to the public on this issue as well.

Municipality after municipality across this province has been very clear and very outspoken on the fact that because of this government's downloading of ambulance services-you set standards here but the funding level is down here-because of your downloading of the responsibility for clean water and for sewage treatment, because of your downloading of the costs of seniors' housing and social housing and the downloading of dozens of other community services, most municipalities in this province don't know where they're going to get the money to be able to participate in the partnership program.

They honestly don't know where they're going to find the money, never mind the money to operate the ambulances, never mind the money to ensure their citizens will be drinking clean, safe drinking water.

The Premier refers to corrections. The auditor today, in a special report-to my knowledge, the first time an auditor of Ontario has had to release a special report-has said your ministry of corrections is in a state of chaos. While the number of inmates is going down, the cost of operating the system is going up, and there is no rhyme or reason to why these costs are so out of line.

Then you talked about organized crime. In your mention of organized crime, I wish you had pointed out that the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario has said the biggest threat from organized crime in this province is its infiltration of solid waste companies, its infiltration of companies that handle hazardous waste. They believe it is a problem that seriously threatens the safety of Ontario citizens. Your government has been silent, except for your close relationship with one of the major solid waste landfill site companies, WMI, a company that has been fined hundreds of millions of dollars in the United States.

You talked about parental responsibility. I have a challenge, Premier. You know that police officers here today have asked your government to increase parental leave because hundreds, perhaps thousands of female officers, who we pay tens of thousands of dollars to train, are leaving police services because there is not adequate parental leave for them to spend time with their children and their families. If you care seriously about parental responsibility, extend parental leave, as police officers across the province have asked you to do.

I want to say again to the officers, thank you for your devotion to duty; and to the government, we'll continue to hold you accountable.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I want to join with the leader of the NDP, Howard Hampton, in expressing our high regard for police officers, but also our commitment to work with police officers and other partners within communities across Ontario to make Ontario a safer place for all our citizenry. That's why, when it came to impoundment rules for suspended drivers, we wanted the government to toughen up its legislation to ensure that impoundment was a consequence for suspended drivers caught in repeat offences. But the government didn't want anything to do with-

The Speaker: Order. It is now time for question period.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): On a point of order, Speaker: Given the unanimity in this House in terms of our respect and admiration for the police services, and given the unanimous support in this House for Bill 67, I seek unanimous consent for third reading of Bill 67 by month's end.

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

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Speaker: The Solicitor General in his comments indicated that police officers need the tools in order to do their job. We are in agreement with that. In fact, police officers from across Ontario have told the Premier, the Solicitor General and the Attorney General that Bill 6,

An Act to protect Children involved in Prostitution, is necessary for them to do their job. I ask for unanimous consent that this be called before the general government committee immediately.

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

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): On a point of order, Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to give second and third readings to Bill 122,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to increase the penalties for driving with a suspended licence, introduced by Mr Bartolucci.

The Speaker: Consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Speaker: On December 9, 1999, I introduced Bill 32,

An Act to amend-

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat. The member for Brampton Centre is not going to shout out like that. I will handle it. It's a point of order. Yesterday your Minister of Education did points of order to get the same thing. I'm going to hear the point of order. Please don't shout out again.

The member for Sudbury.

Mr Bartolucci: Thank you, Speaker. On December 9, 1999, I introduced Bill 32,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to require a driver's licence to be suspended if a motor vehicle is used when purchasing sexual services from a child. I ask now that it be referred to the committee on general government immediately.

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

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to seek unanimous consent that Bill 24, my school safety bill, be referred to the general government committee.

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

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In May of this year, the Raves Act, 2000, was passed in this House during private member's bills and has not yet been called to the committee of social justice. I would like that bill to be called if I could ask for unanimous consent to do that.

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

The Minister of Correctional Services on a point of order.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): -important bill for correctional services. I ask for unanimous consent for second and third reading of that bill today.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Interjections.

The Speaker: With all the noise, I couldn't hear. I'll ask again. Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SPECIAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question today is for the Premier. We believe that we have a solemn duty to protect the safety of the people of this province. Today the Provincial Auditor tells us, time and time again, that people's lives are at risk because of your government's negligence. His report is chock full of evidence.

First of all, let's deal with your government's abysmal record when it comes to the matter of land ambulances in Ontario. In 1998, more than one-half of our land ambulances did not meet response times. In 1999, in more than 60% of the cases, they did not make the standard. The auditor is now telling us that your disastrous plan to dump the responsibility of land ambulances on to our municipalities could make things still worse.

Premier, lives are at risk. In the face of the Provincial Auditor's report today, and his comments on this matter, will you now scrap your plan to download ambulance services and instead do your job, protect public safety and start by fixing the system that we have?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the question, and I appreciate the interventions of the auditor to give us advice in all of these areas, including the Ministry of Health, including land ambulances.

I think you know that the government this year is spending about $390 million for emergency health services in Ontario; $280 million for land ambulance services, substantially more than has been spent by any other government in Ontario's history. Indeed, we have not downloaded full responsibility for land ambulance services. Instead, what we have proposed to do is to work-and committed to working-with municipalities in developing a new partnership to improve ambulance services and to ensure high quality, responsive and seamless services are in place by 2001. We are working with that. Municipalities, for the most part, are quite excited about this opportunity.

Mr McGuinty: I can tell you, Premier, that municipalities and the Provincial Auditor are not excited about the opportunities. Take a look at page 10 of the auditor's report and look at the auditor's specific comments when he says, "Our major concerns were: Land ambulance services were being downloaded to municipalities at a time when over 50% of land ambulance operators were not meeting response time requirements."

Take a look at the report. The auditor tells us there's another way in which you're putting the health of Ontarians at risk. He tells us there has been a 41% cut in the number of inspections at our toxic waste dumps. He tells us there has been a 64% cut in the number of inspections at our water treatment plants. He tells us there has been a 25% cut in the number of inspectors to do the job of protecting our environment. The auditor says you're not preventing environmental disasters; you're sitting around and waiting for them to happen, and the people of Walkerton have paid a terrible price for your negligence.

Will you now stop putting lives at risk and start putting in place the inspectors and enforcement officers we've been asking you to put in place for some six months now?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me reference, first of all, your comment about land ambulances and municipalities. As you will know, many municipalities operated the services previously. The new 50-50 funding formula is in tune with our partnership model. Speaking about the transfer of responsibility, here is what one mayor said: "We'll want to get the best bang from the buck, and the best way to do that is to run it ourselves." That was McMeekin in the Hamilton Spectator, September 18, 1987. Mr McMeekin also said that moving to a fully integrated ambulance service reduced duplication and costs and dramatically decreased response time.

We appreciate the auditor's intervention, and we are moving exactly to increased service, to improved service and to improved accountability.

With respect to the Ministry of the Environment, which was the second part of your question, again we appreciate the auditor's report. I think the auditor himself references a number of initiatives we've taken in this area and acknowledges-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The Premier's time is up. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: The auditor is telling you, Premier-and I would recommend you take the time to actually look at his report-that you are placing public safety at risk. He's telling you that you are endangering Ontario lives. That's what he's telling you.

He's also talking about a very important issue: the safety of our children. He says you're doing a very lousy job when it comes to inspecting school buses. He says that you care more about saving a few bucks on inspections than protecting the safety of our children. He says you're not inspecting enough buses and, on top of that, you're not doing enough to keep tabs on the high-risk operations here in Ontario.

You want to take a chance with our kids' safety, you're taking a chance with the safety of our sick who want to be rushed at the earliest possible opportunity to the closest hospital, and you're taking a chance with the health and well-being of all of us by refusing to stand up for the environment. When are you going to do what the Provincial Auditor has asked you to do, which is to start protecting public safety?

Hon Mr Harris: The question involves a whole bunch of areas of the auditor's report. Perhaps to put it into perspective, the auditor, while identifying some areas that need correction, particularly in the Ministry of the Environment, which you commented on in your supplementary, applauds the initiatives we have taken with the Givens report and a number of initiatives to improve standards and services. He also, as you know, points out the abysmal record we inherited. I can go back to your own government, to auditor's reports when Jim Bradley was Minister of Environment, where the Provincial Auditor pointed out that a number of areas were not at all being investigated.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Name one. You can't. You're all confused.

Hon Mr Harris: If you would like me to name one, I would be happy to. It says right here in the auditor's report, 1987, then-Minister Jim Bradley-

The Speaker: I'm afraid the Premier's time is up.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, that dog just won't hunt any more. Start acting like the Premier. Start acting like the leader of the government. Start taking responsibility for the actions of your government.

You know something else the Provincial Auditor tells us? Not only is this government failing to protect people, it's failing to protect our people's money. My second question is about those high rollers over at Agricorp. Instead of administering crop insurance, it's playing craps with the public purse. The auditor's telling us that Agricorp was playing the markets in hopes of making a quick buck and it quickly lost $325,000 in two weeks. I'd like to hear from the guardian of the public purse, the champion of the taxpayers' interests, how it is that his government was standing on guard for taxpayers when Agricorp lost $325,000.

Hon Mr Harris: I think this very issue has been asked a number of times in this Legislature. The Minister of Agriculture responded on a number of occasions and acknowledged at the time that Agricorp acted inappropriately and that the board acted inappropriately, and those people are no longer working for the government of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: I can see why the Premier wants to get this behind him, but let's bring out a few more of the facts because they're really very, very delicious.

Premier, when farmers invest in crop insurance they expect that the money will be available to them should they happen upon hard times and need the money. Not only did Agricorp lose $325,000, it actually paid somebody $400,000 to lose that money for them. The auditor says that an investment adviser was paid $400,000 for-and this has got to be the understatement of the year-advice that "was of little value."

Premier, the advice wasn't only lousy, it was against the law. The auditor says that the adviser was suggesting investments that Agricorp was prohibited, by law, from making. That's $325,000 lost on bad investments and $400,000 lost on bad advice.

Premier, again, how can you boast about protecting the interests of taxpayers when this sort of stuff happened right under your nose?

Hon Mr Harris: In this case, the Minister of Agriculture has already reported to you the full report from Agricorp. In fact, Agricorp reported in good faith. They obtained legal advice, entered into a three-way agreement-the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada-to access a portion of the interest earned on the crop insurance fund. The auditor, by the way, subsequently said he didn't think that was appropriate. Neither did we think it was appropriate when it was brought to our attention. That's why the money has been returned to the access funds; it's been returned with interest, and that employee is no longer with the government.

Mr McGuinty: It gets better still. I've so far talked about $725,000 lost by Agricorp, but that's really small potatoes when you compare it to the $14 million put at risk. The auditor says that Agricorp paid $14 million for a reinsurance scheme that wasn't put to tender-it may not have been necessary-not to mention the improper expense and travel claims or the fact that after six vision statements in three years, Agricorp still doesn't seem to have a clue of what it's all about. Premier, who's advising these guys? Your friends over at the ORC?

Let's put this all together: $725,000 lost; $14 million spent which probably never should have been spent in the first place, and that matter was never put to tender. We've got improper expense and travel claims. I can understand, Premier, why you want to put this matter behind you and you want to move on to other issues, but don't you think the appropriate thing to do in all the circumstances is to ask the Ontario Provincial Police to conduct an investigation into this matter?

Hon Mr Harris: I'd be happy to accept the advice and see if the OPP thinks it's appropriate. In the mean time, this is an issue that the minister himself has come forward with, acknowledged, dealt with, and the person responsible is no longer with the government.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. If you haven't read this special report of the Provincial Auditor, you ought to read it now, because the Provincial Auditor wants to know why it is under your government the ambulance services of the province have become a threat to life instead of a lifesaver. He wants to know why under your government the ambulance service can no longer even meet the 1996 standards.

He wants to know why under your government, in too many communities across this province, ambulances with gravely ill patients wait at the emergency ward for up to 45 minutes before they can deliver their patient. What's your response to the auditor? Why have ambulance services in this province deteriorated so badly under your government?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the auditor's report says nothing of the kind. The auditor's report points out that even though we have given significant increases in funding to ambulance services directly, even though municipalities have contributed increased funding to ambulance services directly, still there are areas of the ambulance system that are not meeting all the standards we expect of them. That was the case when we took office, and it is still the case now, although better we believe.

We do have a plan, which I think the auditor and many municipalities have acknowledged is in place. As I indicated, many mayors and reeves understand that if we get accountability, municipalities feel they will do a better job. We are full 50-50 funding partners of this. We appreciate the auditor's pointing out these things. As you know, we have dealt with a number of them, and we are confident that, once and for all, unlike the five-year period of your government, we can have an ambulance system that will meet the standards they did not meet-

The Speaker: Order. The Premier's time is up. Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: Premier, your line sounds fine, except the auditor directly contradicts it. This is what he says about your so-called realigned service, the one you're downloading on to municipalities. He says, "The realigned land ambulance system may not provide a balanced and integrated system of services and may be more costly to Ontarians." He doesn't refer to the 1990s or the 1980s. He points out that the deterioration has been since 1996. You were the government in 1996, Premier.

How many more inquests like the Fleuelling inquest is it going to take before you recognize that your strategy of, first of all, creating problems in health services and then trying to download the problems on to municipalities is not going to work? That's the point the auditor is making, that your whole strategy, first of all, of mismanaging the ambulance service and then downloading the problem is wrong-headed. What's it going to take? How many coroners' inquests will it take to persuade you that you're headed in the wrong direction and you're putting more lives at risk?

Hon Mr Harris: What the auditor points out is that you had no standards. In 1996, we recognized that. It was all over the map. Municipalities provided some, the government provided some, hospitals provided some and private sector operators provided some of the services. There were no standards. In 1996, we brought in new, improved, more strict, more responsive standards that had to be applied all across the province. At the same time, we are looking at a uniform administration. The auditor is right.

It's not "may" be more costly, it will be more costly because we are improving and trying to meet far higher standards than we ever did in the past. We think that's important. We think that's what Ontarians want. Now that we finally have a standard that's public, transparent-something you refused to do-we can move toward that goal.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you can try to spin the line again, but it's right here in the auditor's report on page 10 that you are underfunding the system right now by $53 million. That's what you're handing off to municipalities, a system that is underfunded by $53 million a year. He says in this report that the uncoordinated system that's going to result because of your downloading is not going to improve services; it's going to make services worse. Everything he says in this report is a condemnation of your government's handling of this critical health care service.

What is it going to take to convince you that Ontario needs an integrated ambulance service, not one that is spread all over the map depending upon this municipality or that municipality? You're putting lives at risk. That's what the auditor says, and the plan of downloading is going to put more lives at risk. When are you going to realize you're wrong and reverse a direction, a strategy, that is going to harm more citizens in Ontario? That's what the auditor wants to know.

Hon Mr Harris: Let's take the city of Toronto, for example. The NDP had 50-50 funding with the city of Toronto; we have 50-50 funding with the city of Toronto. So there is no change there. What has changed is that we have set standards. We have, previous to the latest announcement, increased funding by about 30% over and above what you funded ambulance services, including the city of Toronto. The minister has announced since the auditor's investigation an additional $30 million over and above the 30% increase we've already given. Why? Because we set a new, higher standard.

I happen to agree with the former mayor of Flamborough, who said, when we would have municipalities be responsible, "We believe that by moving to a fully integrated ambulance service"-as the auditor has called for, as we announced, as the former mayor of Flamborough, now the Liberal member for that area, has indicated-"we could reduce duplication, reduce costs and dramatically decrease response time." He's excited about the potential, he says, and-

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

New question.

Mr Hampton: Now for one of your more-money boondoggles: the auditor reports that your appointees, your friends at Agricorp, took $325,000 of farmers' money and blew it on speculation on the stock market. Then, he points out, your friends, your appointees at Agricorp, tried to take $10 million out of the fund to protect farmers and use it to cover up their excessive administrative costs.

Where was your Minister of Agriculture in all of this? He was nowhere. The auditor had to step in and blow the whistle.

Premier, how is it that your Minister of Agriculture, your government, would allow $10 million to be spent inappropriately, $300,000 to be blown improperly on the stock market, and neither your Minister of Agriculture nor anyone in your government had a word to say about it? Where were you, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: As I've already indicated in response to your very original question that has been asked about five times over the last number of months-and I've just given the answer-the Minister of Agriculture did intervene, and even though the board had a legal opinion that felt it was appropriate, our Minister of Agriculture sided with the auditor and said, "We don't think it was appropriate." He ordered restitution, which we did.

We returned the $10 million, with interest, and at the same time made changes to those operations because we believe, as you believe, as the auditor believes, as I think the whole public would acknowledge, something inappropriate took place there, and that's why that person is no longer with the government.

Mr Hampton: Once again the auditor completely contradicts your story. The auditor-and I'll quote him here-said he became so concerned about Agricorp's repeated attempts to "violate its fiduciary responsibility," to act illegally, that they had to intervene. Your Minister of Agriculture was nowhere to be found; your office was nowhere to be found. The auditor had to seek independent legal advice and read the riot act to your friends in Agricorp before they would stop spending money illegally.

The question is, Premier, where was your Minister of Agriculture and where were you when your appointed friends at Agricorp were prepared to break the law to cover up their own financial boondoggles and their own administrative incompetence? And why did the auditor have to come in and blow the whistle on it?

Hon Mr Harris: I thought the word was "fiduciary," but you're a lawyer; you would know a lot better than I. I would like to say that I've answered this question. We believe they acted inappropriately, and we took the appropriate action to correct that and to make sure it won't happen again.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Premier, whose response to the auditor's report on the land ambulance system is absolutely incredible. The auditor today delivered a scathing condemnation of your failure to deliver adequate land ambulance services.

Two weeks ago, Dalton McGuinty stood in this House and asked you if it was safe to download this vital service. You said, "Yes, it's safe." The auditor today clearly says it's not. The Premier today said they put a higher standard in place in 1996. Not so. All you did in 1996 was expect operators to meet the standard of what they were actually doing in 1996, and they haven't even been able to do that.

Let me repeat the facts from the auditor's report. In 1998, two years after you supposedly brought in this higher standard, 50% of land ambulance operators did not meet legally required response times. For the first half of 1999, six months further on your watch, the failure to meet those standards was up to 60% of operators. All you required was that they get back to where they were in 1996. It's gotten worse on your watch. People's lives are at risk because ambulance response times in this province are too slow.

Will you tell us, in the face of this evidence of the inadequacy of our ambulance service, of how unsafe the ambulance service is, why are you proceeding to download this inadequate, unsafe service on to our municipalities?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): It was hard to hear the question over the yelling of the member from Windsor West, but I believe it would be a question appropriate for the Minister of Health.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Perhaps the member opposite does not recall the fact that the province has not been delivering ambulance services. We only had 10. Prior to the changes that were made, maybe you recall that 69 of them were operated by the private sector, 64 by hospitals, 13 by volunteers and 17 by municipalities. So what we have endeavoured to do is ensure that there is greater accountability within the system, that we are putting in place a seamless, integrated system of delivery of ambulance services.

We believe the municipalities are quite capable of delivering ambulance services, just as they do fire and police emergency services, so we are moving forward in that regard and we are continuing to meet-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Sorry, the minister's time is up. Supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, you set the standards and you also pay the bills, at least you do until January 1. In the entire time you've been the government responsible for this, you've not provided the resources necessary to maintain even a minimum standard of response times for our ambulance services.

You have been hearing from municipalities for months now. You've been hearing their concerns about the state of the ambulance system you're handing to them. They've been telling you exactly what the Provincial Auditor is telling you today in this report. The muni cipalities don't know how they're going to be able to afford to bring this totally inadequate ambulance service up to even minimal standards. The auditor says in this report that it will cost $100 million more just to bring the ambulance system up to that 1996 standard you have so miserably failed to meet. Nobody has seen you put $100 million on the table.

The conclusions of the auditor's report are absolutely clear and are of vital importance: ambulance response times are too slow. They've been getting worse on your watch. The municipalities simply can't afford to get their ambulance systems up to minimal standards. Will you stop the downloading and take the responsibility of putting a safe ambulance system in place?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'd just like to quote from the Provincial Auditor's report of 1995, which says, "Ministry statistics indicated that in 1993-94, only three out of 21 central ambulance communication centres met current standards."

I want to tell the member that our government is working with municipalities to meet all standards. In fact, the member may not know that there have been meetings that have been ongoing, co-chaired by my parliamentary assistant, Brad Clark. They had a meeting on November 16. They are reviewing the response time standards. They are reviewing the standards for a transfer class of ambulance service and a variety of operational standards.

I'm very pleased to say that we have put forward to the municipalities $30 million, and obviously we've committed to 50% funding to meet all standards.

MANDATORY DRUG TESTING

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. Many constituents of mine in York North have expressed a deep concern over public safety. There are so many aspects of this complex issue that our government has worked on, but there is still more to do. To promote safety in our communities, as well as assisting those in our communities who need addiction treatment, why is it important to ensure that mandatory drug testing of inmates is a necessary step in our quest for safer streets?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): It's quite simple. It's very important for us to have an extensive drug-testing program in the institutions just like it's important outside the institutions, I say to the member from Parkdale. It's important to make sure we have very active control over the use of drugs, illegal or otherwise, in order to make sure we have effective treatment programs. I know the members from the various police associations who are watching here today know it's very easy to get drugs in the institutions around this province. Unfortunately, that is the case.

We need to make sure we can start to identify the presence of illegal drugs, and drugs in any case, in jails so we can get a better handle on how to deal with that.

Mrs Munro: In tackling this complicated and dangerous issue, we need to bring this issue into the forefront on all sides of this House. The Liberal opposition has objected to drug testing individuals who are receiving social assistance which, without doing so, will hinder their ability to get treatment for their addiction illness. Do you feel there would be opposition to this initiative and, if so, what would it be?

Hon Mr Sampson: I suspect there will be opposition. Just a few minutes ago I asked for second and third readings-and we didn't receive that from the opposition benches in this House-of the very important bill that will allow us not only to deal with the terrible incidence of drugs in our institutions, but also finally to deal, at least in our jurisdiction, with the discount law we have been actively asking the federal Liberals to discontinue, but they have not listened. So we will say that in Ontario you will not be able to get out of jail unless you have earned the right to be released early.

I wish the federal Liberals would take some action and get rid of the discount law in its entirety. But in the absence of that action-and, frankly, I don't hear federal Liberals speaking to this point during the election-we'll do what we can in Ontario to make sure that any release from jail, whether it's through parole or early release remission, is earned.

AGRICORP

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. On October 2 in this Legislature, I asked the Minister of Agriculture very specifically, " Minister, can you tell us why, on your watch, you permitted people at Agricorp to play with farmers' insurance money and lose $300,000?" Your minister replied as follows: "I want to assure the member opposite and all the farmers in Ontario that at no time was any money that was designated for the farm assistance program or the farm safety net program in danger or used for these purposes."

Today in the auditor's report on page 26, the auditor makes the following finding: "AgriCorp also inappropriately used funds held for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs in its daily trading strategy." It used $2.9 million, which "came from funds held for the ministry to make payments under the Ontario whole farm relief program."

This money is designated for a very special purpose. Farmers contribute this money to make sure it's there and available to them should they fall on hard times. This money was used in a day-trading scheme which resulted in the loss of $300,000. When I put this question to the minister, he said that at no time was this specially earmarked insurance money ever at risk. The auditor tells us today that, in fact, it was. Premier, what are you going to do about this?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm going to ask the Minister of Agriculture to answer it yet again.

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that at the time I was quoted as saying that at no time was farmers' money put at risk-I want to assure the member opposite that what the auditor had discussed with us at that time was the amount the people at Agricorp had used in day trading out of their administrative funds. Later on it turned out that the auditor, in further investigation, found they had in fact bought a large bond using some of the money we had given them to send out the cheques. They had included some of that.

That is where the $61,000 loss comes from. Immediately upon that being reported, we put the money back to make sure the farmers were not put at risk.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I don't know if you recognize the seriousness of this matter. I asked you specifically in this House if at any time insurance monies that farmers had placed in this insurance program, which were specifically earmarked to help them should they fall on hard times, were ever put at risk. You said, "No, that money was never at risk."

The Provincial Auditor tells us today, very specifically, that those same funds were in fact placed at risk. Agricorp had a special fiduciary responsibility to protect this insurance money for farmers. I asked you about that, and you said that at no time was this money placed at risk. You have compromised your credibility. I think the appropriate thing to do, in the circumstances, is for you to resign.

Hon Mr Hardeman: On that issue, I would suggest that maybe the Leader of the Opposition should read the report of the auditor. I totally agree with the auditor's report. But I want to point out to the members of this Legislature and to the farmers of Ontario that in fact the insurance money we spoke of is in the crop insurance plan, in which there are farmers' contributions, federal government contributions and provincial government contributions, which are to be used to pay out crop insurance.

The money the auditor is referring to is in fact whole farm relief money, which is totally government money which was sent to Agricorp because they issue the cheques for the whole farm relief program. The applications are not processed by Agricorp; they only issue the cheques. I want to assure the member opposite that at no time was farmers' money, the premiums they had paid, ever put at risk in this-

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

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Our government recently committed over $1 billion in infrastructure investment in our colleges and universities through the SuperBuild initiative. This is a historic commitment and one that will certainly strengthen the future of our post-secondary institutions. In my own riding of Guelph-Wellington, we've been pleased to receive over $50 million at our wonderful University of Guelph.

Our attention today is turned to the auditor's report. As in all areas of government spending, it is important for all concerned, especially Ontario's taxpayers, that we ensure this substantial investment is spent efficiently and effectively. Your ministry took the first step towards ensuring this money is prudently spent by choosing successful projects through a competitive process. Now that the winning SuperBuild projects have been chosen, our government must continue to ensure the efficient use of taxpayer's dollars through the life of the SuperBuild program.

In your ministry, what is the government doing to monitor SuperBuild funding and construction to ensure that our taxpayers do get the greatest value from this investment?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): The member from Guelph-Wellington is very much aware of what is happening across this province. I would like to add that all colleges and universities that have submitted and received SuperBuild awards must submit annual capital and investment reports. This will provide the public and our government with an overview of the state of infrastructure at our post-secondary institutions and allow for better planning and management. The project status reports are going to be received by the end of this month.

We are asking two things: first of all, the development status and, secondly, where is the private money? Has it in fact materialized?

What I'd like to emphasize is that this is the first time any government has asked for this kind of information, which should be ongoing with regard to the capital assets of this great province.

Mrs Elliott: I am pleased to see that you have considered carefully how this historic investment of $1 billion will be monitored. These are investments in new construction.

Minister, as you know, in my riding many of the buildings on our university and college campuses are more than 30 years old. My president, Dr Rozanski, has met with me several times to talk about how to deal with the aging infrastructure. As the demand for post-secondary education increases, effectively using these facilities is as important as building new ones.

What is the government doing to ensure that our aging infrastructure in our colleges and universities is being kept to modern standards?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We inherited a system that hadn't been given the kind of attention it needs. We know that new construction is not the only step that the government must take to support the future and the strength of our colleges and universities. That's why we are working also to maintain and upgrade our existing facilities. We want to make sure that the facilities are in good repair through record investments in the facilities renewal program. This is normally about $40 million a year, but last year the finance minister awarded the col leges and universities some $95 million, which is a 35% increase, to support the modernization of our facilities.

Again, regarding our facilities, our institutions must submit an annual capital plan and investment report. We want to ensure that the maintenance needs are kept up and that our colleges are working efficiently.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. As we speak we have on the floor of this Legislature Bill 69, which, as amended by your government, will give you broad, sweeping, dictatorial powers to eliminate construction unions at will. We have Bill 139 in front of the House-where you've now tabled the time allocation motion muzzling any further discussion-which is going to allow many employers to have legal immunity to walk away from their collective agreements and their obligations, and it will encourage employers to pressure workers to get rid of their union.

On top of that, we know that in the next few days you're likely to introduce a bill that will change the Employment Standards Act to increase the hours of work to up to 60 hours a week.

Yet in the midst of all that, Minister, the other day you had the audacity to stand in your place and say that electing the Mike Harris government was the best thing that ever happened to workers. I want to know how you can justify that statement in light of the fact that every labour law you've introduced has taken away rights of workers.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Our friends in the galleries, we're very pleased to have you here and we understand that sometimes it gets emotional, but unfortunately you're not allowed to clap and participate. If you do it again, I'll have to clear the galleries. As I say, we enjoy having you here, but unfortunately you can't clap and participate in that manner. I'd appreciate your co-operation.

Start the clock. Sorry for the interruption, Minister of Labour.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I think it's fairly clear to most people in the province that the legislation adopted by this government has done a great deal in propelling the economy, creating jobs, creating opportunity, creating work, giving people an opportunity to get off welfare, to get off unemployment insurance and giving them jobs and prosperity in order to feed their families, pay their mortgage, pay their rent and do those things that are best for them.

I appreciate the fact that you don't agree with the approach we're taking, but I think any balanced and unbiased individual who tried to compare your administration's goals and objectives and what they qualified and did as compared to ours would suggest categorically that this government has been a roaring success while you were a dismal failure.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, let me tell you, the rhetoric that you continue to use impresses no one. Let me talk about real people, real individuals and real laws. On February 2 of this year, 10 electricians were fired from Drycore for the simple act of exercising their democratic right to join a union. Under legislation that existed when you took power in 1995, within a few weeks if not a few days, those individual workers would have been in front of the Ontario Labour Relations Board having their day in court.

As a result of your changes, they are not scheduled to have their day in court until at least January 17, 2001. Never mind the rhetoric. Tell me how those 10 electricians have been bettered in terms of your legislation when clearly their rights have been denied by labour laws that you've rammed through this Legislature.

Hon Mr Stockwell: You know full well that, specifically before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, things are referred there at any number of times. We have a responsibility, being an arm's-length agency, that we not comment nor relay information on issues that are before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

It's no secret that when you were in government, programs and processes also took some time before that board as well. The fact remains that they have their opportunity to appeal decisions. They may appeal those decisions before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. If in fact they were wronged in any way, shape or form, orders to comply will be issued to the company and they will be conformed with.

I don't believe we should be able to jump in and tell a quasi-judicial tribunal how to operate. I don't think you believe it, nor do I.

The Speaker: I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

AGRICORP

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question again is for the Minister of Agriculture, and I want to return to the same matter I raised a few moments ago.

Minister, when I raised this matter with you in October of this year, you said that at no time was any insurance money placed at risk or used in this speculative scheme.

The Provincial Auditor prepares his report based on work completed by the end of March, fiscal year-end. Minister, are you telling me you had no inkling whatsoever that the Provincial Auditor had been inside Agricorp, was very concerned, had conducted a full inquiry and left no stone unturned, and yet when I put this question to you in October of this year, you had no knowledge whatsoever that insurance monies that had been set aside for farmers in Ontario, insurance monies that were impressed with a fiduciary trust, were at no time placed at risk?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I want to point out that I did meet with the Provincial Auditor when he started the value-for-money audit with Agricorp. He pointed out some of the concerns he was finding and made some suggestions on what we could do to encourage Agricorp to correct some of the problems that were coming up. At that time, the auditor did not come out and itemize each item of where the concerns were, just in general terms that there were concerns as to the appropriateness of some of the action Agricorp was taking.

It was from there on that we took what actions we could to make sure the systems were put in place at Agricorp and through Agricorp to make sure the farmers' money was properly protected.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, if I take you at your word-and that's not an easy thing to do given the information provided by the Provincial Auditor-why is it, then, that when you finally received information, which you say you did not have in your hands in October when I put this question to you, you did not at some point in time return to this Legislature and inform the House that some illegal activities had taken place, that monies were used inappropriately? Why is it that in September you sent a letter to Steve Peters, my caucus colleague, and again said no illegal activity took place when it came to this very matter?

Minister, your credibility is at stake here. You told us that at no time was this insurance money used in a way that would be illegal. The Provincial Auditor tells us clearly that in fact it was used in an illegal manner. I think it's your responsibility to take responsibility for this. I think the appropriate thing to do in all of the circumstances is to step aside.

Hon Mr Hardeman: I just want to point out that I'm not aware at this time that illegal activities took place. What I am aware of is that very inappropriate action was taken by the board and the management at Agricorp and that's why, in consultation with the Provincial Auditor and upon recommendations, we put the safeguards in place and the changes in place that were required.

But I think I do want to just quickly highlight for the members of the House and the Leader of the Opposition that in fact the auditor says, "Agricorp also inappropriately used funds held for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs in its daily trading strategy." That was the money that was put over at Agricorp so they could issue the cheques for the applications that were going through the whole farm relief program. That was not money-

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

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is for the minister responsible for children. Families in Ontario are fortunate to have a wide variety of supports available to them to help their children grow into strong, healthy and successful adults. But because there are so many different services for children funded by the Harris government, it is often difficult for parents to know where to begin. I'd like to be able to help the parents in my riding of Peterborough find the help they need for their children. Is there one easy source of information, one easy way for parents to find the services they require?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): I thank the member for Peterborough for his question. Our government has made services for children a high priority, and so there are a great number of incredible supports in place for children and their families.

In the last five years alone, we've launched new programs like Healthy Babies, Healthy Children; our pre-school speech and language program; and of course we're currently developing a network of early child development and parenting initiatives.

We feel it's very important for families to know about these valuable supports in their communities and we wanted to make it easy for them to find the services they need. That's why, for the first time in the province's history, we actually have a directory of provincially funded services. It's the Children's Pathfinder. It is a central resource offering parents and families a snapshot of a wide range of children's services-

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

Mr Stewart: I'm pleased to hear about the Children's Pathfinder reference book. In my own riding, we submit one for seniors, and I am a great believer in one-stop shopping. It's pretty difficult for parents or seniors to know where to go. If they have to run all around to access that information, I think it's very poor.

I know that many families in my community would find the guide very useful in helping them find supports for children in the Peterborough area. How can parents access the Children's Pathfinder? With the ever-growing list of government-funded services for children, is the guide totally comprehensive?

Hon Mrs Marland: I'm going to hold this up again, because people are able to hold up the auditor's report, and I don't think this is any kind of a demonstration.

The Pathfinder has been widely distributed to public libraries and community service agencies throughout the province. They can also find it on-line on our Web site at www.childsec.gov.on.ca. As a matter of fact, if they phone my office, we'll be very happy to mail it to them.

The Ontario Medical Association is so impressed with this Pathfinder directory of children's services that they have been distributing it through their doctors' offices, which is great.

You need to know that we plan, of course, to keep a list of our new services and supports as they continue to grow. We'll keep parents informed of new opportunities for their children and families. Especially now, with the implementation of our early years action plan, we will provide that updated information for them. I welcome the question on this important-

The Speaker: I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Your destruction of the labour movement and the destruction of the rights of working men and women continues. You're going to ram through Bill 69 any day. We're now dealing with Bill 139, which is going to have a devastating impact right across Ontario, but particularly on the building industry, on construction workers and people working in trades across this province. What this bill is going to do is lower wages in the industry. But even more dangerous and more damaging, it's going to increase the health and safety risks and unfortunately the death rate among Ontario construction workers.

Let me remind you of last year's statistics, Minister. Last year, out of 20 deaths in the construction industry, 18 of those occurred on non-unionized work sites. Let me remind you that if you work on a non-unionized construction site, your chances of injury are 250% greater than if you work on a unionized construction site.

Clearly, with the changes you're proposing, with the changes you're going to make with the bill you have brought into this House, you are endangering the health and well-being and the lives of Ontario men and women who go to work in the morning to earn a living, take care of their families and want to come home at night in once piece. Can you explain why, in order to please your corporate friends, you're making these changes that are going to endanger the lives of Ontario construction workers?

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member take his seat. You've put me in a difficult position. There were some members who did clap-very few-and some who were very patient. I will say again, we love to have all the members come in here, but we can't have that. I'm not going to proceed to throw you out-

Interjection: Stop the clock.

The Speaker: Yes, sorry, stop the clock. I apologize.

I don't want to throw everyone out just because of a few members. I can't pick one out, but I would really appreciate your co-operation. I know you're very interested, but the situation will be that I'll have to clear the gallery and you won't be able to hear the answer. I would appreciate if our members in the galleries would co-operate. Thank you.

Sorry, Minister of Labour.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): Bill 69 does not decertify unions.

Mr Agostino: Bill 139.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Oh, 139. You said 69. I'm sorry. Bill 139 is a bill that goes about allowing employees the opportunity of choice. I appreciate the fact you see that as a strictly decertification mode, but in conversations and in reading the reports from Mr Hargrove, there is some concern with respect to employees having an opportunity to choose to decertify one union in order to certify with another union.

The fact remains, I say to the member who asked the question-and I know the member for Kingston's very interested in this. I believe, and I think you would believe, that employees should have an opportunity to choose how they're represented and who represents them. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. I think it's fair and democratic, and that's what the bill does.

Mr Agostino: What you're doing through this bill is allowing non-unionized companies and construction companies to go in and undercut the wages, undercut safety and their well-being when they're competing for jobs against unionized companies who pay higher wages and protect their workers. That is what you're doing. But you're doing all this with a backdrop of not one day, not one minute of public consultation. You've spoken to your business friends. We know they're in favour. You admitted during the press conference that this came at the request of business.

Let me quote Shawn Chamberlin, president of the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce, who says, "This is pretty much everything we asked for." You're right. It is everything business asked for. It has nothing that's going to benefit labour and working men and women. These people here in the gallery today have a right to have some input into this legislation because it's going to hurt their well-being. It's going to damage them. It may ultimately kill more people in construction than are dying today as a result of workplace safety.

Minister, you owe it to working men and women. Will you today commit to give these people and other working Ontarians a chance for public hearings and input into this nasty piece of legislation you've brought into this House?

Hon Mr Stockwell: The member across the floor and myself have a fundamental disagreement, and the fundamental disagreement is simply this: when public institutions are tendering public works jobs, my wholehearted and firm belief is every taxpayer has a right to bid on that work. I don't know how you, in good conscience, can look your taxpayers in the eye and say, "The only way you can bid on public jobs is if you happen to carry a union card."

You're telling me that if we introduced a program that excluded unions from bidding on public works, you'd be upset. I agree, but you seem to think it's OK to do the exact opposite with hard-earned tax dollars, and I don't agree with that.

Interruption.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask the gentleman to leave.

Clear the galleries on this side, please. A five-minute recess while we clear the galleries.

The House recessed from 1515 to 1520.

The Speaker: If my memory serves me correctly, we were going to the government. I think there were about four minutes and 25 seconds on the clock.

PROVINCIAL PARKS RESERVATION SYSTEM

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Natural Resources. I've been enjoying the Ontario Parks Web site for some time now, in the way it allows us to explore the Ontario parks by name, by location, by parks classification and by the kinds of activities available in the parks. I've also been impressed with the useful maps, the pictures and the virtual reality tours available on-line. But most importantly, I've been impressed by the reservation system.

I recall just a year or so ago that we tried a new system and the opposition yelled and screamed about a few problems that new system had. They were even, I think, calling for your resignation. Recently they've been very quiet about it because they understand that the Ontario parks reservation system recently won an award of excellence from the Canadian Information Productivity Association. Minister, can you tell us what this award recognizes and what it means?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member from Northumberland for the excellent question. It comes somewhat as a surprise today, but I'd like to first inform the member that as far as I know, the opposition hasn't called for my resignation in quite a long time, although my record with the media is not quite so good.

Seriously, last week Canada's information technology experts formally recognized our reservation system-our IT system for our parks-as one of the best in North America and gave us an award for that. This will make our members across the way much happier. This award doesn't go to the minister; it goes to the people in the ministry who have made that information technology work and have made it the best system in Canada.

Interjections.

Mr Galt: It's very difficult to hear you telling us about this unique reservation service and about the national and international recognition it has received. Obviously the opposition doesn't like to hear good news. With all the tools available on-line, combined with the toll-free telephone and the in-park reservation and information services, I can see that the combination of these systems will no doubt result in better service for the people of Ontario and for visitors from around the world. A hallmark of this government is customer service.

Common counters have all available government activities such as kiosks from MTO and kiosks for registering businesses. Can you tell us how the system has been working so far and how Ontario Parks and its customers have benefited from this new technology?

Hon Mr Snobelen: This is a very massive system, some 66 parks and 15,000 individual campsites are up on our system. We have 16-hour-a-day service on our phone system. We have 24-hour-a-day service on the Internet. It's a very innovative system. It's the best in North America and it has used the hard work and the creativity of our people at the Ministry of Natural Resources to bring this into reality.

We have over 800,000 hits on our park reservation system already, and we're able to make the majority of our reservations on the phone system by answering within 60 seconds of that call. It's a massive system, one we're quite proud of. I encourage anyone to take advantage of this award-winning system by contacting us at 1-888-ONT-PARK or by visiting our Web site at www.ontarioparks.com.

PETITIONS

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

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

"Whereas charities such as the Goodfellows, the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, firefighters and many others participate in fundraisers on streets, sidewalks and parking lots;

"Whereas Bill 8 effectively bans these types of activities, putting police forces in the position of ignoring the law or hindering legitimate charities; and

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

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

"We ask that the government of Ontario amend provincial legislation to allow charitable organizations to conduct fundraising campaigns on roadways, sidewalks and parking lots."

I am happy to affix my signature to this as well.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

This has been signed by a number of constituents from my riding. I of course agree with them, and I'd like to thank Gerry Lougheed Jr for all his efforts in this regard.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm very pleased to present, on behalf of the Catholic Women's League of Canada, Mrs Joan Lonergan, resolutions convenor for St Joseph's worker council, Catholic Women's League, and many people on here-Moira Ste Marie. It's to John O'Toole, MPP for Durham, and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death in North America; and

"Whereas studies conducted in the city of Toronto, the United States and Great Britain have reported that drivers using cell phones while operating a vehicle significantly increases the risk of collisions; and

"Whereas people talking on cell phones while driving may cause a 34% higher risk of having an accident;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ban the use of hand-held cellular phones, portable computers and fax machines while operating a motor vehicle. We further respectfully request that Bill 102,"-that's my bill-"An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of phones and other equipment while driving on a highway, be passed unanimously by all members of provincial Parliament of Ontario."

I'm pleased to endorse this, because I wrote it, but I'd like to support it.

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have an important petition sent to me by Dr Tom Puk, from Lakehead University, which petitions the Ontario Legislature to prescribe the Ministry of Education to the Environmental Bill of Rights without further delay. I will read it as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights was intended to give the citizens of Ontario a way of getting involved in environmental decision-making; and

"Whereas the Environmental Bill of Rights requires Ontario government ministries to develop a statement of values to `guide the minister and the ministry staff when making decisions that affect the environment'; and

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Education has been exempted from the requirements of the Environmental Bill of Rights despite the importance of environmental education; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Education has eliminated environmental science as a stand-alone set of courses that focuses entirely on the science of the environment from the secondary school curriculum; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Education is responsible for developing educational policies that directly affect the ecological literacy of future citizens and is, thus, partly responsible for the health of our environment; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario are being denied their right to shape the decisions being made about environmental education by the Ministry of Education's exclusion from the Environmental Bill of Rights;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to prescribe the Ministry of Education to the Environmental Bill of Rights without further delay."

I have signatures here from hundreds of constituents who are very concerned about this, and I'm very pleased to add my name to this petition.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 13 people died during the first seven months of 1999 on Highway 401 between London and Windsor; and

"Whereas traffic levels on all sections of Highway 401 continue to increase; and

"Whereas Canada's number one trade and travel route was designed in the 1950s for fewer vehicles and lighter trucks; and

"Whereas road funding is almost completely paid through vehicle permit and driver licensing fees; and

"Whereas Ontario road users pay 28 cents per litre of tax on gasoline, adding up to $2.7 billion in provincial gas taxes and over $2.3 billion in federal gas taxes;

"We, the undersigned members of the Canadian Automobile Association and other residents of Ontario, respectfully request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately upgrade Highway 401 to at least a six-lane highway with full paved shoulders and rumble strips; and

"We respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario place firm pressure on the federal government to invest its gasoline tax revenue in road safety improvements in Ontario."

I affix my signature.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature and it's concerning northerners' demands that the Harris government eliminate the health care apartheid which is being practised in the province of Ontario right now.

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

I sign this petition and give it to Tim Love from Peterborough to bring to the Chair.

PARENTAL LEAVE

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I have a petition from 600 members of Cambridge riding to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the current government of Ontario hasn't taken any steps or action toward making any changes to Ontario's Employment Standards Act; the needed changes to the Employment Standards Act would ensure the right of an additional 17 weeks of parental leave. We request swift action from the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make these changes to the Employment Standards Act so that these changes will be effective January 1, 2001;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that Ontarians will be able to take advantage of additional paid parental leave that has been granted and approved by the federal government and which will take effect on January 1, 2001."

I sign and attach my name thereto.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a large number of petitions to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Espanola area services a population of 12,000 people and government statistics project a growth in population of people over the age of 75 to reach an estimated 336 people by the year 2003;

"Whereas the long-term formula for the distribution of long-term-care beds would indicate a need for between 59 and 76 beds by the year 2003;

"Whereas just 30 long-term-care beds exist in the Espanola area with the result that a lengthy waiting list already exists and people are being placed in long-term-care facilities far distant from their home communities;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Ontario government to immediately approve a proposal by the Espanola General Hospital, supported by the Algoma, Cochrane, Manitoulin and Sudbury district health units, for an additional 34 long-term-care beds in Espanola."

This particular set of petitions is signed by mostly people from Espanola and the Webbwood area.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced Bill 112,

An Act to amend the McMichael Canadian Art Collection Act;

"Whereas the McMichael Canadian Art Collection has grown and evolved into one of Canada's best-loved and most important art gallery collections of Canadian art;

"Whereas the passage of Bill 112 would (1) constitute a breach of trust made with hundreds of other donors to the McMichael Canadian Art Collection; (2) negatively impact the ability of all cultural institutions in Ontario to attract donors to their collections; (3) vest too much power in the hands of the founders, who have been more than compensated for their generosity; (4) diminish the authority and responsibility of the board of trustees; (5) limit the focus of the art collection and hamper the gallery to raise private funds, thereby increasing its dependency on the taxpayers; and (6) significantly reduce its capacity and strength as an educational resource;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to withdraw Bill 112."

There are a number of signatures.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having agreed to this, I'd like to put my name to it.

FRAIS DE TRANSPORT AUX FINS MÉDICALES

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier) : J'ai une pétition à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario des gens du nord qui exigent que le gouvernement Harris mette fin à l'apartheid en matière des soins de santé :

« Attendu que, d'une part, le programme de subventions accordées aux résidents du nord de l'Ontario pour frais de transport à des fins médicales offre un remboursement partiel au taux de 30,4 cents par kilomètre à aller seulement, à l'intention des personnes atteintes de cancer, et que, d'autre part, la politique de déplacement pour les gens du sud de l'Ontario rembourse en entier les coûts de transport, de repas, et d'hébergement ;

« Attendu qu'une tumeur cancéreuse ne connaît aucune politique de transport pour les soins de santé ni de région géographique ;

« Attendu qu'un sondage de recherche Oracle publié récemment confirme que 92 % des Ontariens » et des Ontariennes « appuient un financement égal de transport à des fins médicales ;

« Attendu que les résidents du nord de l'Ontario paient le même montant d'impôts et ont droit au même accès aux soins de santé, ainsi qu'à tous les services du gouvernement et à tous les droits de la personne inhérents que les autres résidents de la province ;

« Attendu que nous soutenons les efforts de l'OSECC (Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care), une association récemment fondée par Gerry Lougheed Jr, ancien président de Action Cancer Ontario, région du nord-est, afin de redresser cette injustice envers les personnes du nord de l'Ontario qui doivent se déplacer pour recevoir des traitements anticancéreux ;

« En conséquence, il est résolu que les soussignés exigent que le gouvernement Mike Harris propose immédiatement de financer en entier les frais de transport à l'intention des résidents du nord de l'Ontario atteints de cancer et mette fin à l'apartheid qui existe présentement dans la province de l'Ontario en matière de soins de santé. »

Il me fait plaisir d'y apposer ma signature.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition that reads:

"Whereas it is important to honour the courageous memory and sacrifices of Canada's war dead and of our veterans who fought in defence of our national rights and freedoms;

"Whereas there is a need for succeeding generations of young, school age Canadians to learn more about the true meaning of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas Ontario veterans' associations have created excellent education materials for use in Ontario schools on the meaning and significance of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas the special Remembrance Day curriculum for all grades in Ontario's education system, developed on the basis of the programs by Ontario veterans' associations and involving their direct participation, would increase awareness of, and appreciation for, Canada's wartime sacrifices in the hearts and minds of all Ontario citizens;

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

"That the provincial Ministry of Education and Training ensure that a suitable Remembrance Day learning unit be included in the curriculum of all grades of Ontario's education system."

I endorse this petition 100%.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BACK TO SCHOOL ACT (HAMILTON-WENTWORTH DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE RETOUR À L'ÉCOLE (HAMILTON-WENTWORTH DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD)

Mr Jackson, on behalf of Mr Stockwell, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 145,

An Act to resolve a labour dispute between the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario and the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board / Projet de loi 145, Loi visant à régler le conflit de travail opposant la fédération appelée Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario et le conseil scolaire de district appelé Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to divide this afternoon's time equally among the three caucuses, that at 5:50 this afternoon the question on third reading will be put, with no deferral of a division being permitted, that any division bell be limited to 10 minutes and that, having moved third reading, we respectfully submit that the member for Stoney Creek will lead off this afternoon's debate.

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

Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): I found the debate last night in terms of the back-to-work legislation very interesting. I also found the process in terms of how we actually got here just as interesting.

We had four parents come down about a week ago. They sat in the House and actually saw the debate, and they expressed extreme frustration about the rhetoric and political posturing that was going on from all sides. They also found it very hard to understand what the facts were.

In the debate yesterday, we heard a great deal from the members of the opposition that we had created a crisis and that all the problems with education and the labour disputes were the responsibility of the government.

If I may, I'd like to read into the record from Hansard: "Since the academic year 1975-76 to 1991, but not including this year, there have been some 56 strikes. During those 56 strikes we have held out of class 789,675 students and we have held them out for a total of 1,331 days, which is about seven school years. On average, we evict our students out of class for 24 days every year, the longest strike being about 56 days. In terms of an important statistic, we evict 50,000-in fact, it's 49,354-students every year for a strike and we evict them for one calendar month; in fact, a little more than one calendar month."

This was entered into the record Thursday, May 7, by the member for Ottawa South, Dalton McGuinty.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): What year was that?

Mr Clark: The member for Hamilton East asks, "What year was that?" It was 1992.

Yesterday, the member for Hamilton East was going on about how the crisis in education was totally created by our government. Looking at this, there have been labour disputes on an ongoing basis in education in every single government: a Tory government, a Liberal government, an NDP government and then our Tory government. Quite clearly, when you look at the stats, there have been ongoing labour disputes. It hasn't been one particular government that caused it.

A little bit of irony happens when you look at the past record. The member for Ottawa South read into the record, "My bill says that no strike or lockout can begin after October 31, again reflecting the fact that students are more sensitive to lost class time in the latter part of the year." This is the member for Ottawa South, and he stated back in 1992, when he was trying to get a bill through the House that would prevent teachers from striking, that after October 31 was when it became crucial.

It's interesting. I don't know what has changed in his mindset, because considering the fact that we have a heavier curriculum now today than we had back then, why wasn't the member asking for back-to-work legislation? Or why wasn't the leader of the official opposition questioning why they weren't back in school? Why wasn't he questioning whether or not there was jeopardy when the strike started on October 30? So the strike started on October 30 in 1992; the member said anything that happens after October 31 clearly begins to impact the school year. The member had that very clearly in his address back then.

We also heard a lot of interesting dialogue yesterday from the member for Hamilton East. I know he's going to follow me, so he can probably clarify some of this for us, because I'm sure we're all interested.

On August 23, on Michael Coren, the member for Hamilton East, Dominic Agostino, said, "Well, Michael, first of all, I hope it doesn't come down to a strike. I certainly hope that the government stops the teacher bashing, gives the board the resources they need to come"-basically everything we've heard.

His response was to a question from a caller: "I'd like to know from the Liberal member, do you support teachers going on strike this fall if in fact it comes to that?" He went into this Liberal answer.

David Christopherson interrupted and said, "That's why he asked the question. That's why we need to ask again."

Michael Coren said, "A very Liberal answer."

Christopherson, above the din: "Answer yes or no."

Coren: "If they go on strike-"

Christopherson: "Just yes or no. If they're on strike will you, Agostino, support them?

Tascona asks: "A simple yes or no."

Agostino answered: "I will walk the picket line with the teachers."

In the debate we're hearing the member for Hamilton East state that the kids come first, and the four parents who came down here were very upset about the political posturing. They have to ask, and they ask me consistently, "Why is it that no one's talking about the kids and their school year? All they're talking about is the rhetoric of politics." These are four parents, and the four parents have been very outspoken: Angela Bloomfield, Lisa Gibbons, Kim Hubbard, Sheri Nevitt.

They were extremely outspoken and they stuck to something I have a great deal of respect for: they didn't take the side of the teachers; they didn't take the side of the board; they simply continually stated, "We want the kids back in school. Why aren't the kids back in school?"

But they did ask some interesting questions. If both sides wanted the kids in school, which the teachers' union and the board said, then why didn't they negotiate through the summer, July and August? It's been well reported that the negotiations didn't happen during July and August. If they wanted the kids to be in school, why wouldn't they have negotiated during the summertime?

They also asked the question-and the member for Hamilton East last night stated that I started caterwauling about asking for back-to-work legislation while they're in negotiations. Negotiations had broken down. I stated that if they didn't get back to the table and negotiate a settlement, I would ask for back-to-work legislation. They didn't go back to the table. Let me correct that: they went back for 14 hours and, as word has it from both sides, stared at each other and did nothing. So the negotiations had totally broken down, and that's why we asked for back-to-work legislation. I make no apologies about it.

I asked for it, and I continue to state that this was the only way to resolve this situation.

The legislation that we have before us is a fair document. The legislation itself deals with a number of contingencies. It deals with the final vote; it allows that to happen. It deals with the actual arbitration, if necessary. It's all-encompassing. The fact of the matter is that the minister waited, as the member for Hamilton West stated very eloquently yesterday, until the ERC report came in. I give credit to the member for Hamilton West. That was his position: he was going to wait for the ERC. I didn't agree with that position. As we had a new curriculum and there were no precedents from the ERC at this point in time, I felt it important to push for it.

As I've heard from some members, they're not even sure whether or not the ERC was dealing with the matter, because we hadn't heard anything. So by pushing for it, we caused the public debate. I don't apologize for that. I think 40,000 kids should be in school. I think everyone in this House agrees. There's no doubt about that.

What is sad about all of this is the continuing rhetoric that it is continually our fault, that all of these problems about education are the government's fault. The reality is that funding has been increased for education. The reality is that every single government in the province of Ontario has had to deal with labour disputes between teachers' unions and boards of education-every single government. Mr McGuinty said it very clearly in 1992, and I do not dispute his facts at all.

We were talking back then, in 1991, of 789,000 students who were pulled out in 56 different strikes, and all three governments had been in power previous to that. That says very clearly that it isn't just this government.

But what is also interesting is that Mr McGuinty gave another point which I found fascinating. "Between 1975 and 1997," he stated, "there were 3