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

April 5, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Apr-05 (PDF)

L037 - Wed 5 Apr 2000 / Mer 5 avr 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOMECOMING 2000

CARDIAC CARE

COMMUNITY SAFETY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

CHURCH FIRE

FLOAT YOUR FANNY DOWN THE GANNY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (STUDDED TIRES), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (PNEUS CLOUTÉ

S) YOUTH NEWS NETWORK-STYLE MARKETING PROHIBITION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 INTERDISANT LA PROMOTION FAITE NOTAMMENT PAR LE YOUTH NEWS NETWORK

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI (AUGMENTATION DU SALAIRE MINIMUM)

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE REFORM

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE POLICY

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION

HOME CARE

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

DURHAM COLLEGE

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

ABORTION

MANDATORY INFLUENZA VACCINATION

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

ILLEGAL TIMBER CUTTING

HIGHWAY SAFETY

HEALTH CARE

CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOMECOMING 2000

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Today I rise in the House to bring to the attention of the members present and the citizens of Ontario that a special event is being held in Brantford, one of the two municipalities in the riding of Brant that I have the honour of serving.

Homecoming 2000 is an opportunity for all former, present and wannabe Brantfordians to come home. The organizing committee has put together a spring- and summer-long millennium celebration that promises to be nothing less than fun, exciting, friendly, and the creator of loving memories. Coming home is grand.

Here are just a few of the participants you can visit while coming home: The St John's College Reunion 2000 is on May 12 to 14; the Glenhyrst Art Gallery Family Fun Day is on June 2 to 4; the Cockshutt Homecoming Festival and Exhibition is June 2 to 4.

The event that has my face looking somewhat different today sees a beard-growing contest to raise money for the food bank. I'm told that I'm looking somewhat unkempt. It's for a good cause, and I beg the indulgence and patience of the House.

Interjection: You look like Gilchrist.

Mr Levac: Steve, to your credit.

The food bank's Empty Bowls Gala is on June 10.

Finally, on July 1, homecoming weekend, we have-a chance to rid myself of this salt-and-pepper facial hair-our Cockshutt Park Homecoming Day, and on July 2, our gala homecoming parade and picnic.

For more information, call (519)751-9900.

CARDIAC CARE

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I rise today to again add my voice of support for the establishment of full cardiac care in the eastern GTA. In its report released March 10, 2000, the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario estimated that cardiac surgery in the eastern GTA can be expected to grow by 36% by the year 2006, a rate which is more than double the estimated population growth of 14% during that period.

The establishment of full cardiac surgery at the Centenary hospital site of the Rouge Valley Health System would allow close to one million residents access to a full range of cardiac services closer to their home.

Our community has worked hard to show support for the establishment of cardiac surgery in our area. Led by the Cardiac Care Community Advisory Group under the volunteer leadership of Mr Phil Diamond, close to 200 volunteers have been supported by 125 schools, 165 churches, 25 service clubs and some 225 local businesses to gather more than 18,000 signatures supporting advanced cardiac services.

The Rouge Valley system is already known for its extensive roster of cardiac services, including a cardiac catheterization lab, rapid evaluation and treatment for heart attacks, stress testing, nuclear function studies, a permanent pacemaker clinic and a full cardiac rehabilitation clinic. Cardiac surgery is the only service not currently being offered at Centenary hospital, and its addition is essential.

I applaud the work of the CCN and I urge the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care to commit to funding cardiac surgery at the Centenary site of the Rouge Valley Health System, so that the residents of Durham region and eastern Toronto finally have full access to all these essential services.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Today I am joined in the gallery by a group of people from the riding of Toronto Centre-Rosedale, and in particular the St Lawrence neighbourhood. The St Lawrence neighbourhood and the constituents in my riding deserve adequate protection from crime. Regrettably, this government's motto on so many things is, "Doing more with less," and in the city of Toronto that means we have to cope with fewer police officers. Yes, fewer. There are 90 fewer police officers in the city of Toronto since when this government was elected, and that number is in decline.

The municipality of the city of Toronto is dealing with rising debt from downloading, because this government doesn't believe in standing up for the words it speaks too often.

In the last little while, the government has been muted in response to a series of murders in my riding. Where actions speak, this government offers only words, tough talk. With respect to the issue of crime, Mike Harris's government is all loud talk. The Solicitor General and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, in response to murders in my riding, had a press conference. Yes, in response to the problem of murder in the constituency of Toronto Centre-Rosedale, this government did nothing to put more police on the streets. Instead, they ordered up another backdrop. They had another press conference. They called one more conference for London this fall.

I challenge the government opposite-the member for Willowdale was on his feet on this subject the other day-to do something to put more police on the streets of Toronto, not fewer.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr David Young (Willowdale): During the winter break I had the opportunity to meet and consult with business leaders from throughout my community of Willowdale. We spoke about the upcoming budget. They told me that we need to continue to cut taxes, balance budgets and spend within our means. We need to continue to cut property taxes, payroll taxes and corporate taxes, and we need to keep on pressuring the federal government to cut their excessively, high EI premiums. They also told me that we need to invest in our infrastructure.

We need that investment to ensure that our highways and transportation network can meet the expectations of economic growth. Over $1 billion in goods and services cross the Canadian border each and every day, most of it here in Ontario. Our infrastructure must be strong if our province is to compete and succeed in the 21st century.

I am proud to say that Willowdale continues to grow. New businesses are coming to our community all the time. You only have to travel up and down Yonge Street to appreciate the pace of this exponential growth. The cranes that exist are testament to how well we are doing. However, we still have much to do. Keeping Ontario prosperous and growing is a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week, 365-day-a-year job.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): My statement today is to the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday, Minister, you told this Legislature that the waiting time for a G1 licence test was seven weeks and for a G2 test was 12 weeks. The people of the riding of Essex beg to differ. My constituency office called the Windsor test centre this morning and the earliest appointment for a G1 licence is June 27, a 12-week wait. The earliest appointment for a G2 test is February 23, 2001, a wait of 47 weeks.

Minister, you claim to have fixed the problem. What you don't point out is that your government is to blame for the backlog in my riding. It was your government that closed the test centre in Essex county. It was your government that failed to listen when I came to the House to warn you of this problem.

My constituents don't have the option of jumping on the subway to go and get groceries. They don't have a GO train to take them to work in the morning. The ministry hotline for the closest test date may work in the greater Toronto area, but it's not an option in Essex. People can go to Windsor or Chatham, both with similar wait times. In fact, one person was advised that a test could be obtained more quickly if they went to St Catharines. If your solution is for someone to drive to St Catharines for a test, perhaps you should invest in a road map. You know, they would have to navigate Carnage Alley to get there.

Minister, stop your game of phony questions and hollow announcements and address the problem. The testing centre in the county must be reopened in order to provide service and eliminate the backlog.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): If the members would kindly appreciate other members-I know that in some cases they're not even heckling, but there is some talking-to be polite, if we could.

CHURCH FIRE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I want to take this opportunity on behalf of the New Democratic Party to express our sympathy to the Greek community of Toronto over the fire which destroyed the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary Greek Orthodox Church two days ago.

I have, on occasion, visited this beautiful church and participated in Easter services in the church with friends from the Greek community from my riding of Broadview-Greenwood, and I'm deeply saddened by the loss of that church.

I want to tell His Eminence Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios, the president of the Greek community of Metropolitan Toronto, Mr Costas Menegakis, and Father Peter, the cathedral priest, that we are deeply saddened by the loss of the church. Our hearts go out to those who are most directly hurt and affected by the loss of this place of worship. I saw some of the parishioners being interviewed outside the church, and their shock and pain was evident and very moving.

But this I know: that the Greek community is very strong, generous and community-minded. The Greek Orthodox church is extremely important to the religious and cultural life of the Greek Canadians, and I was not at all surprised to see the community rally and come together immediately to start making plans to rebuild the church. I have no doubt that this will happen. The magnificent building which was destroyed cannot of course be replaced, but I know the community will be able to replace it with a new church, which will be the pride of the community one day.

Once again, I would like to relay our sorrow for this incredible loss to the Greek community.

FLOAT YOUR FANNY DOWN THE GANNY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): If you like to have some fun and don't mind getting a little wet, I suggest you come to Northumberland county this weekend and float your fanny down the Ganny.

I'm sorry if this happens to sound a bit odd, but we're very proud of a festival held each year in the town of Port Hope, called Float Your Fanny Down the Ganny. It's an appropriate name for the event because hundreds of people will be floating their fannies some 10 kilometres down the Ganaraska River. Many will choose conventional methods of aquatic travel, such as canoes and kayaks-and I'll be in a kayak. But others bring their own homemade creations that often sink and attract the most attention, something like a Liberal election campaign.

What is the purpose of this event? It's all meant to mark the anniversary of a devastating flood that struck downtown Port Hope some 20 years ago. Instead of reflecting on the negative aspects of a huge flood, the people of Port Hope have given their remembrance a positive twist. Hundreds of people will be floating their fanny down the Ganny in hopes that they might win a prize for best theme, best costume and even for the most crew members on a craft. If you prefer to stay away from water, there's also lots to do on dry land.

I certainly applaud my constituents and friends in Port Hope for organizing this festival. I hope many of you will take part and make your way to the historic town to take

part in this year's festivities.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent to allow us to wear the "Save the Henderson" buttons in support of the people who are here from the Henderson hospital.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member has asked for unanimous consent to wear buttons. Is there unanimous consent? Unfortunately, I heard some noes.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): It's an impossible task to express to this House the depth of anger, frustration and concern I share with the many visitors in the gallery from my riding of Hamilton Mountain who have come here because of the imminent threat to the Henderson hospital and the resulting impact of a change in its acute care status and, therefore, on the safety of 200,000 people.

The Hamilton Health Services Corp announced on March 2 that the Henderson's emergency room should close and other services be removed, resulting in the loss of its role as an acute care facility and host hospital for the only cancer centre in the region. This cancer centre was built seven years ago at a cost of $41 million; it will need to move at a cost of over $70 million.

This recommendation has been put forward without public consultation, without comparative cost and impact analyses and prior to the publication of the results of the ministry's operational review. Furthermore, it contradicts the 1996 Health Services Restructuring Commission's recommendations. It also contradicts the public statement made by the Premier in Hamilton on February 10 that the Henderson would retain its active and special focus around cancer care.

I call on the Premier to keep his promise, stop the nonsense around the Henderson and take the necessary action to keep the Henderson acute care facility intact and give the people of Hamilton-Wentworth the health care they deserve.

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): Recently the Liberals have become increasingly interested in how our Premier is spending his time; in fact, they have complained about it. The member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale tried to introduce a bill yesterday. Did he do so on his own or did he do it with the permission of his leader?

I find it laughable for the member for Ottawa South-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the member take his seat. Stop the clock, please.

All members have an opportunity to make statements. I think it's fair that we get to hear each of the members. Also, I know there's some inadvertent talking that's not heckling going on as well. Could we keep that to a minimum as well. It's tough enough with the yelling that goes on with the heckling without other conversations. If we could just remember and try to be a little bit more polite, it would be helpful.

I'm sorry to interrupt the member. Would you continue.

Mr Johnson: I may need a little more time.

The member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale tried to introduce a bill in the House yesterday, and I wonder if he did so with the permission of his caucus and his leader or if he did so on his -

The Speaker: Stop the clock, please. A point of order.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: In the past you have found that references to the Premier's absence ought not to be raised in the House, and the member is continually referring to the absence of the Premier from this House.

The Speaker: I thank the member. All members will know that references to attendance on all sides-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just a second while I finish here. One of the problems we have is that when this begins-you saw what happened later. When people even go out to the washroom, the yelling and screaming starts, "Where are they?" This takes us down a slippery slope. The standing orders for all members, you should be aware, are very clear. You cannot refer to when a member is here or not here. Quite frankly, some of the games being played are very childish and I wish all members would stop it and get on with the business of the day.

The government House leader has a point of order as well.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, this time of the day is the only time when private members have an opportunity to make a statement. On two occasions the present private member has been interrupted by the opposition benches, once in terms of an uproar that interrupted his statement and, second, on another point of order by the Liberal House leader. I would ask you to restore the clock and give this member a full minute and 30 seconds to put his statement forward.

The Speaker: The member did not lose any time. When I stood up, I stopped it right away. Having said that, it also interrupts the flow, because people are on a flow, and to start all over again-

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. As you know, it is nice to have a flow, as I'm finding out. When you get interrupted, it's very difficult. What I will do in this case is give the member a little bit of lenience. Again, what happens in situations like this, when one side disrupts members' statements, the other side does it back, and then we end up with chaos and we can't hear anything.

Will the member please continue, and I apologize for the interruption.

Mr Johnson: I find it laughable for the member for Ottawa South to accuse Premier Mike Harris of not being on the job. The member is one to talk the talk but not walk the walk. When the federal Liberals recently held their policy convention in Ottawa, the Ontario Liberal leader was nowhere to be found, even though it was in his own backyard. With the entire Ontario caucus and the federal cabinet there, he could have used that opportunity to make the case that his province needs more support and investment from the federal government for health care.

In the weeks before the convention, the Premier-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat. This is an instance where it's difficult to hear. I couldn't even hear whether you were talking about the member's attendance in this House or at a convention, I thought. In situations like this, first of all-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We'll just sit and wait then until you're quiet. As I've said before, the only person who's happy when I'm standing here is my mother, who gets to watch me all afternoon if you have to sit here for two or three hours and watch me. I was going to say my kids as well, but hopefully they're in school.

The point of the matter is that I cannot hear whether the member is even out of order because I couldn't understand when he was speaking about attendance in the House. Having said that about the attendance, I would remind the member that you cannot refer to attendance in this House, and if in fact he has referred to it, I would appreciate the member withdrawing that. As I said, I was not able to hear that, but I'm sure the member will heed the recommendation. Continue.

Mr Johnson: Both your mother and you will be pleased to learn that I didn't refer to absences at all. I may not have had an opportunity to put it all in the oral part of this, but I'll send each member of a copy of it so that they can have it.

In the weeks before that convention, the Premier and the leader of the third party signed a joint letter calling on the federal Liberals to increase health care spending. What did Mr McGuinty, the Leader of the Opposition, do? He refused to stand up for Ontarians.

The Speaker: Order. I was waiting for the member and let him go a little bit longer, but he was well over the 90 seconds. I gave an extra 15, even with the interruptions. I apologize to the member. Again, this is what happens when we begin that process.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On a different subject, I am pleased to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have three visitors from the city of Hamilton today in the members' west gallery. We have three elected officials: Terry Anderson, an alderman from ward 7; Bill Kelly, an alderman from ward 7 as well; and Tom Jackson, an alderman from ward 6. Please join me in welcoming our guests.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (STUDDED TIRES), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (PNEUS CLOUTÉ

S) Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 57,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act in respect of studded tires / Projet de loi 57, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les pneus cloutés.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): A very short statement. This bill amends the Highway Traffic Act. The use of studded tires will generally be prohibited, with two exceptions. A motor vehicle with studded tires that conform to the prescribed standards and specifications may be operated on a highway in the part of Ontario prescribed by regulations as being northern Ontario. It may also be operated on a highway anywhere in Ontario if the address of the owner of the vehicle is in northern Ontario.

Tests by experts have indicated that studded tires have minimal effect on asphalt, and studies conclude categorically that studded tires save lives. While northerners continue to experience more dangerous highways than ever before, Ontario remains the only province to ban the use of studded tires. This would change that. We would ask Mike Harris to get a grip.

YOUTH NEWS NETWORK-STYLE MARKETING PROHIBITION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 INTERDISANT LA PROMOTION FAITE NOTAMMENT PAR LE YOUTH NEWS NETWORK

Mr Marchese moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 58,

An Act to amend the Education Act regarding Youth News Network-style contracts to expose students to advertising and other content / Projet de loi 58, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation à l'égard des contrats passés notamment avec le Youth News Network visant à exposer des élèves à des publicités et à d'autres types de contenu publicitaire.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): This bill would ban the Youth News Network and any similar company from classrooms in Ontario that would require the enforced viewing of news and commercial programming. We join with the Ontario Education Alliance and many other parent, community, labour, media and church groups in affirming that education is for learning and not for business.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI (AUGMENTATION DU SALAIRE MINIMUM)

Mr Hampton moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 59,

An Act to raise the minimum wage to ensure that everyone shares in Ontario's prosperity / Projet de loi 59, Loi augmentant le salaire minimum pour que toute la population puisse bénéficier de la prosperité de l'Ontario.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): This bill will benefit hundreds of thousands of Ontarians by raising the minimum wage for the first time in over five years. It will increase the minimum wage by 65 cents per hour, up to $7.50 an hour, a level that is equal to that of Ontario's major trading partner, the United States.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I move that the following amendments be made to the membership of certain committees: Ms Mushinski replaces Mr Tascona on the standing committee on justice and social policy; Mr Gilchrist replaces Ms Mushinski on the standing committee on general government; Mr Young is added to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs; and Mr Murdoch replaces Mr Young on the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

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

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday, in response to a question that I had for the Chair of Management Board in regard to the dates that he or his staff were made aware as to irregularities at the Ontario Realty Corp, the minister said he did not know the exact dates, and in Hansard he's quoted as saying, "I'll get that for you." Can I ask, through you, if the minister does have that information, if he can now provide that to the House.

The Speaker: It might be more appropriate to wait for question period for that, if we could.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe there's a mistake in the orders and notices today. For some reason, the government doesn't want to discuss the Premier's health care resolution today.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Minister of Health. Minister, we believe the people of Ontario want real solutions to health care, like the proposal that I put forward to provide Ontarians with 24-7 health care.

Minister, you have been spending a lot of time and a lot of money engaging in a propaganda war and attacks on other levels of government. I have a copy of a pamphlet that you've been issuing to people in Ontario, together with TV ads you've been running nightly at prime time-a very expensive $6-million advertising campaign.

Your ads reveal, "The Ontario government has a plan to improve health care." That's a direct quote. Duncan Sinclair, your own commissioner for the Health Services Restructuring Commission, criticized the government for not having any vision. Your pamphlet says that you have a plan. We have contacted the number that's available on this brochure and the one that's advertised on television and have been informed that there is no such plan.

Minister, would you please give up the charade and get down to work and produce a real plan that Ontarians can have some faith in.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Let me first of all set the record straight, since there was some inaccurate information once again put on the table. The amount of money that is being spent on the advertising campaign is almost $3 million. However, as the people in the province know-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I can't hear the reply.

Hon Mrs Witmer: It's very unfortunate that the opposition is not aware of the tremendous reforms that have been undertaken in this province. In fact, we are the province-

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for Windsor-St Clair please come to order.

Hon Mrs Witmer: It was our government that, after 10 years of neglect by both the Liberal government and the other government in building absolutely no long-term-care beds, has put in place a plan for 20,000 new beds. It is our government that has increased the support for home care services by-

The Speaker: I'm sorry, the minister's time is up. Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, let me tell you what happens when you in fact don't have a plan. The Henderson hospital is the only acute care hospital in Hamilton Mountain, and it serves over 200,000 Ontarians from the Mountain and surrounding municipalities. The Henderson hospital is about to lose its emergency room, and closing this emergency care is going to put lives at risk. Even your own Health Services Restructuring Commission has indicated that it would be a terrible mistake to close this emergency room.

There is a delegation of representatives here, a group of people, residents from the community on Hamilton Mountain. They are waiting anxiously for you to speak to this issue in this Legislature here today. They want your every assurance that their emergency room in their hospital will not close. I now give you the floor, Minister, for you to provide them with that assurance.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We are quite aware of what happens when you have no plan. We had a plan for priority primary care reform, and just recently the opposition has also-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take her seat.

People are here to hear the answer. I don't think they're here to hear people shout at the minister when she's trying to answer. I'd appreciate it if all members would give the minister the courtesy of being heard. We've had some people who have travelled a long distance and would like to hear the minister's reply. I would appreciate it if they could hear the answer and not hear this massive confusion that's going on.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I fully understand the concerns of the people who have travelled to Toronto today in support of the Henderson hospital. In fact, I think it's important to recognize that any decisions regarding Henderson hospital have been made by the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp.

I will be meeting today with representatives of the delegation. I am very interested in hearing at first hand their concerns. I also will be receiving the operational review this week and I will be releasing it as well. Then we will move forward from there.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I'd like to thank you for the meeting, Minister, and it can't come too soon. As we speak, medical units are being prepared for removal, staff are being told they will move to another site, all this while the corporation is saying they're consulting. The corporation is not consulting. Minister, don't tell us in a few weeks that you weren't warned.

They have planned for months to downgrade the Henderson, to close the only emergency room on the Mountain and that would cause the removal of the $41-million cancer clinic built just seven years ago. The move is estimated to cost an additional $50 million to $80 million. Does this make any sense? I have 75,000 signatures that say no. I have medical specialists, ambulance drivers, nurses and people of Hamilton Mountain who have also said no.

Minister, only you and your government can change this. We know the corporation did this, but you have the authority to do the right thing. I ask you: Will you and the Premier do what you have to do so that the hospital restructuring commission's recommendations are followed and the Henderson hospital remains an acute care hospital and the host hospital to the cancer care centre in the region?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I am looking forward to the meeting I will have later today with the representatives of the people who have travelled here in support of Henderson hospital. Again I want to emphasize that the recovery plan that has been put forward belongs to the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp.

We will continue to support the health system in the Hamilton community. Each year we are supporting health care in the Hamilton community with more than $1 billion in funding for health services. That amounts to about $1,600 for every person in the region. We have been increasing health spending each and every year. It has increased by about $230 million since 1995.

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. Yesterday we raised the issue in this Legislature of three land deals in particular for which you have ultimate responsibility. Those land deals resulted in the loss of over $10 million in taxpayer dollars because of your failure to protect their interests. None of these land deals can proceed without your approval. I obtained a copy of the order in council wherein you made the specific recommendation that one of these deals be proceeded with. That one cost Ontario taxpayers $5 million.

There are two other deals each costing Ontario taxpayers $2.5 million. The problem is, for the past week officials in the Cabinet Office have been either unwilling or unable to locate and release the corresponding cabinet documents signed by you which recommended the sale of these lands.

Minister, maybe you can give us a hand with this. These are public documents. If they exist, will you make them public now? If they don't exist at this point in time, can you please explain why?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): If the Leader of the Opposition would be so kind as to send over the OIC that he has, maybe I could comment more intelligently on some of his premises.

I can assure this House that this government is taking action on these questions and that the allegations are being looked into in the proper manner through the proper process. I'll wait to see what he's got.

Mr McGuinty: What I'm providing you with now is a copy of the OIC, signed by you, making a recommendation to cabinet to approve the sale of particular land. In that one you recommend the sale of a property for $5 million, which in truth was valued at $10 million.

Now I'm talking about two other pieces of property. Each one was sold for $2.5 million less than the price they would have obtained in the open market, based on flips which were made shortly after their purchase. You would have had to approve those two land sales as well, Minister. We are unable to locate the orders in council, the documents signed by you approving those deals. Those deals can't go ahead without your approval. Minister, where are those documents?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think everyone in this House knows that the Cabinet Office will release any OICs that exist. They are all public documents.

The OIC that he refers to here involves All City Storage, I believe, a property at 145 Eastern Avenue. I think that was discussed in the fall. You will see that Mr J.J. Barnicke's firm actually handled that transaction, and those details were public in the fall. You can ask for the details on your assumptions about the values as well.

I can tell you that this government is taking action. There are important questions being asked. The board of directors of the ORC asked for an audit of past sales that had irregularities. That audit has led to a process where the police are reviewing those files, and you know that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics.

Mr McGuinty: Orders in council are public documents. They should be made available to us. We sent somebody over to that office on March 27. We were informed that the documents were not available. We phoned them a few times, including as late as April 3, and we were informed, "We will send them as soon as we can explain why the orders in council are not there." They don't understand why the documentation is not available, the documentation that contains your specific recommendation, your specific signature. Those documents are missing.

Eighteen minutes were missing from Richard Nixon's tape; two minutes are missing now, two cabinet minutes are missing. Your signature, your documentation is missing.

Minister, it's a very simple question: Where are these documents? You should provide that explanation to the people of Ontario now, and here is your opportunity.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the member take his seat. Order. I apologize to the member; I didn't hear the end. Was he finished?

Chair of Management Board.

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I explained before, and I know he's aware of it because he repeated it, cabinet documents on the OICs are public documents. If they exist, they would be released.

I just want to remind the member that he should know, or he ought to know, that not all land sales require an OIC. Some require an OIC when we change the process at the front of the process, some at the back end. Management Board properties under the NDP didn't require an OIC. We changed that in 1998. MTO properties don't require an OIC.

I'm sure that those are public documents. If they're available, they will be made available.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. You keep saying that all your shady land deals, all the taxpayer rip-offs at the Ontario Realty Corp, occurred under an old board, an old team that somehow didn't know what it was doing. You portray yourself and the so-called new board and the so-called new team as cleaning up what happened.

This is the annual report of the Ontario Realty Corp for the 1997-98 annual year. What's interesting is that the members of the board then, with the exception of only three people, are the same members of the board now: the same chair, the same vice-chair, the same old team, the same people, the same minister who approved three land deals that gave away Ontario taxpayers' land at prices that were far too low. Minister, you keep telling people that you're the minister who is going to clean it up, that this new team is going to clean it up. It's the same minister, the same old team.

I think what needs to happen is that you and Mr Miele, the president who's presided over this, have to go. In all decency, in all integrity, you have to resign. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think the leader of the third party is aware that this government and this ministry and this board of directors of the ORC are taking action. We want to get to the bottom of these questions. We're following the proper process and the police have been asked to review these files. We're as anxious as you are to get to the bottom of this.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you may try to miss the point. You're the minister that presided over this. Tony Miele, the head of the ORC, presided over this. It's the same board members who presided over this. Are you going to tell the people of Ontario that you, the same people who presided over these land swindles, the same people who recommended it to cabinet, are now somehow magically going to clean it up? You have some responsibility here. Mr Miele has some responsibility here.

You need to step aside so that a true police investigation, a true auditor's investigation can question the staff about your role, about Mr Miele's role. Show some integrity. Step aside so the police and auditors can really ask the tough questions.

Hon Mr Hodgson: As he knows full well, I don't have the luxury that he has to make allegations or to draw conclusions or to speculate on what is or isn't under review. I have been following the proper process in terms of the advice from the assistant deputy minister of the Attorney General's office not to comment on the specifics. The police are reviewing the files. This is the proper process to get to the bottom of this. This government and this ministry are taking action that is appropriate and recommended.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you can't escape that you are responsible. Ten months after Tony Miele became the de facto head of the Ontario Realty Corp and seven months after he formally took over, you're the one who said that your guy hadn't told you about allegations of wrongdoing. Your board members are still there-the same board members who presided over this, the same board members who agreed to these swindles. You can't stay and claim now that you're going to clean up a mess that you were responsible for.

A cabinet minister who presides over wrongdoing in his own cabinet ministry can't then turn around and say: "Well, I didn't know anything. I didn't see anything. I wasn't aware of anything." You should have known. These allegations were raised. Mr Miele should have known. You have to step aside. Getting to the bottom of this means that you have to go. Will you show some integrity and do that now?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Despite the opposition's attempt to cloud the facts and blame the whistle-blowers, we are following the proper process. The auditor has been called in. There's a forensic audit underway in review of past files where there are irregularities. The police have been called in to review it. We are taking action to get the truth of these matters out.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, two days ago I raised with you the fact that with Henderson Hospital and the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp you had cut $40 million out of that budget, which just coincidentally happens to be the same amount of money that the corporation has a deficit for in the current fiscal year.

Your response to me, and I'm quoting from Hansard, was, "There have been no cuts." Minister, I have since been in touch with officials at the Hamilton Health Science Corp and not only have there been cuts, the total gross amount of the cuts, and gross they are, is $140 million if you include all the money that's been added-including things that really shouldn't be included like one-time funding, Y2K money and money to pay for the nurses that you fired-you're still left $35 million in the hole.

Minister, in light of that, I call on you today to (1) reinstate the money that you took out of the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp budget and (2) use your authority and announce that the Henderson will remain open.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I have already indicated that I am anxious and looking forward to meeting today with those people who are concerned about the plan that has been proposed by the Hamilton Health Sciences Centre. There will be a dialogue later in the day.

As the member full well knows, we have had an operational review ongoing to take a look at the situation at the Hamilton Health Sciences Centre in order to ensure that we can deliver the best services. But I would again remind the member that to support the people in his community, we are presently spending more than $1 billion per year. We have been increasing funding for health care in that community and we will continue to do everything we can in order to meet the health needs of those individuals.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Sorry to interrupt. Before the member begins, I just wanted to remind all of the members of the gallery that we are very pleased to have you here today, but clapping, unfortunately, isn't allowed. But we do appreciate having you here today and I know everyone will adhere to the rules.

The member for Hamilton West.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, I'm disappointed you didn't at least acknowledge that your statement on Monday was incorrect. The fact is that you have removed tens of millions of dollars of funding.

I want also to point out to you that when you talk about ensuring that the needs of our community are met in terms of our health care system-and you certainly give the impression to the people who are here from Hamilton today that you care so much about Hamilton and about our health care system and about Henderson in particular-in response to the question from my colleague from Hamilton Mountain, you said that the decisions are being made by the board of the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp. I remind you, Minister, that under your own Bill 23, sections 6.6 and 6.7 of the Public Hospitals Act allow you to override the decisions of local hospital boards.

Minister, on every front-fiscal, health care or authority-you have the opportunity to step in and do the right thing. I call on you again: Use your authority, reinstate the money you cut from our health care system, and order that the Henderson hospital remain open.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Let me again preface my remarks by indicating the fact that we have invested more into the Hamilton community for health care than at any other time. In fact, let's take a look at the Hamilton Health Sciences Centre. There was $46 million in additional funding provided in 1999, and there was $3.5 million to support the emergency rooms, $16 million to address the working capital pressures, a base increase of over $3 million in March-

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take her seat. I know it's an emotional issue, but I would appreciate it if the member would let the Minister of Health finish.

Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: If we take a further look at the $370 million that is going to be provided to the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp this year, in the past year the hospital has continued to receive millions of dollars from the province, including $13 million to address the restructuring issue, $3.5 million for nursing, $3.1 million for its trauma program, $3.5 million for its cardiovascular program and, as I pointed out, $3.5 million for its emergency services.

I think we also need to recognize that as a result of the restructuring initiative, we have brought together several hospitals that today form the Hamilton Health Sciences Centre.

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. I want to follow up on the question of my leader in regard to the two missing documents. Let's get some facts on the record here. We are talking about two properties, Tomken Road and Brampton Road, both the subject of OPP investigations into the land flipping that has occurred on those properties.

We have also checked the regulations. Those two properties would have had to have cabinet approval with your signature on those properties. We have tried for six days now to get those orders in council. We were told: "We can't find them. We can't explain why they are not there."

Clearly this is starting to smell of a political cover-up. It is related to the fact that it took so long for the OPP to be called in, and now is it a mere coincidence that the two documents that bear your signature, that are part of the public record, cannot be found by the Cabinet Office? Minister, it is either clearly incompetence or cover-up. Can you explain clearly why those two documents are not available and why in six days the Cabinet Office could not find them or find the reason why they're not there?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): First of all, I don't know what is under review by the auditor or the OPP. I don't know how you know what is under what you call investigation. I'm not aware of it and I'm distressed to learn that you know for sure what's under review in, as you say, an OPP investigation. Those are not the facts I have.

OICs from Cabinet Office, as I mentioned to your leader, are public documents that are available, if they exist. As I explained to your leader, some properties require orders in council to be sold and some do not. If they're MTO properties, for example, or if they were Management Board properties under the NDP rules, they didn't. We changed those rules for Management Board in 1998.

Mr Agostino: Let me again remind the minister, we have checked the regulations. These two properties would have needed cabinet approval to be sold. Your signature is on these properties in order for this deal to go through cabinet. Minister, you can't explain. It's astonishing.

We're sitting here and we have a Chair of Management Board who cannot explain why these two documents that are public information relating to a police investigation, relating to an investigation by the auditors, are not available through the Cabinet Office, where every other document that we need in relation to ORC deals has been available. I don't think it's a coincidence. It took way too long for you to call in the OPP; it took way too long for you to call in the forensic auditors.

One clearly has to raise the spectre here of what is happening at the Cabinet Office and why these two documents are missing. It smells of a cover-up here, Minister. You don't seem to have any better explanation. We can tell you that you have signed those documents. It is part of the regulations that you must have signed those two documents, or the deal would not have gone through cabinet.

Minister, will you release those two documents today? Your failure to do so will clearly continue to raise the spectre of a political cover-up of the goings-on at the Ontario Realty Corp.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Cabinet documents, OICs, are public documents. He can ask for that. I've explained before the answer on the OIC process, if it's required under law, on what happens to properties. I think the bottom line here is that this government is acting; we are taking the proper steps to get the answer to any irregularities that may or may not have happened. I'm not at liberty to speculate, like you are. I've been under instructions from the auditor and the assistant Attorney General of criminal law not to comment on the specifics, not to prejudice the review that's taking place. Surely you wouldn't expect me to comment and jeopardize an independent review.

IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE POLICY

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I recently became aware, on the federal government's citizenship and immigration Web page, of something truly obscene. About halfway down that immigrant services page, which is, by the way, an official, fully authorized and approved federal government Web page, there are clear directions on how a new immigrant can apply for welfare.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Minister, but isn't it the federal government that sets the sponsored immigration policy but the province that pays for the welfare costs for failed sponsorship arrangements? Minister, are you aware of this advertising that's going on about Ontario's welfare system around the world?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): In response to my colleague the member for Brampton Centre, I would want to preface my remarks by saying that our government and, I believe, the people of Ontario strongly support immigration. It has benefited our society, our community and our economy tremendously, now and in the past.

I too was startled to learn that the Chrétien government believes that WWW stands for "worldwide welfare." I know, the member knows and Ontario taxpayers know that this is wrong, wrong, wrong. By advertising our welfare system around the world to prospective sponsored immigrants, we're not just advertising and promoting but enabling high sponsorship defaults.

As the member from Brampton Centre will know, there are huge costs for regions like Peel, the city of Toronto, my home community of Ottawa-Carleton and the province of Ontario and they have to pay for the sponsorship defaults allowed by the federal government. If the federal government would stop promoting-

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

Mr Spina: When the sponsorship agreement between the sponsor and the immigrant breaks down, the person winds up on the welfare rolls and the provinces end up paying. Please help me understand this: The government has no responsibility in this? Minister, you mentioned the region of Peel. The reality is that I have in my hand a copy of invoices from the region of Peel to the federal Liberal immigration minister Elinor Caplan, who should understand this situation because she was a sitting member and minister in this province before she went federal. That bill is now $22 million in Peel alone. How much is this costing the entire province and what are you going to do about it?

Hon Mr Baird: This is yet another example of a boondoggle being run by the federal Liberals in Ottawa. This is costing the taxpayers of Ontario more than $125 million a year, and that money could be better spent on health care, social services and educating young people in Ontario. The simple answer to the problem is that Jean Chrétien and the Liberal government in Ottawa have lax criteria for sponsorship immigration, and indeed they're not enforcing those sponsorship obligations.

We have some advice:

(1) They must stop advertising our welfare system around the world.

(2) They must stop allowing people on welfare to become sponsors themselves.

(3) They must stop allowing people who have been failed sponsors in the past to sponsor again. Finally, the federal Liberal government needs to pay for the cost of their failed policies and take some responsibility and not leave it on the hard-working taxpayers of Ontario.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. As you know, I've put a private member's bill forward to protect and preserve the Oak Ridges moraine. This protection is urgently needed because this precious natural resource is being destroyed by uncontrolled development. The moraine is being ravaged by bulldozers, aggregate extraction, road building and clear-cutting of its forest as we speak.

Your own colleague the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr Steven Gilchrist, stated publicly on February 23 in Richmond Hill that everyone should stand up to developers. He claimed that one of the reasons why he was ousted as Minister of Municipal Affairs was because he stood up to the developers on the Oak Ridges moraine. He said that night, "Don't let the developers bully you."

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. On the point of order, the member might not have been here when I talked. You need to get very quickly to the point of order or I'll cut you off.

Mr Gilchrist: Mr Speaker, the member has made a characterization of a comment I made that is patently untrue. I suggest that he withdraw those comments.

The Speaker: It's not a point of order, and the member will continue, please.

Mr Colle: I'll withdraw whatever he wants me to withdraw.

Mr Gilchrist said that night: "Don't let the developers bully you. Don't be frightened by the developers. Don't let them cajole you." That's what he said in Richmond Hill.

Minister, why are you going to wine and dine tomorrow night with hundreds of developers at another fundraiser for you and your party when your own former minister said, "Don't hang around with the developers"?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I want to assure the honourable member and this House how important this government feels about the proper environmental protections indeed of all areas of the province, not only the Oak Ridges moraine. That is why we want to see the protections in hydrogeology. That's why we want to see the protections of terrestrial features. That's why all of those and the linkage of the moraine are so important.

That's why in the 1991 guidelines, which this government has accepted, there are eight key principles for determining if a proposed development may be allowed. You have to protect significant natural areas. You have to restrict scattered development. You have to encourage or maintain ecological integrity. You have to encourage the protection and management of woodlands. You have to prohibit unacceptable development when it impacts on watercourses and lakes.

Those are the kinds of protections this government is already on record for, and I would appreciate the honourable member's help in ensuring that these protections are part of our natural heritage for present and future generations.

Mr Colle: I think actions speak louder than words. Tomorrow night, as Richmond Hill council has a special meeting in regard to an amendment to their official plan, where developers want to pave more of the moraine, want to build on the moraine, where are you going to be? You're not going to be at the public meeting. You are going to be with your friends, the developers, at another fundraising. These same developers are contributing to your campaign and to your party.

When are you going to come clean and stop listening to the developers, who are saying, "Build, build, build," and start listening to the ordinary people in King City and in Richmond Hill, who are telling you to do your job and protect the moraine? When are you going to start listening to the people and not the developers like Mr Gilchrist said publicly on February 23? Let him deny that.

Hon Mr Clement: I would say three things. In the first place, I hope the honourable member knows that I am not going to comment on anything to do with the Richmond Hill issue, because it is before the board, and I hope he respects that. The second thing I have to say is that if he wants to go through the list of who has given to whom on their side of the House, we'd be happy to do that. So just keep asking me the question, and we'll talk about that.

I think the people of Ontario want to know about the issues, and I refer the honourable member to the provincial policy statement that this government passed. This government passed this policy statement.

There is a policy statement for development. It says the development and site alteration-

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member has asked the question. I would appreciate it if he would let an answer come. We can't have questions asked and then shout at the minister as he is trying to answer. Minister.

Hon Mr Clement: The provincial policy statement adopted by this government indicates that development and site alteration will not be permitted in significant wetlands, in significant portions of habitat where there are endangered or threatened species. Site alteration and development can only be done in a way that makes sure that the density is a high as possible, so that we don't have the urban sprawl the member is concerned about. So we have put it on the record-

The Speaker: Order. The minister's time is up.

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Attorney General. Rotary Park, in my riding, is home to the Colville Memorial Clock Tower, which was erected in remembrance of three brothers who were killed in action while serving as pilots overseas during the Second World War. Because of its location, Rotary Park has been the target of youth vandalism. Ron Hooper, of the downtown business improvement association, has told me that his organization is taking steps, such as increasing the lighting in the park, in order to decrease the incidence of vandalism.

Minister, I would like you to explain to me what capacity of property crime could be taken with the actions in your legislation.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The member's concern about safety in his communities in Durham, part of the great region of Durham, is well known, including Rotary Park in Bowmanville. In 1999, after consulting with more than 70 town hall meetings by the Crime Control Commission around the province, we promised, in our Blueprint, to introduce parental responsibility legislation, which was introduced in this House yesterday, that would make parents financially responsible for property damage committed by their children breaking the law. I am proud to say we are keeping this commitment to the people of Ontario.

In Ontario, 47% of all cases heard under the Young Offenders Act relate to youth property crimes. This is equivalent to almost 20,000 cases each year. The majority of these victims are usually stuck with the bill, because the law to date has not provided effective recourse to victims. With our parental responsibility legislation, victims whose property was intentionally destroyed by a minor will be able to recover up to $6,000 from parents through using the Small Claims Court procedure.

Of course, we recognize that the vast majority of parents do their best to teach their children respect for the law. That is why parents who-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I'm sorry, the Attorney General's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: Before I move to my supplementary, I would like to note that we all recognize that the vast majority of young people are excellent examples of good citizens. That being said, the very few need to understand that there are consequences for our actions that require a sense of responsibility, remembering again that the vast majority play a positive role in my riding. Just recently, Gerry Martiniuk and I presented an Ontario Crime Control Commission award to the first Port Perry Venturers, who have assisted the Durham regional police in a number of community activities.

Understanding that victims of youth-related property crime in Ontario can already sue parents for property damage, Minister, can you explain why it is necessary for Ontario to take the steps that you're explaining in your proposed legislation?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I thank the member for bringing up the question relating to the efficacy of the law in Ontario. Quite frankly, the law is not used frequently and there's a reason for that. It is not easy to use and it's expensive and cumbersome and would normally involve retaining lawyers. The Small Claims Court procedure, on the other hand, with the onus provisions that are built into the bill, will make it available in an effective way for victims of property crime in Ontario. The victim ought not to bear the responsibility of having to prove items such as an intentional act.

It is very difficult to prove and it makes for an ineffective law. In this bill we have provided that the onus will be on the parents to show that the act was not intentional, which is not the law as it is in Ontario today, despite the misleading comments that have been made to the contrary by some.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If you would just withdraw the "misleading comments," please.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I withdraw it.

The other important aspect which I draw to the attention of members is the availability of the use of an order of disposition under the Young Offenders Act. This is again an important tool to assist-

The Speaker: The minister's time is also up.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the chief government whip. Yesterday, we were shocked to learn that an unnamed financial contributor tried to buy your support. Equally shocking, Ontario and federal election laws do nothing to prevent a rich contributor from such a subversion of democracy. You're a member of this Legislature, and as I see it you have essentially been asked to provide your support for money. In the interest of the principles of democracy, are you prepared to identify the person or persons who tried to subvert democracy? Secondly, would you agree to ask the Premier to change the Ontario Election Finances Act to prevent this abuse of democracy?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member should know that the chief whip is not able to answer questions. Any of the members of the government who would like to answer the question may do so. Unfortunately, the chief whip-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

It's very clear: The chief whip cannot answer questions. Would the member like to direct that to anyone else?

Mr Hampton: I'd ask to address the question to the Deputy Premier. I think this is a very serious issue. A member of this Legislature-

The Speaker: For a quick second. The reason I'm going to allow this is that I know the Deputy Premier, not seeing the question, may not have been here. I think he may have been talking to someone else. For his benefit, I'm going to allow it again, unless he heard it the first time and wants to answer it.

Mr Hampton: A member of this Legislature, a member of your government was essentially offered a bribe yesterday. He was told-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member should know that questions need to be related to provincial issues. What may happen in a federal leadership campaign does not relate to provincial issues.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We'll just wait, then.

In question period, it needs to relate to provincial issues. If the member can try to frame it another way, I will give him one more chance, but if not, we will move on. I want to be very clear: If the member doesn't frame it this time, we will move on in the rotation and he'll miss his question.

Mr Hampton: Speaker, at least allow me to put the question and then you can rule if it's in order.

As I started to say, this is about a member of the government. This is a minister without portfolio in the government who was essentially told yesterday that he would receive money for a political campaign if he agreed to support candidate X. I think the citizens of Ontario would be shocked to know, and the citizens of Canada would probably be shocked to know, that this is not against the current election finances laws in Ontario. I thought democracy was supposed to be about one person, one vote, not about who has the most money.

Deputy Premier, would you be prepared to support an amendment to Ontario's Election Finances Act which would prohibit what I think is an open bribe, what I think is the most reprehensible behaviour in a democracy? Would you be prepared to support an amendment to ensure that this can't happen in Ontario?

The Speaker: Just very quickly, that question is in order and I apologize for the delay in getting that through.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The subject matter of the question that the leader of the third party is asking, I believe, has nothing to do with the Ontario Legislature. However, if indeed the third party and the opposition party think there should be changes made to the Ontario Election Finances Act, I'd be quite happy to take the matter up with our House leader and perhaps we can pursue the matter.

Mr Hampton: With due respect to the Deputy Premier, I think this goes to the essence of democracy. Democracy is supposed to be about one person, one vote, not who has the money to go out there and essentially offer a bribe. Not only that, but I think this is a matter for your government. One of your members, one of your cabinet colleagues, was essentially offered a bribe. He was told, "If you agree to do such and such, we will provide you with money."

I want to ask you, Deputy Premier, have you conducted any inquiry to find out who tried to bribe a member of your government, who tried to bribe a cabinet minister in your government, who in a very outrageous way tried to subvert the very principles of democracy? Have you done that, and if you haven't done it, when are you going to do it?

Hon Mr Eves: No, I have not. You're the one who is suggesting a bribe has been made. I certainly never heard the honourable member say such a thing.

Talking about one person, one vote, it might do your party very well to adopt one person, one vote, which our party has had for many years.

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): To the Chairman of Management Board: Minister, a few moments ago you mentioned it was your understanding that it was not necessary in all cases that an order in council be issued in connection with the sale of land.

I have a copy of the guidelines and procedures put forward by the Ontario Realty Corp. We received these about a week ago, so they are new, and they have been in force, as I understand, for quite some time.

Here's what it says with respect to the disposition of real estate.

Section (

e) is labelled "Order in Council." It says, "The disposition of all real estate assets owned by the government of Ontario require the approval of an order in council prior to the closing of any sale transaction." There are no exceptions. "The disposition of all real estate assets owned by the government of Ontario require the approval of an order in council." That means that you, Minister, must have approved these sales prior to their disposition.

Now unless I'm mistaken-you are aware of some other rule-would you please stand up in this Legislature and admit that you in fact disregarded the interests of Ontario taxpayers and approved two land sales which cost taxpayers $5 million?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): First of all, on the question of whether or not the taxpayers received their best value, we're trying to improve the process. We're taking action to make it so it's better and it gets better value. That's why all our activities have been done in that regard. The statements you talk about are new procedures, new policies, to do that.

In general, the process on an OIC is that the recommendations come up through staff, right up to the deputy minister, and the minister signs and takes that to cabinet. That's in the case of properties owned by the Ontario government under Management Board.

Prior to 1998, when they set up the ORC, Management Board properties didn't require an order in council. I changed that. This House approved it. Now properties owned by Management Board and the government need to do that. Properties owned by MTO do not. I believe Natural Resources has their own act as well.

The bottom line here is that we are taking action to answer these important questions and concerns. We've called in the auditor. The auditor noticed some irregularities as well and asked the police to review these files. We are trying to get to the bottom of it.

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

Mr McGuinty: Minister, this is the way it works. It's really not a complicated matter. The Ontario Realty Corp is responsible for the sale of land, but the realty corporation is accountable to you. No land can be sold without your specific approval. The regulations put forward by the Ontario Realty Corp specifically say that there are no exceptions. It says the disposition of all real estate assets owned by the government of Ontario require the approval of an order in council. That's your recommendation. That is your approval, Minister.

It seems to me again you only have two options here: Either resign or defend the loss of $10 million to Ontario taxpayers when it comes to land sales, which happened on your watch, clearly with your approval.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Again the Leader of the Opposition makes allegations. I'm not aware if they're public or not. I don't know how he knows what's under review. As far as the specifics are concerned, we are taking action. I've been told, as I've told this House numerous times, on the advice of the assistant Deputy Attorney General of criminal law not to comment on the specifics of any transactions.

I can tell you in answer to your question, though, that the Ontario Realty Corp requires an order in council to sell property. MTO does not require an OIC for property disposal, but they have a memorandum of understanding that MTO does the legal processing and the ORC makes the deal, signs the purchase agreement and hands the consummated deal to MTO. But they do not require an order in council and it doesn't come to the level that it does through the Ontario Realty Corp.

LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, some students in my riding have been listening to some of the reports in the media as well as from the opposition that claim that our government is essentially against some of the liberal arts. This claim has concerned both myself and constituents in my riding.

Students with a liberal arts education-as a matter of fact I have two daughters with liberal arts degrees-are valuable not only in our workplace, but also in our society as a whole. Can the minister reassure those who are pursuing a liberal arts education that these reports are in fact untrue?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I thank the member for Northumberland for his question. Actually, everyone in this House should know that students are choosing their curriculum. The students not only in your riding but right across Ontario have also been reading these press clippings. We want to reassure those students who are studying in the humanities and in the arts that those programs will in fact be open to them.

I think it's interesting to know that 52% of students occupy humanities and arts programs in Ontario right now. So more than half of the students are in liberal arts and humanities. What does that look like? Forty-seven per cent of the liberal arts programs-humanities programs-in Canada are right here in Ontario, when only 38% of these undergraduate students are in Ontario. What we're really saying is that we're great in Ontario, but we're really great across the country when it gets to providing courses in liberal arts and humanities, and we hope to keep it that way when the students choose to choose those courses, is the answer to the question.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Members, I am watching the clock. Not only am I watching the clock, but the clerks at the table are. I'd appreciate if members wouldn't yell the time. We may make mistakes, but most of the time we are right. It's not only me, or we might be wrong most of the time. The table is watching it, so we will stick to the minute. Supplementary.

Mr Galt: Thank you, Minister, for addressing some of those concerns. However, the students and parents in my riding-and in the west gallery are several students from the Trenton High School-need some assurance that the new, performance-based funding will not force institutions to redirect funding from arts and humanities to high-tech programs. The current demand for technology graduates might inflate the institution's graduate employment rate, thereby giving institutions an incentive to fund those programs over the liberal arts.

Minister, can you reassure Ontario students, particularly the ones from Trenton, that this indeed is not the case?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In response to the question, and for those students here this afternoon and across Ontario, the good news, the great news, is that students across all disciplines are getting jobs when they graduate. Ninety-one per cent of university graduates have jobs after six months no matter what they graduate from, and 89% of college students have jobs no matter what they graduate from. The future is great, students are getting jobs and graduates from most programs, of course, are performing very well in the job market. This is proof, as always, that a good education gets you a good job.

Having said that, Mr Speaker, I think that students and their parents want to know what the graduation rates are and what the success rates are in getting jobs. That is why we have performance indicators, so those students can find out today-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member's time is up.

New question, the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.

HOME CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, Lisa Ann Brady is 20 years old. She has Preador-Willi Syndrome and requires 24-hour care to be able to live in the community. The Durham community care access centre says they can only offer Lisa the maximum number of hours that you have set out in regulations. Last month, the Health Services Appeal Board decided to hear Lisa's case, and the hearing begins on Friday morning.

But you are so determined, Minister, to prevent to Lisa Brady from getting any additional support that you have hired private lawyers to fight the appeal and, unbelievably, you have already served notice that you will commence court proceedings, that if the appeal board grants Lisa additional support you are going to fight the Brady family in court.

Minister, why is your government trying to influence the appeal board's decision by starting court action before the hearings even begin, and why are you so determined to see Lisa Brady in an institution instead of giving her the support she needs to live in the community?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Mr Speaker, as the member knows, our government has made a very strong commitment to do everything we can to ensure that we expand home care opportunities throughout Ontario and that we continue to provide community care services throughout Ontario. As you know, we set up 43 community care access centres in order that people would have one-stop shopping and would have an opportunity to get the answers that obviously were going to be needed to respond to the concerns of citizens. I can assure you-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Sorry, the member's time is up. Supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I say to you this afternoon that your government and your ministry have done everything possible to prevent Lisa Brady from being given the support her family is seeking from the community care access centre in Durham. You first denied that a case like Lisa's could even go to the appeal board. You lost that line of attack last spring with the Ian Strathern case. So you quietly filed regulations last summer legally limiting the maximum number of hours of personal support the CCAC can provide. You expected the Health Services Appeal Board would be bound by your regulations.

Now you're ready to take this family to court to prevent Lisa from getting any extra support that the appeal board might grant.

Minister, speak to the question of Lisa Brady. Don't you think you have been fighting this disabled individual long enough? Will you clearly state your intention this afternoon to withdraw from court proceedings and let the appeal board decide what is fair and right for Lisa Brady?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Mr Speaker, as the member knows, when the regulation was introduced, it actually increased the maximum levels for the majority of CCACs throughout Ontario. Also, the issue to which the member refers is an individual case. It is currently going to the appeal board, and no decision had been made at the present time.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): It is with great pleasure that I bring a petition. This is only a sample. There are actually 75,000 signatures gathered through my office, through the alderman of Hamilton Mountain as well as the hospital workers at the Henderson.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Henderson hospital is the only acute care hospital located on Hamilton Mountain and serves over 200,000 mountain residents and thousands more from surrounding municipalities; and

"Whereas the recommendations of the hospital restructuring commission clearly call for the Henderson to remain open as an acute care facility; and

"Whereas removal of services from the Henderson hospital would create a situation detrimental to the health and safety of the aforementioned residents of Hamilton Mountain; and

"Whereas there's no conclusive evidence that the removal of services from the Henderson hospital will create long-term net savings for the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario, through the Minister of Health, to direct the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp to abide by the recommendations of the hospital restructuring commission and take the necessary steps to maintain the Henderson hospital as an acute care facility with the necessary services available to ensure the health, safety and care of Hamilton and area residents."

I proudly put my name and signature on this.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. It is very hard to hear the petitions. If the members wish to talk, would they move out of the chamber. That would be helpful.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): In addition to the petitions from my colleague from Hamilton Mountain, I also have the following petition to present:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government has cut $40 million from the budget of the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp, which has resulted in a health care crisis in Hamilton-Wentworth and left the HHSC with a $40-million deficit; and

"Whereas the HHSC is now planning to downsize and cut back services at the Henderson hospital by converting the hospital to a daycare hospital with urgent care, rather than an emergency department; and

"Whereas this will have a serious impact on emergency services for the 200,000 residents of Hamilton Mountain, upper Stoney Creek, Glanbrook, Ancaster and other communities above the escarpment; and

"Whereas the mountain population is a rapidly growing community and deserves and needs a full-service hospital; and

"Whereas an ambulatory care centre is not an acceptable replacement for a 24-hour emergency ward; and

"Whereas it does not make sense to spend $100 million for a new cancer centre rather than half that amount to expand existing facilities at the Henderson; and

"Whereas Mike Harris said in February that the Henderson hospital would remain open for acute and cancer care;

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

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario direct the Harris government to restore the funding cuts to the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp and develop long-term solutions for the maintenance of appropriate acute care services at the Henderson hospital to serve the needs of the growing population of Hamilton-Wentworth and central south Ontario."

In support of these petitioners, I add my name to theirs.

DURHAM COLLEGE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It is my pleasure to present a petition to the Parliament of Ontario on behalf of the Greater Oshawa Chamber of Commerce. They presented me with these documents last night at a dinner where the Minister of Transportation spoke, and they wanted me to pass this on to the Premier as well as the Minister of Colleges and Universities, the Honourable Dianne Cunningham.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the region of Durham has grown to a population of over 500,000 people; and

"Whereas the time has come to have the infrastructure in a knowledge-based economy;

"The citizens of the region of Durham strongly urge that the Minister of Education and the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities immediately recognize Durham College and fund it appropriately as a Durham College and University Centre."

I'm very pleased to submit this and also to affix my name to it.

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the restructuring recommendations of the appointed commissioner, Harry Kitchen, will be binding for the county of Victoria, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to halt the forced restructuring process for many reasons, including but not limited to the following:

"Democratic process has been thwarted in the appointment of the commissioner-87% of the municipalities of Victoria voted against the appointment. Municipalities of Victoria county are already in the process of reducing local government and implementing cost-effective measures to administer services. Their solutions for effective amalgamation have not been addressed by Mr Kitchen's report to the public. Recently instituted market value assessment makes the 1998 information obsolete for the purpose of reliable and accurate cost analysis.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows: Please halt the forced restructuring of Victoria county and allow us, the voters, taxpayers, and residents of Victoria county, to work with our elected municipal officials to determine our own future in a fair and democratic manner, at our own level."

That's signed by 848 residents, and I have also signed the petition.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to present a petition from Pat Wilson, Mary McAuley and a number of other constituents in my riding of Durham.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas we have recently learned that our tax money is being used to pay the rent on the Morgentaler abortuary; and

"Whereas by the end of his lease this amount will be in excess of $5 million;

"Whereas we strongly object to this use of our tax dollars;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to immediately cease these payments."

I am pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

MANDATORY INFLUENZA VACCINATION

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a rather lengthy petition. I'll read it in part.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Karl G. Nicholson, MD, who is a senior lecturer on infectious diseases at Leicester Royal Infirmary in England, states, `The studies to date haven't convincingly shown that flu immunization reduces the spread of influenza'; and

"Whereas according to Hugh Fundenberg, MD, the world's leading immunogeneticist: `If an individual has had five consecutive flu shots' in a 10-year period, his study years, `his/her chances of getting Alzheimer's disease is 10 times higher than if they had one, two or no shots. This is due to the mercury and aluminum in every flu shot. The gradual mercury and aluminum buildup in the brain causes cognitive dysfunction' ...

"Whereas our research has uncovered information that flu vaccinations have many negative implications to health;

"Whereas we have learned that the Ontario Ministry of Health is strongly encouraging facilities to require the mandatory immunization of all employees;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Reconsider the encouragement of mandatory influenza shots or any legislation that might require such shots, and that employees be allowed an exemption from such shots, the same as Ontario students are provided through the Form 2 Immunization of School Pupils Act, without exclusion from the workplace."

I affix my signature to this.

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I'd like to read another petition which has been delivered to my office. It speaks of the plight of seniors having difficulties with their property taxes. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the seniors in Ontario are largely being forgotten by this government, with the vast majority of tax cuts benefiting large corporations and the most wealthy in our society; and

"Whereas due to the government's downloading of responsibility for property taxes to the municipalities, a heavier burden is being placed on seniors living in their own homes; and

"Whereas many seniors, because of their low pension income, are increasingly unable to afford the high cost of upkeep of their homes, prescription drugs and other user fees, and higher property taxes, and are being forced to sell and move into high-priced rental accommodation; and

"Whereas the availability of affordable rental accommodation is becoming a serious problem for seniors since the elimination of rent controls and the provincial government's decision to stop building affordable housing for seniors; and

"Whereas the increasing burden on vulnerable seniors is unfair and unjust to seniors who sacrificed and paid taxes all their lives; and

"Whereas the provincial government has shown little interest in helping seniors remain in their homes in honour and dignity;

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

"The time has come to remove education levies from the property taxes of low-income seniors."

I concur with the contents of the petition and I will affix my signature to it.

ILLEGAL TIMBER CUTTING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas timber cutters are trespassing on private and crown land, cutting, removing and selling trees, leaving a financial, environmental, aesthetic and emotional devastation in their wake; and

"Whereas the OPP have no authority to stop a cutter from cutting in the event of a boundary dispute, but may only inform the cutter that a complaint has been lodged; and

"Whereas the mills accept all timber from their contractors whether it is stolen or not; and

"Whereas the practice of the crown attorney's office to delegate these obvious theft issues to civil court places an unreasonable and prohibitive financial burden on the landowner-victim; and

"Whereas the offending cutters are protected by their numbered companies, lease their equipment and declare bankruptcy rather than pay fines and restitution, and immediately register a new numbered company, the landowner-victim must then pay:

"

(1) All court costs and legal fees incurred by the offender as well as their own legal fees;

"

(2) The cost of the survey;

"

(3) The cost of hiring and posting bond for a bailiff, an appraiser, a salesman and bond for each piece of property and for equipment seized from the convicted cutter at the rate of at least $2,000 for each of the above-listed;

"

(4) The cost of cleanup and reforestation; and

"Whereas traditionally settlements to landowners-victims have amounted to the price of stumpage fees for the stripped area, while the cutter profits from the full price of the timber from the mill; and

"Whereas, because the offending cutter must work quickly to avoid detection, he/she leaves the land devastated, with little or no thought to environmental areas of concern, eg, wetlands, reforestation;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness to landowners-victims in the overwhelming support of illegal cutting of private and crown lands.

"We advocate:

"

(1) That the cases be tried as grand theft in a criminal court;

"

(2) That in the event of a boundary dispute the party who is to benefit financially (ie, the cutter) be responsible for the cost of a survey by a registered surveyor and not a forester;

"

(3) Final judgments should not only include fines, all costs incurred for pursuit of justice and stumpage fees, but the full price of the timber, the cost of cleaning up the clear-cut area and the cost of reforestation and maintenance of the cut area, thus making theft of timber from private and crown lands potentially non-profitable;

"

(4) Contracts of convicted cutters should be subject to suspension or termination, just as drunk drivers lose licences."

In agreement with this sentiment, I've affixed my signature.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): "Whereas the carnage and the tragedy continues on Highway 401 between London and Windsor; and

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

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

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

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

I respectfully present this petition on their behalf.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I have another petition with respect to health care privatization in Ontario which I'd like to read to you. It says no to the privatization of health care.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we are concerned about the quality of health care in Ontario; and

"Whereas we do not believe health care should be for sale; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is taking steps to allow profit-driven companies to provide health care services in Ontario; and

"Whereas we won't stand for profits over people;

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

"Do not privatize our health care services."

The petition is quite explicit. I concur with the intent, and I will affix my signature to it.

CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS

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

"Whereas cultural organizations make an outstanding contribution to our province by sharing their customs, traditions, language and arts;

"Whereas our cultural organizations are generous in their benevolent contribution to the people of their communities;

"Whereas dramatic and unjustified increases in assessment for our cultural halls have created an extreme hardship for their membership;

"Be it resolved that the provincial government reinstate the previous assessment treatment for such facilities and abandon the assessment change that is so detrimental to our cultural organizations."

I affix my signature, as I am in complete agreement with this, and I'm glad that the provincial Treasurer and Minister of Revenue was able to hear this petition this afternoon.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): In the absence of Mr Sterling, I move that the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing May 1, 2000, and ending October 31, 2000, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Eves has moved government notice of motion number 33. The time is split evenly, and that means it will be rotated after each speaker. The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance.

Hon Mr Eves: I am just going to make a few very brief comments. As members are aware, obviously the motion for interim supply provides the government with the authority to make payments to hospitals, boards of education, civil servants, suppliers and others. Payments are currently being made under a motion of interim supply that was introduced on October 21, 1999, and that will expire on April 30 of this year.

I note that my friend the honourable member for St Catharines is sitting in the Legislature. I've heard him comment from time to time over the years that I've had the pleasure of listening to him, which is over 19 years now-my, how time flies when you're having fun-that he wished governments would put these motions earlier on in the session and not leave them until the last few days. Well, here we are, taking the honourable member's advice and moving the motion earlier on.

To ensure that payments scheduled on or shortly after May 1 are indeed made on time and received in all parts of the province, including the north and rural and more remote areas of the province, it's necessary to provide the banking system and the mail system with some lead time. That practice has been given to give them time to ensure that payments are received on time. Payments early in May include, among others, payments for general welfare, transfers to hospitals, boards of education and children's aid societies.

To ensure the province meets its obligations in an orderly fashion, I hope members will be supportive in ensuring that this motion is passed today.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to compliment the Minister of Finance on taking this early initiative. I know he is as disappointed as I that the House sat only 40 days all last year and we were so long in coming back, because I know he enjoys the exchanges that take place in the House and he loves to be here with his fellow colleagues.

Many people were asking me over the last several months what I was doing in St Catharines. I had to explain that the House hadn't sat since December because the Premier did not want to bring it back. I know that would disappoint the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka as much as I, but I'm glad he's here because I have a few things that are of specific interest to him.

He heard the petition I read. One of the problems we are encountering is a change in the assessment which has adversely impacted various cultural halls. In my own city, those who have contacted me have been Club Roma, the Ukrainian Black Sea Hall, Canadian Polish Society and Club Heidelberg. Halls of this kind are adversely impacted by this, and I find it unfortunate, because we have seen sometimes doubling, sometimes tripling, sometimes quadrupling of the assessment for these halls. I think virtually all of them are appealing those assessments, but I think it's important that the provincial government take action.

We had a meeting the other day with a committee of mostly business people who deal with various classes of assessment, which meets with the regional council. Four members from the Niagara region were there. It was stated by the government members that the initiative could go back to the municipality. I think the people there-I detected a consensus-would like to see the province take that initiative, and I'd be pleased to see that happen.

The second issue I would like to deal with is Brock University and Niagara College and the allocation of SuperBuild funding. Needless to say, the four members from Niagara-again, I think I speak on their behalf, although the government members have to be more cautious in their remarks-were disappointed in the first round of funding. Neither Niagara College nor Brock University received the kind of capital funding we would like to have seen. In other words, their applications were not accepted.

But we do know that a second round of funding is upcoming, and the criteria may be modified or different for that round. I think both those educational institutions have indeed made a compelling case for the kind of funding that we feel is necessary to carry out their responsibilities.

I read in the St Catharines Standard that the Conservative members Tim Hudak of Erie-Lincoln and Bart Maves of Niagara Falls have joined me in writing a letter to the minister about it. I did not phone the newspaper to say I had done so, and I was taken aback when I saw them criticizing their own government, calling for funding for these projects from their own government. But let me assure that this is not as partisan an issue as people think-we have some fun saying that.

I'm sure all four of us, including Mr Kormos from Niagara Centre, are determined to see good applications accepted, not just because they were made but because all of us think those applications have a lot of merit, would assist those institutions in meeting the increased capacity they will need and the new programs that are there.

So I urge the government, in the second round, to give serious and favourable consideration to those applications, and my colleagues from Niagara in this House would know that there is full support from the municipal councils and others in the Niagara region. When the announcement is made, as I suspect it may be, in the near future-I have no inside dope on that, as they say, but when the two Conservative members are writing an open letter, you have to be sure they know that something is coming. Otherwise, they wouldn't write a letter, because it wouldn't look good if the money didn't come.

I am confident that people will understand the merit of the applications and will support them. Both Brock University and Niagara College have been highly successful destination places for many students around the province. They provide outstanding service to the people of Ontario, and I certainly urge the government to move forward with capital funding for them.

I also want to mention that there's a new book out, and particularly those people who live in smaller town areas should know about this. It's called Merger Mania: The Assault on Local Government, by Professor Andrew Sancton. I know people in such places as Lincoln, Wainfleet, Fort Erie, Port Colborne and West Lincoln, among others, will be very interested in the arguments put forward by Dr Sancton about the lack of advisability of these mega-mergers. In his heart of hearts, the member for Nepean probably agrees with this. But he is a member of the cabinet, and I don't expect that he is going to break ranks on this.

But, for instance, I urge the editorial board of the St Catharines Standard, and all others who are interested in the mania towards mega-cities, to read the book called Merger Mania: The Assault on Local Government. He shoots down the arguments in favour of them, and I understand that people have to read other arguments as well. But there seems to be a fad out there that people want to get rid of small communities such as the ones you represent, Mr Speaker, in your part of the province. So Merger Mania is the name of the book, Dr Andrew Sancton is the author, and you can get it from Price-Patterson Ltd of Westmount, Quebec.

Now I want to as well mention the issue of health care. I've got a good plan for the government, one that I think you can agree with. You have spent, what, $3 million now on more advertising? Even Conservatives are phoning me now. Reform Conservatives even are phoning me saying: "Why are they wasting money on these ads? Because the federal government's going to waste money on ads to counter those ads. Why not put the money into health care?" Well, I contend that this government has the money for health care: It's the money they're going to give away in more tax cuts.

So here's my plan for the government, and I want the ministers who are here and others to hear. I think I can sell it to you because it involves bashing the feds. All you have-

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: See, I've got their attention now. All you have to do is abandon your tax cuts and blame Ottawa. I'll be with you there. I'll say that they had to abandon them because they need the money for health care and they're not just going to give them away in more tax cuts for rich people. What I'm saying is that you have an excuse. You can blame the feds, and isn't that what you like to do?

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I blame the feds all the time.

Mr Bradley: There you go, blame the feds. Here it is: Forget the tax cuts. People I talk to say: "Take that money you're throwing away on self-serving ads, take the money you're throwing away on those tax cuts for the rich and put it into health care. Invest it in health care and then blame the feds." You can say, "I didn't want to do it, but Ottawa made us do it," and I'll be up in the House applauding you when you do that. I suspect, however, that the extreme right wing which runs this party will say: "No, we must have these tax cuts; they're most important. We'll just keep spending all kinds of money on advertising against the feds and asking questions against the feds."

I gave you an out. I gave you a solution, and a solution that allows you to bash the feds and put money into health care at the same time, and not have to get into more squabbles with them. I don't know if you'll take it. Take it back to the Premier and see what he says at the next caucus meeting. He might well agree with this.

Another issue that came up that I want to touch on briefly was raised in the House today. The member for Oak Ridges is here, so I want to mention it because of circumstances he was involved in, contemplating running for the Canadian Alliance, and the role of money in politics. I think what it did, the circumstances-and I'm not going to get into the details of it, because that's his business and what he wishes to do, but I want to say that I think a plus came out of this. It was exposing the role of money in politics.

I want to tell you that the role of money in politics is major, and we do have to go back and look at the amount of money that we allow parties to spend, the amount of money we allow them to raise and take in, and the exemptions, and tighten that up considerably.

I've seen that I have only one minute left, so the last thing I'm going to say to you is that we should be preserving agricultural land; 125,000 acres of agricultural land are disappearing a year. We just had a-

Applause.

Mr Bradley: I think that applause means it's the end of my speech. I do want to tell you it's important that we address that issue, and as soon as the clock hits 40 I'm going to sit down. There's an Ontario Municipal Board hearing on in Pelham where again there's some agricultural land in question. The question is going to be asked, do we really have to continue to gobble up good agricultural land for development purposes when there's other land available?

Now I will yield the floor to one of my colleagues.

Mr David Young (Willowdale): I have the privilege of addressing this chamber this afternoon about the interim supply bill that is before us. It's one of the most important motions that this Legislature sees and I'm certainly hopeful that it will be passed this afternoon. It's the motion that gives the government the authority to continue its programs and to operate its daily business: to send money to municipalities, to send money to hospitals, to pay social assistance benefits for those who require them and to appropriate the payment of the salaries of the dedicated members of the public service.

The motion for interim supply does not specify a dollar amount, as you well know, but does provide spending authority for a specified period of time. This proposed motion will cover the period commencing May 1, 2000, and will run until October 31, 2000.

To continue the job we have been elected to do and to ensure that all scheduled payment obligations are met, this motion for interim supply must be passed. It is extremely important that we move forward with our vision for this province, for a renewed Ontario. This motion will allow us to do so.

Our vision is one of a province that encourages its people to innovate and to create, a province that has a strong social safety net to ensure that those who require assistance, who truly require assistance, will get that assistance so they can get back on their feet.

We have a plan to support that vision. It's a plan to cut taxes. It's a plan to modernize our health care system and to provide it with the financial resources it needs. It's a plan to move more people from welfare to work. It's a plan to improve the quality of education by introducing higher, more rigorous standards and to guarantee that funding will be there to match increasing enrolment. It's a plan we started in 1995, and we are committed to continue that plan.

We have entered a new century, a new millennium, and the new challenges and opportunities that Ontarians will face are exciting and a little daring. Five short years ago, our ability to compete and to meet these new challenges, the challenges of this new era, was questionable. Our province has come a long way over the last five years. It's hard to believe that just five years ago we had an $11-billion deficit, hard to believe that just five years ago we were among the highest-taxed jurisdictions in North America. We were losing jobs.

A great deal has changed. This spring, it is likely that Ontario will balance its books for the first time in 30 years. Our economy continues to grow.

Mr Speaker, you'll recall that a moment ago I mentioned the fact that five short years ago we were losing jobs. Well, our economy continues to grow, and with the approximately 700,000 net new jobs created since the throne speech in 1995, we've come a long way.

As well, our government has had the courage to cut taxes, both personal taxes and otherwise, 99 times. All this has fuelled renewed hope, all this has fuelled growth, and in fact it has fuelled prosperity.

What I'd like to do in my time remaining is look for and describe some of the indicators that demonstrate, without exception, that there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that we have achieved remarkable growth.

In the third quarter of 1999, Ontario's real output was up 7.1% compared to the same period a year earlier. That is the fastest gain in 11 years. Real GDP rose by 1.7% in the third quarter of 1999; that's between July and September. If you compare that to the previous year, you see yet another healthy gain. The rise in real GDP, perhaps most importantly, was broadly based, supported by both strong domestic spending and exports. For instance, non-residential investment spending rose 7.9%, residential construction registered a gain of 1.8%, and consumer spending remained robust, rising 1.8%.

There are numerous additional examples of our continued economic growth as a province. Let's look to the fourth quarter of 1999. In the fourth quarter of that year, Ontario gained 46,000 new jobs. In that same period of time, the fourth quarter of the last calendar year, wholesale trade sales advanced 2.9%. Labour income jumped 1.4%.

Private sector economists are optimistic that Ontario's economy will remain strong. The forecast that we have today suggests that we're going to continue to see a 3.7% to 4.2% range of growth. Recently, in fact, forecasters have suggested that even higher numbers will likely be realized. The average private sector forecast for real GDP growth in 2000 is about 4%.

I touched earlier upon the fact that Ontario continues to create jobs. Let me elaborate on that. Employment in Ontario rose by 8,900 in February, following a 21,000-plus advance in the preceding month of January. Since September 1995, Ontario has created in excess of 665,000 net new private sector jobs. This strong growth accounts for close to half of the national private sector job growth.

The unemployment rate was 5.7% in February and the help wanted index rose to 1.1% in February. That's the highest level that we have seen in a considerable period of time.

I'm very proud of this economic growth. I'm especially proud of the growth that is happening in the riding that I have the privilege of representing, Willowdale, and in the grater Toronto area. Since September 1995, the GTA economy has increased and has grown to a point where it has created 336,000-I'll repeat that, 336,000-net new jobs. As of February, the unemployment rate in the GTA stood at an impressive 5.4%, one full percentage point lower than it was in February 1999. I know that's something that all the members of the House will take delight in.

This means that in the area immediately surrounding this Legislative Assembly, there are 336,000 individuals who have the dignity of a job, 336,000 families who have benefited by reason of this growth in a very direct and immediate manner.

Over the past year, the GTA's economy created close to 108,000 jobs-that's 108,000; 21,500 in the month of February alone. That is more people working. That is more people paying taxes. That is more people spending and investing in our economy. All this adds up to more government revenues-revenues we can use, revenues we can invest in priority areas like health care, education and safe communities.

Our young people have also benefited from this growth. The strong economic performance of this province has yielded 37,300 net new jobs. Since May 1997, Ontario's youth have gained 108,000 net new jobs, 46% of the youth jobs created nationally. In 1999, youth gained almost 50,000 jobs-49,100 new jobs. That's the greatest growth in the history of this province for that category.

Let's recall, and it's not an insignificant fact, most importantly, 90% of those new jobs were full-time jobs. Young people once again have reason to be optimistic about their future, to be optimistic about the province.

I hearken back to the days of May 1999 when I was walking along the streets of Willowdale talking to the residents of Willowdale, and I recall very vividly meeting with a group of young men who sat on their front porch on a Saturday morning and assured me they would be voting for me, they would be supporting Mike Harris, and the reason very succinctly was because Mike Harris got them jobs.

I'm proud to say the youth unemployment rate stands at its lowest rate in the past decade, and if the last few months are any indication, it will continue to decline.

Remarkable growth is being experienced in many other sectors as well. Let's talk about a few of them. For instance, Ontario department store sales were up 3.2% over the previous year in January 2000. In 1999, Ontario department store sales jumped 7.5%. As well, retail sales across the province last year gained by 7.8%.

The auto sector is one of the greatest indicators of economic performance and strength in this province, and there is good news to report in this sector as well. Ontarians bought a record 645,472 new cars and trucks. That surpasses the record that was previously set in 1988. More people buying cars means that more people need those cars. That means more people are finding meaningful, well-paying jobs.

The future is only getting brighter. It was reported in the papers today that Toyota is set to invest a significant amount of money to build and expand their Cambridge plant. This will almost certainly result in additional employment for many thousands of people. This is great news for the province, it's great news for the region that Cambridge is situated in and it's good news for the country. This investment will have a tremendous spinoff effect both for the immediate area and beyond.

More Ontarians are working and know about having the dignity of a job, and we are very proud of what this has meant, the tangible results to those individuals. The housing market is perhaps the most telling barometer of economic success and stability. In February 2000, I know you'll be interested to note, urban area housing starts were up 24.2%, almost 25%, and that is compared to the previous year. In 1999, all area housing starts across this province were at 24.9%; that's almost 25%. In January of this year Ontario home resales were 17.6% above sales in the same month in 1999.

As well, the value of residential building permits-a very significant figure that I'm about to give you, significant not only to those who will occupy these homes but to those who will be involved in the construction of these premises-issued in Ontario last year climbed 22.6%, their highest total since 1989.

In 1999 in the Toronto area, new home sales soared 33.1%, hitting a level of 37,304. That's the best since 1986. This means that more and more Ontario families will be realizing their dream of owning a home. They have a renewed confidence in their own future and a renewed confidence in the future of this province.

I've talked, by and large, about what is going on throughout this province. I should make a few comments about what's going on in the riding of Willowdale. During the winter recess, I had the opportunity to meet and consult with business leaders from my community to discuss the upcoming budget. The remarkable success of this provincial economy is due to the hard work and sacrifice of all Ontarians, including the innovation of small and medium-sized business owners. The discussions I had with these business leaders taught me a great deal about what we need to do as a government to ensure that this economic growth continues.

They told me we need to continue to cut taxes. They told me we need to balance budgets and continue to do that. They told me we need to spend within our means.

We need to invest in our infrastructure to ensure that our highways and our transportation system can meet the enormous expectations that exist. We need to continue to invest in priority areas such as education and health care so that we can be sure we have a healthy, well-educated workforce that can compete in this worldwide economy that we now find ourselves in.

They also told me very clearly that we need to continue to cut taxes and we need to continue to cut red tape.

By the way, they also asked me if there was anything I could do about the punishing EI premiums they were forced to pay, that job-killing tax that the federal government continues to impose and increase. I referred them to the federal member and I am hopeful that he will hear their pleas.

All these taxes, particularly the EI tax, I was told are stifling to small businesses.

Tax cuts, I was told very clearly, are an integral part of what is necessary to continue to improve the economy of this province. Our plan includes tax cuts. It includes the elimination of red tape. It includes the elimination of the deficit.

Numerous studies from around the world have found that tax rates are one of the most important factors determining economic growth and productivity. The proof is in the pudding. From the second quarter of 1995 to the third quarter of 1999, both exports and imports have rapidly grown. Tax cuts are fast becoming the competitive edge of this province.

I know that some opposite credit the growth in the US economy, and there's no question that the success of the economy to the south is of some assistance. But the great thing about our economic growth has been that it is primarily driven by what we are doing right here in Ontario. The main source of economic growth, accounting for 80%, has been domestic spending, and that has been very much stimulated by our tax cuts. We are growing more quickly than our neighbouring US states. I'll repeat that again: The growth in this province is much faster than that in the states immediately to the south.

In fact, the economy in this province is growing faster than most G7 nations. The opposition takes every opportunity to say that our success is not our own, but unlike them, unlike the Liberals and New Democrats, I have faith in the ability and the capabilities of Ontarians. Our government knows that we cannot depend on anyone else for our prosperity. It is up to us to build a better future for our children.

Willowdale continues to grow. As I mentioned in this Legislature earlier this day, new businesses are settling in my community all the time. You only have to travel up and down the north part of Yonge Street in Toronto to see all the growth. The amount of construction confirms just how well we are doing as a community and just how well we are doing as a province.

However, we still have much to do. As I said earlier today, keeping Ontario prosperous and growing is a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week, 365-day-a-year job. We cannot, we must not, become complacent with our recent success.

I look forward to working with Mr Eves as his parliamentary assistant and with the rest of our caucus to ensure that Ontario continues to be a place that is attractive to investment, a place where people have hope and access to opportunities, a place where our children have access to a top-quality education, a place where everyone has access to top-quality, publicly funded, universally accessible health care, and a place where the people of this province have the dignity of a job.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for allowing me the opportunity of addressing this interim supply motion. I know some of my friends on this side of the floor will have some comments when we have an opportunity to speak again later this afternoon.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I am pleased to speak to the interim supply motion. This debate, as we all know, is tied to the government's fiscal situation. Now we all have heard again the Harris Tory mantra of tax cuts and more tax cuts, yet the fiscal decisions of this government directly affect the sustainable development of this province's people. I want to bring to this discussion the aspect of the devastation to the cultural and heritage co