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

November 22, 1999

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 1999-Nov-22 vol. A (PDF)

L015A - Mon 22 Nov 1999 / Lun 22 nov 1999

WEARING OF RIBBONS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

UKRAINIAN TRAGEDY

AL POOLMAN

DISTINGUISHED HAMILTONIANS

TORONTO COUNCIL

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

CAIRINE WILSON SECONDARY SCHOOL

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT (GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING STANDARDS), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION DES CONTRIBUABLES (NORMES CONCERNANT LA PUBLICITÉ GOUVERNEMENTALE)

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

APPOINTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

ORAL QUESTIONS

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

CHILD CARE

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

SPECIALISTS' SERVICES

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

REPORT CARDS

SPECIALISTS' SERVICES

PUBLIC SAFETY

HAZARDOUS WASTE

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

HIGHWAY BILLBOARDS

HEALTH CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SAFE STREETS ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND BALANCED BUDGET ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION DES CONTRIBUABLES ET L'ÉQUILIBRE BUDGÉTAIRE

TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND BALANCED BUDGET ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION DES CONTRIBUABLES ET L'ÉQUILIBRE BUDGÉTAIRE

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): I seek unanimous consent to wear the purple ribbon representing the struggle to prevent violence against women, and in recognition of 14 women killed at l'École polytechnique in Montreal 10 years ago, and the 33 women who have been murdered in Ontario by their intimate partners since July 2, 1998, the date of the May-Iles inquest jury recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Agreed? Agreed.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

UKRAINIAN TRAGEDY

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): It is an honour as a member of provincial Parliament to stand and help this Legislature recognize the famine-genocide that occurred in the Ukraine in 1933, where over seven million Ukrainian men, women and children were starved to death by the then Soviet regime. This week, November 19 to 28, it is very significant that Canadian Ukrainians will commemorate the 66th anniversary of this great, horrific tragedy. To ignore this event would be only to invite its repetition.

So great was the impact and disruption of this famine-genocide on Ukraine society that raw statistics to provide the exact number of starved cannot be determined. However, historians have documented victims between seven million and 10 million in number.

The Ukrainian community continues to make positive contributions to our society here in Canada. I appreciate and thank them for their support, and I'm looking forward to working with them on their future endeavours.

Coinciding with the commemoration date proclaimed by the decree of the president of Ukraine and the statement officially presented at the United Nations by Ukraine's ambassador regarding crimes of genocide, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress is to be congratulated for continuing to increase public awareness of the famine-genocide of 1933.

AL POOLMAN

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): It gives me great pride to rise today and recognize a man of great talent from my riding of Peterborough. Now in his 86th year, Mr Al Poolman is a very respected and prolific artist who has masterfully captured the natural beauty of the Kawarthas over a career spanning seven decades.

Mr Poolman's works have told the stories of the First Nations people. These stories have centred around the Curve Lake reserve located in the heart of the Kawarthas on a peninsula between Buckhorn and Chemong lakes. His paintings have illustrated the rugged and natural beauty of the land, as well as the personal histories of its inhabitants. This is why it is important to recognize his contribution. He depicts the life of the people who first settled on the land and, in doing so, gives us a unique glimpse into an important past. His works speak both of a rich heritage and a proud culture, set together on the breathtaking backdrop of this province.

On behalf of the riding of Peterborough, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Al Poolman on his recent art exhibition at the Whetung Ojibwa Crafts Art Gallery and wish him continued success in the future. We also thank him for the unique voice that he has given to watercolours, oils and acrylics.

DISTINGUISHED HAMILTONIANS

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise today to pay honour to a great number of Hamiltonians who have achieved tremendous success in their life.

Let me start, though, by saying that yesterday I had the pleasure of being in Montreal and cheering the Hamilton Tiger Cats on to the Grey Cup, again in Vancouver next week. I'm certain we're going to come home with the cup again for Ontario and for Hamilton, and I certainly look forward to that happening.

Recently, the Sons of Italy honoured Dr Nicholas Mancini as Citizen of the Year for the Hamilton Italian Canadian community. Dr Mancini has had a dental practice on Barton Street for 51 years in the city of Hamilton. Over the years, 30, 40 or 50 years ago, he looked after new immigrants who couldn't afford dental care. Dr Mancini was there for them. He was knighted by Pope Pius XII. He was a former trustee and chair of the Hamilton Catholic School Board and has served on over 17 committees, boards and agencies in his career.

Also recently, Bill Bain was honoured. Bill Bain served for over 30 years with the Hamilton East Kiwanis Club. His community service in every aspect of our community has been outstanding. Mr Bain led that organization through many changes and through many great successes over the past 30 years.

As well, the other night six great Hamiltonians were honoured for their great work and their achievement, and I'm proud to stand here and thank them for their contribution to our great city.

TORONTO COUNCIL

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Southwest): Once again, the council for the city of Toronto and Mayor Mel just don't get it. First, Councillor Tom Jakobek and Treasurer Wanda Liczyk warned that the city's debt would double within five and taxpayers could face a double-digit property tax increase. Now Mayor Mel sees the solution to years of city mismanagement as a Toronto separatist movement.

In the past few weeks, we have seen city council spend $10.5 million on what they call a "modest reworking" of Nathan Phillips Square, councillors privately and openly lobbying for personal salary increases, and overspending by the Toronto zoo, whose answer to sagging attendance is to increase admission fees.

Many councillors and staff continue to bring forward unrealistic Christmas wishes. They're really wishing for a return to the days when governments could tax and spend at their leisure. Significant savings from amalgamation are still being left on the table. So far, there has not been the political will to aggressively go after those savings. Toronto council should work towards encouraging the growth and expansion of business as a means of increasing the tax base, not increasing the tax rate and chasing even more commercial activity away from the city.

In short, get into the game and put an end to "Lucien" Lastman's absurd province-of-Toronto gambit. It is nothing more than a means to direct attention away from the real problems and solutions facing the city of Toronto.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): After having cut programs and funding to post-secondary institutions and forcing many students to incur massive debt, Mike Harris is cutting government-funded student loan programs by another $75 million. So bad are the policies of this government regarding post-secondary funding that our student association at Laurentian University in Sudbury opened its second food bank on Friday so that our brightest and best won't go hungry.

Todd Bosak, from Laurentian, points out that the cuts are even more disastrous for Laurentian because it has one of the highest percentages of students in the province who need financial assistance. Massive tuition hikes, coupled with diminished access to financial assistance, is evidence that Mike Harris is attempting to create an elite system of post-secondary education.

In response to this continued assault on post-secondary education, student associations at Laurentian, in Ontario and across Canada are organizing Access 2000, a nationwide rally to protest these horrible cuts to colleges and universities.

Mike Harris seems to have the will to invest in his own golf games, travel and expensive lunches, but no interest in investing in the future of our province, which is our students. We can only hope that the united actions of Access 2000 will make Mike Harris finally pay attention to these real problems. The Premier should be ashamed of himself for initiating government policies that force university students to open food banks so that their fellow students won't go hungry.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): Today I rise in solemn commemoration of the lives of too many women who have been killed by violence at the hands of men. Before me I have a number of roses. There are 14 red roses, in memory of the lives of the young women who were killed at L'École polytechnique in Montreal 10 years ago. There is one single white rose, in memory of the lives of all women who have died of violence at the hands of men in their lives.

Then there are three purple and three white roses together, which together symbolize 33, the 33 women who have died at the hands of their intimate partners since July 1998, when the jury recommendations from the May-Iles inquest were released.

Today OAITH, the shelter representatives, were here speaking loudly and clearly, and I hope the government listened and heard. They pointed out that the jury recommendations were so clear on what needed to be done. Some of the things need to be changed in the justice system, and the government is moving on that front, but equally the jury cried out for changes in support to community-based shelters and second-stage housing. They have a simple request to you: It's $120,000 per shelter and second-stage housing, to bring the first immediate resources in, and a review of the funding for the long term. It's not a lot. I hope you listened. I hope you heard.

CAIRINE WILSON SECONDARY SCHOOL

Mr Brian Coburn (Carleton-Gloucester): It's my pleasure today to speak to you about some very special young people who live in my riding of Carleton-Gloucester.

The students at Cairine Wilson Secondary School in Orleans have, over the last few weeks, been filling Christmas shoeboxes with toys, candies and other items for shipment to children in Kosovo, Central and South America, Southeast Asia and West Africa.

This first-time effort, with more than one third of the students at Cairine Wilson school participating, has produced over 230 Christmas boxes for Operation Christmas Child. Students decided whether their gift would be for a boy or girl and the age of the child. They stuffed the boxes with a variety of goodies such as small cars, dolls, school supplies, T-shirts and picture books. This volunteer initiative was launched by the school's Christian Fellowship Club, the staff, administration and students at the school.

Here in Ontario we enjoy a quality of life, community and compassion for one another that is unrivalled anywhere else in the world, and the students who participated in this effort are carrying on this great tradition as well as setting a fine example for all other Ontarians.

Christine Mudryk, who filled two Christmas boxes with some of her favourite toys, said, "We are so blessed here that we take it for granted."

My congratulations go out to the staff and students at Cairine Wilson Secondary School for their outstanding effort for children around the world.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): We heard in the throne speech several references to "real people." This description was an obvious slap in the face to anyone in Ontario who doesn't live up to the government's definition. Should you need a helping hand in Ontario in order to succeed you're not "real."

Judy Visca is a constituent in my riding of Hamilton Mountain. She's a real person. She is in the process of attempting to better her life and the lives of her children by upgrading her education. She was a participant in the Ontario Works program until deciding to improve her employability chances by going back to school to train in hair design. At this point a number of Catch-22s began to apply.

She was accepted into a hair design program and made application to OSAP for financial assistance. She was accepted, making her ineligible for further assistance through Ontario Works-Catch-22 number one.

Her student financial support, because of the nature of her training program, is covered only by the federal portion of the OSAP plan-Catch-22 number two-thus limiting her support to $6,980 for a 42-week program. Deduct from this $5,300 for tuition and another $500 for course materials and she's left with $1,180 to live on for a 10-month period.

Ms Visca has joint custody of her children-Catch-22 number three. They stay with her 12 to 15 days a month. She has to feed them. These are her choices: Give up her plans to go back to school, or sink into debt to provide food and shelter while going to school, or cut her costs by giving up those 12 to 15 days a month with her children.

I ask this government to give consideration to this situation.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I rise today to comment on a component of the auditor's report, in particular as it relates to cancer patient waiting periods in my riding. This problem is not a new problem but is the result of too many years in which the health care system was allowed to decline during the NDP and Liberal governments of 1985 to 1995. Those two governments completely ignored the cancer treatment and other health care needs of my riding, Kitchener Centre. During their tenure the health care facilities declined to the point where one prominent doctor stated that the emergency ward in one of our hospitals had reached Third World standards.

That situation was intolerable, particularly in a region such as Waterloo, the GDP of which matches that of the province of New Brunswick at $14 billion and is one of Canada's most important economic regions.

To prove its commitment to addressing this problem, this government has committed to opening a new cancer treatment centre in Kitchener in the immediate future. I look forward to the day I will be taking

part in the groundbreaking ceremony for the new cancer treatment centre at the Grand River Hospital.

The health care professionals in my riding are excited about the improvements to the facilities and services which are taking place as a result of this government's determination to ensure that Ontario's health care system is among the best in the world.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT (GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING STANDARDS), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION DES CONTRIBUABLES (NORMES CONCERNANT LA PUBLICITÉ GOUVERNEMENTALE)

Mr McGuinty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 17,

An Act to end partisan government advertising / Projet de loi 17, Loi mettant fin à la publicité gouvernementale à caractère politique.

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

Short comment?

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My bill establishes for the first time in Ontario legal standards for government advertising, including that it be in the public interest and that it be non-partisan. My bill will, in keeping with the Provincial Auditor's recommendation, prohibit this government from using hard-earned taxpayer dollars to fund partisan political advertising.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on November 22, 23 and 24, 1999, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

APPOINTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to have a motion without notice regarding an interim appointment of the Environmental Commissioner.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

"To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of Ivy Wile as the Environmental Commissioner for a term of two months, commencing December 1, 1999, as provided in

section 53 of the Environmental Bill of Rights Act."

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Pending the arrival of the Deputy Premier, who I understood was going to be here today, I will direct my first question to the Minister of the Environment.

When you wrote your now infamous letter, you made it perfectly clear that when it comes to the Oak Ridges moraine, you are firmly planted in the corner of Ontario developers. This weekend, when 200 delegates attending a conference on our water supply came together and called on you to place a temporary freeze on development, increase legislation to protect the moraine, you were offered a shining opportunity to redeem yourself. But what did you do? You said no. You said you were completely satisfied with the voluntary guidelines that had been in place in this province since 1991.

Minister, developers couldn't have said it any better themselves. I'm asking you now: When are you going to start acting on behalf of the environment in our province and table legislation that's going to protect the Oak Ridges moraine?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The characterization of the honourable member is completely wrong. I was at that meeting. He wasn't, so I wonder where he gets his reports from. Maybe from a certain publication that is very supportive of him but does not represent the views of the people of Ontario. If he wants to know what I said rather than what he reads in the papers, because he wasn't there, I'd be happy to share that with the honourable member at any time.

Mr McGuinty: Those voluntary guidelines which you continue to insist are adequate have been assessed by every expert in the province as being completely inadequate when it comes to protecting the Oak Ridges moraine, not only for this generation but for generations yet to come.

With respect to farming, in the GTA now we are losing 7,500 acres of farmland each and every year. Over the course of the next 20 years, we're going to lose 150,000 acres of valuable farmland that happens to be the most productive farmland in the province. Over the next 20 years, if you continue to sit on your hands, we're going to lose one quarter of the farmland that is available in the GTA.

Minister, again, when are you going to start standing up for the environment, start standing up to developers and table a bill? If you can't do that, then why don't you adopt the legislation that has been put forward by Mike Colle, who has done more than you have since you've had the job?

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member didn't care enough about the moraine to be there. I was there, and I gave an opening address, which I think was received very warmly by the delegates. I will share this with the Legislature, because this is important public policy. I said that we wanted the input of the stakeholders. There were a lot of good ideas that I and the honourable member representing Oak Ridges heard at the meeting, and we are quite willing to assess the ideas of the waterfront regeneration trust.

I also said that we are at the OMB, representing the provincial interest, which is our responsibility as a government, on the environmental issues he purports to care so strongly about.

I also said that we have a very strict-in fact stricter than when he was in power-water-taking permit system in this province, which is designated for the long-term interest of the province, and is there to ensure that water taken from the moraine or any other area in Ontario is replenishable. That's how we're acting, not engaging in cheap rhetoric.

Mr McGuinty: You're not acting, Minister. Give us a break. All you're doing is fiddling while we sell off the Oak Ridges moraine to developers. You are doing nothing. If you want to look decisive on this issue, stand up now and declare an immediate freeze-it'll take effect immediately, it'll start today and it will ensure that we take the time and the care to put in place legislation that will protect the interests not only of this generation but of generations yet to come.

Your problem is that you are spending so much time shilling for developers that you should be registered as a lobbyist acting on their behalf.

Minister, one more time, will you stand up in this Legislature, tell us that you are going to freeze development effective immediately and that you are going to pass Mike Colle's bill that will protect this property for generations yet to come?

Hon Mr Clement: All I can tell you is that I was at the meeting. I wanted to take

part in the meeting.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Minister of the Environment was there, and the Liberal Party's environment critic was at that meeting as well. For him to suggest-

The Speaker: Order. It's not a point of order.

Hon Mr Clement: The member who asked the question is busy finding every last McGuinty to stack into every last delegate position to his convention.

The fact is that we are protecting the long-term interests of the province of Ontario. We have a strict water-taking permit system, which is better than any freeze that says, before you take a single drop of water out of the moraine, you have to prove to me, to my ministry and to everyone that it is scientifically replenishable. That is better than any Liberal quick fix, because it protects the long-term interests of the moraine. It is better than some bill that is presented by his party that says that whenever you want to build a new tool shed in your backyard, you have to get the approval of a bureaucrat.

We have the long-term interests of the province in mind. It is better than anything they are presenting to the people of Ontario, and we're proud of it.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): A question for the Deputy Premier. But in passing, we now understand and see the true colours of this Minister of the Environment, and I can tell you they're not green.

Deputy Premier, last week the Provincial Auditor was very critical of your government for having used hard-earned taxpayer dollars for partisan political advertising. One of the things he did was quote with approval a guideline that's in place in another jurisdiction, which says, "A government should not ... disseminate material that ... is designed to secure or has the effect of attempting to secure, popular support for party-political persuasion of the members of the government."

Mr Deputy Premier, a few moments ago I introduced a private member's bill that would have the exact intended effect of the guideline quoted with approval by the Provincial Auditor. Will you support my private member's bill and protect the interests of the taxpayers in Ontario?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I don't know, because I haven't seen the member's private member's bill. I'd have to look at it. But I will say that just because you are proposing a piece of legislation-I can recall a government you were a part of, the David Peterson government, that made a great foofaraw about introducing conflict-of-interest legislation. In fact, they took the standards that the Davis government had, watered them down so they could have conflict, and then professed to the world that they had done a great job.

We are taking this quite seriously, as we do every comment that the Provincial Auditor makes. We are currently reviewing his directives, we're looking at his report, and we will come forward with what the government will do with respect to guidelines.

But just because you've introduced a piece of legislation, I sure as heck hope it's better than David Peterson's conflict-of-interest legislation, which allowed his cabinet ministers to have conflicts and still serve in the government of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: The Deputy Premier is great at taking shots at past and ancient governments. I wonder if he might take a shot at answering this question. Deputy Premier, you were provided with notice to this effect on December 16, 1998, by the Provincial Auditor, who registered his concerns with the secretary of cabinet back then.

Notwithstanding that notice, notwithstanding the expression of his very grave concern about your use of taxpayer dollars, you continued with an orgy of expenditures on partisan political advertising that had nothing to do with defending the interests of taxpayers and everything to do with defending your interests and the Mike Harris re-election campaign. I put a solid proposal on the table today, Deputy Premier. Will you act now, in keeping with the request of the Provincial Auditor, and support that bill and the interests of Ontario taxpayers?

Hon Mr Eves: The current directive that the government is using was put in place in 1985 by the then Liberal government. If you're now saying that directive is not good enough and those policies aren't good enough-and the Provincial Auditor has indicated, with all due respect-we'll be reviewing the directive. I indicated to you that the government will be reviewing the directive and taking the Provincial Auditor's opinion into account. But just because you've introduced a piece of legislation, don't sit there and be smug. Why didn't the government of the day, in 1988 when the Provincial Auditor's report was filed, do something about the directive if they thought it was that important?

Mr McGuinty: Last week a cabinet document floated to the surface and we discovered that this government has intentions to cut programs to children who are blind, children who are deaf and children who are suffering from severe learning disabilities. This government later made an announcement of $300 million in cuts and told us that there are $600 million more in cuts to come. But at the same time, this government proceeded with $100 million in expenditures for partisan political advertising that has nothing to do with the interests of Ontario taxpayers and everything to do with the interests of this government.

Tell me, Deputy Premier, how can you justify making cuts to programs that serve the needs of our most vulnerable while at the same time you refuse to adopt a proposal that will cut back on partisan political advertising?

Hon Mr Eves: I've said no such thing. I said we'd be happy to take a look at the leader of the official opposition's proposed piece of legislation. We're looking at the Provincial Auditor's opinion. We are looking at the directives that have been in place since 1985.

Mr McGuinty: I gave it to you two years ago.

Hon Mr Eves: Excuse me. The David Peterson government was put on notice by the then Provincial Auditor in 1988. Obviously the government of the day looked at it and didn't think there was any need. The Provincial Auditor-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order.

Was the Deputy Premier finished?

Hon Mr Eves: The Provincial Auditor did go on in his report to note that these recommendations are new, that no other government in Canada, including the federal government, has them in place.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Eves: I would say with all due respect to the member for Windsor West, she might want to look at the Liberal government's record in terms of expenditure.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): This is the worst in the history of the province.

Hon Mr Eves: It is not. We have spent-

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Windsor West, order.

Is the Deputy Premier finished?

Hon Mr Eves: To sum up: The expenditures in advertising of this government between 1995-96 and 1998-99: $163 million; the NDP government between 1990-91 and 1994-95, $238 million; and the Liberal government between 1985-86 and 1988-89, $277 million.

CHILD CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the minister responsible for children and it is about your child care cuts of last week, which I believe is just another example of the growing gap in Ontario. One week you announce tax cuts for the well off, and the next week more than 3,000 children across Ontario lose their child care subsidy. How do you defend cutting $25 million from an essential service for children and working families in Ontario?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): Mr Speaker, I'm referring this to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): We recognize and support parents in providing child care for their children. We understand and appreciate the importance of it to them: to allow them to work, and to allow them to search for work, for those on social assistance. Our commitment to child care is matched not just by words but by actions. Since we were elected the child care budget and the budget for parents to support child care has increased substantively. I think that demonstrates our clear commitment to child care.

We support child care in a whole host of ways. We support child care through fee subsidies, through wage subsidies, through resource centres, through special needs resources, through Ontario Works child care, through LEAP, to name just a few.

Mr Hampton: The minister is right about one thing: This is a government that has made several child care announcements, and then all of what was announced failed to happen. I actually think the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care has it right. They put it very bluntly: This Premier's only purpose is to cut taxes on the backs of the poor and our children.

I'll put the question to you another way, Minister. How is it that one week you can stand in this Legislature and justify tax cut subsidies for NHL hockey players of $16 million, but the next week you announce child care cuts of over $25 million? How can you afford the money for NHL hockey millionaires, but kids are told there's no money?

Hon Mr Baird: I think it won't come as any surprise to the leader of the third party that I don't share his view with respect to the NHL. I don't support, nor does this government support, any subsidies to professional sports. What we do support is substantial supports to child care.

I read off a number of things this government has done to increase spending on child care. We also have introduced a $200-million Ontario child care supplement for working families. We have a 30% workplace tax incentive to encourage workplaces to construct child care spaces, a whole host of initiatives designed to increase child care spaces in Ontario.

What we've seen since this government was elected is that we have more child care spaces in the province, we have more child care centres, and this government is now spending more on child care than any government in Ontario's history.

Mr Hampton: The sum total of what the minister has said is this: If the parents can afford it, they can get child care. That's your government's definition of child care in Ontario, just like your definition of health care and more and more your definition of education. If parents have the money, they can get child care, but if parents are hard-pressed, you have no answer. In fact all you're doing for parents who are hard-pressed is doing away with the child care subsidy spaces. There's now a waiting list of 15,000 children for subsidized spaces and you are making the situation worse.

Minister, everything you announced last week hits at children. You're not doing something that's going to assist municipalities or give benefits to municipalities, you're taking child care spaces away from children. How can you justify tax cuts for the well off and taking more child care spaces away from children?

Hon Mr Baird: The members of the New Democratic Party like to measure one's commitment and the priority one accords to a particular issue purely in money. By their own measure, this government is spending more supporting parents and providing child care to their children; this government is spending substantially more money than they spent. They must be embarrassed that Mike Harris's government, this Conservative government, is showing more support to child care, more support to children's aid societies, more support to children with autism, more support for a variety of children's programs than their government provided.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services, and I would like a page to come.

During my member's statement, I spoke about the significance of these roses, symbolic, beautiful, poignant reminders of the lives and the deaths of too many women in this province. There's a group of them, and I am going to send these over to you, that represents the 33 women who have lost their lives at the hands of intimate partners since the recommendations from the May-Iles inquest jury.

They asked you to do a number of things, some things on the justice system side, but many things on the community side. You have moved forward with respect to changes in the justice system, but increasing the independent, community-based supports that abused women rely on, shelters, second-stage housing programs, you've failed miserably on that front. The jury was very clear on that point, but we've yet to see any action.

Today, the shelters are here to ask you to do two specific things: They're asking for $120,000 for each shelter and second-stage housing project-that will hire just two more counsellors for every site-and they're asking you to initiate the funding review for shelters and for second-stage housing community supports. Will you do those two things, Minister?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to say at the outset that this government recognizes the importance of this issue and the very serious consequences of domestic violence. Through the government's Agenda for Action strategy, we're providing an additional $27 million between 1997 and 2000-01 to support women and their families in breaking the cycle of violence.

The member opposite raises the request of a group that came forward this morning with a report. I haven't had occasion yet to receive their report, but I want to say very earnestly to her that I'm certainly committed to reviewing the report and giving every consideration to the request.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Minister, once again we've got the clear presence and the clear direction of your government. These women have been knocking on your door for over four years asking you to address these problems. The reason they put forward this very specific solution is because you've ignored every other plea they've made. It's not lost on them that your government can stand here one week and can say to the whole world that your government has found room to give NHL hockey franchises in Ontario $16 million in tax breaks. Their total proposal, if you add it up, for all of the women's centres across this province would amount to less than $15 million.

I ask you again, how is it that your government can find, without any problem whatsoever, $16 million to finance the fat salaries of NHL hockey millionaires, but 33 women have been killed since the May-Iles report, and you say, "I'll study the situation"? How do you justify that?

Hon Mr Baird: This member and this government certainly don't support subsidies to millionaire hockey players, and, as I said earlier, I'll repeat that to let that not go on the record.

This year we'll spend more than $73 million on over 98 shelters and over 100 counselling agencies for abused women and their children across the province.

The government has recently received a report from the Joint Committee on Domestic Violence, and we're presently awaiting the report from the Office for Victims of Crime, which is to advise us on how we can improve services for victims. Once I receive this report and the report that was released today, I can certainly commit to the members opposite and to all colleagues in this House that we will review the recommendations together and determine the best course of action.

The Speaker: I know it's a sensitive issue, but the members also know that the use of props is not a part of the standing order, and I would appreciate the members' co-operation.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. It is now becoming apparent that Ontario Power Generation, previously known as Ontario Hydro, has no intention of living up to its commitment made in 1991 to cap its nitrogen oxide emissions next year at 38 kilotonnes. We've had press conferences by the Ontario College of Family Physicians and the Ontario Clean Air Alliance focusing on this issue.

As a result, its coal-fired generating stations will pour smog, acid-rain-producing gases, toxic air pollutants-including the nerve toxin mercury-and six cancer-causing substances, such as arsenic and lead, into Ontario's air and increase by 42% its emissions of sulphur dioxide.

While you and your government smile and nod at Ontario's largest corporate air polluter, Ontario Power Generation, and sit on the sidelines, letting Ontario Power Generation call its own shots, people of Ontario suffer. Will you now at long last admit that your voluntary acquiescence approach with polluters is a failure, and will you implement tough new, unequivocal regulations and legislation to compel OPG to meet its so-called voluntary commitment?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the honourable member for the question. Indeed, we have in place and we are seeking to continue to augment our regulations in this area, but also working with various industries, because they're the ones that have to implement what is in the best interests of Ontario, which is cleaner air and lower emissions.

As the honourable member, being a member of this House, well knows, we have had a particular challenge for Ontario Power Generation because of the nuclear facilities being off-line. We are anxiously awaiting the approval of the federal government to ensure that those facilities can go on-line in a safe manner. That in itself will reduce the emissions which he is concerned about and which I am concerned about.

This is a problem that we have in place right now that does have a solution. Part of it is a better mix of power generation, which Ontario Hydro or Ontario Power Generation is seeking in and of itself to get to, and part of it is a constant review of our air quality standards, many of which are 20 years old now. Our government has committed to reviewing those over the next weeks and months.

Mr Bradley: Minister, you and the Harris government have played footsie with polluters now since you came to power. The one promise you have kept-I'll give you credit for this-is to get the Ministry of the Environment out of the faces of polluters in this province.

Your friends in Ontario Power Generation have in fact abandoned their commitment to reduce energy consumption, have abandoned the commitment to buy cleaner electricity in this province. Highly regarded scientist Dr David Suzuki has estimated that pollution from fossil fuels-coal, oil and gas-means premature death for up to 6,000 Ontarians each year and increased hospital admissions for asthma and respiratory illness for children. Family physicians in Ontario will now be making their patients aware of their very serious health problem.

Minister, your government is prepared to play hardball with the weakest people in our society. You and your Premier still kowtow to polluters by allowing voluntary pledges and promises from the province's top polluters. Will you now stop being an apologist for Ontario Power Generation and demand that your big polluting friends cap their nitrogen oxide emissions at 38 kilotonnes, as they promised to do?

Hon Mr Clement: Mr Speaker, you know how I hate to disagree with my honourable colleague, but the fact of the matter is that we have binding commitments from OPG and from other industrial sectors to reduce smog-causing emissions by 25% over the next five years and by 45% over the next 15 years. This is the government of Ontario policy. This isn't just the policy of the Minister of the Environment; this is government of Ontario policy under our anti-smog action plan. We are committed to this as a government.

The interesting thing is that the people the member rails against are at the table and want to get there too. Is it going to take some creativity? Yes, it will. But it is for our children and our grandchildren that we are doing this. Reducing smog-causing emissions by 45% is a worthwhile goal and it is a goal of the province of Ontario that we will meet. That is our goal.

SPECIALISTS' SERVICES

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I've read with interest reports that certain medical specialists are not able to provide services to their patients and their communities because of a cap on specialist billing under the Ontario health insurance plan. I'd like to know what our government is doing to ensure that people in my riding of London-Fanshawe can obtain specialist care when they need it.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Our government certainly wants to do everything we can to ensure that all Ontarians have access to the quality health care services they require. We have been working hard to encourage more specialists to locate in underserviced areas. I'm pleased to note that the number of specialists practising in this province has since 1997 increased by about 238 specialists, and since 1995 we have seen an increase of 450 specialists in Ontario.

We have a specialist retention initiative in this province. It is a system that was introduced in 1991. It exists to exempt physicians from the impact of thresholds to ensure that patients receive the health care services they need. Each year this is reviewed by the Ontario Medical Association and the Ministry of Health to determine the criteria-

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

Mr Mazzilli: I'm aware that these initiatives have been effective in certain areas of the province. However, I'd like to know what our government is doing to address the overall issue of access to physician supply and distribution.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Our government has worked extremely hard. This is an issue that has been a priority. In fact, in response to the need to move forward, we have Dr McKendry at the present time conducting a review of the scope and the cause of issues related to physician supply and distribution. He'll soon be bringing his report forward. When he does, we'll set up an expert panel.

We also have indicated that we are developing a system whereby we will reimburse students who are at our medical schools, students entering our medical schools, if they move to an underserviced area.

We have also worked with northern communities and northern hospitals to provide incentives for doctors and specialists to locate in those areas and provide the services that are needed, particularly in our emergency rooms.

So we have undertaken many initiatives and we want to ensure that we have the appropriate distribution of physicians throughout the province. The ICES report indicated that the problem in the province is one of distribution as opposed to supply.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance and it has to do with the Provincial Auditor's report. The public will recognize that this is our independent auditor whom we hire-we pay the office about seven and a half million dollars a year-to give us an independent, objective look at the government's spending.

I was interested to see what I can only regard as a scathing report. Here's what the auditor said about your government. He was asked:

"You've seen them now in action for more than four years. From your perspective, do you think that under this government the use of our tax dollars and the services provided by our government are being provided more efficiently and more effectively?"

What was his answer? "Well, as my report points out, the answer is they really aren't. The improvements are not very noticeable at this point. Spending of public funds needs accountability and it's not being done." He says, "There are many examples where clearly the taxpayer is being taken for a ride and things almost die for lack of attention."

The Harris government has now been in office for four and a half years. How can this mess continue to exist?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, we have responded to almost every recommendation the Provincial Auditor has made from year to year. The honourable member is quite correct. The Provincial Auditor is an independent person appointed by the Legislative Assembly to make recommendations to the government of the day. I can tell the honourable member that certainly in my endeavour we will make sure we comply with the Provincial Auditor's suggestions where possible.

Mr Phillips: One of the other concerns the auditor had was that you don't do anything about it. He says, "I raise issues; four years later there's nothing done about it." Specifically in his report he says here, on child care, $800 million is being spent. He says: "I made these recommendations in 1995. The ministry agreed to take action to implement my recommendations but they did not follow through. Therefore we again make the recommendations." Four years later, you've done nothing. Four years later, $800 million being spent on child care and the auditor says you haven't acted.

He says that he raises issues and continually things don't get done. It's a mess over there. You are not managing the finances of the province. That's not me. It's the independent Provincial Auditor, who the taxpayers paid $7.5 million. He has given you an "F." You're failing.

I ask you again: Four and a half years later, you're now in charge, Premier Harris said he was going to improve things. Why are things such a mess under Mike Harris?

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member is quite selective in dealing with specific programs. I acknowledge that there are difficulties with certain programs in government. There are always problems with certain programs in government. The objective on this side of the House is to strive to make them better. I don't see anywhere in here, in the Provincial Auditor's words, that he has given the government an "F," to quote the honourable member. The honourable member is somewhat dramatic. I understand it is his occupation in life to be such during question period.

However, I can say to the honourable member that we do take the suggestions and the direction of the Provincial Auditor very seriously. With respect to my own ministry, I can tell the honourable member that every time the Provincial Auditor recommends something, we follow up, and so do my colleagues on this side of the House. I think that record speaks for itself.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

In last Friday's newspaper, I was concerned to see reports about student leaders who were condoning fraud in the Ontario student loan program. In particular, it was stated, "I don't blame anybody for fudging the numbers on how much they earn if that's the only way they can get the money to go to school."

Taxpayers demand that governments spend their money prudently. What is your position on OSAP fraud, and can you assure taxpayers in my riding that only deserving students get loans and that the money will be paid back?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I'd like to thank the member for Stoney Creek for his question. Obviously I don't think there's a member of this Legislative Assembly who would tolerate any kind of fraud, including fraud by students. Fraud is not only illegal, but unfair to the hundreds of thousands of students who actually put down the facts on their OSAP application forms. I'd also like to say that these same students tell the truth and play by the rules, and that's what we expect from everyone.

This is unfair to taxpayers because taxpayers pick up the bill, and it's unfair to students because students are there to study, to work hard and to achieve.

The government has announced tighter controls to ensure fairness in the system and to tighten the credit check, which I think is fair to everyone, also fair to that student who may in fact achieve a loan when they already have private-sector loans. That's not the rules. It doesn't happen in our public institutions at banks and it's not going to happen when taxpayers are footing the bills for loans that cannot be paid.

We're going to continue ways to help our students to eliminate fraud and to-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm sorry. The minister's time has expired.

Supplementary?

Mr Clark: You made it clear that student loan fraud is unacceptable. Parents and high school students in my community would like to know what the government is going to do to help them pay for their education when they leave high school.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Our government is taking several steps to assist our students. I think the most important fact that everyone in this House should know, when you get this question, is that we are spending more than ever on student assistance to support our students.

We have increased OSAP spending by 30% since we came to power and this is to twice as many students. In fact, for those of you who are interested, under the Liberals about 100,000 students were assisted, and currently over 200,000 students are being assisted.

We have asked the colleges and universities to set aside 30% of the increase in tuition to help students in need.

I think I'll just finish on this point: We have created the Ontario student opportunity grant program to provide debt relief for students who borrow more than $7,000. I'm not sure the members of this Legislative Assembly-

The Speaker: The minister's time is-order. Minister, take your seat, please.

On a point of order, the member for St. Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I would like to request unanimous consent to allow the member another supplementary to ask about the income tax fraud.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent? I heard some noes. New question.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. As you have made abundantly clear, you already know that Ontario Power Generation's five coal-fired plants will exceed the voluntary cap on greenhouse gas emissions by 42% next year. That's equivalent to putting 1.6 million more cars on the road.

Your government promised that Hydro would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, yet today we learn they plan to increase these harmful emissions next year to 37 million tonnes. That's 11 million more tonnes than the 1990 level.

Minister, will you stop OPG from putting more greenhouse gases into the air; admit, once and for all, that voluntary compliance hasn't worked; and bring in a legally enforceable regulated cap on greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the honourable member for her suggestion. I want to assure her and this House once more that we are concerned about air quality in Ontario and the emission of greenhouse gases. This is a problem that we're grappling with.

As the honourable member knows, the OPG is going through a nuclear recovery program right now, which is on a temporary basis because those uses were made off-line as a result of some safety concerns. We all want to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions but to do so in a safe manner, which is the paramount interest for the people of Ontario.

I would say to the honourable member as well that the issue of greenhouse gas trading-and some of the criticism has been on the trading system for greenhouse gas emissions-is something that actually the federal government has been pursuing, so perhaps she and I can also make that inquiry as to why the federal Liberals are allowing this sort of situation to develop, if it is something that she feels strongly about. But I want her to know that air quality is our number one concern and there are going to be some changes in this area over the next few weeks and months as well.

Ms Churley: Hydro promised in 1995 not to use emission trading to meet emissions caps before such international emission-trading rules were federally approved. I don't want to hear empty promises from you today about down the road and later. People who have children sick with asthma and elderly people don't want to hear you give lame excuses today as to why you're not moving on this.

We want a commitment today. A promise was made and a promise was not kept. It's that simple. We know that in 1997 the all-party select committee on Hydro said in its report that Hydro must comply with voluntary targets and should actually seek to improve emission levels.

Minister, let me ask you again: What will you do to make OPG live up to its promise-forget the shell game that you're playing today-and actually reduce the amount of dangerous greenhouse gas emissions instead of increasing them by 11 million tonnes? That's unacceptable.

Hon Mr Clement: I find myself in partial agreement with the honourable member. This is not a situation that any of us would like to see, and that includes OPG but it also includes the people of Ontario and the government of Ontario.

We're left with a situation where the nuclear units are off-line. That was not a situation that was predictable when these limits were first discussed. We've got a particular issue that has to be dealt with in the near term. We think it can be dealt with in the near term, but it has to be dealt with safely. In the meantime, the Kyoto accord and other international accords recognize the right of emissions trading. This is something the federal government has been promoting as well, so OPG is operating within those parameters.

In the meantime, we are accepting submissions, which is an ongoing process, as we discuss with our stakeholders ways to get at these problems, just as we've gone through it with Drive Clean to reduce vehicle emissions. This is an area where we will see more announcements in the future, I'm sure.

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Last Thursday at 6:30 am a fatal accident happened on Highway 417. A pregnant mother of a two-year-old daughter, Deborah Rainey from Hawkesbury, was driving to work and rolled over on an icy bridge near Casselman. A 26-year-old father of two young daughters from St-Isidore, Luc Vigneux, whose funeral is taking place today, had stopped as a good citizen to help Deborah out of the car. Unfortunately, because of the icy road conditions, both of them were killed instantly when a coming truck slid and ran over them.

Minister, this fatal accident is directly related to your ministry's cuts. You have privatized the maintenance of this highway. In the past, as of November 1 of every year, MTO maintenance crews were on duty 24 hours a day. According to a confirmed report, the maintenance crew was out on the road 35 minutes after receiving the call from the MTO patrol and arrived on the scene five minutes after the fatal accident.

Minister, as this relates directly to your cuts, will you accept full responsibility for this fatal accident?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): This is a tragic event, that somebody dies. The circumstances were that a bridge iced; it had black ice. I've spoken to the OPP about when black ice occurs, and there's very little anybody can do to anticipate it. The ministry was monitoring it, and at the time that they believed iced conditions would occur, a very experienced member of the Ministry of Transportation, which still manages this area, called out the salting trucks. The salting trucks were out within 35 minutes, which is a very quick turnaround. It's early in the year to experience ice and it's probable that the victims passed the salt truck on their way.

I will wait until the supplementary, but it is a tragic event.

Mr Lalonde: The ambulance operator told me that the whole of Highway 417 was icy all the way through. At 4:50 in the morning the patrol people had called this contractor to get his crew out. No one was at the site to come out on the highway.

As noted in last week's auditor's report, the auditor wasn't too happy at what he saw. Your ministry is in the process of contracting out all highway maintenance without making sure that security and services are maintained adequately. The contractor involved in last week's fatal accident had followed your guidelines, which, if I may say so, are putting our people's lives in danger just to save a few bucks.

Minister, my question is, will you restore the 24-hour maintenance service and rehire the former MTO employees you have let go, in order to save the loss of other lives?

Hon Mr Turnbull: First of all, I will recall a personal experience I had some years ago on my way back from the cottage. I experienced a car off the road and I tried to stop to help the automobile and I hit black ice. By the time the OPP arrived, yet another car had hit black ice, and there were three cars off the road, all having hit the same piece of black ice. The comments of the OPP officers were that when you hit black ice, there's nothing you can do. The fact is that this area of contract was being managed by the Ministry of Transportation, so in that respect there was no change.

To the best of my knowledge, and I will double-check this, there have never been 24-hour trucks standing by at this time of the year. There was, however, ministry staff out prior to this and they called out the people when they felt it was needed to have salt trucks out.

I realize that it may be easy for you to make-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister's time has expired.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to table a document that we believe is extremely important to this House's deliberations today. Earlier, my leader introduced a bill, and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has now called on all of us to support it. So I would seek unanimous consent to table this.

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

REPORT CARDS

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Southwest): My question is to the Minister of Education. I was interested to read news reports over the last several weeks that indicate some school boards are having difficulty with the new standardized report card for grade 9. I also see that the OSSTF issued a news release on Remembrance Day in which they say, "Parents should not expect miracles with the new standardized report card."

I have received numerous phone calls from my constituents in Scarborough Southwest from parents who are concerned with this information from the OSSTF. This government is clearly committed to clearer standards and greater accountability, which is why I understand we implemented that standard report card in the first place. This way any parents, whether they live in my constituency of Scarborough Southwest or even Ottawa South or Kenora-Rainy River, will know exactly how their child is doing.

I would like to ask, Minister, if boards across the province are in fact having problems putting these new report cards into use and, if they are, what is the government doing to fix the problem?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I thank the member for Scarborough Southwest for a very important question. He has spoken out very often in support of reforms to have better-quality education in this province.

A standardized plain-language report card that students and parents can understand is something we are delivering on in grade 9 in this province. I was quite disappointed that despite the fact that OSSTF had an opportunity to raise this with me directly two days before, they chose to put out a press release and go for a headline rather than trying to actually find out if there was a problem.

We called all the boards that were mentioned in this news release-we called all the boards, actually-and they all assured us that things are proceeding as they should be and that there is no difficulty with implementing this in the time lines we have committed to.

Mr Newman: I want to thank the minister for her response, and I'm glad to know the boards across the province are moving forward with the implementation of the new grade 9 report card this year. I know as well as anyone that implementing new technology solutions can be a difficult process. Anyone who has used new software can relate to this.

I'd like to ask the minister how this government is going to support school boards as they implement these new report cards.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member is quite correct that implementing any kind of new information technology is a challenge. That's one of the reasons why we gave the boards additional resources to help them do that. There was $2 million that was given to them for training and supports to implement this particular step on our improvements in education. We also gave them a great deal of flexibility in terms of how they would do it, the software they would purchase, the providers they would select, because using electronic report cards for many boards is nothing new; they have great experience in doing it.

The new standardized report card, a card that parents and students can understand, was something that parents asked us for, it's something we are putting into place and, because of the co-operation between the boards, the ministry and the teachers, we know we are going to deliver this as the parents expect and want.

SPECIALISTS' SERVICES

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is for the Minister of Health. On Monday, November 13, I handed in a petition signed by over 2,500 of my constituents asking your ministry to respond to a crisis in Sarnia-Lambton.

Lambton county has 120,000 people and only two ophthalmologists. One ophthalmologist has closed his doors because your ministry has once again changed the rules. This change has also affected people in St Catharines. Previously, this ophthalmologist was able to obtain a billing cap exemption because Sarnia-Lambton had been designated as an underserviced area. Lambton county went from the "underserviced" designation to "not underserviced," not because we have more eye doctors coming into the area and not because we have fewer people who need eye doctors. What you did was change the geographic catchment area.

Your ministry's rule change has affected thousands of patients and their families, and I would like to read to you a letter from one of my constituents who outlined a real problem they're facing because of this rule change. It states: "My wife and I have been patients of Dr Murari Patodia since he opened his practice in Sarnia four years ago. Recently I was referred to him by an optometrist, with a problem." He goes on to say, "I can see possibly that we will lose the services of this excellent ophthalmologist who is badly needed in this area."

Minister, will you be responsive to this situation by reinstating the underserviced designation and thus returning the billing cap exemption to this ophthalmologist before this person loses his sight because of your rule change?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As I indicated earlier this afternoon, the specialist retention initiative was introduced in 1991 along with the system of threshold reductions, and each year the criteria for the initiative are reviewed by the Physician Services Committee. That is a committee composed of physicians and staff from the Ministry of Health. They make the determination as to what criteria will be used. When there is a situation and physicians feel the need to apply for the SRI status, it is very carefully reviewed by the ministry and the reasons are given for the support or the denial of that application.

Ms Di Cocco: Last year his cap was exempt because your rules were different. You changed the rules this year. You can't blame this on anyone except your ministry. It is your responsibility. There are people who are being affected now and all you have to do is, with a stroke of a pen, address this situation. He has applied again. There is no reason why this cannot be changed to what it was in the past. We still have the same people who need help. We only have two ophthalmologists.

Again, will you step in to rectify this situation? It's a real situation that's affecting thousands of people today. I believe that you've got the opportunity to address this situation now, and it is your responsibility.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I tried to indicate, we try to work very co-operatively with all our health partners. We try to have the benefit of all of their advice and expertise. Each year it is the Physician Services Committee, which is composed of physicians themselves, with the Ministry of Health, that makes decisions around the criteria that will be used. Physicians are exempted from the impact of the threshold if they are in underserviced areas or if they are in a unique speciality where there could be a service access problem. We will continue to support the initiative and we will continue to respond to any physicians who apply for the SRI status.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): My question is for the Solicitor General. Minister, public safety is very important to my constituents as well as the people of Ontario. As you're probably aware, I had about 50 police officers in my office last week. They had a number of concerns but the overriding concern was public safety.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General is responsible for enhancing public safety in Ontario. The public safety division in your ministry is solely dedicated to promoting public safety for the people of Ontario. Minister, so that I can allay the concerns of my constituents, could you please tell the House some of the ways that the public safety division in your ministry contributes to the public safety of Ontario?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): I'd like to thank the member for Kitchener Centre for the question. Our public safety branch consists basically of three areas: the forensic centre, the fire marshal's office and Emergency Measures Ontario.

I'd like to focus for a second, if I could, on the Centre of Forensic Sciences. As you know, most noteworthy in the forensics area is the area of DNA testing. You can understand that lately this is an area of expertise we've developed in Ontario that has been of great assistance in current and pressing cases, but also in the solving of cold cases, cases which have remained unsolved for many decades. This is just a small part of the technology and science that's available through the forensics centre. There are many exciting areas; laser technology, for example, that is able to bring out latent prints and detect blood that has been cleaned over.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The Solicitor General's time has run out. Supplementary.

Mr Wettlaufer: On the Centre of Forensic Sciences, you weren't finished giving your information. I'd certainly like to hear more and I know my constituents would like to hear more, so I wonder if you could share that information with us.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: If I could continue speaking about the Centre of Forensic Sciences, science and technology is a very important tool in combating crime in the province. I talked a bit about DNA testing, but I might say that in terms of remaining cutting-edge in DNA testing, we've already committed to and infused double the funding into the size and capacity of DNA labs, and also double the number of employees in the DNA section. So this is quite a commitment we've made.

In addition to that, understand that our province and our chief coroner, Dr Jim Young, have been called upon by other provinces to assist them. Most noteworthy recently, in the case of the Swiss Air tragedy Dr Young was asked to come out and assist in that testing.

I might conclude by saying that our commitment is to science and technology. This is a very important tool to provide to our police in the fight against crime in this province.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. In September you announced, to great fanfare, that you were going to strengthen hazardous waste regulations as part of a six-point action plan. We find that once again in Stoney Creek the ministry has allowed 9,000 tonnes of hazardous waste to be dumped at the Taro landfill site. In fact, in 1998 the ministry initially said that the waste was non-hazardous. Now, one year later, when the ministry eventually got around to testing, we are told that it is hazardous.

My question to you is, what are you going to do about the 9,000 tonnes of hazardous waste at the Taro landfill and when are you going to come through, as you promised, to bring in measures to prevent this from ever happening again in Ontario?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the honourable member for her question, because it has been of great concern. I can tell the honourable member two things specifically. When the ministry was informed that there was a potential problem, that there was a potential for it to be hazardous-because there was a complex chemical reaction occurring with the subject waste-we immediately required that Philip Services stop receiving that waste at the site.

In the second place, once we had completed our tests and found out there was a potential for it to be hazardous, on November 18, last week, we wrote to Philip enterprises requiring that they immediately remove and dispose of the approximately 9,000 tonnes. So we have acted quickly on behalf of the interests of the people of Ontario.

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): As members will remember, we had some discussions about petitions. The government House leaders have come together with a procedure which they will be talking about with their caucuses.

Any member wishing to present a petition during routine proceedings will deliver the petition, by noon, to the Clerk's office in room 104 of this building, or room 1521 of the Whitney Block.

If it is delivered by noon to either office, it will be examined by the Clerk and returned in the House in time for the petitions that day. If it is received later than noon hour, every effort will still be made to try to examine the petition and return it for presentation that day. Otherwise it will be returned.

Petitions may also be left at the table when the House is meeting, and should be sent to the table by one of the pages to avoid crowding. For the simple reason of decorum, I would ask that all members not crowd around the table to deliver or wait for the petitions.

Again, the Clerk will make every effort, as time and circumstances permit, to examine the petition and return it to any member in time for presentation during petitions that day.

If the petition meets the requirements of the standing orders, it will be certified by the Clerk's signature and the petition will then be presented in the House.

If the petition does not meet the requirements of the standing orders, it will be returned with a notation explaining why.

I will be vigilant in enforcing this new practice and will call to order any member attempting to present a petition that does not comply with the standing orders, and that will begin tomorrow.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Do I interpret your remarks about petitions to mean that you're saying that the table officers have to pre-approve petitions before they're read in the House?

The Speaker: Yes. We are saying that they will go to the table, and they will authorize and approve them. What we have said, if you read the statement, is that it will be by noon hour and we will get it on the same day, and we'll try to be flexible. The House leaders have agreed to this procedure, and, as I understand it, they will be dealing with each of the caucuses and outlining the procedures. I did want to, however, announce it here in the House as well.

Mr Ramsay: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Are you saying that if the petition is not in the prescribed format, the table officers will then not allow the member to read that petition in this House?

The Speaker: The standing orders are very clear on this point, for the member. That is why these procedures have been put in place, to meet the standing orders, which we obviously have to do.

Mr Ramsay: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to put on the record that I strongly object to that. I represent a riding that has the second-most undereducated people in Ontario. When they are concerned about an issue, they don't necessarily think of approaching my office to get the standardized format, which I certainly supply them. They usually go off and, in very good conscience, start up a petition. I don't think it's right that the rules of this House would forbid a duly crafted petition, which my constituents put a lot of work into to express their view about issues of the day, from being presented in this House.

The Speaker: The member knows the standing orders have been changed. They are very clear. The standing orders were changed by the members of the House. It isn't a point of order, but I appreciate your registering-

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I don't intend to prolong this debate, and I'm not one who brings a great number of petitions, but I do think the member from Timiskaming-Cochrane raises a concern that any self-respecting member of Parliament ought to think seriously about. As I listen to this debate, I would think that perhaps it would be a lot more convenient for all here assembled to simply dispense with the idea of bringing petitions to the chamber.

I say it's a matter of privilege because, as I watch the ebb and flow of things in this place over nearly two and a half decades, I just think I see more and more constraint on the opportunities for members of Parliament to do their duty as many of their constituents might imagine it to be done. I can understand how from time to time there will be materials brought and presented that do not conform with some antiseptic nicety imagined by some very finely focused bureaucrat.

But I simply say again, as I take my seat, that as I listen to this discussion, I have to think, why would I bother to bring and present a petition from the people of the Ottawa Valley if I know in advance that it can only be presented if it meets with the approval of my good friends at the table, who will not be in many of these communities, as the previous speaker indicated, as the petition is gathered about?

The Speaker: That is not a point of privilege. I say to all members that the standing orders are very clear. The Speaker did not write the standing orders. They have been very clear in this regard. We've attempted to be flexible, and I believe all three House leaders have agreed on a procedure. I also will say-and I didn't say this in summing up-that we will attempt to be as flexible as possible on this, particularly in the beginning when there may be large numbers that will be coming. But the standing orders are very clear on this issue.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Just to add to this debate, you're quite right that there was an agreement between the three House leaders on this, although these concerns of course were expressed at the time. I think we would all expect there to be flexibility, especially at the beginning. I believe, however, that there are clearly problems and people don't support it.

Perhaps members can start petitioning, in the proper format of course, all three House leaders of the Legislature to perhaps go back and revisit that particular item, because I believe people are expressing real concerns for their constituents to have the ability, in some cases, to write the petitions in the proper format.

The Speaker: To the member, it's not a point of order, and we will attempt to be flexible.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under standing order 38, I fail to see where it is complied with as yet or where we have a requirement to comply with the Clerk's desk before presenting petitions. As well, are we going to receive updated standing orders?

The Speaker: If you read the standing order-which I don't have in front of me, but the table is looking at it as we speak-it says that petitions will be in good order. If you give me a moment, I will read the standing order:

"Presentation in the House

"A member may present a petition in the House during routine proceedings under the proceeding `Petitions'. The member may make a brief statement summarizing the contents of the petition and indicating the number of signatures attached thereto."

It goes on to say,

"Petitions to be certified as to form

"No member may seek to present a petition unless it has already been given to the Clerk of the Assembly who has examined it and certified that it is correct as to the form and content."

So I will say to members that the standing orders are very clear on this.

Mr Conway: On that point-

The Speaker: Order. I will say very clearly that these are the new standing orders.

Mr Conway: On that point, it will happen on many occasions that many of us as members will be presented with petitions-in some cases they will have hundreds of names-that will not conform with the precise language of the standing orders. Under these rules, I take it that the members in question will not be able to present those petitions in the normal course of events. They can simply return them to their constituents in Peterborough or Pembroke or Pefferlaw or wherever and say, "They don't conform with language you would have no reason to understand to begin with, and if you want them presented, then you'd better redo them consistent with this language." Is that the rule?

The Speaker: The member will know that sometimes we get situations where photocopies can be put in. The wording needs to be very clear. What could happen on occasion is that photocopies could be made and names could be put in that weren't there. So the standing orders are very clear about this procedure.

As I said to the member for Broadview-Greenwood, we will attempt to be as flexible as we can in this, including when the table is dealing with them in the beginning. But I want to be very clear to all members that these are the standing orders of the House. It is not the Speaker's responsibility to write the standing orders, and I did not. The standing orders are very clear. Our new standing orders have come in, which I have read to you, and they are very clear on petitions.

The member has another point of order, but before he does, I want to be very clear on this. The standing orders, in my estimation, are extremely clear.

Mr Conway: I don't doubt that they're clear. I'm not one who plays games with petitions. I understand only too well-

Interjections.

Mr Conway: I want to be fair about this. I understand, as a former government House leader, the games that have been played with petitions. I'm not here to be boastful. I don't play games with petitions. I can tell you that over the years about 50% of the petitions I would routinely receive would not meet this standard, and I am quite prepared to take the direction of the House.

But I can tell you that my advice to my constituents will be, "Save your effort." The petitioning process, which is one of the most fundamental in our system, is, for a very nice, bureaucratic requirement that I don't doubt has its supporters, not going to accord with the democratic life and times as you might understand it in your community.

I'm quite prepared to live with that. I think it's unfortunate.

The Speaker: Members will also know that there have been occasions when petitions have not been allowed to be tabled in the past. This is not something new. Some have been rejected, based on what has happened.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the goal of the House leaders, in terms of talking about this aspect of petitions, was that so many petitions were coming forward that were not in form and, therefore, while the petition was read in the House, there actually was never an official acknowledgement of that petition. In fact, what would happen would be that the petition would be returned to the member and there would be no record that the petition had been read, except that it was in Hansard.

Therefore, I believe it was an effort on the part of the House leaders to try to make the practice more regular.

The other part was that a few members were not in fact presenting petitions of their constituents. They were using it as another opportunity to put forward a point of view which they had, and therefore they would write the petition and perhaps get a few people out back to sign the petition and were presenting it as a petition.

May I say that I would be open-

Interjections.

Hon Mr Sterling: I don't believe there's a desire on the part of any of the House leaders to make the practice more restrictive in terms of people bringing in a petition to a member of the Legislature where it didn't conform strictly to form. Therefore I think we should ask the Legislative Assembly committee to look at it to try to make it more inclusive and less exclusive than it presently is in terms of the form.

I'm quite willing to join with the other House leaders, and I'm sure that they would, in asking the Legislative Assembly committee, which is normally charged with looking at matters like this, to look into it and make a recommendation to the House leaders. Then we can talk about this matter again, at that time.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I appreciate the comments just made by our House leader and I think that more or less takes the sting out, but I really feel that the point that was made by the member from Nipissing-Pembroke is really the important one, that we can't in any way create any more barriers of access for people to this process.

With all due respect, I'm not sure if the member from Davenport or the member from St Catharines or the member from Durham may have been in violation of that, but the point here is that, to have the table turn down, for a procedural issue, the will and the wishes to express the concerns of constituents-that's our job, and it's a primary requirement for us to listen and speak on behalf of constituents. If there's a format error or a procedural kind of error, that to me is not sufficient grounds to stamp out the voice of the people.

So, with respect, I know our House leader and the other House leaders will work to find a formula where we can speak and represent our constituents.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: While I agree with the situation the House leaders have brought forward, the interesting thing we must keep at the forefront is that all of us, as members of this Legislature, must hold that it is incumbent on us that if we have constituents who wish to communicate a particular viewpoint to this Legislature, we should be the ones to assist these residents in formulating that particular legislative petition. That's incumbent upon us as members. I have done that; I know members of the opposition have done it. Where people wish to have an acceptable petition to this House, we have worked with them.

If I may make a suggestion, perhaps the rules around a petition could be circulated very clearly so that we as members would be able to assist our constituents in expressing their viewpoint.

The Speaker: I thank all the members for the points of order.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I would like all members to join me in welcoming the second group of pages for the first session of the 37th Parliament: Brianna Baraniecki from Northumberland, Sarah Campbell from Toronto Centre-Rosedale, Adam Carricato from Sault Ste Marie, Patrick Cooke from Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Dawn Crandlemire from Whitby-Ajax, Caroline Dennis from Windsor West, Lauren Duimering from Kitchener-Waterloo, Amanda Klarer from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, Kenneth Knibb from Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Zacharie LeBlanc from Essex, Graham Leitch from London North Centre, Kumiko Mackasey from Don Valley West, Alan Medri from Parkdale-High Park, Katherine Monsma from Prince Edward-Hastings, Shaka O'Brian from Don Valley East, Kartik Senthilnathan from Mississauga West, Lauren Vancea from Niagara Falls, Laura Walter from Oak Ridges, Joshua Wang from Cambridge and Kurt Whittaker from Markham.

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition in fine form. It's from residents and constituents of my riding and it's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we, the consumers, feel gas prices are too high throughout Ontario;

"Whereas we, the consumers, support the Ontario Liberal caucus's attempt to have the Mike Harris government introduce predatory gas pricing legislation;

"Whereas we, the consumers, want the Mike Harris government to act so that the consumer can get a break at the pumps rather than going broke at them;

"Whereas we, the consumers, are fuming at being hosed at the pumps and want Mike Harris to gauge our anger;

"Furthermore, we, the consumers, want Mike Harris to know we want to be able to go to the pumps and fill our gas tanks without emptying our pockets;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to introduce predatory gas pricing legislation in order to control the amount of money we, the consumers, are forced to pay at the gas pumps."

I affix my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I have a petition from 4,000 constituents of the county of Essex, and today I'm assisted by a page from the county of Essex, Zach LeBlanc, in presenting this petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Conservative government has gravely impacted the education of our students with special needs through the introduction of the special education funding formula and the subsequent freeze in funding;

"Whereas the children of Ontario, especially those requiring extra support, are being forced to accept lower levels of service while at the same time being expected to meet higher expectations by this government;

"Whereas each and every child deserves the right to learn to his or her potential;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Minister of Education and the Ontario Conservative government to make the necessary changes in the funding formula to see that every child has the support required to learn, especially our children with special needs. We petition the minister to listen to parents, teachers and school boards who have acted as strong advocates for these students."

In support, I add my signature to this petition.

PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): "Whereas the passenger train service in northeastern Ontario has reached a critical stage, with low passenger usage and spiralling operating costs; and

"Whereas it is now proposed to have the passenger train service downgraded and ultimately removed; and

"Whereas it is imperative that the passenger train service should be maintained to service the many isolated communities in northeastern Ontario as the population is aging and in many cases it is the only means that seniors have to get to the major centres in southern Ontario; and

"Whereas it is essential that the train service be returned to a night schedule; and

"Whereas Premier Mike Harris stressed the need to continue passenger trains in the north when he wrote to a Cochrane citizen on June 25, 1993, stating in part as follows:

"`I share your concerns regarding the fate of passenger rail service in northern Ontario. You and I both know this region's contribution to the province is invaluable. It is crucial that northern Ontario and southern Ontario be accessible to everyone and the railroad was providing a valuable service in this regard.'

"Now, therefore,

be it resolved that we, the concerned citizens of northeastern Ontario, respectfully request the Premier and the cabinet of the present Ontario government to impose an immediate 24-month moratorium on the removal of the passenger train service so that the government and the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission can look at viable alternatives."

I affix my name to this.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas early in September of 1995 there occurred a series of events involving the Premier of Ontario and members of his government, the Ontario Provincial Police and demonstrators representing members of the First Nations at Ipperwash Provincial Park;

"Whereas the events led to the death of Dudley George, one of the First Nations demonstrators;

"Whereas these events have raised concerns among all parties in the Legislature and many Ontarians;

"Whereas there has been introduced in the House a piece of legislation known as the Truth About Ipperwash Act;

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

"In order that there is an answer to concerns of the Legislature and Ontarians regarding the events at Ipperwash, the members of the Legislative Assembly vote in favour of the Truth About Ipperwash Act."

I affix my signature.

HIGHWAY BILLBOARDS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have an important petition delivered to me by Ms Corinne Grann in Thunder Bay related to the Ministry of Transportation's insensitive and arbitrary decisions on erecting billboards in front of property. The petition reads, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the placement of the billboard erected on the easement in front of ML15 L6, Shuniah township, without the landowners' knowledge, we the undersigned protest such action; and

"Whereas the respect for the property owner in front of such easement was not given consideration; and

"Whereas this stretch of highway is hazardous enough with high incidences of traffic accidents, the distraction of such a structure will contribute to the problem that already exists. Safety concerns are a major aspect; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation should consult with the property owners in front of such easement, before giving permits for such structures to be erected; and

"Whereas a permanent structure that has been erected on an easement directly in front of a property that has not been approved by the affected property owner should be removed immediately;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, support the property owner's right to approve or disapprove of a permanent structure that may be erected on the easement in front of their property."

There are 180 people who have signed this petition. It's a major issue and I'm very pleased to support them in their concerns.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I wish to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This petition is signed by 575 residents expressing their views about the governance of the Elgin-St Thomas Health Unit, and I wish to present this petition on their behalf.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SAFE STREETS ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 17, 1999, on the motion for second reading of Bill 8,

An Act to promote safety in Ontario by prohibiting aggressive solicitation, solicitation of persons in certain places and disposal of dangerous things in certain places, and to amend the Highway Traffic Act to regulate certain activities on roadways / Projet de loi 8, Loi visant à promouvoir la sécurité en Ontario en interdisant la sollicitation agressive, la sollicitation de personnes dans certains lieux et le rejet de choses dangereuses dans certains lieux, et modifiant le Code de la route afin de réglementer certaines activités sur la chaussée.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 18, 1999, I'm now required to put the question on second reading of Bill 8. Mr Flaherty has moved second reading of Bill 8. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 18, 1999, this bill is referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy.

TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND BALANCED BUDGET ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION DES CONTRIBUABLES ET L'ÉQUILIBRE BUDGÉTAIRE

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 15, 1999, on the motion for second reading of Bill 7,

An Act to protect taxpayers against tax increases, to establish a process requiring voter approval for proposed tax increases and to ensure that the Provincial Budget is a balanced budget / Projet de loi 7, Loi protégeant les contribuables des augmentations d'impôt, établissant un processus d'approbation des projets d'augmentation d'impôt par les électeurs et garantissant l'équilibre du budget provincial.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 17, 1999, I'm now required to put the question on second reading of Bill 7. Mr Harris has moved second reading of Bill 7. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 17, 1999, the order for third reading should now be called.

TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND BALANCED BUDGET ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION DES CONTRIBUABLES ET L'ÉQUILIBRE BUDGÉTAIRE

Mr Klees, on behalf of Mr Harris, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 7,

An Act to protect taxpayers against tax increases, to establish a process requiring voter approval for proposed tax increases and to ensure that the Provincial Budget is a balanced budget / Projet de loi 7, Loi protégeant les contribuables des augmentations d'impôt, établissant un processus d'approbation des projets d'augmentation d'impôt par les électeurs et garantissant l'équilibre du budget provincial.

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): I will be splitting my time with Mr Skarica and Mr Wettlaufer.

I'm pleased to begin debate on this most important piece of legislation before the House, the Taxpayer Protection and Balanced Budget Act, 1999. This bill is drafted in two schedules,

schedule A and

schedule B, both of which are dependent upon each other to ensure fiscal responsibility to the taxpayers of this province.

I'd like to start out by referring to the balanced budget portion of this legislation and I'd like to read, for the benefit of the House, the

article that I believe sets out very succinctly what this legislation is all about: "For each fiscal year beginning on or after April 1, 2001, the executive council shall plan for a balanced budget in which the expenditures of the province for a fiscal year do not exceed the sum of the revenues and the accumulated net surplus for the year and the Minister of Finance shall present a balanced budget."

The very fact that a piece of legislation like this is having to come before this House is an indication of the kind of government we have had over the last number of years, leading up to 1995 when we were elected to serve the people of Ontario, in this province. As you will well recall, the deficit in this province was strangling not only government but the very services that we as a government are called upon to deliver to the people of the province.

I think there is something very important here that we need to be reminded of, and that is the degree to which governments continue to mount up deficits; that is, spending more than they have. That amount of deficit continues to be added to the debt of the province. The fact that today we continue to have a debt in this province well in excess of $100 billion-when we were elected the deficit in this province was approaching $11 billion. That simply meant that every year governments continued to mount up deficits, $11 billion was added to the debt.

I recall in the election campaign one of the great thrusts of the opposition, primarily the Liberal Party at the time, was accusing this government of providing tax cuts, and yet during that same period of time the actual debt of the province continued to increase. Somehow this was supposed to be interpreted as a profound statement by the opposition.

Every constituent I spoke with could very readily understand that, yes, of course, until such time as our government was able to manage the financial affairs of our province in such a way that we eliminated the deficit, that we balanced the budget, there would continue to be an amount left over at the end of the year that would have to be added to the debt. That's simple, pretty fundamental economics. And, yes, had we not continued to approach the issue of the deficit, then not only would the debt have increased by perhaps $2 billion or $3 billion, it would have been another $25 billion greater, had we not implemented the kind of policies we did.

The good news is that as a result of the fiscal policies of our government, as a result of the initiative of cutting taxes at all levels in this province, we were able to ignite economic activity. That economic activity resulted in the creation of some 650,000 new jobs in this province. That in turn created more economic activity and today we have the privilege in this House to be looking towards a balanced budget imminently in this province.

For the first time in many years we will be able to go to the people of the province with a budget and demon strate that the very difficult decisions we have taken as a government in all ministries-there isn't a ministry that was protected from the scrutiny of Management Board, from the scrutiny of cabinet, from the scrutiny of our caucus in terms of saying: "How can we do more with less? How and where can we be cutting expenses in this government to ensure the sustainability of services and the sustainability of good government?"

The rest is history. We took those difficult steps, and continue to do that, in the public interest, in the interest of the people we serve. We are on the doorstep of a balanced budget.

More importantly, we are now at the point where, because of that fiscal policy, we'll be able to begin to pay down the debt of this province and give true hope not only to business people, to men and women and young people, but to future generations as well. Because we know that only through fiscal responsibility will we be able to provide the kind of services that people in our province have come to expect, top-quality health care and the best education not only in this country but internationally.

People come to this country from around the world because of the reputation Ontario has of providing a high standard of living, the best quality of life anywhere in the world. Our commitment as a government is to ensure that we continue to provide the people of Ontario with the services they have come to enjoy.

We have come through many years when governments have been insensitive to the needs not only of the general population but of business and, as a result, businesses were starting to leave Ontario. There was a lack of confidence. There was a lack of initiative in terms of investing in their own businesses, and businesses were saying, "Why should we stay in Ontario when we're going to be taxed to death here, when for every dollar we invest the government is going to claw back 60% to 70%"? Other places were rolling out the red carpet. Here in Ontario, we were rolling out the red tape.

I heard from many people in my own constituency who said: "If there hadn't been a change in the economic environment, in the legislative environment and in the regulatory environment in this province, we wouldn't have stayed here.

We had choices, and other jurisdictions around the world were beckoning to businesses in Ontario." In fact there were provincial leaders who were coming to Ontario to entice our business owners to come to their jurisdictions because they realized what the previous NDP and Liberal governments had done to constrict their ability to function and basically to strangle businesses where they were.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business did a survey in April this year. I often hear from members opposite, particularly from the NDP and most recently from the Liberal Party as well, that our government has continued to give benefits to our so-called rich friends, and that somehow all that business wants is to be given handouts from government. I tell you that that is not reality. The truth is that business in this province isn't looking for handouts. They're not looking for grants.

That is what other governments in the past thought that business wanted and, of course, they created programs to hand out grants. And if the government creates a program to hand out money, what business person in his right mind wouldn't take it? But that's not what business wants at all. What business wants is for government to get off their backs, for government to simply create a level playing field where they can go out and do business, where they can enterprise, where they can invest and expect a reasonable return, without government interference.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey results are very clear: 83.6% of respondents said that their top priority for tax policy is to reduce payroll taxes. The second item on their list of priorities was to reduce income taxes, some 81.6%. The third item was to pay down the federal debt to reduce tax pressure, 81.2%. It's very clear what the desire of business is, and it's not for a government handout, it's not for make-work projects, because over 10 years, the lost decade as it has been referred to, that's exactly what governments in this province tried to do. They were well-meaning, but they were wrong-headed.

The results were very clear: When you give businesses money, when you give them grants, when you give them credits, that is not going to be productive to the economic activity in the province; but when you give them a fair business environment, an environment in which they can invest their money and expect a reasonable return, they'll create jobs. Yes, they'll create profits. In turn, most business people I know are willing to reinvest a good portion of that profit back into the business. That's why we have seen the kind of growth that we have in the province over the last number of years.

Interesting as well, on the same survey, down the list to the area of increasing grants and subsidies, only 12% of respondents said that was important to them. Improve access to government procurement: 10% of the respondents referred to that. So it's clear.

I'm pleased that our government has had the courage to introduce this bill which will acutely make it illegal for future governments to run a deficit. It will be a requirement on all future governments in this province to bring in balanced budgets. That's what every business person in this province who has the responsibility to oversee and manage a business is forced to do every year. If they don't, they go out of business very quickly.

This bill also, in

schedule A, requires that this government put in place some consequences for ministers not coming forward with a balanced budget. There has been some suggestion from the opposition that this is not a significant, important aspect of this legislation, that ministers and the Premier, who have the responsibility for overseeing the budget, be given very direct, specific consequences for not doing their job: a 25% reduction in the stipend that ministers get paid for the work they do.

My honourable colleague has said very clearly that there's no way he wants to experience that consequence. But we know the most important consequence to us as ministers is not the 25%; the most important consequence to not balancing a budget is to put us back in the days of the Liberal and the NDP governments, when there was an erosion of confidence in the guidance and in the management ability of government. What effect does that have on the people in our constituencies? What effect does that have on the businesses which look to us to provide them with that kind of fiscal guidance?

I want to also say that very clearly this legislation before us, which then will make it a legal requirement for our government to bring in a balanced budget, will set some very clear terms, will make it effectively illegal for us to increase taxes. We have to go back to the taxpayers, to the voters of this province, before taxes in most categories can actually be increased.

Does that exclude the members of this House, the members of this government, from making decisions in the public interest? I would like to refer to a letter I received from a constituent, the Rev Bruce Ervin, who cautions, I believe rightfully so, in a letter to me and to my colleagues. He refers to the fact that "Balanced budgets and deficit budgets are neither inherently good nor inherently bad." In one way, I agree with him. He goes on to say: "These are merely tools for administering the financial affairs of the province. Sometimes one is called for, sometimes the other, depending on economic and social conditions at any given time."

I agree that there are times when, perhaps because it is in the public interest, exceptions have to be made to the given rule, and that's why even this legislation provides for special circumstances in the event, perhaps, of a natural disaster. When in a particular ministry we have to spend some additional money in the public interest, those exceptions are allowed for.

At the end of the day I and my colleagues, you included, Speaker, are sent here to make decisions in the public interest. We have a responsibility to do no less here than men and women are expected to do in their household budgets and in their business budgets, and that is to guard carefully so that we are good stewards of the resources with which we've been entrusted. We have been entrusted with managing the affairs of this province.

Our government is committed through this legislation to do precisely that, not to spend more than we have and to ensure that all the good services people in this province have become accustomed to, health care, education, social services-that we can help those who cannot help themselves. If we're to do that for generations to come, in this generation, in this government, we owe it to the people of this province to pass this legislation and to do the kind of business we've been sent here to do, and that is the responsible business of government.

I thank you for the opportunity and I look forward, with other members of this Legislature, to enacting this legislation that will benefit Ontarians for generations to come.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I'm just here on a point of order. I believe we have consent that the time will be split equally among the three parties and that the time Mr Klees has used, approximately 18 minutes, will come off the some 52 minutes which each party has.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Do you agree? It's agreed.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): Just a further note with the government House leader: I will be sharing my time, Mr Speaker, to let you know, with the members from Sarnia-Lambton, Prince Edward-Hastings and Hamilton East.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): St Catharines.

Mr Ramsay: Not the member from St Catharines, as the former Speaker would like to hear him speak in this House.

I'd like to take this opportunity this afternoon in our debate of this taxation bill to talk about some of the issues that relate to taxation that some of my constituents have been talking to me about as of late.

We had the opportunity because of Remembrance Day, two weeks ago, to spend the week in the riding. I think a lot of people would be interested to know that my riding is about 700 kilometres long and all the communities tend to be in that corridor, starting at one end through to the other. It's not like all the people just live in one end of the area, so having that week is well founded, and I thank House leaders in the past who've made that week possible so we could spend that time.

In that week you take advantage of it and go to various community events. On the Monday of that week I attended a meeting in a new town, for me, Matheson, which is about 50 miles north of Kirkland Lake in the riding of Timiskaming-Cochrane. There, the French separate school board is starting its school closure review process. They're being forced to do that. In order that taxes be cut, expenditures had to be cut, and now with the education bill that was passed in the last Parliament, school boards such as that are faced with a square footage funding formula that means many of our small rural schools in northern Ontario are going to be forced to close.

This particular school, école Sainte-Thérèse in Ramore, just south of Matheson, is embarking upon this process. If it does close, what it's going to mean is that because this board has junior kindergarten, three- and four- and five-year-olds will be on a school bus away from their mothers and their homes for over two hours a day every day during the school year. That's on a piece of highway in northern Ontario that can get quite treacherous, the highway being Highway 11, or they have the opportunity to take a back road from Ramore to Val Gagné, to the alternative school they would attend, and that's just as dangerous.

I think it points out the fact that while the government wants to have more control over school boards and has devised such strict formulae for how the schools are to be funded, it overlooks the particular situations that we have, especially in rural Ontario and again especially in rural northern Ontario, where our population is spread over a very vast area.

In our very small communities are some very small neighbourhood schools, and when you close one of those, you basically close the community, because the only reason you would want to live in Ramore, in your final decision-it's a great community to live in, it's very close to some of the new mines that are being developed along the Highway 101 corridor between Quebec and Timmins and it's a great place to raise a family, but if we don't have a school for our young children, then there's really no point in establishing a household there.

In the end, family after family will make that decision and no longer want to settle in Ramore. Basically that will be the end of the community if they lose that school.

That's the type of decision that our great, large boards of northeastern Ontario are now being forced to make, decisions, because of a square-footage formula, that threaten a community and also put our children at risk. Many studies have shown that children who, from their elementary years into high school, have to be bused for hours and hours on end have a much higher dropout rate in secondary school than those who are able to walk to school or have less than a 30-minute school bus drive.

As I said, these children would be on the highway more than two hours. First of all, children that young shouldn't be bused any more than about 15 minutes. They live in this town, and that school should remain open. I would ask that the Minister of Education revisit that formula as it applies to northern rural schools and its impact upon northern communities. I think it's necessary to take a look at that, and I'd ask her to do that. As she wants to save taxpayers' money, as I know this government does, we still have to think of our citizens.

Another area of taxpayer money where I know this government wants to try to save was the subject of the petition I introduced in the House earlier this afternoon, which had about 700 signatures on it. A lot of members probably don't know the government runs a railway in northeastern Ontario. The Ontario Northland Transportation Commission is a government of Ontario agency, headquartered in North Bay.

Originally, through its act of 1906, it was given the responsibility of being the economic development agency for northeastern Ontario and the transportation development agency for the great northeast, and in doing so, it established a train route up through northern Ontario. It completed a route that had already been started as early as 1903, when it got to the town of Cobalt. That's when silver was discovered, when the train route was being constructed through Cobalt.

There's a lot of history to the Ontario Northland transportation system and its railway line that links North Bay through all the northeastern Ontario communities, terminating at Hearst. It also serves, at its third-last stop north, at Cochrane, which is a main terminus for the railway, as a linkage to the other Ontario Northland transportation train, which basically connects the rest of Ontario with our James Bay frontier. As you know, there is no highway up to Moosonee, and rail and air travel are the only means of transporting goods and people from Timmins and Cochrane to Moosonee and Moose Factory.

So it's a very important part of our history, but it's also a very important part of our day-to-day reality in that, as the petition stated, many of our seniors use the train service to access medical care in southern Ontario, which we have to do because of the lack of specialists in northeastern Ontario. The train provides more comfortable accommodation for senior citizens, allowing them some room to move, to be able to get up and stretch, and makes the trip to Toronto a lot more comfortable for them.

The problem-and why some of us haven't been establishing a do-or-die campaign on this train-is that over the years the train has been allowed to suffer and to downgrade. What we now have is a third-rate train that not very many people use any more, and thus the rationale to cancel it.

What is really needed is a reinvention of that train service by putting in proper, modern railcars. Over a year ago I requested the transportation commission to take a look at ultramodern railcars-possibly double-decker cars built in Ontario, maybe by Bombardier in Thunder Bay, one of the best train manufacturers in the world-and instead of supporting and subsidizing a losing proposition, to run the rail service as a business, to basically create, as you do in any business, a profit centre.

There will be many opportunities to put profit centres on that train, such as a variety of dining experiences-fine dining being one of them-a proper bar car and also the introduction of casinos on that train. So rather than just sitting there and looking at the great scenery, which is wonderful, as the train travels up from Toronto in the evening, there would be entertainment and an opportunity for passengers who have the means to spend money on that train and thus have the riders subsidize the railway rather than the taxpayers.

I was trying to think like the government here and say that we have to run things more like a business. Because it is a responsibility of the government to run this agency and have the train, I felt that might be the way to do it.

The Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, to be fair to them, aren't business people. It has grown up to be quite a bureaucracy over the years. They know fairly well how to run trains, but they're not entrepreneurial and it would be a cultural shift for them to try to do that. Rightfully so, I would ask that maybe they entertain privatizing that aspect of the train. They could run the train but talk to some of the tour agencies to operate the different facilities on the train to make it profitable and attractive.

The opportunity there would be to reinvent this train as a tourism development tool for northeastern Ontario, with the amenities I have stated. I have also suggested putting a snowmobile car on that train so that a couple could get on the train in Orillia or Barrie on a Friday night, their snow vehicle would be loaded on that car, they could go in and have a drink before dinner, go into the fine dining car if they wished to do so and then go upstairs afterwards to the casino. We would increase the number of tourists coming to northeastern Ontario.

We would be generating revenue from the ridership to support that train that would also provide transportation for those of less means who need to come to Toronto for medical reasons and to visit family, and certainly rely on a good public transit system.

For us, since we don't have TTC because we don't live in a densely populated area, the Ontario Northland Railway, the Northlander, is basically our public transit. We move from town to town and from the north to the south. That is our transit system. In a sense, that's our GO system; it's