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

October 3, 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-Oct-03 vol. A (PDF)

L083A - Tue 3 Oct 2000 / Mar 3 oct 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WOMEN'S SHELTERS

VILLAGE OF ARTHUR

HIGHWAY 404

HAMILTON AIRPORT

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION

PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT

REENA ELDERHOME

LONG-TERM CARE

PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

ORAL QUESTIONS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

WASTE MANAGEMENT

ONTARIO TRILLIUM FOUNDATION

SMALL BUSINESS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

NIAGARA FALLS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

PUBLIC HOUSING

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY / INDUSTRIE DE LA CONSTRUCTION

VIOLENCE IN FILMS

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

DIABETES TREATMENT

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

CARMEN ROAD OVERPASS

CHILD POVERTY

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PHOTO RADAR

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA PROTECTION CONTRE LA VIOLENCE FAMILIALE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WOMEN'S SHELTERS

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Martha House is a 28-bed women's shelter located in Hamilton, and it is swamped. They are far above their occupancy rate. There are entire families living in hotels waiting for rooms to become available in the shelter. Women and children do not want to be in shelters, but they need a safe and secure place to stay while they recover and readjust.

The staff of the shelter wrote to Minister Baird months ago about the poor staffing levels they experience and their inability to retain staff due to lack of proper funding. Often the 28-bed shelter will have one staff member on duty. It is becoming a question of safety of staff as well as burnout and stress.

Lenore is the co-director of Mary's Place, Martha House and Somerville House. She in on call 24 hours, seven days a week for a two-week period. She shares this responsibility with only one other woman. She can receive 10 to 12 calls over Saturday and Sunday, often in the middle of the night and the early hours, for crises which arise for women who suffer not only from abuse but from their partner's addiction problems and mental health issues, women who are afraid for their lives and their children's.

It is only sad and unfortunate that it took the brutal deaths this past summer to bring this issue back on the political agenda.

VILLAGE OF ARTHUR

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): A couple of weeks ago, I had the honour of attending an unveiling at the cenotaph of the village of Arthur in Wellington county. The Arthur Legion held a special ceremony to commemorate Arthur residents who served our country during the Second World War by inscribing their names on the cenotaph. I was moved by the sheer number of names that were included in this ceremony.

Members of this Legislature will find it interesting to note that near the end of the Second World War, the village of Arthur was believed to have the highest ratio of residents in uniform. More than one out of every seven Arthur residents was in uniform, giving it the designation of the most patriotic town.

Arthur's support for the war effort did not stop with enlisted members. Victory bonds, a popular way for the government of the day to raise money for the war effort, were highly subscribed to by Arthur residents. At the end of the third Victory loan, Arthur residents had subscribed to over $250,000 in war bonds. With a population of only 900 residents, this amount equalled 64% of the assessed value of the village's taxable property at that time. It is a most patriotic town indeed.

I would like to congratulate the Arthur Legion for organizing this ceremony to honour residents of Arthur.

HIGHWAY 404

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): Since the start of construction on Highway 404, residents in Don Valley East have expressed their concerns to me. Over the summer, I took the time to survey residents in the area, and I want to share the results with the House and with the Minister of Transportation today.

Some 91% of residents noted an increase in noise coming from the highway within the past year, and they clearly indicate an overall increase in the amount of noise at all times, both day and night. Many cannot sit outside their homes, in their own backyards, because the noise drives them back inside.

They are concerned about air quality and the amount of pollution from exhaust fumes. They are concerned about the increased level of dust due to the construction.

I'd certainly like to pay tribute to the many residents who suggested constructive solutions. Some of the ideas, and I just have a sample, include a restriction on the use of truck manifold brakes, greater use of berming, increasing the amount of shrubbery, reducing the speed limit in the area, and even larger noise barriers.

Overwhelmingly, the people who responded indicated their desire to meet with Ministry of Transportation offi cials to find a solution to a significant quality-of-life issue. To that end, I took the liberty of arranging such a meeting with the ministry and the residents. I expect to see hundreds of residents in attendance. This meeting will be held a week from today, Tuesday, October 10, at 7:30 pm at Seneca Hill Public School. In that spirit of co-operation, I trust that meaningful solutions will be found to address their concerns. I trust as well that the ministry and the minister share this optimism.

HAMILTON AIRPORT

Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): It is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity to speak about an airport in my riding of Stoney Creek that is finally making its mark as an affordable and convenient alternative to Pearson International.

In 1969, the John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport, as it was recently renamed, obtained authority for a Hamilton-to-Montreal and a Hamilton-to-Pittsburgh service. Since then, the airport has been growing, especially in recent years, where the number of passengers who are making the choice to use Hamilton International over Toronto International are increasing not by the hundreds but by the thousands. The month of August alone has shown an increase in passengers from 17,086 to a whopping 32,825 passengers. That's in one month alone. That's an increase of nearly double the number of passengers.

These facts lead to excellent growth potential and employment-generating ability. I'm very happy to say that Hamilton's airport has grown so much in so little time, especially in the past few years. Passengers now know that Ontario's Golden Horseshoe has more than one choice for an airport. I encourage others to take the opportunity to use John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport.

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): Today I rise and call on the government to pass my private member's legislation with regard to intercountry adoption. My bill would revoke the $925 head tax. I call on those members who didn't support it in passing second reading to pass it in its final reading.

There is no justification for this head tax. There is no additional paperwork involved for the government. After all, these adoptions are finalized in a foreign country. Agencies that facilitate these adoptions pay annual licensing fees to the government and cover all additional costs. It just doesn't add up; it makes no sense.

Worst of all, it is discriminatory. Other jurisdictions support intercountry adoptions. The US offers tax credits of up to $5,000, while Quebec offers non-refundable tax credits. In Ontario, we should be encouraging family formations, not discouraging them with a $925 head tax.

Today we mourn the loss of the greatest Prime Minister this country has ever known, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Why not honour his passing by recognizing his legacy of welcoming people from around the world to live in this country? Why not do the right thing today? Stand up and pass my bill. Revoke the awful head tax that we've imposed and welcome orphans to this country that we all love and believe is the greatest in the world.

PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My statement is on the matter of school playgrounds. I happen to be one who believes that children ought to have the right to safe playgrounds. I also happen to believe that the minister thinks so too; she certainly speaks that way. You know that the school board last week made a commitment of $3 million to construct the playgrounds and they need $9 million more. Parents are talking about fundraising to build these playgrounds. They only need $9 million more, and I am looking to you, the government and the Minister of Education, to help the Toronto board out.

You also know, Minister and government, that you were the ones who brought in upgraded safety standards for daycare centres, so if you want to blame the Toronto board for having brought down these playgrounds, you ought to take some responsibility yourselves for having brought in upgraded safety standards, which I support. While you think that $9 million may be a lot of money, compared to the $180 million you spend on propaganda, it's a crumb. Compared to the five billion bucks you're going to give away to the corporate sector over the next five years, $9 million for safe playgrounds is a crumb.

So Minister, don't blame anybody. If you believe in safe playgrounds, put in the money to make it happen.

REENA ELDERHOME

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): It's an honour for me to rise today in this House to tell you about the Al and Faye Mintz Reena ElderHome that is located in my riding of Thornhill. I had the privilege to participate in their official opening on Tuesday, September 26.

The Reena ElderHome is named in honour of Al and Faye Mintz, who are long-time generous supporters of Reena. Together with members of their family the Mintzes have an ongoing commitment to support Reena's efforts to enhance the lives of people who have a developmental disability.

This elder home is the first of its kind in Canada and is home to 16 Reena clients, aged 55 and older, who are developmentally disabled. This elder home will fill an immediate and increasingly important void in our community. It will allow the clients to relate to and socialize with their contemporaries, as well as helping older Reena clients to full integrate into the community. Every Ontarian with a development disability should have the opportunity to be part of his or her community and to be able to live near his or her friends and family.

A project such as this cannot get off the ground without the total dedication of those involved. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize all of those involved in the Reena ElderHome project. On behalf of the people of Thornhill, I would like to congratulate the Reena ElderHome clients and volunteers and ask that all the members join me in recognizing three of the people responsible for this project who are with us today in the members' gallery: Sandy Keshen, the executive director of Reena; Alex Eisen, chair of the Reena ElderHome project; and Harold Seidel, chair of the building committee.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): "My name is Fred, I'm 86 years old. I was born on a farm outside Webbwood. As a young man I worked in the bush and on the farm.

"I met and married Mary about 60 years ago. I was lucky. I got a job at the paper mill. I worked hard. We bought a home in Espanola. We raised a family in Espanola.

"But now my health is failing. Mary can't look after me any more. I have to go to a nursing home, but there are no beds in Espanola; there is a long, long waiting list. The hospital applied for 24 beds; the Minister of Health rejected them.

"They want to send me to Sudbury but Mary doesn't drive. My son is in British Columbia; my daughter is in New Brunswick; the youngest is in Windsor. I don't know anybody in Sudbury; I want to stay in Espanola. My wife can't even visit me in Sudbury."

Minister, Fred is not a real person, but he represents many of my constituents. I know of these situations. There are real people in this real situation. The Ministry of Health has to provide long-term-care beds for Espanola and they have to approve them now.

PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I'd like to thank CFRB Radio for broadcasting the funeral of Pierre Elliott Trudeau this morning. I decided this morning, after getting home very late last night, to stay home with my kids and miss caucus. I don't like to do that because you don't like to let your caucus colleagues down. But I left at 11 o'clock and I began the drive to Queen's Park and listened to CFRB's broadcast of Mr Trudeau's funeral.

I don't share a lot of Mr Trudeau's politics over the years, but I remember as a kid respecting him very much in watching him as a father as he spent a lot of time with his kids. As I drove along listening to his son Justin's eulogy, I admit that I cried like a baby, but it confirmed to me my decision to stay home this morning with my kids.

I want to congratulate his son, Justin Trudeau, for his beautiful eulogy today. I want to congratulate Pierre Elliott Trudeau for many of the contributions he made to Canada, not all of which I share. I want to congratulate him most of all for finding a balance. Those of us in public life strive very hard and it's a great difficulty for us to find a balance between family and work. I think, listening to his son today, he was a man who achieved that balance very well. For that I thank him, and I thank CFRB.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice and social policy and move its adoption.

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

Bill 88,

An Act to promote the use of information technology in commercial and other transactions by resolving legal uncertainties and removing statutory barriers that affect electronic communication / Projet de loi 88, Loi visant à promouvoir l'utilisation des technologies de l'information dans les opérations commerciales et autres en éliminant les incertitudes juridiques et les obstacles législatifs qui ont une incidence sur les communications électroniques.

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

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise to seek unanimous consent from this House to declare Thursday, October 5, World Teachers Day in Ontario and for this day to be declared annually.

I would ask for your indulgence, Speaker, to just say that teachers play a vital role in the lives of our children, which I'm assuming everybody agrees with. Every day they are faced with more challenges, and I think people agree with that as well. I ask that all members of this House recognize that teachers help to shape the future and deserve to be commended for their efforts, and for that I hope I get unanimous consent.

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

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Over the past few days most members of this Legislature have been visited by members of the agricultural community. Yesterday I tabled a motion in the House regarding the extremely urgent matter of the agricultural crisis facing the farmers of Ontario.

This afternoon I seek unanimous support of this House to debate that motion.

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

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In addition to the absence of the Premier, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour, we have been told that the Minister of Northern Development would be here, whom we'd hoped to question, and I wonder if it is in fact the case that that minister will be here. We have not been advised otherwise.

The Speaker: As you know, I do not control who's here and who's not. I would look for some guidance from maybe the chief whip. There is no chief whip here. It is now time for oral questions. As you know, the Speaker does not decide who is and who is not here.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The minister is coming in. We'll give him a moment to get settled.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development. Your government is continuing to privatize health care in any way that you think you can quietly get away with. We've seen it happen in home care and in long-term care and in laboratory services, and now it's air ambulances. You've decided that the contracts of air ambulance paramedics are going to be turned over to the private sector. You're going to set up another chaotic process to see who's going to make you the best offer, meaning who will run this service cheaper for you.

The air ambulance service is vitally important for people who live in northern Ontario and for anyone who travels in our more remote communities. The service is working well. It's providing high-quality, dependable access to emergency care.

Minister, surely your government is not trying to do more with less when it comes to a vital service like air ambulance. Why are you so determined to take risks with people's lives by privatizing the air ambulance service?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I'm pleased to respond to the member opposite. In fact, what this government strives for, in northern Ontario in particular and throughout the province of Ontario, is to ensure that patients have access to the best quality care, at the right place and the right time, as quickly as possible.

With respect to emergency services, with respect to doctors and equipment, for example, with respect to technologies in northern Ontario, I'm very pleased to work with the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care to make sure that northern patients have access to quality health care closer to home, to make sure that emergency services are responsive.

That's why, as the member from Thunder Bay well knows, we're building a new hospital in the Thunder Bay area; we've increased programs to train doctors in northern Ontario, to attract more physicians to the north; and through my own ministry's heritage fund, we've made investments in technology and telecommunications to make sure that patients get high-quality access to health care.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, it's parliamentary procedure that supplementary questions have to follow the lead of the initial question. It's too bad the answers to the initial question don't have to be relevant to the question asked.

Minister, I asked you about air ambulance service. It becomes apparent that the Minister of Health has not even told you that she is about to privatize the air ambulance service with four of the five air ambulance spaces in northern Ontario communities. This is an appalling lack of understanding on the part of the Minister of Northern Development about what this will mean for access to vital air ambulance service for northern Ontario residents.

There is no question, let me be the first to inform you, that your government, although it has made no public announcements about it, is going ahead with it. The fact that there have been no public announcements is a sure sign that the minister doesn't want anybody, including you apparently, to know anything about this. But the paramedics have been sent notices that they have to choose whether to be part of this new process for awarding their contracts. They're being asked to do this without any information about what your government is planning to do when it comes to standards of care.

You should know that right now the flight paramedics have critical care training. They are the most highly trained paramedics in the ambulance service. This is training that your government provides. In fact, your Ministry of Health takes pride in the successful partnership of the public and private sectors in providing for air ambulance paramedics. There is no guarantee coming from your government that that standard of care is going to be maintained, and there is every reason to believe that private operators will be willing to lower the standard of care to pay lower wages.

Will you tell us how you can guarantee that the standard of care will be maintained if you privatize the service and let the for-profit-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The time is up. Minister.

Hon Mr Hudak: As I mentioned, I'm very pleased to work with the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care to ensure that issues that come from northern Ontario are addressed in the health care system with respect to air ambulance services, land ambulance services and, as I've said, improving emergency care services for northern Ontario.

In fact, this is a government that is not willing to leave the status quo in northern Ontario. We're intent on im proving the quality of health care in northern Ontario, to bring better quality services across northern Ontario.

I remind the member opposite, when she was leader and had her red book, or the one subsequent, she had not even contemplated anything near the kind of reinvestments that we're putting into northern Ontario, whether it's better quality in emergency rooms, more equipment or higher technology. We're looking at services in dialysis; increasing cardiac care in northern Ontario. We don't want to leave the north behind like this party wanted to leave the north behind. We're making the proper reinvestments in the health care system to ensure that northern patients have quality access to care and timely access to care. It's a task that we will not shirk on.

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

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Like so many other things your government does, you are destroying the old house before building the new one. You are supposed to be the champion of northerners around the cabinet table, not a cheerleader for Mike Harris across the north.

In the air ambulance sector, minutes and seconds can make the difference between life and death. Experienced air ambulance staff, all these critical-care flight paramedics who are telling you that this is a ludicrous plan, these professionals possess over 300 years of experience. In your madness to privatize this health care service, you are throwing away this valuable experience where their judgment saves lives. People like Darryl Taylor from Sudbury, Ron Laverty from Sioux Lookout and Mark Bechard from Timmins are testament to the fact that experience saves lives.

Will you stand in your place today, throw the blue and white pompoms away, take off your Mike Harris cheerleading outfit and tell these critical-care flight paramedics and the broader public in Ontario, especially northerners, that you, as the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, are opposed to the privatization of the critical-care flight paramedic service? Will you stand and say that today?

Hon Mr Hudak: What the member well knows but won't inform the House is that the province retains responsibility for province-wide coordinated air ambulance services and no decisions have been made with respect to the air ambulance service in the future. But it's interesting to hear the member talk about tearing down the house. In fact, the member here is part of the opposition that would build a straw house in northern Ontario.

I wonder where he was when they were developing the policy last election to put a mere $50 million in reinvestments into northern Ontario. There is by far in the heritage fund alone that kind of increase in northern Ontario; similarly, an $850-million investment in northern Ontario highways. And I wonder where the member was when we were on the leading edge to build a brand new hospital in the Sudbury region. The member was nowhere to be seen; in fact, I think he was trying to stop a new hospital in Sudbury.

We want to build the best possible care in Sudbury: a vets' hospital, cancer care. It's the Mike Harris government that's doing it, and I'm glad to be a cheerleader for that. He was nowhere to be seen when these ideas came forward in the Liberal Party.

ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister will remember that in May of this year in answer to a question from Dalton McGuinty, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was pressing, the Premier, to the astonishment of everyone in this House, said the following, and you will remember this, Minister: "There will be no sale of the Lakeview plant as a coal-burning facility." That's very clear. That's very straightforward.

Given that Ontario Power Generation has announced that it will, at some considerable expense, install low-NOx burners on two of its four units at the Lakeview Generating Station, do you expect anyone to believe the Premier's promise is now going to be kept? Will you assure the House and the people of Ontario today that you will not try to weasel out of the Premier's commitment? Will you state clearly and without any weasel words, without any ifs and buts, that the Lakeview Generating Station will be converted to natural gas? Will you state that clearly?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I want to say to the member opposite that this government is committed to ensuring that strong environmental protection measures are in place as we move forward in a competitive electricity market. Our commitment to the environment has been a mainstay throughout the electricity restructuring initiative. That's why we implemented a moratorium on the sale of coal-fired plants until a thorough review could be completed of the options that would protect the air we breathe.

We remain committed to this review, and in the meantime applaud the effort made by those participating within the electricity market to decrease harmful emissions into the air that we breathe.

Mr Bradley: Much to the chagrin of the members around the minister-when I used the term "weasel words," they were all hollering, and yet I ask everyone in the House to conclude: what did they just hear from the minister?

Minister, the Ontario Medical Association stated this year that there would be 1,900 premature deaths as a result of air pollution in this province. It would cost $1 billion a year in health costs and people not being able to go to work. Will you admit that the half measures-and I say at best half measures-announced by Ontario Power Generation, which deal with only one contaminant and ignore 29 other toxic substances, are completely inadequate, or is it your intention to try to defend this pathetic approach by your friends at Ontario Power Generation? Is your government going to take its marching orders from OPG or are you going to compel them to convert all plants to gas-fired fuel?

Hon Mr Newman: The moratorium that we placed on the sale of the coal-fired facilities within this province is one important step to improving air quality in our province. It's amongst many measures that we're taking as a government to be proactive in protecting the air that we all breathe because we are dedicated to ensuring that Ontarians have clean air in this province.

Our government is a leader in reducing smog. We are aggressively tackling air quality issues, including climate change, smog and transboundary air pollution. I think it's important to note that 50% of Ontario's smog arises from United States sources. We have made commitments to reduce smog in Ontario that would be matched by US efforts. In fact, under our anti-smog action plan, Ontario has committed to reducing smog-causing emissions by 45% by 2015 and has committed to an interim target to reduce these emissions by 25% of 1990 levels by the year 2005.

Mr Bradley: This exercise is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall, because the minister is simply not giving a clear answer to a very clear question. Now, as negotiations on a potential transboundary air pollution agreement between Canada and the United States reach a very critical stage, Ontario, rather than being an asset as it has in years gone by, is proving to be an embarrassing liability, an impediment to such a trans-boundary agreement. If the minister believes that the announcement made by OPG two weeks ago to tinker with Ontario's power generating plants will be greeted with anything less than deep disappointment and derision, he is sadly mistaken.

Ontario has a chance to play a lead role, a positive role in these important and critical negotiations. But it will take a bold step, not a feeble trial balloon by OPG, to do so. Minister, will you take that bold step? Will you commit in this House today to convert all of Ontario's coal-fired electric generating stations to natural gas fuel and thereby provide the leading role, the positive role and the constructive role in the critical negotiations taking place between Canada and the United States?

Hon Mr Newman: We have taken a bold step with respect to improving air quality in our province and with respect to the negotiations on the ozone annex with the United States. I would challenge him to challenge the federal government to take the bold action that we're taking here in Ontario, because we challenged the federal government to negotiate equivalent reductions with the United States through the Canada-US ozone annex talks this fall. The United States has committed only to narrow, industry-focused reductions during the smog season. They must go beyond that. I would encourage him to talk to his federal cousins in Ottawa to ask them to take some real action with the United States.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. On Sunday, along with over 1,000 other people, I attended a rally in opposition to the Adams mine project just outside of Kirkland Lake. What was clear to see at this rally was the diversity of individuals, people from different cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, all opposed to the Adams mine project. Minister, they are single-minded in their view of this project. They believe strongly that this project will in time contaminate the groundwater, in turn putting the environment and people at risk.

Those in attendance wanted me to ask you, is it going to take another Walkerton, another disaster like Walkerton, one which you created, before you come to your senses and say no to the Adams mine project?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I want to say to the member opposite that waste management is a growing global problem. It's a very emotional issue, as we have seen. But I want to assure you that this government takes very seriously its responsibility to preserve and protect the environment. In fact, the Adams mine project has undergone extensive and thorough technical analysis to ensure that the environment has indeed been protected over the long term.

As part of our commitment to protecting the environment, the Ministry of the Environment ensured that a full environmental assessment was completed in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act, and the Minister of the Environment requested that the Environmental Assessment Board review the leachate collection and containment system to ensure that groundwater contamination would be prevented. There were hearings with the Environmental Assessment Board that lasted six months. The board actually attached 26 conditions to the plan. A certificate of approval was issued after further technical analysis, and the certificate-

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

Mr Bisson: What a sham. Everybody knows your government did everything it could to get this project on line and approved. You changed the Environmental Assessment Act in order to truncate the process so that there wouldn't be a full-blown EA to take a look at all the issues. You gave the Environmental Assessment Board 15 days to look at this project-15 measly days-and at the end of it they were in a split decision.

My question to you is simply, are you the Minister of the Environment or against the environment?

Hon Mr Newman: I take very seriously my responsibilities as Minister of the Environment for Ontario. Again, on this project a full environmental assessment took place and Environmental Assessment Board hearings took place. There was a judicial review of the decision. As well, an appeal of the judicial review was filed. This project has undergone the reviews that are necessary. Any question that the opposition has raised in this House or outside the Legislative Assembly has been answered. In fact, all the concerns they raised were addressed in that full environmental assessment.

Mr Bisson: You haven't answered anything. We've asked questions in this House, along with the citizens around Kirkland Lake and all the other people across northeastern Ontario and, I would add, Metro, which is opposed to this project not only based on environmental issues but also on socio-economic issues. I asked you a while ago, are you the Minister of the Environment or against the environment? You gave no answer. My question to you now is, are you Mike Harris's lackey on this project?

Hon Mr Newman: I don't think this government needs to be lectured by the NDP when it comes to protection of the environment. We all know about the NDP's lack of commitment to the environment. Their waste management included such environmentally responsible projects as Whitevale, Britannia and the expansion of Keele Valley. Need I remind the member opposite that Whitevale is only nine kilometres from the highly sensitive Rouge River area, that Britannia is only one mile from the Credit River and that the Keele Valley site is on the Oak Ridges moraine?

The Speaker: New question, the member for Timmins-James Bay.

Mr Bisson: Obviously the lackey of the Premier. We can see that in that answer.

At the end of the day, we want to ensure that the questions of northerners are answered, that we can help advance issues like job creation in northern Ontario and that we can help address issues like health care and education and refer them to this. We don't want to leave a position vacant. We want to ensure that those questions in northern Ontario get answered in this House, but we want to make sure we can provide the best-quality francophone services possible throughout northern Ontario.

Hon Mr Hudak: Again, I appreciate the member's point. In fact, as Minister of Northern Development and Mines, I've enjoyed getting input from not only this member but AFMO as well on how to deliver francophone services across northern Ontario, whether it's in the member's riding or in other parts of the north. We make every effort to ensure that the staff at northern development and mines can provide francophone services where appropriate. We make every effort to ensure that services are provided so that issues can be addressed, whether they're in Timmins-James Bay or other parts of northern Ontario.

I appreciate the member's points on it, and we'll make every effort to respond to the issue of providing proper francophone services in the Timmins-James Bay area.

ONTARIO TRILLIUM FOUNDATION

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is for the Minister of Culture. The chair of the Trillium Foundation, Robert Power, wrote to 3,200 members of Trillium's local grant review team asking them to donate money to the provincial Conservatives. This same Mr Power, by the way, has woven a tangled web with his involvement in the Adams mine proposal. He acted as legal counsel for the company and also rewrote the Environmental Assessment Act for the MOE. So he acted for the government and the private development.

Mr Power, as head of the Trillium Foundation, used the private contact list to solicit donations for the Conservative Party. You must agree that is unethical and a blatant abuse of his position.

Minister, what action have you taken in regard to Mr Power for his inappropriate action, and what steps are you going to take to return the political contributions solicited so inappropriately?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): Let me just correct the record: it was 320, not 3,200; and let me say that Mr Power wrote a letter on his own personal letterhead in his capacity as a private member. There is no question that this was certainly not appropriately done. It was an error in judgment, I think, and from that point I talked to the board; I asked the board to look at that policy. The governing committee of the Trillium board reviewed the policy, and they have made changes to their government relations policy. It has completely satisfied the board, and I'm confident this will never happen again.

Ms Di Cocco: The point is, it did happen. This is about someone's behaviour. You can write all the policy you want and it could be circumvented by whoever wishes to behave in that fashion. You have the head of the Trillium Foundation soliciting political funds-and I don't care if it's from two people, 320 or 3,200-from a list of names on the Trillium review team. This begs the question, do the donations give weight to their recommendations to Trillium on behalf of the charities and non-profit groups?

I believe you should ask Mr Power to resign over this. What have you done with respect to Mr Power? The political funds that have been inappropriately solicited should be returned. What have you done with regard to Mr Power?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me say that I reacted quickly. This event happened in May last year, and I reacted quickly to it. We asked the government policy committee at Trillium to review the policy. As everyone in this House knows, Trillium is a new organization in the province. It's there to make sure we have invested money.

When I had people go out this summer and speak to MPPs to ensure the foundation was doing a good job, I heard many wonderful things about the foundation, obviously from the opposition as well as from our own members. They heard that it had returned many great projects. They were glad to see the extent of the Ontario Trillium Foundation grants. They heard positive things about it.

This may have been an error in judgment. It's resolved. The Trillium Foundation has policies in place so that it will never happen again. I have contacted every organization that is an agency of mine to make sure this will never happen in any agency.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. As a former businessman, the husband of a successful businesswoman and the father and brother of a number of business people, I understand what a vital role the provincial government plays in the life of an entrepreneur. I also recognize the significant contribution that small business makes to our province, not only in the contribution they make to our economy but also in the number of jobs they create, which I believe is most of the 745,000 jobs we have seen created in this province since 1995.

My question to you is, what is your ministry doing to recognize the importance of small business people in our province?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I could not agree more that small business operators make a tremendous contribution to job creation and to the success of Ontario's economy. We want to give credit where credit is due, which is why I'm pleased to say that October is Salute to Small Business Month.

This morning my colleague the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and I attended Level 5 fitness centre to launch Salute to Small Business Month. It's small business operators like Sandra Ricciutto and George Shaker who are the unsung heroes of Ontario's economy. I'm very pleased to publicly acknowledge their success, because small business is big business in Ontario.

Mr Dunlop: I understand how challenging it can be to make the dream of owning your own business a reality: working 18 to 20 hours a day, giving up valuable holidays, taking risks, worry, stress, barriers of bureaucratic red tape-

Interjection: What about farmers?

Mr Dunlop: Yes, we do include farmers as small business people in this province.

There are so many steps one must take in transforming an idea into a valuable business. What is our government doing to help our small businesses succeed in this province?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Palladini: It was very nice to see the members of the opposition applaud so gallantly. It was really good to see, because that was a great question.

I can tell the honourable member that our government has done many things to help small business succeed. If there is one thing I could say, and share with honourable members, it's the fact we have created a positive economic environment so businesses can prosper. Since our government took office in 1995, we have reduced red tape, cut personal income tax and payroll tax, but also very important, eliminated barriers to growth, contrary to the previous two regimes.

We have also expanded the small business help offices and small business enterprise centres across Ontario. I can tell from my experience that it doesn't just take government help to succeed. Hard work and smart work will ensure successes.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Over the past year and a half there has been an over 1,500% increase in fatalities on the treacherous highway between London and Windsor that includes Carnage Alley. Almost 35 deaths have occurred, yet your government has consistently taken the low road. Since the tragedy began, it has always been too little too late. On September 22, you announced a centre medium barrier only as far as Tilbury. Carnage Alley, which is located on the other side of Tilbury, has been the focus of North American notoriety for the past year as the highway of death.

Minister, public safety is far less important to you than public opinion. Don't insult this House by saying you are responding to the jury recommendations. Mike Harris refused to even consider the number one recommendation, photo radar. It would be an immediate solution. Most of the fatalities and crossovers have occurred beyond Tilbury. If it is necessary there, it is essential all the way to London. Is human life worth so little to you and your government?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): That sounded a lot more like a rant than a question. This is a politician who wants to make politics out of human tragedy. Our government-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The minister take his seat. Stop the clock.

Mr Hoy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The minister is imputing motive and I'm talking about safety on our highways.

The Speaker: No, he's not. Minister, continue.

Hon Mr Turnbull: Our government is spending record amounts of money on upgrading our highways and making them safer highways. Since we became the government, our highways in Ontario have become safer than under your watch-let's be very clear about this-significantly safer.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The minister take his seat. We're not going to continue if I can't hear. The member who asked the question, the member for Chatham-Kent Essex, come to order, please. Minister of Transportation.

Hon Mr Turnbull: Our government considered the recommendations of the coroner's jury and concluded that we would move forward in our plans the median barrier on that

section of the road. It is a narrower median strip than the portion of road that you were speaking about; let's be very clear about this. There is no evidence that it would -

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

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the same minister and it's about public safety on our roads. In my riding there are currently six overpasses that need repairs. These overpasses are in terrible shape and the municipality has no choice but to limit loads on these overpasses. In their current condition, the bridges are significant road hazards, with one lane of traffic at a time. An accident will happen. At a meeting of the South Dundas Chamber of Commerce a few weeks ago, the business community said that this is devastating.

The load limits also force vehicles to take alternative routes. The alternative routes cost precious time and could be the difference between life or death.

Minister, this isn't just about bridges, it's about people's lives. What are you going to do on the downloading that you did in the province and fixing these overpasses and agreeing to financial assistance immediately?

Hon Mr Turnbull: We have clearly signalled to the municipalities, with the announcement for the OSTAR initiative, that in fact our priority is to ensure that OSTAR funds will be available for issues of health and safety. Our government has acted. Let's be very clear. We are spending more money on our highways than your government ever did; let's be just absolutely abundantly clear.

With respect to the changes in municipal responsibility, I have responded that the OSTAR initiative recognizes the importance of funding bridges, and to date we have moved forward with initiatives which will significantly improve all of our infrastructure in this province, something that your government failed to do. Even though you raised taxes, you did not spend money on the-

The Speaker: The minister's time is up. Minister, take a seat. Time is up.

New question.

NIAGARA FALLS

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Tourism. Niagara Falls is one of the world's greatest tourism destinations, attracting more than 12 million visitors annually. It is often reported, however, that the average stay in Niagara Falls is only four hours.

As member of provincial Parliament, I have worked hard with the minister and local tourism operators to support jobs in Niagara Falls in tourism and try to move the stay from four hours to four days. There has been tremendous marketing support for events such as the Niagara Grape and Wine Festival, just completed, the Niagara Classic and the Winter Festival of Lights.

What is the minister doing to ensure that Niagara Falls can benefit from more visitors who will stay longer, and will there be new investments made by him in Niagara?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism): I'd like to thank the member for his important question and thank him publicly for the kind of work he has been doing to promote tourism development in the Niagara Peninsula.

It's true that one of the problems is the length of stay of tourists in some parts of the province. In fact, three quarters of the 12 million people who visit Niagara Falls every year spend less than half a day in Niagara Falls. In response to that, the government has developed a new program, a tourism investment and development office, which is working closely with municipalities and economic development offices across the province to look at ways of strengthening their programs and encouraging people to stay longer.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Jackson: I realize the members opposite aren't really interested in economic development in their communities, but I can assure the member from Windsor that we'll be there to support his community even though you are not interested in these tourism matters.

We are doing new vineyard programs, new-

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

Mr Maves: I'm encouraged that the government is continuing to take action on this problem and is helping the tourism industry to reach its potential in Niagara. As you know, tourism is essential in Niagara Falls, accounting for thousands and thousands of jobs.

However, Minister, I want you to realize that my constituents want to know that this industry is on solid ground. Can the minister ensure that the partnership that has been underway between government and the private sector will continue into the future?

Hon Mr Jackson: I can assure the member, because the recent budget clearly indicated increased dollars for marketing and for product development for tourism. This is the fastest-growing industry in the world and there are currently about 120,000 businesses and half a million Ontarians who rely on tourism for their jobs. That's why with our approach to cutting taxes and increasing jobs in this province, we've created a climate for greater investment.

In Niagara in particular, we're seeing the largest concentration of tourism investment in Ontario's history. Just recently we've seen new winery expansions and have engaged Frank Gehry, a world-class architect, to do his first major building in Ontario. Senator Eyton is developing a corporate approach to bringing in the first NASCAR oval track in Canada. We're looking at lots of new investments that are going to strengthen our economy.

I want to thank publicly the member for Niagara Falls, who has been working closely with our ministry on these expansion plans.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, with responsibility for seniors and women. Minister, why won't you table, this session, an Ontarians with Disabilities Act?

There are pay phones in this building that the disabled cannot access. There are heavy doors that slam in their faces almost every time they turn around. Now we find that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has slammed Famous Players theatres and told them to remove the barriers that deny people with disabilities the simple right to watch a movie. But your government's no better.

Why don't you introduce the Ontarians with Disabilities Act and let people with disabilities have it guaranteed in law that they will have access to the services and opportunities they deserve in this province?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): This government is working to make Ontario the best place to work, live and raise their families, and that's no exception when we talk about people with disabilities.

The government promised they would bring forward an action plan within the first session of the Legislature. We intend to do that. We've promised in an opposition day that we would have legislation forward by November 2001. That legislation will be fair and it will be reasonable, not only for people with disabilities but also for people who need to accommodate those people, who want to accommodate those people, so that we can make sure that people with disabilities are able to be accommodated in the province of Ontario.

As everyone in the House will know, we have moved forward with people with disabilities, but there's a lot of work that needs to be done. We intend to move the benchmark forward to make sure that people with disabilities have opportunities-

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

Mr Martin: Minister, if you're really serious about what you just said, if you really meant what you just said, you just simply table that legislation this session and give some comfort to the people with disabilities out there that you actually are going to do something. If you brought that bill in before the House now, people living with disabilities would be able to attend a movie at a Famous Players theatre by Christmas, just like everyone else; people would be able to use pay phones, just like every one else. One single piece of legislation could literally open doors to thousands of people living with disabilities.

Will you stop making excuses and commit to table an Ontarians with Disabilities Act this session?

Hon Mrs Johns: There are a number of things I'm doing to move the legislation and the action plan forward. All of this of course takes time because this is a complex area. Of course, everyone in the House would know that the legislation in America is a federal statute, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Certainly the federal government in Canada hasn't looked yet to say that they'd be moving forward with that. We've looked at the legislation in many of the states across America because, as everyone in this House knows, there's no legislation at all across any of the provinces. Ontario will be the leader when it comes forward with its first piece of legislation and its action plan.

Let me remind you that in Ontario we spend $6 billion annually on services for people with disabilities. That's an increase of over $800 million since this government was elected in 1995: $6 billion-

The Speaker: The minister's time is up. New question.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Lately you've had a lot to say both in the press and in correspondence to municipalities about the social housing the province currently owns. You've been quite clear in your views that you believe the housing stock is in perhaps better shape than privately managed rental properties.

What I'd like to know is how you know that. You cite a 1998 sampling of 10% of the housing stock as proof that your owned housing group is in good shape. But what's interesting to me is that in a submission to cabinet, your own staff have said that this process could have easily missed hidden problems and liabilities.

My question to you is simple. If your own staff in their own documents confirmed that you don't know the real condition, how can municipalities and, more importantly, municipal ratepayers feel assured that you are not transferring a bundle of hidden costs, hidden problems and explosive future costs?

Just be honest, Minister, and say you don't know. And while you're at it, why don't you admit to the municipalities that the reason you don't want to find out is that you don't want to spend-

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

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the honourable member for the question, and I'm sure he doesn't want to leave the impression that there's a problem that doesn't exist. I'm sure that was not his intention.

In fact, we have looked at this issue quite extensively. There have been not one but two studies done by outside parties, third parties, to look at the stock of public housing that the municipalities are already paying for. We are merely transferring the authority to look after these and administer these in a more efficient and safe way than is possible when things are divided between municipalities and the province in the way that has been done in the past. So from our perspective, we have done the studies.

The problem with his allegation of hidden problems is that it's difficult to know what a problem is if it's hidden. If the honourable member has any information that he'd like to share with me rather than allegations, I'd be happy to research it and get back to him, but in terms of hidden problems, I know of no such hidden problems.

Mr Caplan: It is frankly amazing that the minister doesn't read the reports from his own ministry. Let me read to you the cabinet submission. Here it says, "There could be hidden problems and liabilities that exist on individual properties that were not identified." It went on to say, "The province may be exposed to greater liability risk if the building condition for the remaining 90% of the portfolio is not assessed." They finally add that to do no further study would be "the least costly in the short term but the most costly in the long term."

Minister, get your head out of the sand. It is absolutely incredible. Stand in your place today and tell municipalities and ratepayers that you're going to do a complete assessment of all the housing stock. If you won't do that, tell them that you're going to pay the bills for the mess created by the ticking time bomb that you're passing on to municipalities. Will you stand in your place and do that today?

Hon Mr Clement: Again, let me reiterate that this is a situation where we have done exhaustive studies, third party studies, independent studies. You don't have to take my word for it; you don't have to take my ministry's word for it. Independent studies have been done, and they have concluded that the shape the housing stock is in is as good as or better than the typical private housing stock that one finds in the province of Ontario.

If the honourable member has other facts-I don't know what you're talking about. You're holding up a piece of paper.

Mr Speaker, I don't know what he's talking about. If the honourable member has real facts rather than baseless allegations, real instances rather than figments of his imagination, he should share them with me and I'll get to the bottom of it. But until he does that, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Transportation. As you know, we in Cambridge, North Dumfries and South Kitchener have a number of successful businesses, including the Toyota manufacturing plant, and they all depend upon trade corridors, being the 401. In addition, many of my constituents have indicated their concern with the increasing congestion on the 401 adjacent to Cambridge. I would like to ask the minister what upgrades are taking place or will be taking place to the 401 adjacent to Cambridge.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): The Harris government continues to invest massively in our highway structure. We are investing in safe roads to support jobs and growth in this economy. I'm very pleased to tell the member that MTO recently awarded an $11.2-million project to widen the 4.5-kilometre stretch of Highway 401 to six lanes from Homer Watson Boulevard easterly to Regional Road 8. This work will include paved highway shoulders, tall wall median barriers, structural repairs to the King Street overpass, and interchange ramp realignment at Homer Watson Boulevard and King Street. This is, in fact, part of the five-year, $20-billion SuperBuild initiative.

We are determined that in order to continue to do well in the global economy, we will continue to build good roads, which are roads to prosperity.

Mr Martiniuk: As you know, trade corridors are important not only to Cambridge but to all communities in Ontario. Our economy relies upon these trade corridors between Ontario jurisdictions and the United States. What are you doing to ensure our trade corridors are viable now and in future?

Hon Mr Turnbull: We are committed to ensuring that future infrastructure needs are met. We have announced recently quite a few planning initiatives: the Niagara needs assessment, which will potentially include the widening of the QEW or the new mid-peninsula corridor and other alternatives; the Simcoe needs assessment, which will address the needs of the Barrie-Simcoe area and connecting to southern Georgian Bay; and the Highway 427 needs assessment. We're working with our municipal partners with respect to southern Georgian Bay and additional capacity to the Collingwood area.

This is all part of our billion-dollar budget, the highest highway capital budget in provincial history. We are determined to continue through the SuperBuild initiative to build these roads to prosperity.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY / INDUSTRIE DE LA CONSTRUCTION

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): My question was to be to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, but since he's not in the House today, I will ask the question to the Acting Premier and Chair of Management Board. On May 4, 1999, your government passed Bill 17,

An Act respecting Labour Mobility in the Construction Industry. During the last election campaign, your government said to the Ontario construction industry that it had had enough of the unfair practices. You said you wanted a level playing field with Quebec.

Your government spent over $1 million in billboard advertising, radio, television and newspaper ads. Bill 17, a follow-up of my Bill 60, was very clear: Quebec construction workers and contractors had to register with the Ontario job protection office. If not, they would be subject to a fine of $5,000 to $25,000 a day.

Can you tell me what you are doing today to rectify this situation? Again, is this another promise made, another promise kept?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I appreciate the question from the member opposite. As he's aware, this has been a long-standing grievance between the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario. It's an issue that all governments of all parties have talked about. Finally we've had a government and a Premier with the courage to stand up and say that this has to stop. If you have specific examples of where this agreement is not being lived up to, by all means share it with us in writing and we'll take action, unlike what your party did in the past.

Mr Lalonde: This is caca de taureau. On November 12 last year, your government decided to shelve Bill 17 and sign a new agreement with Quebec. You now allow Quebec construction workers and contractors to work anywhere in Ontario without having to register with the Ontario job protection office, without paying any fee, and we Ontarians have to continue paying thousands of dollars to work in Quebec.

On November 12, the Minister of Labour said that the Hull casino site would be open to Ontario contractors. But not one Ontario contractor has been accepted, even though at times they were the lowest bidders. During the negotiations, your Minister of Labour called me several times. I asked him to insist during the negotiations with Quebec that since your government has not enforced Bill 17, all fines received by our Ontario contractors be cancelled. On November 11, your Minister of Labour called me back and he said, "Jean-Marc, we have a deal."

Monsieur le ministre, je ne sais pas quel genre d'entente votre gouvernement a conclue et a signée le 12 novembre dernier. Depuis cette signature, 164 contraventions ont été émises par la CCQ à nos travailleurs ontariens. Votre gouvernement a induit le public dans l'erreur. Votre gouvernement a menti aux travailleurs de la construction de l'Ontario.

Minister, your government has misled-

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

Stop the clock. I would ask the member to withdraw that.

Mr Lalonde: I think this government should apologize to Ontario construction workers. I will stand by my construction workers. I am not going to withdraw my words.

The Speaker: I have no alternative than to name the member and ask Mr Lalonde to please withdraw from the chamber.

Mr Lalonde: I cannot withdraw it. I am standing by my words.

The Speaker: I've already named you.

Mr Lalonde was escorted from the chamber.

VIOLENCE IN FILMS

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In the past few days we have seen quite a lot of coverage out of the United States regarding the level of explicit violence in movies. Movie executives have openly admitted that they focus-test violent movies before children as young as nine years of age. I share the concern that our young people are being exposed to unnecessary excessive violence in movie theatres and through home videos. Minister, could you explain to the House how our government addresses these problems here at home?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thank the member for the question. I too share his concern that violence in today's movies is becoming more graphic and more frequent. The problems that United States senators are discussing centre around the lack of any official standards when it comes to film advertising. In the US there's no power of law to enforce rules and regulations on the entertainment industry. The American industry peddles-I think it's fair to say "peddles"-violent films to young people, and there's nobody to stop them from doing so.

Movie industry executives are even admitting that they deliberately show movie trailers advertising violent films when children as young as nine will be in the theatre audience.

In Ontario, the Ontario Film Review Board is addressing these concerns through the review, classification and approval of films and film advertising intended for public exhibition and distribution, and the board decides which films can be viewed by which audience and where advertising is aimed.

Mr Gill: I'm pleased to hear that the OFRB, the Ontario Film Review Board, is in place to view and classify all films and advertising materials that are to be shown publicly in Ontario.

Minister, could you also explain to the House how the OFRB informs consumers about the level of violence in films and the impact it may have on our young people?

Hon Mr Runciman: The film review board has many mechanisms in place to ensure that Ontarians are aware of the content of any given film before viewing it. We have a classification system that has four levels ranging from "family" to "restricted." In Ontario, "restricted" means restricted. In the United States, anyone can go to a restricted movie as long as they are accompanied by an adult. In Ontario, a restricted film is only for those 18 and over. As well, information pieces on movie ratings and classifications have been available in movie theatre lobbies in all Ontario theatres for the last six months.

The board is also working with other provincial film boards to develop a country-wide warning and advisory system on videos.

The board and the Ontario government take the issue of violence in films very seriously. We're committed to giving consumers the tools they need to make informed choices about the films and videos they view.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I've got a question for the Minister of Culture. I was reading your Bill 112 and I was looking at

section 8. It says the following: "The board shall ensure that the collection reflects the cultural heritage of Canada and is comprised of artworks and objects and related documentary material created by or about," and it lists the Group of Seven, essentially. The next section, (b), says, "other artists who have been designated by the art advisory committee" comprising M. McMichael and spouse and a couple of other friends. There are no professionals on that board. I'm worried; a whole lot of other people are worried as well. M. McMichael is gearing up to dump 3,000 works of art, which may include the selling off of aboriginal works of art and other Canadian contemporaries-3,000.

Minister, don't you feel perhaps a twinge, a little bad that maybe you are making a serious mistake in defending the Premier's position on this?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): Let me say that the actual piece of legislation says that the art advisory committee will be comprised of five individuals, two being the McMichaels, one being the chair, one being the vice-chair and the fifth being a representative elected by the board.

I have complete confidence in all of my boards and I know that the McMichaels, the chair, the vice-chair and the delegate from the board will do a good job in choosing the kind of art that will represent what the McMichael gallery has represented throughout its lifetime. Let me also say I have confidence that as we move through this process-and as Mr Braley, the chair, has said-of course we wouldn't flood the market with works of art. We're looking for ways to find the right artists who will reflect the temperament of Ontario and give us an art gallery we can have for future generations-

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

Mr Marchese: The problem is, there are no assurances in this regard. "Comprised of" means just the Group of Seven. The rest-aboriginal works and other contemporaries-have to go somewhere. The minister gives us no assurances about what will happen to those works of art. Will they be dumped on the market, bringing down prices for all artists? We don't know. She doesn't give assurances about what will happen.

There are other problems. Deaccessioning gifts certified by the Ottawa cultural properties review board has tax consequences. If institutions have not held a work for at least 10 years, the original tax break disappears. Has she though of that? Have they thought of this? This advisory committee is comprised of five people and has powers beyond the 1965 agreement.

Minister, will you tell the Premier-because I think you ought to-that his obsession should be brought to an end and that Bill 112 should be withdrawn for the benefit of all the contemporary artists who will be affected, for board members you will lose and for those who have donated that you will lose, endangering the McMichael cultural heritage that we have.

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me say that the member opposite has not read the legislation clearly. Nowhere in Bill 112 does it say that only Group of Seven pictures and art will be collected. It says "the Group of Seven plus other designated artists who have made a contribution to the province of Ontario and to Canadian art."

I certainly can believe there are many aboriginals and natives who have made a contribution to art, and certainly I know the art advisory committee will make the right judgments when it decides on artists for the future.

Let me say that all this came about because this unique situation, this art gallery, is in trouble. It is financially in trouble. Controversy has surrounded this gallery for many years, since 1965. It's time that someone took action to set it on a sound financial footing.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

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

"Whereas the northern health travel grant was introduced in 1987 in recognition of the fact that northern Ontario residents are often forced to receive treatment outside their own communities because of the lack of available services; and

"Whereas the Ontario government acknowledges that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents and, therefore, that financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; and

"Whereas travel, accommodation and other costs have escalated sharply since the program was first put in place, particularly in the area of air travel; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has provided funds so that southern Ontario patients needing care at the Northwestern Ontario Cancer Centre have all their expenses paid while receiving treatment in the north which creates a double standard for health care delivery in the province; and

"Whereas northern Ontario residents should not receive a different level of health care nor be discriminated against because of their geographical locations;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their communities until such time as that care is available in our communities."

This is signed by several dozen Toronto-area residents who share the concern about this government's discrimination against northern Ontario residents when it comes to health care. I have affixed my own signature in full agreement.

DIABETES TREATMENT

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to rise in the Legislature today. I have a petition directed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"We are suggesting that all diabetic supplies as prescribed by an endocrinologist be covered under the Ontario health insurance plan.

"Diabetes costs Canadian taxpayers a bundle. It is the leading cause of hospitalization in Canada. Some people with diabetes simply cannot afford the ongoing expense of managing diabetes. They cut corners to save money. They rip test strips in half, cut down on the number of times they test their blood and even reuse lancets and needles. These budget-saving measures can often have disastrous health care consequences;

"Persons with diabetes need and deserve financial assistance to cope with the escalating cost of managing diabetes. We think it is in all Ontarians' and the government's best interest to support diabetics with the supplies that each individual needs to obtain the best glucose control possible. As you all know, good control reduces or eliminates kidney failure by 50%, blindness by 76%, nerve damage by 60%, cardiac disease by 35% and even amputations. Just think how many dollars can be saved by the Ministry of Health if diabetics had a chance to gain optimum glucose control."

I support this petition and affix my signature.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition to the Ontario Legislature is submitted on behalf of the many hard-working volunteers at the northeastern cancer treatment centre, like Bob Roberti and Gary Orasi, and it says:

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

I proudly affix my signature to this petition.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition signed by a number of constituents from my riding and from Sudbury with respect to this government's discrimination against northern cancer patients, and 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 a recently released Oracle research poll confirms that 92% of Ontarians support equal health travel funding;

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

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

"Therefore,

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

I agree with the petitioners, and I'd like to thank Gerry Lougheed Jr and all his volunteers for all their work to gather these petitions.

CARMEN ROAD OVERPASS

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

"Whereas the community of south Dundas has a major concern regarding the closure of the Carmen Road overpass. The impact on the business community is devastating. Our children are at risk by crossing the busy railway at level crossing (14 buses a day). The cost for the closure alone is astronomical and we appeal to the government to find the funding and repair this bridge immediately.

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

"Repair the bridge immediately."

I have affixed my signature and wholeheartedly agree.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have further petitions forwarded to me by the West Hamilton Interfaith Committee on Child Poverty. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the federal government signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and passed a resolution to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000; and

"Whereas at the first ministers' meeting in June 1996 the Prime Minister and Premiers made tackling child poverty a collective priority; and

"Whereas Campaign 2000 records the province of Ontario as having the highest increase-116%-in child poverty since Canada's House of Commons vowed unanimously in November 1989 to eliminate child poverty;

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

"

(1) To take immediate steps to eradicate the hunger of poor children by working vigorously with the federal government to reduce the poverty rate among Ontario's children, and

"

(2) To follow and implement the recommendations of the Early Years Study, commissioned by the Ontario government in the spring of 1998."

I add my name to those of these petitioners.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have more of the thousands of signatures we have collected in Algoma-Manitoulin.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the northern health travel grant was introduced in 1987 in recognition of the fact that northern Ontario residents are often forced to receive treatment outside their own communities because of the lack of available services; and

"Whereas the Ontario government acknowledged that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents and therefore that financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; and

"Whereas travel, accommodation and other costs have escalated sharply since the program was first put in place, particularly in the area of air travel; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has provided funds so that southern Ontario patients needing care at the northern Ontario cancer care centres have all their expenses paid while receiving treatment in the north which creates a double standard for health care delivery in the province; and

"Whereas northern Ontario residents should not receive a different level of health care nor be discriminated against because of their geographical location;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their communities until such time as that care is available in their communities."

These particular ones are mostly from the north shore of Lake Huron.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the community of Sarnia is witnessing many women developing mesothelioma and asbestosis as a result of the asbestos brought home on their husbands' work clothing; and

"Whereas similar cases are occurring in other areas of the province;

"We, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act to allow compensation for family members who develop occupational illness as a result of workplace toxins inadvertently brought home."

I add my name to this petition also.

PHOTO RADAR

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): "Whereas Mike Harris made the decision in 1995 to cancel the Ontario government's photo radar pilot project before it could properly be completed;

"Whereas two Ontario juries in the last year, including the jury investigating traffic fatalities on Highway 401 between Windsor and London in September 1999, have called for the reintroduction of photo radar on that stretch of Carnage Alley; and

"Whereas studies show that the use of photo radar in many jurisdictions, including British Columbia, Alberta, Australia, many European countries and several American states, does have a marked impact in preventing speeding and improving road and highway safety, from a 16% decrease in fatalities in British Columbia to a 49% decrease in Victoria, Australia; and

"Whereas photo radar is supported by the RCMP, the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs, police departments, including many local Ontario Provincial Police constables, and the Canadian Automobile Association and the Ontario Trucking Association and many road safety groups;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Ministry of Transportation reinstate photo radar on dangerous stretches of provincial and municipal highways and streets, as identified by police. The top priority should be Carnage Alley, the

section of 401 between Windsor and London, and all revenues from photo radar should be directed to putting more police on our roads and highways to combat aggressive driving."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have another petition regarding the Harris government's 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 meals, travel and accommodation;

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

I agree with the petitioners. I hope the government does something soon about this issue.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"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 20th-century Canadian art;

"Whereas the passage of Bill 112 would constitute a breach of trust made with hundreds of other donors to the McMichael Canadian Art Collection;

"Whereas the passage of Bill 112 would vest too much power in the hands of the founders, who have been more than compensated for their generosity;

"Whereas the passage of Bill 112 would diminish the authority and responsibility of the board of trustees;

"Whereas the passage of Bill 112 would limit the focus of the art collection and hamper the gallery to raise private funds, thereby increasing its dependency on the taxpayers; and

"Whereas the passage of Bill 112 would 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."

I affix my signature to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have further petitions forwarded to me by Buzz Hargrove, the national president of the CAW. The petitions were put together by CAW local 222 members Cecil Mackasey and Rick Roberts. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas this year 130,000 Canadians will contract cancer and there are at minimum 17 funerals everyday for Canadian workers who died from cancer caused by workplace exposure to cancer causing substances known as carcinogens;

"Whereas the World Health Organization estimates that 80% of all cancers have environmental causes and the International Labour Organization estimates that 1 million globally have cancer because of exposure at work to carcinogens;

"Whereas most cancers can be beaten if government had the political will to make industry replace toxic substances with non-toxic substances in work; and

"Whereas very few health organizations study the link between occupations and cancer, even though more study of this link is an important step to defeating this dreadful disease;

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

"That it become a legal requirement that occupational history be recorded on a standard form when a patient presents at a physician for diagnosis or treatment of cancer and that the diagnosis and occupational history be forwarded to a central cancer registry for analysis as to the link between cancer and occupation."

Again, my NDP colleagues and I continue to support these petitioners.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA PROTECTION CONTRE LA VIOLENCE FAMILIALE

Mr Martiniuk, on behalf of Mr Flaherty, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 117,

An Act to better protect victims of domestic violence / Projet de loi 117, Loi visant à mieux protéger les victimes de violence familiale.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): Today, on behalf of the Attorney General, the Honourable James Flaherty, I proceed with second reading of Bill 117, the Domestic Violence Protection Act,

an Act to better protect victims of domestic violence. I will be sharing my available time with my colleagues Joe Tascona, the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, and my colleague Doug Galt, the member for Northumberland.

Last week Minister Flaherty introduced the Domestic Violence Protection Act. This act is in response to one of the most disturbing and insidious crimes: domestic violence. It is a crime that all of us, as legislators, neighbours, fathers, mothers, and citizens of Ontario, cannot ignore. It is a serious crime that has serious repercussions for our society. Not only is domestic violence a crime against the person abused, it deeply affects children who witness violence in the family. It destabilizes families. In the broadest sense, then, domestic violence is a crime against the foundation of an orderly society: strong families.

When people think about safe communities, they think of being and feeling safe on our streets, in their neighbourhoods and, above all, in their homes. We think, and rightfully so, of our home as a sanctuary where we can sit protected and where we feel safe and secure, yet the disturbing reality is that for some the home can be the unsafest place of all.

As legislators we have the responsibility to help ensure that the residents of this province are as safe as reasonably possible. This is a responsibility this government takes seriously. During the past five years, we have taken a leadership role in taking action to protect and support victims of domestic violence. Some of this work has focused, appropriately, in the justice system. As the minister has stated, and as this government believes, domestic violence is a crime.

We created and expanded the domestic violence court program. It is the largest and most comprehensive of its kind in Canada. We allocated an additional $8 million annually to ensure that crown attorneys have sufficient time to meet with victims in preparing their case for prosecution. This gives victims a voice in the justice system. To support more victims of domestic violence, we expanded the victim/witness assistance program and plan to do more. To get victims in touch with the services they need, we expanded the victim crisis assistance and referral program and the SupportLink program. To support families in crisis, we expanded the supervised access program.

I am proud of the actions our government has taken to make our justice system more responsive to the needs of victims of domestic violence. They are very important components that support victims and hold abusers accountable for their actions.

A brief comment on the second part of my sentence: holding abusers accountable. This is a most important goal. That is why we established a partner assault response program, formerly the male batterers' program. Domestic violence is a crime. That is why we prosecute. To minimize the role of the justice system in protecting and supporting victims is irresponsible. While these are important steps, we know that there is more work to be done.

Victims of domestic violence sometimes seek protection through restraining orders. These court orders prescribe and/or prohibit the contact that an alleged abuser can have with the victim. However, we know that restraining orders can be made more effective. Victims of domestic violence need to know they can obtain restraining orders and get them quickly. Victims need to know that restraining orders will be enforced and that charges will be laid appropriately when the order has been breached. Offenders need to know that violation of a restraining order has a serious consequence. Yet, this has not always been the case with the current system.

People representing victims of domestic violence, police and family lawyers, have told us that changes to restraining orders are needed to better protect victims of domestic violence. They've told us there is a delay in getting restraining orders because victims must apply during normal court hours. They've told us that a lot of people can't apply for a restraining order because the current eligibility criteria are too limited. For example, people who have been living together for less than three years cannot get a restraining order unless they're also the parents of a child.

But the most urgent call for changes revolve around the need for better enforcement of restraining orders. Enforcement of violations of restraining orders falls under the Provincial Offences Act. This means that alleged abusers can only be held for 24 hours after violating an order, unless there is a concern that he or she would not appear in court. This may be fine for a minor offence; it is not acceptable for the serious crime of domestic violence.

That is why the Domestic Violence Protection Act,

An Act to better protect victims of domestic violence, was introduced. This bill is one more step we are taking to protect victims of domestic violence and hold offenders accountable. We have made that promise in the Blueprint and again in the throne speech, and we are keeping those promises.

The proposed legislation is intended to reform and improve the effectiveness of restraining orders to better protect victims of domestic violence. If passed, this will replace restraining orders with new intervention orders. It would ensure that victims could obtain intervention orders faster and that they would be enforced in an effective, consistent and timely way across this great province.

To underscore the importance of these proposed reforms, this bill would treat the violation of an intervention order as a criminal offence under the Criminal Code rather than a provincial offence. This would mean that those convicted of a violation would have a criminal record. Making the violation of an intervention order a criminal offence sends a strong statement that domestic violence will not be tolerated in Ontario.

The Domestic Violence Protection Act would go a long way to keeping victims of domestic violence and their children safer, and it would help to better protect more victims and their children from that crime.

As I've already indicated, the current eligibility criteria are limited. We propose to broaden coverage and include those who have been excluded from seeking the protection of restraining orders. This means people in dating relationships, current or past; people who have been living together for less than three years; and relatives, such as elderly parents living with an adult child, would be able to obtain an intervention order. We think this is equitable and fair.

The opposition has claimed that this bill is insignificant and provides for small changes. I do not agree. How can any action that protects victims be insignificant? On the contrary, our proposed changes address the limitations of the existing law and would make major changes across the justice system to better serve victims of domestic violence.

Because of the nature of the violence, victims of domestic violence need faster access to intervention orders. This bill would do just that. A Domestic Violence Protection Act would provide clear standards to simplify and speed up the process of getting an intervention order. If the bill passes, victims across the province would be able to obtain an intervention order in all urgent situations any time of the day or night.

During court hours, victims would apply to a court, as they do now. But for emergencies, when the court is not sitting, orders would be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Victims could apply through a designated justice of the peace or judge. If the matter is urgent, police could assist victims to communicate with these designated judicial offices.

At the same time, the alleged abuser would be served with the intervention order faster and the police would be alerted about the order sooner. The order would be prepared and signed at the same time the judge granted the order. If the abuser is in the court, the order could be served at the same time. This would make the informa tion needed for enforcement available much more quickly on the Canada-wide police information system, or CPIC.

When the police are called to a domestic violence incident, they need all the tools they can get to help protect the victim. Currently, police have signalled a need for changes in two key areas. One is the current content of restraining orders that prohibit the alleged abuser from harassing, molesting or annoying their current or former partner or spouse. At times, interpreting these terms can be subjective. For example, what actions constitute knowing?

Second, the police are sometimes confronted with contradictory court orders. For example, a victim's restraining order may prohibit contact with the alleged abuser, but the same order may also include an exception for child access arrangements. When called to an incident, police are faced with two possible explanations for contact. Lack of clarity in restraining orders makes it more difficult for police to enforce the law.

We have listened to the police, and this bill would provide the clarity they need to better protect victims. If there is a conflict between an emergency order and an existing custody or access order, the emergency order would have priority. It would be clear to the police which order to enforce.

Under the act, intervention orders would ensure that conditions for the alleged abuser would be clear and enforceable. Intervention orders would specifically list prohibited activities for the alleged abuser. This would help victims and the police to readily know if an order has been breached. For example, the order could specify that the alleged abuser should not communicate directly or indirectly with the victim or other specified people and the specific distance an alleged abuser can be from the victim or from particular places such as the victim's workplace or the children's school. Other terms of the order might include:

Requiring the alleged abuser to vacate the residence. Currently this occurs only if there has been an arrest or if there is an order of the court for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home;

Requiring that police are present while the alleged abuser removes personal possessions;

Requiring that the alleged abuser give up possession of firearms and weapons that have been used, or threatened to be used, to commit domestic violence;

Ordering counselling for the abusive partner to help prevent further violence;

Ordering counselling for the children, at the alleged abuser's expense, to help them overcome the effects of exposure to the violence;

Granting exclusive possession of the residence to the victim or exclusive use of certain property such as credit cards and bank accounts;

Ordering compensation for damage or losses suffered.

These conditions contain a wider range of remedies for victims than is found under the present system. Intervention orders would be tailor-made by courts, based on each individual situation. Clear and enforceable intervention orders to better protect the victims is one of the key objectives of this bill.

We fully understand and support the wish of victims of domestic violence to be able to stay safely in their homes. After all, why should the victim, not the alleged abuser, be the one to leave? In fact, one of the goals of this bill is to provide further protection for women and their children so they can remain in the family home. Under this bill, if passed, the court would be able to include a condition in the intervention order specifically requiring the alleged abuser to vacate the residence. If he or she does not leave, the police could make an arrest for breaching the order.

Charges could be laid under the Criminal Code. By contrast, currently the police can remove an alleged abuser from the residence only if he or she has been arrested or has breached an order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home. To further protect victims at risk, police could also have the right to seize weapons and guns if they have been used, or threatened to be used, to commit domestic violence.

This bill helps victims achieve more financial independence by allowing the court to include conditions in intervention orders such as, as I previously mentioned, the granting of exclusive possession or exclusive use of certain property and ordering compensation for damages or losses suffered.

Again, we wish to make it clear that under this bill, breaches of an intervention order would be a criminal offence. If passed, this would make enforcement easier because, if convicted, the abuser would not just have a provincial record but in fact a criminal record. We believe this is a significant deterrent to committing the crime. Stronger provisions for detention and release would also be available under the Criminal Code. Currently, under the Provincial Offences Act, an alleged abuser can only be held for 24 hours,

whereas under the Criminal Code the accused can be held for trial if he or she is deemed a risk. Ultimately the accused could be released on condition that he or she not possess weapons, not consume alcohol, not contact the victim, adhere to a curfew or report regularly, in person, to the police. If any of these conditions are breached, the person could be held for trial.

Penalties depend upon the circumstances in each case. However, under the Children's Law Reform Act and the Family Law Act, the maximum penalty for the first breach of a restraining order is three months in jail and/or up to a $5,000 fine. On a second or subsequent offence this penalty increases to up to two years in jail and/or a $10,000 maximum fine. Under the Criminal Code, jail terms up to two years can be imposed with the significant social stigma of a criminal record.

The members opposite have claimed that this government has focused exclusively on solutions that improve the justice system. I guess they are referring to the tripling of the number of our innovative domestic violence court programs. These specialized courts provide support to victims and fast-track cases to ensure effective pro secution. They can also provide counselling for abusers to help stop the violence; the doubling of the victim crisis assistance and referral service-VCARS-which links victims directly to the police and community-based services; and of course the doubling of the victim/witness assistance program, with more to come.

This government makes no apologies for improving the justice system to better serve victims of crime and to hold those who commit the crimes accountable for their deeds. Domestic violence is a crime, a most repugnant crime, and must be treated as such by the justice system.

The restraining order reform proposed by this government is also a response to the recommendations made by the joint committee on domestic violence comprised of individuals from our community. We have never claimed that the Domestic Violence Protection Act is the only solution to help victims of domestic violence. But it is one more important step in a multi-pronged strategy to improve the system to meet victims' needs.

While minimizing our achievements, the members of the opposition maintained we had not supported victims through community-based programs. This is just not so. The facts speak for themselves: $10 million in annualized funding has been allocated to help children who have witnessed domestic violence and to establish a transitional support program. This will help victims to establish new lives for their families, free from domestic violence.

Fifty-one million dollars has been allocated to support 98 emergency shelters and related services in the year 2000-01; $21 million has been allocated to over 100 counselling programs for women and their children in 2000 and 2001; approximately $50 million has been committed to support innovative community-based projects that focus on vulnerable children and adults as part of the victims' justice action plan; $10 million annually has been allocated for the expansion of community-based programs, including the victims assistance and crisis referral services, SupportLink and making services more flexible to meet the needs of northern communities.

SupportLink provides safety planning that can involve cellphones pre-programmed to dial 911. This would help ensure that the emergency response teams are alerted immediately if there is a danger.

Fifty million dollars has been committed to rent supplements to help house up to 10,000 families and individuals; an additional $500,000 was provided to cover streamlined applications for emergency legal aid advice and the number of hours was doubled to assist abused women seeking restraining orders. The number of supervised access sites will be expanded from 36 to 54, providing for safe visits between non-custodial parents and their children.

There are more than 40 projects and initiatives in the areas of safety, justice and prevention to help meet the needs of abused and assaulted women in Ontario. In fact, this government is spending more to prevent domestic violence than it ever has in the past. In 2000-01 we will spend almost $135 million, an increase of $37 million since 1995. An additional $5 million will be allocated next year, bringing the total to approximately $140 million. And much of this funding supports community-based programs and services.

Keeping the people of this province safe is a battle no one level of government can win on its own. Ontario is playing its part to ensure the safety of our communities, our families and our children. It is time for the federal government to live up to its responsibilities to keep our homes, streets and neighbourhoods safe. Earlier this month, Minister Flaherty called on the federal government to provide additional help to protect victims of domestic violence. He asked them to do this by making two important changes to the Criminal Code.

First, while breaches of intervention orders would be enforced under the Criminal Code, we asked that the federal government amend the code to make breaching an intervention order a separate offence. This would provide victims with additional protection by allowing for more timely prosecution of cases and would send a clear and strong message that domestic violence is a serious offence. Second, Minister Flaherty asked Ottawa to reverse the onus of proof in bail proceedings in domestic violence cases so that accused individuals would have to show that their release would not endanger the victim.

These are changes that Ottawa can make easily and they are changes that would go a long way to protect the victims of domestic violence. I'm sad to say that as of this date we have received no firm commitment from the federal government to make these changes.

We have promised to better protect victims of domestic violence and hold abusers accountable. We believe that the proposed changes are important new additions to our government's continued efforts to do just that. If passed, the Domestic Violence Protection Act would cover more victims, provide faster access to intervention orders 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and give the police the tools they need to better enforce intervention orders. Faster access to intervention orders and better enforcement-that's the bottom line of this bill. This is an effective bill because it addresses the limitations in the existing laws.

Members opposite, including Frances Lankin and Michael Bryant, have indicated their support for this bill.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): Is he waiting for me to say something?

Mr Martiniuk: I was just providing the opportunity in case that was incorrect.

Ms Lankin: I'll speak later. I appreciate that.

Mr Martiniuk: I urge its speedy passage so that the people of Ontario can be safe and feel safe on our streets, in their neighbourhoods and, above all, in the sanctity of their own homes.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm pleased to follow my colleague from Cambridge, the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, with respect to second reading of

An Act to better protect victims of domestic violence. I'd like to make a few comments with respect to this piece of legislation.

As we know, domestic violence is an issue that affects all of us as legislators, neighbours, fathers, mothers and finally as citizens of Ontario. It's a serious crime, and whether we have been the victims of domestic violence, know someone who has been or have lived in a neighbourhood where domestic violence has occurred, we are all affected. We are affected because our communities and neighbourhoods cannot prosper, cannot attract families, investment or business if we allow violence in our homes.

That is why during the past five years our government has taken a leadership role in the area of domestic violence. We have created and expanded the domestic violence court program and made it the largest and most comprehensive of its kind in Canada. We have expanded the victim/witness assistance program, the victim crisis assistance and referral service, the supervised access program and the SupportLink program. I'm proud to say, as the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, that my riding has been targeted for these initiatives.

I can tell you, having walked through the courts in the city of Barrie, it certainly has demonstrated our government's commitment to this issue in terms of being there to help the people who need to be helped.

I'm proud of our achievement of making our justice system more responsive to the needs of victims of domestic violence.

The justice system is a critical component in our battle against domestic violence because it holds abusers accountable for their actions. While these are important steps, we know there is more work to be done, so

An Act to better protect victims of domestic violence, the proposed legislation, is intended to reform and improve the effectiveness of restraining orders to better protect victims of domestic violence.

I say that there is a need for change. Today victims of domestic violence obtain restraining orders that prescribe and/or prohibit the contact that an alleged abuser can have with the victim. These restraining orders have kept many women safe, but our government has heard from organizations representing victims, from family lawyers and from the police that restraining orders must be obtained more quickly and must be better enforced. They've told us that there is a delay in getting restraining orders because victims must apply during normal court hours.

This is a real problem for victims confronted by violence after business hours and on the weekend. They've told us that a lot of people can't apply for a restraining order because the current eligibility criteria are too limited. For example, people who have been living together for less than three years can't get a restraining order.

But the most urgent call for change revolves around the need for better enforcement of restraining orders. Enforcement of violations of restraining orders falls under the Provincial Offences Act. This means that alleged abusers can only be held for 24 hours after violating an order, unless there is concern that he or she would not appear in court. This may be fine for a minor offence. However, it is not acceptable for the serious crime of domestic violence.

We have listened to victims and community organizations, and that is why we are proposing to make important changes to better meet the needs of victims of domestic violence.

The proposed new law would create new domestic violence intervention orders. First, the legislation would help victims of domestic violence get intervention orders any time, day or night, across the province. These orders would be available during court hours, as they are now, but for emergencies, when the court is not sitting, orders would be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. At the same time, the alleged abuser would be served with the intervention order faster and police would be alerted about the order sooner.

Second, our proposed new law would help to protect more victims of domestic crime. We propose to include people in dating relationships, making Ontario the first province to provide this coverage. We also want to include those who have lived together for less than three years, as well as family members such as parents living with their adult children.

Third, we plan to specifically list a clear set of prohibited activities that the alleged abuser would have to comply with. I'm going to refer to the legislation with respect to those areas that would be covered, as defined with respect to domestic violence under the act. Those include:

"1. An assault that consists of the intentional application of force that causes the applicant to fear for his or her safety, but does not include any act committed in self-defence.

"2. An intentional or reckless act or omission that causes bodily harm or damage to property.

"3.

An act or omission or threatened act or omission that causes the applicant to fear for his or her safety.

"4. Forced physical confinement, without lawful authority.

"5. Sexual assault, sexual exploitation or sexual molestation, or the threat of sexual assault, sexual exploitation or sexual molestation.

"6. A series of acts which collectively causes the applicant to fear for his or her safety, including following, contacting, communicating with, observing or recording any person."

It also states in the act:

"Domestic violence may be found to have occurred for the purposes of this act whether or not, in respect of any act or omission described in subsection (2), a charge has been laid or dismissed or withdrawn or a conviction has been or could be obtained."

When we're dealing with this very serious situation, people have to know who is eligible to apply for an intervention order, which is very clearly set out in the act:

"1. A spouse or former spouse....

"2. A same-sex partner or former same-sex partner....

"3. A person who is cohabiting with the respondent or has cohabited with the respondent for any period of time, whether or not they are cohabiting at the time of the application.

"4. A person who is or was in a dating relationship with the respondent.

"5. A relative of the respondent who resides with the respondent."

There is an age restriction with respect to who can apply: "A person must be at least 16 years old to apply for, or be the respondent to an application for, an intervention order or an emergency intervention order."

The situations that are covered by an intervention order are very clearly set out and the persons that can apply for the intervention order are very clearly set out. These tougher conditions would be tailored to each situation. For example, communication with the victim would be prohibited; being too close to the victim, as specifically set out in the order or being in certain places such as at the victim's workplace would constitute a breach of the order.

A wider range of other relief for victims would also be available. For example, the alleged abuser might have to leave the home, and firearms and guns could be seized by the police. There are also provisions for the court to order counselling for the abusive partner or to grant exclusive possession of the residence to the victim so that the victim can stay in the home. These important changes would make intervention orders easier for police to enforce. That is a fundamental focus of this legislation in terms of enforcement to protect the victim of this type of violence.

Intervention orders would be enforced according to the provisions of the Criminal Code. This would result in alleged abusers being detained or released on a wider range of conditions. For example, an accused could be held for trial if he or she is judged to be a safety risk, not released after 24 hours, which is the current situation.

Those convicted of violating an intervention order would have a criminal record. This would send a clear signal that domestic violence is not tolerated in the province of Ontario.

The bottom line of these reforms is faster access and better protection for victims of domestic violence. These reforms will complement the initiatives we have taken to date to help victims of domestic violence and hold abusers accountable, because to keep Ontario as the best place to live, work and raise a family, we must work together to assist victims of domestic violence and help keep their children safe.

The Ontario government's reform consists of proposed new legislation-the Domestic Violence Protection Act-and changes to current practice to ensure that intervention orders are issued and enforced in an effective, consistent and timely a manner across the province.

The reform is consistent with the recommendations of the joint committee on domestic violence and with the government's Blueprint and throne speech commitment to protect victims and hold offenders accountable. We are keeping our word with respect to this important issue.

The act, if passed, would provide clarity and make administration and enforcement easier for police, the courts and the judiciary. We've heard from the police, in particular the Durham Regional Police force, in terms of what they felt about this piece of legislation. They were in favour of it, because it was much more clear and certainly they understood more clearly what their responsibilities were.

Ontario would be the first Canadian jurisdiction with such expansive coverage, and the availability of the intervention orders covers a broader range of relationships, which I indicated earlier. The focus, easier and faster access to intervention orders, is the mandate of the day.

Now the federal government has responsibilities in this. While breaches of intervention orders would be enforced under the Criminal Code, the Ontario government will continue to demand that the federal government amend the Criminal Code to make breaching an intervention order a separate offence. If Ontario's proposed law is passed, violations of intervention orders would be enforced under the broad category of breaching court orders. A separate provision would allow for more timely prosecution of breaches and would make a clear statement that domestic violence is a serious crime.

I have no explanation of why the federal government hasn't acted in this area. They talk a lot and do a lot of review, and yet time goes by, society changes and nothing happens. That's what we're talking about, Mr Speaker, about the federal government. They do nothing with respect to dealing with serious issues. They just talk and talk, and they use their little puppets on the other side of the floor here to basically say that the provincial government should be doing something. Well, the provincial government is doing something.

But the fact of the matter is that the federal government is responsible for the Criminal Code and the changes that should be put in place there to protect victims of violence.

They across the floor laugh, because frankly they have no alternatives. They have nothing to say, because frankly they're just puppets. I don't know what they're here for, other than basically to mimic the government with respect to a serious issue of domestic violence, and they laugh. But this is a serious issue and something about which I'm not going to be laughed at across the floor. I'm very serious about this issue. Other jurisdictions-for example, Manitoba, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and Yukon, as well as many American states, New Zealand and Australia-have legislation similar to that being proposed in Ontario. So where is the federal government? They'