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

April 18, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Apr-18 (PDF)

L044 - Tue 18 Apr 2000 / Mar 18 avr 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MACKENZIE AND OPEONGO HIGH SCHOOLS

COBOURG LIONS CLUB

VISITOR

LONG-TERM CARE

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

PASSOVER

HIGHWAY 138

DEVELOPMENT IN BRAMPTON

DEVELOPMENT IN GREATER NAPANEE

CANDIDATES IN FLAMBOROUGH

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF FORMER PARLIAMENTARIANS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'ASSOCIATION ONTARIENNE DES EX-PARLEMENTAIRES

JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'OBLIGATION DE RENDRE DES COMPTES EN MATIÈRE DE JUSTICE

ORAL QUESTIONS

CASINOS

FIREARMS SAFETY AND CONTROL

ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

ORGAN DONATION

TEACHER TESTING

RURAL SUMMER JOB PROGRAM

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING

MARRIAGE

DOCTORS' SERVICES

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

LAKEVIEW GENERATING STATION

LOW WATER LEVELS

PETITIONS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

ABORTION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

ABORTION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

WETLAND

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

LORD'S PRAYER

INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS

LORD'S PRAYER

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ PARENTALE

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MACKENZIE AND OPEONGO HIGH SCHOOLS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I'm absolutely delighted and honoured to stand in my place today as the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke to pay tribute to the students and staff of MacKenzie High School in Deep River and the staff and students at Opeongo High School in central Renfrew in the Douglas-Eganville-Cobden area.

Both of these high schools have in the last 10 days produced their annual musical. Saturday night I had the pleasure of joining several hundreds of people who packed the Childs Auditorium in the MacKenzie High School in Deep River to watch a splendid production of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. The week before, I was at Opeongo to see the students, ably directed by Derek Tolhurst and Jennifer Vallance, in a production of West Side Story.

To the directors-and I might that add Graham Wolfe ably directed the production at Deep River on Saturday night-I just want to say congratulations, because much is said about public education and young people today. Well, those two musicals reminded me and the thousands of people who had the opportunity to watch those performances just how hard-working, how energetic and how innovative and creative are the young people of the Ottawa Valley and Ontario today.

To those students, to their parents, to the volunteers, to the staff, I want to say that you were an outstanding credit to yourselves, your class and your community, and you've brought enormous credit to public education. Premier Harris and others, who regularly dine out on attacking the public school system, would do well to join me in paying tribute to these wonderful people.

COBOURG LIONS CLUB

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Last Thursday evening the Cobourg Lions Club celebrated their 50th charter anniversary. That means 50 years of volunteer service. The Cobourg Lions Club is made up of people who volunteer their services and time to the community. The club's motto is, "We serve." Many hours have been devoted to helping the blind and those less fortunate.

The guest speaker was Judge Brian Stevenson, who is the associate chief justice of the Court of Alberta and a past president of Lions Clubs International, which is the largest service club in the world. At the anniversary celebration, special recognition was made of Cy Murphy, Bert Medhurst, Don Macklin and Mac Lees. All four are charter members and were key players in the organization of the Cobourg Lions Club some 50 years ago.

It is fitting that this anniversary took place during Volunteer Week. Volunteering offers us the opportunity to enjoy the personal satisfaction that comes from helping others, builds a better future for ourselves, our families and our communities, allows us to receive recognition and appreciation, provides the opportunity to meet new people and make new friends, provides the opportunity of becoming a member of a team, have fun and, most importantly, make a difference.

Members of the Lions Clubs International have made a difference, and Thursday evening was an opportunity for its members to celebrate.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Before we continue on with members' statements, joining us in the Speaker's gallery today we have Mr Mark Napier, who was a member of the Stanley Cup champion Montreal Canadiens and the Edmonton Oilers. Would all the members join in welcoming Mr Napier. He was also a teammate of mine on the Memorial Cup in 1975. He went on to greatness and I became the Speaker. So here we are.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I'm glad to have this occasion to raise the subject of some people who are often forgotten in this House; that is, the frail elderly and the chronically ill who are in long-term-care facilities, and many more who would wish to be because they need that assistance. I want to remember that the great fanfare of a few years ago when we had long-term-care beds announced hasn't been realized in a great many communities. Toronto, the largest area of the province, is one of those, where less than 20% of the beds that were promised have been delivered. Most of those haven't been built yet.

I want to refer specifically to an organization that provides long-term care to Polish seniors. Copernicus Lodge in my riding has been waiting for many, many months and they are in the same position as many non-profits. In the first round of choices by this government, they gave funds to private companies and omitted these important community needs. There are whole communities with frail elderly people who aren't getting the services they require.

In addition, the chronic care hospital in my area, Runnymede, has been extended in its funding for one year. Again, a government is forgetting about frail and chronically ill people by making them wait, by making them not know what the future is.

The hardest thing for families is not to have a secure future. This government for some reason, after the election, has forgotten about that, has forgotten these people. Today, I hope we will remember them and I hope the government will act very soon.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): We in Niagara are extremely proud of our grape-growing and wine-manufacturing industries. They are an important part of the Niagara economy and an extremely important part of the Ontario economy. As well, they've been producing better and better product every year and have been acquiring international acclaim for the award-winning wines that are being manufactured in Niagara.

Unfortunately, the Wine Content Act was imposed upon us as a result of the free trade agreement. This act, which will expire in December of this year, permits wines with up to as much as 75% foreign grape content to be labelled "Ontario wine."

On behalf of the people of Niagara and the grape growers and vintners of Niagara, I call upon this government to assure us that the Wine Content Act will not be extended or re-enacted and that indeed this government will require that wines labelled as Ontario wines be 100% Ontario grape content.

Anything less is misleading to the consumer and does a great disservice to the incredible contribution that those small wineries, those boutique wineries, those family-run wineries down in Niagara contribute to the acclaim that Ontario receives internationally, as well as to the economy of Niagara and the whole province of Ontario. Wines of Ontario must be 100% Ontario wine. Anything less is an insult to this very important part of our agricultural industry.

PASSOVER

Mr David Young (Willowdale): This Wednesday evening marks the beginning of Passover. Passover is a time of celebration and reflection, a time of family and of community. Passover marks the birth of Jews as a free people and their emergence as a unique nation in history by celebrating their liberation from slavery.

On Wednesday and Thursday of this week Jews from around the world will participate in evening Seders or festive meals with their families and friends. At each Seder a traditional meal is served and the story of the Exodus from Egypt is passed from generation to generation. The food and wine enjoyed at the Passover table, the recital and the prayers remind Jews of how their strength, resilience and faith has allowed them to endure much over the last number of centuries.

Passover is also a time to reflect upon how fortunate we are to live in a province, and in a country, that has made tolerance for the diverse religions and customs of its people the hallmark of our national identity.

I would like to conclude by wishing all those of the Jewish faith in Ontario and in Canada a happy and healthy Passover. Hag Samaech.

HIGHWAY 138

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I would like to bring to the attention of the House the current condition of Highway 138 in my riding. I am sending a letter over to the Minister of Transportation right now to outline some of the specific concerns.

Highway 138 links the International Bridge, Cornwall and the 401 to 417, one of the main arteries to the nation's capital. The highway sees approximately 10,000 vehicles a day. Due to the high volume of heavy machinery that travels this road, huge ruts and grooves have worn right through the pavement.

Bus line owners have vehicles that travel the road daily. Often the passengers on these buses are children on their way to school. Because the road is so grooved and rutted, the safety of the children is often compromised.

The condition of the road also means that vehicles that travel the road regularly need more frequent repairs. A vehicle in need of repair often places the drivers and the owners at risk and unnecessary expense.

Highway 138 between the boundary of Cornwall and Monkland has been in need of repair for several years and it desperately requires reconditioning. I urge the Minister of Transportation to provide the necessary funding to upgrade this provincial highway.

DEVELOPMENT IN BRAMPTON

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I'm here today to bring more great news from Brampton. During our sessional break, Coca-Cola president Jarratt Jones announced on February 23 the company's plans to build a brand new facility in my riding in Brampton. Coca-Cola is investing $150 million in a new bottling plant, the largest ever capital investment by the company in Canada. It'll be the company's largest production and warehouse facility in our country.

This facility will include manufacturing, sales and distribution. Construction of the new plant will begin this spring and some operations will begin in the spring of 2001. Overall, this new facility will employ 540 people. In fact, they've already added 250 new jobs in Ontario over the last 24 months, contributing to the over 700,000 new jobs created in this province since the Harris government came to power in 1995.

With Coca-Cola's announcement of the new plant located near Highways 410 and 407, they're also right across the street from another world-renowned brand, Bacardi Canada. With these two facilities located across the street from each other, they'll provide a unique gateway to the city of Brampton in my riding.

Imagine, Speaker, if you or any members of our House want to come to Brampton for a visit, we don't say rum and Coke in Brampton, we say Bacardi and Coke.

DEVELOPMENT IN GREATER NAPANEE

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Last fall I spoke to the Legislature about the town of Greater Napanee, a treasure of eastern Ontario, when the community was recognized by the Toronto Star in a story that praised the progressive way in which the town is marketing itself.

Well, the town of Greater Napanee is making news again. This time it has been recognized by Harrowsmith magazine as one of the 10 prettiest communities in Canada-one of only three in Ontario to make the list. This historic community, with its stone buildings and viaduct, has been recognized by the magazine for its picturesque beauty and Loyalist heritage.

This year the community has qualified to compete nationally in the Communities in Bloom competition and, as I speak, the town is preparing for the internationally famous Walleye Weekend on May 6 and 7, which will attract over 7,000 visitors to the region.

Beauty is not the only thing Napanee has to offer. In fact, business is booming, with Goodyear tire manufacturing, Gibbards Furniture, the newly expanded A&P, and a new Flying J Travel Centre leading the way. Napanee is especially proud of its small local businesses that provide service with not only a smile but also a generous serving of rural hospitality.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the people of Greater Napanee for their successful initiatives to raise the profile of this wonderful community.

CANDIDATES IN FLAMBOROUGH

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Last Thursday the member for Hamilton East blurted out a challenge, asking for proof that he was being cynical about the decision to take more time to consider Flamborough's municipal future. The member asked if he's being cynical. I believe it's the members on this side of the House who should be cynical after hearing the member ask questions in this assembly to promote the Liberal nomination of Mayor McMeekin.

What's interesting is that in his bumbling rush to imply ulterior motives, the member did not even bother to consult with his candidate before making his accusations, despite invoking the mayor's name twice. What's also interesting is Mayor McMeekin's reaction to the announcement. In contrast to Mr Agostino's rant, Mr McMeekin told the Brantford Expositor, "It shows that they're taking a good, serious look at it and they're really taking into account the interests of citizens here."

Later, Liberal candidate McMeekin told the Hamilton Spectator, referring to Minister Clement: "He needs more time, and I respect that. It's a tremendously complex undertaking. He wants to make sure he does the right thing the first time."

Making cheap political plugs for a political candidate without taking the time to consult with the candidate beforehand demonstrates that the member and his Liberal Party higher-ups are once again out of touch, not only with Ontarians but even with their own candidates.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Reports by committees?

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Mr Speaker, I'm in your hands. This is a bit of a historic moment because it's both a report from committee and the introduction of a bill.

The Speaker: Actually, it isn't reports by committees; that will be done during introduction of bills. It is a new process and I'm told that's when it will be done, but thank you.

Reports by committees? Introduction of bills? The member for Scarborough East.

Mr Gilchrist: Thought I'd never get a chance.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF FORMER PARLIAMENTARIANS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'ASSOCIATION ONTARIENNE DES EX-PARLEMENTAIRES

Mr Gilchrist moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 65,

An Act to establish the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians / Projet de loi 65, Loi constituant l'Association ontarienne des ex-parlementaires.

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

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to give second and third reading to this bill right now. I believe it's been discussed by all House leaders and all members of the caucuses.

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

A short statement by the member.

Mr Gilchrist: This is indeed a first, and I hope members from all parties will recognize the uniqueness of this initiative. Last year, the standing orders were changed to allow a third mechanism for the creation of bills. No longer is it just the government or private members that can initiate bills; they can be created in committee. Every member of a standing committee has an opportunity to put forward under standing order 124 an initiative and to have that pursued through the committee with a guarantee it would then be debated here in the House.

This bill represents the first such initiative. I would be remiss in not thanking the members from all three parties who declared their unanimous support, and in particular a working committee of former parliamentarians representing all three parties who worked very hard over the past few months to put together this initiative. I look forward to the support of the House leaders in all the caucuses when we go through second and third readings.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I move unanimous consent that all Tory government members be made immediate members of that club.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order.

JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'OBLIGATION DE RENDRE DES COMPTES EN MATIÈRE DE JUSTICE

Ms Mushinski moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 66,

An Act to make Ontario judges more accountable and to provide for recommendations from the Legislative Assembly for appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada / Projet de loi 66, Loi visant à accroître l'obligation de rendre des comptes des juges de l'Ontario et prévoyant que l'Assemblée législative fasse des recommandations de nominations à la Cour suprême du Canada.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The member for a short statement.

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): This bill will require the Attorney General to table an annual report of the sentences that are handed out by judges in serious, non-plea bargained criminal cases compared to the maximum sentence under the law. This will let the government, law enforcement agencies and the public at large know which judges believe that stiff sentencing is an important way to protect law-abiding citizens and motivate lenient judges to give out tougher sentences.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CASINOS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. Can you tell me why you have decided to sneak through new rules that will allow the creation of at least 13 new, full-blown, Las Vegas-style casinos in Ontario?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The leader of the official opposition should know, or he ought to know, that's not accurate. There's no such plan and we've been pretty clear on that.

Mr McGuinty: Let me draw to the minister's attention then, first of all, the fact that he has presided over the single greatest expansion of gambling in the history of this country. I will also remind him that after he'd completed that he said, "No means no," and that there wouldn't be any more expansion of gambling.

We discovered that on the 21st day of March past a regulation was passed here in Ontario behind closed doors, in secret, which allows this minister to turn our 13 slot casinos at racetracks into full-scale casino operations complete with roulette, blackjack, poker and craps tables. You said, Minister, that you would not proceed with any such expansion but now we discover that in fact behind closed doors you have been paving the way for another unprecedented expansion of gambling here in Ontario. What have you got to say for yourself?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I don't know what planet you live on, but nothing could be further from the truth. I don't know what advice you're getting but that regulation was necessary when we merged, for operational purposes, the Ontario Lottery Corp and the Ontario Casino Corp. There's no change in the regulations. In fact, they're restrictive. Racetracks that have slot machines are not allowed to have table games unless they have a referendum like any other community in Ontario. We are acting responsibly in a regulated manner and I must say we are cleaning up the mess that your government left us with those three-day casinos operating all over the province with no way to control them.

Mr McGuinty: I'd ask that the minister simply take the time to review his own regulation, which he himself would have consented to. It specifically says:

"The following rules apply if the gaming premises is located at a racetrack: The prescribed limit on the number of games of chance conducted at a table or a wheel of fortune is determined with reference to the number of gaming positions and all of those games of chance on the premises. The number of gaming positions at all of those games of chance must not exceed 420."

It says here that you can have tables and games of chance at racetracks. When did we ever discuss this here in public? You put out a release at the drop of a hat. You'll hold a photo op here, a press conference there. You run ads on TV. But this change to a very important regulation has come behind closed doors in complete secret and it clearly provides for the distinct possibility-you're paving the way, in fact-for the creation of 13 new full-scale, Las Vegas-style casinos in Ontario at our racetracks. Again, why have you done this behind closed doors when you specifically promised that there would be full public consultations?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Quite clearly you're wrong. Our policy is quite clear on this. We've been clear on this from the very beginning when we inherited this mess of unregulated gambling that took place in these three-day casinos that you had no problem with. But the police had problems with it, charities had problems with it. We've allowed for a regulated, controlled environment if gambling is to take place in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Would the member take his seat. Come to order. I can't hear the answer when the members are shouting across at the minister. Chair of Management Board.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Let me make it clear for those who may be watching this on TV: You're absolutely wrong. We are restricting, that there be no tables at racetracks unless, like any other community, they have a referendum. No does mean no, and we're putting it in the regs that way.

Mr McGuinty: I would encourage the minister to look at the regulation then.

FIREARMS SAFETY AND CONTROL

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My next question is for the Premier. We believe that gun ownership is a responsibility we all have to take very seriously. That goes for real guns as well as fake guns. Right now, today, in Ontario criminals are using phony guns to terrorize people on our streets and place the lives of our police in danger.

Most recently, here in Toronto there was a very tragic case of a man who was shot dead by police when they mistakenly thought he had a real gun when in fact it was a fake gun. My colleague will shortly be putting forward a private member's bill which will remedy the situation and begin to regulate fake guns here in Ontario. That initiative has the support of our police. I daresay once the public becomes aware of this, they will support it too. Will you, Premier, support this bill?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I indicated this morning that anything that helps bring awareness to this debate and advances the cause is something I welcome. You're asking me to support a bill I haven't seen yet. It hasn't even been introduced yet. You know how much I trust you to put the facts forward as you say they are. Let me say on behalf of your member, not you but your member, who has shown some courage in speaking out, that we welcome the opportunity to review his bill. If we think there are some good things in it, we would be happy to support that.

Mr McGuinty: I have had a page place in your hands just now, Premier, a copy of the bill, which has yet to be translated and so we can't introduce it in its official form yet.

Today in Ontario, if you are old enough to buy a comic book, then you are old enough to buy a fake gun, old enough to buy a BB gun, a pellet gun, a starter's pistol or a replica gun of some kind. The police are asking for this legislation.

Let me just read what Chief Brian Ford from Ottawa said: "While control of real guns is without question in the opinion of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police a job of the federal government, the province could complement its efforts by strengthening regulations on the sale of fake guns."

Mr Bryant's bill quite simply provides that you'll have to be 18 years of age to buy one of these fake guns. Furthermore, you will have to submit to a background criminal record check. We think that is simple. We think it's reasonable. We think it's in the public interest and the interest of public safety, generally speaking. Premier, again, will you support this initiative?

Hon Mr Harris: If you were halfway serious, you would have sent the bill over for me to review and take a look at. I'm happy that I have it now and I'll be happy to take a look through it. Let me applaud the initiative of your backbench member, far in excess of your or your party's commitment to fighting crime, to the Young Offenders Act, for penalties for those using replica guns, all initiatives that we have taken strong action on. Now that a backbench member has-

Interjections.

Hon Mr Harris: Well, I've touched a nerve. These soft on crime-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the Premier take his seat. Order. Premier, continue, please.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I clearly hit a sensitive nerve among a leader and a Liberal Party that, like their cousins in Ottawa, have been soft on crime and have ignored every recommendation from every police force that has come forward, to clamp down and be tougher in penalties on crime, particularly those with handguns, replica guns and all those areas. I have indicated that the member for St Paul's-

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

Mr McGuinty: Premier, if you look at the record, you are soft on guns. You're going before the Supreme Court of Canada and challenging federal gun control legislation. One of your own caucus members is appearing in NRA commercials that are being aired today in the United States of America. You're the one whose minister yesterday rejected this idea outright, dismissed it completely.

What we are doing now is asking you if you are prepared to support this very important initiative that is about to be supported by our police and by our public. Do you know, Premier, that in Ontario today, if you are 10 or 12 years of age you can buy the fake gun, the BB gun or the pellet gun but you can't buy the ammunition. You have to be 18 to buy the BBs or the pellets. It simply doesn't make any sense. What we're asking again, Premier, is that you support this eminently reasonable and sound piece of public policy.

Hon Mr Harris: I very much appreciate that this leader of this party has a lot of catch-up to do, because you have been soft on crime. You've refused to support initiatives we have taken over the last five years, whether it's the Young Offenders Act, tougher penalties for those who-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat.

Would the member for Windsor West and the member for Ottawa Centre come to order.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. All the screaming and yelling and disobeying of the rules is typical of the kind of penalties you save for others who disobey the rules.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the Premier take his seat.

Would the member for Essex come to order. We are not going to continue when they shout across.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Last warning for the member for Essex. Last warning for the member for Windsor-St Clair. If you continue, we'll have to ask you to leave. Last warning for both of you. We can't continue when you're shouting across to the other side. Last warning for both of you.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Let me say that we welcome the initiative of the member for St Paul's. He's the first member of this Liberal caucus that I have seen in five years who has actually expressed an interest in this area. If and when he actually introduces the bill, we would be happy to take a look at it.

ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. Last week three members of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health board resigned. The board chair, Bill Curry, the vice-chair, Nora McCabe, and board member Pat Capponi all resigned. At least two of these board members say there are serious concerns for patient care that must be addressed. In community meetings, patients, advocates, survivors and families have come forward because some of the most vulnerable patients in Ontario are losing services because you have cut them.

Minister, this is your strategy. It's your plan and your policy that is causing this turmoil and is putting services to some of the most vulnerable citizens of Ontario at risk. What are you going to do to fix the turmoil you have created?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The leader of the third party knows that during the time our government has been in office, we have concentrated significant efforts to ensure that those who suffer from mental illness are indeed getting the additional services they require. In fact, we have been undertaking consultations, first with Mr Newman, and more recently we have had the new PA undertake that responsibility. We are building a continuum of care that starts with prevention, goes through to the community and ends up with hospital care.

We have invested more than $150 million in community- and hospital-based services. We have $19.1 million and 140 new beds for community-based mental health services. We have set aside $45 million for supportive housing for the mentally ill.

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

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): Could we for a moment focus on the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Please understand that three years ago, when the order for the merger and amalgamation took place, your assistant deputy minister at the time, Ron Sapsford, made a commitment to members of the community, to the staff and to the professionals that there would be put in place a monitoring program to safeguard patient treatment at Queen Street and the community of mental health facilities that were being offered through that facility.

What everyone in the community is saying now is that through the restructuring and through the merger, those safeguards weren't put in place. In fact, resources are being taken away from patient treatment and being focused on research, which meets a national and international agenda but does nothing for mentally ill patients on the streets of Toronto who need those facilities.

Two examples: The Lakeshore outpatient program was recently shut down and reallocated back to Queen Street, supposedly because of building renovations. Renovations have been done for a month; the services have not been committed to be reopened. There's an indication they're going to be moved out to Peel. A rehab program at Queen Street, the DARE program, and a couple of others have been shut down without any consultation or notice.

Minister, the three people who resigned were patient community advocates. Surely you're concerned, surely you've talked to them about why. What are you going to do?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again I would say to the third party that our government has worked to ensure that there are community services in place. As the member well knows, we have expanded community-based mental health services. Today we have 51 assertive community treatment teams that are available to help people in the communities. We've set aside $19.1 million. We have enhanced the court diversion programs, we now have psychogeriatric outreach, we are doing case management and we are providing crisis support services.

So we have moved forward to ensure that more and more individuals can get the support that is needed in the community. Certainly we have seen an amalgamation of services within the city of Toronto, but I can tell you that today, based on the information I have just provided, there are more community services available 24 hours a day than ever before in this province.

Ms Lankin: One more time: the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Will you talk about that institution? You've merged the services of the former ARF, the Clarke, Donwood and Queen Street. In that, you promised to safeguard patient treatment within that facility. Everybody in the community is telling you that what has happened through that merger is that resources are being put over to the research side and that patient treatment is going by the wayside.

You have now had three very prominent, high-profile patient community representatives on the board of directors who've resigned, two of them publicly saying it's because patient treatment is not getting the right attention and they're not getting the proper information and accountability from the administration of the centre.

This is your responsibility. Please talk to people in the community. Talk to the heads of psychiatric departments in every hospital in downtown Toronto. They'll tell you they're getting the spillover. I'll tell you what people are saying out there, and it's not very nice. They're saying that within that centre right now, the patients at Queen Street are being used as guinea pigs for research. Minister, you need to step in and show who's managing the mental health system and who's in charge of these services at this institution and bring some accountability back to the process.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think we need to take into consideration that the board of directors at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health is in full operation and they are proceeding with their role in governing the hospital according to the mandate they are attempting to fulfill. There is a new chair and they are certainly moving forward. We have committed and directed over $136 million there in 1999-2000 in support of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and we do believe they are meeting the governance of the CAMH and they're meeting the legislative requirements of the Public Hospitals Act.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. This is a memo from John Cook, the general manager of Ottawa Housing, and in it he raises the red flag regarding your proposal to sell off 5,800 units of family housing.

The memo says that the homes cost taxpayers only $186 a month to cover their costs, but if you sell them off and he then has to rehouse the 5,800 families, it will cost taxpayers $642 a month, three times the amount in rent subsidies. Your proposed sell-off is unfair to the 5,800 families-they will have to move-and it's unfair to taxpayers, because they'll have to pay three times the price. Can you tell us, please, why you're putting forward a scheme that would deprive 5,800 families of their homes and would cause taxpayers to have to pay three times the price in terms of rental subsidies?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The operative word here is "proposal." We are proposing that if there are ways to deliver better housing for the tenants who are affected, as the honourable member says, we are looking at ways to do that at less cost to the taxpayer. I know the honourable member hadn't had a lot of experience when he was in government at looking to do things better for less, but the whole purpose of this exercise is to elicit proposals. In some cases the proposals will make sense; in other cases the proposals won't make sense.

I give this to the honourable member: In the cases where it makes sense, we'll do it, and in the cases where it doesn't make sense, we won't do it. It's as simple as that.

Mr Hampton: Your government already announced this last fall as a fait accompli, and since then the municipal councils in Hamilton-Wentworth, Toronto, Brantford and Durham have all come forward and said that it's a crazy idea; it doesn't result in less cost, it results in more costs and thousands of families lose their homes. Moreover, even your own housing authorities, whose members you appoint, have come forward-Grey county, Owen Sound housing authority, Ottawa-Carleton housing authority, South Simcoe, Barrie, Wellington, Guelph-and said this is a stupid idea.

To top it off, when you realize that it's the Ontario Realty Corp that will be selling them-you know, the ORC that puts money into the pockets of your corporate friends-it's then a really bad idea.

Minister, tell the people of this province: Why is your government putting forward a strategy that will triple the cost for taxpayers and kick thousands of people out of their homes?

Hon Mr Clement: I have to correct the record here for those who are watching or listening. There is no plan to kick anyone out of homes. The plan is this: If there is a way to house them in other forms of accommodation where they can be housed at less cost to the taxpayer, we will do it. I have directed the Ontario Housing Corp to give us a plan, sensitive to different regions and circumstances, and then we will examine the plan. We will only do it if the tenant can be protected and if the taxpayer can be protected. That's what this government on this side of the House is all about.

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. I ask the Chair about a property, the Ernest C. Drury School in Milton. This property was declared surplus on May 15, 1998, by the Ontario Realty Corp, and the town was given until July 8, 1998, for the first right of refusal as a municipal corporation.

However, what is disturbing in all this is a letter that the ORC received from a company called Leisureworld Inc, which says, "Further to our letter of April 21, 1998, and our recent discussions of the past few days, we are now prepared to confirm our intention to enter into a binding agreement for the purchase of the property." They sent a $25,000 cheque which was deposited and accepted by the Ontario Realty Corp.

Minister, can you explain to the House why the ORC got into a deal for a property and accepted a cheque two months before the property was put on the market for everyone else to bid on?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): As the member of the opposition knows full well-at least I have been able to gather, if the newspaper reports are correct-you're aware of the situation and you're aware that the Ontario Realty Corp has a board of directors which was approved by this House through the proper process. They are responsible for overseeing the senior management's day-to-day operations.

You are also aware that there's a review going on of all past transactions and that this particular property you're talking about has not closed. You're aware that before it closes, if it is to close, it will be reviewed to make sure it has followed all the proper processes that are in place to protect the taxpayer. If that hasn't happened, it will not close.

Mr Agostino: Clearly, when you look at this, it's another case of the minister saying: "I know nothing. It has nothing to do with me; it's the ORC." Again he cannot take responsibility for the decision.

The reality is this: On July 7, the town of Milton said, "No, we're not interested in the property." On July 8, the ORC signed a deal with the same company that had sent a cheque for $25,000 two months earlier. Maybe it's a coincidence. Within 24 hours you had a signed deal. It has been closed. It's now before the Ontario Municipal Board for a zoning change. Minister, you don't even know the facts in the case. It closed on July 8, a day after Milton said, "No, the town of Milton is not interested in the deal."

So you have a developer who sent in a cheque for $25,000 and a letter of intent two months earlier. You accepted that. On July 7, the town of Milton said no. At that point you had a responsibility to put that property out for public tender and public opportunity to bid on it. On July 8, within 24 hours, you received final closure on the deal, signed, sealed and delivered. Now that property is before the OMB-nothing to do with your ministry, nothing to do with the ORC-for the zoning matter in the town of Milton. This is clearly another case of something gone wrong with the Ontario Realty Corp, clearly a case of mismanagement and mishandling-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member's time is up. Chair of Management Board.

Hon Mr Hodgson: As the member obviously knows, or should know, the reality is that the real estate corporation's board of directors has instructed the senior management to review all past sales and transactions to make sure they're in accordance with the new, tighter procedures that have been implemented by that board to make sure taxpayers get better value from the Ontario Realty Corp. They're taking real action and there are real improvements taking place there. That's what we've done.

What you're alleging is that the transaction has closed at the registry office. That's not the information I have been given by the board of directors of the Ontario Realty Corp, and if it hasn't closed, it will be reviewed to make sure the proper policies have been followed.

ORGAN DONATION

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is for the Premier and it has to do with organ donation. The son of one of my members of staff has recently undergone a successful kidney transplant. He was on dialysis for several years and couldn't partake of activities that someone of his age should be enjoying. His mother has told me how different his life has become, thanks to the generosity of another individual in becoming a donor.

In Ontario there have been many organ transplants performed with similar successful stories that have given hope to people of all ages. The donors and the recipients come from many diverse backgrounds, but they all have one thing in common: the gift of life, whether they are giving or receiving it.

Premier, it has been six months since your advisory board on organ and tissue donation was established. Can you please tell the members of this House what the advisory board and this government are doing to increase public awareness for organ donations?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the question because I haven't had many good questions this session, and I appreciate the member's interest.

As I indicated, the advisory board on organ and tissue donation was announced in the throne speech last October, and it is chaired by Don Cherry. They have an expert panel of those who have a great interest. Don Cherry, as I think many members would know, not only has an ability to reach a lot of people but he has a vested interest. He has said many times his son Tim would not be alive today were it not for his sister Cindy who donated a kidney.

So I have asked the panel, which includes many other experts and great spokespeople like Tie Domi and Muggsy Bogues from the Raptors, who have agreed to help us spread the word, and we are doing a lot of that. We expect a final report by the end of May. We will make that report public, and we hope those recommendations will assist us to correct a record that we're not real proud of in Ontario on the number of organ donors.

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

Mr Stewart: We all know that we could need a donor organ someday. In fact, right now there are 1,200 adults and children waiting for kidneys in Toronto alone, with 200 more across the province waiting for other transplants. The unfortunate fact is that many will die waiting.

Premier, there are no two ways about it: We must increase Ontario's organ donation rate. What is being done to make this happen?

Hon Mr Harris: We are trying to raise awareness and we are awaiting recommendations. This government has taken action. We have put over $2 million into donation awareness campaigns. We've spent almost $4 million since taking office for organ transplant programs. But I want to say it is clearly not enough; he's right. We have a serious obligation to do all we can to increase the number of organ donations in this province, and also to look at any other barriers that are there, once they are donated, to getting them to those who need the donation.

Our millennium challenge was to double Ontario's organ donor rate over the next five years; it's not just to invest in programs, it's awareness. Undoubtedly some dollars are going to be required as well.

I can tell the member we look forward to the recommendations at the end of May. We're not waiting to help raise awareness and we will act quickly to substantially increase-

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

TEACHER TESTING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): My question is to the Minister of Education. Liberals believe that teachers should be accountable. We believe they should be accountable to the public through their college and to their employers directly. Unfortunately, yesterday we heard that you still disagree. Even though kids need to be taught by professionals who have the respect of people in this province, you are persisting. You're persisting even after the College of Teachers, which is supposed to provide teachers their standards, just like any other profession, has said no.

Even though other jurisdictions that have tried teacher testing have found that it doesn't work, that there is nothing to be gained from a written test, you persist.

Minister, stand in your place. You're the head of organized education in this province. You're here to defend public education. You should deal with the issue of teacher morale. Admit that this was just a political ploy cooked up a year ago and agree to drop the written test and restore some of the respect that teachers in this province absolutely deserve from you.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I had no idea the advice from my colleague from Durham would have had such an impact on the education critic from the opposition. Anyway, thank you very much for the question.

The reason we think an appropriate teacher testing program is so important to quality education in this province is to help make sure that every teacher is as up-to-date as possible to meet the challenges they are facing in the classrooms today. There is a great deal of support for actually doing that.

We've consulted widely. We've listened to the advice of the College of Teachers. Contrary to what the honourable member would like to profess, they quite acknowledge that written assessments of knowledge are part of appropriate competency testing. They were very clear on that.

No one is advocating, like the unions keep advocating, that somehow or other we're going to have 100,000 teachers sitting in some little stuffy gym filling out some silly little true and false multiple-choice questionnaire. The only people who are advocating that, it appears, are the unions. That is certainly not an appropriate way to measure the effectiveness of teaching.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, you can sing and you can dance but you're stuck with this sad-sack policy until you decide to distance yourself from the backroom people who cooked it up. You keep saying that you'll have a written test. You know that has no validity in terms of testing what real knowledge there is. You know that because your ministry has told you that. You know that because the college has told you that. You know that because Fraser Mustard said, "Focus on preschool kids and provide a better environment for teachers to teach." And you know that because a former Minister of Education, your former boss, Bill Davis, told you, "Don't have a written test for teachers."

Minister, will you drop the political pretense? Will you stop attacking teachers gratuitously?

I see your other boss has left the room. He doesn't have the grace-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member has asked the question. Minister of Education.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I must say to the honourable member, I was very pleased to put my name on a ballot that had Mike Harris's name in 1995. I was very pleased to put my name on a second ballot in 1999.

They keep setting up this straw man or straw woman or straw person of some written assessment. I would like to challenge the honourable member. Where were they when his party supported the Royal Commission on Learning, which the NDP put out, which recommended recertification for teachers every five years? Where were they? They supported it then. Why aren't they prepared to support an appropriate teacher-testing program now? Assessing knowledge is one piece of competency. Everyone agrees with that. We want to assess competency, knowledge, classroom management, all of those things that make up excellent teachers.

I don't know what he's so afraid of, but teachers in this province are not going to have any problem with any kind of teacher-testing program because-

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

RURAL SUMMER JOB PROGRAM

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Could you put 10 seconds back on the clock. We'll start over again, please.

Mr Barrett: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, in speaking with people in my riding and across rural Ontario, they have indicated their concern about the availability of employment for young people in rural areas. Many communities in rural Ontario are worried about losing their best and brightest young people to the city because of greater job opportunities.

Keeping young people in rural communities, with their new ideas and fresh approach, is integral to keeping those communities strong. We've seen some positive results from the summer job service offered by your ministry. This program has given many students a good start with some great experience working in the rural economy.

Minister, could you give us an update on the program status of your ministry's summer jobs service for the coming year?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I want to thank the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant for the question. I can assure the member that there will be an opportunity to assist students in his riding and in all other rural Ontario ridings this summer with summer job employment.

The rural summer jobs service program continues to be an important part of our government's commitment to create new job opportunities for students in rural communities. Under the $50.8 million investment in summer jobs program administered by my colleague the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, the Ontario government has committed $3 million to be administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and it will encourage employers to create new job opportunities for students in rural Ontario this summer.

Mr Barrett: Thank you, Minister. You're right. Many students and agri-businesses in my riding have participated in and benefited from the program, and I know many students and employers will be interested in applying. I appreciate the involvement of the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. I know the members will be very interested in passing on information regarding the program to constituents to help boost youth employment in rural communities.

Minister, could you clarify the details of this program for the House. For example, what are the criteria for students and employers to qualify, and how many students and how many employers do you expect to sign up this year?

Hon Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much again. I want to assure all members of the House that any student who is returning to school in the fall, following the summer of employment, is a resident of Ontario and is eligible to work in Canada is able to participate in this program. Students can find employment through the rural and agri-food employers operating and offering jobs, any jobs, in Ontario. The employer must have workplace safety and insurance coverage, as well as third-party-liability insurance coverage.

I expect this program will encourage some 850 employers to create 45,000 jobs for Ontario students this summer. I think this will be a very worthwhile program for rural Ontario.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It's about the continuing Flamborough farce. A short time ago, Minister, you told the citizens of Flamborough that they could leave the new amalgamated city of Hamilton-Wentworth if they met certain conditions. They went out, they met the conditions, they put together a plan, they have other municipalities that want to take them in. But now, on the verge of a by-election in Wentworth-Burlington, you're suddenly starting to hesitate; you're starting to hem and haw.

Minister, will you make and fulfill your commitment to the citizens of Flamborough? Will you now acknowledge that they have a plan and keep your promise to fulfill that plan?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The process that we committed to has been undergone in the sense that we offered an opportunity to discuss, not only within Flamborough but also within other host municipalities in the rest of Hamilton-Wentworth, in Brant county, in Waterloo county and in Halton region, the potential future of Flamborough.

As the honourable member surely must know, there are a lot of issues involved in that: not only issues of the aspirations of Flamborough, but also the impact of those aspirations not only on the host municipalities-which is important as well, because we always said there had to be a willing host-but also the impact for the Flamborough taxpayer.

Unfortunately, through the process that it has undergone, there has been a disparate number of numbers, of calculations of impacts on property tax, not only to the Flamborough residents but also in the outlying regions, and we're sifting through that to get to the right answer.

Mr Hampton: Minister, no one in the Hamilton-Wentworth-Burlington area believes you. They know that this is all about your posturing before the call of a by-election in Wentworth-Burlington. They know that you are trying to delay this until after the by-election.

Minister, a whole lot of people came together: people in Brant county; people in Waterloo; people in Burlington; people in Hamilton. They all want to know; they all need to know. Would you at least give a commitment that you will announce a decision on Flamborough by the end of this week?

Hon Mr Clement: The leader of the third party used the term "posturing." I just want to make that clear now: The honourable member used the term "posturing." As the honourable member knows, the last time he raised this issue he mentioned the NDP candidate in that particular by-election three times. So I ask the honourable member's indulgence to take his accusation of posturing with a bit of salt.

The honourable member wants to know what the answer is. The answer is that we will do what can be done that is in the best interests of the taxpayers, not only in Flamborough but also in other host municipalities, because we see our responsibility not only as one of posturing, but as one of seeking the best result that is going to have the least amount of impact on the taxpayers, because they are the ones paying the bills. The honourable member seems to forget the plight of the taxpayers. On this side of the House, we never forget it.

COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is to the Minister of Health. I want to return to Cancer Care Ontario's recommendation that there be a province-wide screening program to detect colorectal cancer at the earliest stages, before it becomes deadly.

You said yesterday, Minister, that you had to take into consideration concerns that had been expressed nationally and internationally that are compelling you to take a cautious and measured approach. But the recommendation for a provincial program in Ontario was based on a thorough study that was done by the expert panel that you put in place. The members of the panel looked at the cost of the program and they weighed that against the lives that would be saved with the screening program, and they recommended a provincial screening program for all individuals over 50 years of age. They specifically recommended against the pilot program that you're proposing.

Minister, your own expert panel said clearly: "It is unlikely that a significant decrease in mortality, morbidity or direct/indirect societal costs will occur in the absence of clear, specific guidelines aimed at the majority of individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer."

Colorectal cancer is expected to kill 2,300 Ontarians in this next year alone. Your pilot project might save one or two. But I ask you today what you'd say to all the others whose deaths might have been prevented with a full provincial screening-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Time is up.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Our government has invested over $155 million in cancer services and cancer care since 1995. In fact, we have been moving forward in order to ensure that the appropriate screening programs can be put in place. As you know, we have breast cancer screening programs, we're doing cervical screening programs and we will be continuing to make announcements in future months indicating movement in the area of prevention.

We are certainly working collaboratively with not only Cancer Care Ontario but others in the province who have a keen interest in ensuring that the incidence of cancer decreases. Unfortunately, the incidence of cancer continues to increase, but in specific response to the member's question-

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

Mrs McLeod: You're not working collaboratively with Cancer Care Ontario on this particular program. They're recommending a full provincial screening program. They thought you agreed. They say you're stalling and backing off what you were prepared to support. You can't use concern about evidence as an excuse for inaction.

Again from the report, the recommendations of your own expert panel are supported by the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, the Ontario Association for Gastroenterology and the Ontario Association of Pathologists.

There is only one reason why you're refusing to put in place a full provincial screening program and the reason is you're not prepared to pay for it. You said as much yesterday when you said you had to take into consideration the high cost of the program, and yet you are probably paying more for the treatment of this cancer in its advanced stages than you would be paying for the screening program.

Minister, I don't understand your government's action on this. I don't understand a government that can spend millions of dollars advertising its concerns for health care and yet refusing to put in place a screening program for a cancer that kills 2,300 Ontario men and women every year. I guess all I can ask is, how does your government place a cost-

The Speaker: I'm afraid the member's time is up. Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I indicated yesterday, we are awaiting the Canadian Task Force Report on Preventive Health Care. They have yet to endorse the colorectal cancer screening. As you know, no other country in the world has undertaken that type of screening program. What we have said to Cancer Care Ontario is that we want them to embark on a pilot program, as they are doing in England and Scotland. There are still some concerns that have been expressed, both nationally and internationally, about a population-based approach to colorectal screening. Until such time as those concerns are dealt with, we are suggesting that they move forward with a pilot program, as is being done in other countries.

MARRIAGE

Mr Bob Wood (London West): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Right now you must be a minister, a judge or a justice of the peace to perform a marriage ceremony. It would greatly increase access to service for the public if other qualified persons were authorized to perform marriages. Would you be prepared to consider appointing non-ministers as people authorized to perform marriages?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The short answer is yes. The Registrar General's office receives numerous inquiries with respect to civil marriages. This is a concern, and I think a growing concern. The ministry is reviewing this issue with the hopes of coming forward with a new direction in the near future.

Mr Wood: How does the minister propose to establish qualifications for such appointments, and when does the minister think such appointments might begin?

Hon Mr Runciman: There are a number of provinces that have instituted what they call marriage commissioners. Apparently in those jurisdictions they are appointing retired public officials, people who have served in municipal government, provincial government or served their community in some capacity. We are certainly taking a look at that approach. We're also taking a look as well at the approach of current municipal officials-clerks, deputy clerks-although up to this point we have not had that discussion with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, let alone the clerks themselves or the clerks' association. But those are the areas that we're currently looking at.

DOCTORS' SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Health. My area was designated underserviced for physicians in 1997. It was the first southern urban city to be designated under a northern rural policy; nevertheless, today we have fewer doctors than before our designation. We need about 45 more family doctors, and over 40 specialists.

Dr Sinclair, a family doctor, works an average of six days per week, and he reached his cap four months before the year-end. My question, Minister, is this: How much work do you expect out of Dr Sinclair for free?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the member knows, we do take the issue of physician distribution and supply very seriously. As a result, we had Dr McKendry do an initial review of the situation. His findings have been provided to Dr Peter George and the expert panel. They are now providing us with a long-term plan to ensure that as we move forward we will know precisely the number of specialists and family physicians that are going to be required throughout the province of Ontario and we can ensure that they are placed into communities where they are needed.

In response to the McKendry report, we did make some very short-term recommendations. Those are being implemented right now. As you know, we are increasing the number of foreign students in our programs. We are encouraging people to come back from the United States. I might add, over the past few years, between 1997 and 1998, the rate of physicians leaving Ontario has actually decreased-

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

Mrs Pupatello: Dr Sinclair in my riding says this: "I have continued to work well past the cap because I refuse to close my doors to people who did not want this situation any more than I did. I've lived up to my oath and I'm exhausted."

Minister, despite all the reports, there is no denying we have a shortage. You gave us the designation. You know there's a shortage. We have 30,000 to 40,000 people without a family doctor. He applied for the exemption and he was denied. I am asking you to review this case. Please review this case and help all the people in my riding who do not have a family doctor. Reports aside, the issue is real and it's there today. You can make a difference to help the people in my riding. I am asking you today to undertake to look at this application and provide an exemption for Dr Sinclair.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As the member knows, certainly there is always the opportunity to appeal. Again, I would emphasize the fact that our government has taken unprecedented steps to address the issue of physician supply and distribution. It is an issue, unfortunately, that has gone on for many, many years in Ontario.

We now have in place a panel which will develop, for the first time in the history of this province-no other government undertook to do this in the past-a long-term plan to ensure that we have the appropriate number of family physicians where they're needed, to also identify what kinds of specialists are going to be needed in the future, particularly in response to our aging and growing population, and let's make sure those specialists are located where they need to be.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Transportation. Last week our federal government finally announced a new funding package for Via Rail worth some $400 million over a five-year period. That only works out to $80 million per year, and we know that is the cheapest and most environmentally friendly way to travel and to ship goods: steel on steel.

It's good to see that they're finally spending some money, because they've refused to adequately fund health care, they've refused to adequately look after the debt and they've refused to look after payroll taxes-they just keep continually putting them up. However, it's good to see that they are committing to provide improved rail services to remote areas and rural Ontario. My Task Force on Rural Economic Renewal heard of the importance of infrastructure to rural Ontario.

Minister, what are you doing to expand our provincial highways into rural Ontario?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): We certainly understand the importance of highway infrastructure to rural Ontario. That's why we've been improving and expanding our highways. We've increased access to markets and we have opened up rural Ontario to more tourism.

Some examples of this are six-laning of Highway 401 easterly toward Port Hope, which of course goes through the honourable member's riding of Northumberland; we recently announced the four-laning of Highway 417 from Ottawa north to Arnprior, a $75-million commitment; and we're well under way with Highways 11 and 69 four-laning to northern Ontario. We've proven our commitment to rural highway infrastructure.

Mr Galt: Many people view rural Ontario in this province as just a large parkland, family farms and some quaint little towns when in fact, if you look closer, there's an agri-food industry that's the second largest industry in the province of Ontario. Just last week it was announced that Ontario leads Canada in exporting agri-food products to the rest of the world. For example, exports of agri-food products to the US grew from $5.1 billion in 1998 to $5.5 billion in 1999.

Minister, this is a major industry in Ontario. Does your ministry have plans to improve transportation for agri-food products from the rural areas to the urban centres and also from the rural areas to the US markets?

Hon Mr Turnbull: In answer to the honourable member, absolutely. That's why our last budget was $936 million-more than any other government has ever invested in the roads of this province. We're in the midst of a four-year, $1-billion upgrade of highways 401, 402 and the QEW. Since 1995, the QEW between Hamilton and St Catharines has had a $206.9-million investment.

The Niagara needs assessment which I announced recently is another important aspect of this. Let me quote regional chair Terry Cooke from Hamilton-Wentworth. His statement was, "This is arguably the most important announcement we've seen in a generation."

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the Minister of Transportation's time is up.

LAKEVIEW GENERATING STATION

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In your address to the board of trade this morning regarding your government's flawed air monitoring regulation for the electricity sector, you somehow forgot to mention that the biggest threat to the environment from this sector will come if your government allows the Lakeview generating station to be sold without first being converted to natural gas. As it now stands, operating at only 20% capacity, the coal-fired plant is the single largest polluter in all of the GTA.

Clearly, any new owner will want to recoup his or her investment and will try to operate that plant at maximum capacity. We know that at 80% operating capacity the plant will have a tremendous impact on the amount of smog that will be produced and a tremendous impact in terms of air quality, the environment and public health.

Minister, if your government is really concerned about emissions from the electricity sector, will you commit today to making the conversion of Lakeview from coal to natural gas a condition of any sale?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I want to indicate what I did say to the board of trade this morning. I said that it's my role as environment minister to ensure that environmental considerations are strongly represented in any discussions at cabinet. I also said that in decisions affecting the environment, the consequences cannot always be assessed in monetary terms only. Lastly, I said that in some cases environmental protection will cost more and in other cases the taxpayers will see less of a financial return if we attach stringent environmental standards to the sale of an asset. That's what I said this morning.

Ms Martel: I hope you're protecting the environment. That's what you're paid to do; that's what your role is.

My question though is, will you commit today that any sale of Lakeview will not occur without a conversion from coal to natural gas? You know this sale is not just about fiscal matters. The sale has enormous implications for the people all over the GTA in terms of the staggering amount of smog that will be produced and the impact that will have on the environment and on public health.

Clearly, environmental concerns about this sale have been well documented from the moment OPG announced publicly that it wants to have bids later this spring. In light of that, will you as Minister of the Environment post this proposal on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry so that people in the GTA will have a say on this important matter?

Hon Mr Newman: What I also spoke about this morning at the board of trade breakfast is a regulation requiring electricity generators in Ontario to report their emissions in the province. The monitoring and reporting regulation is indeed an important tool in the government's efforts to improve air quality, to protect the health of the people of Ontario.

The regulation, which is posted on the EBR today, comes into effect May 1. It's the next step in keeping our commitment to ensure strong environmental protection measures in Ontario's competitive electricity market take place.

My comments today were not in reference to any particular asset. The announcement could pertain to any government asset that could be up for sale. For example, some government buildings could require retrofitting to bring them up to date with current insulation standards.

LOW WATER LEVELS

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My question is again to the Minister of the Environment. We continue to face low water levels in Ontario. I'm therefore astounded to learn that the minister is about to award 74 water-taking permits to a company from Peterborough to take 10 gallons per minute out of the Trent River. That's potentially 15.8 billion gallons a year. That's for water pools and it's for dust suppression, although the permit can be sold for any other uses they wish.

Farmers in Ontario facing a dry summer are currently having conditions put on their permits that they can't draw water during June, July and August. If this continues, we're going to have to learn how to eat swimming pools.

Minister, assure this House that you will intervene to suspend the issuing of water permits until we've had the absolute proof that the needs of our farmers can be met.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): The issue of low water levels is something that I take very seriously as Minister of the Environment. I know the Minister of Natural Resources does as well. We also recognize the impact that the low water levels have not only on the quality of water across the province but also on the economic vitality. I've met with representatives of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on various issues and I look forward to meeting with them again to discuss these issues.

PETITIONS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas essential health care services have been deprived of government funding because the Conservative government of Mike Harris has diverted these funds to self-serving propaganda in the form of pamphlets delivered to homes, newspaper advertisements and radio and TV commercials;

"Whereas the Harris government advertising blitz is a blatant abuse of public office and a shameful waste of taxpayers' dollars;

"Whereas the Harris Conservatives ran on a platform of eliminating what is referred to as `government waste and unnecessary expenditures,' while it squanders well over $100 million on clearly partisan advertising;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Conservative government and Mike Harris to immediately end their abuse of public office and terminate any further expenditure on political advertising paid for by taxpayers."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement, as I know you are, Mr Speaker.

ABORTION

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I'm presenting this petition on behalf of the member for Kitchener-Waterloo who, as you know, Mr Speaker, according to the standing orders, is unable to present petitions to this House. The petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

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 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 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 a further 249 residents of my riding. They add their names to the thousands of other constituents who have sent in similar petitions. Once again I add my name in full support of their concerns.

ABORTION

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I have a petition from over 600 good citizens of Cambridge.

"Preamble: There has been no reporting of provincial abortion statistics for Ontario since 1995, and the educational and financial background of women choosing abortions would help us to understand the impact of abortion on society.

In an

article by Thomas Strahan, published by the Association of Interdisciplinary Research in Values and Social Change 1991 newsletter, it concluded, `The repeated utilization of abortion appears to lead not to economic prosperity or social well-being but to an increased feminization of poverty.'

"Whereas we depend on statistics published by the Ministry of Health to assist us in responding to inquiries, in writing articles and in making presentations on abortion; and

"Whereas abortion is the most frequently performed surgery in Canada, and comprehensive abortion statistics are essential in order to conduct medical research on the effect of abortion on women's health; and

"Whereas abortion statistics are essential in order to study the impact of abortion on infertility, sterility, post-abortion trauma, long-term psychological or physical complications and the established link between induced abortion and breast cancer; and

"Whereas as taxpayers we are obliged to pay the cost of abortions;

"Therefore your petitioners pray that the Legislature act immediately to provide Ontario's annual abortion statistics."

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have literally hundreds of petitions.

"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 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."

I am proud to affix my signature to these petitions.

WETLAND

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents Doreen Goodman, Stan and Libby Racansky and others.

"Whereas on July 28, 1999, a decision was made by the Ontario Municipal Board which will allow Courtice Heights development OMB file S960058 in Clarington to build upon part of Black-Farewell, a provincially significant wetland, the largest wetland complex in the GTA; and

"Whereas a large portion of this land included in the development plan of subdivision for Courtice Heights is not the property of the developer but is in fact owned by the residents of Hancock Road and Nash Road in Courtice; and

"Whereas information from MNR regarding this wetland was not made available to the OMB by the municipal planning department at the hearing in Clarington, and the existence of this information was denied by the municipal solicitor and the developer at the hearing; and

"Whereas the absence of the MNR information caused the OMB to believe the property in question was woodlot, not provincially significant wetland; and

"Whereas, as a consequence, the OMB allowed this development to be built without the setbacks and buffers required by MNR for wetlands standards; and

"Whereas the Legislature of Ontario should reverse the decision of the OMB referred to above and permit the petitioners to present the relevant information at a properly constituted review proceeding that was denied to us by the OMB in January 2000 without considering the consequences;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislature of Ontario to protect provincial interest since MNR, per the Honourable John Snobelen, Minister, is committed to protect this wetland."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition on behalf of my constituents.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Mike Harris's misnamed Tenant Protection Act (TPA) has removed the rights of Ontario's tenants and created a huge legal imbalance in favour of landlords; and

"Whereas the Harris government's policies have directly led to the affordable housing crisis and resulting homelessness in Ontario today; and

"Whereas a recent study by the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation has proven that systemic flaws in the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal process have led to large-scale loss of housing without due process; and

"Whereas the provision of so-called maximum rent increases, coupled with vacancy decontrol and low vacancy rates, has placed tenants in a very vulnerable position; and

"Whereas full disclosure of the disposition of cases brought to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal are not given to credit-reporting agencies; and

"Whereas Don Valley East MPP David Caplan has introduced Bill 36 to address the imbalance and unfairness in the TPA;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support and protect tenants by immediately calling Bill 36 for debate and passage."

I agree with the petition and I have signed it.

LORD'S PRAYER

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer, also called Our Father, has been used to open the proceedings of municipal chambers and the Ontario Legislative Assembly since the beginning of Upper Canada in the 18th century; and

"Whereas such use of the Lord's Prayer is part of Ontario's long-standing heritage and a tradition that continues to play a significant role in contemporary Ontario life; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is a most meaningful expression of the religious convictions of many Ontario citizens;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings, in accordance with its long-standing established custom, and do all in its power to maintain use of this prayer in municipal chambers in Ontario."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Conservative government has arbitrarily imposed a $925 head tax on international adoptions; and

"Whereas the cost to the government for processing international adoptions is no greater than that for domestic adoptions, which are not subject to the head tax; and

"Whereas in the United States parents are offered a tax credit of $5,000 to offset the enormous costs of international adoption; and

"Whereas the cost for an international adoption can range from $20,000 to $30,000,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows and demand that this head tax be immediately revoked."

I affix my signature to this petition signed by 63 other citizens.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): The member for Scarborough Centre has presented a petition in support of saying the Lord's Prayer, and I also wish to present names of people in my riding who feel the same way.

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings, in accordance with its long-standing established custom, and do all in its power to maintain use of this prayer in municipal chambers in Ontario."

I sign this petition and I fully agree with its concern.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

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

"Whereas the undersigned members of the Consumer Survivor Association of Lambton (CSAL), a mental health peer support facility, have used or are using the mental health system; and

"Whereas outpatient programs at the hospital have been withdrawn, our day program of peer support along with our medications assist in keeping our members out of the hospital and thereby significantly reduce cost for the Ministry of Health;

"Whereas the undersigned members of CSAL feel that the changes regarding qualifying for a bus pass, eg, filling out a transportation log, are a humiliation and degradation for those on ODSP;

"Whereas people that need this lifeline need it not only for trips to see their doctor or psychiatrist, but also for community integration and interaction such as visiting the consumer/survivor association for peer support, as well as necessary shopping for food, medication, clothing and other reasons which keep patients from being hospitalized or isolated from their community;

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

"That the government of Ontario under Mike Harris designate CSAL as a valid medical appointment and that the bus pass vouchers are reinstated as previously issued."

I shall affix my signature to this petition.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the Oak Ridges moraine is the rain barrel of southern Ontario and the headwaters for over 65 rivers and streams from Cobourg to Caledon; and

"Whereas the Oak Ridges moraine is threatened by uncontrolled development that is destroying precious natural wetlands, forest, groundwater and wildlife; and

"Whereas 465 world-renowned scientists, local residents and naturalists all support an immediate development freeze in the implementation of a comprehensive production plan for the moraine; and

"Whereas only the province has the power to coordinate planning over a wide area of nine regions in 26 municipalities, the province must act quickly; and

"Whereas every month new developments are being approved that will destroy the environmental integrity of the moraine;

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

"That the provincial government immediately freeze development on the Oak Ridges moraine and pass Bill 12, the Oak Ridges Moraine Protection and Preservation Act, so that there will be a comprehensive plan to protect and preserve the moraine for further generations."

Because I agree with this petition, I affix my name to it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ PARENTALE

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 13, 2000, on the motion for second reading of Bill 55,

An Act to make parents responsible for wrongful acts intentionally committed by their children / Projet de loi 55, Loi visant à rendre les pères et mères responsables des actes fautifs commis intentionnellement par leurs enfants.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I believe the member for Niagara Centre had the floor.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Speaker, I only have 49 minutes and 17 seconds left. You know that I had to begin these comments last Thursday. We started them around a quarter to six, but of course you adjourned the House at 6 o'clock.

For the folks who don't recall Bill 55, it's this government's, as they would claim it, huge step forward for the victims of crime of the province of Ontario. It's the Parental Responsibility Act. It's as good as it gets here when you talk about advancing the interests of victims or in fact dealing, more importantly, with the phenomenon of crime.

Let's make it very clear right off the bat: Youth crime should be disturbing to all of us. Crime in general should be a concern of all of this Legislature and other legislatures. Youth crime is particularly disturbing, it's particularly repugnant, it's in many respects somewhat, as I said before, despicable because we don't expect our 12-, 13-, and 14-year-old kids to be doing these kinds of things. We shouldn't expect any member of our community to be doing these kinds of things, but it acquires some new tone when it's kids committing crimes, doing break and enters, robberies, crimes with weapons, assaults.

You want to talk about responsibility and accountability: Instead of a parents' responsibility act, let's start talking about the government's responsibility to our communities. Let's talk about the government's responsibility to ensure that our communities are adequately policed. We know, it's a fact, that there are fewer police officers per capita in Ontario today than there were in 1994, at a point in time when revenues are far advanced beyond what they were in 1994.

It's a fact that there are fewer and fewer resources out there for those families-and you've got to talk about the families whose kids are caught up in the criminal justice system. There are fewer and fewer resources out there for those families who are seeking help as desperately as anybody ever could, who no more enjoy the delinquency, the falling off the rails of their kids than anybody else in the community does. Trust me in that regard. There isn't a family in this province that somehow celebrates when their kids get caught up in events that are beyond, quite frankly, any family's control.

Let's talk about how these families, in desperation, seek out mental health services for their kids, whether it's down in Windsor, where mental health services for kids are virtually non-existent, or in Niagara, where they're so scarce that there are huge waiting lists and more and more limitations on those kids who can access those services that families in desperate need with a delinquent kid find themselves on incredibly frustrating and quite frankly dangerous waiting lists for, and find themselves capable of utilizing fewer and fewer of those things that for a period of time in this province, before this government came into power in 1995, were growing and were being developed.

Just the other day Howard Hampton and I met with a group from the Durham area called Intercede, if I recall their name correctly. The Durham area members understand-quite frankly, we saw the letters the Durham area members wrote in support of Intercede. Intercede is a community-based group that takes youngsters who are not accused of violent crimes-that's an important distinction-and who are more often than not first offenders, and does intervention as an alternative to disposing of that young person's Criminal Code charge in the court system. It had an incredibly high success rate.

It had an incredibly tight budget. In Durham-and there are other organizations that have attempted to do this same kind of work across the province-this group, which had the endorsement of the local police, of the local family courts, the judges and the crown attorneys, had been doing a wonderful job on a very tight budget, getting kids back on track. It had a huge success rate in terms of avoiding recidivism-you know what I mean: repeat offenders. Yet they found themselves defunded by this government.

Notwithstanding the endorsement of their own MPPs in the government back benches, they still find themselves without the funds to perform what has been an incredibly effective service and a meaningful effort to reduce the phenomenon of youth crime.

You see, when all is said and done, as I said before, it's all after the fact. By the time the crime has been committed, it's too late; there already is a victim. Quite frankly, for most victims no amount of money can ever compensate for having been victimized. That's not to say that that's an inappropriate consequence or form of restitution that should be provided to victims. Look, we agree with the fact that victims should be compensated for their loss, for the personal pain they suffer.

One of the few ways you can do that in our kind of culture or our kind of society is with money to compensate them for where they're out of pocket. Nobody's disputing that. But these guys can't get it through their heads that the courts have always been available to victims of crime who want to pursue either the criminal himself or herself or, in the event that they are minor children, their parents if the parents are negligent. I told you this on Thursday. Victims have always had that recourse.

There's nothing new in this bill with respect to a victim's right to utilize the civil courts, whether it's Small Claims Court for claims under $6,000 or the other civil courts for claims in excess of $6,000. My goodness.

The Attorney General and his backbenchers don't want to acknowledge that. Let me tell you what Professor Larry Wilson from the faculty of law at the University of Windsor has to say about this bill. He poses the question, what then does this proposed legislation, this Parental Responsibility Act, Bill 55, offer in terms of advancing or even altering the current state of the law of Ontario? He answers his own question: He says nothing. Professor Wilson of the faculty of law at the University of Windsor has done an incredible amount of research in this area.

Once again, why aren't some of you in the government backbenches accessing some of this research so you can talk about the legislation that you've been trying to applaud to a not-very-responsive audience out there? Most of the province of Ontario understands that this bill is a fraud. This bill does nothing to advance victims' rights. The people of this province very much want to see victims' rights established and upheld, and this government is very clearly guilty of abandoning victims in the most complete, total and absolute way.

How dare I say that? This is the government of law and order. It's the government that's going to tackle crime. It's the government of fewer police officers in our communities. It's the government of fewer crown attorneys. It's the government of more and more clogged courts.

It's the government of privatized correctional systems, be they for adults or for young offenders, so that corrections will no longer be operated by the trained, skilled, competent professionals who are currently in our correctional institutions, our correctional officers, but rather will be handed over to low-paid, poorly trained employees in an American-based, corporate, for-profit corrections system which will have as its sole goal the maximization of profits and the mere warehousing of offenders, be they youthful, juvenile, young offenders or be they adult offenders.

The most tragic abandonment of victims in Ontario by this government was its Victims' Bill of Rights, and we in the opposition warned during second reading and during third reading that the then Attorney General for Mr Harris was not serving victims well. He was doing them a great disservice, but he forged ahead.

Two of Ontario's victims, two of our extremely tragic victims, two women who both happened to be from Niagara and whose cases were raised in this Legislature numerous times before the previous Attorney General as we sought relief for these victims, whose cases were raised by both Jim Bradley and myself, Karen Vanscoy of St Catharines and Linda Even of Welland-when they sought some remedies under this government's so-called Victims' Bill of Rights, the courts had this to say. Mr Justice Day of the Ontario Court (General Division) said that this government's Victims' Bill of Rights does not intend to provide rights to the victims of crime. That's what he said.

The interesting thing is that the government lawyers were in court, because, you see, the litigation was against the government. Both Ms Vanscoy and Ms Even, like so many other victims in this province, had been betrayed by this government. So they sought to litigate and sought a remedy for the betrayal of their rights by this government. Not only did the court rule that the Victims' Bill of Rights provided no rights to victims, but the government's own lawyers were arguing that. Do you understand what was going on?

The judge said this about Mr Harris's Victims' Bill of Rights, and he said it in the clearest, most unequivocal way. No judicial comment could be more straightforward and complete and beyond

interpretation. The judge said clearly the Victims' Bill of Rights does not establish-understand that-any statutory rights for the victims of crime.

That ruling was just about a year ago today. Have we seen any response to that ruling by this government that wants to tout and applaud what they would say is their commitment to victims? Not a word. Not a single amendment. Not a single new bill. Not a single effort to remedy their betrayal of victims here in Ontario. They come up with this Bill 55, this Parental Responsibility Act, which is merely a statement of the law as it's always existed in Ontario, and certainly since 1986 when

section 68 was passed as an amendment to the Family Law Act, which put the onus on parents of delinquent children to establish that they were exercising appropriate, adequate supervision and control over those minor children when those children committed a crime.

Let's understand a little bit about who these kids are. You've got to understand that the vast majority of kids who come into contact with the young offenders system are not recidivists. They are there as a result of those kinds of things that most families are familiar with: the shoplifting of a candy bar or those minor incidents that are oftentimes as much a part of growing up as anything else. So you see, the largest majority of people who go into our young offender courts are never charged again, never mind being compelled to appear before the court again. These kids made mistakes, they're dealt with by the court, and they move on with their lives.

These aren't the kids we have to worry about. What we've got to worry about are the kids who aren't just one-time-only offenders. We've got to worry about the kids who not only find themselves before the courts for a minor offence, but then return to the courts with an escalation of the seriousness of offences: the recidivists, who constitute the smallest number of young offenders. But these are the ones this government isn't expressing concern about.

This government has its huge photos of broken windows in a vacant warehouse. I understand that. It has the photos of some downtown graffiti. I'm not sure it's young offenders doing that. From time to time it could be the patrons of House of Lancaster who are on their way home and merely want to let off a little bit of steam. House of Lancaster is that haircutting shop on Yonge Street, isn't it? I read about it in the paper the other day. These things happen. Are they desirable? Of course not. If we had enough police would we be able to more effectively police our communities so that they wouldn't happen?

Of course we could. I'm concerned about graffiti; of course I am. As I told you before, I'm concerned about people who leave chewing gum on the sidewalk because I find that as repugnant

an act, quite frankly, as most acts of graffiti. But what I'm really concerned about, that this government doesn't want to demonstrate any interest in, is that small group of hard core young offenders who become incredibly dangerous to their community, and who are destined to reappear in the adult criminal justice system. These are the people who cause the huge pain and losses to any number of families, seniors and young people. These are the people who end up going through the revolving doors of prisons.

I firmly believe that if this government is really serious about the rights of victims, it's got to make sure that our family courts-I appreciate it's not just family court judges, because the family court judge is blended with the criminal judge, but provincial judges. Would some of them please step into a young offender courtroom some Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday morning and take a look at the huge caseloads that our scarce number of judges are dealing with in these young offender courts. They are bloody sausage factories.

Crown attorneys get their pile of files at 7:30 or 8 o'clock in the morning, and because they didn't finish working until 8 or 9 o'clock the night before, begin their work on the trials and matters to be heard in young offender court that morning at 8 or 9 o'clock with a new pile of 30 or 40 files.

This government doesn't want to talk about these courts. I suspect there are some members of their caucus-the member from Ottawa, Mr Guzzo, who was a respected judge, is very capable of explaining to them that under the Young Offenders Act, as under the Criminal Code, judges have the power to make orders of restitution, which have the quality or effect of a civil court judgment.

But when crown attorneys are scarce in number, when judges are even scarcer, when police officers who effect liaison between the police force and crown attorneys are overburdened with far too many files because this government doesn't want to fund those types of activities, and when this government doesn't have a Victims' Bill of Rights, victims' interests aren't being advanced in those courts, as judges deal with bigger and bigger caseloads and have to resolve list after list on any given day in our provincial courts.

I heard the Attorney General in a scrum-because I criticize the fact he's telling people once again: "You've got to keep going to the civil court. You've got to pay your court filing fees." He says, "Oh, Small Claims Court, the fees are trivial." Let me tell you what the fees are in Small Claims Court. You've got to lay 50 bucks down right off the top to get a statement of claim issued. You can serve it yourself or hire a bailiff to serve it, a process server, and spend up to another 50 bucks, and before the matter gets set down for trial, you've got to lay down another 100 bucks.

So you see, the minimum cost to a plaintiff, who indeed has been victimized, right off the bat is 150 bucks, with no guarantee (1) of getting a judgment, and (2) even if they get a judgment, no guarantee of collecting it.

The Attorney General says, "Oh, that's a trivial amount of money." He doesn't get it. It's those smaller sums that are the aggravation to victims of crime. It's the deductible, when your car window is smashed and your stereo is stolen, perhaps over on Bloor Street, down by Bloor and Christie. Perhaps if your Passat is parked there and the window is smashed and the stereo is stolen-those things happen, I'm told. You see, it's the deductible. Think about it. It's the deductible that causes the huge annoyance, as well as the fact that you had to go through all the inconvenience. Again, we understand that.

We're not diminishing-it goes beyond irritation-the incredible interference in our lives that even these types of crimes create.

But, you see, the Attorney General doesn't even want to contemplate it, doesn't even want to reflect on the fact that his own new court fees, user fees, for people who want to access the civil justice system provide an automatic deterrent for victims.

The Attorney General doesn't want to talk about the fact that his understaffed courts, along with his complete abandonment of victims' rights, means there is no personnel working in crown attorney's offices, working with police court liaison offices, working in the provincial court offices that deal with not only young offenders but senior offenders, to assist victims in getting the appropriate information together so that the crown attorney can make an application upon conviction for an order of restitution against an offender. They had that power under the Criminal Code and under the Young Offenders Act.

That order of restitution has the same quality effect of a judgment received in a civil court. Think about it. As one of your colleagues used to say, this is a no-brainer.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I remember him.

Mr Kormos: Remember that? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that that's a far more effective way of obtaining orders for restitution as compared to compelling people to use the Small Claims Court, or other courts in the event that the amount is in excess of $6,000.

Again, if this government is really going to proceed with this bill it had better be prepared to go to committee, because there are a whole lot of people out there who have things to say about this government and its deplorable history when it comes to victims and victims' rights, and more significantly, about this sham piece of legislation.

There are a whole lot of folks out there, people like Professor Larry Wilson from the University of Windsor, faculty of law school, an experienced person in the law, who has researched the issue around children, the courts and crime and this very issue of so-called parental responsibility, who will have some things to tell this government, some things that they ought to have been listening to before they embarked on this silliness that is presenting one of their biggest embarrassments of this year 2000 to date.

Go out there and listen to what people are saying. Listen to what families are saying. I told you about Bonnie Buxton, an advocate for children with fetal alcohol syndrome, one of those people trying to raise awareness of fetal alcohol syndrome and what that does to families and to those kids who suffer from it-they're out there-and a member of a group called the Association of Parent Support Groups in Ontario, APSGO, founded back in 1984.

These are families in crisis. These are families with delinquent kids. These are families who are as often as not, as she relates in many of her comments, the victims of their own kids. These are the families of kids who suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome, who suffer from any number of other disorders-disorders that, because of the abandonment of the supports that those types of children used to have in our elementary schools, are no longer being addressed there-and disorders that create children, yes, who pose a danger to their community.

Ms Buxton writes about Nancy Dixon, the current president of APSGO, and she points out how this bill is so contradictory. She points out that, as Ms Dixon says: "One of the more powerful tools we've had as parents is to be able to involve the police and the court. After Bill 55, if you knew that your child had brought home stolen property, would you report him?"

She's talking about the dilemma that parents are put into by virtue of this bill, where they could be at risk-yes, Mr Mazzilli-of civil prosecution because they called the police on their kid. Will this bill serve as a disincentive, in more than a few cases, for parents to bring the police into the lives of their families for fear that, effectively, self-reporting is going to make them civilly liable, or that they'll even become the target?

The real issue here-and boy, this government can suck and blow from time to time, let me tell you, simultaneously-is that on the one hand this government wants to say that people have to be responsible for their own conduct, that people have to be accountable for their own behaviour, and that is a proposition that I don't think any of us has any opposition to, but now they're saying, "No, displace that." So now you make hard-working, good parents culpable or liable for the things that delinquent kids from their families do, when in fact those parents almost inevitably-and I know you have tried to skirt the issue.

You've tried to say, "We understand that most parents-but then there are these others." Well, name names. Come on.

As I told you last week, in terms of the law as it stands, there isn't a single reported decision with respect to

section 68 of the Family Law Act. That's effectively what you've written here,

section 68 of the Family Law Act, which puts the onus on parents to prove they weren't negligent in terms of the misconduct and delinquent acts of their minor children. There's not a single reported case. It has never been litigated.

As I told you, I called Jeffery Wilson, the lawyer who is the editor of the law report series dealing with children's law, an expert, probably the Canadian expert, no two ways about it. I said, "Mr Wilson, I couldn't find any reported decisions. Are there any unreported ones?" He's the guy to ask. Not one. To the best of his knowledge,

section 68 had never been utilized, and what your bill is is

section 68, which was the product of the NDP and Liberal accord between 1985 and 1987 and which puts the onus on parents of delinquent children to establish that they exercised reasonable and appropriate control and supervision of those kids. Not a single case in all of what is now 14 years, and not dissimilar to the Manitoba experience.

As usual, you guys missed the boat. The Manitoba legislation of 1997 is but an effort to incorporate our pre-existing

section 68 into their law. Do you understand what I'm saying? You guys are trying to reinvent a wheel that wasn't round in the first place. Do you understand that? People out there know full well what's going on. You'd love very much if-look, I'd love it if you'd bring some resolutions before this House to talk about youth crime and the Young Offenders Act. I'd be pleased to engage in a discussion with my criticism of the Young Offenders Act, with my concerns about the inadequacy of the intervention and the fact that far too often it takes place too late. I believe that.

I told you before that there are basically two groups of young people in our young offender courts. There is the larger group, that's there once and once only-shoplifting and those very minor offences, part of growing up-who are never going to be back there. Right, aren't I? You're darned right I'm right. Then there is the second group, very small in size but nonetheless admittedly very dangerous to their families, their community, their peers-the whole nine yards.

These are young people for whom it's imperative that there be speedy intervention, and effective and sufficiently long-term supervision, and the supervision may well have to be in a custodial setting. I understand that and folks out there understand that. Their families understand it.

But you are handing those facilities over to the private sector. This government is getting out of the corrections business, no two ways about it.

You don't want to accept responsibility for the security of the community by ensuring that, these dangerous young people will be kept in private, for-profit American-what was it? Camp Turnaround. Please; these were tough kids.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): It's a great success story.

Mr Kormos: Yes, it was a great success. The getaway was a great success-the keys left in the van, the door unlocked. I hope somebody left a few bucks in the ashtray so they could gas up, or at least the ministry credit card. What a great project that one was, an absolute failure from virtually day one. This government is getting out of the business of rehabilitation and of community safety. This government is getting out of the business of corrections.

Once again, I want to repeat to you: That group of youngsters for whom there is not speedy and effective intervention, including the prospect of, yes, incarceration, whatever you want to call if for minors, are the ones who are going to grow up to become adult criminals, no two ways about it. You don't do that by trying to spin your so-called support for victims, which was demonstrated to be a dismal failure and non-existent when it came to the Victims' Bill of Rights, when it came to Ms Vanscoy from St Catharines.

Do you want to know what happened in the case of Ms Vanscoy? Are you interested enough? Her case was raised in the Legislature by Mr Bradley and myself. Her 12-year-old daughter was shot dead in the head with a pistol and the case was plea bargained away, without consulting or advising Ms Vanscoy. As far as Ms Vanscoy is concerned, she's the mother of a beautiful 12-year-old innocent daughter who was murdered, murdered in the most complete sense.

Bradley and I spoke to the Attorney General on more than a few occasions in this Legislature saying: "Please intervene. You can't allow this to go on. The Victims' Bill of Rights surely must protect this woman, this mother of this dead daughter." The charges against the perpetrator were plea bargained away by, again, an incredibly busy court system that hasn't seen any meaningful investment during the course of your government.

Judges are overburdened and crown attorneys are being called upon to handle far more cases than they should realistically be called upon to and for whom as a result-for all of us as a result-we see plea bargaining flourishing, even to the point of there being quotas imposed upon crown attorneys to get guilty pleas. What that means is plea bargaining. It's the story of Ms Vanscoy.

I'll tell you about Linda Even. Again, a woman I know, a bright, capable young woman whose common-law stabbed her, not just once, not just twice, but again and again and again and again, leaving multiple stab wounds the likes of which you rarely see on any survivor. Appropriately, he was charged with attempted murder. It wasn't an accident. The knife didn't slip out of his hand 20 times. Plea bargained away, to dispose of the case in our court system that remains so heavily burdened in crown attorneys' offices that are understaffed and police forces that don't have the police officers to do the victim-police-crown attorney liaison.

Tell me if I'm wrong, Mr Mazzilli. You've got some experience with the system. Tell me that crown attorneys don't show up at 8 in the morning and get their pile of cases that they have to deal with that day. You know as well as I do that crown attorneys in every part of this province are working under an incredible handicap of too many cases and not enough preparation time. You saw the report-if you haven't, I'll make it available to you-a survey done by the Ontario Crown Attorneys Association that talked in very real terms about the amount of time they have to prepare for things like bail hearings. The pressure is on them to give effective plea bargains.

Ms Vanscoy and Ms Even sought relief, they sought a remedy. They believed that your Victims' Bill of Rights applied to them. Your Attorney General wouldn't intervene when he was asked to. At the end of the day, the courts in this province read your Victims' Bill of Rights and, as I've told you a couple of times now, said that the Victims' Bill of Rights does not establish any statutory rights for the victims of crime.

If you want to debate the Young Offenders Act, I'll be pleased to, by way of resolution so that that opinion of this House can be passed on to the federal government. I'd be pleased to. Do you want to be critical of it? I might well join you in a whole lot of criticism of it, as would a huge chunk of the public. The fact is, you have no jurisdiction to amend the Young Offenders Act, do you? It's not in your bailiwick. You'd like to play it; you want to play the issue. You want to play the public concern there is about it and the public concern for youth crime.

I don't know where the Attorney General got his last bit of statistics that we heard in here, but I wish to goodness he'd start filing some hard copy, some paper copy of the source of some of his data when he talks about crime stats. But you guys cover your butt because you say, "We believe that communities should not only be free of crime but free of the fear of crime." That's very clever, because we used to nail your Attorney General before-the other one. Remember him? You don't remember him? Most people don't. We used to nail him time after time in estimates when he would come up with these numbers.

Look, I'm the first one to argue the point that I'm not overly impressed by statistical reductions in the amount of crime, because the fact is, it doesn't do you or your family any good to say, "Oh, you were the only victim of a break and enter this month." That doesn't help you. It doesn't help the victim of a break and enter or an assault or a rape to be told, "Don't worry, because the number of these offences has been reduced this year." It's little comfort to that victim. I understand that argument; I do. It's little comfort to that victim. But that's where you guys want to deal after the fact.

You want to deal with it after the crime has been committed, after the victim has already suffered, and at a point which, although money may constitute some compensation, there is never going to be a real recovery of their life as it was before that attack on them, be it by virtue of crimes against their home or crimes against their person.

Why aren't we debating Bill 56, which could have been a Victims' Bill of Rights that really is a bill of rights? You know full well that would have gotten