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

December 14, 1999

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 1999-Dec-14 vol. A (PDF)

L028A - Tue 14 Dec 1999 / Mar 14 déc 1999

ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LONG-TERM CARE

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

SPECIAL EDUCATION

HAYLEY ISAACS

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

TOBERMORY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE ACT, 1999

FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA DIVULGATION RELATIVE AUX FRANCHISES

DANGEROUS GOODS TRANSPORTATION AMENDMENT ACT (NUCLEAR MATERIAL), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 AMENDANT LA

LOI SUR LE TRANSPORT DE MATIÈRES DANGEREUSES (MATIÈRES NUCLÉAIRES)

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

EMERGENCY SERVICES

HIGHWAY 7

EDUCATION FUNDING

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

WATER EXTRACTION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

RIVERBANK EROSION

INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

CHILD CARE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

KARLA HOMOLKA

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

KARLA HOMOLKA

HIGHWAY SAFETY

KARLA HOMOLKA

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEWER MUNICIPAL POLITICIANS ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE CONSEILLERS MUNICIPAUX

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

EMERGENCY SERVICES

CHILD CARE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Mr Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, signed by her own hand.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates and supplementary estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March 2000 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I want to share with the House excerpts from a letter recently received from one of my constituents, Mr Galen Gannon, a social worker employed by the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp. This letter hopefully puts a real face on the hospital crisis in this province. It focuses on the critical shortage of bed space in long-term-care facilities, LTCFs, and the resulting impact on our most vulnerable citizens, our seniors. Mr Gannon writes:

"Please bear with me while I describe the results of a LTCF bed shortage. Those awaiting placement in a LTCF from the hospital may now expect to wait well over a year before any bed offers come. Many have been waiting up to two years or more. They become more or less permanent residents of the hospital occupying acute care bed space despite the fact that they have no immediate medical concerns. This prevents those who do require acute medical care from gaining admission to the hospital.

The media have highlighted numerous occasions where hospital emergency wards have turned ambulances away because they were already full and could not admit anyone upstairs. The lack of LTCFs has backed up the entire health care system. It would make for interesting research to discover what it costs to house people in an acute care setting as opposed to a LTCF. I am sure the waste is staggering. ...

"A great disservice is being rendered to those frail and elderly who await placement in a LTCF from the hospital. Their quality of life is poor.... until the political leaders of this province choose to allocate the resources necessary ... nothing will change.... I am looking for someone who intends to do something about it."

So am I; so are all the citizens of Ontario.

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to shed some light on the truth behind the Millennium Memento journal. According to the august paper the Cobourg Daily Star, the Liberals in this House are using students to promote their political agenda. Let's set the record straight.

This government has significantly increased classroom spending and invested hundreds of millions into textbooks. Furthermore, the Millennium Memento journal does not come out of the education budget; it was funded by the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.

Despite this, some misguided students came to my office on Friday and dumped several boxes of millennium books, some defaced with profane language and obscene suggestions. Is this the level of political debate the Liberals are promoting for our young people? Shame on you for using children in such a crass example of political opportunism.

Ironically, as soon as the message got out that copies of the millennium book were available, I received numerous requests from media sources, municipal politicians, senior citizens, teachers and students, all wanting copies. They were gone by Friday night.

The Liberals could learn from Sarah Dell, on page 18 of the Millennium Memento, as she tells us that "attitudes are the real disability." Action in the form of ignorance does not cause change, but merely creates enemies.

I extend my best wishes to the talented youth who contributed to the Millennium Memento journal. They must feel a real sense of great pride to know that their work was published for millions of Ontarians to enjoy for years to come.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to give Mr Galt another 90 seconds to continue to trash the young people in his riding.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? I heard a no.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have in my hand a clipping dated December 11, 1999, from the Pembroke Observer. It was sent to me by the C.F. Vaudry Bus Lines company in Pembroke. It refers to the serious problem of drivers who are endangering the lives of innocent children by illegally passing school buses with their lights flashing. It says, "The local OPP are still receiving reports of motorists running the flashing lights of school buses in the area."

Bus drivers tell me they call it "blow-by," and they are helpless to stop it because Mr Turnbull refuses to give the law teeth. Mr Turnbull says he does not want to give bus drivers police powers, but they already have that right if they can identify the face of the driver. Mr Turnbull refuses to give the law the only mechanism that will convict drivers who pass school buses illegally. Raising fines is not enough to protect children. Your government's bill to raise fines only is a failure. There is no deterrent. Police should not have to beg drivers to heed the law. The job of the government is to protect innocent children, not guilty drivers.

Barbara Vaudry says the problem will not be solved by your legislation. She supports my bill. Lives are at stake, Minister. Pass vehicle liability now, for the sake of all our children here in Ontario.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr David Young (Willowdale): Since June 1995, our government has cut taxes 69 times and has announced, most recently, 30 additional tax cuts in the spring budget. We have created over 615,000 net new jobs, accounting for more than half of the new job growth in this country. In November, our unemployment rate fell to 5.6%, the lowest unemployment rate since June 1990.

While these numbers are very impressive, the fact is that to the average citizen in this province they are just numbers. What matters most to people is what is happening in their respective communities. I recently had the opportunity to attend the grand reopening of a Shoppers Drug Mart store in my riding. This reopening was the latest in a long list of businesses that have contributed to the development and revitalization of Willowdale's economy. The growth of business in our community, both big and small, has been phenomenal. This grand reopening reflects the vitality of small businesses in Willowdale.

I also had the opportunity of visiting one of the local YMCAs. The effects of our growing economy are being felt by the Y. The YMCA is now able to provide a greater number of services to the community. In fact, membership is up by 112,000 and the number of financially assisted participants in the Y is down by 3,000. The Y's operating revenue has increased significantly, and so has the number of volunteers.

We are entering the new millennium stronger and more competitive than at any other time in our history. The unemployment rate continues to decline, the job market continues to grow, and people are spending more in our shops.

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): We've heard the government read letters from Tory hacks in order to justify this government's wasteful expenditure with regard to the millennium book, but let's hear what people across Ontario are saying.

Let's stop in North Bay first. The editorial in the North Bay Nugget states, "We welcome the initiative shown by students who are demonstrating their opposition by sending the books back to their local MPPs."

The Peterborough Examiner editorial says, "Investing more than $2 million in glitzy diaries that students don't need at a time when schools are having to cut every corner possible shows that someone either forgot their priorities or made an incredibly dumb choice."

The Elliot Lake Standard editor says, "My Ontario Millennium Memento is simply an opportunity for the Ontario government to use children as pawns and, in this case, `messengers' of their propaganda, proof that this government has no shame."

These are just a few of the editorials that this project generated. Parents, students and all educational partners cannot believe the skewed priorities of this government. In a recent news poll conducted by MCTV in Sudbury, 84% of the people polled said this project was a waste of money.

The debate is over. This has been a public relations disaster for Mike Harris and he should be ashamed of himself.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I rise to bring to the attention of the government that, regardless of the nice things the Minister of Education wants to say about their funding formula, the fact of the matter is that there are still students, certainly in Hamilton and I suspect all across the province, with special needs who are not able to be in the classroom because there's not enough money.

The Hamilton-Wentworth public school board, to their credit, went out on a limb and spent over half a million dollars above and beyond their budget, knowing that would place them in serious trouble with this government, because that was the only way to get the majority of the 23 students with special needs who couldn't go into the classroom because there weren't enough educational assistants. There are four of those students who are not in the classroom because that money still wasn't enough.

Yet this minister stands up and says: "Oh, I've given you ample money. Everything's fine. Nothing is wrong."

Well, plenty is wrong. Sean Logan is a young man in my riding, who has Tourette's syndrome, who is not able to be in the classroom because the Mike Harris government will not ensure there's enough money to hire the educational assistants required to allow this student to participate in class the way he deserves. I've met his mother, Karen Logan. She's a teacher in her own right. She's doing everything she can, but at the end of the day this government's got to cough up the money needed for our kids with special needs.

HAYLEY ISAACS

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): I rise today to congratulate Hayley Isaacs, a Thornhill student who has recently been awarded the Harmony Movement post-secondary scholarship. The Harmony scholarship is awarded to graduating high school students for promoting harmony among different cultures and religious groups. The Harmony Movement is to foster understanding and promote integration among all communities through participation by everyone in the social, economic and political life of Canada.

While attending Thornhill Secondary School, Hayley was actively involved with the school's multicultural club, Pax, the Latin word for peace. Under her direction, the club worked hard to generate interest among younger grades for the club's goal to increase students' exposure to people of different ethnic origins.

Hayley, who became president of Pax during her OAC year, was instrumental in organizing an equity conference for high school students at Glendon College. Hayley's responsibilities included arranging for a keynote speaker and setting up workshops. The conference was extremely successful and was a catalyst to Hayley being nominated for this award.

Hayley is currently enrolled in an architectural program at the University of Waterloo. I salute Hayley Isaacs for her work with Pax and being awarded the Harmony scholarship. It is people like Hayley who help make not only Thornhill but Ontario a great place to live.

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Student councils from three high schools who represent about 4,000 students, as well as a number of elementary students, have returned thousands of millennium books to my constituency office. These high school and elementary students have clearly articulated that they believe these books were a misuse of taxpayers' dollars.

The Minister of Culture justifies the millennium book as a document that will help our students realize their hopes and dreams for the future. The students, on the other hand, have told me this: At St Christopher's high school, the communications students have been working on a heritage project regarding historical sites and the history of Sarnia-Lambton. They do not have enough money for needed tapes to complete this project. Another student from St Clair high school told me the money wasted on these books is badly needed for the arts program in her school. The millennium book will not be helping to realize the dreams of these students.

The arts and heritage community in this province has been brutally slashed by this ministry. The Minister of Culture has chosen to waste money that could have been spent on much-needed arts funding. This booklet serves no educational, arts or heritage purpose. The money wasted on this book could have been used for heritage projects in schools.

The message from students and parents in my riding is: Return to sender. All the opposition members agree with this message.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I will ask all members-this is the second time this has happened. It's very disruptive.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'll handle this, thank you.

This is the second time it's happened. I'm not going to allow it again. This is a disruption of the House. It takes time while the pages move it out. The first time, I wasn't here when it happened. This is the second time. I will not allow it to happen again, and I would ask all members to please co-operate in this regard. We will now wait while we clean it up.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. While we're waiting, I would appreciate it as well if the members don't shout at each other.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Windsor-St Clair. The member for Windsor-St Clair, come to order while we clean up the mess, please. The member for Willowdale is not helpful in yelling across as well.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Point of order, Mr Speaker: All of these books have been defaced. It's very unfortunate.

The Speaker: Order. We're trying to clean up the mess. I would appreciate it if everybody just remained quiet while we do it. You don't need to start anything going back and forth on either side.

Again, I will warn the members, this is the last time. It takes time. The poor pages actually did a great job. They were quicker cleaning up than the members were dropping it. I thank the pages for their extra work, but we can't allow this to continue. It's the second time and it will be the last time.

TOBERMORY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey): I rise today to tell you about a jewel at the tip of the Bruce Peninsula.

Tobermory is the head of trails for the Bruce Trail, one of the province's most treasured geological features. This harbour town is also known as home of the Big Tub Harbour, the deepest natural harbour on the Great Lakes.

Tobermory shares a strong connection with the Great Lakes. In Big Tub Harbour there are two 19th century shipwrecks which visitors from all over the world can see, either through a diver's mask, through a glass underwater viewing boat, or over the side of a cruise boat.

Tobermory is also the home of the headquarters for the Fathom Five national marine park, which covers and protects all the shipwrecks and islands sprinkled around the top of the Bruce Peninsula. Ships and the great sweetwater seas have played such a key role in the spirit of Tobermory that every year the Bruce Peninsula national park and Fathom Five put on a marine heritage weekend in August.

Little Tub Harbour meanwhile bustles with activity with the ChiCheemaun ferry travelling back and forth between Tobermory and Manitoulin Island, bringing visitors and tourists and providing an important method of transportation during the shipping season.

In Tobermory itself, an exciting array of art galleries, nautical shops, restaurants, pubs and parlours, outfitters and a fish store dot the streets.

Tobermory, a little town with a great marine history.

I just wanted to add something nice to this House because before this, it's been pretty rough.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice and social policy and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 22,

An Act in memory of Sergeant Rick McDonald to amend the Highway Traffic Act in respect of suspect apprehension pursuits / Projet de loi 22, Loi commémorant le sergent Rick McDonald et modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les poursuites en vue d'appréhender des suspects.

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

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE ACT, 1999

Mr Murdoch moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr15,

An Act to change the name of The Corporation of the Township of Kincardine-Bruce-Tiverton to The Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine.

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

FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA DIVULGATION RELATIVE AUX FRANCHISES

Mr Runciman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 33,

An Act to require fair dealing between parties to franchise agreements, to ensure that franchisees have the right to associate and to impose disclosure obligations on franchisors / Projet de loi 33, Loi obligeant les parties aux contrats de franchisage à agir équitablement, garantissant le droit d'association aux franchisés et imposant des obligations en matière de divulgation aux franchiseurs.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? There was a no.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1358 to 1403.

The Speaker: All those in favour will please rise one at a time to be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Clark, Brad

Cleary, John C.

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLeod, Lyn

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 88; the nays are 0.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The minister for a short statement.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Franchising is important to the men and women who see a franchise as a way to achieve their dreams of a better tomorrow. This legislation is a result of extensive consultation and will at the end of the day help small business investors make more informed decisions and encourage marketplace fairness. I urge the support of all members of the assembly.

DANGEROUS GOODS TRANSPORTATION AMENDMENT ACT (NUCLEAR MATERIAL), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 AMENDANT LA

LOI SUR LE TRANSPORT DE MATIÈRES DANGEREUSES (MATIÈRES NUCLÉAIRES)

Ms Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 34,

An Act to amend the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act to prohibit the transportation of Nuclear Material / Projet de loi 34, Loi pour amender la

Loi sur le transport de matières dangereuses pour interdire le transport de matières nucléaires.

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

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The member for a short explanation.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): The purpose of this bill is to prevent weapons-grade plutonium in the form of mixed oxide fuel, also known as MOX, and taken from American nuclear bombs, from being transported without notice along the highways of Ontario. If passed, this bill will give the Ontario government legislative authority to stop those shipments, authority they say they don't have.

I would ask for unanimous consent to do second and third reading of this bill today so that we will have this authority.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I heard a no.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I appreciate the opportunity to make this point of order. You know that both opposition parties have raised with you over this session the trend that the government is less and less providing ministerial statements when they introduce important pieces of legislation. It would be because they don't like the idea that the opposition each has five minutes in order to respond.

I'm rising today to point out to you the absurd point that we've reached in this façade. The standing orders provide under 35,

"(

a) A minister of the crown may make a short factual statement relating to government policy, ministry action or other similar matters of which the House should be informed."

It says under standing order 35,

"Opposition comments

"(

e) Following ministerial statements a representative or representatives of each of the recognized opposition parties in the House may comment for up to a total of five minutes for each party commencing with the official opposition."

When I arrived in the House today, there was an envelope from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations addressed to me as House leader in accordance with the standing orders that there are two copies provided to each of the parties. Inside were these statements of the minister regarding the Franchise Disclosure Act,

an act, I would point out, that the minister asked and to date, at least to this point, has received unanimous support of this House.

The statement is exactly what was expected to be read. It's here in both languages. I have every reason to believe it has already been circulated to the media. A few moments ago, literally minutes ago, the government House leader stood in front of my desk and said: "The minister's statement is off. It's not going to happen." When I asked him why, his answer to me was, "Why should we?"

My point of order is this: By virtue of the fact that this statement has been issued-it's been labelled as such, it's been handed out to the media, to the best of my knowledge-I am suggesting to you that under 35(a), given the fact that every step except the actual words has been followed by the government for issuing a statement upon introduction of a piece of legislation, that de facto that statement has been made.

I'm asking you, Speaker, to rule and to recognize that that statement has been made. At the very least, it should have been, and the fact that it's here means that it has been. I would ask that you allow the opposition parties an opportunity to respond in kind, as outlined in the standing orders.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Government House leader on the same point of order.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): The proposed statement that members of the opposition had was a very brief statement. It probably would have taken 60 seconds. Later this afternoon, we're going to be debating the municipal restructuring bill. Many members of this Legislature want to speak on that bill. I thought it was in the best interests of members of this Legislature that we spend the 10 or 15 minutes in meaningful debate rather than have people rant in opposition for five minutes on a statement which would have taken 60 seconds, and use our time usefully that way. As well, Mr Speaker-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. During the points of order, I appreciate it-I cannot hear. Everybody was very quiet for the member for Hamilton West. I'd appreciate if you'd give that courtesy to the government House leader as well so I can hear him.

Hon Mr Sterling: As well, Mr Speaker, as you know, we've already had a demonstration by the opposition which occupied another 10 minutes of time here in the Legislature, taking away from the debate we're going to have later this afternoon.

I thought it was in the best interests of our people that we do that.

Getting to the specifics, as the member opposite has said, "A minister of the crown may make," so it is of course the choice of the minister whether or not he makes that statement. Also, the ability of the opposition to respond to a statement is contained in 35(e), which says, "Following ministerial statements," and there has been no statement made.

The Speaker: The member for Windsor-St Clair.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I stand in support of what my colleague from Hamilton West has said.

What's particularly troubling about this is again, as he pointed out, we were given a statement and it was treated as a statement. It's part of a larger pattern that we have raised on points of order: first of all, the lack of ministerial statements, which is designed to effectively prevent us from speaking; omnibus bills, which make it difficult for anybody to vote in true conscience on any number of statutes, whether it's Bill 25, Bill 27.

It wasn't long ago that the rules of this House prevented introducing a bill in the last week of sittings in order to allow the opposition, but more importantly the people of the province, to understand what the government is attempting to do. Mr Speaker, we call upon you once again to try and protect this House from a majority government that is bound, bent and determined that the people of the province won't be heard on substantive matters of the day.

The Speaker: I thank all the members for the point of order. As you know, the Speaker cannot decide when a minister will or will not make a statement. I will say, however, it is the end of the session. It is my recollection from being here nine years that the way this House works best is when there's give and take on both sides, when there is some give, when there is some take. When we get in entrenched positions, we end up like we are today, with a long period of time dealing with points of order. Up to now it's worked reasonably well, and I would encourage all members, particularly the House leaders, to try to work together over these issues. But it is not a point of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Premier of Ontario. Yesterday your Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations defended the behaviour, the work, the pro bono work for a select few, of the chair of the LCBO. His phone number is 864-2519. Apparently this phone number is-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I would ask the member not to show the phone number. It is a demonstration.

Mrs Pupatello: Premier, I have to ask you, your minister defended the behaviour of the chair of the LCBO. We know that one of the things that is apparently within the job description of that chair and the secretary of the chair is to take orders for the rarest of wines that come into Ontario in a very limited quantity. Out of that office, a very select few are allowed to call, to use a credit card and order those wines so those people can get them on time. I'd like to know from you if that number should be distributed to all Ontarians so we can all have access to those rarest of wines.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm sure the minister can respond.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I indicated yesterday with respect to the allegations made by the leader of the official opposition that we had conducted an internal investigation through the ministry, through the deputy minister and an ADM who was personally involved. An internal audit committee has also reviewed the travel of the chair of the board. The ministry could find nothing inappropriate. With respect to the telephone calls to the chair's office, I share the view that that was inappropriate and I've conveyed that to the chair.

Mrs Pupatello: We were hoping for an answer from the Premier, because yesterday the minister defended the behaviour. This is the minister of wine and cheese. I want to talk to the Premier about this. What I am asking the Premier is, this is the code of conduct for the LCBO. In the code of conduct it says very specifically-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the member take her seat.

The member may continue now.

Mrs Pupatello: It is laughable, but unfortunately we're talking about a $2-billion organization that is your crown corporation. This is the code of conduct. In the code of conduct it says, "LCBO employees"-that would include the chair-"no gifts, no gratuities from any suppliers." That's what this says. This was written in 1998. Unless this has been changed since then, those are the rules.

I want to know, Premier, if you consider a trip to southern Italy so we can "find out if the product is safe for drinking" is considered a gift. If you don't think that's a gift, I want to be on your Christmas list, Premier. I want to hear what you have to say about the code of conduct.

Hon Mr Runciman: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is responsible for the Ontario wine industry and I think I can recognize whining when I hear it. I'd just say that the Liquor Control Board of Ontario is a $2-billion-plus operation in this province, I think the largest of its kind in the world. Certainly travel has always been part of the chair's role in this particular crown corporation.

Mr Brandt has done an outstanding job during his tenure. During Mr Brandt's time in office, the LCBO has outperformed all other Canadian jurisdictions for growth and sales and they've decreased operating costs consistently. Yet they have still challenged nearly 835,000 would-be customers who were thought to be intoxicated or underage, a 22% increase from the year before. He has done an outstanding job and he should be complimented by the official opposition.

Mrs Pupatello: He's charming, he's witty and he'd make a great salesman. That's the point. The LCBO does not sell products; it buys products. He does not need to have his trips paid for. The whole point of the matter is that the LCBO is the largest buyer of products in the world. If that organization is as profitable as you suggest it is, which it is, it needs to have the appearance of not having a conflict of interest with its suppliers. It needs to have the perception out there that people don't get their product on the list because they wine and dine the chair.

You may think it's funny, and it may be cute, but the truth of the matter is that you have a code of conduct in place and the code of conduct was broken.

What, very specifically, will you, on behalf of your Premier, do to ensure that this is done appropriately in this province?

Hon Mr Runciman: The member talks about a perception of favouritism. I indicated in the House yesterday, quoting from a number of letters, that there is indeed no perception of favouritism other than among perhaps the editorial writers in the Toronto Star and the official opposition. Even the former Premier of this province, the leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario, indicated his strong confidence in the integrity of Mr Brandt, a man who served this province in an outstanding fashion for over 30 years.

It is indeed unfortunate that the Liberal Party of Ontario and some of their friends will participate in the politics of mudslinging, trying to damage the character of an outstanding resident of this province.

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Chair of the Management Board. I want to bring to your attention another sweetheart deal approved by your friend Tony Miele and the Ontario Realty Corp.

A company called All City Storage recently purchased a property at 145 Eastern Avenue in Toronto. The government had purchased this property for $11 million 10 years ago. You approved the resale of this property, Minister, in March for $5 million. The deal was not tendered. The laws in regard to the Expropriations Act were broken. The property was undersold. We know that because the Ontario Realty Corp, among other things, put a clause in the contract that does not allow this property to be resold for 24 months.

Clearly, "undersold" is a common practice in the real estate industry. We know that other companies wanted to pay a significantly higher price for this property, and their bids and approaches were ignored.

In view of all this, Minister, can you tell me why you approved such a sweetheart deal that lost the taxpayers of Ontario $6 million, and why this property was not tendered in the public market?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Once again we're witnessing the Liberals' politics of mudslinging. You're using the newspapers to do your research for you and once again you're wrong. It's not true what you said. It was the Liberal government, I'd like to remind this House and any viewers who might be watching this, that got us into this mess in 1988. They made a sweetheart deal with the city of Toronto, guaranteeing over $300 million needed to expropriate these lands for a housing project that never got built.

They guaranteed this money without ever checking the condition of the lands. When it was finally discovered that the lands required flood-proofing and major soil contamination remediation work, the city bailed out, leaving the taxpayers of Ontario on the hook for this fiscal mess.

Contrary to the Globe's

article and contrary to your question, the entire property was widely marketed by J.J. Barnicke. It was advertised in a number of newspapers, including the Globe and Mail. J.J. Barnicke undertook a direct-mail campaign involving over 1,500 recipients and sent packages out to any party who expressed an interest in this property. In 1996, the tender period closed and the deal was accepted.

Mr Agostino: Minister, let me inform you. You signed this deal through order in council in March 1998 for $5 million, $6 million less than it was purchased for-not in 1996. You signed it a few months back. Let me help you with some of the reasons why. We know that this company, All City Storage, through one of its directors and through another control company that they own, donated over $10,000 to your party. We also know, through a document from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, that your good friend, top fundraiser Jeff Lyons, was a founding director and a first treasurer of this company that purchased this deal.

When all this comes together, Minister, do you not understand the public perception problem that is here? Do you not understand that a deal that was not properly tendered and the taxpayers lost $6 million-that you as minister have a responsibility not to accept this deal? But you went ahead and signed the order in council to approve this deal, which lost taxpayers $6 million.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Well, I'm not sure which part the member of the opposition didn't listen to, but the property was tendered. It went out in numerous newspapers in 1996. The reason it didn't close for a long time is because it was conditional on a severance that had to be granted from the city of Toronto. If you had done any kind of research, you would have realized the property was tendered, it was appraised, it was sold to the existing tenant. I could go into details on all the factual errors in the article, and if your research department had done any kind of investigation it would have spotted that as well.

You're maligning the reputation of a number of reputable people in this province, not the least of which is J.J. Barnicke, that marketed this property; not the least of which was the appraisal company that did the appraisal, Rajesky and Associates. This campaign of mudslinging is truly beneath the role of opposition in this province.

Mr Agostino: This is now the third deal that we're aware of involving the Ontario Realty Corp, the ORC, in deals that have gone bad. There are two lawsuits in the courts right now. You're aware of that. What the ORC has become is a private club for your friends. This deal, let me repeat, cost the taxpayers $6 million. It was clear: Public policy once again is up for sale here.

Minister, there are other companies that have come forward and said that it was a bad deal and that they were willing to pay more money. They were not given this opportunity.

You say the deal was closed in 1996. Your appraisal that you quote was not done until 1997. So you closed the deal in 1996 and then you got an appraisal in 1997 to back up the deal that you had closed. That's what you're telling us to believe.

Why won't you start taking responsibility for the actions of the Ontario Realty Corp? Come clean on this. Bring forward to the House all of the documents, including the full appraisal, and explain to us why you would have gone out and received an appraisal on this after you closed the deal, as you claim, in 1996.

Hon Mr Hodgson: A little bit of research would have helped you on this. They advertised the property widely, all or in part. The tenders were closed in 1996. The existing tenant wished to buy it. He had the highest offer. To make sure that everything was kosher and above-board, there was an appraisal required. He paid according to the appraisal price, and his highest bid was consistent.

I'm surprised that the Liberals would want to bring up this piece of property after you ripped the Ontario taxpayers off by over $300 million with one of your boondoggles that you never checked the facts on when you were in government. That is a true waste of taxpayers' dollars, and I'm surprised you are even bringing this issue up.

Interjections.

Interjection: Why don't you shush?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we continue, whoever is doing the shushing, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't do it. It's very annoying. I will try to maintain order and I would appreciate it, whoever on the government side is doing it, if they would refrain from doing it.

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Your government has squandered over $3 million printing and couriering these propaganda books to the students of the province. It's backfired on you, because from across the province students, parents, teachers are sending these books back, saying: "We don't want them. When we don't have the textbooks we need in our classroom, we don't want them."

These particular books come from high school students at Humberside Collegiate, and I want to read some of the messages:

"Mr Harris, if you truly cared about shaping the future to make it a good one, you would put taxpayers' dollars back into education." Or this one: "Mike, you've wasted precious dollars on something that we will never use or need. We need more money in the education system." Or this one: "I'm disgusted by the obvious waste of taxpayers' dollars." Or this one: "Why are you in your position if you don't know how to spend money? I'm disgusted." Or this one: "We could use the large amount of money towards textbooks or hospital beds."

Premier, how do you justify spending $3 million of taxpayers' money on this, when these same students don't have the science and-

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

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation will respond.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): Let me first say that this number keeps getting bigger in everybody's mind every day we come into the House. As I've said quite clearly, the cost of production of this book is 98 cents per student. The total cost of distribution is $1.10, with distribution and costs associated with it.

Interjection: For the book.

Hon Mrs Johns: For the book. I think it's very important to recognize that this book talks about the hopes and the dreams of the students of Ontario. It talks about their vision of where the province should be in the year 2020. As a parent of young children, I think it's very important for children to write down stories, to be able to do poems, to be able to do songs, and have them published.

We have a number of students who have written saying what a great opportunity this book was and how pleased they were to be a part of sharing the millennium in the province of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: The students will note that the Premier didn't want to answer their questions and I think the students would want me to read the response to the minister who did reply.

The response from them is: "Dear Mike, Don't worry about the fact that half of my textbooks are 30 plus years old and falling apart." The next reply is, "Our geography class only has 14 books for 30 students." The next reply is, "There are schools that don't even have music programs, drama programs etc." The next, "I was just informed that funding for sports might be cut by two thirds, which means that sports will not be available to students in public schools." The next: "Does this mean no sports teams next year?" The next: "I am very concerned over the province's decision to raise tuition fees."

Minister, you can tell people that they only cost a buck apiece. The fact of the matter is that you wasted $3 million on propaganda nonsense when these very students don't have the textbooks they need. What are you going to do about it, send out more propaganda or admit it was wrong and fix it?

Hon Mrs Johns: There is a quote in the Kingston Whig-Standard where it says, "Booklet not a waste, says teen." That's the title and it says: "`This is a very important book. Kids need to share their ideas ... so we may not be so scared to share them when we are older.'" This

article also says: "Children rarely get to air their views publicly because they're not in positions of power or influence, she said. This, however, is a rare chance, she said. And the world of adults should give it to them. `Kids need to share their points of view. We may be kids right now, but eventually we'll have your jobs ... and you are not going to be in charge any more.'"

Let me say to the opposition about this millennium vision that we're losing sight of this. This book was for kids to be able to share their vision of the future. This is a great opportunity for kids.

Mr Hampton: While this government talks about sharing their vision, these students complain that they have to share textbooks because they don't have enough.

I want to read another response from one of the students. "You should be more considerate and think of the well-being of the students, not making yourself look good." Or this, from another student, "I feel that the manner in which you exploited innocent children is disgraceful!" Or this: "Thanks for wasting all that money from our education funds. I'm proud of you, man. What next?" Or this one: "How can you make cutbacks to our education when you are publishing this? Things need to change." This student writes, "Stop insulting our intelligence." This student writes, "Thank you for wasting our money while schools are suffering."

My question is to the Premier again. This was a colossal mistake to spend $3 million on this nonsense when students don't have the textbooks they need. What are you going to do about it, Premier? How and when are you going to put an end to this waste?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me just clarify the facts. First of all, not one education dollar was spent on this book. Let me also clarify the fact that for sports and recreation in the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, not one dollar was in any way changed in the previous budget. Let me also make it very clear that in my hand I have 16,649 requests for new copies of this book because they believe it's important for the students of the province.

I don't know why the two opposition parties are making such a hoopla about this. This is so important for the students of Ontario for them to understand and to talk about their vision of 2020. My Ontario includes kids. I don't know what's happened with them.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: My next question is also for the Premier.

I would just say to the minister, you clearly need to start listening to the students of the province.

Hon Mrs Johns: On a point of order, Speaker: Let me say that I am very concerned about the students of the province. I care deeply. My own kids are students in the province.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Premier, yesterday we asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations if he was concerned about the allegations regarding Mr Brandt at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. The minister said to us that he thought it was sufficient that the deputy minister conducted a one-day review of all these allegations. He thinks it is sufficient that the deputy minister, who has a direct relationship with Mr Brandt, can conduct a quick one-day review.

Premier, in view of the allegations of kickback, in view of the allegations of breach of the code of conduct, in view of the other serious allegations that were brought, is it your view that a one-day quick review by a deputy minister who has a direct relationship with Mr Brandt is sufficient?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the minister can respond.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): This is another example of distortion of the facts. I never indicated a one-day review. In fact, the review took place over a period of several weeks by an assistant deputy minister within the ministry, a very extensive and thorough review. It also involved the internal audit committee and the board of directors of the LCBO, who reviewed all of the expenditure items in question. As I indicated in my responses yesterday, they found nothing wrong.

We have indicated an interest with respect to some changes related to some policies and procedures in terms of accountability and transparency. But as I indicated yesterday, I reiterate that Mr Brandt did nothing wrong; he fully conformed with the policies and procedures of the board.

Mr Hampton: Some would believe that Mr Brandt is the biggest bootlegger in the province. I don't believe that. What I'm concerned about is that you're changing your story from yesterday. Yesterday you said, "Upon hearing of these allegations and the investigation-I think we can characterize it as an investigation-by the Toronto Star, I did ask my deputy minister to investigate what the Star was suggesting had occurred." So yesterday your story was that the Toronto Star

article appeared on Saturday and then you asked the deputy minister. Now you're telling us that you started doing this investigation work weeks ago. This is precisely why I put the question.

You may like Mr Brandt. I may in fact like Mr Brandt. That's not the issue. The issue here is this: First you tell us the deputy minister did the investigation. First you tell us that it was done following the Toronto Star article. Now you say this was done weeks ago.

Mr Brandt has intimate, close, long-lasting relations with many members of your bureaucracy, many members of this government. I think you owe it to the people of Ontario to hold an independent investigation-

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

Hon Mr Runciman: What I think is that the leader of the third party owes Mr Brandt an apology and owes this assembly an apology. That kind of language is one of the reasons the public are quite cynical about politicians generally, because of that sort of an assertion which has no basis in fact.

In fact, in the press scrum I clearly indicated that when I was made aware of these allegations in mid-October I immediately asked the deputy to instigate an investigation, which was carried out. I said during the scrum that I had a report back in early December. This was an investigation conducted over a month and a half. For this member to make this kind of an allegation again is scurrilous, to say the least, and it's truly unfortunate that this kind of dialogue is occurring in this assembly.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. Last week, the Premier said that sending emergency patients from one hospital to another was not such a bad thing. So yesterday you decided to make emergency redirect a permanent fact of life in Mike Harris's Ontario. Instead of fixing the problem of emergency rooms, you've decided that you're going to order one hospital in each region of Toronto to stay open, and so ambulances are going to have to keep driving by the nearest available hospital because that emergency room will still be closed, with your permission.

Interjections.

Mrs McLeod: I'm wondering what happens if not even one hospital in the-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I can't continue with the members who asked the last question continuing with the last question. Their time is up. There's a new member asking a question. I would appreciate it if you would give quiet for the member.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I find myself wondering what will happen if there's not one hospital, in one region, in the city of Toronto that has a bed to take emergency room patients. What are you telling them to do when you're ordering them to keep one hospital open? Are you suggesting that they keep tents open on the front lawn to take patients if there are no hospital beds for them? You can't order a solution to this crisis. You have to provide the hospital beds so that people can get care. Why do you keep avoiding taking such obviously needed action?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm certainly very sorry that the member is misrepresenting the truth of-

The Speaker: I would ask all members: We're getting towards the end of the session and each day it keeps getting worse and worse and worse with the language. Today, I missed one with the Chair of Management Board, one for the third party. I'm going to listen very carefully. The Minister of Health cannot say that; I would ask her to withdraw it.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would certainly withdraw that, Mr Speaker.

The facts, as they have been presented, are that no one has ordered any hospital to do anything. There was a meeting yesterday between the Ministry of Health officials and the hospitals and CritiCall. At that time, the partners all indicated their desire to take whatever steps were possible in order to ensure that people had access to the emergency rooms, much in the same way as we have been doing now for the last several years. At that point in time, a suggestion was put forward that we would look at these clusters.

Tomorrow we will continue to meet and we will further develop a plan of action which will ensure that there is continued improved access, much as we have been providing. It's unfortunate that this situation wasn't dealt with by the Liberals-

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

Mrs McLeod: I would ask the minister to stop misrepresenting the extent of this crisis and start accepting some responsibility.

The Speaker: Order. No, we're not going to continue with this. I would ask the member to please withdraw that as well.

Mrs McLeod: I'll withdraw that you're misrepresenting.

The minister has to understand the extent of the crisis and accept some responsibility for resolving what is a very life-threatening situation across this province.

Mr William Bruciak died in the back of an ambulance yesterday. The hospital that would have been the closest place for the ambulance to take him wasn't available because your restructuring commission had already shut it down. The next-nearest hospital was on critical care bypass. It couldn't take him even though he was at the point of death. Mr Bruciak's family will never know whether he would have had a chance if he had been able to get into a hospital sooner.

Now you are saying quite clearly, with this regional plan, that taking critically ill patients to a more distant hospital is going to be accepted as normal. You're building it right into the system. Your commission shut down emergency rooms across the province and you are basically shutting down even more. You're telling us the solution is to have one emergency room open in each region.

Mr Bruciak's family would probably tell you that isn't good enough. I want you to tell Mr Bruciak's family how long and how far you think it's OK to go to get care in Mike Harris's Ontario.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just remind the member across the way that no proposal has been thoroughly developed. As the member well knows, this has been a pressure ever since such Liberal headlines as these: "No Room in Metro: Critically Ill Newborn Flown to Buffalo"-1988; "Triplets' Mom Flown to Kingston"-1988; "Diverted from Two Hospitals: Woman Dies"-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take her seat. I can't continue when three, four, sometimes five members are shouting at the Minister of Health. I can't continue if that happens.

Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We were the very first government to recognize that the issue of emergency rooms needed to be dealt with. As you know, we set up an emergency room task force. They made recommendations; we responded to every one. We made $225 million available. We increased the capacity of beds within the hospital system. We made money available for community services. We expanded the number of long-term-care beds in Ontario. We've expanded the capacity within the rural emergency system. We have taken significant steps-

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

HIGHWAY 7

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is to my honourable friend the Minister of Transportation. I hope he hears the question. It concerns the proposed rebuilding of Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph, through Waterloo-Wellington.

When it comes to highway development, Ontario will only continue to prosper if we plan for growth, consult with those concerned and invest in the kinds of roads we need for the future. At present, this stretch of Highway 7 is extremely congested and unable to handle any increase in traffic. In short, my constituents tell me that Highway 7 urgently needs to be rebuilt. Will you update the House as to what action the province is taking to address this need?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): I certainly share the concerns of my good friend on this issue. We need to help the growth in this area. Let me remind all members that at the time we inherited the government, we inherited two deficits: a fiscal deficit and an infrastructure deficit. We've been working hard to eliminate both of these deficits.

The recommended plan for the new Highway 7 alignment between Kitchener and Guelph would be north of and parallel with the existing Highway 7. In response to local concerns by municipal leaders, my predecessor in January of this year directed ministry staff to review the alignment. In view of this, we are at this moment underway with this review.

Mr Arnott: I thank the minister for that answer. I want to state that I am very much in favour of ensuring that a new alignment is as safe and environmentally sound as possible. I also support the consultation that is taking place to ensure that everyone's views will be given all due consideration. However, the minister knows that the rural eastbound

section of Highway 7 through Woolwich township is at its full capacity right now. The gridlock is spreading rapidly into the other sections of the existing corridor.

Would you provide my constituents in Kitchener and Waterloo region with timelines for consultation and its review, and expedite the process to ensure that the new Highway 7 is built as soon as possible?

Hon Mr Turnbull: Once again I would thank my honourable friend. In January we will consult with stakeholders through a series of workshops. We'll meet with local landowners and make presentations to municipal councils as well as holding public information sessions.

We're committed to resolving the issues related to Highway 7. We will continue to build roads to prosperity in this province.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of Education. The minister will know that there is a real and ongoing sense of grievance among the students and ratepayers of the Renfrew County Board of Education on the fact that under the new education funding formula Renfrew county, the largest county in the province, has a public school board that doesn't qualify for one red cent of funding under the so-called rural and remote factor, while public school boards in places like North Bay, Belleville, Kingston and Lindsay qualify for millions of dollars on that account.

Can the minister tell my people, my ratepayers to the public school board in Renfrew, when she intends to change this clearly unfair and intolerable situation?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): Yes, the honourable member raised this issue with me and argued the case for his board most forcefully. It is an issue that seems to be impacting some rural boards in a way that is not appropriate. We recognize that a rural board that may have a sparser population and greater geographic distances requires additional funding. Actually, across the province we have doubled the amount of funding that is available for those rural boards. In this case, unfortunately this board has not qualified. It is an issue that we recognize needs to be addressed. We are looking at that.

I can't give the honourable member a firm day or deadline. My assumption would be that at this point it looks like it will be addressed in the normal grant regulation process as we move forward.

I appreciate the information the member has brought forward. It has been quite helpful for the civil servants as they look at things that need to be addressed in the upcoming year.

Mr Conway: I appreciate the minister's response. Let me be more specific. The North Bay-Parry Sound public school board qualifies for approximately $2.5 million on the so-called rural and remote funding formula line. I'm not going to argue that they're not entitled to a fair deal. But the Renfrew county public school board represents a larger geographic area and, I repeat, they get not one red cent. It is a matter of political will that this transparent unfairness that impacts so negatively on the thousands of students and staff and parents of the Renfrew county public school board be changed, and changed now.

Can the minister tell the students, staff and ratepayers to the Renfrew county public school board that not another year will pass without a change that will give the public school board in Renfrew at least the same kind of consideration that their friends, relatives and neighbours in North Bay and Parry Sound have been receiving for months?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'd like to remind the honourable member that the Kingston board that his colleague John Gerretsen represents also qualifies for the rural funding because we have set up a funding mechanism that has laid out very clear criteria. It is done in a way to be non-partisan, to be objective, to be fair to all the boards. We understand that for this particular board the way those criteria have been laid out, there are some difficulties. We need to take a look at that to see if we can address it.

I would also like to say to the honourable member that both boards have been working very much together. They have a number of joint projects which have saved them considerable monies. That kind of co-operation is a model that I think other boards should be following, because it allows them to do more things for their students.

It is an issue that we are looking at. I cannot give him a promise or an announcement today, but I understand that it is something we need to address.

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): My question is to the Minister of Health. Rural and northern Ontario have continued to experience a lack of medical practitioners for their communities. In rural Ontario, residents are asking for quality accessible primary health care, which is difficult to provide at times. I believe that nurse practitioners would alleviate some of these pressures. For example, my riding of Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey is designated underserviced for general practitioners in a whole slew of areas: the town of Shelburne, the town of Orangeville, the town of Caledon, East Luther, Grand Valley, East Garafraxa, the town of Erin and the town of Mount Forest.

My constituents are very interested in accessing the services of nurse practitioners. I would ask the minister to give us an update as to her progress in addressing this issue.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Since we passed the nurse practitioner legislation in 1998, we have certainly been putting money forward to improve the access to primary care throughout the province. We were very pleased to make available $10 million; that was enough to fund 106 nurse practitioner positions. We then provided an additional $5 million, which will provide funding to 120 nurse practitioners. Again, it enables nurse practitioners to go into hard-to-serve, underserviced areas.

I'm also very pleased to say that at the present time we have issued a request for proposals to hire 80 more nurse practitioners for the underserviced areas such as the ones in the member's riding. Those proposals are now being evaluated and we hope to make an announcement in the very near future.

Mr Tilson: Each year the federal government has cut $2.8 billion from Ontario transfer payments. Most of this is with respect to health care, and rural Ontario specifically is suffering from these federal cuts. I believe that part of the solution to this issue is that nurse practitioners will help to alleviate these pressures felt in rural Ontario. What is your ministry doing to resolve this situation for both the short and the long term?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We would very much appreciate if the federal government would restore all of the transfers they have removed from the province of Ontario and every other province and territory in Canada. Unfortunately, not only have they not restored this funding, they haven't taken into consideration the fact that inflation has meant that we need to spend additional dollars on health, as our government has continued to do, to meet the demands of people.

I'm very pleased to say that when we take a look at providing greater access to primary care services throughout the province of Ontario, we will be making more nurse practitioners available in long-term-care facilities; there will be an additional 20. We're also going to be issuing another request for proposals for aboriginal areas in the province and also for the primary care pilot sites. We in this province are going to continue to ensure that we increase the health spending as we have promised, to make sure people have access to nurse practitioners.

WATER EXTRACTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. As soon as the election was over, you lifted the moratorium on permits to take water, you refused to freeze development on the Oak Ridges moraine, and you boast that "Every single drop of water that is required to be taken out based on a proposal, like for housing, has to be scientifically proved that it can be replenished." But a developer putting up five new houses doesn't need a permit. Someone taking up to 50,000 litres a day-and that's 36 million of these half-litre bottles of water a year-doesn't need a permit.

And for those who get your new permits, some of which now last for five and 10 years, you just take their word for how much water they actually remove. Minister, do you even know how much water is being taken out of the ground in Ontario?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): As I hope the honourable member knows, we have had difficulty, because of the budget cuts they imposed on the Ministry of the Environment, to get a handle on these issues. When we inherited that ministry, the situation was that they didn't have an idea about the very question she wants answered. If the honourable member can dig deep into her institutional memory, perhaps she can help in answering that question for us.

Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, I don't want to go there. He has cut so much out of the Ministry of the Environment, I cannot believe that he could stand there and make an excuse when we're talking about something as important as water in Ontario.

Minister, regulation 2/85 says that a director, deciding whether or not to issue a permit to take water, doesn't have to consider "whether it is in the public interest to grant the permit," and where the regulation says, "They shall consider the protection of the natural function of the ecosystem," they can't do it. One of your own directors says: "The permit-to-take-water manual does not incorporate these sections. Therefore it is submitted that the ecosystem approach has yet to be specifically incorporated into the permit to take water."

Your own colleague the Minister of Energy said on November 20, "There are no good laws to protect groundwater."

Minister, you've had seven months. You have boasted about it in this House. Why isn't the new manual ready? Why are you leaving your directors without the tools your regulation says they need to protect the ecosystem? Admit, Minister, that your Minister of Energy is right and you're wrong. Admit it today.

Hon Mr Clement: I just want to say for the record that we have done more in the seven months to protect groundwater in this province than they did in their five-year period.

We are very proud of our record, because we are initiating the studies to find out what the groundwater is, we are tightening up on the permits-to-take-water system, we are seeking partnership with the conservation authorities to make sure that we are managing this very scarce resource in the best possible way.

We are very proud of that record because it is under this government that finally we are taking a look at the quantity of water available as well as the quality of groundwater that's available. That is a new trend in this province. It was initiated by this government under our ministry and we are proud of that record. We will put that record of seven months up against their record of five years any day of the week.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My question is for the Minister of Health. As you well know, the northern Ontario health travel grant was put in place in 1987 to help defray the expenses of people in northern Ontario who were forced to receive medical care outside their own communities. Since that time there have been no substantial improvements to the program despite the fact that all costs associated with travel have escalated dramatically.

The number of families that have faced financial ruin as a result of the inadequacy of this program is both tragic and wrong. It is for that reason that my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan and I launched a campaign this fall to persuade the government to recognize the need to increase the funding presently in the program. I have thousands of signatures on petitions on my desk as well as resolutions of support from almost all the municipalities in northwestern Ontario calling on the government to act.

The question to you, Minister, is this: Will you today acknowledge that the program is underfunded and will you agree to at least initiate a thorough review of the fairness of this program in terms of 1999-2000 financial realities and needs?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Yes, I know that the member opposite has spoken to me about this particular issue, the northern health travel grant. This was a program that was introduced by the Liberal government in 1985. At the present time the process that is used is the same as existed at that time; also, the same formula is still in place. It was always intended to assist with travel costs to the nearest specialist or the nearest health facility in Ontario or Manitoba.

There actually was a review done in 1988 by the Centre for Rural and Northern Health Research at Laurentian University and it was determined at that time that the program was meeting its policy objectives and it was appropriately utilized.

Mr Gravelle: It just simply is remarkably inadequate and it's a tragedy what's happening with so many people in northern Ontario who truly are facing financial ruin, let alone the stress they're going through as a result of the medical emergencies.

Besides the horrendous funding shortfall in the program, there's also a real need to make it more flexible so that families are not forced to go through hoops to get approvals for travel, let alone approvals to accompany their loved ones to Toronto or elsewhere.

I spoke recently to Mr Butch Carroll and his wife, Judy, both constituents of mine, about the ordeal they went through with their daughter, Erin, as she fought and tragically lost her battle with cancer. They certainly spent countless thousands of dollars with their 13 trips to Toronto. But what frustrated Mrs Carroll perhaps the most, and Minister I want you to hear this, was the aggravation and frustration in simply accessing the program.

Minister, in light of what you've just said, will you at least look at making the program more sensitive to people often going through incredibly difficult circumstances so that people like the Carrolls do not face all that extraordinary extra aggravation while they are focusing on the health care needs of their loved ones? Will you at least review it in that context for flexibility and, again, recognizing the need for more funding for the program?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Yes, I know the member is concerned and I think we all share concern for people during times of illness. I will ensure that all issues that are dealt with are dealt with in a sensitive manner. I would certainly be prepared to do that.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Most Ontarians recognize places like the Niagara Peninsula and Pelee Island as established grape-growing regions in Ontario. Many people, however, do not realize that the area around Prince Edward county in eastern Ontario is also producing some of the province's most outstanding wine.

When I met with viticulturists from this region, they were very concerned that while they are allowed to sell wine to the LCBO for retail sale in Ontario, they are not permitted to sell directly to the public through on-site retail outlets, as other wineries in Ontario are allowed to do. Selling wine made on the premises directly to consumers is a critical part of making these fledgling businesses fly, so to speak. Minister, what steps do these wineries need to take to get permission for on-site retail stores?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Our government has a track record of working with the grape and wine industry to ensure fairness and prosperity, and we will continue to do so.

There are two steps that a vineyard must take to obtain a wine retail store. The proposed area must be a designated viticultural area, or DVA, as determined by the rules and regulations of the Vintners Quality Alliance. To get the designation the area must either have 200 hectares, or 495 acres, of wine-growing vines but be recognized by the VQA to produce wines that are distinct to that particular geographic region. The second step is to obtain a licence from the LCBO for an on-site retail store, and to be eligible to obtain that licence wineries must be located in a DVA and must cultivate at least five hectares of vines.

Mr Galt: Thank you, Minister, for explaining the process for setting up wine retail stores. But as you said, the issue here is fairness and prosperity. In the case of these developing businesses, the rules governing on-site wine stores are not necessarily conducive to building the wine industry in eastern Ontario. Minister, what can the government do to help these budding wineries get the opportunities they need to grow?

Hon Mr Runciman: This government will not be a barrier to economic growth. There are two options for addressing the concerns of Prince Edward county's grape-growers. The government is working with the newly established VQA Ontario in drafting bylaws and regulations that will make the organization fully functional and we will urge them to carefully look at the rules for establishing DVAs.

The second option involves changing the LCBO policy requiring DVA status in order to be eligible to set up an on-site store. This policy could be revisited when the LCBO's licensing powers are transferred to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.

The government will look at both available options to deal with this situation in as timely a manner as possible.

RIVERBANK EROSION

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. I have a constituent, Mr John C. Young of Goulais River, 52 Bye Side Road. Mr Young is an 80-year-old veteran of World War II who is a pensioner. His house is about to slide down a large embankment into the Goulais River. Your ministry has not permitted Mr Young, who has been attempting for over 10 years to get a work permit, to keep the erosion from the Goulais River from eroding the bank, has not permitted him to. Minister, I'm asking you to help Mr Young.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member opposite for bringing that matter to my attention. If he'd send the matter over to me, I'd be more than happy to take it up with my officials.

Mr Brown: Minister, I'll send you over a photocopy of the situation. I have stood on the deck of Mr Young's home. If action had been taken some time ago, Mr Young would have been able to pay to make sure that the bank was stable. The ministry has kept that from happening. Mr Young's home is literally going to slide down this embankment. I've stood on the bank. It is a very dangerous situation. It is going to affect not only Mr Young but the access road behind it, which will affect several other residents of the area.

I ask the minister on behalf of Mr Young, will you fix this problem so that Mr Young can live in his home until he no longer requires that residence?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again I thank the member for bringing this matter to my attention on behalf of his constituent. I'm sure it's a very serious matter for his constituent. I'll make sure the officials in the Ministry of Natural Resources look into that and will respond to your office as quickly as I get some details.

INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): My question is for my dear friend, who was also my MPP before the restructuring, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. We ran on the platform that our government would not infringe on this province's business ability to thrive in Ontario. Instead we recognized that our role was to create the necessary economic climate through the reduction of taxes and removal of red tape to allow businesses across Ontario the opportunity to succeed.

I had the pleasure of hosting a delegation of municipal politicians from Italy this summer who were looking for expansion in business opportunities in Ontario. What services does your Ministry of Economic Development and Trade offer to both retain and attract business in Ontario?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I want to thank my good friend the member from Thornhill for the question. The key investment account program was started within our ministry just over a year ago to bridge a communication gap that was lacking with larger Ontario companies. Prior to its inception, our ministry had no real direct contact program to deliver competitive messages that larger companies in Ontario are better off expanding right here in our own province.

The program's mission is to have regular meetings with approximately 500 Ontario-based and major multinational corporations to ensure they are aware of Ontario's competitive advantage and will consider future expansion right here in our province. In fact, as of last month, our key investment account program has met with 300 different companies across the province and we're on target to meet our ambitious goal of 500 to ensure that more jobs are going to be created in our province.

Mrs Molinari: I understand the NDP shut down all our foreign trade offices during their time in office.

Interjections.

Mrs Molinari: Yes, they did. I can't help but wonder if we're not falling off the radar screen internationally as a result of these closures. I've heard you say that you'll get on a boat, a plane or a train to bring jobs to Ontario. Since investment is so powerful in creating the economic strength of our province, should we not be spending more of our time and effort in attracting new companies from abroad to invest in Ontario?

Hon Mr Palladini: While we need to keep attracting investors to Ontario from abroad, which I think is very important, we also need to cultivate businesses that are growing right here in Ontario. It is estimated that 75% of new investments in Ontario come from already existing companies, proving that-one of the things I learned a long time ago-good customer service creates repeat customers.

Our key account managers ensure that we build relationships with these companies and provide them with the information they need when expanding their operations and their workforce. These outreach activities by our investment staff have resulted in $715 million in new business investments in our province and 1,405 new full-time jobs. In fact, one of the largest investment firms since our program began is the new IBM software-

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

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The municipally run daycare centre in Elliot Lake is closing down. We warned you that your child care download would close daycare centres. This centre in Elliot Lake is only the first municipally run centre to close. We told you that your most recent $25-million download was the last nail in the coffin. You've taken away the ability of municipalities to raise the 20% start-up funds that force you to match with the remaining 80%. You've actually saved yourself $100 million in the most despicable of ways.

Municipalities already crushed under your downloading schemes are going to be forced to shut down child care centres all across this province.

Do the right thing, Minister, and restore child care funds so that Elliot Lake and communities across this province don't wake up tomorrow to find out that their daycare centre is closing down.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): This government is spending more supporting parents providing child care for their children than any government in Ontario's history. We'll spend more than $738 million supporting child care in the province of Ontario. That's something we're tremendously proud of. We provide a whole host of child care support.

I want to assure the honourable member that absolutely nothing in the program review announcement with respect to our local services realignment needs to see one single child care space lost in the province of Ontario-not one single space. The honourable member would be well advised to look at the record of this government in providing support for child care. It's a record amount. It's substantially more than his government provided for child care.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wanted to serve notice under standing order 37(

e) that I will be filing my dissatisfaction with the answer of the Minister of Health to my earlier question and seeking a late show.

PETITIONS

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario government has recently imposed a retroactive cap on revenue earned by medical laboratories for services provided under the health insurance plan; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has also required these businesses to refund revenue for services rendered in previous years where the amount of that revenue exceeds the retroactively imposed cap for those years; and

"Whereas this legislation amounts to expropriation of economic rights without adequate compensation or due process of law; and

"Whereas the greatest incentive to the provision of efficient and quality services and products by the private sector is competition and the ability to make a profit; and

"Whereas the removal of these incentives by government negatively affects all of society and particularly patients in need; and

"Whereas this type of legislation also unfairly discriminates against one sector of the society;

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

"That adequate protection of property rights is needed to ensure that government cannot erode the property rights of certain sectors of society without fair compensation and due process of law."

I've affixed my signature to it.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to indicate that I wasn't satisfied with the answer to the question I just asked the Minister of Community and Social Services, so I'll be filing the appropriate paperwork to ask for a late show.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my privilege to rise and present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I might add, for the record, that the member for Scarborough Centre, Ms Mushinski, has brought this to the attention of all members of the House.

"Whereas Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo were responsible for terrorizing entire communities in southern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ontario government of the day made a deal with the devil with Karla Homolka resulting in a sentence that does not truly make her pay for her crimes; and

"Whereas our communities have not yet fully recovered from the trauma and sadness caused by Karla Homolka; and

"Whereas Karla Homolka believes that she should be entitled to passes to leave prison with an escort; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario believe that criminals should be forced to serve sentences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes;

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

"Do everything within its power to ensure that Karla Homolka serves all her full sentence;

"Continue to reform parole and make it more difficult for serious offenders to return to our streets;

"Fight the federal government's plan to release up to 1,600 more convicted criminals on to Ontario streets; and

"Ensure that the Ontario government's sex offender registry is functioning as quickly as possible."

I am pleased to support this and add my name to those petitioning.

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I have a petition from the students at Porter Collegiate in Scarborough.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario continues to cut millions in funding from the educational system and ultimately is the sole cause of the myriad of disturbances to the public education system,

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

"Given that the government of Ontario has little idea of how to effectively and competently administer public funds, we, the student body at W.A. Porter Collegiate Institute, are demanding that the government of Ontario desist in their endeavours to callously spend money in areas not relevant to our in-class learning, namely, the recent distribution of millennium mementoes.

"Let it be known that we feel these mementoes are a waste of valuable resources. Rather, we would have liked to have had the opportunity to see the money spent in the education system where you've cut millions, completely disregarding our needs as students in the public education system."

That's signed by a large number of students from W.A. Porter Collegiate, and I'll attach my signature as well.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): The issue of a northern health travel grant and its inadequacy is a major issue. Petitions keep coming in, signatures by the thousands.

"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 have thousands of signatures. Many seniors' clubs in my riding have sent these in, as well as everybody from across northwestern Ontario. I am proud to sign my name to this.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas patients requiring eye care in Niagara are faced with a shortage of ophthalmologists and as a result, are compelled to wait several weeks to secure an appointment with an ophthalmologist;

"Whereas, while the shortage of ophthalmologists is in existence, the removal of the billing cap on these medical specialists provides a temporary but essential easing of the health care crisis;

"Whereas the solution of the Ontario Ministry of Health removing the exemptions from the billing cap and forcing patients from Niagara to travel along the very busy Queen Elizabeth Highway to receive treatment in Hamilton;

"Be it therefore resolved that the Ontario Ministry of Health remove the cap on billing for ophthalmologists in Niagara until such time as Niagara is no longer an underserviced area."

I affix my signature as I am in complete agreement.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly, again coming in from the Canadian Auto Workers. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

On behalf of my NDP colleagues, I add my name to those of these petitioners.

KARLA HOMOLKA

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

"Whereas Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo were responsible for terrorizing entire communities in southern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ontario government of the day made a deal with the devil with Karla Homolka resulting in a sentence that does not truly make her pay for her crimes; and

"Whereas our communities have not yet fully recovered from the trauma and sadness caused by Karla Homolka; and

"Whereas Karla Homolka believes that she should be entitled to passes to leave prison with an escort; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario believe that criminals should be forced to serve sentences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes;

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

"Do everything within its power to ensure that Karla Homolka serves her full sentence;

"Continue to reform parole and make it more difficult for serious offenders to return to our streets;

"Fight the federal government's plan to release up to 1,600 more convicted criminals on to Ontario streets; and

"Ensure that the Ontario government's sex offender registry is functioning as quickly as possible."

I attach my signature to this petition.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is signed by a number of residents of Chatham and Paincourt, and I affix my signature to it.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Speaker, I commend you for allowing us this opportunity to read into the record the important priorities for the people of Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo were responsible for terrorizing entire communities in southern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ontario government of the day made a deal with the devil with Karla Homolka resulting in a sentence that does not truly make her pay for her crimes; and

"Whereas our communities have not yet fully recovered from the trauma and sadness caused by Karla Homolka; and

"Whereas Karla Homolka believes that she should be entitled to passes to leave prison with an escort; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario believe that criminals should be forced to serve sentences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes;

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

"Do everything within its power to ensure that Karla Homolka serves her full sentence;

"Continue to reform parole and make it more difficult for serious offenders to return to our streets;

"Fight the federal government's plan to release up to 1,600 more convicted criminals on to Ontario streets; and

"Ensure that the Ontario government's sex offender registry is functioning as quickly as possible."

I'm proud to present this petition on behalf of the member for Scarborough Centre, Marilyn Mushinski. I'll sign it, support it and would like the government to take action.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): 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 government of Ontario 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."

Many of these petitions are from Hornepayne and Dubreuilville. I'm proud to affix my signature.

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): The page from my riding of Windsor West, Caroline, is going to help me deliver this petition today. I'm very proud of her. She's going to come and stand right beside me here.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Conservative government carelessly wasted more than $2.5 million of taxpayers' money on producing the My Ontario Millennium Memento souvenir; and

"Whereas we feel that $2.5 million would have been better spent on textbooks, computers and curriculum teaching materials which are sorely lacking in Ontario schools today; and

"Whereas students and parents want materials in their classrooms which are not blatantly partisan in nature as is this souvenir; and

"Whereas students and parents are participating in the Return to Sender program by returning thousands of unwanted copies of the millennium souvenir to Mike Harris; and

"Whereas this action by the Conservative government demonstrates their disregard for the priorities of Ontarians; and

"Whereas 500 hard-working Ontario families had to work one full year to pay their provincial income taxes to cover the cost of printing this misguided project;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to condemn the skewed priorities of the Mike Harris government and demand that Mike Harris issue an apology to the people of Ontario for wasting taxpayers' money."

A truckload left Windsor from my office on Ouellette Avenue last night loaded with this millennium book.

Thank you, Caroline, for delivering that petition.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Health concerning emergency room closures. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Sault Ste Marie has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Community and Social Services concerning the Elliott Lake day care centre. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm as well.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEWER MUNICIPAL POLITICIANS ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE CONSEILLERS MUNICIPAUX

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 13, 1999, on the motion for second reading of Bill 25,

An Act to provide for the restructuring of four regional municipalities and to amend the Municipal Act and various other Acts in connection with municipal restructuring and with municipal electricity services / Projet de loi 25, Loi prévoyant la restructuration de quatre municipalités régionales et modifiant la

Loi sur les municipalités et diverses autres lois en ce qui a trait aux restructurations municipales et aux services municipaux d'électricité.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Mr Speaker, it was the intention of our leadoff speaker to split his time with me. I'm not sure whether he indicated that yesterday. If not, I'm asking for unanimous consent for that at this stage.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Gerretsen: I'm very pleased to debate this bill, Bill 25, although I'm not all that pleased that it's here, quite frankly. The reason for that is that I think the government has once again spun this whole notion that we would all be better off if there were fewer politicians in this province. As if the politicians are the ones that cost all the money.

Now let's be fair about it. It's my understanding that because of the fact that the number of politicians will be reduced in the province of Ontario by something like 190 politicians in these four restructured areas and in Metro Toronto we'll have a saving of about $4 million to $5 million. That's the saving for these politicians.

But let's also be fair about it and say that the average municipal politician in this province earns no more than $5,000 or $10,000 per year, because the vast majority of these people are on a part-time basis. What this government has been spinning is this whole notion that somehow bigger is necessarily better. To be fair about it, in some cases it may be and it some cases it may not be.

If I look at our own example in Kingston and the Islands where the new city of Kingston has been formulated as a result of restructuring, which was basically supported by most of the people, and I supported the basic concept as well, except for the fact that vast rural areas in my new city of Kingston, namely the rural areas north of the 401 in the township of Kingston and the township of Pittsburgh, were included in the new city of Kingston and some of these areas are as far as 20 to 25 miles away from the city centre, I think it's fair to say that as far as I'm concerned those areas never should have been included.

It's my understanding that we're doing exactly the same thing in the Hamilton-Wentworth area and in Ottawa-Carleton, where whole tracts of rural lands-agricultural land, by and large-are being included into these restructured areas, which shouldn't happen.

Why shouldn't it happen? First of all, there's this whole notion of community of interests. Living in an urban community is totally different from living in a rural community. The kind of topics that get discussed at council, the kind of problems that are dealt with on a day-to-day basis, are totally and absolutely different. To put a rural area, which may be as much as 20 miles away, and in Ottawa-Carleton I would dare say some of these areas are probably closer to 40 miles away from the city centre, into a regional area, into a new city centre makes absolutely no sense.

There's the other aspect as well, and that is the whole aspect of representation. The people of Ontario have to ask themselves, why has municipal government in this province basically worked pretty well over the last 150 years? It is undoubtedly that it is the government level that's closest to the people. If they take any interest in it at all, the people usually know their local representatives. They know their mayor and reeve etc. If there is a problem that they want to discuss, they're able to do so because that person, their own representative, usually isn't further than a concession line away or lives in the same neighbourhood, the same geographic area, etc.

That's worked pretty well for this province over the last 150 years. In these restructured areas, including my own, that is going to be totally denied. The rural voices in these areas are going to be unheard.

Let me make it clear that the individuals who may be representing those rural areas will be heard in their councils, but just in the normal makeup of these new urban, large, restructured councils, their voices are going to be in the vast minority. Let me give you an example.

In the city of Kingston, we currently have a mayor, 12 councillors and four individuals on the board of control, for a total of 17. Now council has decided to go from 17 to 12 in total number. The big debate that has been going on in the city of Kingston lately is whether there should be one or two rural voices on the new council. I say that even that debate is buying into this whole notion that somehow the rural voices will be heard on a consistent basis in these new urban areas. It's just not going to happen.

Whether or not they have one voice-two voices are obviously better than one-or two voices, most of the issues that these councils are going to deal with are going to basically not deal with the rural areas and the rural concerns.

People in the Kingston area, before the boundaries of the new ridings were formed, used to say, "Why are you interested in this?" At that point of time I represented the major urban area of the Kingston community. Now, with the new boundary lines, I represent more of the rural people as well. Even in the last Parliament, they would say, "Why are you concerned about that?" I'm concerned about that for one reason and one reason only: I am a true believer in representative government.

This notion that if we have smaller councils we will be better off is absolute nonsense. I think that local councils ought to be truly representatives of the communities that they are. Whether there are people on those councils from the left side of the political spectrum or from the right side of the political spectrum or somewhere in between is totally immaterial. That community ought to be represented on council and there ought to be representatives from one side to the other of the political spectrum.

The reason is that councils have to be truly representative of the communities they represent. That is not talked about. Somehow a lot of people have sort of bought into this notion that larger is better and fewer council members is better because we've got to get rid of the politicians. I'll tell you, the representative aspect is gone.

Today our critic, Mr Colle, received a letter put out by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario. You may recall that this organization is made up of the clerks, treasurers and city managers of this province, who by and large are non-partisan. They are our civil servants, on whom the effective operation of our municipalities rely, whether it's large or small. This is the same group that, over two years ago, warned the Minister of Finance, when he came out with his first tax restructuring bill, that he was making huge mistakes and, "Please come and talk to us and we will show you how you should implement what you have in mind."

We all know the result of that. The Minister of Finance didn't listen to them. As a result, seven different tax bills had to be introduced. As a matter of fact, I think most municipalities are only now getting out their last commercial and industrial tax bills for this year, 1999. A lot of the bills for 1998 had to be redone because of the bill that we passed last December. People who thought they were getting a tax break in effect were taxed back earlier this year. It was a total and absolute mess.

Two years ago, this organization warned the government of that situation in the taxation area. Now they're issuing the same warning with respect to the bills that are in front of us. We know all about how this bill, which is 175 pages long, is being rammed through the House without any public debate and how it all has to be done by Christmas for some reason. It's kind of interesting that when we had the Toronto megacity bill, it was done in April, even though the municipal elections were held in November.

I have no idea why this bill has to be passed before Christmas other than the fact that the government doesn't want the House to sit in January and February, hold public hearings into this bill. I've no idea why.

Interjection.

Mr Gerretsen: OK, the government whip says, "That's why we're not having hearings."

Let's just deal with the issue of what the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario has to say, in a letter dated today, about this particular bill. Just for the record, they're the leading professional training organization for municipal government managers in Ontario: clerks, treasurers, chief administrative officers. They represent 95% of Ontario municipalities. The AMCTO represents just about every clerk, treasurer, city manager in this province. What do they say?

"I am writing to you on behalf of the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario to express our strong disappointment at the government's latest effort to reform municipal governance through Bill 25." This, by the way, is addressed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Honourable Tony Clement.

"The AMCTO has a long history of assisting the Ontario government in shaping legislation and policies for implementation by municipal managers. As valuable partners in providing responsible government at the local level, we support the objectives of municipal reform, namely increased autonomy, increased flexibility, less duplication and decreased administrative costs. However"-now listen to this-"proposed legislation such as Bill 25 flies in the face of those principles."

That's what the government is trying to accomplish in this legislation. They want less duplication, increased flexibility, decreased administrative costs, and the people who are going to implement this at the local level are saying, "Bill 25 flies in the face of those principles, as does the lack of consultation on proposed legislation such as Bill 25."

For example, they say the act "permits the minister to amend legislation by regulation." Now this is an organization that's been around since 1937 and what do they say? They say, "This is unprecedented."

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): Think for yourself.

Mr Gerretsen: I always think for myself, sir, and I know darn well that this legislation is wrong. I'm sure that if you had asked the former mayor who is sitting right behind you, he would know too that this legislation is wrong, and many other people. If you ask Mr Skarica over there, he knows it's wrong. As a matter of fact, he's threatened to resign. And Mr Clark, within your caucus, who is going to make a speech about this, I understand, tomorrow evening, knows that this bill is wrong as well.

Interjections.

Mr Gerretsen: It says it "represents a clear contradiction"-I always find it interesting that the heckling starts when they darn well know you've hit a sore spot. They say Bill 25 "represents a clear contradiction of the principles espoused by this government, namely public accountability and transparency of the process." This isn't some political organization that's saying this; these are the clerks and treasurers in our municipalities who work for our municipalities on a day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month basis.

It says: "This bill is replete with regulatory powers.... Why are they not included as part of this bill? Will the rules be similar to the proposed referenda legislation released last year?" That deals with the

section where the minister-and this must be an all-time first-is going to get the power under this act whereby he can state that a bylaw passed under clause 1(

b) and a resolution passed under subsection (2) must comply with such rules as may be prescribed. So all this is going to be done by way of regulation.

Let's talk about the powers that the transition boards will have. Do you want to hear what the organization has to say about that? Well, I'll tell you: "The transition boards will have the power to approve year 2000 budgets for existing municipalities and any in-year changes; amalgamate municipal electrical utilities and convert them to business corporations or sell them;... hire key staff, including a new administrative officer; and make recommendations" for budgets for the year 2001.

What does this group say? They say: "What are the duly elected officials expected to do in the meantime? Municipalities may effectively be paralyzed by indecision.... Bill 25 may have seriously negative implications for those municipalities slated for amalgamation. This bill needs to be vetted by the public. We urge you to proceed with your original plan to hold public hearings in each of the affected areas."

This is another way in which this organization that has served this province and the taxpayers of this province well, that is a non-political, non-allied group, is saying, "Government, you've got it wrong."

The AMCTO had it right when it came to the tax legislation that was passed one and two years ago and they've got it right again. Why are you doing this? I think the reason that the government's doing this is because they are bent on the notion that bigger is better. This is supposedly from a government that believes in less government.

For example, in the city of Kingston I don't believe we've had any savings at all. As a matter of fact, a bond-rating agency just recently indicated-let me just read to you from that report. This was issued by the Canadian Bond Rating Service, which basically gives the city of Kingston an excellent rating, but it also goes on to say that "the city will need to identify a shortfall estimated to range between $4.2 million and $7.2 million based, in part, on a portion of the 1998 and 1999 shortfalls not being fully funded with permanent sources ... amalgamate costs not met by the province and assessment losses."

Remember, that's how the province said they were going to cover all these amalgamation costs. Here's one municipality where they didn't cover them all.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Big finish.

Mr Gerretsen: The Minister of Labour says, "Big finish." He is another individual who of course at one time was involved at the local level and he should realize the tremendous contribution that local councils and local councillors have made to this province on a day-to-day basis. I would like him to get up and say, not right now but when it's his turn to speak, why he thinks it is so necessary to reduce the number of municipal politicians across this province.

I'm sure the people realize that the end result is going to be fewer politicians but more full-time politicians who will probably cost a heck of a lot more than the part-time politicians that many of the municipalities enjoy currently at a cost of no more than $5,000 or $10,000 per year.

I say to this government, it's not too late yet. You can still have your rethinks. Don't do the same thing you did with the taxation laws you passed last year.

The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Yesterday the member for Eglinton-Lawrence talked about the incredible power of the trustees of the transition board and how undemocratic that power was, and I want to reinforce that today.

If you look at the bill, it's clear that the transition boards, however many members they will hold, will be appointed solely by the minister. They will be appointed by regulation. The local community will have no say whatsoever in who is appointed. Their salaries, pay and expenses will also be determined by regulations. The local communities will have no say.

The transition board members are going to establish all the "key elements of the city's organizational structure and hire the municipal officers required by statute and any employees of executive rank whom the transition board considers necessary." They are allowed to enter into contracts with those people for terms of employment and the city is bound by the employment contracts once the new city starts.

The boards, as well, have a primary function which is to control all of the decisions of the municipalities and their local boards that may have any kind of financial consequences. They will be responsible for developing business plans for the city and its local boards in terms of cost saving and organize the new municipal structure. All of those people on the transition board, as well, will have any other powers they need in order to implement this particular act. So anything that they need to have done, they will come to the minister and that will be done behind closed doors, without public input, by regulation.

They also have the power to override the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and they don't have to be dissolved until January 2001 or such later date as determined by the minister by regulation. They have enormous power. They are not accountable to anyone in the community, but the community by way of this bill also has to pay for all the costs of this transition team. How undemocratic.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth-Burlington): The wonderful people back in my riding, which includes the member for Hamilton Mountain, have been saying I'm a hero, and all I've done is kept my word. That should not make me a hero. What does that say about our society? The real heroes are the millions of people who died for democracy.

What is democracy? It's a promise. You make a promise, people vote on it, you get elected and then you keep that promise. The member for Stoney Creek and myself and Mr Rhodes, on behalf of our party, said if we were elected, no supercity. And here we are-supercity.

People say to me, "Toni, why don't you just walk across the floor, join those people over there?" What's their position? The member for Hamilton East, the Leader of the Opposition, what was their position during the election? A 90-day process and then there would be a supercity. That's what we're doing.

Are they voting for the legislation? No, they're not. What's their word worth? What's anybody's word worth in this place? I don't feel like I'm in the Legislative Assembly; I'm feel like I'm in the bizarre world, the macabre, where day is night and night is day. I'm in Alice in Wonderland but there's nothing wonderful about it.

I want to tell every member in the House that I've got something that's precious, that's better than being a cabinet minister. I spent the last two weekends in my community walking in Dundas, Ancaster, Flamborough, Hamilton and Aldershot, and everywhere I go people are coming up to me and some of