Ontario Hansard — 22 November 2000 (37th Parliament, 1st Session)

2000-11-22

Ontario — Debates (Hansard)

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

November 22, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Nov-22 vol. A (PDF)

L106A - Wed 22 Nov 2000 / Mer 22 nov 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

SID HORNE

WEARING OF RIBBONS

SPECIALISTS' SERVICES

CPI CANADA

HAZARDOUS WASTE

DRINKING AND DRIVING

EYE CARE SERVICES

HOME CARE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF SIOUX LOOKOUT ACT, 2000

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGRICORP

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AMBULANCE SERVICES

AGRICORP

HIGHWAY 407

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

YOUNG OFFENDERS

FOREST MANAGEMENT

SUPPORT FOR THE DISABLED

FEDERAL HEALTH SPENDING

FORT HENRY

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

STATUS OF BILL 119

PETITIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

DIABETES TREATMENT

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

PROTECTION OF MINORS

EDUCATION REFORM

HIGHWAY SAFETY

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to register my growing concern with the actions of Mr John Baird, the Minister of Community and Social Services, and his constant attack on Ontario's most vulnerable people. For some time now, I have been increasingly disturbed by Mr Baird's actions as he plays to the public misunderstanding of social assistance and unfairly attacks the people least able to defend themselves. He does it for pure political gain. He knows that at least 98% of all people on social assistance are decent, honest people who are on social assistance as a last resort. He knows that social assistance provides a single parent with two children with only $15,000 a year.

This minister deliberately plays to public misunderstanding to undermine public support for all people on social assistance. I'm disturbed by his ordering "Wanted" posters in public buildings. He waves a credit card around, implying that many people on social assistance have one. He orders mandatory drug testing for people on social assistance. Today's conference on welfare fraud announced 550 convictions, one tenth of 1% of all people on social assistance.

The auditor yesterday pointed out that 61,000 businesses had defaulted on paying their sales tax and 18 doctors convicted of criminal fraud against OHIP are still practising medicine, and yet he doesn't have "Wanted" posters in chambers of commerce and in doctors' offices. He doesn't order mandatory drug testing for those doctors and those fraudulent tax evaders. He attacks the most vulnerable in our society. He should be defending our most vulnerable instead of kicking them when they are most in need.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): In the same spirit, I was disgusted and horrified this morning to attend yet another government-organized press conference to demonize people in receipt of social assistance in this province yet once again.

You will remember some of us describing the attack on our most vulnerable and marginalized by taking away almost one quarter of their income, some 22%, in July 1995 as akin to the bully walking into the schoolyard, picking out the smallest and the weakest, and laying a beating on them just to send a message to the rest about how tough and determined they are to wield power and control. Well, this morning they kicked them once again. Last week they booted them with the right foot; today they gave them the left. I suppose this kind of behaviour will continue until they get the message that this kind of abuse is totally unacceptable, disgusting and abhorrent.

First they take their money; then they cut their programs; next they make it illegal to panhandle; then they contract with the toughest motorcycle gang of them all, Andersen Consulting, to find new ways of putting the thumbscrews on; then they cut them off for life if they make a mistake in their reporting. Last week and today they continue kicking them while they are down, and Mr Baird is enjoying it so, so much.

When will it stop? How much blood is enough? What's next? Capital punishment for being poor? This is scapegoating, no more, no less, and it has to stop.

SID HORNE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I draw your attention today to a very special constituent in my riding. This month, Padre Sid Horne marks 50 years of ordination and his legacy of giving.

Padre Horne joined the Royal Canadian Army Chaplain Corps in 1953. He was transferred to the regular force chaplaincy in 1956 and his postings took him to all regions in Canada, including Alberta, Quebec, BC and Manitoba.

In 1971 he settled at CFB Trenton, where he remained until his retirement in 1980. While at Trenton he was posted to Egypt for six months with the Canadian contingent of the United Nations peacekeeping force. It was an experience that he calls a highlight of his military career.

As a strong believer in community service, Padre Horne has been involved in numerous organizations over the years, including the Military Chaplains Association of Trenton, Ladies Auxiliary and several legion branches.

However, Padre Horne calls the seven years that he spent with the Anglican parish of Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory the happiest of his life. Horne worked with the Mohawks from 1987 until 1994 and when he left was honoured by the nation and given his own name, Raw Wen Nen Haw Wee, which means Carrier of the Word.

His achievements are many. However, when questioned on his divine intervention on the quality of the weather, his standard response is, "I'm in charge of sales, not management."

Please join with me in acknowledging Padre Sid Horne's 50 years of ordination.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd just ask unanimous consent to wear the red ribbon on behalf of the MADD campaign that's been launched.

SPECIALISTS' SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): We continue to bring forward cases that show clearly that we have a lack of family doctors and specialists where I come from, the riding of Windsor West, along with numerous other communities across the province.

I want to tell you about Anne, a woman who lives in Windsor, who has a broken fusion at the base of her spine. This woman is living in agony. Her family doctor wants her to have treatment immediately. Instead she has a booked appointment with a neurosurgeon for November of 2002. We brought forward a similar case not long ago, and yes, again, we're applying for out-of-country OHIP coverage to get this consult done so that we can get on with some treatment.

At the same time as I tell you about Anne, who desperately needs to get to a neurosurgeon instead of waiting until the year 2002, I tell you about Jay, a Windsorite who's in a medical school out of country. Jay is trying to come back home to practise when he's done. Well, what Jay needs is a J-1 visa to do residency in the US. In order to do that when you're from Ontario, they only grant this J-1 visa under very strict criteria out of designated hospitals.

Specifically, we need the rules to change. We need a Windsor hospital to be able to sign on to fill out the forms for the J-1 visa. We know that there are solutions that can be had long-term to resolve our family doctor and specialist shortage. In the meantime, we don't have time to wait. People like Anne cannot wait two years for this kind of treatment. I implore the government to make rule changes to help us now.

CPI CANADA

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I rise today to congratulate a company in my riding, Communications and Power Industries, known as CPI, of Palo Alto, California. I congratulate them on their move of their amplifier operation to their plant in Georgetown, Ontario, which rests in my riding.

CPI Canada has been operating in Georgetown since 1955 under the name of Varian Canada. Currently, the company employs about 250 people in Georgetown. Moving the amplifier operation will bring more than 100 new jobs to the facility-100 more high-tech jobs, 100 more good, paying jobs.

The Canadian division has been in the business of developing, manufacturing and marketing high technology used in satellite communications, radar and medical imaging. The company is the world's largest independent supplier of electronic systems used to provide power and control in medical X-ray systems.

The highly sophisticated electronic products convert signals for telephone, television, Internet and data transmission from earth stations to orbiting satellites. President Joe Caldarelli of CPI Canada tells me that more than 95% of the company's products are exported. Although the United States is one of the largest countries they export to, there is hardly a country in the world they haven't exported to over the period of time they've operated in Georgetown, since 1955.

I congratulate Joe Caldarelli and Communications and Power Industries for their move to that wonderful town in Georgetown.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My statement is in regard to the continued mismanagement and incompetence of the Minister of the Environment in dealing with hazardous waste landfills.

I've been repeatedly asking the Minister of the Environment, both Minister Clement and now Minister Newman, to put into place a full-time inspector at the largest toxic hazardous landfill in Canada, which is located in Moore township. I've also asked the minister to address the need for financial assurances from Safety-Kleen.

The information was provided to the minister that a smaller hazardous waste site in South Carolina had to put up $70 million in American currency to deal with remedial environmental problems, yet in Ontario, Safety-Kleen needs $2.5 million.

The hazardous waste landfill in Moore township was fast-tracked. It became the largest toxic hazardous landfill in Canada. The Harris government has been shown to be incompetent at managing its responsibilities in protecting the interests of the people of this province.

Dalton McGuinty and the provincial Liberals have been pointing out the incompetent management of Harris and the neo-Conservatives on environmental issues, and now the Provincial Auditor has brought down one of his most scathing reports, which reinforces, in this case, the request for better provincial management of hazardous waste landfills.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On Friday, November 10, I attended the official launch of the new Durham region

chapter of MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which was held at Durham College in Oshawa. I was encouraged to see so many young people show their support for MADD and the Project Red Ribbon-Tie One on for Safety campaign.

Now that the holiday season is approaching, I can't stress enough just how important it is for drivers to be aware of the irreversible results of accidents caused by drinking and driving. I would encourage people to tie a red ribbon on to their car's antenna to show support for the program.

This year alone there have been 19 alcohol-related traffic deaths in Durham region. This concerns many of my Durham constituents and is one that the province of Ontario does not take lightly.

Since 1995, our government has provided considerable support to the RIDE program and increased suspensions for drinking and driving, making them the toughest in Canada. Repeat offenders will now face a lifetime suspension of their licence, clearly conveying that this type of reckless behaviour is not tolerated in Ontario.

I'd like to wish the president of MADD's Durham chapter, Nancy Codlin, vice-president James Foster, and event organizer Geoff McCoombe well and thank them for their efforts. I also want to thank Connie Heron, whose daughter Amanda was killed by a drunk driver. I might say, her speech was the most moving event of the day.

Remember, arrive alive-don't drink and drive.

EYE CARE SERVICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In the Niagara region, we have a drastic situation concerning people requiring eye care. First of all, we have per capita the oldest population in the province of Ontario. Elderly people require eye care more than others.

There's a long lineup of people now. Waiting lists are as long as they've ever been for the limited number of ophthalmologists we have in the Niagara region. Eye care, as we recognize, is not a frill; it's absolutely essential. If you do not deal with problems immediately, blindness can occur.

The Minister of Health says they should all go to Hamilton if there's a problem. Hamilton is backed up as well. I have letters from Dr James Martin, acting chief, department of eye medicine and eye surgery, St Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton, and Dr Jeffrey Sher, chief of the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp department of eye medicine and surgery. They're all saying there's no room in Hamilton because they're already at maximum. Many of the people who are listed as ophthalmologists are only part-time ophthalmologists. Many have retired, and some have gone out of practice. This is a crisis situation.

We also have extra billing taking place at the present time, where seniors must pay for lenses which normally would be paid for by the Ontario hospital insurance plan.

It's time this government took action to address a crisis in the Niagara region by temporarily lifting the billing cap for ophthalmologists and then ensuring we have a sufficient number for the entire region.

HOME CARE

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): On October 11, 2000, the member from Beaches-East York asked the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care a question regarding putting patients first and ending the competitive bidding process for homemaking services. The member stated that the Sarnia-Lambton Victorian Order of Nurses homemakers had been directed to deduct travel time from the time they spent with patients. The member specifically talked about a homemaker who had to travel to Camlachie, which happens to be in my riding of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex.

Speaker, let me share with you and with the House what Lavinia Dickenson, executive director of the VON, said in a letter written on October 20, 2000: "I researched this issue and am contending that the allegation is false." I am sending a copy of the correspondence to the member from Beaches-East York. In all fairness, I am sure she will see to it that putting patients first is of the utmost importance and will send a letter of apology to the Sarnia-Lambton VON.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF SIOUX LOOKOUT ACT, 2000

Mr Hampton moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr31,

An Act to change the name of The Corporation of the Town of Sioux Lookout to The Corporation of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout.

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

VISITORS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I'd like to introduce in the west gallery grade 5 students from Monsignor Leo Cleary school in my riding of Durham, along with their teachers, Mary Gibson and Dave Ashcroft. I'd like to welcome them to the Legislature today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Premier. It is about both your integrity and lack of commitment when it comes to standing up for our environment and for the health of Ontarians.

On May 29, while defending your cuts to the Ministry of the Environment after seven people had lost their lives in Walkerton, you stood in this Legislature and said the following: "There has been no reduction in the number of enforcement officers, those people who go out and actually lay the charges and do those inspections ... to suggest that this has been responsible for fewer inspections-it's not true."

Yesterday the Provincial Auditor reported that you fired 25% of the Ministry of the Environment staff who perform inspections. He reported that those cuts have resulted in a 53% cut in inspections at our drinking water plants.

Why did you stand in this House and say that you didn't cut either the number of inspectors or the number of inspections, when the auditor says that is exactly what you did do?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Certainly, the information I have is that there were no reductions in the front-line inspectors. There were a number of positions that were reduced, and we have acknowledged that. This is part of recommendations that we received to make government more efficient and more effective, that we not affect front-line services and that we try to streamline the bureaucracy so that we can do a better job.

The auditor has pointed out a number of areas where reductions have been made in the number of staff in the Ministry of the Environment. I'm not up to detail on inspections in which area or the other. I do know, and I can tell you this, that as I reviewed auditors' reports over the last number of years, there does not seem to be any improvement from when he slammed your government and the NDP government in the lack of inspection and follow-up.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I want to ask you the same question again because you didn't answer it. You stood up in this Legislature and you said there were no cuts to inspectors and no cuts to the numbers of inspections. The Provincial Auditor tells us there has been a 25% cut in the number of our inspectors working out there on our behalf and this has resulted in a 53% cut in inspections at our drinking water plants.

The Premier may want to have some fun in comparing his record to the record of previous governments, but I would ask him to keep in mind that on his watch seven people died in the community of Walkerton.

I will ask you again, Premier: why did you stand up in this House and tell us there had been no cuts to inspectors or inspections, while the Provincial Auditor, a man in whom we have ultimate faith, tells us something completely different?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me repeat that, contrary to any allegations of reductions in inspection investigative staff, the reality is this: no reductions were made to the investigative staff, as I indicated before and as I now repeat to you today.

I can tell you as well that compliance funding makes up 49% of the ministry's workforce now, compared to only 40% during the regime of the government we took over from. Those are the facts.

Let me be clear. Nobody is suggesting that everything is hunky-dory and is perfect in the Ministry of the Environment. In fact, we have been the first to acknowledge that there have been problems there. There have been compliance problems there, and there have been challenges there. That's why we've got about four commissions now underway, including Val Gibbons, to give us advice on how we can restructure the Ministry of the Environment so we don't get the kind of auditor's report-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The Premier's time is up. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: If the Premier is genuinely interested in the facts, then I would refer him to page 119 of the Provincial Auditor's report. There is a chart there. It tells us that, when it comes to the number of inspections, they're down.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Dramatically.

Mr McGuinty: When it comes to the number of inspectors, they're also down dramatically.

Premier, you don't have any more credibility when it comes to the issue of the environment. The Provincial Auditor has confirmed that for us. Let's set that matter aside for the moment, and that is bad enough.

We need more inspectors on the job in Ontario. Your own Ministry of the Environment has recommended that you hire at least 130 full-time inspectors so they can be out there on the job and doing things like making sure our drinking water is safe for our families.

Setting aside your complete lack of credibility as to the record on this matter, Premier, why do you not proceed to hire those inspectors and, for the first time since you got the job of Premier, do something right when it comes to the Ministry of the Environment?

Hon Mr Harris: As you know, we have hired more inspectors already throughout the summer period and initiated a number of new initiatives since the very, very unfortunate situation in Walkerton.

But let me read to you from the auditor's report. It says "data submitted by the four largest contributors of acid rain in Ontario not being verified for compliance," "many pollution complaints received," "lacked adequate evidence of follow-up by the ministry." It says, "In our review of six districts covering two regions, we observed in four districts there were no control logs or

summary records of complaints." "We selected 120 complaints, 15 incidents. No evidence exists that a complaint"-oh, I'm sorry. That was in 1987, when Mr Bradley was the minister.

This is the problem we have with the Ministry of the Environment. We have not had the kind of dramatic improvement with the Ministry of the Environment that we have had in many of the other ministries, so there is clearly more work to do.

AGRICORP

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. You assured me, and in fact this Legislature, on October 2 of this year that at no time was any safety net money for our farmers gambled in the financial markets. My question for you today is, when did you or your officials first learn that, as the Provincial Auditor reported yesterday, $2.9 million of safety net money was used inappropriately in a day-trading strategy?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I want to point out, as I've done a number of times in this House, that inappropriate things happened at Agricorp as they dealt with government money. That was brought to our attention in January or February by our ministry. They reported that the Provincial Auditor was doing a value-for-money audit at Agricorp and he was finding areas that were inappropriate.

We immediately contacted the Provincial Auditor and met with him to discuss what needed to be done or what should be done in order to make sure this couldn't happen again and to address any of the things that had happened to make sure no government money was going to be consumed by this inappropriate action. That was completed.

As the Leader of the Opposition will know, he asked me whether-

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

Mr McGuinty: You didn't answer the question. When did you first learn that this money was used inappropriately, money that was set aside to meet the special needs of farmers who fall on hard times, special insurance monies? When did you first learn about that?

We know that the Provincial Auditor, as a rule, delivers a detailed copy of his findings to the involved minister months before he makes his final report public. I raised the question about inappropriate use of safety net money for farmers on October 2. When did you or your officials receive a copy of the Provincial Auditor's findings, findings which confirmed that money was in fact used inappropriately? When did you get that copy? Long before this Provincial Auditor's report was made public? When did you find out in writing from the Provincial Auditor that monies were being used inappropriately?

Hon Mr Hardeman: As the leader of the official opposition would be aware, the ministry does, on a regular basis following a value-for-money audit, receive the preliminary report as to the events that took place. I don't have the exact date here, but I suspect it was somewhere in July or August that the first report would have come forward. That report indicated that Agricorp had taken a number of millions of dollars and invested it into the markets and had lost some $300,000 on that investment. It was not put back where it was taken from, and we immediately replaced that to make sure that none of the money the farmers had put in the program-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The minister's time is up. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, let's agree. We now understand that you in fact knew before October 2. You knew at the time that I raised this very question with you in this House that money had been used inappropriately. You knew that.

Now I'm asking you, why did you deliberately say that you didn't know when in fact you did? The Provincial Auditor had conveyed to you-either through a one-on-one meeting or through meetings with your officials or by way of documentation, he had provided to you sufficient information for you to know, when you stood up in this House on October 2 of this year, that money had in fact been used inappropriately. The money had been used by Agricorp officials in some kind of gambling scheme. They put farmers' hard-placed money at risk. Why did you stand up in this House and tell us something that you knew wasn't true?

Hon Mr Hardeman: I want to assure the member opposite that at no time did Agricorp, as inappropriate as the actions they took were, take crop insurance money into the market. They took other money invested, and when that went sour they in fact put the money into the crop insurance fund with the loss. Immediately upon finding that out, we put that money back. But at no time did Agricorp use the money that was the farmers' money in the crop insurance program to do the day trading. I don't think at the end of the day it matters whose money it was. The action was totally inappropriate and should not be condoned.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the auditor found yet more evidence of this government's gross neglect of Ontario's environment. The auditor makes it very clear that the inspection staff has been cut by 25% by this government in the Ministry of the Environment, and as a result the inspection of potential polluters is down by 34%. As a second result, the number of municipal water treatment inspections is down by 50%. As a third result, the number of inspections of hazardous waste sites is down by 40% even as hazardous waste dumping from the US has increased dramatically.

Premier, the auditor says that your government is no longer able to, no longer has the capacity to, enforce environmental laws in Ontario. What's your response to that kind of disgraceful situation?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I didn't read that in the auditor's report phrased quite the way you have phrased it. I read in the auditor's report concerns typical of what he had in reports in the 1980s. It's very typical of the reports in the early 1990s. It concerns me that with all the improvements we have made in all the ministries, and I think it's apparent in the auditor's report, we have not been able to make any substantial improvements in the efficiency or the number of inspections that have come through the Ministry of the Environment.

We've made improvements in a number of areas. The number of convictions has just about doubled, part of enforcement information, from 1991 to 1999. Clearly we are on the job, but we're not doing as good a job as we could. I think that's the message the auditor is sending to us. It's a message we clearly acknowledge ourselves-

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

Mr Hampton: No, Premier. The auditor was on the radio this morning, and he said that this report and the report last year contain the worst situations he has ever seen. That is what the auditor is saying.

As for your statement that you're out there doing more enforcement, the auditor also says that in situations where you are supposed to get financial guarantees from potential polluters so that the people of Ontario aren't left on the hook, in fact $90 million in financial guarantees weren't gotten by your government, that you're letting these companies off the hook, that your government failed to obtain financial guarantees from some of these potential polluters in 710 of 1,100 applications last year, a 65% failure rate.

In another case, with a company that has experienced financial problems, you simply let them off the hook, leaving the people of Ontario on the hook for over $2 million in liability for a polluter. You've let more than $10 million in environmental fines go unpaid.

The question remains the same. It is perfectly obvious you're not enforcing the environmental laws. What are you going to do about that disgraceful situation?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me read from the auditor's report exactly what he said. He said, "Efforts to monitor the generation and disposal of wastes were found to be less than satisfactory." He said, "The ministry did not ensure that all wastes shipped were received at the intended disposal facilities." He said, "The ministry had not followed up discrepancies noted in over 70% of the exception reports sampled." He said, "Some generators were discharging waste into sewers."

Oh, I'm sorry, this was 1991, when Ruth Grier was the minister under your government.

You see, we have been having problems at the Ministry of the Environment. The difference between you and the Liberals and us is that we acknowledge it. There are problems. They need to be corrected. We have put measures into place. The first thing you have to do is acknowledge that there is a problem, something you refused to do, something the Liberals refused to do, a reason why we never got some of these problems solved. Yes, there is more to do. We acknowledge that.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Premier, you are a disgrace. Get your head out of the sand. Under your watch, seven people died. Under the NDP watch, we took 1,000 people and put them into the Ontario Clean Water Agency. Under your watch, you took 1,000 people and put them out into the street. That is the reality here. The staggering costs of your so-called Common Sense Revolution are becoming clearer every day. Premier, you have slashed 60% out of the combined budgets of the Ministry of the Environment and laid off 1,000 staff.

We started to see the results of your cutbacks when seven people died in Walkerton. Now you are creating the climate where more people can die in this province as the result of your cuts. I'm asking you now. The debate is over. You are not protecting the environment. Will you commit today to rehire 500 front-line staff to protect the health of Ontarians? Will you commit to that today?

Hon Mr Harris: I can tell you that we are not committed to going back to the way you utilized the 500 staff, which led the auditor to say this: "Over 700 closed landfill sites have been classified as most in need of priority reviews. Only 200 had been inspected. Only 10 sites had been subject to detailed investigation with the help of external consultants. The ministry had no formal plan to inspect and investigate any more sites."

You want us to go back to those kinds of auditors' reports, which were an absolute disgrace. The answer to that is no. Are we hiring more? Yes. As you know, we've brought in a number of initiatives. The minister has indicated that we have in fact brought in more inspectors, specialized teams, to get at some of these problems.

As a result, for example, in 1991, we had 382 convictions; in 1992, 363; in 1993, 297. You see the trend there. Then we went, in 1996, up to 366; in 1997, 414-

The Speaker: The Premier's time is up.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): The other area where the auditor is highly critical of your government is on the issue of ambulances. On Monday, 19 hospitals in the greater Toronto area were turning ambulances away. That's 80% of hospitals turning ambulances away. On average, that situation happened in September, October and November of this year. City councils across the province are living in fear of having to take over this underfunded ambulance system from your government. They're worried about having more Joshua Fleuelling situations happen. They know that the system is underfunded to the tune of at least $100 million a year to bring it up to standard.

Premier, everybody in the province-the municipalities, the auditor-knows that the ambulance system is not in good shape and they know that forcing municipalities to take it over is not going to improve the system. Will you drop this dangerous scheme before more lives are put at risk? Will you take responsibility for the underfunded ambulance system you've created and stop forcing it on to municipalities?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): It's the same question you asked yesterday, and I will accept responsibility for increasing funding for ambulances by some 30% to date, an additional $30 million on top of that, over and above what you have funded. So if it's inad equately funded today, you can imagine the disaster it was when you were in government.

We make no apologies for trying to get a system that is uniform across the province. We make no apologies for finally setting uniform standards in 1996. It was pretty easy for you to respond to meeting the needs when you had no standards to measure by. So we do set tough new standards. Our business planning exercise continues to challenge the bureaucracy and the government to do better and better. It is measurable, and we welcome the auditor's pointing out where we're not achieving greater compliance with those new standards, including ambulances, and it will help us do better in the future, as opposed to when you had no standards. Nobody knew how well you were doing. You had something-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The Premier's time is up. Final supplementary.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): Premier, there's a lot that you say you won't apologize for. I wonder if you will apologize for the death of Joshua Fleuelling.

You say you've got measures and you've got standards. I've stood in this House and I've told your Minister of Health day after day: 18, 19 hospitals on redirect or critical care bypass. I've told her that ambulances are sitting in the parking lots waiting up to 45 minutes to be able to take their patients into the hospital emergency rooms. I've told her that while that's going on, calls are backing up on a dispatcher's desk.

The auditor now confirms that and the auditor says that they were informed that the Ministry of Health had not analyzed the impact of redirect consideration and critical care bypass on travel time, or the delays in reaching the next patient. I've brought those issues to this minister's attention.

You say you've got standards? You say they're measurable? You've done nothing to even collect the data to make sure we know how patients' lives are being affected by this fiasco.

Anyone who works in the area of addictions or alcoholism will tell you that the first step to recovery is to get out of denial, to admit the situation. When will you acknowledge you have created a crisis? The crisis is putting patients' lives at risk. When will you take steps-

The Speaker: Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it.

AGRICORP

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. We now know that the Provincial Auditor met with you in January or February, and it is reasonable to assume that he would have conveyed to you the substance of his findings, within his Provincial Auditor's report, including the fact that Agricorp money had been used inappropriately.

We now know that you received detailed findings from the Provincial Auditor concerning this inappropriate use of money at some time in July. So my question remains: why, on October 2, when I raised this matter with you in this House, did you deny, did you tell us that you had no knowledge, did you tell us that in fact no money had ever been used inappropriately?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): In answer to the previous question from the Leader of the Opposition-he asked when we received the report-I did receive a copy of the report in August of this year that outlined the problems the Provincial Auditor was finding. That was following our meeting we had in January or early February to talk about the problems that were at Agricorp.

Also, in direct response to the question the member previously asked in October about the dollars, I want to assure the member that the money that was invested was taken out of the operating money that Agricorp had-inappropriately, I might add-and they used some of the money that was sent to them by the ministry to issue cheques for the whole farm relief program, again totally inappropriately. When that was pointed out, the government immediately put the money back-

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

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you're confirming still further for us that you had both a meeting with the Provincial Auditor and that you received written documentation to the effect that there had been an inappropriate use of safety net money. But on October 2, when I asked you about that, you said no monies had been used inappropriately. So the question I've got for you is the one I've been asking several times over.

You know, Minister, the truth in this matter will set you free. You can relieve this terrible burden that you have on your shoulders right here and now by telling the truth. Why is it that on October 2, when I asked you about this matter, you said that no money had been used inappropriately, when on two prior occasions you had received information from the Provincial Auditor contrary to that?

Hon Mr Hardeman: Mr Speaker, I do have some concern with the suggestion that one is not telling the truth. I would think every honourable member in this House would do that all the time. I would expect no less from the Leader of the Opposition.

I want to say that in October, and in July and August when we received the report from the auditor, in fact Agricorp had inappropriately-and I said it then and I will say it now-invested money that they shouldn't have done. I just want to assure everyone, the member opposite and the farmers of Ontario, that there has been no loss to the farm safety net money and that farmers will get the amount of money they deserve and have a right to expect.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. In my riding of Durham infrastructure is very important, infrastructure like High ways 401 and 407. In fact, if you look at the movie Field of Dreams, you would know the famous line, "Build it and they will come," and of course you can see the results of infrastructure for somewhere like Mississauga.

Could you inform the House and my constituents in the riding of Durham about the minister's plan for the extension of Highway 407 into Durham region?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): I appreciate the question from my colleague the member for Durham. Highway 407 has certainly been a great success in fulfilling its intended role of providing congestion relief. We now have up to 300,000 trips per day. People are voting with their wheels.

The Highway 407 east partial extension to Brock Road in Pickering is scheduled to be completed by December 31, 2001. It's being built at no additional cost to taxpayers, and the extensions are being built faster than if the public sector were involved in this.

The province is actively considering its options on when and how to reinitiate the environmental assessment process for the Highway 407 east completion to Highways 35 and 115.

We are certainly committed to improving traffic flow through Durham and throughout Ontario.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you for that response, Minister. I find your information is critical.

As you know, Highway 401 through Durham represents an important link in the transportation corridors between Windsor and Quebec. I might add that there's not a nickel of federal money in this, despite the $2 billion they collect in tax. However, to stay on topic, 130,000 vehicles per day, including over 14,000 trucks-and I might add I have two trips a day myself.

Minister, could you tell me what improvements this government is undertaking in this vital transportation corridor?

Hon Mr Turnbull: In early November, the government and the region of Durham, in partnership, launched construction of the first of three interchange projects to improve access to Highway 401. They are at Carruthers Creek, Lakeridge Road and Stevenson Road. The total value of this SuperBuild initiative is approximately $59 million. When complete, three new interchanges will improve traffic flow and enhance road safety on Highway 401. The work includes safety improvements and replacement of the existing bridge at the Harwood Avenue-Highway 401 interchange. These initiatives are working to make the province's highways safer and more accessible to the people of Durham.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. I've stood in this House and in public many times and stated that the correctional system in Ontario has an excellent framework, a good foundation and exceptional correctional officers and staff, but it is being mismanaged. That mismanagement begins at the top, Minister, with you.

It appears the Auditor General agrees with this. Earlier this week in the Legislature, you took great pride in privatized Camp Turnaround in Barrie, notwithstanding your fudged recidivism rates, the infamous first-day escape, and your cherry-picked best-behaved inmates. Yesterday we found out from the Auditor General that nearly half a million dollars over and above the agreed contract was paid to that facility to keep it afloat. In addition, $24,000 was paid in overpayments because the invoices were simply not checked against the contract and delivery. Talk about mismanagement.

Minister, is this the kind of sound fiscal management we can expect when you push ahead with your ill-advised plans to privatize the new mega-jail in Penetanguishene?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): I thank the member for Brant very much for his question. I very much welcomed the auditor's report yesterday, as I welcomed reviewing the auditor's report of this ministry in previous years. I welcome it because that report has been saying what I have been saying for some time, which is that the system is a very expensive system and one that is not delivering effective results for taxpayers.

As it relates to your comments, you're quite clear. You've said that this is a model correctional system for other jurisdictions to follow. I might point out that your leader yesterday in the scrum said there are some real problems with the existing prison system. So I would suggest that perhaps the two of you try to figure out which lane you want to drive in here. I wasn't aware that there was a leadership debate going on there, but if you can pick a position on the current correctional system in the province, whether it's good or bad, that would certainly be helpful.

Mr Levac: The position is very obvious and very clear. The leader of this party and I want it managed properly, unlike what you're doing. That's exactly what the problem is.

Let's talk about new mega-jail facilities for a minute. Yesterday, the Auditor General stated, "The ministry's decision to finance and construct two 1,200-bed correctional institutions that cost $180 million was not supported by a sound business case assessing the risks, costs and benefits of all feasible alternatives": $180 million spent without a business plan. Perhaps the napkin it was written on got lost.

This is a very serious issue. Nowhere in this report at all did the Auditor General endorse or support the privatization of corrections. You have spent $180 million of taxpayers' money without a business plan. Your ill-advised privatization plans have been mismanaged. You couldn't do it with a small program. What's going to happen to the 130 municipalities that said no, the 70% of Penetanguishenes that said no? Why are you going down and mismanaging our correctional facilities and the safety of the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Sampson: Again, as the member for Brant will know, we introduced a bill in the House on Monday that will give us the ability to better deal with the correctional system in the province, and his response was, "I want to take this opportunity to thank the minister for making the commitment to fix the infrastructure of the jails ... of our province, and as I have told him, I thought that was a very worthwhile thing to do." That was you on Monday. Now it's Wednesday; it's two days, I realize. You are taking a completely different view.

I say to the member opposite that if he were to spend the time to read the auditor's report, he would very clearly see that he believes that the Penetang and Lindsay situations, since they are virtually identical facilities, would be a perfect place for a meaningful comparison of capital and operating costs and other performance measures. In fact, this is exactly what we are doing with-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. New question.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Attorney General. In a recent letter to the editor of the Campbellford Courier-Campbellford being in Northumberland county-a concerned citizen discussed the problems of youth gangs in Campbellford. The anonymous person who wrote the letter states that they have been verbally and physically threatened by youths in Campbellford's main streets. They say that this is because young people are too young to be properly punished by our legal system, partly because their parents don't care or have no authority, and partly because it takes forever for the police to respond to incidents in town.

After hearing this concern, what assurance do you have for this constituent of mine that your ministry is doing its part to combat youth crime?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for Northumberland for the question. This is a very serious concern for young people and their parents. There has been a 77% rise in the rate of violent youth crime in the past 10 years. Not only have we seen a rise in violent youth crime, but when it happens now, it tends to be more violent, more often involving gang activity and more often involving weapons. The usual victims of violent youth crime, regrettably, are other young people.

The federal Young Offenders Act, which has not been repealed by the federal Liberals, fails on the counts of recidivism, the number of young people who return to the youth justice system, and on escalation to the adult criminal justice system by these young people. The proposed Youth Criminal Justice Act, which did not get passed by the federal House, is a failure-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Mr Galt: Thank you for the response. What our government is doing is certainly reassuring, but what the federal Liberals are doing is very disappointing. Reforms to the Young Offenders Act are definitely needed, something our government has pleaded for for years. The Youth Criminal Justice Act of course died on the order paper when the federal Liberals called an unnecessary election.

As my constituent mentioned in the letter, there appears to be a large degree of criminal activity carried out by young offenders. What programs does our government offer to ensure that first-time offenders are being turned away from a potential life in crime?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The federal government needs to repeal the Young Offenders Act. It's a failure. It fails to protect young people in our society from violent youth crime. Provincially, within our area of jurisdiction, we have the strict discipline facility, which deals effectively with repeat violent young offenders.

However, there are a large number of young offenders who are non-violent first-time offenders. To address them, we have proceeded with the youth justice committees. In the May 2000 budget, the Minister of Finance provided $3 million to triple the number of youth justice committees in Ontario. Those committees are very important in intervening with young people and asking them questions about what's going on in their life, why they're engaged in this activity that is anti-social and perhaps criminal in some cases, and turning around their lives in that way. There is a youth justice advisory committee to the Attorney General that met for the first time this week and I thank those-

The Speaker: Order. The Attorney General's time is up.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Premier, I want to draw your attention to page 232 of the auditor's report, where the auditor points out that the single biggest mistake your government has made has been to turn over inspection of forest practices to the forest companies themselves. In other words, the Ministry of Natural Resources isn't out there inspecting what the forest companies are doing any more. What's the result? When the forest companies inspect themselves, they find that only 3% of the companies are not complying with the law, but when the Ministry of Natural Resources goes out and inspects the same sites, they find that 20% aren't complying with the law.

As with the environment, your move toward privatization, your move to put companies in charge of inspecting their own operations, isn't working. What are you going to do about it, Premier, when so many forest companies aren't complying with the environmental and natural resource laws in our forests any longer?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think I've heard a number of the Liberal members indicating that the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, which you brought in-I think you perhaps were minister at the time too-is the legislation that allowed for companies to do a lot of this inspection and this work.

I am aware of the auditor's concern that he has expressed in there. I honestly have to tell you this, because we take the auditor very seriously: you indicated that in the auditor's opinion this is the biggest mistake we've made in the five years that we've been government. While I don't want to help you with your work, I don't think it is the biggest mistake we've made. We've made a number of mistakes. We acknowledge that. I just don't happen to think that this is the biggest or the most significant one. I have to be quite honest and upfront about that.

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

Mr Hampton: Premier, one of the first things your government did was, besides dramatically reducing the inspection staff at the Ministry of the Environment, you also dramatically reduced the inspection staff at the Ministry of Natural Resources so they don't have the people in the field any more to do forest inspections. You rely upon the companies to do it themselves, and that's why you've got so many situations where they're not complying with the law.

But you've done something else. The forest renewal trust fund was put in place to ensure that before companies harvested the forest, they had to have the money in place in the trust fund to renew the forest. The auditor finds now that in 20% of the cases, you're not requiring the companies to do that. In fact, you've got some companies out there that are completely in deficit. It's no longer a trust fund. The money isn't being put there to do the forest renewal.

Premier, what are you going to do about that, and what are you going to do about it before you start pushing into the far north of the province and you start poaching on the territory of First Nations? Are you going to fix the problem you've created there first?

Hon Mr Harris: Since we don't plan to poach on the territory owned by First Nations, the question really is irrelevant.

SUPPORT FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I have here a letter written by an official of your ministry on ministry letterhead. It's a draft letter that was intended to be sent to service organizations in my community. I repeat, this is a letter from your ministry on ministry letterhead intended to solicit funds to assist a local family with a disabled child, to make home renovations.

Minister, you know about this family because I've written to you and I've spoken to you about their situation. The young son, Steven, is 13 years old and he's a spastic quadriplegic. His mother is a sole-support parent and is Steven's primary caregiver. She needs to have the doorways of their home widened to admit Steven's wheelchair as Steven is now too big for her to lift him in and out.

Steven's mother came to your ministry, and I came to you, seeking help so that she can help keep Steven at home, and your answer was to offer to go begging in our community on her behalf. Minister, I ask you, is that what your government has come to? Soliciting for the disabled instead of offering them support?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I haven't seen the letter in question. I'm not familiar with it. Obviously, it's difficult to talk about the circumstances of any particular case that is brought up here before the Legislature. I know the member opposite has brought a number of issues with respect to constituents in her community. I've certainly agreed to do the very best we can.

This is a new program we've set up, the home and vehicle modification program, to help deal with a whole host of issues and challenges. The former vocational rehabilitation service dealt primarily with just adults and dealt with only-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Take your seats, both of you. The last warning to the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale, the member for Elgin-Middlesex-London and the member for Simcoe North. If you're going to yell, "Shut up," you're going to do it out of here. Last warning to all three of you. No more "Shut up" or you're out of here.

Sorry for the interruption.

Hon Mr Baird: The goal of the program, that was announced through the March of Dimes in London, was to provide independence for adults in the community. Children have not been covered by the program. There is a federal program, RRAP, operated at the federal level. We're certainly pleased to work with the member opposite on the issue.

Mrs McLeod: I sent you a copy of the letter on ministry letterhead with my constituent's name whited out because this is a letter which I, with her permission, have made public. You will know the constituent's name because you have a file that I have personally discussed with you in hand-delivering letters from my constituent. Because you've been dealing with this issue-at least I thought you were dealing with this issue-as has your ministry, you will know that none of the programs which you have just described are programs that Steven is eligible for or programs for which there are any more funds.

Minister, my constituent refused to sign the consent form to allow her personal situation to be discussed in our community through this letter. She was humiliated by the very thought of it. In fact, she had already approached local service clubs on her own behalf.

Interjection.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I'm having difficulty with the Minister of Education's interjections, because as emotional as my constituent is about this issue-

Interjections.

Mrs McLeod: I can tell the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Education how emotional my constituent is about this. She wants the minister to know, she wants your government to know-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat.

The Minister of Education, come to order, please.

Sorry for the interruption.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We have a very serious situation here. I'd appreciate everybody's co-operation. The member is trying to place the question. The minister answered the first question. There's another supplementary. I'd appreciate everybody's co-operation.

Sorry for the interruption.

Mrs McLeod: Perhaps I should apologize for taking this issue so seriously, but I've been working with this constituent for some time. I know how desperate she is to get the very basic help that she needs.

She was humiliated that the Ministry of Community and Social Services would feel that it was appropriate to go soliciting funds in our community on her behalf. She wants the minister and this government to know that she can speak for herself and for her son, as she already has. She doesn't need or want your ministry to go begging for them. What she wants is one-time funding of $15,000 to make the home renovations that will allow her to continue to care for her son. I don't think she's asking too much; neither does she.

Minister, there is a very simple way to retreat from what is surely an embarrassing spectacle of a government ministry going out and soliciting charitable funds. You simply have to provide the very basic help that Steven and his mother need.

I ask you, will you do that now?

Hon Mr Baird: This is a program about which the president of the Ontario March of Dimes has said, "The home and vehicle modifications program will be available to more Ontarians than the previous program. The criteria for this service expands eligibility from persons requiring assistance to pursue employment."

We are working very hard-

Interjection.

Hon Mr Baird: If the member opposite doesn't want to hear the answer, I won't bother.

FEDERAL HEALTH SPENDING

Mr David Young (Willowdale): My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, I've been watching the federal election campaign with interest over the last little while. I watched the federal Liberal Party attempt to portray themselves as the saviour of health care in this country. To me, this is both bizarre and fanciful, given that it is the same federal Liberals, the very same, who dramatically cut health care payments to the provinces. What this means is that billions of dollars were repeatedly slashed from health care budgets across this country, dollars that were intended for the most vulnerable.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that the federal Liberals still have not compensated all of the individuals who contracted hepatitis C through the blood system.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The last warning for the member for Hamilton East. I'm not going to continue to get up all the time. Last warning. He's out of here the next time I stand up.

Mr Young: As I was saying, it is my understanding that the federal Liberals still have not fully compensated all of the individuals who contracted hepatitis C through the blood system.

Minister, I have two questions arising out of that. First, would you kindly confirm the federal Liberal record on this important issue; second, if my earlier assumption is correct, tell us how the federal Liberal government attempts to justify this unconscionable position.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'd like to thank the member from Willowdale for his question. Certainly like my colleague, I am surprised and disappointed at the federal Liberal record on health care. First of all, as we all know, the Liberals started to cut health care transfers in 1994-95 and it is just recently that they made some commitment to partially give us back the money. It's not going to be available, unfortunately, in the form of transfers until April 1, 2001.

More importantly, time and time again we in this province have called on the federal government to join Ontario and Quebec in ensuring that we provide assistance to those people who were affected with hepatitis C through the blood system prior to 1986 and after 1990, and they steadfastly refused to do so. It appears there is a two-tier health system for those people-

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

Mr Young: That's just what I thought. I recently read a letter by Joey Hache, a victim of hepatitis C, who some of you will recall bicycled across the country in an attempt to raise awareness of the plight of hep-C victims.

In his letter, Mr Hache directs the following comments to the federal Liberals, and I quote, "We are not a special interest group; we were poisoned because the system broke. No money to do the right thing? Ha! Look at Mr Chrétien's pre-election giveaways: hotels and golf courses." Mr Hache continues by saying, "I really believed compassion was a truly Canadian value. Well, Mr Chrétien has shown, through his party's actions, that while compassion may be a Canadian value at the individual level, it is by no means a Canadian value at the national Liberal level."

Minister, while this may be true of the federal Liberals, I know the Mike Harris government has taken a very different position. Can you tell us what the government of Ontario has done for those deserving victims of hepatitis C?

Hon Mrs Witmer: In the province of Ontario all victims received compensation, regardless of the time of infection. I'm pleased to say we have doubled the amount of compensation available for the individuals. We announced on May 9, 2000, that we would be increasing the amount from $10,000 to $25,000. I'm very pleased to say that this program has provided approximately 2,300 applicants with compensation totalling about $57.5 million. We believe there are about 8,000 claimants in this province, and that will result in us providing $200 million in compensation to all people, regardless of when they were infected with hepatitis C.

FORT HENRY

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): My question is to the Minister of Tourism. Last Thursday, in answer to a question by the member from Peterborough, you stated that you've increased funding-I'm quoting directly from your answer from Hansard-to Fort Henry over the last five years. You and I know that is totally incorrect. I've got the budget here for Fort Henry over the last five years, their actual working document, and it clearly indicates that the amount of operating money the province is putting into Fort Henry on an annual basis has declined from a high of $1.5 million to less than $1 million currently. That is a fact.

You stated in your answer last week that you've put in over $7 million. Will you not admit to me, Minister, that you were talking about money that was put in over a five-year period? Will you not do the right thing and put the operating money the province puts into the fort on an annual basis back to the level where it was in 1995, namely, the amount of $1.6 million annually?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism): First of all, I'm delighted that the critic for tourism, after a full year, has finally seen fit to raise an issue in this House about Fort Henry. The fact of the matter is that the member is selectively looking at the amount of money Ontario taxpayers have invested in this important heritage site. In fact, $7 million of additional capital has gone into the St Lawrence Parks properties and the member opposite should be aware of that. For a small portion of this time, the member opposite was the former mayor of Kingston.

He should understand the levels of commitment that this government has made to the fort. If anything, he should be spending some time trying to contact the federal government as to why they walked away from their commitment to this important national heritage site, which I remind the member is owned by the federal government.

Mr Gerretsen: Minister, I've got a letter in my hand here dated October 23, which was the response from you to a letter that I wrote you some time before that. The matter has also been raised in the House on a number of different occasions. But let me just read to you the agreement, under which the St Lawrence Parks Commission operates the fort, that you have with the federal government.

It states explicitly-and this was an agreement that was signed in 1965 that is still effective today-that you, the St Lawrence Parks Commission, which operates the fort, will "maintain the present state of restoration of Old Fort Henry," as it existed in 1965, and "engage in such further restoration and maintenance of Old Fort Henry as ... is warranted."

You and I know, Minister, that the federal government has put in $5 million by way of an endowment fund last year. What I'm asking you, right here and now, is to do exactly the same thing. You are responsible for the fort. You have operated it for the last 60 years. Why don't you do exactly the same as what the federal government did and put in $5 million so that this can truly be a partnership in which this national historic site can be operated for the benefit of all Canadians? Put up your $5 million like the federal government did.

Hon Mr Jackson: First of all, the member has misquoted the document that exists between the province-

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am perfectly willing to table with the minister the document from which I read-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It's not a point of order, but if I could be helpful, if you want to send the document over it may be helpful. Minister?

Hon Mr Jackson: The document clearly states that maintenance at this fort will be undertaken by the province and that restorations to the fort, since this fort is crumbling, will be done by the federal government, and they further go on to suggest that any expenditure by the province of Ontario will be done within the means of the commission; in other words, if they have the financial means within their resources to do that.

I remind the member opposite, the federal government has admitted it owns the fort, it has put up the money in order to determine that the repairs would be in the order of $35 million and that-

The Speaker: Order. The minister's time is up. Will the minister take his seat.

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): My question is for the Minister of Education. Yesterday our government passed back-to-work legislation putting 40,000 kids back where they belong-in school. Parents in my community, Minister, are a little bit confused because the member for Hamilton East told them that the Liberal Party would support back-to-work legislation if the ERC came in with a recommendation.

Madam Minister, why did we make the decision that we made?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): Teachers have the right to collectively bargain-

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask you to ask the member from Stoney Creek to withdraw an inaccurate fact.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It's not a point of order.

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): On a point of order, Mr Speaker-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Take your seat. OK, folks, I start throwing people out starting right now. Any more, and you're out right now. Who wants to be first?

Chief government whip on a point of order, and I'm going to be very quick. If it's a smart aleck I will be up very fast.

Hon Mr Klees: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to give the member for Hamilton East an opportunity to fully explain his position on this matter.

The Speaker: All in favour?

Interjections.

The Speaker: You're going to need to be clearer, then, of what you want to do. We're not just going to open this up. Be very clear what you'd like to do, and I'm going to listen very clearly to hear if there are any noes.

Hon Mr Klees: Speaker, I really do believe that it's important that the House have a full explanation from the member as to why he has two different positions on this issue, and we give him two minutes-

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

It is now time for petitions. The member for Hamilton Mountain.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm sorry; there was some time. In all of the-how shall we say?-excitement, I forgot where we were. The minister had I think about 30 seconds to wrap up. Sorry.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Despite the thousands of parents who were calling all of us saying they wanted their children back to school, despite the efforts of Mr Clark, despite the advice of the Education Relations Commission saying the school year for these kids was in jeopardy, you can imagine the shock and the betrayal of parents in Hamilton-Wentworth when the Liberals went back on what they told them they would do and voted against this bill.

The Speaker: The member for Don Valley East on a point of order.

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): Thank you, Speaker. I have a-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member take his seat.

The member for Hamilton East is now named. I ask him to withdraw from the chamber. I warned him once; now it's time to leave.

Mr Agostino was escorted from the chamber.

STATUS OF BILL 119

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Don Valley East on a point of order.

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): My point of order is in regard to Bill 119. The bill has been amended by the general government committee. It has been reprinted and it appears for the first time today here in the Legislature.

In the reprint of the bill there are several pages which are not translated into French. I would quote to you standing order 33(d), which says, "No bill may be introduced in blank or imperfect form."

I want to refer to a ruling that you made back on December 22, 1999, in regard to Bill 46, introduced by my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt. You said that that kind of format "is contrary to subsection 3(2) of the French Language Services Act. I must therefore advise the House that this bill contravenes standing order 33(

d) and will be removed from the Orders and Notices paper."

Speaker, this is a very serious matter and I ask for your ruling.

The Speaker: For clarification, would it be possible for you to point out which sections, if the member could be so kind?

Mr Caplan: There are at least four pages, pages 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, and there may very well be more. I'm sorry; page 9 as well. There may very well be more, but they are not in French translation in this bill.

The Speaker: I thank the member for bringing it to our attention. We obviously will investigate and let him know. I appreciate his thoroughness in bringing that to our attention.

PETITIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I have a petition entitled "Unfair Business Taxes in the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth."

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas independent business owners in the region of Hamilton-Wentworth are unfairly paying significantly higher commercial education taxes than other owners for similar properties in neighbouring municipalities; and

"Whereas the downloading of provincial services by the Harris government to the municipalities has increased local business taxes to an unacceptable level in the region of Hamilton-Wentworth; and

"Whereas the difference in business taxes is a disincentive for independent business owners to expand or maintain their business in the region of Hamilton-Wentworth; and

"Whereas the cost of such unfair taxes is inevitably passed along to the consumers on Hamilton Mountain and throughout the region of Hamilton-Wentworth,

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call upon the government of Ontario, through the Minister of Finance, to immediately take the necessary steps to address the unfair rate of taxation facing the businesses on Hamilton Mountain and the region of Hamilton-Wentworth."

I sign this petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition regarding this government's ongoing discrimination against northern cancer patients. It reads as follow.

"Whereas the northern health travel grant offers a reimbursement of partial travel costs at a rate of 30.4 cents per kilometre one way for northerners forced to travel for cancer care while travel policy for southerners who travel for cancer care features full reimbursement costs for travel, meals and accommodation;

"Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location;

"Whereas northern Ontario residents pay the same amount of taxes and are entitled to the same access to health care and all government services and inherent civil rights as residents living elsewhere in the province;

"Whereas we support the efforts of the newly formed OSECC (Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care), founded by Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario, Northeast Region, to correct this injustice against northerners travelling for cancer treatment;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to fund full travel expenses for northern Ontario cancer patients and eliminate the health care apartheid which exists presently in the province of Ontario."

I agree with the petitioners. I've affixed my signature to it and I'd like to thank Gerry Lougheed Jr for all of his efforts.

DIABETES TREATMENT

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We are suggesting that all diabetic supplies as prescribed by an endocrinologist or a medical doctor be covered under the Ontario health insurance plan.

"Diabetes costs Canadian taxpayers a bundle. It is the leading cause of hospitalization in Canada. Some people with diabetes simply cannot afford the ongoing expense of managing diabetes. They cut corners to save money. They rip test strips in half, cut down on the number of times they test their blood and even reuse lancets and needles. These budget-saving measures can often have disastrous health care consequences;

"Persons with diabetes need and deserve financial assistance to cope with the escalating cost of managing diabetes. We think it is in all Ontarians' and the government's best interest to support people with diabetes with the supplies that each individual needs to obtain the best glucose control possible. As you all know, good control reduces or eliminates kidney failure by 50%, blindness by 76%, nerve damage by 60%, cardiac disease by 35% and even amputations. Just think how many dollars can be saved by the Ministry of Health if diabetics had a chance to gain optimum glucose control."

There are thousands and thousands of constituents in my riding who have put forth this petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature. It is regarding northerners demanding the Harris government eliminate the real health care apartheid and discrimination which is being practised in the province of Ontario right now.

"Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location;

"Whereas a recently released Oracle research poll confirms that 92% of Ontarians support equal health travel funding;

"Therefore,

I proudly affix my signature to this petition and give it to Tim March, one of our pages from Scarborough, to bring to the table.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have a petition with some 800 names on it. It's from northerners who demand that the Harris government eliminate health care apartheid.

"Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location;

"Whereas a recently released Oracle research poll confirms that 92% of Ontarians support equal health travel funding;

"Therefore,

I sign my signature and I'll send it down with Jessica from Toronto, a page here in the Legislature these days.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

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

"Whereas children are exposed to sexually explicit material in variety stores and video rental outlets;

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to sexually explicit material;

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

"To enact legislation which will:

"Create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to sexually explicit material in retail establishments;

"Make it illegal to sell, rent, or loan sexually explicit materials to minors."

I'm pleased to attach my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition in regards to school reform in Ontario. It is addressed to the Parliament of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"We believe that the heart of education in our province is the relationship between student and teacher and that this human and relational dimension should be maintained and extended in any proposed reform. As Minister of Education and Training, you should know how strongly we oppose many of the secondary school reform recommendations being proposed by your ministry and by your government.

"We strongly urge your ministry to delay the implementation of secondary school reform so that all interested stakeholders-parents, students, school councils, trustees and teachers-are able to participate in a more meaningful consultation process which would help to ensure that a high quality of publicly funded education is provided."

"We, the undersigned, also are categorically opposed to the closure and consolidation of St Raymond Catholic school or any school in the city of Toronto."

Since I agree with this sentiment, I am delighted to put my signature on it.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I've been waiting all day for this. I have a petition presented to me respectfully by Joan Lonergan, who's from the St Joseph's worker council, Catholic Women's League. It's sent to me personally, John O'Toole, and to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death in North America; and

"Whereas studies conducted in the city of Toronto, the United States and Great Britain have reported that drivers using cellular phones while operating a vehicle significantly increase the risk of collisions; and

"Whereas people talking on cellular phones while driving may cause a 34% higher risk of having an accident;"-this is unbelievable, really.

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ban the use of hand-held cellular phones, portable computers and fax machines while operating a motor vehicle. We further respectfully request that Bill 102,"-that's John O'Toole's bill-"An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of phones and other equipment while driving on a highway, be passed unanimously by all members of the provincial Parliament of Ontario" immediately.

I'm pleased to sign this and also to present it to Geoff from Rockwood in Guelph-Wellington, Ms Elliott's riding. I'm presenting this to Geoff today in the House.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature. It is signed by many northerners, most of whom appear to be from the fine city of Sault Ste Marie.

"Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location;

"Whereas a recently released Oracle research poll confirms that 92% of Ontarians support equal health travel funding;

"Therefore,

I'll sign these petitions and I assure you there are many more to come.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further petitions? The Chair recognizes the member for Durham.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Mr Speaker, I'd like to default to the member from Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale.

Interjections.

Mr O'Toole: Pardon me. I'll go ahead.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario"-

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry; that isn't your decision. Further petitions?

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas essential health care and educational programs have been deprived of government funding because the Conservative government of Mike Harris has diverted these funds to self-serving propaganda in the form of glossy pamphlets delivered to homes, newspaper advertisements and radio and TV commercials;

"Whereas the Harris government advertising blitz is a blatant abuse of public office and a shameful waste of taxpayers' dollars;

"Whereas the Harris Conservatives ran on a platform of eliminating what they referred to as `government waste and unnecessary expenditures,' while it squanders well over $188 million on clearly partisan advertising;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to implore the Conservative government of Mike Harris to immediately end their abuse of public office and terminate any further expenditure on political advertising."

I affix my signature, as I'm in complete agreement with this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 139,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, when Bill 139 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be ordered to the standing committee on justice and social policy; and

That no deferral of the second reading vote pursuant to standing order 28(

h) shall be permitted; and

That the standing committee on justice and social policy shall be authorized to meet during its regularly scheduled meeting times on one day for clause-by-clause consideration; and

That, pursuant to standing order 75(c), the Chair of the standing committee on justice and social policy shall establish a deadline for the tabling of amendments or for filing them with the clerk of the committee; and

That the committee be authorized to meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment on that day until the completion of clause-by-clause consideration; and

That, at 4:30 p.m. on the day designated by the committee for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, those amendments which have not been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill, and any amendments thereto. Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the completion of clause-by-clause consideration, and not later than December 6, 2000. In the event that the committee does not fail to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That, upon receiving the report of the standing committee on justice and social policy, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That, when the order for third reading is called, two hours shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, the debate time being divided equally among the three caucuses, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That the vote on third reading may, pursuant to standing order 28(h), be deferred until the next sessional day during the routine proceeding "Deferred Votes"; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Minister, you inserted the words "does not." It would otherwise read "the committee fails." What was said was "the committee does not fail."

Hon Mr Stockwell: That was clearly my mistake.

The Acting Speaker: The printed copy will sustain that.

Mr Stockwell has moved government notice of motion 73.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I appreciate that heads-up work by the table. I appreciate their timeliness in jumping in there. I apologize to the House for that grievous error.

This bill, Bill 139, is the Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2000. It does a series of things that seem to have upset certain members across the floor. I think it's an opportunity for me to offer an opinion that may be different than the ones across the floor, but equally valid and, I also think, arguably legitimate.

Let me talk about the salary disclosure of union officials. That seems to be a very accepted argument. There doesn't seem to be a lot of concern with respect to the salary disclosure argument for the $100,000, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on that. The unions have seemed to be OK with it, we're OK with it, and mostly I think on the other side. There hasn't been a lot of talk about it. In passing, it's the same disclosure required for publicly traded companies, for public servants, for us, and for a whole bunch of other people who are out there in the private sector.

I haven't heard a lot of discussion on the decertification changes, frankly, I think because basically they're not that unreasonable. The decertification changes we're asking for in this legislation are fairly fundamental, and I don't think dramatic. You understand, Mr Speaker, that you can only decertify a union during the last 60-day period of a collective agreement. We would all probably accept that most collective agreements run generally three years. Ultimately, three years would be 36 months, Tony. That would mean you'd only be able to decertify in the last two months of that 36-month agreement.

We're expanding that, instead of the last 60 days, to make it the last 90 days. That, I don't think, is too draconian. It gives a better opportunity for employees who would like to decertify a union to simply decertify or decertify a union in order to move to a different union that presents them a better opportunity.

The argument is often made that people who belong to a union want to belong to the union because they voted the union into the place, but that's not true in a lot of instances. If you think in certain circumstances where a union frankly has been at that workplace for 20 or 30 years, there's probably a significant number, if not maybe all, of the employees who work in that industry in that union who never really ever had an opportunity to vote that union into place. I'm not suggesting they may not want a union, but they may not want that union. Maybe they don't want a union at all.

But this idea that seems to circulate out there, including in the opposition benches, that all unions are democratically elected into the workplace is, generally speaking, true at the time, but over time and with the retirement or leaving of individuals, there can be workplaces in this province where not a single soul who works in that particular operation ever voted to have that union represent them.

All this window period does is expand the 60 days to 90 days to do one of two things: to either change the union that represents you-and we've got a big kerfuffle out there with respect to the CAW and raiding and so on-or you may say, "Look, our company has reached the stage where the employees don't want a union any more." Frankly, that could very well happen. That's the kind of thing we need to discuss.

I will be sharing my time with the members for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, Brampton east and Scarborough Centre.

Those are the kinds of things that need to be disclosed in the decertification process.

Let's understand very clearly, simply giving an opportunity for a union to expand the decertification window doesn't necessarily mean they're going to decertify and not be a union any more. It may just mean they decertify to change unions. That's how the process works.

Certification procedure changes: this is another one where I have some difficulty in understanding the opposition's arguments. They seem to be prepared to accept that you can only decertify a union for three months out of a 36-month contract. Just do the math: 33 months you can't decertify. It doesn't matter what the employees want, it doesn't matter what the employees think they need, the law says you can't decertify. For 33 months of a 36-month contract, regardless of the tension, regardless of the intention of those employees, they can't decertify. We accept that as part of the act. That's part of legislation.

Having said that, when we're talking about certifications, we're not asking that a window, a ban, a bar, be placed for 33 months. We're not asking that a bar be placed for 24 months. We're not asking that a bar be placed for 18 months, which is virtually half of what you do under a decertification drive. We're asking that a ban be put in place for 12 months. There's a bit of a contrary nature to this argument on the other side.

If you think it's OK not to decertify, to make it illegal to decertify a union for 33 months of a 36-month contract, why, after losing a certification drive would you not consider it reasonable that you can't have another certification drive for 12 months? It seems to me that is practically a third of what it is for decertification.

I have a difficult time getting the members opposite to square that circle. Why is it OK to decertify like that and have a ban in place, but it's not OK when you have a certification drive that fails to put a ban in place for 12 months? I've talked to a lot of people about this out there, and any unbiased third party I've spoken to doesn't think this is the least bit unreasonable.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is driving me out of the House.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I've finally discovered what will drive you out of the House and I'm putting that in my hip pocket, Mr Bradley.

Vote clarity: this is another issue that I think needs to happen. Let's be clear about this. This isn't about every vote the union takes to go on strike. For the lay people out there who don't know, what vote clarity talks to-what I mean by strikes, when unions go back to their membership, they usually frame a question of "Should you accept this offer that the company has put on the table? Yes or no." Implicitly, the "no" answer also gives them direction to go on strike. Understand that. In reality, you're answering two questions with one ballot.

We're not saying they have to change that for the entire collective agreements negotiated out there in the private sector. We're not saying they have to change it for every mature bargaining unit and bargaining process that takes place in this province. But we are saying that during first-contract negotiations where the parties aren't sophisticated, it's the first time they've been through this process, they split that question. That's as controversial as this legislation gets-that they split the question.

They give these employees, who are for the first time negotiating a collective agreement, the opportunity to have a vote on whether or not they want to have the collective agreement, and if they say, "No, we don't like the offer," they give them a vote of, "Do you want to go on strike?" Not for every collective agreement, but for your first contract because the parties are not mature negotiators at this point and it's an opportunity for the employees to make a reasoned, rationale and thoughtful decision.

So far, that's how controversial this has gotten. Frankly, I don't think it's that controversial.

To move on, non-construction employers. My friend from Hamilton East was apoplectic the other day with his question on the non-construction employer provision. I've canvassed this one out there with my friends and colleagues and others and asked them-

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Just explain the banks. Why the banks?

Hon Mr Stockwell: The banks aren't even included, to be quite honest. That's the other thing. You get this little bit of evidence and you run with it. The banks are precluded from this provision. They won their preclusion at the Ontario Labour Relations Board. They're not included. It's so vitriolic in here and so vociferous, you can't even get that out.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): So what?

Hon Mr Stockwell: So vociferous. It gets so vitriolic. It gets so difficult to get a point across to the other side. The banks aren't even included. They're not included in this. The last one that was in this package, TD, ended up, I think, going to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and getting themselves removed from the provision.

You know how controversial this provision is that's created this feeding frenzy? It's this controversial: it says-and I can't believe Liberals are opposed to this; I just cannot believe it-when a publicly funded government, be it a school board or a municipality, wants to tender their work for construction, they be allowed to tender it to union or non-union companies. That's it. Presently in place we have a law that binds certain school boards and administrations to this: they cannot tender their work to non-union companies.

I'm not telling them they have to tender to unions. I'm not telling them they have to tender to non-unions. All I'm saying is everybody pays taxes-everybody-and if you pay taxes, there's one privilege that I think you should insist on having-and I can't believe anyone argues this-you should have the privilege to bid or get government work unfettered of restrictions or biases or discrimination.

I thought that's what the NDP stood for. I really did. They used to talk all the time about anti-discrimination law, but somehow in this twisted logic, this world that we've developed, some people seem to think it's OK to say, "Because you don't have a union card, you can't get work from my local government," and make that a law enshrined at the provincial level. I'm not saying local councils can't make that decision. If in Windsor or Hamilton or Pembroke or Toronto they want to say, "We only tender to union companies," then so be it. They are allowed to say that.

I'm not even contemplating taking away that right or privilege. If they want to say in Richmond Hill or in Ottawa, "I only tender to non-union companies," they could do that too. That's their decision. They're duly elected.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): What about Vaughan?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Or Vaughan.

What I am saying is there never, ever should be

an act in place at the provincial level that says hard-earned tax dollars are only available to card-carrying union members. That's wrong. Think of it. Let's put the shoe on the other foot, I say to my colleagues across the floor who find difficulty with this position. What if we had a law in place that said local municipalities cannot tender construction work to unionized companies? They'd be leaving the planet in droves, they'd be so upset. That would be reprehensible, unacceptable, discriminatory, barbaric, prehistoric. But the opposite-well, that's OK. Anyone find that passing strange? How do you square that circle? I just don't get it.

Are we telling municipalities what to do? No. Are we telling unions what to do? No. Are we telling non-unions what to do? No. We're just saying, "Guys, you elect your council. They should have the unfettered right to make that decision on their own," and somehow I'm setting labour relations back to the Stone Age, according to my new best friend, Sid Ryan. I'm taking labour relations back to the Stone Age because I should hold such a crazy and unbelievably hard doctrine decision like saying everybody should be allowed to work or bid for government work. I don't get that one. I don't get it.

I talk to a lot of people too with no bias, no axe to grind. You know what they say to me? "I don't understand how that's on the books. How did that get there? How could anyone think that's fair? How could anyone argue against a guy who's bringing in a piece of legislation that fixes that?" I say, "I don't know. They're just Liberals and NDP." That's where I'm at.

Hon Mr Palladini: Some Liberals are onside.

Hon Mr Stockwell: No, they're not. They're voting against the bill. All the Liberals are voting against the bill, and all the NDP.

To my friends across the floor, that's as controversial as the bill gets.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Let's talk about one other thing before I sit down, as I was so gracefully informed by the member from Simcoe. Let's talk about one other thing-and quit moving my chair-before I sit down.

There has been some concern on the other side with respect to posting how to decertify in a workplace. Let me tell you how we got to that situation and how I got to the position I took.

When I met with the labour leaders on a number of occasions, they all, to a person, to a man and woman, told me-and I heard the member from Renfrew speak about this-that they have very aggressive organizations that hire people specifically to go out there and unionize non-unionized workplaces. They told me they do that very aggressively. They think that somehow by passing legislation like this I'm going to make their job easier. So I say that's good. If that's what you want to do, that's good.

Those unions are offering that kind of advice out there to non-union workplaces, so all this information is available to those non-union workplaces. All those employees there get this information from all the unions. There are many unions in this province and there are many unions aggressively out there trying to organize non-union workplaces.

In a unionized workplace, the union doesn't tell the employees, the membership-the brothers and sisters, in their vernacular-how to decertify. I don't blame them for that. Why would they? Of course they're not going to tell them how to decertify. I don't think the union is going to go in there and say, "OK, guys, we're your union representatives. I'm your executive and here's how you kick me out of work." Of course they're not going to do that; I don't think they should. But do you know what the law says today? It also says the employer can't tell them.

The employer is prohibited by law from discussing how to decertify with any of his or her employees. He or she can't talk to them about it. So where do they get the information? The unions won't give it to them-and again, I don't blame them-and the employer can't give it to them.

We get calls all the time: "How do I decertify my union?" My good friend from Grey was on the radio up there in Owen Sound not long ago and he talked about the guy who phoned him and said, "I want to decertify my union. I don't know how." The member from Grey had to go to great lengths to try and get the explanation to him. Ultimately he got it to him and then the guy figured it out and they successfully decertified their union. All we're saying is, "Post in the workplace how to decertify your union." That's all the bill says, because the unions won't tell them and it's against the law for the employer to tell them.

In a nutshell, and then I'll sit down, that's as controversial as Bill 139 gets: common, responsible, reasonable amendments to the Labour Relations Act. To suggest that they're overreacting is an understatement. The charges are outrageous, of course, and that is an understatement. I say to you that this is the kind of good labour legislation this province needs to continue on in profiting, in creating investment, creating wealth, creating jobs, getting people off welfare, getting people off employment insurance-or unemployment insurance, whatever it's called today-and getting them back to work. This is good legislation. It is not controversial legislation.

I want the members opposite, when they stand up, to explain to me exactly which one of these amendments they're opposed to.

The Acting Speaker: It will go in rotation. I'll just be a second because I wanted to introduce, in the members' east gallery, Brigid Brown and her friend Amanda deBatistma. I wanted to tell you that Brigid is from the riding of Perth-Middlesex. She was a page here in 1994. Her brother, Rob, was a page here in 1998.

Mrs Pupatello: I'm very pleased to follow the minister on his comments regarding this bill.

The minister and his government claim that they have had unprecedented growth in the years since they took power. They've done that without this bill. Don't come into the House today and tell me that you require this bill in order to have prosperity and growth in the economy in Ontario. You've been in power since 1995. All of the economic statements will tell us that we've had great growth in Ontario, and you've done it without the bill. That's the point.

The minister comes into the House today-and quite frankly, he's been entertaining. Even the people in Windsor West think this particular minister is entertaining. But we want to talk about the facts of the bill. You come in to propose that you're here for workers' rights, that you're doing this for the workers of Ontario. Where in the entire process of bringing a bill to this table did this minister consult with the workers of Ontario? Workers from Windsor West, call my office and tell me that the minister came to Windsor and consulted on Bill 139.

I would ask any representatives from labour, have you had any input on this bill that would allow the Minister of Labour to come in and say, "We're doing this for the good of workers. We're here to create a democratic place to work"? It's like a stick in the eye for the members of the labour workforce. I remember when this particular minister was named minister. Upon my invitation, I brought him to my community to meet with labour leaders. He stood at the podium at the Caboto Club at that time-not all that long ago, as you recall-and he said, "We're going to make peace with labour.

We need labour to be partners." If you insisted on having labour as partners, why would you not consult with these individuals on this bill?

Let's talk about your salary disclosure, Minister. Tell me, when have you not known how much Buzz Hargrove makes for a living? He announces it himself. What possible purpose could you have all of a sudden in the year 2000 to bring this forward in the bill? How many times does a union leader not tell his own workers what he makes? They do it all the time. They do it with more bravado, frankly, than the government members. They stand at their dais and they yell out, "I make over $100,000," and they're proud of the work they do for their labour group. There's no shame in that. They stand up and talk about it themselves. What is the purpose then, other than to be a stick in the eye for labour?

Let's go on. Information to decertify: the minister stood in the House moments ago and said, "Oh, they don't know how to decertify." If the member from Grey received a phone call from any individual who wanted the information, I would only wish that MPP from Owen Sound did as much work for his constituents when they called about health care as when they called to decertify a union. You and I both know that is not the case, and your members on your side of the House are very selective about the kind of constituency work they choose to do on behalf of their community.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member from Windsor is speaking about the member from Bruce-Grey and I don't think it's proper parliamentary procedure for the member to refer to the type of work the member from Bruce-Grey does in his own riding.

The Acting Speaker: That's a point of order, and I will remind the member for Windsor West that it would be better to address me and refer to the riding.

Mrs Pupatello: I am perfectly within my rights to suggest that members of the Conservative government do not represent their constituents well on the issues that matter to their constituents day to day, like health care matters, like education matters. Those individuals are not well represented by Conservative MPPs.

Mr Beaubien: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Are we going to have a debate about members representing their constituents well? I will compare the way I represent my constituents in Lambton-Kent-Middlesex any time, anywhere, any place with the member from Windsor.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. If you would address your remarks through me, it will make the temperament a little bit better.

Mrs Pupatello: The minister comes in the House and pretends to do this for employees. There is not an employee who is a member of a union who is going to agree with this. That's as simple as it is. The minister could at minimum come clean and say, "I'm doing this in response to my business"-

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Let me remind the member for Hamilton West and the member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex that I can't have that going on. I don't think it's necessary for me to get up and remind you of the rules you've asked me to enforce for you. If you like, I will; I'll have to. I don't want to. Please help me.

Mrs Pupatello: Clearly they don't like to hear the truth from this side of the House. That's all it comes down to. The minister cannot pretend for a moment to drop a bill in the House for discussion as though he were doing it on behalf of employees. Just say it like it is; say you're doing it for the business community.

I can honestly tell you that in Windsor, where I come from, we have a booming economy. Ontario is booming. All of us know that the Americans are buying our cars. As long as Americans are buying our cars, the Ontario economy is booming. We have a booming construction industry. Could there be a more inappropriate time to create more dispute between government and labour? This is the worst time. There is no reason why yesterday the gallery should have been filled with people from the construction trades, to watch their anger at a time when they have never had more contracts to build than they have now.

There has never been a time when it has been more inappropriate to create more labour strife in Ontario. Since 1995, when Mike Harris became the Premier of Ontario, we have had more labour strife than any other government in the history of Ontario. That's what we can say about Mike Harris.

He purports to do it today for employees. I encourage the minister, who sits in the House today, to listen. You would think he knew of economic development and trade, he would be interested in continuing a construction boom in Ontario. Did you not sit next to your colleague at the cabinet table and say, "Would you stop provoking labour at this key time? Would you stop? Would you kindly go forward and try to make peace in Ontario so that we can continue an Ontario economic boom?"

Hon Mr Palladini: That's what we're doing.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I'd ask the minister from Vaughan to come to order and I would ask the member from Windsor West to address her comments through the Chair, please.

The personal pronoun "you," I believe, is not addressing it to me. If you would address me, it would help the tone of the meeting a lot more for the better.

Mrs Pupatello: Let's talk about some real issues for the Minister of Labour. Since the day he became the Minister of Labour I spoke with him on a repeated basis about the kinds of lengths of time injured workers have to go through in order to see any recompense from the system. They managed to rename their fancy workers' comp; they managed to do all kinds of fancy things and want to talk about all of the good things. I want to talk about how long an injured worker in my community has to wait to go through a simple appeal process.

We beg this minister to add staff to make it happen for these people, that they could either train them, retrain them, get them through the process, and the Minister of Labour says he did.

I have not one injured worker who is moving any quicker through the system than they did five years ago when this government took office. But we do have a new fancy title for the workers' comp bureaucracy.

Let's talk about other major issues-

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Halton, come to order.

Mrs Pupatello: -that the Minister of Trade ought to be dealing with. We have a significant skills shortage in Ontario. None is more apparent. Nowhere is it more apparent than in the community that I come from, and if you ask employers what their most significant issue is today-the Minister of Economic Development and Trade knows the answer to this question-the biggest issue that faces these industries today is a skills shortage. I haven't heard a word from the Minister of Labour about the skilled trade shortage.

How many businesses have to get together over how many meetings with the local universities and colleges, with everything they can do, to provide training for people in a skills area that is significantly lacking?

If either our Minister of Labour or Minister of Economic Development and Trade would care to come to my community, we can put these meetings together for you. That's what's called appropriate priorities for a government when they're in the middle of an economic boom. I asked the minister; instead, what does he do? He comes and he drops 139 in-a poke in the eye, a stick in the eye to labour, at a time when we're doing extraordinarily well, especially in my community. I just want him to come to the table and say, "I did this for business. I didn't do this for employees. I'm not trying to change the rules to help make it fair for employees."

The minister's got the gall to stand and say this is fair. Fair? Does this government want to talk about fair? Let's talk about fair. I ask the Minister of Labour to be the first to put his whatever appendage forward for a drug test. Let's do that. Do you know why? Because that's fair. That would be fair. We want to put the welfare cases forward for a drug test. Let's put the whole Ontario cabinet forward for a drug test, including the member from Scarborough, who continues to heckle on whatever it is we have to say on this side of the House. Let's have her launch the drug-testing for the Conservative MPPs. That would be fair for Ontario.

Ontario Liberals want to talk about fairness. This bill is not about fair. This bill is about more harassment for labour at the time that it needs it the least.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to speak on this time allocation motion where Bill 139 is concerned. It affords me the opportunity to share with this House some of the work I've been doing recently, looking at other jurisdictions, the success they're having, why they're having that success and how it relates to Ontario; and some of the things this government is doing on behalf of the people, and how they are, for the most part, in almost everything they're doing, dividing and conquering and creating a polarity that in the long haul I believe will not be in the best interests of everybody who calls Ontario home.

In this instance, again we have the government attacking very directly the labour movement of this province, bringing in a piece of legislation that in many significant ways attacks and takes away things people have fought for, negotiated, worked around, studied and, actually in some instances at great personal sacrifice, got put in place in their workplaces.

Whether it was remuneration, benefits, pension plans or issues of health and safety, they went to the wall.

They saw, by way of what was happening to their neighbours and family members who went to work, that there was a need to make sure that work that was done was adequately compensated for, that there were benefit packages that helped people when their family or children got sick and needed to be taken care of, and that in their old age they had a way of looking after their needs and participating in the community and the society in which they lived in a meaningful, positive and constructive way, bringing their experience and wisdom to the fore and presenting it and having it respected and included in the decision-making that went on.

Alas, what we see now in Ontario is a diminishing, a devaluing of that contribution in many serious and significant ways. I believe, when you look at this in an overall strategy to improve the lot of the province and make it competitive where the global economy is concerned, that this will not be good. This will not support and improve and enhance our ability to compete. It will in the long haul make us a jurisdiction that is very narrow in understanding and different from the rest of the world as they move forward.

I believe it will hurt very seriously and significantly some of those vehicles we have put in place, such as our health care system, our education system and our social safety net in a way that will not serve us well.

I'm not going to get into this in any significant way in the short time I have this afternoon because of the time allocation motion and again the limiting of debate on such important issues in this place and across the province, which happens so often, driven by this government.

We all know that the Minister of Labour is very articulate and eloquent in the way that he speaks and can make the arguments well and will convince a whole lot of people that his positioning is correct in this instance. We have equally articulate and eloquent people on this side of the House who will make the counter argument. We will go back and forth and, at the end of the day, I guess the people will ultimately decide.

There will be an election in this province probably in about three years and then we'll find out. By then, what this government has done by way of alienating and polarizing some of the more important elements of society, particularly where the economy is concerned, will begin to be more obvious and the chickens will come home to roost. We thought maybe that would have happened in the last provincial election, but alas it didn't.

But I think that as time rolls on and the impact of legislation and initiatives such as the one we're time-allocating here today, where the labour movement is concerned and where our economy is concerned, becomes more and more obvious, people will become more learned and aware of the impact, of the lack of leadership and the very focused and limited leadership that has been given by this government, particularly where it involves attacking people.

We will hopefully begin then to correct some of the mistakes that have been made and get back on track, bringing us more in line with what other people are doing, where developing an economy that works for everybody is concerned, and giving us an ability to compete in a way that enhances our being able to continue to have an economy and a jurisdiction that is the envy of the world.

In the short time I have today, I want to speak very briefly about my experience of what's happening in Ireland. I've been looking at this for quite some time now. Some people in this place will know that's the place of my birth. I emigrated to Canada in 1960. I've watched, in the last 40 years, an evolution over there that has been quite extraordinary, to the point now where its economy leads the world in many significant ways. The question that needs to be asked is, why?

I've gone over there to meet with some folks. I've led a trade mission from my own community over there to see if there wasn't some partnering that could be done so that we could support each other in our effort to recover our economy. Some of you will know that in northern Ontario, the new economy that we're looking at right now

Document details

Collection	Ontario — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	2000-11-22
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	p37 s1 2000-11-22 hansard html
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	960d7ca7c918c53ba04d161627405c9c2b814231

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).