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

October 27, 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-Oct-27 vol. A (PDF)

L005A - Wed 27 Oct 1999 / Mer 27 oct 1999

MEMBERS'STATEMENTS

PRINCE EDWARD-HASTINGS ECONOMY

WHITE RIBBON CAMPAIGN

ARCHIVES OF ONTARIO

WALKERTON ECONOMY

HIGHWAY SAFETY

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

AIRPORT NOISE

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

HIGHWAY 407

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

SUPERVISED ACCESS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

TOURISM

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

HOMES FOR THE AGED

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

ABANDONED MINES

VISITOR

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

PARAMEDICS

WATERLINE INSTALLATION

MEDICAL CLINIC

BOTTLE RECYCLING

HENLEY ROWING COURSE

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

HIGHWAY SAFETY

EDUCATION FUNDING

RELIGIOUS READINGS IN SCHOOLS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS'STATEMENTS

PRINCE EDWARD-HASTINGS ECONOMY

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My statement today is directed to the Premier and to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. It appears, unfortunately, that after four years in power for this government, they have not yet recognized that not all of Ontario is enjoying the prosperity that the greater Toronto area is.

The Prince Edward-Hastings economy is one of these areas. This past week my region was dealt another blow with the news that Bata will cease all production at their Batawa facility. This announcement is just the latest in a series of job losses my region has experienced over the years. These jobs are vital to our local economy and they enable our people to raise their families.

Unemployment in my region is 7.8%, compared to the provincial average of 6.4%. While 6.4% is dismal, 7.8% is tragic. But these numbers don't yet include the effect of Nortel, with 722 jobs gone, and Bata, with 209 jobs gone, and others.

Travelling throughout my riding, I've had the opportunity to meet many workers who have lost their jobs, and they have a message for the Premier: They want help from their government and they need it now. The economic problems facing our region are real, and I can assure you that they're hurting people.

I call upon this government to show some leadership and address the serious economic issues taking place in most parts of this province. Those who are losing their jobs were looking to the throne speech for help. My constituents were hoping that the throne speech would offer some specific proposals to deal with their concerns and give them a fighting chance. Unfortunately, the throne speech made it clear that when it comes to economic issues in eastern Ontario, the Mike Harris government either is not listening or it doesn't care.

Premier, my constituents need action, not rhetoric.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just so the members know, if it is a member's first statement, I will have a little bit of leeway in terms of the time. I know sometimes it's difficult making the judgment on the time the first time around, so for any of the new members I will allow a little bit of grace on that matter.

WHITE RIBBON CAMPAIGN

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): As I have in past years, I proudly stand in the House today to mark National White Ribbon Against Pornography Week. The week of October 24 to 31 has been declared WRAP Week across Canada. I have distributed pamphlets and white ribbons to all members of the House and ask that they consider wearing the ribbons to show their opposition to pornography in our society.

The annual white ribbon campaign encourages all citizens to wear the ribbon as an expression of their concern with the proliferation of pornography and its negative effects on our communities. Wearing the ribbon brings awareness to this growing problem. By educating the public, it unites all those who are concerned and highlights the importance to community leaders.

The white ribbon campaign is promoted by the Catholic Women's League, a very active organization in my community of Cambridge and across all of Ontario. I thank all the volunteers for their hard work and also the members of this Legislature for their support of this very important initiative.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member for his statement. The member will know that for wearing ribbons you need unanimous consent. Would the member like to ask for unanimous consent? Agreed.

ARCHIVES OF ONTARIO

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): Mr Speaker, in beginning, on behalf of my constituents, please accept our congratulations on your appointment as Speaker.

Today I'd like to pay tribute to the important efforts of the Elgin St Thomas Archives Association. Their goal is to see a permanent archives established and to make that archives accessible to the public. I believe that archives play a very important role in preserving our past for future generations.

The Archives of Ontario was established in 1903 with a mandate to collect and preserve Ontario's heritage. This collection has grown to over 200,000 cubic feet, so large that 70% of our heritage is stored off-site. Collections held at the municipal level are in a similar state. Our province is seeing the number of municipalities rapidly shrinking.

I am concerned that during this restructuring process, valuable historic records will be lost. I believe it is up to the province to do something about it. The Ontario government must act in conjunction with the Archives of Ontario and the Archives Association of Ontario to undertake a consultation process and plan for the future of archives in Ontario. In addition, this government must ensure that there is adequate funding in place for archives.

My hope is to one day see an archives established in all Ontario counties, regions and major cities to preserve our heritage and to keep the past vibrant for the future.

WALKERTON ECONOMY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey): The other week our fine colleagues of the press painted another doom-and-gloom story about rural Ontario, specifically one of my riding's most beautiful areas, Walkerton. And as usual, the negative press of the Toronto Star got it wrong, painting a picture of a small town facing an economic recession. Walkerton, my friends, is facing anything but that.

As far as great opportunities and quality of life are concerned, Walkerton has everything to offer, from being the seat of Bruce county to the recent launch of the new 125-acre East Ridge business park. This town, with its tree-lined streets and beautiful homes, celebrated its 125th birthday in 1996. Does this sound like a town facing the blues? I don't think so.

This year, the Rotary Club of Walkerton is celebrating 60 years of service. Down in the dumps? No, this town is full of citizens who have overcome what could have been insurmountable changes, a town that has launched, in conjunction with its municipality, a new plan resulting in the development of the Walkerton community development team.

Yes, the spool and bobbin factory did close down 10 years ago, but now the site is being torn down. That in itself is providing jobs, not to mention improving the scenery of the beautiful Saugeen River.

In the wake of the Canadian Tire store closing, three new businesses have sprung up, adding to the unique shopping experience that can only be found in Walkerton.

Walkerton offers a standard of living that many towns would envy, a low crime rate and beautiful scenery, the perfect combination of a rural and urban setting.

Next time you read the negative gloom and doom about small-town Ontario, don't believe it. Small-town Ontario-Walkerton-is doing just fine.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I would like to address my comments to the Minister of Transportation. In the summer, you described your tour on the London-Windsor

section of the 401, where an inordinate number of highway deaths occurred, as a "pleasant drive." When you were forced to admit that your pleasant drive was in fact dangerous, you held a highly publicized news conference in Chatham.

As part of your long-overdue announcement, you told us that truck inspections at that

section of highway would be carried out on a 24-hour basis. To do this, you would hire more inspectors and reallocate present resources.

As you know, Ministry of Transportation inspectors are responsible for Essex county, which includes Huron Line, Highway 2, Highway 3, Highway 18, Highway 77 and other arterial roads. I've been told that a study done by Ministry of Transportation officials shows that these changes will leave only one inspector for the rest of the areas. This will mean that trucks can simply run circles around the Windsor South inspection station. Obviously, this will have a dramatic effect on the safety of our roads.

Changes to the enforcement system are necessary and long overdue. Despite your promise to hire more officers, your announcement falls far short of providing the necessary tools to do the job. Increased inspection on the 401 should not be to the detriment of safety on the rest of the roads.

I hope it will not take more highway deaths to force you into addressing the problem.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): This Friday, October 29, 1999, will mark the one-year anniversary of the unanimous adoption of a resolution outlining principles that should have been included in the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. I thought it would be useful to remind the government today that we will not forget your betrayal of the disabled community and that disabled people will not forget your betrayal.

It is time to do the right thing. Disabled people are tired of being treated as charity cases. They want to be equal partners, treated with dignity and respect. We've had enough of the vague action plans mentioned in the throne speech.

The disabled community has told you again and again what they want. In 1995 you promised an ODA; in 1998 you introduced a pathetic three-page bill that did nothing to address the barriers to people with disabilities. It was a disgrace and a betrayal. I remember the ODA committee calling it "a kick in the stomach," and that's exactly what it was.

Finally, I want to be clear that this is just one essential first step, but it will not undo all the damage caused by your government. For example, we will continue to bring forward cases of the chaos at the Ontario disability support program, where your under-resourcing and understaffing of this program have meant that files are lost, calls are left unanswered and transportation allowances are cut. It's a disgrace and must stop today.

AIRPORT NOISE

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I'm pleased to rise today to speak about an issue that is important to the residents of the Rockwood and Fleetwood communities in Mississauga East.

During the election campaign, I had the opportunity to listen to their concerns about airport noise and how it affects their quality of life and the value of their homes. They expressed their frustration with the federal Liberals, who have jurisdiction over the airport but have failed to bring in measures to curb the noise and to restrict the use of the north-south runways.

As the provincial representative, I want to do what I can to help my constituents in the community. I want to inform the House that I am working on a private member's bill to amend

section 19 of the Assessment Act to provide as follows: "For the purpose of determining the current value of land used for residential purposes, consideration shall be given to air traffic noise."

I hope all members of this House will be able to support my private member's bill in this regard. This is an important issue in my riding. Airport noise affects the quality of life of my constituents, and I hope I will have the support of this House when I introduce that private member's bill.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): One of the important parts about being government and about being open and accountable is answering letters. Arrogant governments don't respond to letters, not only from members of Parliament but, more importantly, from members of the public.

Let me give you some examples: to the Minister of Education, several letters-admittedly this was to the minister's predecessor, who was defeated-from one of our members, dated January 6, 1999, February 5, 1999, March 8, 1999-not responded to.

Interjection: None?

Mr Duncan: None. Not one response.

Another one of our members has written to the Minister of Health. This one is most interesting. This is about access to critical care for an individual. This is about someone's health care. I suppose if you're a land developer, a minister will write a letter for you right away. But let me give you an example: October 13, 1998, to the Minister of Health; December 1, 1998, on the same question; April 21 on the same question; October 1, 1999, on the same question-no responses. But they can write to developers.

This government claims that it is here to work for the people, but it really doesn't. If they are not arrogant, they are going to start answering letters from members of Parliament and they are going to answer letters from people in Ontario, not just land developers.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth-Burlington): In a different vein, I have a good-news story. About an hour ago I was in a groundbreaking ceremony in Oakville, an area which you have some familiarity with, Mr Speaker. I was there for yet another groundbreaking ceremony for the 407. It was announced that there was another westward expansion towards my riding.

You couldn't be there, Mr Speaker, due to your other duties here, but present were Halton Regional Chair Joyce Savoline, Mayor MacIsaac of the city of Burlington, Mayor Mulvale of the town of Oakville, Mayor Krantz of the town of Milton and Mayor Serjeantson of the town of Halton Hills, as well as council Lynda Schreiber from my area. They were joined by the Honourable Cam Jackson, MPP and Minister of Tourism.

As you know, Highway 407's new expansion should reduce traffic on both Regional Road 5 in your riding and the QEW to Oakville and Burlington in both our ridings by 15% to 30% once opened in August 2001. In addition to traffic relief, Highway 407 will provide transportation access to new residential and industrial lands.

The sale of Highway 407 represents great value for the people of Ontario. The privatization means faster construction at no additional cost to the taxpayer. It means more expansions as the 407 expands to the east and west towards my riding, and it means that I can get here quicker for future groundbreaking ceremonies.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have today in the Speaker's Gallery a parliamentary delegation from the People's Republic of China. Would you please join me in welcoming our guests.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): We were informed that the Deputy Premier and the Minister of the Environment would both be here. The Minister of the Environment is here. My question then is for the Minister of the Environment.

Here's a transcript of a radio show from this morning where Gerri-Lynn O'Connor, the mayor of Uxbridge, was interviewed and she said the following with respect to your letter:

"Why is a minister of the provincial government responding to a copy of a letter? Let the application take its course, and I mean certainly a flag went up for this council and for the residents of our community when we see a minister, particularly in light of Janet Ecker, who is our MPP and is in the cabinet and who has taken an arm's distance from this application, stating that once it was before the courts, she didn't want to comment on it," and yet we've got another minister who has gotten deeply involved for whatever reasons.

We're trying to understand the difference between your standards and Janet Ecker's standards. Can you explain to us why she said she wouldn't touch this with a 10-foot pole but, on the other hand, you jumped in with both feet.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): It is my pleasure to rise on this issue and reply to the honourable member. I think Janet Ecker and I are actually viewing this from the same angle.

I can report to this House that certainly from my perspective there's nothing in my letter that attempts to interfere with any judicial or quasi-judicial processes. It's indeed not a letter to a judicial or quasi-judicial body; it is a letter from one politician to another politician saying, "Abide by the law." I think it is within my rights, as a minister who has carriage over class EAs and over environmental assessments, to make that point and I stand by that letter.

Mr McGuinty: We're still trying to figure out who's right.

The Minister of Education, Janet Ecker, said the following when she was interviewed this morning: "I don't think it's appropriate for me to take a position formally or officially on a matter that is before the board. It is for the board to make the determination as they see fit."

We got the mayor of Uxbridge saying that you were wrong to get involved with this, so tell us who's right and who's wrong over there. Is Janet right or are you right? You cannot both be right at the same time. From our perspective she's right and you're wrong. So tell us which it is.

Hon Mr Clement: I'd be happy to elaborate and make clear for the honourable member, who has difficulty understanding, that Janet Ecker and I are on the same side. We do not want to interfere with a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal.

I'll tell you this: The honourable member has not got his facts right and I'd be happy to correct the record, because the honourable member does not have the decency to do so. When I wrote the letter, this was not subject to the Ontario Municipal Board, it was not a subject that was before the board, it was not referred to the board. So when he stands up in the House and says that I interfered with a board, that board did not exist at that time. He should be aware of that and he should have the decency to correct the record on his own behalf.

Mr McGuinty: This may wash with your colleagues here but it's not washing in Ontario.

This is something else the mayor of Uxbridge said:

"First of all, we in local politics understand the rules of the game and I just really feel that he was given some very poor advice in even responding to a copy of a letter, particularly in light that we have another very dangerous situation in Uxbridge township that we've been trying to get the Ministry of the Environment to deal with for two and a half years and they won't come to the table."

Suddenly you are copied a letter from a developer and this becomes a weighty matter, in your estimation. You decide that you'd better weigh in and you fire off a letter to the regional council. You've got another matter that's been sitting on your plate for two and half years at the ministry and you decide you're not going to do anything about that.

You don't have to answer me. Answer the mayor of Uxbridge. Why was it so very important to you that you weigh in on this matter when you're merely copied a letter from a representative of a developer?

Hon Mr Clement: I'd be happy to do the research for the honourable member, because if he had done his research he'd know that the mayor of Uxbridge got a letter from my predecessor addressing and resolving the issue. Perhaps the honourable member should have better researchers.

Here's another revelation for the honourable member and the caucus on the other side: Not only was there no OMB hearing when I wrote the letter, but the subject of my letter was not before the OMB and is not before the OMB at this time. So the subject of the letter, the class environmental assessment, has nothing to do with the OMB hearing. Perhaps the honourable member needs some help with his research. We'd be happy to provide it on this side of the House.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr McGuinty: The Minister of the Environment has understood the game of politics for a long time; he is hardly a neophyte when it comes to these matters. He's a minister of the crown. When it comes to educating our ministers, we're talking about Poli Sci 101 here. Everybody knows you don't write these kinds of letters. You don't weigh in on these kinds of situations.

Let's set apart now the issue of the OMB. Why did you, as Minister of the Environment, feel that it was entirely appropriate for you to weigh in on behalf of a developer?

Hon Mr Clement: I find myself correcting the record yet again. I encourage the honourable member and his staff to read the letter. It in no way takes a position on the development, it in no way takes a position in favour of or against the development. It simply requests that, in his due deliberations as regional chair, he act within the class EA regulations and the law. I see no reason, either ethical or legal, why I should not write a similar letter.

Mr McGuinty: That is simply incredible. Nobody is buying that. Are you telling us that on a regular basis in your ministry you sign letters, you get involved in these matters? Is that what you're telling us, and that there's nothing wrong with this whatsoever? Whenever these kinds of matters arise, you get involved, you send off a letter? Whenever any developer sends off a letter to you and says they're trying to accomplish something, you suddenly take advantage of this copied letter and you fire off some kind of directive to a regional municipality, or any municipality in Ontario? Is that what you're telling us that you do? Tell us.

Hon Mr Clement: The letter speaks for itself. It's a matter of public record. It was a matter of public record, incidentally, six weeks ago and the Honourable Leader of the Opposition didn't see fit at that time to raise the issue in any public forum. What I would say to the honourable member is that he's weaving a web here, suggesting that somehow I was unduly influencing the regional chair.

I can tell you-here's another revelation for the House; the House should be aware of all the facts-that in a CP newswire story that I have occasion to see before me today, Mr Anderson, who is the regional chair, said yesterday that he felt the letter was neutral and the minister was not taking any position. So who is the honourable member, the Leader of the Opposition, trying to kid in this House? That's the question I have for him.

Mr McGuinty: This is what the mayor said. This was the question put to her: "How do you respond to this letter? What should Mr Clement do?"

Her answer: "Well, I think Mr Clement should stay at arm's distance. It's before the courts. Why is a minister of the provincial government responding to a copy of a letter? Janet Ecker, who is our MPP and is in the cabinet, has taken an arm's distance from this application, stating that once it was before the courts that she didn't want to comment on it, and that was a direct comment that she made to regional councillor Susan Para and myself when we asked her if we could sit down with her and discuss what this application meant to Uxbridge township."

Why is it that she decided that it was inappropriate for her to get involved but, on the other hand, you decided, as our protector of the environment, that it was entirely acceptable to you to weigh in on behalf of a developer?

Hon Mr Clement: I find myself correcting the record yet again. Let me say in the simplest of terms so the honourable member can understand: When I wrote the letter there was no OMB hearing. When I wrote the letter it was about the class environmental assessment. When the OMB hearing was raised as an issue, which was after I wrote the letter, the class EA was not part of the OMB hearing. What part of that does he not understand? There was nothing in conflict. There was nothing untoward. There was nothing unethical. There was nothing illegal.

If the honourable member has nothing else to talk about in question period, my question to him is, why is he the honourable Leader of the Opposition? Because he is not earning his pay today.

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Two days ago the Premier stood in his place and tried to convince the people of Ontario that your government somehow is improving services for disabled people. The fact is that the office for disability support is sadly under-resourced and understaffed.

The Premier talks about a 1-800 number. I want you to know that my staff have tried to call the 1-800 number. The most recent experience is that it was busy for 15 minutes. Then when they called again, it rang for about 12 minutes and no one answered. Later on, when they called again, it was answered but by voice mail. Is that what you call helping disabled people?

Then you tried to say that the transportation allowance hasn't been cut, but we have case after case of people who are telling us quite clearly that the transportation allowance has been cut, they can't get to their doctor, they can't get to a food bank, they can't get to their clinic.

Minister, this is starting to sound like the Family Responsibility Office, where you let down all those women and children who are vulnerable. Why are you picking on the most vulnerable people in this province, and when are you going to correct your mistakes?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): We created the Ontario disability support program to better meet the needs of the disabled in the province. It takes them off the welfare rolls, a place they never belonged in the first place.

We have listened to our clients who are receiving transportation costs to attend drug and alcohol recovery support groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, and we'll continue to provide coverage for ODSP recipients to attend such groups under medical transportation.

New requests will be approved where a drug or alcohol recovery support group is recommended by the doctor or psychologist. We will obviously honour the existing transportation costs for various day programs which were covered on September 30, 1999, for those clients who are using them as long as they continue to attend the program.

We continue to cover 80% of discretionary benefits, and if the municipalities would like to offer more of that, we're certainly prepared to do our part. The ODSP does pay for all necessary medical transportation.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): That was a nice public relations announcement, Minister. Please acknowledge the problem that you have created. I want to stress that it's not staff in the offices; it's the mess you've created in having a botched implementation of transition, in under-resourcing the offices, and in putting through rapid policy changes that haven't been thought through and haven't been communicated.

Peter Kivi, a dialysis patient in my riding who receives benefits and a transportation allowance, received a notice on October 17 that his benefits were suspended as of October 1 because he exceeded his income. They had calculated the transportation allowance as part of the income. This is contrary to the entitlement rules. The ministry has acknowledged that. But they've also said there is no guarantee he's going to get his cheque on Friday. And guess what, Minister? We're told that there may be thousands of people in the province like this. Surely you know about it.

I've got some questions. How many clients are affected by this? When will they receive this money? Will it be there on Friday? Will it be deposited? Are you going to cut manual cheques? Will you courier them, or will you force all of these disabled people to go to the office to pick up their cheques?

Hon Mr Baird: We weren't pleased with the way disability support programs were offered to the disabled when we were elected. There were backlogs of up to two years, and we found that unacceptable.

We set up a whole new program for people with disabilities to better meet their needs. We removed the label "permanently unemployable" and are providing substantially higher and greater supports for employment services. We are committed to using resources more equitably in order to ensure that an adequate level of transportation costs is available to all Ontarians with disabilities.

These changes aren't easy. I suppose it would have been easier to sit back and do nothing. We'll continue to work to try and improve the lives of people with disabilities. If the member opposite has cases of particular concern, I'd certainly be prepared to look at them on her behalf.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): The minister is either not listening to the question or not listening to the information that we are trying to give him here. We just got confirmation that this is not just one case in Beaches-East York. There could be thousands of disabled people affected this weekend, and the minister is standing there giving out platitudes.

Minister, the member for Beaches-East York asked you some questions, and I want answers. How many clients are affected? Will they receive their cheque by the end of Friday? Will you promise right now to leave this chamber and go look into this situation, find out if there really are, as confirmed to us, thousands of people affected by this, and tell us, if there are, what you're going to do about it so these people get their cheques on time?

Hon Mr Baird: We're committed to improving supports for people with disabilities in the province. Before the province took over the administration of the program, municipalities determined the level of transportation costs and were covered in their respective communities. The result was that the disabled in larger cities and some parts of the province enjoyed greater transportation support than in others. We're certainly committed to increase what is available and make it more equitable across the province, but making improvements is often difficult.

We're certainly committed to work and follow through to ensure that the program is delivered in the best way possible. We're creating equity throughout the province by ensuring that a level of service is available to each and every disabled Ontarian.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. The minister knows, or ought to know, how important the Oak Ridges moraine is in terms of water quality and water supply, not just for the Durham region but for much of the greater Toronto region. But we know that the moraine is under threat of rapid urban development. In fact, you are now on record as supporting one of those development applications by Jay-M Holdings, who make, as we found out yesterday, a lot of contributions to the Conservative Party.

Minister, you know that the mayor of Newmarket, Mr Tom Taylor, said on September 16 that the Oak Ridges moraine cannot be saved without the province getting involved. You are the Minister of the Environment, the last time we checked. Do you believe that the province must get involved and the province must act to protect the Oak Ridges moraine?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the honourable member for the question and for his comments to the media, which are at counter-distinction with what he is saying today if he is saying today that I am somehow on the side of a development. He said, I believe it was yesterday, that the letter is not proof of anything illegal, so I thank him for his confidence in my abilities.

But let's get on to the broader issue, which is the issue that I would very much like to have as part of a public policy discussion, which is the challenge in an economy that is booming, in the prosperity that is returning to Ontario, to accommodate all of the people who want to buy houses, who want to create jobs in Ontario, and at the same time preserve a living legacy, if I may use that phrase, on the moraine for future generations. That is precisely the kind of issue on which the honourable member's input and his point of view should be taken into account by my ministry, and I thank him for his comments.

Mr Hampton: Minister, the question is, and the question was, very direct: Do you support protecting the Oak Ridges moraine? Your conduct and the conduct of your associates indicate that you're not in favouring of protecting it. You did write a letter which favours the proposals of Jay-M Holdings, and you do receive a lot of financial contributions to the Conservative Party from Jay-M Holdings.

There is another application out there from Joe Lebovic, who also wants to develop on the Oak Ridges moraine. In fact, there is a lineup of developers who have contributed to Conservative candidates or the Conservative Party who want to develop on the Oak Ridges moraine.

Minister, another very simple, direct question: Would you support a development freeze on the Oak Ridges moraine while you and your party sort out your environ mental responsibility and while you sort out your apparent conflicts of interest? Would you support that freeze?

Hon Mr Clement: There's a whole raft of questions in that series by the honourable member. I can tell him this: We are a government that has the responsibility to ensure ecological soundness in very sensitive areas. We think there is a way to indeed ensure that there is a legacy for future generations and at the same time accommodate the massive growth that is associated with the prosperity in which we find ourselves in Ontario.

The honourable member would know that this was an issue that his government was grappling with way back as early as 1991. If his government had actually grappled with it in a sensitive, coherent way, perhaps this question need not have been asked today in the House. But the fact of the matter is that it has landed on our laps, and I can assure the honourable member that this government knows how to balance growth and prosperity with ecological soundness and we will certainly do that in this case as well.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): My question is to the Minister of Labour. On the eve of the election announcement, your government passed Bill 17, the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act, with all kinds of fanfare, billboards and press conferences, at a cost of over $1 million to the taxpayers. Now your government has chosen not to enforce

section 24 of the bill, which states that a person who is not a resident of Ontario and who does not register with the job protection office is guilty of an offence, and upon conviction is liable for substantial fines.

I ask you now, Minister: How much longer must Ontario construction workers suffer? When do you intend to start enforcing

section 24 of the bill, or is this just a one-way street? Are you going to ask the Quebec government to withdraw all outstanding fines given to our construction workers? Tell me, Minister, what will you do?

Applause.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): Thank you. It is a different view; I will say that.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): All saints have a past; all sinners have a future.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Yes, and I've always been one step behind you, Sean. I've noticed that.

First, all three parties endorsed that piece of legislation in this House and it was implemented by this government before the election. Subsequent to the implementation, there have been many spot visits to many construction sites on the Ontario side of the border.

I myself have spoken on a number of occasions to the member from Prescott-Russell and he has advised me of some locations where there have been Quebec workers. We have inspected, we have talked to the workers, we've asked them to leave the sites, and I think we're implementing this very well. In fact, hundreds of workers from Quebec have been removed from Ontario work sites. I think the offices out along the Quebec-Ontario border have done a very good job.

I've got to say that we want to continue and we'll force the continuation, but I say to the member that if you have sites where you believe these workers are working, I've said to you before, call my office. I've got these sites, we've investigated, and I presume that this has been OK. If it hasn't, let us know.

Mr Lalonde: Minister, we're not enforcing

section 24 of the act. No one has been fined yet. They just move from one site to another.

But now tell me, what about SNC Lavalin, whose head office is in Montreal, the recent purchaser of Highway 407, the new contract at the Ottawa airport? I understand you gave them an exemption from Bill 17. Why? Is it because they have big Tory connections like the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Al Leach, who is a member of their board? Also, I understand Hugh Segal, another big Tory, is on the SNC Lavalin board.

Tell me, Minister, do I pass the word along to other construction companies: "Get a big Tory on your board like SNC Lavalin and you are exempt and then, bingo, you have it made"? Who's next to be exempt? Do you want to give me the list? Who's on the list? Hand it over to me. I would like to see how many have Tory connections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I know my new good friends Mr Leach and Mr Segal were a part of this corporation before I came to the office. Mr Leach didn't receive this job until after the exemption was given to Lavalin, to be fair.

Secondly, Lavalin was given an exemption not because they're just a Quebec operator. They have huge holdings in Ontario, they have a lot of workers in Ontario, they pay a lot of taxes in Ontario and they do a lot of work in Ontario.

The fact was, when they applied for the exemption, the ministry looked at this and said, considering their holdings in Ontario, considering the taxes they pay in Ontario, this would be one of those corporations that were considered cross-border. It had some investments in Quebec; it had substantial investments in Ontario as well.

Furthermore, this particular company, Lavalin, has been suggested to be a lot of things, but it hasn't been suggested to be a Conservative company. If anything, it's been suggested it's a Liberal company. I suggest they're a little off the mark on that one.

SUPERVISED ACCESS

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Attorney General. I've heard concerns from constituents in my riding of Peterborough regarding safety when it comes to child custody visits. In some instances, custodial and non-custodial parents are concerned for their personal safety and the safety of their children. They want to comply with their child custody agreements by ensuring a safe and controlled environment for their children.

Could you please tell the Legislature what action this government is taking to assist families with their custody and access concerns?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for Peterborough for his question. We have taken action. We have established 14 supervised access centres. Supervised access centres provide for visits between children and their non-custodial parents that might otherwise not happen.

The centres also offer an alternative way to resolve access disputes. Almost all referrals to supervised access centres are as the result of court orders, generally because of concerns about the safety of the child or one of the parents; for example, in cases with histories of domestic violence or risk of abduction.

We have also provided funding for new supervised access services in 22 communities across Ontario. This expansion surpasses the government's promise to double the number of supervised access sites from 14 to 28.

Mr Stewart: I personally am extremely supportive of this type of initiative. Anything we can do to protect children I believe has to be encouraged.

I would ask the Attorney General to describe to the Legislature the benefits of the supervised access centres and why this government feels it is important to expand this very valuable program.

Hon Mr Flaherty: The supervised access centres provide safe settings for visits between children and non-custodial parents and other adult relatives in a supervised and secure environment for the children. Supervised access centres help to reduce the emotional toll of family conflict on children and help them to maintain and establish healthier relationships with their parents.

I'm very pleased we've been able to surpass our promise to double the number of sites in the province of Ontario. We have expanded the geographic areas covered as well, and we are now serving all of the Unified Family Court locations with the supervised access program. That complements the mediation and the information services that are available to families in times of difficulty through the Unified Family Courts in Ontario.

Supervised access is an important service of the family court system. the expansion of this initiative is a key part of our ongoing effort to protect vulnerable children and support families.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): It was with great interest that I listened to the Minister of Community and Social Services make the comment that they're committed to doing something for people with disabilities in this province.

My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Your Premier takes pride in saying that he is a man of his word. During the 1995 election he promised 1.5 million persons in this province with disabilities that he would enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during his first term in office.

Five years, three ministers and two elections later, there still is no Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The Premier callously broke that promise to the people of this province. Because the Premier turned his back on them, 1.5 million people with disabilities continue to face countless barriers in every aspect of their lives, barriers that they wouldn't face if they lived in the United States.

Minister, will you commit today, without qualification, that you will make up for the Premier's lack of integrity and enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during this term?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): As a result of the way the question was worded, it's important for me to correct the record, first off.

Let me say first that in the last term the government implemented a bill called the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. As we took it out for consultation, a number of people thought that changes could be made to that bill. So the Premier, in his wisdom, as I consider it, pulled that bill and said, "No, we're going to go back and we're going to look at this bill again because we want to hear what the people of Ontario, and especially the people with disabilities, have to say with respect to this bill."

It's important that the member opposite-I know he's new, so I give him the benefit of the doubt that he might not have known-recognizes that we did put a bill forward. The Premier was good to his word, but he decided that we needed to go back and have a look at this bill one more time. We have planned to do that. We said in the throne speech we will do that, and we continue to keep that promise.

Mr Peters: Minister, Bill 83 was a disaster. The government admitted as much during the throne speech last spring. You're hiding behind that legislation. Your own throne speech last spring portrayed that as inadequate.

Ontarians with disabilities deserve better-a million and a half people. Before the election you talked about introducing legislation. Now, after the election, all you talk about is a vague goal and an action plan. It's been five years, three ministers and two elections-still no ODA.

One year ago this Friday, this House voted unanimously in favour of a resolution asking the government to introduce an effective ODA. The Premier promised the people of this province that an ODA would be enacted in the first term. That pledge was broken. Today, persons with disabilities want to know one thing: When will you introduce an effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act? This month? This year? This term? When will you fix the promise that you broke to the people of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me once again reiterate that the Premier truly is keeping his word. He has said we will come back, we will look at this again, and even in the throne speech he made that commitment. We all made that commitment.

In the throne speech we said as a government that we were going to initiate an action plan. For those who may not know what an action plan is, it's a framework which gives timelines; it talks about what we're going to study, when we're going to come forward with legislation. He said that would happen within this session, and we intend to keep our word on that.

TOURISM

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Southwest): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Tourism. But first I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you on your election one week ago today. I also want to say what a privilege it is to ask the first question of the Minister of Tourism here in the 37th Parliament.

This morning in the Toronto Sun I read an

article that the mayor of the city of Toronto, Mel Lastman, is asking the province of Ontario to impose a hotel tax of up to 3% in order to raise money to promote tourism within Toronto. This is obviously an issue that directly affects my constituents in the riding of Scarborough Southwest. Can you tell me where your ministry stands on the issue of raising hotel taxes?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism): As the honourable member knows, this government does not raise taxes; it cuts taxes. In fact, in our first mandate we cut 69 taxes and we are on track to cut a further 30 taxes, a record for this continent.

This government has no intention of implementing any kind of new hotel tax, as suggested in this morning's media reports. In fact, yesterday the Greater Toronto Hotel and Motel Association met with the mayor to inform him that the hotels in this city were experiencing difficulties with their unusually high municipal property taxes over the last few decades.

The fact that Mel Lastman is even suggesting that a new tax on hotels be reinforced in the city of Toronto clearly shows the need for the Taxpayer Protection and Balanced Budget Act introduced in the House yesterday by this government.

Mr Newman: That's good news indeed for the people of the city of Toronto.

My supplementary question is also for the Minister of Tourism. I read with interest an

article on Friday, October 22, last Friday, and in the

article in the Toronto Star Mayor Lastman referred to the hotel industry as "corporate welfare bums." Does the mayor of Toronto really understand the challenges faced by the hotel industry in Toronto?

Hon Mr Jackson: I've called the mayor's office and I'm hoping that we can sit down with him and discuss a series of issues relative to the importance of the tourism industry to this great city of Toronto. It's important that he understand the contributions that every level of government can be making to improve tourism.

The fact is that this government, under Mike Harris, has increased spending on tourism marketing. It's more than doubled the amount of money in the city of Toronto in the last two years, to over $8.5 million. Yet the city of Toronto-and the mayor should know this-over the last seven years has reduced by over $3 million the budget that it transfers to Tourism Toronto. Each level of government has a responsibility to promote this important sector.

The fact is, not one new hotel has been built in the city of Toronto for the last decade.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Answer.

Hon Mr Jackson: Therefore, this government and I as minister are committed to expanding jobs in the tourism economy. I look forward to working with the mayor to make sure he understands that every level of government has a responsibility to promote tourism in Ontario.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Attorney General. On October 9, your bureaucratic staff told the Toronto Star that the government was abandoning its use of private collection agencies to collect outstanding support payments. That's because it's such a dismal failure. After one year of operation, less than 1% of money owed to recipients was even collected. Twenty-four hours later, in an effort, I believe, to do damage control, your political staff announced that in fact your ministry would continue using private collection agencies to collect arrears and that a second tender was already in the works.

What is also interesting is that the Family Responsibility Office apparently knows nothing about your latest plans, because in a memo we received last week the FRO told us: "As of the end of this month"-October-"the CAPP project is finished. All cases are being returned to the FRO office. All information obtained by the collection agencies will also be redirected to the FRO. The cases will be assigned to individual client service associates directly to continue enforcement."

Minister, which is it? Is this fiasco finally over or do you really intend to continue with round 2 of a pilot project that has been a complete disaster?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for her question about the Family Responsibility Office. It's important to realize, when you look at the work of the Family Responsibility Office, that since 1995 we're collecting more money than was ever collected by previous governments. This money's being collected, as you know, for spouses and families and children in Ontario who need this money, largely pursuant to court orders. Last year, there was a record $500 million disbursed to recipients. That's in the last fiscal year.

That's about $135 million more than in the last year of your government, in 1994-95. I say this to the honourable member so that we have in context the reality of the accomplishments that are happening with the Family Responsibility Office on behalf of spouses, on behalf of children in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Of course you're collecting more money, because you have more orders filed with the office than there's ever been before. But the fact remains that your much-touted private collection agency scheme managed to collect less than 1% of the almost half a billion dollars outstanding. Now you're going to embark on another private collection agency scheme to collect the arrears that have accumulated over the last three years, the three years during which that office has fallen into complete chaos and disarray.

Once again they don't answer the phone there. Try calling them. Once again they don't respond to e-mail, fax and correspondence. Claimants can't get through; their advocates can't get through. The solution-and please give us a time frame-is to make sure that office is adequately staffed by properly trained people. Three years later, it's still the biggest mess we've ever seen.

Hon Mr Flaherty: The amount collected by the Family Responsibility Office is greater than any other enforcement program in Canada. Let me tell you about the private collection section. The 12-month pilot program was an effort made to collect old debt. This was debt that was more than three years old. This was deemed to be uncollectable in fact. What has happened is that through this 12-month project, $8 million has either been collected or is on program to go to women and children and other spouses in Ontario. We're proud of that program. It works.

For that reason, we're expanding it. Now we're going to move forward so that debt that's six months or older will be sought to be collected through the private collection services. This is important; it brings money to children and spouses in Ontario.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. May I take this opportunity, on behalf of the residents of Toronto Centre-Rosedale, to congratulate on your election as Speaker. As your member, in the Speaker's apartment I do hope that you'll follow the practice of your predecessor and not get enumerated here.

I'd like to take this opportunity to ask a question of the Minister of Transportation. For the last six weeks I've been travelling around the greater Toronto area, speaking with mayors and regional chairs and commuters. They have a message for me that I'm unable to deliver because the language would be found unparliamentary.

The issue of the gridlock in the greater Toronto area is choking our economic capability. It's diminishing the quality of life for residents. Minister, what are you going to do to unlock the gridlock in the GTA?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): I thank the honourable member and congratulate him on his first question in the House.

Indeed, our government recognizes the importance of building infrastructure in this province. This is why every year since we have been the government we have spent record amounts of money on the provincial highways. This year is the highest budget in history, at close to $700 million. We will continue to strengthen the provincial highway system.

Mr Smitherman: I shouldn't be surprised that you hide behind the figures with respect to capital budget for roads and, of course, obfuscate around the impact that your lack of support for transit has had in the greater Toronto area.

The figures are clear. The startling number of reports that have been issued on this problem are there. The Greater Toronto Services Board is struggling to come up with solutions for a comprehensive and integrated transit system and transportation network.

What are you going to do to step in and show some leadership on this issue?

Hon Mr Turnbull: A strong, integrated system of transportation is indeed important. This is why we have realigned the responsibilities and created considerable tax room to allow municipalities to address that responsibility whilst we continue to strengthen the highways of this province. We will continue to strengthen the economy of this province by providing the highway system that is required, which your party, sir, did not do.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question. The member for Willowdale.

Applause.

HOMES FOR THE AGED

Mr David Young (Willowdale): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank my friends and colleagues.

Interjection.

Mr Young: I shall do just that, for the lovely greeting.

Mr Speaker, let me start by congratulating you, as have many before me, on your ascendancy to that honourable chair. I want to congratulate you not only on your success but also on the manner in which the campaign was run; and the honourable member who ran against you deserves a similar sort of congratulations. I think it's probably something we can all learn from.

My question is for the minister responsible for seniors'issues. Over the past few weeks we have seen several media reports, particularly in the Toronto area, regarding the state of various rest and retirement homes in the greater Toronto area. There have been numerous reports suggesting that more needs to be done.

I have visited many of these homes, not only during the election campaign that we recently came out of but also over the past number of months. I've also had the opportunity of meeting with various members of my constituency, including numerous seniors, and this issue has arisen.

Minister, it's not only important to the seniors of my riding but it's also important to the people of Willowdale and undoubtedly to the people of Ontario. It is for that reason that I rise today to ask you to share with us what the government of this province is doing to address this very important issue.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): I think it's incumbent on me to recognize that we have seven new members on this side of the House and we're pleased to have each and every one of them with us.

The government of Ontario is committed to working with the retirement home industry to ensure that a self-regulation framework is in effect. We have worked with the Ontario Residential Care Association for the past six months on this very important issue to seniors. We've also encouraged the Ontario Residential Care Association to consult with the Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation. This organization accredits hospitals, it accredits health care facilities across the province, and what we want to ensure is that they develop a framework in conjunction with ORCA to make sure that an accreditation process exists within the retirement home industry.

We've also ensured that we have legislation in place that allows municipalities to be able to tap into this, such as the Tenant Protection Act and the health promotion act.

Mr Young: I thank the minister. I point out that we in the constituency office in Willowdale have produced numerous materials to attempt to assist seniors with this and other challenges they may encounter. We've recently produced a seniors'guide that I think will be of great benefit. We did so after consultation with various stakeholders, we did so after we consulted with numerous agencies and we did so after we consulted with various municipalities.

My concern, though, regards recent measures taken by the city of Toronto, or lack thereof, and I would like your response, the response of this government to those measures. I want to know your comments, Minister, about how you feel that response from our municipal partners will address this very serious problem.

Hon Mrs Johns: I would just like to say a couple of things and move on to this subject. First of all, you may recognize that the NDP brought forward the Lightman commission in 1990 through 1995, which gave them some suggestions about to deal with this issue. They did nothing. The NDP put through a report in 1989 with respect to municipal regulation and they chose to do nothing to date, so the irony of this week should not escape any of us.

The other thing I would like to say is that I am encouraged by the city of Toronto. They have established a hotline for the retirement industry. They have also sent out health inspectors to many of these residences to ensure that people are being protected. Previous to the city being amalgamated we had a city of Toronto and Etobicoke and both of those had bylaws which were there to ensure that there was some safety and protection for people within retirement homes. I am encouraged by the city of Toronto. I intend to work with them so that they can enact their own laws, because we have other experience with that such as Ottawa-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. You've asked us to tighten our belts for the last five years, all the regular folks across Ontario. I'd like you to explain why today there are hundreds of workers with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission who are at this moment negotiating their contracts, regular folks, hundreds of them across Ontario heading towards a Sunday strike deadline. I'd like you to explain to us why last year you authorized a salary increase for the executive director of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of 35%. Why did you authorize an increase in salary from $126,000 to five bucks short of $170,000?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): As the member of the opposition would know, the contract she's talking about falls under the purview of my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

In regard to her second question, when we combined the two functions of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission-prior to that it was one function and now there's the merger, so some efficiencies have been found-it was recommended that you take a look at the market comparators, you take a look at the amount of work that's now required and you take a look at the scope of what this job entails.

I just want to remind the opposition and the people of Ontario that we have one of the most stringent regulatory climates in the world. We want to make sure, if gaming takes place in this province, that it's well regulated and conducted in an open and fair manner and that children aren't allowed into those premises. We want to make sure that if alcohol is served, it's not served to minors. This is what this man is responsible for.

Mrs Pupatello: So far in the last few months you've had a doubling of staff in the Premier's office. You've added six more cabinet ministers. That's six more limos and six more drivers. Not only has the executive director of the commission had an increase of 35%, but the director of licensing and registration has had a 25% increase in his salary. So never mind this change of jobs; you're increasing all the bosses'salaries.

My question for you is, why is it fair for you to have this kind of increase vetted through Management Board for you and your bosses but for the rest of the regular folks in Ontario it's a whole different rule?

Hon Mr Hodgson: When you're talking about salaries, the ministries come forward with proposals that are vetted by Management Board so there is control on the money. If you're looking-

Mrs Pupatello: Control. Give me your cheque book.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll put our record up against your free-spending ways any day of the week.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order, member for Windsor West.

Hon Mr Hodgson: This comes from a party that doubled spending in this province in their short term in office, which led to the abysmal record that we had to dig ourselves out of.

When specific proposals come forward, they're dealt with on a case-by-case basis in terms of the merit and the qualifications that are required for that job. It's compared to the market. When you're comparing other salary rates, they are compared to the market comparators. In a unionized environment, the union comes forward and management negotiates that. In non-unionized environments, the Civil Service Commission makes those recommendations, if they work for the government. When you work for agencies, boards and commissions, they have arm's-length boards that make those comparisons on what skill set they-

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. New question.

ABANDONED MINES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. As you know, when a mine's resources have been depleted, companies are required under the Mining Act to address environmental and health issues before closing a mine. These requirements have not always been in place, and as a result some of the older open pits and mine shafts may become public safety hazards.

Can you tell me what you, as the minister responsible for mining in Ontario, plan to do to address the public's concerns about abandoned mines?

Applause.

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Thank you very much to my colleagues for their kind commendations, and thanks also to the member for Simcoe North. It's an honour to receive his first question in the House, and I'm glad to have him here and congratulate him for his arrival here at the 37th assembly.

I've had the pleasure and the opportunity to travel to over 30 different communities as Minister of Northern Development and Mines to listen to northerners'views, and I want to add too, in my first question in the House, it's an honour as well to represent part of the province so vast, so beautiful, so proud. I'm very pleased and honoured to be the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

In fact, on a recent trip to Sudbury I had the pleasure of announcing a new program, a $27-million investment in rehabilitating abandoned mine sites across the province of Ontario, a very exciting program that's going to bring back land that was previously restricted from public use; some hazards in the ground, for example, that now can be brought back into recreational use for things like hiking and exploring activities, very popular in the north and the rest of Ontario.

Important, as well, in bringing back this land to productive use is the potential for further economic development, for commercial use or for further exploration and a mine in the future. It's a very important program for the north, and the $27 million is going to go a long way for economic growth in the north.

Mr Dunlop: I thank you for that explanation, Minister. As you know, the mining industry dates back well over a century in Ontario. There are a number of mines that ceased operating before strict provincial legislation was in place to regulate mine closures. As a result, there is a lot of work to be done on abandoned sites in many areas of the province. Given that this is a new program and not every site can be rehabilitated immediately, how will your ministry prioritize these sites to decide what locations will receive your immediate attention?

Hon Mr Hudak: I thank the member for the supplemental question. The member is right. In fact, for most of the history of the province there were no strict requirements for closing up abandoned mine sites, and as such this created some hazards across the province, significantly in northern Ontario.

The good news is that, under the Mike Harris government, now the Mining Act requires that each mining project must include a closure plan that will explain and justify how the land will be restored to its natural state upon completion of exploration and mining. The Harris government remains vigilant in ensuring that the Mining Act is enforced to protect our natural environment.

As the member mentioned, under the abandoned mines rehab program we have developed a set of criteria that will be applied to determine which mine sites are of the greatest risk to public health and safety. I want to ensure, as do my colleagues on this side of the House, that those most urgent needs are addressed first.

As I said in Sudbury, we're beginning work this year on 30 sites. That's the first in the four-year program, and there are many more good things to come in this file and in northern development.

VISITOR

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Briefly, I just want to take this opportunity to point out to the members in the House that we have a special guest today. Mr Jim Maloway, an NDP member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, is with us today.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): That is not a point of order.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): "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 driving licence fees; and

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

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

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

I will affix my signature to this petition, as I agree with its contents.

PARAMEDICS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Health this past spring amended O. Reg. 501/97 under the Ambulance Act so that paramedics are considered no longer qualified to do their job if they accumulate a minimum of six demerit points on their driving record;

"Whereas the amended regulation has resulted in at least one paramedic being fired"-that number is now six, two of them from my hometown of Hamilton-"from employment; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health's regulation is far more punitive and harsh than the Ministry of Transportation's, which monitors and enforces traffic safety through the Highway Traffic Act; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation mails out a notice to drivers at six to nine demerit points and suspends a person's driver's licence at 15 points for a 30-day period; and

"Whereas none of the other emergency services in Ontario, e.g. fire and police services, are held to the same standard or punished as harshly; and

"Whereas this amended regulation is not needed since other sections of the Ambulance Act protect the public against unsafe driving and/or criminal behaviour by paramedics (specifically O. Reg. 501/97,

part III,

section 6, subsections 8, 9 and 10); and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health actions are blatantly unjust and punitive, and they discriminate against paramedics;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To immediately eliminate any references to the accumulation of demerit points during employment from O. Reg. 501/97 under the Ambulance Act (specifically,

part III,

section 6, subsection 7), thereby allowing the Highway Traffic Act to apply to paramedics; and

"To order the immediate reinstatement of paramedics who have been unjustly fired under this regulation."

I continue to support these paramedics in their legitimate fight.

WATERLINE INSTALLATION

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I have a petition which reads as follows. It has been signed by approximately 200 to 300 people.

"We, the undersigned residents in the province of Ontario, draw the attention of the Parliament of Ontario to the following:

"Whereas the town of Bosanquet has billed the ratepayers for the incomplete waterline installation; and

"Whereas the waterline installation interruption is beyond the control of the ratepayers; and

"Whereas the engineering plans were completed for the projects in the spring of 1995, and the contracts were awarded and the waterline installation commenced June 1995; and

"Whereas the Ontario Clean Water Agency was responsible for the trunk line mains on Highway 21 and County Road 7; and

"Whereas all waterlines were to be installed within the width of the road allowances which are the responsibility of the Ontario government and Lambton county, respectively; and

"Whereas work stoppage occurred in November 1996 on Highway 21 between Outer Drive and Army Camp Road and continues to this present day because persons on the camp threatened the agency workers and the agency equipment;

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that the residences, businesses and commercial consumers that could benefit by this waterline are not liable for any interest and further costs as a result of the interrupted waterline installation."

MEDICAL CLINIC

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

"We, the people of Massey and surrounding area are proud of our medical clinic. We have appreciated the services of the Elliott Lake doctors for 27 years and wish it to continue."

This is signed by literally hundreds of my constituents from Massey, Lee Valley, Sagamok, Webbwood and other places.

BOTTLE RECYCLING

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I wish to table a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's from the students and teachers of St Mary's school, and it reads as follows:

"We are concerned about the future of Ontario's environment. We know that one-way plastic pop bottles and aluminum cans waste non-renewable resources and energy, create pollution, and 1.5 billion of them end up in landfill or as litter every year in Ontario.

"We know that recycling the other half billion of them is costing too much money and our blue box program is suffering as a result. To try to save their recycling programs, hundreds of municipalities representing over 80% of Ontario's population have passed council resolutions in support of a deposit-return system for beverage containers. We also know that a deposit-return system with refillable bottles works well all over the world and is possible for Ontario. We did it before, we can do it again.

"We ask you to support legislation to implement refillable bottles and a deposit-return system for Ontario."

HENLEY ROWING COURSE

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

"Whereas the Henley rowing course in St Catharines is an outstanding rowing facility which has for several decades been the site of hundreds of international rowing competitions;

"Whereas the World Rowing Championship has been held in St Catharines in 1970 and 1999 and has been declared an outstanding success on both occasions;

"Whereas the municipal, provincial and federal governments, along with generous private donors, invested several million dollars in the upgrading of the Henley rowing course to enable the 1999 World Rowing Championship to be held in St Catharines and that as a result the Henley is a first-class rowing facility;

"Whereas the organizing committee of the World Rowing Championship, the annual Royal Canadian Henley Regatta and other prestigious regattas has proven expertise to operate major international rowing competitions;

"Whereas all taxpayers in Ontario will be compelled to contribute to any financial assistance provided by the Ontario government for the Olympic bid for the city of Toronto;

"Whereas the creation of a new rowing facility outside of St Catharines for the Toronto Olympic bid would result in unnecessary expenditures of millions of dollars to duplicate the St Catharines rowing facility;

"Whereas the rowing facility for several recent Olympic Games has been located outside of the sponsoring and host city;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to persuade the Toronto Olympic bid committee to propose the Henley rowing course in St Catharines as a site of the rowing competition for the 2008 Olympic Games."

I affix my signature as I'm in full agreement, and I hand the petition to Lydia Parafianowicz, who is a page from the city of St Catharines.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I have a petition of 2,736 names distributed by a young student constituent of mine, Melisa Roselli. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas according to the Ministry of Transportation for the province of Ontario there is at least a 10-month backlog for persons wishing to take their road driving test. This situation is prevalent throughout the entire province. With Ontario's booming economy and the current provincial government objectives this is an intolerable situation. This backlog situation could be rectified simply by the hiring of further testing staff or the reopening of examination offices.

"We, the undersigned, petition to the Legislative Assembly as follows;

"That the government of Ontario hire additional Ministry of Transportation road testing staff and open further testing offices to eliminate or substantially reduce the current testing backlog within the province."

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): 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 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 geographic locations;

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

This is signed by thousands of people. Petitions keep coming in, and I'm proud to add my name to these petitions.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

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

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

"Whereas traffic levels on all sections of 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 licence fees; and

"Whereas Ontario road users pay 28 cents per litre of tax on gasoline, adding up to over $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 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."

I affix my signature.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas Mike Harris is cutting the heart out of many communities by closing hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario; and

"Whereas this massive number of school closings all at once will displace many children and put others on longer bus routes; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools and is now closing many classrooms completely; and

"Whereas Mike Harris is pitting parent against parent and community against community in the fight to save local schools; and

"Whereas parents and students in the city of Toronto and indeed many other communities across Ontario are calling on the government to stop closing so many of their schools;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows: That the government of Ontario stop closing local schools."

I'm affixing my signature to this document.

RELIGIOUS READINGS IN SCHOOLS

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it is with a great deal of pleasure that I read this.

"Whereas, to honour the children let us make a difference;

"We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned about the waning of morality, of respect for human feelings and life itself. Youth is where our future is.

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

"Collectively, we feel that some type of religious reading, such as the Lord's Prayer, be reinstated into the public school system. This would be a most important step towards `world healing.'"

I add my signature to this petition.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I have a petition signed by people from Frankford, Belleville, Picton and Carrying Place expressing concern about Highway 401 and expressing concern that the amount of money that governments collect for the sales tax and for tax on gasoline is not being reinvested.

As one who's had the privilege of working for the once proud Ministry of Transportation back in the old days when the government cared about our road system, I am pleased to add my signature to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 26, 1999, on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I very much appreciate the opportunity to respond to this government's speech from the throne because we believe that there was a lot in the throne speech that misses the point, and similarly, we believe that there are a lot of issues out there across Ontario that need to be dealt with that the throne speech tried to ignore.

Let me say at the outset that what the government tried to do in its throne speech was to essentially deflect attention away from what we regard as the major issues of the day. The government wants to try to pretend that it has an agenda for dealing with the causes of crime and dealing with crime.

The centre point of this so-called agenda is going out and attacking 300 or 400 squeegee kids, most of whom do their line of work in downtown Toronto. They try to play this up as the ultimate strategy to somehow take on the causes of crime and the manifestation of crime in our society.

It's a wonderful deflection technique, a wonderful deflection attempt, but at its heart it is phony. Let me tell you why it is phony. The government wants us to believe that it has put more police officers on the street, that it is putting more police officers on the street and that that is going to deal with this issue.

Thankfully, we have something called Statistics Canada which does, from time to time, reports and studies on these issues. Statistics Canada recently released a study looking at the number of police officers who are actually available. This is what they found in Ontario: In 1994, there were 20,737 police officers on the street in this province; in 1998, there were fewer police officers, 20,454 police officers in Ontario.

That number itself reveals something. When you add in the population increases in Ontario over that period of time, from 1994 to 1998, the actual deficit in police officers on the street is much larger. In fact, for the province just to get back to where it was in 1994, the province would have to go out and hire today-not next week, not next year; hire today-an additional 1,400 new police officers just to get back to where it was in 1994 in terms of the growth of population and the fact that a number of police officers have retired or gone on to other work.

Let me quote from some of the people who are speaking up out there. The Waterloo police chief says that the region of Waterloo needs 75 more police officers, minimum. He says: "Our police want to focus on community policing and on the serious crimes in our community. They want to be on the street, not shuffling paper or chasing after squeegee kids."

Let me say to the government, your strategy of going after squeegee kids, your attempt to say to people that you have a strategy to deal with the causes of crime and the manifestation of crime was a very nice deflection technique, but at its heart it is hollow and Statistics Canada has revealed for everyone exactly how hollow and how phony it is.

Let me move beyond the deflection and let me get down to some of the other issues that I believe are very important but which were not dealt with in the throne speech at all. As I say, the throne speech tries to deflect attention away from the continuing holes and cracks in our health care system and tries to deflect attention away from the government's direction in health care, which is to privatize and Americanize more and more of our health care delivery.

Where do we see evidence of the holes and cracks in the health care system? Anyone can look in their own community. In my constituency, the Lake of the Woods hospital in Kenora has had to essentially curtail the surgery which is ordinarily performed in the hospital because there is a chronic shortage of nurses, and they've had to close hospital beds now because of the shortage of nurses.

In another community, Rainy River, a small rural community, none of the nurses in that hospital have been able to take any of their accrued vacation. Why? A chronic shortage of nurses.

In another community-in fact, in a whole series of communities further north, the aboriginal communities-there is a chronic problem now in recruiting nurses. Virtually every nursing station in those communities is short nurses. This has dramatic impacts on the health care that people receive on a day-to-day basis and even more dramatic impacts in terms of public health, because public health nurses get switched into day-to-day acute care nursing.

One manifestation is the growing shortage of nurses across this province, and this government has no strategy to address it. In the part of Ontario that I represent, which takes in 40% of the geography of the province, this government has shut down the only two programs at the community level for the training of registered practical nurses, both in the community of Kenora and in the community of Fort Frances. It has shut them down at the very time when in community after community there is a chronic shortage of nurses developing.

I suspect I could go into almost any community in northern Ontario now, almost any community in rural Ontario, and in fact I could go into many small towns and small cities in Ontario, and find similar evidence of the nursing shortage.

What does the government have to say about the nursing shortage in its throne speech? It has absolutely nothing to say. It is as if this very pressing, very important issue which impacts the health care of all kinds of Ontarians didn't exist.

Then there's the issue of the physician shortage or, let's be more exact, the maldistribution of physicians within Ontario. The fact of the matter is that under this government, a problem which has existed in the past has grown much worse; that is, that physicians seem only to want to gravitate towards large cities like Toronto, like Hamilton, like London, like Ottawa, and that now even cities like Windsor, cities like Kitchener, cities like Peterborough and certainly all of the cities and all of the town in northern and rural Ontario are experiencing a physician shortage.

I have to give the government credit. They actually said they were going to do something about this. This is their answer, and I want to get it clearly on the record so that people understand how unacceptable this answer is: The government says that from now on they will begin a process of subsidizing the tuition fees of medical school students provided they sign a contract that when they finish they will go back to underserviced areas and will work as physicians there.

When I last checked, it takes about five years to get through medical school and to qualify for practice. The government's suggestion is that Ontarians will suffer through a continuing nursing shortage, a continuing maldistribution of physicians, and that five years down the road the government might be able to do something to address that.

I just want to point out-and I would have hoped the Minister of Health would have done this-that this strategy of subsidizing tuition fees with respect to medical school students has been tried before. The underserviced area program for many years had a bursary program. I don't think there's much difference between a bursary and subsidized tuition. The idea behind the bursary program was that if someone was going to school in one of the areas of health care that was identified as a shortage under the underserviced area program, they would receive a bursary.

The bursary program was tried many years ago. Unfortunately, it was found in the majority of cases not to be a success. Why? The people of the underserviced area program will tell you this: It was found not to be a success because when young people go into medical school or nursing school or, let's say, physiotherapy, many of them have not given any thought as to where they want to live, where they want to practise, whether or not they want to practise some kind of speciality and, most of all, what happens if they decide to get married, to have a spouse, and where their spouse wants to relocate or locate.

In fact, the underserviced area program found that in about 75% of the cases with the bursaries, people who had originally signed up said later on in their medical education, "I want out of this because I know now, because of changes in my life-I'm married, we have a family, I've decided on a specialty, I have something else that's attracting me elsewhere in the world-I don't want to do this. I want out."

The government's suggestion in terms of the physician shortage is to wait five years and hope that a strategy that hasn't worked in the past-there's been a failure in 75% of the situations in the past-somehow succeeds this time. That is the most charitable analysis you can give to this government's one-off to rural and northern Ontario and small-town and small-city Ontario.

It goes on, and I want to delineate all of these. The government does try to skip by, to ignore, the holes and cracks in the health care system. Even more, it tries to skip by the fact that its general direction for Ontario's health care system is to turn more and more of the health care system over to private corporations for private delivery.

Let's make no mistake about it: That is what is happening overwhelmingly in home care. Non-profit community organizations like the Victorian Order of Nurses and Red Cross are, in case after case, community after community, being given the back of the hand, and who is moving in? By and large, corporate health care providers, American corporate health care providers like the Olsten Corp, which have a dismal record in the United States.

Olsten, convicted of health care fraud in the United States, having to pay a fine in excess of $70 million because of that health care fraud in the United States, Olsten, which has a despicable record in the United States, is being invited into this province with open arms by this government.

However, it goes beyond that, because people need to look at what happens when you turn health care delivery over to private corporations. The former Conservative government in Manitoba-I say "former" because they are no more-went down this route about six years ago of privatizing and Americanizing home care. After they had gone down the road for about a year and a half, there was such public disaffection, such public unhappiness, that they brought in an independent auditor, an independent analysis, to look at what was happening in home care.

The analysis was done by a group of university professors I believe out of Carleton University. They went to Manitoba and sort of followed what was happening in home care. Again it was Olsten Corp, an American private health care provider, which was welcomed into Manitoba.

What they found was this: First of all, they found that Olsten was engaged in a strategy to force down the wages and working conditions of the people who were providing home care, so the workers in the system whom we depend on to deliver quality care were having their wages, their benefits and their working conditions lowered in a deliberate strategy. As a result, many of those registered nurses, registered practical nurses and physiotherapists were leaving the system. They simply said, "I am not going to work in a system which I believe doesn't have integrity any more." So workers were leaving, and they were leaving for good reason.

Then they looked at it from the perspective of patients, and more and more they were finding that patients were being rationed or limited in terms of the home care they were receiving. They were being told in some cases: "This service is no longer covered by the system. This particular procedure is no longer covered by Manitoba health insurance. If you want this, you'll have to purchase it privately." In other cases, patients were being told: "We are going to limit your visit to 10 minutes or 15 minutes a day, and if it takes longer, we're sorry; that's all I've got. I'm on a strict schedule. I can only do this for 15 minutes a day."

The conclusion: Patients were not benefiting from this private, corporate delivery of home care. In fact, the quality of care they were receiving and the hours of care, or the minutes of care, that they were receiving were all declining.

Who's winning? Well, Olsten was winning. Olsten had put in place a strategy to lower the wages, a strategy to ration the care, and Olsten was showing projections that two or three years out they were going to make increasing profit from the provision of health care. The health care workers lose, the nurses lose, the registered practical nurses lose, the patients lose, but the private corporate deliverer of home care goes to the bank.

I invite members of this government to read the Manitoba study. Since you're following down the same road as your colleagues in Manitoba, you might like to have the benefit of what that independent analysis, that independent audit found.

Let's face facts. Not only are you privatizing home care, but you are privatizing the delivery of long-term care as well. Anyone who reflects on the last four years will note that instead of taking what have been hospital facilities and converting them into long-term-care facilities, you've been closing the public facilities and then turning over the provision of long-term care to private corporate deliverers. Overwhelmingly, your strategy for long-term care is to award the contracts, to award in effect the monopoly to private corporate deliverers.

I invite anyone again to look at where that leads. I would suggest that we're already seeing where it leads if we look at recent news reports. The recent news reports are full of information where seniors are being neglected, where seniors are receiving an inadequate level of care, where seniors are being told, "If you want a higher level of care, you should fork money out of your pocket to pay for it." That is in the news everywhere and that is going to continue to grow.

Why? There's no secret here. Those private providers will want at least 15% off the top for their profit line. If they couldn't get 15% in providing long-term care, according to the rules of economics, they would leave the provision of health care and they would go into some other sector where they could realize a 15% return. They want to take 15% out of the budget.

If I can go back to Olsten for a minute, there's a very instructive example with Olsten. Just a little bit of research would show you that the chief operating officer of Olsten in the year 1997 received close to $2 million in salary and also close to $2 million in bonus. In a health care system, I know that money has effectively got to come out of the pockets of patients; it's got to come out of patient care. That's what happens. There's only so much budget for health care.

We hear from the Minister of Health of this province all the time that there is so much money available for health care and so hospitals, homes for the aged and home care providers have to make choices. If part of the model now is that the executive of Olsten has to be paid $4 million a year, that is coming out of patient care. No matter how you try to square the circle or cut the circle, that's what's happening. That is very much the history of health care in the United States.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Is that where your $2 million came from?

Mr Hampton: If the Premier wants to interject, I'd say to the Premier, look at any objective study that's been done of health care in the United States. It is the most expensive health care system in the world; it is one of the least efficient health care systems in the world; it leaves close to 100 million Americans either without health care coverage or with health care coverage that, when you read the exclusion clauses, the exemption clauses and the limitation clauses, doesn't amount to anything.

The American system of health care, provisioned by private corporations, is the least efficient, most expensive health care system in the world. I can't figure out for the life of me why your government wants to emulate it, why you want to adopt the private corporate provision of home care, of long-term care. As we watch over the next four years, more and more we will see the private corporate provision of ambulance services and, I suspect, also public health.

Day by day, week by week, whether through the back door or the side door, what you're doing is Americanizing and privatizing our health care system; and the result is going to be a more expensive health care system, a less efficient health care system, where all kinds of Ontarians are going to fall through the gaps.

I would have wished at least that the government would have identified for people what your agenda is, so that people could understand clearly that that is your agenda, and then we could get into that debate.

But it doesn't end there with the government's attempt to gloss over and ignore what's happening in health care. I looked for some mention in the throne speech of the government's intention to deal with the tragedy that is developing in terms of special education in our schools. I know, as I make my way from community to community across Ontario, that thousands of children who have special needs, who need special education, are falling through the holes and the cracks of the education system.

I also know that this government's agenda is, and will continue to be, not to provide any additional resources for special education, not to provide any additional resources for children with special needs. In fact, this government's agenda will be to flatline education budgets for elementary and secondary schools, and as the number of students in the system grows, it will continue to say to boards of education, "You decide where you're going to cut." The agenda will be to cut more from education, not to deal with the tragedy that's happening in special education across this province.

I looked for some indication in the throne speech that the government recognized that it is dramatically underinvesting in our colleges and universities. I looked for some indication that the government was prepared to make those strategic, all-important investments in post-secondary education-colleges and universities-as we move more and more into the knowledge economy, and once again it was empty.

This is the problem: Today in Canada, Ontario ranks last in terms of its per person investment in colleges and universities. Every other province in Canada invests more on a per person basis in colleges and universities than Ontario does. Poor provinces like Newfoundland, provinces like Saskatchewan which are facing a tremendous challenge in terms of their agricultural sector, poor provinces invest more in post-secondary education on a per person basis than Ontario does. That's the reality of the problem in Ontario.

If you put it in North American terms, only two states invest less in their colleges and universities in the United States than Ontario. That's Vermont and New Hampshire. Anyone who checks will find that Vermont and New Hampshire have historically and traditionally been the home of a large number of private universities and private colleges, so those two states believe that they'll leave it to those upper-echelon private institutions. But after that, if you compare Ontario to any other state in the United States, Ontario would rank behind.

Even states in the United States that have chronic literacy problems-Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and, for God's sake, even Arkansas-invest more in their colleges and universities on a per person basis than Ontario.

What is so dramatically wrong with this? We live in a knowledge economy. We all recognize that the most important thing we can do now in this knowledge economy is to invest to ensure that our people, Ontario people, have the best knowledge, the best set of skills, the best well-rounded ability than ever before. That will determine our success economically and socially more than ever. At the very time when it's more pressing than ever to make these investments, Ontario is de-investing.

Ontario is going in the opposite direction to virtually every other jurisdiction in North America as they try to find ways to increase their investment in college and university education. Once again, the government tried to ignore this issue completely in their throne speech.

But that's not the end of it; it goes on. The government tries to ignore the fact, the reality that Ontario now has the second-worst environmental record in North America. Only the state of Texas, a state where they brag, "Anything goes," has a worse environmental record than Ontario.

I won't recite for you all the United Nations reports which list,

chapter and verse, the fact that if you do not take care of your natural and physical environment, if you continue to degrade your natural and physical environment, it will come back to bite you big time in terms of health care bills; that the health of our people, the health of our communities is intimately linked to the standards that we set for the protection and the enhancement of our natural and physical environment. Most jurisdictions in the western world, in Europe and-yes, it's true-even the United States, are taking more and more steps to protect and improve their natural and physical environments.

What is happening in Ontario? If you look over the last four years, every year the government cut the investment that it was prepared to make in protecting and improving our environment. Thus, we have the second-worst environmental record in North America, and there was absolutely nothing in the throne speech to indicate that it's going to change or alter its direction in any way. We're going to continue to see the degradation of our environment with all the negative repercussions that will have for the health of our communities and most of all the health of our people.

I looked for some indication in the throne speech that the government had a strategy to deal with the growing daily crisis of homelessness and the lack of affordable housing. We first saw this crisis about three years ago with people who are hard to house, let's face it, people who perhaps have a problem of alcoholism or who have a drug addiction or perhaps are suffering from psychiatric disorders; we first saw that housing crisis in terms of that population, those most unfortunate people. The government I think tried to ignore it.

In its language, it tries to say people in that unfortunate situation are not deserving or somehow are the authors of their own fate. So the government tried to ignore the problem of homelessness at that time.

What we saw this fall is that now university and college students who come to places like the University of Waterloo or Sir Wilfrid Laurier University or McMaster or any of the Toronto colleges or universities cannot find a decent place to live in order that they can pursue their education.

We also know-and all it takes is a cursory call to Statistics Canada who keeps track of this-that rents are increasing in major Ontario cities at an astronomical level since the government has essentially cut the heart out of rent controls through its so-called Tenant Protection Act. Landlords are finding a variety of ways to dramatically increase the rent. But we know from similar work that Statistics Canada has done that lower-income families and modest-income families are not enjoying a similar increase in their wages, in their income.

So we are seeing more and more families out on the street and that problem is going to continue. It is indeed a crisis that's already happening and it's going to get worse.

What is so bad about this is, I don't know of anyone who can organize their life for work or education or training if they don't have a roof over their head. If you don't have a roof over your head, you don't have an address. If you don't have a roof over your head, you don't have a phone. If you don't have a roof over your head, it's very difficult just to organize any kind of schedule, never mind a work

schedule or an education schedule.

The government, by ignoring this problem, seems to be saying it is OK to exclude from Ontario society a growing number of people, that it is OK to exclude them from the economy, it is OK to exclude them from society, to exclude them from the community in general.

There may be some people in Ontario who say, "I'm not too concerned about this." But I just want to again put on the table for public discussion what happens when people are homeless. When people are homeless they become more and more susceptible to very serious chronic diseases.

A public health nurse will tell you that in Toronto 36% of the people who are homeless-I'm not just talking here about single men; I'm talking about families, I'm talking about young people who are trying to find a job-now carry the tuberculosis bacteria. They may not manifest tuberculosis yet, but they carry the bacteria and it is only a matter of time before tuberculosis becomes a very serious problem.

Many people in Ontario perhaps didn't live through the 1940s or 1950s or early 1960s. Many people in Ontario perhaps do not know the history of how much money had to be expended out of the health care budget to get control of tuberculosis and chronic diseases once they found a hold in the population. Tens of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars had to be expended.

Yet the government here is allowing the very sort of scenario to be created once again which is going to create that problem and lead again to a very serious public health problem which will not respect income categories, will not respect what neighbourhood we live in and will not respect whether we are young or old. Once something like tuberculosis takes hold, it has an incredible capacity to travel. Government seems not to care one whit about this problem.

Just to show how out of step the government is with many other jurisdictions, I want to point out that right now in the large cities in the United States, the federal government is making a consistent and persistent attempt to address some of these problems because they know how serious they are. In fact, as Ontario increasingly steps away from its cities, increasingly abandons its cities, whether in terms of affordable housing or public health or ambulance services, or in terms of public transit or simply the building of roads, Ontario stands back and says, "You're on your own," in the United States they're headed in the opposite direction.

Why? First of all, just let me tell you what they're doing. Let's take Toronto, for example. This, by the way, comes out of the Globe and Mail, not an NDP publication. This is the right-of-centre Toronto Globe and Mail. It points out:

"In the 1970s, Toronto was the envy of large US cities because it successfully put neighbourhoods before expressways. Now bonus points for quality of urban life go south of the border. The explanation is simple: Three levels of government in the United States recognize that cities are the engines driving regional and sometimes national economies and fund them accordingly." They realize that "Every dollar spent on infrastructure-whether it is roads, public housing or social services-more than pays the investment in higher productivity.

"Once reviled by Jane Jacobs in the Life and Death of Great American Cities, the United States has profited from her teachings. While the provincial and federal governments in Canada have" allowed cities like Toronto to "languish on its laurels as a world-class city, their US counterparts are rebuilding and reinvesting to further their regional and national self-interest. That's another Jacobs maxim: Organisms will co-operate, if only to compete more effectively.

"The largest infrastructure investment in the United States is the six-year, $218-billion Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.... In addition to roads and transit, the US federal government also provides funding for other urban regeneration programs, including the Community Development Block Grant ... the Home Investment Partnership Program ... and the Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing Program...."

They've been there. They recognize that if they're going to be economically successful they have to make those investments in public health, they have to make those investments in the education of the population, they have to make those investments in public infrastructure and housing which allow people to take

part in the economy, which allow people to gain the skills that are more and more necessary in that increasingly complex society and to also have the public infrastructure to allow them to get to work, to get home from work and to take

part in what is, we all agree, more complex.

But what is happening here in Ontario? The reverse. I've said this before; I will say it again. What we see in Ontario is a government that is underinvesting in the strategic investments in education, the strategic investments in health and in public health, underinvesting in the protection of the environment and the enhancement of the environment, underinvesting in the necessary public infrastructure which makes us all more economically and socially productive.

It is underinvesting in all those things because it has to siphon away the money to finance their much-ballyhooed tax cut, a tax cut which, I invite people to sit down and analyze, at the end of the day only benefits the most well-off among us.

I was hoping that we would see somewhere in the speech from the throne an indication that the government wants to correct that balance somewhat. But what I saw was no indication that you want to correct that balance; in fact, you're going to distort that balance even more.

That brings me to the other things that were not in the throne speech which I think need to be addressed. The government had very little to say about child poverty, almost nothing to say about child poverty, despite the fact that child poverty today in Ontario is at a greater level than ever before and despite the fact that the growth in child poverty is faster in Ontario than in any other province in Canada.

At a time when Premier Harris boasts that we're living in economic prosperity-and it's not just Premier Harris-at a time when Jean Chrétien boasts that we're living in economic prosperity, the reality is that more children in this province are living in poverty and the growth rate of child poverty is greater here than in any other jurisdiction.

Something is wrong with this equation; something is very wrong with this equation. Anyone who has looked at juvenile crime, anyone who has looked at the success of children in school and their success later on in life will tell you that an impoverished childhood is not a good predictor of success. In fact, a chronic impoverished childhood is a predictor of leaving school early, dropping out of school, involvement in crime and, later, unemployment. Again, I looked for something in the throne speech which indicated that the government at least recognized this problem and at least had an idea of what must be done to start to wrestle with it. But again, the problem was completely ignored.

Finally, I want to talk just a bit about the most vulnerable and in many cases the most disadvantaged people in this province: people who are disabled, people who through no fault of their own are dealing with a variety of disabilities. We know the history of this government. This government promised, in 1994 and 1995, to bring in a disabilities act which would restore some fairness and would address the imbalances that disabled people face. What disabled people got instead of legislation to address this was an awful slap in the face.

It was a three-page piece of wordage that is frankly shameful-shameful in the way that it cynically treats some of the most disadvantaged people in our society. We have seen since then the government continue in this shameful strategy.

I would say that if the Premier is right that we are indeed living in an economic boom, then for God's sake, we should have the decency as a society to be able to reach out to the most disadvantaged people in our community, the people who through no fault of their own are not in every way able to participate in our economy and in our society, and we should reach out with an attitude and with a direction that we are going to right those wrongs and we are going to bring some balance and we are going to recognize the dignity that they have in their lives and that they ought to be recognized as having.

What did I see in the throne speech? The continuation of the shameful strategy we've seen before. I say to the government, I think you're making a huge mistake here. I hesitate to use this analogy, but I think in a crude sort of way it is the analogy: You went out and made statements, not so many months ago, that you would never under any circumstances do away with the bear hunt, and then somebody brought some polling to you which showed that not only were you saying something that was quite unpopular but you were inflaming the issue, and as an effort in political damage control you had to reverse your position, with much embarrassment to the Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier.

Recognize that the vast majority of people in Ontario believe, are convinced, that we need to address the inequalities, the unfairness, that exist in the lives of disabled Ontarians. They want your government to move forward, and they want you to move forward not in a half-hearted way, not in a half-step, but in a bold way. I looked for some indication of that in the throne speech, and unfortunately found none.

I want to refer to some other figures. They happen to be in the media today. This is October 27, Canada NewsWire, and it's titled, "Average Compensation for Toronto Chief Executive Officers in 1999 was $353,900," and it goes on to point out, "Over 80% of all executives received an increase to their base salaries of 4% or more, with the highest increase of 5.8% awarded to chief financial officers." Imagine that: You've got an income of $354,000 a year, and then you get a 4% or 5% increase on top of that.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Nice work if you can get it.

Mr Hampton: As my colleague from Welland-Thorold says, "Nice work if you can get it."

Let me just contrast what's happening to all those very hard-working women and men who work for the minimum wage. While chief executive officers, who already have an income of $354,000 a year in the greater Toronto area, got an increase of 4%, all of those people, women and men, mostly women, who work for the minimum wage, have had their wages frozen now for almost five years. For five years they haven't had a pay increase.

As this government has heaped on user fee and user fee, as this government has heaped on more and more copayment fees, administrative fees, the lowest-paid people in this province have not had a wage increase in almost five years.

What's in this story? Well, I invite members of the government to look at the research done by the Centre for Social Justice. It's a group of economists who record not only how the macro-economy is doing, but they also look at how it's being distributed. What they point out is that persistently and consistently under your government, those who are well-off, like these greater Toronto area CEOs, are doing better than ever, have higher incomes than ever.

Those people who have lower incomes and modest-income families in fact are seeing their take-home income drop, in part because they haven't received a pay raise, but also in part because they're the people being hit by the $1,500-a-year increase in tuition fees for college and university, the copayment fees for prescription medicine, the copayment fees to use a public library, to use a recreation centre-all of those things. They're the people who are being hit.

So in fact, at the end of the day, at the end of the year, modest- and middle-income families are worse off in your Ontario, while these CEOs are doing better and better.

The research also shows something else. The so-called middle class, middle-income families are in fact declining. The percentage of families in Ontario that can be classified as middle income-as I understand it, the middle-income category is somewhere between $30,000 and about $65,000-is declining under your government. It has gone from about 68% of families down to about 43% of families. That's what's happening.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): They're all getting richer.

Mr Hampton: The Premier says they're all getting richer. Premier, as is usual with your comments, you're about one-tenth correct. Some of them have gotten wealthier. Nine-tenths of them, in fact, are seeing their incomes decline. They're equally being hit by the $1,500-a-year increase in tuition fees, the increase in health care user fees, the increase in municipal taxes, the increase in library user fees and recreation user fees. You may be able to keep the lid on this for a while, but let's face political experience: After a certain period of time people will start to realize that.

I just want to draw reference to something else the government has said. The government has introduced its legislation, and they referred in the throne speech to their ta