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

May 10, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-May-10 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 10 May 2001 Jeudi 10 mai 2001

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO NATURAL

HERITAGE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LE PATRIMOINE NATUREL

DE L'ONTARIO

WORKFARE

ONTARIO NATURAL

HERITAGE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LE PATRIMOINE NATUREL

DE L'ONTARIO

WORKFARE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HUMBER RIVER REGIONAL HOSPITAL

JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

BUDGET

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

HERB CARNEGIE

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

LARISSA VINGILIS-JAREMKO

BUDGET

BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CREUTZFELDT-JAKOB DISEASE

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CENTRAL NORTH

CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

WEST NILE VIRUS

VISITORS

WATER QUALITY

VISITOR

WORKFARE

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE BOARD

HOSPITAL FUNDING

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

PROTECTION OF MINORS

BEAR HUNTING

DIABETES TREATMENT

SALE OF SCHOOLS

DIABETES TREATMENT

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

PROTECTION OF MINORS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

DIABETES TREATMENT

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

PROTECTION OF MINORS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2001 ONTARIO BUDGET

Thursday 10 May 2001 Jeudi 10 mai 2001

The House met at 1004.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO NATURAL

HERITAGE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LE PATRIMOINE NATUREL

DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Gilchrist moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 17,

An Act to ensure responsible and acceptable development and to protect the natural heritage of the Province of Ontario / Projet de loi 17, Loi visant

à assurer l'aménagement judicieux et acceptable du territoire et à protéger le patrimoine naturel de la province de l'Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson) According to the standing orders, you have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Thank you very much. This act is a comprehensive vision of how we can better balance the development

needs and the environmental requirements in the province of Ontario. It follows on a crusade that I guess began in earnest on Rouge Park Day, July 20, 1999, when as the Minister of Municipal

Affairs and Housing I indicated that I was sympathetic to the appeal to apply a minister's zoning order to the entire Oak Ridges moraine, pending a review of the opportunities to determine which

portions of the moraine are worthy of long-term environmental protection.

There were some interesting developments that followed on that announcement, and I won't dwell on them in this House, except to say that a developer who had a

vested interest decided that something other than the normal legislative process was the way to change government policy. To say that it has backfired would be an understatement.

The good news is that what had been a very well kept secret, the Oak Ridges moraine and what it meant to the quality of life, not just in Toronto but in

communities running 160 kilometres in both directions east and west of the city, is now known to literally millions of people in Ontario. The group, the long-term stewards of the campaign to save

the Oak Ridges moraine, typically would have 30 or 40 people showing up to meetings. We saw those numbers swell to 3,000 people showing up at Richmond Hill council and equal numbers indicating

their displeasure with certain planning decisions that were made by York region as well.

To their credit, we saw the politicians in Richmond Hill reverse their previous approvals and side with the environmentalists, and perhaps go beyond what was

asked of them, determining that it was more appropriate to try and find a balance than simply to allow the paving over of one of the most environmentally sensitive portions of this land form.

We then saw York region follow a similar tack and, again, to their credit, actually write a cheque to help support the folks who are fighting the good fight at

the Ontario Municipal Board.

I also want to pay credit to the city of Toronto politicians who, when denied standing at the Ontario Municipal Board, wrote a cheque in the amount of a million

dollars to ensure that the most up-to-date science and best experts could be applied to the determination, before the Ontario Municipal Board, of the merits of a specific case in Richmond Hill.

I don't want to dwell, though, on that one planning issue, because the Oak Ridges moraine is far broader than that. As I mentioned, it runs for 160 kilometres,

from the Niagara Escarpment out to Northumberland. It is the source of the headwaters of 31 different rivers and streams. It is the home of untold species of fish, flora and fauna and, I think more

than anything else, it affords us an opportunity to create a greenbelt, a pause, in the unfettered growth of the city of Toronto. It is a shame that what had stood as the greenbelt at Steeles

Avenue was eliminated by a previous government. In his wisdom, Bill Davis, back in the early 1970s, had foreseen the need to encourage urban intensification and discourage urban sprawl, the very

issue that faces us here today.

I want it clearly on the record that I am not opposed to development. I am not ignorant of the fact that as long as the federal government is allowing a quarter

of a million new people to come into our country every year, and 70% of them make the wise decision to move to the greater Toronto area, obviously there will have to be accommodation built for

them. That has spurred an awful lot of the growth we have seen over the last 20 years in the Toronto region.

But, having said that, there has ceased to be the kind of balance that once existed. My bill, starting with the protections on the moraine, seeks to restore that

balance. Any area that the Ministry of Natural Resources determines to be an area of natural and scientific interest -- a wetland, a bog, the headwaters of a river -- should be protected from any

development for all time. This is not a quick fix. This is not something that's politically expedient. This is setting forth a vision of what we think our province should look like 50, 100, 500

years from now.

I am immensely grateful and proud that the cabinet and our government have dedicated more land to parkland in this province than any government in any

jurisdiction in the history of the world. In our own community we have created, in the form of the Rouge park, the world's largest park in an urban setting. It is a colossal achievement and,

according to Glenn De Baeremaeker, the president of Save the Rouge Valley System and one of the long-time champions of the need to protect the Rouge, the government has deeded over, at today's

value, over $1 billion worth of land in the creation of that park. The crusade will continue. But this struck me as highly ironic: having made the $1-billion investment, having protected from the

headwaters right down to Lake Ontario one of the largest rivers in the province and one of the most significant in the GTA, it made no sense to then lose the source of those waters to rampant

development.

Clearly, the people who have made the decision to move to the Toronto area have done so recognizing the myriad of features we are blessed with. One of those is

certainly having the greenest major city in the world. It is critically important that we build on our past successes in defending the environment and make a bold statement of what can be done on

the Oak Ridges moraine, to find that balance on the lands that are environmentally significant. They must be protected for all time. Even on the other lands -- tablelands, scrub land that isn't

good for growing much more than houses on -- we still need to make sure that the density and the development applications that are brought forward are done in a way that is very sensitive to the

greater environmental needs in that region.

I don't want to leave aside the fact that my bill, though, goes well beyond the Oak Ridges moraine.

Section 4 of the act requires that there be a plan applied

within 120 days, a long-term vision on the Oak Ridges moraine. The only change I made in this bill from the one I tabled in the last session is that in the lead-up, in that first 120 days, any

development application that's outstanding will be submitted to a very critical and scientific appraisal, and the merits of natural and scientific interests will be applied. But after the 120 days,

there will be an absolute plan that will protect the entire moraine.

The bill also amends the Conservation Land Act by prohibiting any authority -- any municipality or anyone else -- from permitting development on any other area

of natural or scientific interest or on any wetlands in southern Ontario with an area greater than two hectares.

I want it clearly on the record: some of my colleagues have told me that in their municipality they've had a problem with the definition of areas of natural and

scientific interest, and I want it very clearly understood that I would expect the MNR to define those standards to the point that all reasonable people agree on what does or does not qualify as an

ANSI before this bill is applied.

Sections 6 and 7 of the bill allow for new development charges in areas of growth to pay for parkland acquisition. But on the flip side, in those parts of our

province where development has already occurred once, an old factory existed and has since been torn down, no municipality would be allowed to put up a barrier to redevelopment of brownfield sites

by applying development charges again. The streets are there, the schools are there, the sidewalks are there; there is no compelling argument to penalize those folks who would try and redevelop

what are otherwise idle lands.

There are a number of other incidental changes that are made to the Ontario Municipal Board Act.

The Planning Act is also changed so that, again turning back the clock to a previous government, politicians will once again be accountable for the major

planning decisions in Ontario. You would be able to make an appeal to cabinet if you disagreed with the results of an OMB hearing -- only on significant issues. We clearly understand that we don't

expect the cabinet to be deciding minor severances. But on the big issues facing the future of the environment in Ontario, finding that balance between development and growth and the protection of

our communities and our environment, we believe it is appropriate for politicians to be accountable. This bill restores that accountability. This bill restores that protection.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on this bill. I encouraged the member to bring it forward, having seen

his last bill, because I thought his last bill was a good step forward on the moraine. I must say I was surprised, because I had been led to believe that the bill was essentially the same as the

one Mr Gilchrist introduced a year ago.

There's one very dramatic change in the bill. Last year when Mr Gilchrist introduced his bill, the basic theme of it was the freeze on development on the Oak

Ridges moraine. The lead paragraph on his last bill was that the bill, if passed, would have a one-year freeze: "This bill is a comprehensive bill designed to freeze all new development on the

moraine." In the questions and answers: "If passed, it calls for an immediate freeze on all development."

The centrepiece of the last bill was a freeze on development, pending the development of a plan. There's quite a fundamental change in this bill today. It does

not call for that freeze any longer. I find that unfortunate, because I assumed when Mr Gilchrist introduced his bill last year that that was fundamental to it: in order to get the proper planning

done on the moraine, there needed to be a freeze on development. The bill today has changed very dramatically and that freeze no longer applies. It says, "Development on the moraine must consider

whether the areas of land and water affected by the development are areas of natural and scientific interest as defined in the Conservation Land Act."

I gather that the government wanted this bill changed so that it wouldn't interfere with development on the moraine, but it fairly fundamentally changes the

bill. While there's much in the bill to commend it, the centrepiece of it, which was, "Let's stop approving development on the moraine until we get a comprehensive plan," is gone.

I salute those people involved in the moraine. I was very much involved in the Rouge park. There was a community group that really did the work. They exist till

this day. It happened that we were in government -- the Liberal Party was in government in the late 1980s -- and we had the opportunity to listen to the save-the-Rouge group, and I remember very

well the day that David Peterson announced the establishment of the Rouge park. It was a proud day for Ontario. It was in 1990 that he announced the largest urban park, and today that lives on. It

proved to me that a community group like the save-the-Rouge group, in this case save-the-Oak-Ridges-moraine group, can achieve much with truth on their side and hard work.

While I certainly will be supporting this bill, I must say to the member how surprised I was, when I'd been told the bill was the same, to find that the

centrepiece is gone. The thing that a year ago he was most proud of, which was the freeze on development, is no longer there. I don't know the reason for the change, but it's quite fundamental. I

think those who are fighting for the Oak Ridges moraine will recognize that what they thought was coming forward from the member has changed quite fundamentally.

As I say, last year I read Mr Gilchrist's release carefully and said I was supportive of it. As soon as I found that he might have a chance to reintroduce it, I

thought I'd be supportive of it again. Then, as I examined it, I found that what was the most important part of the bill last year -- the freeze to force a comprehensive plan development -- gone,

disappeared. I understand the pressure that might come and the reasons for that but, as I say, it surprised me.

My colleague Mr Colle, the member for Eglinton-Lawrence, has a well-thought-out bill on the Oak Ridges moraine that would dramatically advance the Oak Ridges

moraine. Ms Churley from the NDP also has a bill that would advance it. This is our opportunity to save a precious resource in the province of Ontario. Mr Gilchrist's bill, substantially watered

down, is a step forward. Mr Colle's and Ms Churley's bills would be a really substantive step forward.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to stand today to speak on Bill 17,

An Act to ensure responsible and acceptable development and

to protect the natural heritage of the province of Ontario. I thank the member for Scarborough East for bringing forth this private member's bill which draws attention to this very significant area

of our province.

The province has initiated, with former Minister of Municipal Affairs Tony Clement and current Minister of Municipal Affairs Hodgson, the Smart Growth initiative

in our province. I'd like to make a few points on Smart Growth and then talk a little about the moraine that affects my riding.

If we want to talk about protecting green spaces, I think we should talk about protecting them in a province-wide solution as well. That's why we have initiated

Smart Growth. Municipalities across Ontario are faced with growth pressures. We see that in almost every urban area of the province, particularly those that have a significant amount of sewer and

water capacity. What we need to do is give municipalities the tools to help them plan their growth very smartly and wisely.

For example, our brownfield proposal will allow for the redevelopment of abandoned sites that right now are just eyesores in their communities. I think that's a

very significant move forward. Developers and municipalities in the province will be able to work together to redevelop these sites in a safe, responsible and productive manner. More importantly,

it will ease the pressure of development on our natural green spaces, which is exactly what all the opposition parties support.

Growth is not going away. The challenge is to deal with it smartly, respecting the need for development and the need to preserve our green spaces, not just for

the Oak Ridges moraine but for the entire province.

I'd like to speak a little on a moraine in my riding that has not really become contentious but is an area of great importance to the residents, particularly the

area of Oro-Medonte. The Oro moraine is between the city of Orillia and the city of Barrie. It's about 20 miles long and roughly eight to 10 miles wide in different areas. There is a huge resource

of gravel and aggregate in this particular area, and we see pressures on a continual basis by the gravel operators, aggregate producers, wanting to take more and more applications for the removal

of aggregate.

As well, it's an area that has tremendous growth pressures from both the city of Barrie and the city of Orillia, because it's an area of the province that many

people are moving to. They're moving out of the GTA. They want to move into an area they can basically retire to. They want to build in these beautiful areas. You've seen areas such as Hardwood

Hills, Horseshoe Valley and the Oro hills. There's tremendous pressure in those areas. As well, we are having a lot of pressures from people who want to develop golf courses in these areas.

All these pressures involve the removal of groundwater and/or aggregate. I've met a lot, over the last year and a half, with people in the area who have a strong

concern about protection, the same as the people in the Oak Ridges moraine would like to see the protection of that.

Earlier this spring, I hosted a one-day symposium. I had a number of speakers come in to speak on the value of the moraine. We had people from OMAFRA and people

from conservation authorities. We sat around together and took a proactive approach on what types of changes would have to be made to protect this very valuable asset in Simcoe county. There's

certainly a concern that too much water is being removed. Different speakers talked about plans they had to work with the Minister of the Environment to see additional rules or regulations that

would monitor more closely the amount of water that is removed.

I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words this morning. I thank Mr Gilchrist for bringing forth this bill. I think it is something that deserves a lot of

debate, on any moraine across the province or any significant area we have in the province. I know the general feeling of people in Ontario is that we want to have a clean, safe environment and a

province that is able to develop properly over many generations.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I applaud the member for bringing this bill forward. I told him when he introduced it the last time that I

would support this bill. As my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt said, we are disappointed that the bill has been weakened dramatically. As you know, I have introduced three bills asking for the

protection of the Oak Ridges moraine.

Fundamentally, Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals believe there should be an immediate freeze on all development on the moraine until a plan is put in place. That

is the fundamental difference; that's what my bill has. Then there would be a protective commission, essentially mirroring the Niagara Escarpment Commission, which has been a great success. I know

that in this bill -- it's interesting, and I applaud him for it -- the member has put in a planning board that would be protective.

Again, as far as the bill goes, we are supportive. We'd like to see any initiative, Mr Speaker, because, as you know, up to this point, this government in its

seventh year has done nothing but allow sprawl on the moraine. That's why we feel immediate protection is necessary.

If you look across the Oak Ridges moraine, there are threatened developments that are going to destroy this ecological masterpiece from Orangeville to Caledon

East, Bolton, King township, Snowball, Richmond Hill, Lake Wilcox, Aurora, Queensville, Vandorf, Gormley, Musselman Lake, Ballantrae, Stouffville, Gan Eden, Goodwood and Haldimand township. From

east to west across this beautiful bioregion, there is a threat of uncontrolled development. Mr Speaker, you can have development, but don't have it where there's prime farmland that is being paved

over or where there are ecologically sensitive wetlands, nature preserves or water recharge areas.

On Monday, I guess, I went to a hearing of the Ontario Municipal Board, where one, lone person is taking on 10 development lawyers who are trying to pave over

and develop the East Aurora wetlands complex. Ironically enough, that one person, David Tomlinson, is there by himself because the Ministry of Natural Resources will not enforce its own law that

requires a 120-metre setback from a wetland. The developer wants to build houses right on the wetland and destroy this wetland. That's why we need a freeze. Up at the OMB right now, as we speak,

there is no provincial ministry official helping David Tomlinson, the local resident. That's why we need this freeze immediately.

Look what's happening right now in the Duffins Creek area, Boxgrove. You're going to hear a lot more about Boxgrove in the weeks to come. That's by Brock Road

and Duffins Creek on the edge of the Rouge River. Right now, this government, through the Ontario Realty Corp, is selling off prime agricultural land and selling off environmentally sensitive lands

to developers as we speak. That should be frozen and halted immediately. The federal government donated hundreds of acres of land to extend the Rouge Valley Park. This government has two massive

tracts of land near Boxgrove -- the north Pickering lands, the agricultural preserve lands -- that they are readying for development. That's why we need the freeze and we need the protections

immediately.

This bill will take too long, because we've seen the record of the government, which essentially has looked the other way. In fact, Karen Clark of the Canadiam

Environmental Law Association categorically states, "This government has made 20 surgical hits that took all the legislative protection that would have saved the Oak Ridges moraine from the

Planning Act, from the Environmental Assessment Act and from the Environmental Protection Act." That's what this government did. It basically, over the last six years, has surgically decimated

protection for the moraine and other sensitive environmental lands like it. So its record is horrific.

It has changed the Planning Act, where developers or municipal councils don't even have to obey provincial planning law. All they have to do is basically look at

it. There is no enforcement where developers have to even -- they've weakened the provincial planning laws dramatically, as the Canadian Environmental Law Association has said.

That's why we have the threat to the moraine, because we have a government that's allowed the OMB to be the de facto planning arm of government. As you know, Mr

Speaker, some people call it the Ontario development board. It just develops lands on sensitive areas, where lawyers and consultants are making a fortune at the expense of local residents. That's

what this government has allowed. It has allowed the OMB to do its planning for it. That's why in Richmond Hill we are there at the OMB. That's why in Aurora we're at the OMB. In Uxbridge we're at

the OMB. In King City, wherever you go, the OMB is doing the government's work. The OMB should not be doing the government's work. In fact, if you really want to do something significant, you would

basically disallow private developers from extending urban boundaries into the Oak Ridges moraine and not allow them to appeal that to the OMB and not overrule the citizens and local councils.

Instead, they are trying to extend urban boundaries all across the GTA, and they pay their big lawyers and consultants and they win at the OMB every time.

That's what would stop this development on the precious Oak Ridges moraine, but the government has sat on its hands for six years now, going into seven, and has

done nothing but basically promote sprawl. That's why in my bill and on the Liberal side, we have said that not only do we have to put in a freeze to protect this wonderful masterpiece from Cobourg

to Caledon, but we should promote this area. Sometimes we're in too much of a hurry to stop and smell the roses, but if you go through the area, as I have, on foot, on bicycle, by car, by canoe,

you can see there are beautiful places that need promotion from this government. Put it in the tourist guidebooks. Enhance ecotourism; enhance small business in the moraine. That's why the Liberals

and my bill promote that.

For instance, you can go trout fishing in Duffins Creek. Promote that. You can walk the Ganaraska Trail. You can walk the Ganaraska forest. You can walk the Oak

Ridges moraine trail. You can go through the Bruce Trail and see beautiful Port Perry on the edge of the moraine, a wonderful small community, or Uxbridge, which is being threatened by this

government, which has a huge development threatening it. Beautiful Goodwood: visit the Secord Pet Cemetery in Goodwood, which is an amazing little niche there in the middle of the Goodwood forest.

Visit the Pine Farms orchard in King City, where you can pick apples with your children. Stop and pick the apples in King City.

One of the most beautiful spots, I think, in southern Ontario is Belfountain. Belfountain is an amazing little village which houses the Caledon Ski Club. It is a

spectacular spot on the moraine. I encourage people to walk up there, hike up there, ski in the wintertime. This government should be promoting these areas, should be protecting them and not

allowing gravel pits across the moraine, not allowing roads to cut through this beautiful area.

This area, the Oak Ridges moraine, is not distant from us. We are all connected. Whether you live, as I live, at the bottom of the Don River or whether you live

at the mouth of the Don, the source of the Humber or on the shores of Lake Ontario, the Oak Ridges moraine connects us all. That's why whether you live in Toronto or whether you live in Tottenham,

this protection will save us all and save a legacy for our children, not only water but wildlife, and stop this promotion of sprawl for sprawl's sake.

Let growth take place, but let it take place within the rules. Right now, if you go from stem to stern, whether you go to Box Grove or whether you go to

Belfountain, there are no provincial rules to protect farmland; there are no provincial rules to protect these beautiful parts of this province. That's why overwhelmingly people have told me they

support my bill, they support my efforts, and they want this government to do something. So the true test of this bill will be whether this government gets this bill and puts it into some dark hole

or whether it will put a freeze on development, and whether or not this government will enforce its own provincial laws.

We've been told before and we were promised last time that Ms Churley's bill and my bill would go together with a government bill -- a private member's bill --

to protect the moraine. If these three bills go together to committee in this session, then we'll know the government wants to do something. But if this bill does not go together with our two

bills, then we know the government is playing games with the moraine.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Well, well, well. We have a new bill here from Mr Gilchrist today on saving the Oak Ridges moraine. It's

called the Ontario Natural Heritage Act, 2001.

You know, I'm happy to see it here. I'm happy to see he's presented another bill today. I am, Mr Gilchrist, and my party will be supporting you on this bill

today, as we have in the past, and as you have, I acknowledge in this House, supported Shelley Martel's and my bill on the Oak Ridges moraine, as well as Mr Colle's.

But I have to tell you, through the Speaker, Mr Gilchrist, that I was given the impression there weren't changes to your bill. Now, I know you're downplaying the

changes and in your mind you feel that they're not significant, but you have to understand that I feel the changes that you have made to this bill from the last bill are tremendously significant. I

would imagine that although the save-the-Oak-Ridges-moraine groups out there will support the bill as well, because something's better than nothing -- we need to get something on the books here and

happening -- the fact is that you took out main component, I believe, of your previous bill, which was the same as with Mr Colle's bill and my bill and Shelley Martel's bill: to freeze development

on the Oak Ridges moraine. I wasn't happy about other pieces of your previous bill and this bill; I don't think it goes nearly far enough. But one of the strongest components in the bill was to

freeze the development until we sort all this out. That is so critical, because all the time, every day, as we are here debating these issues over the past couple of years, what is happening in the

Oak Ridges moraine? Development continues to go ahead. There's OMB hearing after OMB hearing. It's all taking place on a piecemeal basis where citizens' groups, people without money, are being

forced to raise money that is impossible for them to raise,

whereas the developers have all kinds of money to prove their case. They can go before this OMB, which, as we've seen by now, is

pro-development, and make their case. I admit that there has been at least one, I believe, fairly good decision, but on the whole, this is the wrong way to go about planning such an environmentally

sensitive area.

So of course we have to ask why this main component has been taken out of the bill. I know Mr Gilchrist will say, "Well, no, it's just been changed a little

bit," even though the bill does not freeze portions of the moraine that are not areas of natural and scientific interest. Those are the only pieces now that he's talking about being frozen. It

would permanently freeze development on the portions of the Oak Ridges moraine and other places in the province that are designated as "areas of natural and scientific interest as defined in

section 1 of the Conservation Land Act. " That's fine, but that's just a small portion of the Oak Ridges moraine. In the meantime, development continues to happen. The proposals continue to

come in.

Let me tell you a little bit more about Mr Gilchrist's bill today. It would use the Oak Ridges moraine strategy, which was developed by the Ministry of Natural

Resources under the NDP government and was completed in 1994. That was the basis for the Oak Ridges moraine plan. There was massive consultation on this and, yes, we spent a fair amount of money on

it as well because we thought it was important to get this right. The public was invited to make submissions and then additional existing studies were commissioned that were relevant to the moraine

plan, and a development plan, under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, would be required to be submitted to cabinet within one year of the passage of the bill.

This is what you have to understand: in Mr Gilchrist's bill, in consultation with the public -- they would be invited to make submissions for existing studies on

top of the existing studies that were done under our government after massive consultation. I admit that a bit more work needed to be done here, which is another reason we needed the freeze. After

a plan was developed under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, that would be submitted to cabinet within one year of passage of the bill. Then cabinet would be able to -- get this -- pass the

plan, amend it or drop it altogether. That's the reality of this bill.

Section 5 of the bill would prohibit any authority from allowing development on an area of natural and scientific interest, or on any other wetland with an area

greater than two hectares, throughout the province. This would amount to a pretty broad prohibition. For example, the NDP legislation prohibits development on significant wetlands.

Let's see what else. The bill allows the municipality to impose development charges for parks, and prohibits a municipality from imposing development charges for

proposals to redevelop commercial and industrial lands, unless the development charges are permitted by regulation. So there are some good pieces in the bill. Put that together and it's fairly

progressive.

It limits OMB members to nine years on the board. I'm fine with that. It says that any appeal of an official plan amendment or zoning bylaw must be heard by a

panel of at least two board members. I think that's a good idea.

I want to go into

section 10 a little bit. It allows cabinet to overturn an OMB decision on an official plan or a zoning bylaw. This of course speaks to the

growing frustration with the undemocratic nature of this particular board. I have mixed feelings about this. It was our government that took away the right to appeal to cabinet, and we did it for a

couple of reasons. One was that if you have a really good, green Planning Act, then you don't really need to have appeals to a cabinet. The rules we brought in were so comprehensive under the green

Planning Act. That was the act that required municipalities, the province and the OMB to make decisions in a manner "consistent with" the provincial policy statement. What this government did,

among other things, was they completely gutted the green Planning Act and made it more pro-development than it was before we changed it to be greener. It went back in time, pre-NDP time.

They changed the wording to say that they just had to have "regard for" the provincial planning statements. That's easy. You pick it up, take a look at it --

"Yep, yep. Well, we had regard for this. Yes, we did. We looked at it and we rejected it, but we had regard for it." If it says it has to be "consistent with," there is no option. There are all

kinds of other components of the green Planning Act, which was a result, may I remind people, of the Sewell commission. It went out across the province over about two years, consulting widely --

broad consensus: green Planning Act. There were some disagreements, but it was a good act.

So if you've got a really strong Planning Act where the rules are very clear and the tools that municipalities and the OMB have are workable, but they have to

work those tools within very consistent and strong planning rules, then you've got to question whether or not appeals should be made to cabinet.

Having been a cabinet member at one time and chairing the legislation and regulations committee, I got to see all the regulations and legislation that came

through. We reviewed them first before we went to cabinet. I know that Mr Gilchrist agreed that not all kinds of small development appeals should go before the cabinet, but they used to, and the

bigger ones as well. What our government did on a couple of occasions, when there were issues around environmentally sensitive land -- we did it and there was quite a lot of controversy -- in

Grey-Owen Sound we declared a provincial interest since we couldn't get the municipality to do what needed to be done to freeze the development, to make everything stop until we worked out the best

planning procedure for that area.

That is something that still can be done, which could be done in this case. Just like that they could declare a provincial interest and freeze development on

the Oak Ridges moraine. That option was there, still is there, and we used it a couple of times. It makes people mad. The municipality -- Mr Murdoch wasn't happy, but it was of significant interest

that it had to be done.

Very complicated planning decisions would come before cabinet on an appeal, and we found we didn't have the expertise or the time to take a really good look,

as members of the then OMB -- it's a different kettle of fish altogether -- at that time spent days, sometimes weeks, sometimes months looking at an issue and having the benefit of all of the

scientific background and information. For cabinet to sit down and try to examine and make a decision as to whether something should be overturned or the OMB ruling upheld is not an easy thing to

do. So what it meant essentially was that it would turn into a political issue.

That is why I have concerns. On the one hand I think it's a good idea, particularly considering the makeup of the OMB now and some of the decisions that have

been made. But on the other hand, given what we know about this government and its attitude toward development and the amount of money they have taken from developers for election campaigns, I

would be really concerned if the OMB made some good decisions on the Oak Ridges moraine, and in one case they already have, to my knowledge: what if some good decisions are made and the developers

don't like it and they go to this government, cabinet, which is pro-development, which received a lot of money from these developers, and not on the basis of scientific fact? It is really difficult

-- I would say impossible, having been there -- for a cabinet to take the time, for staff to take the time, to examine the relevant issues to make these really monumental decisions to overturn a

decision which in some cases took months and months of hearings to come to a conclusion, and it can also be dangerous.

I have mixed feelings about it and I think a discussion around that would be part of committee hearings. I think there need to be changes made to the OMB. I

also think there need to be changes made to the Planning Act again.

My bill, that I just reintroduced, is before us again. It's the same bill that Shelley Martel -- it was on the floor in the last session here, and of course

died when the House prorogued. That bill had been sent to the general government committee for hearings and it could never get on. Mr Gilchrist has a different opinion than I do as to why it didn't

get on. We both expressed those opinions publicly. I know, we all know, that the government did not want that bill to go to committee. They made a mistake in letting it go to general government,

but it went to general government, and Mr Gilchrist says, "There are all these other bills before it and that's why they couldn't put it on." But the reality is that they kept it off the agenda

because they didn't want it to go out to public hearings.

In

summary, I want to say something here and I want to say it very clearly. What I don't want to see here today -- I know that the Liberals and my party are

going to support this bill. What I don't want to see from the government members today is what they did with my Safe Drinking Water Act; that is, they supported the bill -- I was very pleased about

it, a very important bill, particularly given what's happening in the Oak Ridges moraine in terms of protecting our water and what happened in Walkerton -- and then sent it to what's called the

committee of the whole. It never happens; we all know that. It's kissing it goodbye. It's over; it's gone; it's never going to see the light of day again.

I don't want to see that happen here today. I hope very much --

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Well, help us. Work together with us.

Ms Churley: Oh, well, you can work the numbers out, can you?

I believe that may be the cynical move that will be made today, and I urge all of the Tory members -- people will see through it this time. They're on to you,

and you won't get away with it.

The question here today is, is this bill strong enough? The answer is no. If the question is whether we support it, the answer is yes. Yes, because it does do

some good things and it gives us an opportunity to get it out to committee with my bill and Mr Colle's bill. Our bills have been debated here before. Yours has. Now it's watered down, but it has

been debated.

Interjection.

Ms Churley: Well, it is watered down. It is. It's really too bad. But let's put them all out to committee. Let's do that and have a

comprehensive discussion, not only on saving the Oak Ridges moraine but on a green Planning Act in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to rise today in support of Bill 17 from the member for Scarborough East. It's

called

An Act to ensure responsible and acceptable development and to protect the natural heritage of the Province of Ontario.

Ontario's planning process provides the tools needed for the protection of the Oak Ridges moraine. Anyone who has any familiarity with the municipal process --

and I was on council for two terms -- understands that it's not a phenomenon where the provincial government is promoting sprawl. It's a fact that communities look after their own planning process

and the growth in the population which is occurring, and there are a number of reasons.

Being from the riding of Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, I can tell you the city of Barrie, the town of Innisfil, Bradford and West Gwillimbury are growing. The reason

they are growing is because of the population that's increasing, and also because they are attractive places to reside. One factor obviously for people is the price of the housing.

Certainly there are rules out there. The provincial government has rules; the municipal governments have rules.

What Mr Gilchrist is trying to accomplish is a balance. We're committed to the environmental integrity of the Oak Ridges moraine. This is reflected in the 1996

policy statement of the province and the 1991 Oak Ridges moraine guidelines. We believe, as a province, that the guidelines, policy and legislation already in place for our land use planning system

provide the necessary protection. We're committed to the principle that municipal decision-making provides the appropriate local solutions in matters of land use planning. That's the way it has

been for many, many years.

For the member opposite to speak about how things are in other areas and how their communities are being threatened -- it's for the communities to look at

those situations in terms of how they want to plan their communities. We don't need to be dictated to by rich landowners from Toronto in terms of what they want outside of Toronto. It's a

province-wide solution, and everyone should be a part of it.

I want to deal with the bill in itself. I think many of the people here viewing this saw the movie Forrest Gump and the statement by Tom Hanks where he's

saying, "Life is like a box of chocolates." Mr Gilchrist's bill here, from a planning perspective, is, "Planning is like a box of chocolates." There are a number of things here that he's put out,

and I think we have to look at it because they significantly bring more of a balance to how municipalities can deal with planning.

One of them is the changes that we're looking at from the Development Charges Act. This is very important for a community like the city of Barrie or the town

of Innisfil. We are going to be removing the restriction on parkland acquisition as one of the municipal services for which the municipality can charge, and in its place make the acquisition of

parkland mandatory. This is very fundamental in terms of preserving parkland and recreation within the community. The municipality will be able to deal with this from a Development Charges Act

perspective.

Also, the Planning Act is going to be amended to restore the ability for citizens to appeal OMB -- Ontario Municipal Board -- decisions on significant planning

matters, such as official plan amendments and rezoning applications, to the cabinet. This would provide the opportunity for cabinet to overturn or at least order a rehearing on decisions which were

clearly not reflective of the public sentiment.

That's what I think the member from Toronto opposite was concerned about in terms of the power that the OMB does have. He's right. They have tremendous power

in terms of the processes for official plan amendments and rezoning applications. Those can be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. Those are decisions made by the councils, but they're

appealable and they become quite litigious, and sometimes they don't reflect what the public wants. This is a lever that Mr Gilchrist is putting in place to allow that public sentiment to come

clearly through this process.

One other measure he's looking at is that the Planning Act would also be amended to add a three-year moratorium to all significant planning applications from

the day the municipality adopts a new official plan. For the viewing audience, an official plan for a municipality is how that community wants to plan: certain areas they want to be commercial,

certain areas they want to be industrial, certain areas they want to be residential, certain areas they want to be institutional, and certain areas they want to be environmentally protected. That's

their blueprint for how they want their community to be.

Currently, every municipality is required to update its official plan every five years, but after spending millions of dollars on that planning exercise, a

developer who disagrees with some aspect of the plan can apply for a change literally the day the plan is adopted. There's a lot of work, as the member from Simcoe North can attest in terms of the

town of Oro-Medonte, that goes into that planning. Why? Because that's how the community sentiment, from their elected representatives, wants that community to be. It is a very significant

document.

This bill would ensure that official plans, once adopted, would carry much greater weight than is the case today, because the Planning Act would be amended to

add a three-year moratorium that provides stability to the planning process. As I've said, every five years that official plan document has to be reviewed. So I think the bill puts a very good

balance with respect to the municipal rights and the provincial perspective in terms of making sure the planning process remains responsive to growth but also brings decisions back to the public in

terms of the municipal role.

I'm going to stop speaking at this point; I know other members want to speak. But I think this is a good start and Mr Gilchrist should be commended for the

hard work.

Mr O'Toole: It is my pleasure to respectfully comment on Bill 17 by Mr Gilchrist from Scarborough East. I commend him for bringing forward

what I consider an important initiative. I think the government and all sides should support it.

I also want to comment that the Honourable Frank Klees, the minister, has spoken widely in support of the moraine.

I know people on all sides of the House, not just in my riding of Durham, are very concerned. This is quite a comprehensive private member's bill, as the

members present would know. I just want to read the

preamble statement. It explains most of it.

"The bill deems the Oak Ridges moraine to be a development planning area under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994, and requires the minister to

cause a development plan for the Oak Ridges moraine to be prepared. The minister is required to submit the proposed development plan to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for approval within one

year of royal assent."

It goes on to define quite clearly that "The minister is required to compile a list of studies or documents prepared by ... the government ... that updates or

completes information gathered on the Oak Ridges moraine."

I think the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford has covered many of the prescriptive measures to ensure there's orderly, balanced planning in a very sensitive

area.

Recognizing that a great part of this is in my riding of Durham, I also want to address the mayors in the area who need to be recognized and are supportive of

this initiative, it's my understanding. That would be Mayor Gerri-Lynn O'Connor of Uxbridge; Mayor Doug Moffatt of Port Perry; Nancy Diamond, the mayor of the city of Oshawa; John Mutton of

Clarington and Regional Chair Roger Anderson.

This has been a significant issue with respect to perhaps the Gan Eden project most importantly. What we're looking for is fair and reasonable uses of land. In

fact, in a very few minutes, in the details of the bill it defines the Oak Ridges moraine and, I would say, a similar characterization to the Niagara Escarpment. There's one

section I would like to

be on record. Under the development control portion, which is under

section 5 of the bill, it says with respect to wetlands in southern Ontario that it would somehow develop a permit with respect

to wetlands. That is a significant issue. I think there needs be further discussion.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough East has two minutes to reply.

Mr Gilchrist: I sincerely want to thank my colleagues from all three parties for their comments in response to Bill 17. I must say to both Mr

Phillips and Ms Churley that I certainly understand the politics involved here. I'm glad to see that their response was a far less partisan approach than one might normally see in this Legislature

on bills. But to suggest that this bill is watered down is a gross misstatement. In fact, unlike other bills that shall remain nameless but tabled by the other side, my bill makes it very clear

that it is not at some point in the future that there must be a plan. Within 120 days there must be a plan that protects the whole moraine, and so the suggestion that there is no longer a freeze or

that somehow that's relevant -- the real fact is that anything that is environmentally defensible, scientifically defensible as worthy of protection, even in that first 120 days, will be

protected.

I want to thank as well Minister Witmer, who went on the record last week as saying that our government does support the protection of the moraine and that

we're going to consult. I look forward to being part of that consultation.

I want to thank folks like Jim Robb and his colleagues, who are from the Friends of the Rouge Watershed, who are with us here today -- groups like that which

have taken a stand in defending not just the Rouge but areas like the Rouge throughout the whole Oak Ridges moraine and the watersheds up there.

The province has led by example: 3,350 acres, a huge portion of that on the moraine, has been dedicated to the Rouge park. I'm confident we're going to keep

adding land. In fact, I hope we get even more land in Markham added to the Rouge park, and I've made that appeal to Minister Tsubouchi and to his colleagues.

The bottom line here: it's not about politics, it's about protecting the environment. All members in this House have a vested interest. All of us should take

our roles as stewards of Ontario's natural heritage very seriously. I'm sure you do, and I look forward to your support when this bill comes for a vote.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm not certain that I heard the member for Eglinton-Lawrence

accurately, but I wish at this point to simply state that I for one disapprove of his comments with regard to the Ontario Municipal Board, but more importantly, I make this point and I draw it to

the attention of his leader whom I know will be --

The Acting Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr Guzzo: Oh, I apologize.

WORKFARE

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I move that in the opinion of this House the Ministry of Community and Social Services must fulfill the

Blueprint commitment to move forward with the expansion of the Ontario work-for-welfare initiative by having every ministry, government agency, board and commission take a number of workfare

placements. As promised during the 1999 campaign, the work-for-welfare system should also be expanded by encouraging municipalities to undertake more workfare programs.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Maves has 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr Maves: I move this resolution today because one of the most important successes of this government since 1995 has been moving people from

welfare to work. I remember in 1995, when I was deciding to run for office, that one of the most embarrassing things, I would say one of the saddest things about Ontario, this rich, great province,

the economic engine of Canada for so many years, was that we had 1.3 million people on welfare. It was costing Ontario taxpayers about $7 billion a year. Ontario had the highest number of people

per capita on welfare in Canada. Approximately one in 12 people was on welfare. So we as a party then undertook in the 1995 campaign to do substantial reform of the welfare system.

It was a system whose original intent was to help people who maybe had lost employment, had been on unemployment insurance for a certain amount of time and

still hadn't been able to find employment, who found their benefits exhausted and were now falling into welfare. The intent of the system was a measure of last resort. It always should have been a

system that when you fell into this safety net -- it really should have been a trampoline -- it gave a little bit; it cushioned your fall and made you spring back up into the workforce. Over time,

over the years, that was not at all what the system had become. The system had become a trap, a net in the sense that no one, once they got in the net, was getting out. That shocking figure of one

in 12 people on welfare demonstrates that clearly.

We did a variety of things when we came into office and we campaigned quite clearly on them. We campaigned that at the time, in 1995, we had the richest

welfare benefits of any province in Canada, actually about 35% higher than in any province in Canada. We campaigned on the fact that we were going to reduce those levels so that they were much more

commensurate with working wage levels. But our welfare benefits, I must say, after we did those reductions, are still quite high: about 25% higher than the provincial average for single employable

people; 13% higher for single parents and 10% higher for couples with children. So Ontario welfare benefits right now are still the most generous in the world. Also, we moved some people who are

disabled and long-term-disabled who were going to be on welfare or had been on welfare for several years. We said we would move them out of the welfare system and have their own system, and that's

now known as the Ontario disability support program, ODSP. Those benefits are about 50% higher than the benefits paid to similar folks elsewhere in Canada. So it must be known that that was one of

the changes we made.

The other one that we actively campaigned on was workfare. The people of Ontario were way ahead of the political pundits and the political elite here in

Toronto who said you couldn't do workfare. The people of Ontario were way ahead of the politicians on this one and were demanding it. In fact, any kind of polling we did subsequently probably would

show that 75% to 80% of the people of Ontario supported the idea of workfare, that someone on social assistance should go out and do some work in community agencies, perhaps a not-for-profit

facility like a boys and girls club or a long-term-care facility, to volunteer, to do some work in there, maybe go into an agency and acquire some computer skills and so on. A vast majority, 75% to

80%, of the public of Ontario supported this, but governments never moved in that direction. We did.

We introduced workfare and we asked the municipalities and the regional governments that deliver social assistance to implement workfare. Honestly, they were

pretty slow on the uptake. That was largely because the idea of workfare was blocked by unions like CUPE that represent a lot of workers in the municipal sector. They were pretty slow on the

uptake.

We did have some early successes, but it was some reforms that Minister Baird brought in in 1999 that prodded the municipalities: "Look, we'll set a target for

you for a number of people who are on social assistance, who are in Ontario Works, who have to be in a community placement, a workfare placement. For every person that you are below that target,

there is going to be a financial penalty, and for every person above that target there's a reward for the municipality." That was $1,000 per placement.

In the first year of that program a lot of municipalities -- I remember, even my own -- were very far below the target where they should have had workfare

placements. Once we brought in the program, in the very first year -- last year I remember we were 46 out of 47 delivery agents in Ontario. That's where we ranked. We only had 22% of our welfare

recipients in placements who were supposed to be in placements. At the time I did a press release and I said, "We have to do better. We've got to find more placements," because where municipalities

were finding placements for people in Ontario Works in workfare placements, they were then moving into jobs. It was an extremely successful program.

I remember Minister Baird had binders of letters this thick in his office from people who said, "I didn't like workfare. I was on social assistance. I didn't

appreciate you telling me that I had to go out and do some community work or get into a workfare placement. But once I did it, it was terrific. It was the best thing that ever happened to me. I'm

now working full-time. I feel better. I've got more contacts. I've got a full-time job." Great stories.

Places that were fulfilling the number of workfare placements that the minister had set a target for, that were placing people in full-time jobs and meeting

these workfare placements, were getting money, $1,000 per person above those placements.

In Niagara we were only at 22%. At the time, in my region there were a lot of people who said, "Don't pick on us. We're actually putting people in jobs, and

placements aren't important." I said, "You know, you can do both." There were lots of other municipalities that were doing both successfully. Durham was doing very well. I think York was doing very

well. Owen Sound was doing very well in both. I said, "You can do both."

Last year they only had 220 placements. In lighting a little fire under them, in establishing this reward system where they could achieve income for their

municipality if they met their target, they have redoubled their efforts and now, this year, they're going to finish well above their target. They've gone from 200 placements to 1,300 or 1,400

placements. So it works, and it is a great system that has had great success.

We set targets for our own Ontario public service. In my opinion, those targets were quite modest. The targets for 2000-01 for the whole OPS were 750. Now

we've overachieved those targets, with 1,077 placements in 2000-01. Some ministries, such as natural resources, made 706% of their target; Management Board Secretariat made 157%; Community and

Social Services made 143%. But some failed to make their targets, and I insist to you that these are modest targets. For instance, education has a target of only 17 and they failed to meet that;

they are at eight. Health and long-term care, a giant ministry: 113 placements was their target and they were at only 25.

This resolution asks the members of the Legislature to support and push now on the OPS and its boards, agencies and commissions to continue, to redouble their

efforts like some of the municipalities did, to find placements for people, because placements lead to jobs.

Off the top of my head, the Niagara Parks Commission, for example, a commission of the Ministry of Tourism: I've talked to them several times and they are

anxious now to get 25 or 30 placements within the Niagara Parks Commission. There are other parks commissions under the ministry that should be doing the same.

Long-term-care facilities: we're opening up 20,000 new long-term-care beds in Ontario. There are some municipalities which have worked with the long-term-care

facilities and gotten people placements in those facilities. We can do hundreds and hundreds more in those types of placements.

Hospitals: there are all kinds of volunteer activities that go on in hospitals right now. It's a wonderful place for placements, and that's where the Ministry

of Health should be looking.

Education: as I said, they only have a target of 17, but they should really be looking at partnering with the school boards in finding all kinds of different

placements, even things like lunch monitoring and recess monitoring and so on --

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Further debate?

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): It's truly stunning to hear the member for Niagara Falls, six years after the government

slashed social assistance rates by 22.7%, stand up here and talk about the generosity of the government in terms of the benefits that the most vulnerable people receive when we know about the

extraordinary increase in terms of shelter costs, of home heating oil costs, of a variety of costs -- food costs, which are extraordinary -- and to have him stand up and still begin his speech with

those remarks.

Let me begin with remarks by Andrew Mitchell, who was commenting on the budget yesterday. He's program director with the Community Social Planning Council of

Toronto. He said in his response, "In his speech the minister said it was their duty as a government to help the most vulnerable, but his definition of vulnerable was conspicuous by its exclusion

of people on social assistance." Indeed that's true. "A single mother with one child in Toronto is facing a rental market where the average rent is $979, but she is still receiving the same $511

for rent that she received in 1995." What more could be said about the difficulties?

Here we have a resolution that's absolutely unnecessary. We know the minister has made it very, very clear what he wants to do in terms of workfare, but what

we don't have is an actual, real discussion related to workfare, whether it works and whether it actually is helpful to people. There's no real reason for this resolution, and I'd ask, what is the

government afraid of? Why don't they shine the light on the dark corners of their phony workfare plan? The fact is, it is that. There is no proof, there is no accountability that it works, and

there's no real sense of responsibility from this government.

The government refuses to acknowledge the truth on how workfare is actually working, and whether it is or not, or how its Ontario Works programs are affecting

individuals and families in great need. When it comes to a meaningful evaluation of Ontario Works or workfare, all we get is a monthly body count. That's what they gauge everything on, a monthly

body count, how many people they've kicked off welfare. There are no outcome evaluation studies, no thoughtful discussion or debate, no real attempt to measure the impact. It's the least you would

expect from a government. There's only government spin.

The worst thing about the government's reforms to the welfare system has been its constant bombardment of misconceptions and ugly stereotypes about people on

social assistance. If there's a shot to be made that will further stigmatize the poor in our province, this government will do it.

Remember the Premier's comments that he thought pregnant single mothers should be denied a nutritional allowance because they'd spend it all drinking beer? An

unbelievably offensive thing to say, something that I may say some municipalities at least dealt with by finding a way to provide those funds themselves.

How about former Minister Tsubouchi's comments about welfare recipients being able to live on this absolutely meagre diet and telling them to go and scour for

dented cans of tuna? How about the current minister's implication that all welfare recipients are drug addicts? How can we forget the image of the minister himself scouring through a box of

syringes and pouring them on the table?

This government has waged a constant battle against the poorest citizens of our province. If there has been any consistency in their policies, it has been that

they have been punitive, vindictive, mean-spirited and designed ultimately to simply kick people off the system.

Look at the lack of adequacy in the welfare rates. Where is the cost-of-living adjustment? It should be at least there for people on social assistance. After

six years at the reduced rate, the least they could do is a cost-of-living adjustment when we know the costs have increased extraordinarily. People are desperate. They're trying to rebuild their

lives, but they're doing it without the resources to survive, and each individual story is so alarming.

What about the national child tax benefit? Why the clawback? The government simply claws back about $140 million out of the hands of our poorest children.

What about the loss of children's educational funds in order to qualify for welfare?

What about the imposition of liens on those few property owners who may be forced to go on social assistance but actually have property? They put liens on

their property in order to qualify for welfare.

What about the cuts in support to the STEP program?

There's example after example. Behind every phony spin this government puts on their policy, there's an individual story of a personal struggle to survive and

to live with dignity.

We never hear from this government about the woman in Sarnia, for example, who at the age of 54 was forced on to Ontario Works and into workfare because her

husband became too sick to work and support her; or the mother in Barrie who remains stuck on welfare because the government will not provide her with the support she needs to care for her

multi-disabled son, a disgraceful story; or, quite frankly, the workfare client in my riding, and there are many of them, who is struggling to simply make it to his workplace because the price of

gasoline is so high. He lives 60 kilometres outside of Thunder Bay and has to go in every day, and it's a real struggle. The fact is, the supplement for his transportation is simply unbelievably

inadequate.

We don't hear about how more families are relying on food banks. We don't hear that from this government at all, or how people are sort of disappearing off the

system, never to be found again. Even when they pull their statistics, they won't acknowledge the fact that they are basing their statistics on the people they can find. There's a whole bunch of

people they simply can't find. The fact is that there are hundreds of thousands of children going without proper nutritional needs being met. Those are the realities. We heard nothing about that in

yesterday's budget.

Certainly I am voting against this resolution today. It does not do anything in any possible way to alleviate the situation. If I thought for one second that

the government truly wanted to help people find the dignity of moving from welfare to work -- as my colleague Ted McMeekin put it to me when we were talking about it, you have to have the right

look in your eyes. The government members do not have the right look in their eyes. They spin the words out there, but it's still always based on the fact that people are somehow taking advantage

of the system. There's no kindness or clarity or real belief. They don't have the right look in their eyes. They don't really, really care.

If indeed one felt that way, you'd do so. There are so many things they need to do if they really want to take this seriously. Look at proper daycare support.

Look at proper tuition assistance. Look at counselling service that may be needed for people who are on social assistance. Certainly look at a decent living allowance for the people who are on

social assistance.

The fact is, the government is afraid to shine light into the dark corners of this program. I have called, on behalf of my leader, Dalton McGuinty, for a

social audit of Ontario Works -- a responsible request, I believe, and something you'd think the government would be interested in doing. The fact is, they haven't done it. We have got to continue

to press for that. Certainly, everybody who really, really cares about the massive changes that this government has gone through would call for that.

Let me also, if I may, read a lit bit, as I wrap up my remarks, from a constituent of mine, or certainly somebody from Thunder Bay, who wrote a letter to the

editor. This is from Kim Woodbeck, just so that the member can perhaps understand the situation from her eyes. This is what she says:

"Applying for and being on welfare is one of the most degrading things that anyone ever has to do. It is made this way by the powers that be. It is not just a

matter of answering a `few' questions, and then picking up a mega-cheque.... There are a massive amount of questions to answer; every aspect of your life is scrutinized. About the only thing that

you are not asked is the frequency of your sex life and your toilet habits, but at the rate that things are going this can't be far behind."

Pretty frightening words. The fact is, we've watched these massive changes in the system. We watch the government continue to stigmatize the poorest people in

our province. This is a resolution that does not deserve support from this House. This is a government that should be looking at their Ontario Works policy in a far greater fashion. I will not be

supporting this resolution, and I trust that most people in this House will not be supporting it as well.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Let me begin by saying that it won't come as a surprise to anyone that New Democrats will not be supporting

this resolution, because it seeks to expand what is really a flawed and punitive program into other workplaces with absolutely no guarantee that workfare is indeed leading to long-term, gainful

employment for workfare recipients and no guarantee that the public sector and the private sector, because the government has extended workfare to the private sector, aren't in fact getting rid of,

shedding, full-time employees in order to cash in on free labour of workfare recipients. There is no support for those parents who actually need adequate child care as part and parcel of taking on

their placement. Finally, there is no guarantee, after the bribes that the government set out for municipalities, that this year municipalities are not going to be hit with a huge cost directly as

a result of the call centres that this government has set up for Ontario Works.

Let me deal with each of these points in turn.

First, with respect to there being no guarantee that workfare is leading to gainful employment, I remember my former colleague from Algoma, Bud Wildman,

standing in this House just after workfare had been implemented in Algoma to point out that the first workfare project in Algoma was one where workfare recipients were painting picnic tables during

the summer. There is nothing long-term about that placement; it's not going to lead to long-term, gainful employment. The question is, how many other placements like that exist that workfare

recipients are having to deal with?

I remember one of the first and probably very embarrassing -- I use that word very specifically -- workfare projects in my own community, in the same summer as

the government was trying to ram through legislation to forbid workfare recipients from being part of trade unions. That project was re-greening work that used to be done by summer students, funded

through the federal government and the former UIC. Those summer students would be put all around our community. They would be up on the rocks in our community spreading lime to try and deal with

some of the acid in the soil, so that we could actually recapture some of the soil to grow something in our community. This is the legacy left us from two mining companies that used to roast their

ore outdoors.

That was a federal program for 18-year-olds that had its funding from the federal government cut off, and the municipality then stuck workfare recipients into

it -- nothing gainful about that employment, nothing long-term about that employment. It was a quick fix to throw people into when some other money from some other level of government got cut off,

and it was embarrassing.

I think it's interesting that the government so cleverly ties its workfare numbers into its numbers of how many people are coming off the social assistance

rolls. Wouldn't it be interesting if the government actually tracked and made public what is really happening to those who are coming off the welfare rolls? Because I don't think workfare has much

to do with those changes in numbers. I'd be interested in knowing how many of those people who left the welfare rolls actually left the province, or how many of those people who left the welfare

rolls are actually now living in homeless shelters -- whole families crowded into motels down on Kingston Road here in Toronto. I'd like the government to track how many of those people who left

the welfare rolls are single moms with kids who actually returned to an abusive relationship because the money they were getting on social assistance was not enough to support their families.

It would be very interesting if the government undertook such tracking, because I think we would clearly see that many people leaving the welfare rolls are

finding themselves in the three situations I just outlined, and that workfare has nothing -- or very little -- to do with people leaving the welfare rolls. It's interesting that that government is

not making public that kind of tracking. I suspect they don't want to, because they would rather have people assume that people leaving welfare are actually benefiting from workfare, when there's

no guarantee whatsoever that that's happening.

Wouldn't it be interesting as well if the government actually broke down the workfare programs and made public the following categories of workfare: the number

of individuals who are actually involved in resumé writing; the number of individuals in workfare now who are actually involved in upgrading; the number of individuals who are in actual

placements in our community; and finally, how many individuals in real placements actually got hired for full-time permanent work?

That would be a far more concrete and realistic evaluation of workfare, because I continue to believe that the bulk of people involved in workfare right now

are in two categories: (1) in upgrading -- they are not in work placements at all -- and (2) in work placements but not placements that are going to lead to full-time permanent jobs, which is what

the government claims this program was all about.

I didn't hear the parliamentary assistant talk about any of those categories. How many people actually involved in workfare now are in any of those categories?

As I said earlier, I continue to believe the majority of people aren't on their way to full-time, permanent work. They're stuck somewhere in upgrading or they're stuck in a placement that will not

lead to full-time work, like some of the placements I referred to earlier.

A second concern is that there is no guarantee whatsoever that those private and public sector employers are not shedding or laying off or getting rid of their

permanent employees in order to get free labour from workfare clients. I listened last Thursday to the minister and his comments on mandatory drug and literacy testing, which was an appalling

statement. He spoke of the government exceeding its target for workfare in the public sector by about 300 placements. I wonder if the minister is prepared to table in this House those positions

that those workfare recipients are assuming at this time, because I suspect that if we had a chance along with OPSEU to take a look at those positions, we would find that many of those positions

had had permanent, long-term employees who were laid off by this government when they were so busy getting rid of people in order to have money for the tax cuts, and that those positions are now

being replaced by people on workfare.

I thought it was interesting that the parliamentary assistant talked about the Ministry of Natural Resources exceeding their target by 706%. Isn't it

interesting that it's the Ministry of Natural Resources that so exceeded its workfare targets that had the biggest cut in staff under this government since this government was elected? The biggest

cut in staff was at the Ministry of Natural Resources. Isn't it so convenient, such a coincidence, that it's the same ministry that has the highest level of workfare recipients? How many of those

workfare recipients are taking jobs from people laid off by this government so this government could have savings for its tax cut?

I say that because we got a call as well last Wednesday from North Bay, from a public servant, to let us know that just the day before, people in her unit were

asked to welcome a new employee who was a workfare recipient. Isn't it interesting that that new workfare recipient was taking the position of a staff person who had had permanent, full-time

employment in that ministry and who was laid off two years ago by this government? That's what I am convinced is happening in our workplaces, that we have many people losing full-time employment

because it's cheaper for the government, and it's certainly cheaper for the private sector, to get the free labour of workfare recipients. That is what's happening.

What's worse is that, because of this resolution the PA is promoting here today, the government sends a clear message to the private sector that it's OK to

shed your employees, to get rid of them, to lay them off and replace them with workfare recipients. There's a real incentive for employers in the private sector to do that because they're not

paying the wage costs for those individuals. As those individuals continue to receive their social assistance, there is virtually no cost to employers in the private sector to have them in their

workplace. So what you set up is a really vicious cycle of workfare recipients being brought in, working for a period of time in a private sector place of employment, and being let go so the

employer can turn around and start it all again.

That employer benefits from having free labour and driving his or her wage costs down. That's insidious, and that's the kind of program we have in place,

because there's nothing to guarantee that's not happening. In fact the government, by replacing permanent staff in the public sector, sends a message to the private sector that it's OK to do just

that. I think that's exactly what they are doing.

Our third concern deals with child care, because there is a huge lack of support for parents who need child care if they have to participate in placements. We

know, because KPMG did a study for this government in 1998, that the government would need to make a massive investment in child care to make workfare work. The reality is that between 1995 and

1998, this government cut regulated child care by 15%. The government is spending $43 less per child per regulated space than they were in 1995. The government has also downloaded 20% of all the

costs of child care on to municipalities. We know that any spaces that were created in the community came from full-fee-paying parents, not because this government was doing anything constructive,

because this government was in the process of cutting child care through that whole period.

This leads to two problems in our communities with respect to workfare. You've got two pots of money that a municipality can access to deal with child care.

You have a pot for subsidized spaces to help low-wage working parents who are trying to remain at work but need help with child care to do that. This government has capped its contributions to

subsidies for working parents in our communities who need subsidized child care. You've got the scenario that the city of Toronto, for the third year in a row, has set aside $3 million in its

budget to try to reduce its subsidized spaces and this government refuses to do its 80%, so the waiting list in Toronto has now grown from 13,000 to 14,500.

You've got a second pot of money for child care. The government established about $65 million for spaces for workfare recipients to access regulated child

care. The problem is that when municipalities can't find any more of that $65 million for an Ontario Works client, because that pot is so small, then the municipality turns to its other pot of

subsidized money, the pot that's supposed to be for low-wage working parents who need some assistance in order to keep working and have their kids in child care.

You've got the scenario now where in many municipalities workfare recipients are going to the top of the subsidized waiting list ahead of other working parents

who have been sitting, waiting for child care. There is nothing fair about that. The reason municipalities do this is because the government penalizes municipalities if they don't reach their

target with respect to workfare placements. They are now in the process of doing whatever they can to get whomever they can into whatever kind of placement they can so they'll not be penalized by

this government and lose money. The municipalities have been forced into this position of pitting OW clients against low-wage working families who have been on a waiting list for a subsidized space

for a long time. There's nothing right about that.

In Welland my colleague Mr Kormos and I heard from a woman who was on a waiting list -- 600 people on the waiting list for a subsidized space in Niagara. We

had a young woman, Marnie McLean, who was working in a nursing home, not making very much money. She needed a subsidized space to ensure her kids had a safe place to go before and after school.

Marnie McLean and other families in Niagara were clearly told, "If you were an Ontario Works client, you'd be at the top of the list like that and you'd probably get a subsidized space." Marnie

McLean is not an OW client. She's a hard-working woman trying to look after her two kids by herself on $300 a week.

Marnie McLean had to quit her job because she couldn't get access to a subsidized space. She would like to go on workfare, but now she's penalized because she

quit her job so she can't even get that for three months. That's how ridiculous the system is. That's because this government did nothing to make sure there would be adequate child care. Nothing in

the government's announcement last week, as they talked about extending workfare, talked about increased funding for welfare either.

We don't support this resolution. This whole thing has been flawed. It is punitive, and there's no guarantee people are getting real live jobs.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to be able to speak on the resolution of the member from Niagara Falls. The

thrust of the resolution is to expand workfare placements in the public sector.

For the viewing public, I want to take a look at the principles of Ontario Works, the actual name of the workfare program which was first announced in 1995.

It's an active employment program. It provides employment assistance to help people find and keep a job. While they are taking steps toward employment, they are also eligible for financial

assistance. The costs of Ontario Works are shared by the province and municipalities.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services is responsible for setting policy and providing the majority of funding. Forty-seven municipalities and the

DSSABs actually deliver the program. The caseworkers are municipal staff, and the clients work with municipalities, not the province. Municipalities are legally obligated to protect the clients'

privacy. The ministry has regional offices to support municipalities in their delivery of the program and to ensure ministry accountability.

The Ontario Works focus is on employment, not just on giving people cheques. Caseworkers are expected to help participants find work, and Ontario Works places

expectations on people that they will help themselves. Participation in at least one employment activity is mandatory. Participants agree in a contract, called a participation agreement, to the

employment activities they need to help find a job, and the program rules ensure there are consequences if people don't take the steps they agreed to in their participation agreement.

Obviously the focus is on finding a job. In terms of the province's economic growth since 1995, there has been the creation of in excess of 822,000 net new

jobs. We've had tremendous economic growth. It only makes sense that what we try to do through Ontario Works is allow people to get a job and participate.

This particular resolution is focused on the public sector, to increase the opportunity for community placements, to increase the opportunity to get experience

and, the end objective, to get a job. Ontario Works provides a flexible range of practical services and supports to help participants while they're actively looking for a job. Community placements

help participants build connections to the job market by providing them with current practical work experience, updated new job skills, improved confidence in their abilities, up-to-date job

references and contact with potential future employers. The purpose of the employment placements is to move Ontario Works participants into jobs as quickly as possible.

Employment placement services include hiring assistance, follow-up human resources services to keep people employed, support for employers who provide

on-the-job training and job coaching. Through the employment placements, participants are hired by the employer and placed directly on the employer's payroll, and participants receive the going

wage for that position.

As a part of the program, Ontario Works takes the fundamental principle that everyone in the program can eventually become employed, that no one is permanently

unemployable. Ontario Works is about helping people find the shortest route to employment, although the route will vary for different people. Ontario Works provides a generous range of supports

backed up by a $180-million investment in employment assistance funding.

How do the community placements work? Only non-profit agencies can sponsor community placements. Community placements are with agencies that need extra help,

ie, new projects, special events providing new services to agency clients. Community placements cannot displace paid work. Participants are matched to placements based on their ability, training

needs and personal interests.

The emphasis is on community placements, and they are a key component of Ontario Works. You can't get a job without experience, and you can't get experience

without a job: that's the vicious cycle. Placements are invaluable for people who have been out of the workforce for a long time, people with no work experience and people with multiple employment

barriers. Placements give people a chance to learn skills, build their confidence, get real work experience and make contacts. Placements also give participants a chance to give something back to

the community while they're receiving assistance. The feedback from participants, agencies and communities on the benefits of placements has been very positive.

In order to speed up the development of new placements, in November 1999 the province implemented the welfare-to-work action plan, which set targets for

municipalities starting from 15% of the caseload in a placement for the year 1999-2000 and rising to 30% in the year 2001-02; provided increased funding for municipalities that exceeded the targets

-- $1,000 for each placement over the target for each of the three years -- warned the funding would be reduced for municipalities that did not meet the targets, and introduced the innovation fund

for new placement projects. The province is building on its success, actively promoting and marketing best practices and sharing successful strategies with the municipalities.

I have explained the focus of Ontario Works. The purpose of the resolution is to expand those placements in the municipalities and the public sector. What this

is saying is that the commitment of this government, through the Ministry of Community and Social Services, with the expansion of the Ontario work-for-welfare initiative, is having every ministry

and government agency, board and commission take a number of workfare placements. As promised during the last election, the work-for-welfare system should also be expanded by encouraging

municipalities to undertake more workfare programs. So the principles of providing assistance to get a job and of making sure of the process in terms of community placements, which is the key focus

of the program, are something this resolution is dealing with. I support that.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm pleased to join the debate here today. What we see here today is part of an ongoing plan by this

government, and not only from when they got elected. As we go back historically to look at the Mike Harris record in this area and we look at the Premier, then leader of the third party, six months

or a year before the election, we all remember vividly the scene of parading this woman out in front of a media studio and saying she would be better off today in Ontario if she quit her

$40,000-a-year job and went on welfare.

They paraded this, front-page news all over the province, except the premise was wrong. You will remember that a day later every reputable commission of social

services in Ontario said, "This is all wrong. Mr Harris has his facts wrong. This is inaccurate. It's not the case." That sort of set the tone for this government's obsession with attacking the

poor in Ontario.

The first thing they did when they took office was to cut benefits by 21%. These folks who were living high on the hog on welfare were way too wealthy in Mike

Harris's Ontario, "so we're going to cut their benefits by 21%." Then they proceeded to bring in workfare, which is nothing more than a public relations scam by the government of Ontario. Frankly,

what workfare had was the same programs the municipalities were running all along. The provisions of being kicked off welfare if you didn't co-operate were already in the welfare act for 20 years

in this province.

It became a nice, chest-pounding, Republican, public relations affair by the government of Ontario, saying, "Look how tough we're getting. We can prove it.

Mike Harris can be so tough. If you rip off the welfare system, if you're on welfare, if you just happen to be poor, we're going to nail you to the wall. But if you're a corporation in this

province or if you're a business and you rip off Revenue Canada or you rip off the GST or PST, you know what? It's OK. It's a problem, but don't worry about it. We'll overlook that."

The double standard was applied right from the beginning. We had the snitch line. We had the 21%. We said, "You're overpaid." Then we said to welfare

recipients, "You're all frauds and so we're going to bring in a snitch line." Then we said, "Not only are you all overpaid frauds, you're also all lazy, so we're going to bring in workfare and

force you to do this." Then, beyond that, we said, "Not only are you overpaid, a fraud and lazy, you're all addicted to drugs."

I remember what I believe to be the most disgraceful performance in a press conference by a minister in the province of Ontario when the minister rolled out a

box of syringes at a press conference with a backdrop of someone behind him shooting up to suggest to Ontarians that, if you're on welfare, you spend your money on drugs and you spend your money on

shooting up your arm. What a disgraceful, embarrassing moment in the history of this province, condoned by the Premier, condoned by the cabinet and condoned by the backbenchers.

People smile. I think what you did was disgraceful. It was a disgrace to every Ontarian that you believe you represent welfare recipients by bringing out a box

of syringes and saying, "You're all addicted to drugs." That is the history of this province, without one study or shred of evidence to ever suggest that welfare recipients have any more addiction

problems than anyone else in the general population. But that's the mindset of this government, and frankly that's the mindset that drives this resolution that's in front of us today.

Now we're going to expand this into the public sector. Now we're going to replace professionals, high-paid, well-trained individuals, with free labour for the

government of Ontario, for the ministries. We're now going to say, as the government continues to cut back, "We can make up for it? We'll just put these welfare recipients to work for a while on

the theory that it's going to help them."

These same welfare recipients, as other members have suggested, once they get into the job force, can't get daycare. I had two constituents in my office last

week, two single women, who started a job and realized they could not access safe daycare for their kids. The jobs don't pay a lot of money. They can't afford to pay daycare, and if they want to

line up to get subsidized, affordable, safe daycare in Hamilton, good luck. "Wait a year or two and maybe we'll get around to you."

If this government were really concerned about helping the needy, they would have addressed the daycare issue, and they would have addressed the housing issue

and the crisis in this province. But do you know what? That doesn't get you those cheap, sleazy, political points that beating up on the poor does. It's just push that button. You're down in the

polls. "What do we do? Well, let's see. Let's beat up on welfare recipients this week. That'll help us a little bit in the polls. That's a good, hot button. Our polling told us that. Our focus

group told us that. Gee, we're down in the polls again. Let's go after the teachers next week because that's another good, hot button."

Instead of playing hot-button politics with people whose only crime is being poor, you should look at some real alternatives and real programs. You cut

benefits six years ago. In the greatest economic boom this province has seen, this government did not have the courage to put a hand out and help welfare recipients, to say, "We cut you all by 21%,

but we think that was unreasonable and unfair. We're going to make up a little bit of it, at least deal with the inflation level." No, in six years you missed a golden opportunity there. In six

years you have not touched those benefits you cut by 21%. In six years you've not introduced one new meaningful program to help people on welfare. In six years you've not added one new daycare

space to help people get off welfare and into the workforce. Once they're out working, they're out of luck. That is not welfare reform.

This government doesn't care. It's that simple. Yesterday's budget showed that. This government couldn't care less about the needy and the poor in this

province. They're a great button to exploit. They're great people to kick and beat up. Mike Harris pounds his chest. He's such a tough guy when he takes on welfare recipients. But he rolls over

every time the corporate friends come out for a handout.

It's OK if you're looking for a grant to run your golf tournament and make money. That's OK, because Mike Harris is there. If you're a corporation that

benefited by $2.2 billion in yesterday's budget, that's OK, because that's Mike Harris's friends. But if you happen to be poor and needy or a single mum or are out of work in this province, you

don't get a hand up; you get the back of the hand from this Premier and this cabinet.

It is nothing more than another mean-spirited, nasty, unnecessary attack by a mean-spirited, nasty government that doesn't understand the plight of the poor,

doesn't care about the poor in Ontario, and seeks only to exploit and use poor people in this province. You should be ashamed of yourselves for what you have done. It is a disgraceful mark in the

history of the province, what you have done to people on welfare in the last six years in Ontario.

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): I'm pleased to be speaking on this resolution this morning. I want to begin by responding to the member from

Hamilton East. I'm actually very proud of what this government has done, very proud that this government is helping welfare recipients find jobs and gain dignity.

I want to thank the member from Niagara Falls and congratulate him for bringing this resolution forward. As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of

Community and Social Services, I believe this is definitely an area where we should be moving forward. The member from Nickel Belt, in her comments, referred to the member for Niagara Falls as the

parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services. He is in fact now the parliamentary assistant to health. I'm filling his shoes in community and social services, and he's

done an excellent job in that ministry. I think that's part of the reason he brought forward this resolution at this point in time, because he was in the ministry. He saw the benefits of this

program.

In 1995, 1.3 million Ontarians were on welfare. That is more than one out of every 10 people. I believe no one wants to be on welfare. Some who are ineligible

take advantage of welfare benefits, but the majority of people, I believe, want to find a job.

Welfare should be a bridge to get over a difficult period of time in one's life to be able to find a job in the future. We feel that we need to give the

recipients the tools they need to escape the welfare trap. They need to regain the confidence and the dignity that having a job brings to most people.

We believe in Ontarians, we believe in the confidence of Ontarians, and we believe in giving people a hand up. I would ask, what is standing between recipients

of social assistance and a job? There are several things that are standing in between. As a government, we want to assist recipients in moving into a job. Some of the initiatives brought forward by

our minister are putting together literacy and numeracy skills programs, because it's important that people learn the tools needed in order to gain employment.

It's important that people are not dependent on alcohol or drugs so that when they find a job they will be able to retain it and be successful and gain

confidence and dignity. They also need up-to-date skills, training for skills that are needed today in the jobs that are available for them today. This resolution from the member for Niagara Falls

is an excellent place to start.

In 1995, the Common Sense Revolution contained a commitment to revolutionizing the way welfare operates in Ontario. Our Blueprint in 1999 reaffirmed our

commitment to a system of social assistance that emphasizes skills and ensures that welfare is a temporary state between periods of employment.

We recognize it's hard to get a job without having up-to-date skills. We recognize it's hard to get a job without references. So helping people into jobs will

gain them the necessary skills they need and gain them the references they need. It's hard to find a job if you don't have con-fidence in yourself. For those on welfare, working in workfare will

gain the confidence they need to be able to continue to keep a job.

I want to talk about some of the successes in York region. My riding, Thornhill, is in York region. York region placements were almost three times the minimum

provincial target. With the incentive program of $1,000 per placement above the target, York region was granted $962,000 to reinvest in valuable community services. I'm proud of the work that is

done in York region. Between April 1, 2000, and January 31, 2001, a period of only 10 months, the target of 47,778 placements had already been achieved. Over 578,000 people have left the welfare

rolls since 1995.

I want to quote a Globe and Mail

article by John Ibbitson that talks about the opposition's view. Ibbitson said, "The Liberals and NDP can claim to their

heart's content that the Tories are heartless and cruel, but they can't deny that under their governments, welfare caseloads exploded, while the programs they created to wean people off state

dependency utterly failed.

"The Tories, by cutting back benefits and forcing recipients to make at least a credible stab at finding a job, have halved the rolls in six years. Does anyone

believe either of the other two parties would have done better?"

On this side of the House, we don't believe that they would have been able to accomplish half as much as this government has accomplished.

On behalf of the Minister of Community and Social Services, as his PA, I would like to say that we firmly support this resolution. It's consistent with out

Blueprint and I will be pleased to vote in favour of it.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I just want to add a few words on this debate and say to my colleagues across the

way, when I listen to their debate and to their arguments about why they don't support welfare, I am absolutely baffled, particularly by the Liberals who, as I recall, in one of their election

campaigns referred to welfare under the title, "Mandatory Opportunity: maybe we will support it, maybe we won't." What I find so interesting is that both the Liberals and the NDP, when it comes to

talking about welfare and helping those most in need in this province, absolutely give up.

We all hire summer students; we take on interns; we do everything we can to give people opportunities for workplace experience. There is absolutely no

substitute for this anywhere. I am absolutely baffled that you would speak against the idea of giving people most in need an opportunity to benefit themselves and to better themselves and their

families. I can't imagine you're going to speak against this.

The Acting Speaker: The mover of the motion has two minutes to reply.

Mr Maves: I thank everyone in the Legislature today for participating in the debate. I'm still astonished, after all the success this program

has had to date and the welfare reforms we've brought in to date have had, that the opposition is still opposed to it. The opposition is proud of their record of putting 1.3 million Ontarians on to

the welfare rolls. We're proud that we've moved 580,000 people from welfare to work.

Workfare is an opportunity. There are all kinds of programs. For instance, one program has an employment initiative and partnership with a local training

agency and private sector employers in the hospitality industry. Participants take a four-week training course, which involves one week of classroom training at the Ontario Works office, one week

of technical training on-site at a hotel in small groups, the third week involves technical training at the individual hotels by experienced housekeeping staff, and in the fourth week employment

starts. The pilot program has involved 20 Ontario Works participants thus far. Participants have completed the first week of training. The consortium has a commitment to employ the participants who

successfully complete the training. The starting wages are $9.26.

The point is, folks, that every workfare placement, as the member from Guelph said, is an opportunity. Opening up a larger number of placements is increasing

the number of opportunities for people on welfare. Why the Liberals and the NDP want to continue to deny opportunities to people on welfare is beyond the understanding of most Ontarians. Their

position on this is purely political, and has been from the beginning. They're putting partisan politics above the best interests of those Ontarians who most need the hand up. That is offered by

workfare and community placement. We refuse to do that and we continue to move forward with more placements in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: The time provided for private members' business has expired.

ONTARIO NATURAL

HERITAGE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LE PATRIMOINE NATUREL

DE L'ONTARIO

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 5 standing in the name of Mr Gilchrist.

Mr Gilchrist has moved second reading of Bill 17. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. It is carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, the bill stands referred to the committee of the whole.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I didn't hear what you said. I apologize.

The Acting Speaker: I said that pursuant to standing order 96, the bill stands referred to the committee of the whole.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Any member that --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Toronto-Danforth will take --

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Speaker --

The Acting Speaker: No. The member for Toronto-Danforth will withdraw those remarks.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): What remarks? We just went through a hoax this morning. He won't send it to a committee.

Interjection: When it goes to committee of the whole, nothing will happen anyway.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kingston and the Islands, come to order.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Oak Ridges will come to order.

I do not intend to --

Mr Colle: A point of order?

The Acting Speaker: No. When there are two of us standing, one of us is out of order, and it's not me.

I want you to be very sure about this: I am going to start naming members right away. I have asked, and I'll give the member for Toronto-Danforth one more

opportunity to withdraw the remarks.

Ms Churley: I certainly will not withdraw those remarks. He is a fraud. This was a hoax this morning.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Toronto-Danforth, Mrs Churley, is named.

Ms Churley was escorted from the chamber.

Mr Colle: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: by moving this morning's proceeding to committee of the whole, the government has basically

perpetrated a fraud on this Legislature. They have not allowed us to debate this bill. They are perpetrating a hoax.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Bring yourselves to order.

First of all, that is not a point of order. I am here only at your insistence, and I go by the standing orders. The standing orders are quite clear.

The second point is that only the person who moved the bill could make a motion to put it into some other committee.

Mr Colle: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to move unanimous consent that this bill proceed through second and third readings. By

unanimous consent you could --

The Acting Speaker: I think the member is asking for unanimous consent, rather than moving it. Is there consent? There is not consent.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Colle: It's a phony bill. It's a hoax. You're a fraud.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member for Eglinton-Lawrence to withdraw those remarks.

Mr Colle: I will not withdraw that. This has been the second time that members perpetrated a fraud --

The Acting Speaker: I name the member for Eglinton-Lawrence, Mr Colle.

Mr Colle was escorted from the chamber.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier, when the request was made for this to go to committee of the

whole, was there not a request for a vote on that, or at least a voice vote to report to committee of the whole? I don't think that occurred.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order, but because there seems to be a bit of problem, I would like to explain that standing order

96 says that is what will happen.

WORKFARE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item number 6, standing in the name of Mr Maves. Mr Maves has moved private

member's notice of motion number 1. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1211 to 1216.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour will please rise.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please stand.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Cordiano, Joseph

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McLeod, Lyn

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 33; the nays are 24.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

All matters relating to private members' business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House resumes at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1219 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HUMBER RIVER REGIONAL HOSPITAL

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): In 1997, the Harris government decided to close Northwestern General Hospital in my riding, but when

they closed it, they forgot to make certain that the health care services in my community were still protected.

Since 1997, my community of York South-Weston has been feeling the effects of that hospital closure. We are in a crisis situation. We are a severely

underserviced area in terms of health care. Not only do we lack health services in general, but our Humber River Regional Hospital has the dubious distinction of being on critical bypass more than

any other Toronto area hospital. More than anywhere else in this city, the people of my riding are without local emergency services. This cannot continue. Something has to be done. Health care

services in York South-Weston have been ignored for far too long.

Recently, the Humber River Regional Hospital put forward a proposal to restructure health services in my community. The centrepiece of their proposal is the

building of a new superhospital. This proposal is still being investigated and discussed.

I will support any plan that restores the health services our community desperately needs, but let me be very clear. I will not support a plan that leads to

the further reduction in services in my community or a plan that starves our community of the health care services it needs now.

I will also not support a process that restructures Humber River Regional Hospital without community input. Humber River Regional Hospital is a community

hospital. Our community deserves better than this and they deserve to have a say.

JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I rise before you today to speak about a subject that is of deep concern to my constituents of

Scarborough Centre and myself, and it's that concern of criminal justice.

On Tuesday, April 18, 2000, I introduced a controversial private member's bill that was called the Judicial Accountability Act. The bill required local

justices to keep records of their sentences for the Attorney General to present to this House. The bill also outlined that the Legislature may recommend to the Governor in Council of Canada as to

who should be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Politicians need to be held accountable, but we're not the only ones who effect change in the lives of the people of Ontario. The legal community must

understand that they too need to be held accountable for the decisions they make.

In an

article in the Globe and Mail on Wednesday, April 18, 2001, Attorney General David Young stated, "There are a lot of things that we do well in terms of

law and order." I agree with his observation. The Mike Harris government has done much to protect all Ontarians, but we must not be afraid of making changes to help protect our neighbourhoods in

Scarborough Centre and all across the province, unlike Dalton McGuinty and his federal cousins in Ottawa who continue to flip-flop and waffle on important law-and-order issues. Quite frankly, in my

opinion, the Liberals just don't get it.

BUDGET

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Although yesterday's budget succeeded in maintaining the ongoing corporate love affair between Mike Harris and

his very select group of wealthy friends, it was a slap in the face for northerners.

Once again, this government has turned its back on the people living north of Parry Sound. Once again, Mike Harris refuses to increase the northern health

travel grant and treat northern cancer patients like southern cancer patients. Once again, there was no mention of increased funding for capital construction or equipment costs for northern

hospitals, like the Sudbury Regional Hospital. Once again, there is no commitment to an economic diversification strategy for northern Ontario.

But most shocking in yesterday's budget was the reality that this government has not funded the northern medical school by one cent, but they had $60 million

for a new university in Durham. Most frightening is the fact that the government has not committed one penny to physician recruitment and retention strategies in northern Ontario.

Perhaps Mike Harris should talk to the 40,000 people in Sudbury who do not have a doctor, perhaps he should talk to the 40,000 in Thunder Bay who don't have a

family doctor or perhaps he should talk to the 8,000 in his own riding of North Bay who don't have a doctor before he jumps in bed with his rich corporate friends and gives them grotesque tax

breaks that are 25% lower than anywhere else in the United States.

The reality is that this is a payback for Harris's wealthy corporate friends and a slap in the face to people living in northern Ontario.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): At a time when people are expecting facts and plain talk in health care, the opposition Liberals are

offering spin and numbers that are not only fuzzy but downright laughable and irresponsible. Last week the member for Parkdale-High Park suggested that most of the improvements in health care over

the last few years have been paid for by -- guess who? -- the federal government.

First of all, as every Ontarian now knows, Ontario pays for 86% of its health care costs; the federal Liberals just 14 cents out of each dollar. Any extra

dollar coming from Ottawa over the past few years has been not only new money but a partial restoration of the transfers the Chrétien Liberals have slashed in the first place. Giving the

federal Liberals credit for health care funding is like giving an arsonist credit for coming back to the fire with a bucket of water. Let's not forget that those dollars never would have come back

to the people of Ontario, were it not for the continued and persistent demands of Mike Harris and his caucus.

Unfortunately, the opposition Liberals did not support Premier Harris in his attempts to restore funding. The opposition Liberals claim that they are not

joined at the hip with the federal Liberals, just cousins. The citizens of our province can count on this government for responsibility and accountability. Surely the opposition can be responsible

in providing some accuracy in the facts they present to the public.

HERB CARNEGIE

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'd like to say a few words about an outstanding Canadian, Herb Carnegie. I was pleased, along with

over 1,000 people, to attend a ceremony where the North York Centennial Centre was renamed the Herbert H. Carnegie Centennial Centre. Herb, in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s was an outstanding hockey

player here in Canada, as you would probably be aware, Mr Speaker.

Many who played with him believed he clearly should have been in the NHL. But he is black. There were many around at that time who felt that the reason he

didn't make it to the NHL was because of his colour. In spite of that, he went on to be an extremely successful business person. He started, I think, Canada's first hockey school. He was senior

champ in golf a couple of times for Canada. But his most important contribution perhaps was that he started something called Future Aces, which is a program that ensures a code of positive values

for young people. He has raised well over $200,000 to provide funding for them.

He is a terrific role model for all of us but he is someone who I believe should be in the hall of fame. There is a program underway now to encourage the hall

of fame to accept him, and I would encourage all of us to support that. Those who would like to, can get the petitions from the community partnerships at 416-395-6475. This is an outstanding

Canadian. I think all of us would be proud to have him in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Today members clearly witnessed how little this Conservative government cares about protecting the Oak Ridges

moraine. In private members' hour this morning, members debated Bill 79, a bill put forward by the Conservative member for Scarborough East. While not nearly as strong as our NDP Bill 29, which

freezes development on the Oak Ridges moraine until a policy statement is in place to deal with planning, and amend the Planning Act to allow for greater protection of natural areas in Ontario, my

colleague Marilyn Churley, MPP for Toronto-Danforth, spoke in favour of Mr Gilchrist's bill in the hope that it would pass second reading and be sent to a legislative committee for full public

hearings on this matter.

This bill is not going to a legislative committee after all and there won't be full public hearings. The member for Scarborough East, Mr Gilchrist, is directly

responsible for that. When it was time for him to ask for his bill to be sent to a legislative committee for full hearings and a full review, the member instead specifically chose to