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

December 11, 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-Dec-11 vol. A (PDF)

L116A - Mon 11 Dec 2000 / Lun 11 déc 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HYDRO RATES

SICKNESS BENEFITS

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

AGRICORP

LABOUR DISPUTE

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

HYDRO RATES

LLOYD DENNIS

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO VQA ONLY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'EXCLUSIVITÉ DE LA VQA DE L'ONTARIO

CANADIAN NATIONAL ANTHEM ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'HYMNE NATIONAL DU CANADA

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

REFERRAL OF BILL 159

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

LABOUR DISPUTE

DRAINAGE PROGRAMS

DRUG TREATMENT COURTS

ROAD SAFETY

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

NATURAL GAS RATES

RESEARCH AWARDS

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

LABOUR DISPUTE

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

RENT REGULATION

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

RENT REGULATION

OPP DISPATCH CENTRE

PHOTO RADAR

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HYDRO RATES

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): It is a familiar and frightening pattern. First, the price of gas and diesel fuel skyrockets and Ontarians get gouged at every pump in the province, and our provincial government does nothing but make excuses for the big oil companies. Then the province allows natural gas, used for heating your home, to go up 45% without even passing comment. It will cost the average Ontarian $500 more to heat their home, and the province says it's OK.

Now, hoards of door-to-door electricity con artists are descending on Ontarians, inducing them to sign long-term contracts, contracts that even kick back rebates to their brokers. The power brokers offer the consumer nothing but fine print that always costs the consumer more.

This government refuses to help Ontario consumers, whether they drive a car, heat their homes or turn on a light switch. Our most basic needs have been sold off to unscrupulous door-to-door hucksters who will make millions of dollars at the expense of hard-working Ontarians, and this government shamefully allows it to happen in complete silence and complicity.

To everyone listening, enjoy your Christmas lights, for this may be the last year you can afford to turn them on. God help the people of Ontario.

SICKNESS BENEFITS

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise today on behalf of one of my constituents, who has advised me of her concerns with the federal employment insurance sickness benefits. My constituent recently underwent surgery with a recovery period of three months, at which time a further procedure had to be performed, causing her to be off work for several more months.

Federal employment insurance sickness benefits are only payable for a maximum of 15 weeks. As this person works in an occupation that does not have any private sick benefits, she will not have any income after 15 weeks. My constituent has worked for 27 years and paid into employment insurance for all that time. Yet, when she needs help due to sickness, she is told that she can only receive assistance for 15 weeks. My constituent wants to know why the federal government has extended maternity benefits to 12 months but has not extended the time off for sickness benefits.

She stated to me that she did not choose to be sick and does not understand why such limited restrictions are placed on sickness benefits without any regard for the circumstances.

On behalf of my constituent, I wanted to bring this matter to the attention of this House.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Recently I had the opportunity to meet with Dr Richard Van Loon, the president of Carleton University in Ottawa. We discussed issues facing universities over the next decade.

Over the course of the next 10 years, universities will be facing an unprecedented number of retiring professors. This is the result of the large group that was hired during the baby boom that entered university in the late 1960s and early 1970s. These teachers have now reached retirement age.

These same schools are facing the so-called echo boom. This is the large number of children of baby boomers who are now reaching university age.

In addition, these schools are facing the so-called double cohort in the year 2003. This is the year the two senior classes will be graduating at the same time from secondary school.

The problem is fairly simple. There are going to be far too many students versus too few professors. The universities in my community are very concerned about the fact that the necessary resources are not being allocated to deal with the looming problem. Dr Van Loon was appreciative of the efforts of this government to provide capital funding necessary for bricks and mortar. At the same time, both he and many others in the post-secondary community are concerned about the need to increase provincial funding to keep pace with the expansion.

To put it in perspective, the number of faculty that will be needed in the near future will exceed the total number that are currently teaching at Ontario universities.

In conclusion, this government needs to increase operating funds so that universities can start to hire faculty now that are going to be needed in the very near future.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): Last week, the Honourable Dan Newman and I visited the Scarborough Hospital to present a cheque for $6,062,309 from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. This money will be invested in front-line patient care to ensure that the residents of Scarborough have better access to quality hospital services. Those patients who need specialized hospital services such as renal dialysis, orthopaedic implants, cardiac services and level 2 neonatal care will be able to access these services where they are needed, close to home.

The Scarborough Hospital's General and Grace divisions will be able to perform more procedures next year than were performed last year.

Our government has invested more than $22 billion in health care money for the benefit of Ontarians in 2000-01.

I want to take this opportunity to particularly thank the Scarborough Hospital community-the doctors, nurses, administrative staff, board of governors and volunteers-for the tremendous care and support they give daily to the many constituents of Scarborough Centre and beyond.

AGRICORP

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): In this Legislature on October 2, the Minister of Agriculture said, when it was found that actions had been taken with money at Agricorp that should not have been taken, "We immediately asked the Provincial Auditor to look at the matter." The Minister said he called in the auditor.

On November 30, in public accounts, the Provincial Auditor made it very clear that this was not at all the case. He said that Agricorp was selected on the initiative of his office. When I asked whether he had been asked by anyone to look into what was going on at Agricorp, the answer was a resounding but simple no. In fact, when the Provincial Auditor released his report, he stated, "In a very unusual move by my office, we had to take action to ensure that monies were not inappropriately used."

The Minister of Agriculture has compromised his credibility in this Legislature.

Secondly, the interest owed on the crop insurance fund had been transferred to pay for administrative expenses. The Premier acknowledged that this action was inappropriate. He went on to say that the money has been returned with interest.

The auditor also states that the bond and its associated losses were inappropriately moved from the general fund to the Ontario crop insurance fund. "Transferred" is in the past tense. After the matter was brought to light, the fund was reimbursed. This is absolutely appalling.

I asked the auditor about the legality of this move, and he made it very clear that this action was legislatively prohibited. He said that the transfer, if it had been completed, would have been illegal. It's very clear that the transfer was indeed completed and therefore was illegal. It does not matter whether this money was reimbursed. It does not change the fact that this was an illegal activity. You cannot just say everything was made better by going back and trying to fix things. It was illegal in the first place. The Premier agreed the OPP should be called in, and I firmly believe the time has come to call in the OPP.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): One hundred and thirteen days: that's how long 1,250 Mine Mill/CAW members have been out on strike in my community. One hundred and thirteen days since workers withdrew their labour after formally rejecting the long list of concessions demanded by Falconbridge during collective bargaining.

One hundred and thirteen days since the company hired a southern Ontario security firm to surveil picketers on tape and in person 24 hours a day; since the company made two court applications to severely curtail picketing; since the company upped the ante with new recent demands which have now led to a formal charge of bad-faith bargaining by the union to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

One hundred and thirteen days since the law in this province, courtesy of the Mike Harris government, allowed Falconbridge to bring in scab labour to take the work and jobs of miners who are legitimately on strike. Since the company has used scab labour from day one, there's been no need and no incentive for them to negotiate. That's how it is when workers have the deck stacked against them.

There didn't have to be a strike. Indeed, there wouldn't have been a strike if the Harris government had kept the NDP anti-scab law in place. When employers knew they couldn't use scabs, they got down to the business of negotiating an agreement: no choice, no scabs, no delays. That's how it should be in the province of Ontario again.

We need to ban scab labour in Ontario for my friends at Mine Mill/CAW and for every other worker who is undermined every day by employers who use scabs during strikes and lockouts in this province. There's no need for delay. The time is now. It's time to ban scabs from workplaces in this province.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I rise today to tell the House about some items of interest pertaining to Ontario's Niagara Escarpment and the Niagara Escarpment Commission. First of all, I ask the Legislature to welcome Mark Frawley, the commission's new director, who is in the gallery today.

Members in the Niagara Escarpment area will already be familiar with the In Focus document. This is the initial material assembled to provide background for the current review of the Niagara Escarpment plan. I understand the Minister of Natural Resources is now considering establishing final terms of reference for the review. Accordingly, the draft terms of reference identify a selected number of emerging issues on the escarpment, rather than revisiting the fundamental principles that are sound.

In my constituency there is certainly the feeling that the Niagara Escarpment plan and the Niagara Escarpment Commission are doing an outstanding job for us. The commission just this week published new pamphlets, like so, in its Explorer series. We are very pleased that these tourism publications cover a vast portion of the escarpment in our area. I am encouraged that the Niagara Escarpment Commission has long recognized the value of the escarpment as a tourist resource. In my constituency, the escarpment is appreciated not only as an environmental treasure, but also as a foundation for our economic development.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to comment on the state of confusion around electrical power in Ontario. It's another fine mess that Mike Harris has gotten us into.

I remember when we passed the legislation that launched this. We were promised lower rates. We were told that the debt would be off the province's books and we would see some brand new generation in the province of Ontario. It is without a question the most screwed up, confusing mess that we've seen in a long while here. The debt is still on the books, as the auditor pointed out, and it's growing-up by $500 million this year. We've seen no reduction in the rates. We will be dealing with a tax bill this week that delays again the implementation of this legislation.

As my colleague from Eglinton-Lawrence pointed out, we have companies across the province purporting to sell people electricity with no idea when this is going to be launched. I think there are 40 companies out there right now. The municipal electrical utilities thought they had the agreement from the government to do something and they spent millions of dollars. The government introduced the bill and then they pulled the bill back. The Provincial Auditor was forced to step in and point out that the way the government was accounting for this was incorrect, and forced the government to put the debt back on the books.

It is a mess-a huge mess. The Premier owes the people of the province some clarity on this bill. We hope we will get it soon, because right now it is mass confusion.

LLOYD DENNIS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Tomorrow, Tuesday, December 12 at 4:30, the Honourable Hilary Weston, the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, will present 25 citizens with the prestigious Order of Ontario. The Order of Ontario recognizes and honours those who have enriched the lives of others by attaining the highest standards of excellence in achievement in their respective fields.

We are proud that Orillia resident Dr Lloyd Dennis will be on hand to receive the Order of Ontario. Born in the bush, where his mother cooked in a logging camp, he had a transient and lonely childhood, attending a large number of rural schools in the Muskoka-Parry Sound district of Ontario.

Leaving school at the age of 16, he went to work until old enough for military service. Lloyd became an officer at the tender age of 19 and served with the Canadian paratroops. After the war, he returned to school as a married adult. There he attained his high school diploma, certification as a teacher and, subsequently, two degrees from the University of Toronto. Dr Dennis served in Toronto as a grade teacher, a science teacher and a consulting teacher in social studies, and as a school principal.

In 1965 he was invited to serve the Ministry of Education as adviser to the deputy minister. Almost immediately, he was appointed secretary and research director for the committee on aims and objectives of education in Ontario. A short time later, he was appointed co-chair of the commission, with Mr Justice Emmett Hall of the Supreme Court of Canada. This work resulted in the report on education called Living and Learning, popularly known as the Hall-Dennis report. After the report's publication, Lloyd was named as official spokesperson, meeting a huge number of audiences in Ontario and across the country.

In 1969 he resigned from the ministry to become the director of education for the Leeds-Grenville board of education, a position he held until 1979, when he decided, as he puts it, to become a "free spirit."

Dr Dennis was the creator and writer of the Children's Page, which ran for six years with the old Toronto Telegram newspaper. He had a number of books to his credit, the most recent of which was The Learning Circus, an engaging tale of the life of an educator. In addition, his book Marching Orders has just emerged from its third printing. Popularly acclaimed, it is the story of his early life.

Lloyd has received a large number of awards for his work in education, including two doctorates from Canadian universities. In 1979 he was made an officer of the Order of Canada in recognition of his service to education. Recently, he was given a lifetime award by the Toronto Sun for his service to education.

VISITORS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to introduce to the House a group of visitors from Oakwood Collegiate, who are very interested in the future of education in Ontario. They are being led by Mr Tom Nanasi. Let's welcome them.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We welcome our friends.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO VQA ONLY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'EXCLUSIVITÉ DE LA VQA DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Chudleigh moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 160,

An Act supporting Ontario wines by serving only Ontario VQA certified wines at functions of the Government of Ontario / Projet de loi 160, Loi visant à contribuer au succès des vins de l'Ontario en exigeant du gouvernement de l'Ontario qu'il ne serve que du vin certifié par la VQA de l'Ontario à ses réceptions.

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

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): Although most governments in Ontario have always done this, I think it's time that it becomes a regulation in this place.

The Ontario Vintners Quality Alliance, VQA, is an independent alliance of wineries, grape growers and provincial liquor regulators and several academic, hospitality and research institutions. It has been promoting and maintaining the standards of Ontario's wine since 1988.

With the VQA system, Ontario joins other leading wine-producing countries in developing a body of regulations in order to set high standards for its wine.

Unfortunately, the leading European wine-producing countries have continued to discriminate against Ontario wines by disallowing imports. The Ontario VQA Only Act would serve to promote the fine quality and standards of these wines produced right here at home, in Ontario. By serving only Ontario VQA-approved wines at all official government of Ontario functions, we would demonstrate our continued support for made-in-Ontario wine.

CANADIAN NATIONAL ANTHEM ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'HYMNE NATIONAL DU CANADA

Mr Colle moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 161,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act to provide for the singing of O Canada / Projet de loi 161, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'Assemblée législative pour prévoir que soit chanté le Ô Canada.

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

The member for a short statement.

It is certainly my privilege and honour to ask that this Legislature, as a custom, sing O Canada at the beginning of every week of the Legislative Assembly session on Mondays, as is the custom in Alberta and as is the custom at the federal Legislature in Ottawa.

I think it's only fitting, since all of us here have such great love for this country and represent it as elected officials, that we do our part to remind all Ontarians that we love this country and respect it. I think it's only fitting that we sing it once a week, and that we also follow this government's lead. As you know, they've passed a bill whereby students across this province will be singing, and are singing, O Canada. So I think if students are singing it, there's no reason why we as legislators cannot sing our national anthem.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent to move to second and third reading right now on Mr Colle's bill and we can all break out into song and sing O Canada today.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to move to second and third reading of the bill? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Ms Martel moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 / Projet de loi 162, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1995 sur les relations de travail.

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

The member for a short statement.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): The purpose of the bill is to ban the use of scab labour in Ontario. It restores those sections of the NDP government's Bill 40 that prevent employers from using other workers to replace those legitimately on strike or locked out. It forces employers to sit down and bargain collective agreements because they know no one else can take the jobs of striking workers. It protects management employees from employer reprisal when they refuse the work of bargaining unit employees on strike or lockout.

I'm introducing this bill on behalf of Mine Mill/CAW workers in my community, who have now been on strike for 113 days because Falconbridge is using scabs. It's also for every other Ontario worker who has been undermined by their employer in the same way.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, December 11, and Tuesday, December 12, 2000, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

REFERRAL OF BILL 159

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): I move that pursuant to standing order 72(a), the order for second reading of Bill 159,

An Act respecting Personal Health Information and related matters, be discharged and the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Minister of Health. It is regarding your Big Brother bill.

Minister, you understand that when people go in and see their doctors, they tell them things they wouldn't disclose to the most intimate acquaintances, things they wouldn't even tell their husbands or wives. They talk about things like depression, sexual orientation, abortion and a variety of other very personal subjects. It is absolutely essential that nothing whatsoever be seen to come between a doctor and a patient, and that we do everything we possibly can to preserve that sense of confidentiality.

Madam Minister, your bill has already been heavily criticized by both doctors and the privacy commissioner, and it's just newly born. One of the things the OMA and doctors are telling us is that your bill is going to undermine the relationship between doctors and patients. Will you do the honourable thing right now: put this stillborn bill out of its misery and withdraw it?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has raised the issue of this legislation which, as he knows and as I already indicated on Thursday, was going to move directly to committee, because this is a non-partisan bill. In fact, it will take the resources of this entire House to ensure that the personal health information of people in this province is secure in its collection, its use and its disclosure.

I have a letter here from the Ontario Medical Association, dated today, where they say:

"In the spirit of ongoing mutual co-operation ... the OMA looks forward to continuing to meet with government representatives to resolve issues related to the legislation.... The most fundamental aspect of this confidence is the ability of patients to give their physician full disclosure of their personal health information without concern for its privacy and confidentiality.

"We are particularly confident in the government's assurances, in that it has chosen to move the legislative process directly to the committee stage, thereby continuing the consultations dating back to 1996."

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

Mr McGuinty: I have a better solution: withdraw the bill. Start over from square one.

Madam Minister, you have been studying this issue since 1996. You, yourself, admit you have received over 400 written submissions. I can't understand how you got it so wrong so early.

On Friday, Dr Albert Schumacher of the Ontario Medical Association said, "This will give the government of Ontario full access to your medical records. They can use this information any way they want. This will undermine patient care. Physicians will no longer be able to guarantee to their patients the confidentiality of their records."

Last week, the privacy commissioner said-and she hasn't had an opportunity to review this fully, so we're very much looking forward to whatever else she has to offer-"We question the scope of disclosures of personal health information that will be permitted without consent."

Your bill, in its present form, is going to constitute a real impediment to Ontarians seeking quality health care in Ontario. You have scared the heck out of them with this bill. The privacy commissioner says it's a bad bill. Doctors say it's a bad bill. I expect very shortly that our nurses are going to say this is a bad bill. Why don't you do the right thing in the circumstances, withdraw this bill and start over from square one?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition may say, I again want to quote from Dr Schumacher's letter of December 11-today-where he states:

"We look forward to continuing meaningful discussion of this legislation and be assured of the OMA's ongoing support of government's health privacy legislation."

He indicates, "We appreciate your offer to have your officials meet with us this week to begin discussions around making revisions to the legislation in a way that makes it responsive to the patients of this province and balancing the advantages of electronic data management with personal privacy."

Furthermore, I'd like to quote from Frances Lankin, because you had a chance, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition; your party had a chance. On January 19, 1995, Frances Lankin said, "Many governments had the opportunity to introduce health information privacy legislation. The privacy commissioner has been urging that for a long time. In our government, the commissioner urged me a lot. It never made it in"-

The Speaker: Order. I'm afraid the minister's time is up. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: I would suggest that the minister turn to her left now and seek the opinion of her predecessor. This is what he said in this House back in 1995:

"We should not, must not, cannot and will not change the relationship and the confidentiality of patients' records with respect to any public disclosure of those records. That information must be kept confidential between the physician and the patient."

It's not often that I agree with Jim Wilson, but on that one he was bang on.

You and I have a fundamental difference of opinion. You believe that a person's medical record is the property of the government. I believe that a person's medical record is their own property and the only time governments get access to it is with our consent to it. That's the fundamental difference of opinion we have here now. Ontarians understand this. That's why they are recoiling with horror when they learn the news about this bill.

Madam Minister, do the right thing, do the honourable thing, do the kind of thing that's going to help us protect health care, and withdraw this bill.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We don't disagree with the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, we have an opportunity in this House, after 20 years of inaction and really a lack of courage on the part of governments, to undertake an examination of the protection of personal health information, to work together co-operatively and ensure that confidential patient information will continue to be protected. There is ample opportunity to do so. We don't agree with you, and you and I need to make sure it happens.

The Speaker: New question?

Mr McGuinty: The second question is for the Attorney General. Minister, I want to ask you about your Bill 155. That's a law that's going to enable you to seize property from people you suspect-period, full stop. There will be no need for a conviction; no need for even a charge to be laid. As part of the package of powers you're giving yourself, you're giving yourself the right to collect personal information on people you suspect. "Personal information" is defined for us.

It says in your bill we'll go to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to see how they define "personal information." I went to that act, and it says personal information includes "information relating to the medical, psychiatric and psychological history" of the individual in question.

This is one giant step too far. Can you tell us what gives you the right to collect personal medical information on Ontarians?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): If the member opposite is referring to a

section of the bill that was introduced on Thursday, that

section is unnecessary and was almost immediately withdrawn, being unnecessary.

If one looks at the organized crime bill, Bill 155, the process there, very importantly and intentionally, is a court order process. Some have said the police will have this power or the Attorney General will have this power-totally inaccurate. All of the processes set out very intentionally, after consulting around the world, are through court order through the Superior Court. The Attorney General's lawyers would have to go to court with respect to each of these matters and satisfy a judge that it would be appropriate for the court to order seizing and freezing. Then there would be due process again with respect to whether or not there should be forfeiture.

Mr McGuinty: The minister obviously hasn't read his own bill. I'll read a part of it to him right now. Under the

section entitled "Personal information," subsection 19(1), it says, "The Attorney General may collect personal information"-and we now know that includes medical records-"for any of the following purposes:

"1. To determine whether a proceeding should be commenced under this act."

This has nothing to do with going before a judge. You're saying if you're thinking about starting a proceeding under this act, you can get access to medical records. I want to tell you, Minister, J. Edgar Hoover would be very proud of you. He collected a lot of information. He tapped a lot of phones and he opened up a lot of files on a lot of people over a lot of years. That's exactly the kind of scenario this opens you up to right now through this bill.

This is Ontario. It's the 21st century. We believe people here have certain inalienable rights. One of those is not to have their personal and confidential medical information laid bare to you or any other minister in your government. Will you now do the honourable thing? Will you withdraw your J. Edgar Hoover provision from this bill?

Hon Mr Flaherty: As the Leader of the Opposition may not appreciate, organized crime is a very serious issue in the western world. We have consulted around the world with respect to this initiative. It is the leading legislation of its type in Canada, and I expect other provinces will be exercising their constitutional jurisdiction dealing with property and civil rights, dealing with public security. Indeed, the federal Minister of Justice has indicated to the provinces she welcomes the fact that the provinces are going to act within their own areas of jurisdiction.

With respect to the specific point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, as I've indicated, the process outlined in Bill 155 with respect to organized crime deals with applications to court and not unilateral action by the Attorney General.

Mr McGuinty: I'm going to suggest to the minister one more time that he read his own legislation. It is perfectly clear in

section 19 under the

section entitled "Personal information" that you can go out there and collect confidential medical records if you are interested in beginning a proceeding. It has nothing whatsoever to do with going to a court and seeking consent of a judge or formally applying for approval from a judge to collect confidential medical records. You have this authority. It is unprecedented in the history of this province. How can you, the person over there who is charged with upholding the law, fail to respect it? There should be a law in Ontario, one that we all uphold, that says nobody gets access to our confidential medical records unless we agree to give consent to releasing that information.

I ask you one more time: now that you've been fully briefed on your own law, by me, right here, will you withdraw the J. Edgar Hoover provision found in your bill?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I'd like to compliment the Leader of the Opposition on his humility, but I can't, given the attitude that he expresses here.

As I think I have made clear twice now, there are no provisions for administrative seizure, administrative action, in Bill 155. The entire concept of the bill is to proceed through court orders, and that's intentional after we consulted around the world to make sure that we stayed away from some of the problems that have been experienced in other jurisdictions in this very important area.

I invite the member to study the bill further. He'll see that it is innovative legislation that will put Ontario in a leadership position with respect to fighting organized crime in Ontario.

The Speaker: New question. The leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Last week we learned that your government was routinely sharing personal information about young offenders with organizations outside the government, something that is clearly a breach of the criminal law of Canada. When I asked the Premier about this, he said that you were going to conduct an internal review of how this could have happened.

After he said that, we learned that the person who is going to conduct the internal review is the deputy minister of corrections, and we have since learned that the deputy minister of corrections is the former president of one of these outside organizations that's been getting the leaked information. This is something akin to putting the fox in charge of the henhouse when you're trying to figure out what's happening to the hens. It's a direct conflict of interest.

Do you believe that it is acceptable in this situation, where your government repeatedly has breached the criminal law with respect to private information about young offenders, to put somebody who is connected with the breach in charge of the investigation?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I refer the question to the acting Minister of Correctional Services.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Minister of Correctional Services, Government House Leader): There are two investigations going on at the present time. Of course, there is the investigation that is being undertaken by the Deputy Attorney General to look into the causes and effects and the facts around the breach or the alleged breach of the naming of some young offenders with regard to the Brookside correctional centre.

I asked the deputy minister to look into the various policies and procedures that we have with regard to the protection of the confidentiality and the living within the Young Offenders Act so that we can be certain that this kind or another kind of breach of the Young Offenders Act will not take place in the future.

Mr Hampton: That is exactly the problem, because one of the outside organizations that has been getting this protected information is an organization called Operation Springboard. The deputy minister of corrections, who you have put in charge of the review, is the former president of the outfit called Operation Springboard. There couldn't be a clearer conflict of interest.

This issue has already been raised with your ministry. The president of the probation officers' association contacted the deputy minister of corrections about this issue back on November 17 and said there is clearly a breach of criminal law, that we shouldn't be doing this. Do you know what the president of the probation officers got back from the former minister's office and from the deputy minister's office? They got a note saying, "Don't ever raise this issue again." And now you're going to tell us that this same deputy minister can conduct an impartial and reliable review of breaches of criminal law that have been going on in your government. What else do you expect us to believe?

Hon Mr Sterling: As I said before, the deputy minister is doing an internal review to be certain that all the people who are involved in handling young offenders understand what the obligations under the Young Offenders Act should be and how they should execute their particular performance with regard to the Young Offenders Act.

I can't see anything wrong with our revisiting with our employees-and, I might add, with volunteers; there are many volunteers involved in young offenders' programs across Ontario-the particular procedures we have to ensure that privacy is kept with regard to these youth offenders. Frankly, this is outside the purview of any kind of formal investigation which requires any police action.

Mr Hampton: This is about breaches of criminal law. This is about this government once again taking private information about people that is protected by the criminal law of Canada and sharing it with outside organizations that have no right to get it. Now you're saying that the very deputy minister who presided over this, who told a civil servant to shut up and not mention this issue again, is somehow going to conduct a reliable internal review.

Let me tell you, Minister, I know why the former minister stepped down. The former minister knew that the ministry, the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister were this far off the track, and he stepped down so he can't be questioned about it. The point is, when civil servants within the ministry have been told to shut up about this issue, is it your view that the very people who told them to keep their mouths shut can now be trusted to conduct a proper review and to ensure that people's legal rights aren't broken even again by your government?

Hon Mr Sterling: I'm not sure the allegations the third party leader makes are correct or accurate. I would ask him to have the particular probation official make those to me formally, as to what was said to my deputy minister. If you would provide me with his name etc, I would be glad to look into it and discuss it with my deputy minister.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Earlier today my colleague from Nickel Belt introduced a private member's bill to ban the use of replacement workers-scabs-in Ontario. You ought to know by now that there is no better recipe to prolong a labour dispute, to cause a flare of tempers on the picket line, than the use of scab labour. You ought to know that. We have seen that borne out in the increasing number of days lost to strikes since your government reopened the labour law and welcomed scabs back into the province.

There is no greater disincentive to sitting down at the bargaining table than a company being able to use scabs, and there is no greater guarantee of lasting damage to labour relationships than the use of scabs. Will you support the member for Nickel Belt's bill and ban the use of scabs in Ontario before this leads to a more serious situation?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): The leader of the third party makes some allegations in there that I'm not sure are correct. If your suggestion is that under this administration compared to previous administrations we have more strikes, the answer to that is that we don't. We have a 96% settlement rate in the union sector, in the private sector, with respect to today and in future. If your allegation is that there are more lost days to strikes in total, that's not true either. It's substantially the same under your administration compared to our administration.

It seems to me that you've built this argument out of a house of cards. None of it is accurate, so therefore you've jumped to this conclusion that ultimately, then, the legislation is causing this. Well, there's no cause and effect. We're settling strikes at the same rate and there are no more lost days than there used to be, so it seems to me you're building this argument on some rather faulty foundations. If you want to challenge those, I accept your challenge; just provide me the information. But my ministry is telling me that it's substantially the same under this administration as when you were in power.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): If I might, if you checked with your ministry you would find that in 1993, the first year our anti-scab bill operated, there were only 81 work stoppages in the province of Ontario. That, since the ministry began collecting statistics in 1975, was the lowest number ever. They've grown since then under your government.

But the question was, Minister, will you support my bill to ban scab labour? In the gallery today we have a number of Mine Mill/CAW workers who've now been on strike in my community for over 113 days, and they have dealt with scab labour first hand. From day one of this strike Falconbridge has used scab labour, first at the smelter and now in limited use underground. From day one there's been no incentive for Falconbridge to bargain because they know they can use scabs to take on the work of those who are on the picket line and can still maintain production.

Minister, if Falconbridge was banned from using scab labour they'd be forced to the bargaining table tomorrow and there would be an end to this labour dispute and there would be no chance that there would be violence on the picket lines from people who are becoming so desperate. I ask you again today: you have the power to ban scab labour in the province of Ontario. Will you do that by supporting my private member's bill?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Again I want to attack the basic foundation of your argument. You suggest there were 89 work stoppages in 1993. We know full well that today there are far more collective agreements being negotiated because there are far more people working. There are far more collective agreements being negotiated because there's more prosperity in this province. Sure, the whole number may have been lower when you were in office, but nobody was working so of course it was going to be lower.

When we're in office you've got 800,000 more jobs, you've got more people working, so as a per centage, 96% of the collective agreements in the province are negotiated without a strike or a lockout-no difference at all. Whether you've got banned workers or not-banned workers, collective agreements or no collective agreements, whether you've got lost days or no lost days, the simple fact is the same: it's exactly identical under both administrations.

Interruption.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. We will have a five-minute recess as we clear the galleries.

The House recessed from 1424 to 1429.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Labour as well. I think earlier we saw an indication of the frustration that is in the minds and hearts of the people of my community. After four and a half months, the situation is getting worse. It's getting worse because the company isn't coming to the table to talk. All you have to do is read the newspaper headlines, which tell you that very soon someone in my community is going to be injured or worse. There isn't anyone in this House who wants that to happen.

Minister, this is not a time for cheap theatrics. This is not a time when we try to use the emotions of people to score cheap political points. This is a very serious time in my community's existence. This strike has had a very negative impact on my community.

I don't think there's any other way to try to get talks moving again than for you as the Minister of Labour to directly intervene in this situation. Although it's highly unusual, I believe you saw a demonstration of our frustration, of the frustration of the workers in this community, of the frustration of the community.

Minister, I'm asking, will you commit to personally intervening in this situation in order to allow a ray of hope for our community and the striking workers?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I will get to the question, just to let you know.

The difficulty is that in private sector negotiations, unions and corporations, companies, negotiate separately. We provide mediation only upon request. So if either party requests mediation, we provide that mediation, ready and very willing. We're very open about it. Many of the private sectors out there take us up on the mediation.

As far as my personally getting involved, it's very unusual that the Minister of Labour would be involved in a private sector situation. It's very unusual they would be involved in a public sector situation simply because we at the Ministry of Labour are supposed to be providing non-partisan mediation advice to both sides.

I'm not averse to suggesting, if there could be some solution to this, becoming involved. That's not a suggestion I would be opposed to, but it's certainly something we would have to consider fully before I gave you an undertaking one way or the other.

Mr Bartolucci: Minister, I think you understand the severity of this situation. There's absolutely no question about that. The situation in my community is grave. I understand the position that you're in as the Minister of Labour, but I hope that you would understand the position my community is in, that these striking workers are in and that the entire community feels. But there is no way of articulating this other than to say that we need intervention. We need to sit down together. We need to try to find some common ground where we can get both sides back to the table. The alternative is not acceptable to you, to me, to the community, to anyone.

Minister, again, will you commit, please, as the Minister of Labour, with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and me, to sit down and try to see if there is some common ground? If we don't talk, nothing will happen. If we talk, maybe something will happen. My community needs something to happen.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I think I can speak on behalf of the Minister of Mines and myself. If you believe there's anything we can offer to help facilitate this, we will be more than happy to, if you would like to meet with me and the minister after question period or some time today and sit down and give us a strategy on what you think is the best approach. I am very confident, as a government, nobody wants to see a strike. Nobody wants to see them out on the picket line. We would much prefer to see negotiated settlements take place, and we do 96% of the time.

But if you're asking me, as Minister of Labour, and the Minister of Mines to sit down with you and see if we can work out a strategy that will bring the parties together, we would never be opposed to that and we would be very happy to do such a thing.

DRAINAGE PROGRAMS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. This year you initiated a review of the drainage program run by your ministry, and the results of that review are not yet known.

As you know, the municipalities are now finishing up their pre-budgetary discussions and are anxious to get an answer on any proposed changes in the amount of funding they will receive for their drainage programs or for their drainage superintendents.

Minister, what amount of drainage funding can municipalities expect, and when will you make this announcement?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I want to thank the member for Simcoe North for the important question. Drainage is a very important issue in rural Ontario, both for the province's farmers and for the municipalities that administer the drainage program.

I know that municipalities in the province are anxious to know what the drainage allocation will be, and I'm pleased to report that letters to about 200 municipalities that qualify for the program are being sent out today. Municipalities are being informed that the percentage of the allocation for drainage maintenance and superintendents has not changed from recent years, staying at 61.3% of the expenses that are incurred. As in the past, municipalities can use the funding to cover the drainage maintenance activities or the cost of employing a drainage superintendent, as they see fit.

Mr Dunlop: I know that many municipalities, including those in my riding, will be happy to hear this news. Can you tell us a little bit more about the drainage review that you have completed, what people were consulted, what is the goal of the review and what we can expect as some of the news in the final report of the review?

Hon Mr Hardeman: Again, I want to thank the member for Simcoe North for the question. In the normal course of business it becomes necessary to review existing programs to ensure that they are being delivered in as efficient and effective a manner as possible. Participation in the consultation process was excellent. We met with farmers, landowners, municipalities and their employees and many others. More than 600 people attended 14 public meetings across the province and we received some excellent feedback.

I want to let the member know that municipal drainage programs were not the only ones we were discussing out on the road. We were also consulting on the effectiveness of the tile drainage loan program and the tile licensing and installation program and we received a lot of good advice on these programs as well.

We are carefully reviewing the information we received and hope to release the results of this important consultation as soon as possible. We all know that municipalities need information on drainage grants to move forward with their budgeting process, and that is why we are going ahead and letting them know what their allocations will be this year.

DRUG TREATMENT COURTS

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I have a question for the Attorney General. You will be aware of the Toronto drug treatment court pilot project which has been undertaken by the federal government in co-operation with the province of Ontario. I believe it's fair to say that that's been viewed by most observers to be a significant success. Have you and your officials had the opportunity to review this pilot project, and are you of the view that it should be expanded to other communities?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I am familiar with the court's operation. I've met with the presiding justice and with the crown who normally advocates in that court. As you know, it's operated at the old city hall. It's operated through the provincial court system in Ontario. We have supported the project through the provision, of course, of judicial resources, court resources, the federal drug crown who works in that court.

It seems to have some positive results, I can tell you. That was what was conveyed to me when I met with those responsible for the court. Yes, I do think it's certainly worthy of further work, not only in Toronto but perhaps elsewhere in the province.

Mr Duncan: Minister, you're no doubt aware that the drug treatment court's objective is to deal with accused persons charged with drug trafficking offences by addressing addiction at an early stage in the proceedings, with treatment monitored by the court itself.

A group in my community consisting of the federal drug prosecutor for Essex county, a well-respected provincial court judge and representatives of the criminal bar would like to establish just such a court in Essex county. Members of that group tell me that the federal Department of Justice will consider such a court from a jurisdiction outside Toronto if the province of Ontario agrees to fund treatment and other related expenses associated with that jurisdiction's proposed drug treatment court and also if the province agrees to include some Criminal Code changes from that jurisdiction into the proposed drug treatment court.

This initiative seems to do a lot to help reduce drug-related crime and is an important step forward. Will you commit today to consult with your colleagues the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services to ensure that the funds that are needed to make these courts work in other communities, courts which you just acknowledged yourself appear to be successful-will you undertake today to put the same kind of zeal into establishing these drug treatment courts as you've put into mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients?

Hon Mr Flaherty: Certainly, if there's a group in the honourable member's riding who want to work on a similar court project in Windsor, then I welcome them to make arrangements to visit the project in Toronto and meet with the people here and to seek to emulate it in Windsor.

It's a two-way street, of course, with the federal government. If they're asking us to take over treatment responsibilities and so on, then I would ask them to appoint some judges to the Unified Family Court in Toronto, where I've been waiting for a year now-and not only in Toronto but around the province so that we can expand the Family Court around the province. I'd be happy to discuss with the federal Minister of Justice further work together with respect to the drug courts. I need help with respect to the Family Courts, because those are

section 96 judges appointed by Ottawa.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I have a question for the Solicitor General. Minister, as you're quite aware, in my riding of Kitchener Centre I've worked with the police-the chief, Larry Gravill, and many of the officers-and safety has been one of my top priorities, particularly in the area of road safety. They recognize that it is also one of our government's priorities.

Recently it's been noted in my riding that some of the younger members of our society, particularly those who wear the skateboard pants, are jeopardizing road safety by playing chicken in traffic and disregarding the rules about the appropriate way to cross roadways. Quite often they walk across the road, eyeing down the motorists. They walk across with a swagger. They defy the motorists. They view it as a game. What tools do the police have to stop this behaviour?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): I'd like to thank the member from Kitchener Centre for his question. As the member has indicated, road safety is a priority for the government.

To address this issue, the police have several statutory tools to help them discourage those who are posing a danger to themselves and also to motorists.

Section 144 of the Highway Traffic Act addresses rules of the road, including where and when pedestrians may cross the roadway. Furthermore,

section 214 of the Highway Traffic Act states that a violator of

part X or its regulations may be fined.

The Criminal Code does not specifically address the rules of pedestrian behaviour; however,

section 180 of the Criminal Code, or the common nuisance section, does make it an offence for any person to commit an unlawful act which endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public.

The police have other initiatives as well. In the city of Toronto, in fact, the Toronto police service started-

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

Mr Wettlaufer: My supplementary is also for the Solicitor General. Our government, as you're aware, believes that everyone in Ontario has the right to be safe from crime.

This past Friday, I had members from the Kitchener Downtown Neighbourhood Committee come into my constituency office, and they were pointing out what they had successfully been able to do over the course of the last 12 months in eliminating prostitution from their neighbourhood. They worked with the police, and quite successfully, I would add. They believe, as we do, that we should be able to walk in our neighbourhoods, use public transit, live in our homes and send our children to school free from the fear of all criminals.

Our government has made a commitment to the people of Ontario to improve the safety of our communities, like our Partners Against Crime initiative, which invested $150 million, putting 1,000 net new front-line police officers on to the streets. More police officers on our streets and providing the police with the tools they need to help make our streets safer is just one of the ways that our government has helped to make our streets safer. We were complimented on that by the Kitchener Downtown Neighbourhood Committee.

Minister, could you tell my constituents about the investments our government is making in my riding of Kitchener Centre-

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

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Once again I would like to thank the member from Kitchener Centre for the question.

There are many programs in which we invest in the Waterloo area, but I'd like to speak today about one specifically if I could. For over five years we have been supporting the RIDE program-Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere-in Kitchener. In fact, last May I was happy to have the member from Kitchener Centre with me when we presented a cheque to Larry Gravill, who is the chief of the Waterloo police. That means that since 1995 about $155,000 has been invested in the RIDE program.

Although many of us will start to think about the RIDE program now as we near the holiday season, unfortunately, people still do persist in drinking and driving. Clearly, this is a problem that we think should be addressed. This is not simply a seasonal problem. This should be addressed-

The Speaker: I'm afraid the Solicitor General's time is up.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health and it concerns Bill 159, your Personal Health Information Privacy Act. Three years ago, a staffer in the Ministry of Health's office offered information about a doctor's records to a reporter for the purpose of smearing the doctor-abuse and a breach of the law. Again three years ago one of your colleagues, the minister of corrections, breached the criminal law of Canada when he rose in the Legislature and shared personal information about a young offender-again the abuse of personal information and a breach of the criminal law.

So in view of the propensity of your government to give away and to abuse people's personal information, can you tell me, Minister, why should the people of Ontario trust your government to define who gets access to their personal medical files?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Obviously, the leader of the third party has a short memory. I would again strongly recommend to the leader of the third party that he and his caucus work with all members of this House in a non-partisan way to ensure that whether it's your government or our government or any other government in the future, we totally do everything we can to protect personal health information-the collection, the use and the disclosure.

Mr Hampton: I will try again to get an answer to the question I asked. Two years ago, Minister, your government took the financial information of thousands of Ontario citizens who keep their savings account at the Province of Ontario Savings Office. You took that information and, in breach of the law of Ontario, you gave it to a corporate pollster to forward your agenda. When it comes to forwarding your agenda, breaking the law doesn't matter, and when the privacy officer caught you at that, you tried to cover up the information.

Just last week, we now find that the ministry of corrections is once again sharing personal information of young people in this province that is in breach of the criminal law of Canada, and your answer is to appoint somebody to look at it who is already in a conflict of interest. So I ask you again, Minister: in view of the fact that your government routinely breaks the criminal law of Canada, the privacy law and the privacy of medical records, why should the citizens of Ontario trust your government to define who is going to have access to their medical records?

Why should they trust you when your record is already so bad?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I know we could all go back in history, but the reality is that it is time to move forward. It is time to move forward because at the present time there is no consistent, comprehensive approach to protect personal health information. It is absolutely essential because we were all advised 20 years ago by the Ontario royal commission that such reforms are necessary. As we move into the information age, we need to move forward.

Let me remind you that Frances Lankin herself said January 19, "Many governments had the opportunity to introduce health information privacy legislation." The privacy commissioner has been urging that for a long time. He urged me. He made it under the Liberal government. I would say to the leader of the third party, you have an opportunity to make sure the appropriate protection will be there. Let's work together in a non-partisan way to do-

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

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the rapidly and sharply increasing cost of home heating for the winter of 2000-01.

The minister will know that home heating fuel and, more particularly, natural gas prices are going through the roof. An average Ontario residence this winter, we are told, can now expect, if they heat with natural gas, to pay anywhere between $500 to $800, perhaps up to $1,000 more this year than last year.

It's obvious from the weather today that winter is here. My question to you: does your government intend to provide any financial assistance to homeowners in the province of Ontario, particularly those on limited and fixed incomes, to help those individuals of modest means to cope with these sharply increased costs?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): No, not directly in terms of a specific program, if that's what the honourable member is thinking of, directly for this purpose.

Of course we did refund to taxpayers of the province of Ontario $200 apiece to those who have spent that. Different provinces obviously have different approaches to these problems. The province of Alberta, of course, has one approach; we have another. I'm not aware of any other province that has a direct program.

Mr Conway: That is disappointing, because a senior citizen living in my town of Pembroke, Ontario, on a fixed income is going to find, as I said earlier, that they are going to have-

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Yes, they may have received $200. Many of these people on fixed and low incomes will not have received all or any of that $200 rebate. But let's say they did; let's say they got $200 back from you a couple of weeks ago. We know that if they heat with natural gas this winter, they're going to be paying probably three or four times that amount just to heat their homes.

The federal government has announced a targeted program to assist these people. The Alberta government has announced a program. The Saskatchewan government, over the weekend, announced a program.

Minister, you yourself tabled documents here last week that indicated that your revenues this year are up almost $2 billion. Given that fact and given the fact that we're talking about, and my request is only for, those people on fixed or low incomes, surely a prosperous, generous Ontario can afford, with the kind of revenues we've now got, to provide some kind of special assistance program with these heating costs, particularly for people on fixed and low incomes?

Hon Mr Eves: With respect to taxation matters directly, of course we have reduced personal income taxes dramatically. If you are a homeowner there are numerous tax credits, including the Ontario property tax credit. We have certainly reduced the provincial education portion of both residential and commercial property taxes in Ontario. With respect to seniors and individuals of modest means, there is provision, of course, in property tax legislation for municipalities to provide that directly to seniors and those income earners of modest means.

In addition, lately the Ontario Seniors' Secretariat has been meeting and facilitating meetings with seniors' groups and the gas companies to see what can be done about the escalating gas prices, which fluctuate from time to time.

RESEARCH AWARDS

Mr Brian Coburn (Ottawa-Orléans): My question is for the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. The media and others seem to pay a lot of attention to the notion that Ontario and Canada suffer from a brain drain. In fact, we are told that some of the leading young minds in research and development are seeking opportunities outside of Canada. I'm particularly interested in this because of the growth in research and development in Ontario and, in fact, in the Ottawa area. I'd like to know what your ministry is doing to ensure that Ontario can attract and retain promising young researchers.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I want to thank my colleague from Ottawa-Orléans for the question. We recognize the value of research and development in this province, and we've been doing quite a bit to reverse the brain drain-even though, during the first couple of years that I was Minister of Science, the federal government denied there was a brain drain.

We're investing in Ontario's future now, because we think it's the best way to prop up our economy should there be a downturn in the future in the North American or world economy. We're spending over $30 million to support a new program called the Premier's Research Excellence Awards. The Deputy Premier and I hosted the annual awards dinner just last week. Some 305 of our best and brightest scientists and talented researchers have been awarded $100,000 from the province and $50,000 from their respective universities, who in turn have private sector partnerships-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Answer.

Hon Mr Wilson: -to raise that money. With that money, they're able to attract researchers from the United States and from other countries to come here and work on those world-class research teams.

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

Mr Coburn: I'm particularly encouraged that you're actively involved in keeping top talent in Ontario. You mentioned we support and recognize top talent through the Premier's Research Excellence Awards. Dr Steffany Bennett comes to mind when you mentioned that type of excellence and expertise and the story she has told of how she was taken aside many times when she was a young girl and encouraged to pursue her dreams in science and to excel in those areas. She cites this encouragement as the key to allowing her to fulfill her childhood dreams and to do so in Canada. Minister, maybe you want to expand on some of Dr Bennett's work.

Hon Mr Wilson: Dr Bennett is an excellent example. She has completed her PhD at the University of Ottawa, but prior to that she was at Harvard pursuing her post-doctoral fellowship. Subsequently, she returned to Ottawa to initiate her work as an independent researcher. She told us at the awards dinner last week that she had lots of offers to stay in the United States but that the climate is now right to come back to Canada, particularly Ontario.

In particular, she deals with Alzheimer's disease. There's an excellent quote, I think. You certainly could hear a pin drop among the people who were at the awards dinner when she said, "First, my team and I are going to improve the daily lives of Alzheimer's patients; then we're going to cure the disease."

It's people like Dr Steffany Bennett who make us proud to support the Premier's Research Excellence Awards. We hope they will become as prestigious as a Smith award or a Polanyi award. Certainly we refer to those excellent researchers, all 305 to date, as the Nobel prize winners of the future.

I'm happy, as I know the Deputy Premier and the Premier are very happy, to support this awards program and to encourage other researchers to come to Canada, particularly Ontario, to do their work here.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, last week, as you know, the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission board voted to accept the KPMG consultants' report that recommended the dismantling of the main transportation and telecommunications company of northeastern Ontario. The commission employs close to 1,000 people throughout northern Ontario, while creating thousands more indirect jobs in the region. If you go ahead with these recommendations, you're going to be punching another hole in the economy of northeastern Ontario.

Before you make such a momentous decision on the future of the ONTC, will you give our municipal officials, the business community and the general public an opportunity to comment?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I appreciate the question from the member. The ONTC report was tabled just about a week ago, as a matter of fact. I think it's important, and I'm pleased the directors are addressing the issue of trying to improve customer service across the array of services. I have a lot of confidence in the potential of northeastern Ontario. I want to make sure the transportation services there are going to support that potential for economic growth and job creation.

The overall strategy is to ensure that services are modernized to the 21st century to help promote job creation in northeastern Ontario. I'm always very pleased to enjoy input from the member or others in the northeast on how to continue to do that.

Mr Ramsay: Minister, your recommendations have nothing to do with improved customer service. It's got everything to do with the elimination of all transportation services in northeastern Ontario. The Northeastern Ontario Mayors Action Group has been asking for a meeting with the commission chair, Royal Poulin, for the last five months to bring forward their ideas for customer service improvement. Now, after the fact, he's decided to meet with them on Friday.

We, the residents of northern Ontario, need to have a say regarding the future of our transportation and telecommunications service. Will you ensure that we get the full report and that you will hold public hearings in all the corridor towns and cities along the track, and before a decision is made, will you promise to meet with the municipal officials of northeastern Ontario?

Hon Mr Hudak: In fact, for the past 18 months as minister I've had the chance to enjoy many meetings with the mayors. I've had the opportunity to talk to the member himself on a couple of occasions about the ONTC. He knows very well this issue has been studied and studied and studied again. It's very important for us to try to move forward and see what kind of recommendations are the right ones to address improving the services in the northeastern corridor, whether it's rail, whether it's bus, whether it's the ferry services, whether it's telecommunications.

I think we have to realize that times are changing in northeastern Ontario and ensure that we're going to help promote job creation, like we're doing by doubling the heritage fund, like we're doing by record investments in northern Ontario highways to make sure that our transportation and telecommunications services are going to support that and help create jobs in northeastern Ontario.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the minister responsible for children. I was very pleased last Wednesday when our government launched the early years challenge fund. I understand that this is the latest step in our early years action plan, which of course is based on the Early Years Study, our government's report on early childhood development. Minister, I would like to know today, what is the new fund going to mean to the constituents in Durham, but most importantly, what is it going to mean to the children of Ontario?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): I'm very pleased to have this question from the member for Durham. The early years challenge fund is another process we are making in terms of confirming the priority for this government of children and youth in this province. The challenge fund itself is indeed, I say to the member asking the question, going to make a great deal of difference to the children in his riding, in the whole of Durham, and in fact to children across the entire province.

The wonderful thing about the early years challenge fund is that it is a $30-million commitment by this government, which ends up resulting in $60 million worth of programming for young children.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I can see you're just as excited as I am. It's an excellent opportunity for communities to get involved. I know there will be great interest in this fund in Durham and I'm pleased to be able to inform my constituents of this new initiative. With the creation of the province-wide network of programs and services, some of which you've touched on here, it's obvious that our government is playing a critical role in getting this new venture off the ground by providing the seed funding of $30 million.

But there's an important role for the community here too. I believe the community must rally behind this project to help our children in Ontario. Minister, if I might compliment, you're just the minister to lead this charge. What role is there for my community in this bold new initiative?

Hon Mrs Marland: There is a very important role not only for this member's community but for all the members in this House, for every community across this province. The important role is, first of all, for them to know that this $30 million will be matched dollar for dollar in value with everything the local community does in developing early child development and parenting programs. Whether it's cash or in-kind donation of services, goods, space, materials, the local community will develop and define the program that meets their local needs, and we are going to be there 100% to fund this excellent program, which for the first time is unique in Ontario-

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

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Deputy Premier. The people of Walkerton have been traumatized by the water quality crisis. They've suffered horrible psychological trauma, in addition, as you know, to health and illnesses. It will take people a long time before they can trust the water again. They'll need to see that water quality remains consistently high for many months. They know from experience that their lives could be on the line, and it will take a very long time before they can trust again in your government to protect their water and their health.

On Friday-and I have a copy here-the Concerned Walkerton Citizens sent a formal request to the Premier. This letter asked him to supply bottled water to the community for at least another six months. It would be a small price to pay to ease people's anxiety as they regain their trust in the water. Minister, will you commit to this today for the people of Walkerton?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I think the Minister of the Environment would like to respond to that.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I can tell the member opposite that we've been there for the people of Walkerton from day one. We've been there to assist them with that.

I can tell you that last week, on Tuesday, when the water was turned on in Walkerton I was there. I met with the mayor of Walkerton, Mayor Thomson. The issue of the health study was not raised, but I can tell you that if this matter is raised it's something obviously that will be looked at.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas cancer patients in Ontario requiring radiation treatment face unacceptable delays and are often forced to travel to the United States to receive medical attention;

"Whereas many prescription drugs which would help patients with a variety of medical conditions such as macular degeneration, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, diabetes and heart failure are not covered by OHIP;

"Whereas many residents of St Catharines and other communities in Ontario are unable to find a family doctor as a result of the growing doctor shortage we have experienced during the tenure of the Harris government;

"Whereas many assistive devices that could aid patients in Ontario are not eligible for funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health;

"Whereas community care access centres have inadequate funding to carry out their responsibilities for long-term and home care;

"Whereas the Harris government has now spent over $185 million on blatantly partisan government advertising in the form of glossy brochures and television and radio ads;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Conservative government of Mike Harris to immediately end their abuse of public office and terminate any further expenditure on political advertising and to invest this money in health care in the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature. I am in full agreement. I hand it to Andrew, our page.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition signed by over 700 people, which reads as follows:

"Whereas the strike at Falconbridge-Noranda has now gone on for five months and long strikes hurt not only the striking workers but also the community in which they live; and

"Whereas Falconbridge-Noranda demands that its unionized workers accept a contract written solely by the company which removes long-standing health and safety protections, lowers wage scales and otherwise undermines the human dignity of union members; and

"Whereas the company refuses to negotiate with CAW Mine Mill local 598 workers; and

"Whereas in order to enforce its demands, Falconbridge-Noranda has hired scab labour to replace long-time workers, thereby continuing production; and

"Whereas labour legislation enacted in 1995 by the government of Ontario makes it possible for the company to do this;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, do hereby petition the government of Ontario to intervene in the dispute and use its offices to influence Falconbridge-Noranda to return to the bargaining table and work out a new and fair contract with local 598."

I agree with the petitioners and I have affixed my signature to this.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Pat (Chatham-Kent Essex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it has been determined that recent funding allocations to the developmental services sector in the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent, and Windsor-Essex have been determined to be grossly inadequate to meet critical and urgent needs;

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

"That the Ministry of Community and Social Services immediately review the funding allocations to the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent, and Windsor-Essex, and provide funding in keeping with the requests made by families or their agents."

I affix my signature to this petition.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I've got many petitions from many concerned citizens.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the annual rent increase guideline for multi-unit residential dwellings in Ontario increases every year more than the rate of inflation and more than the cost-of-living increase for most tenants;

"Whereas no new affordable rental housing is being built by the private sector, despite the promise that the implementation of vacancy decontrol in June 1998 would encourage new construction;

"Whereas one in four tenants pays over 50% of their income on rent, over 100,000 people on the waiting list for social housing, and homelessness has increased as a result of unaffordable rents;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to implement an immediate province-wide freeze on rents which will stop all guideline increases, above-guideline increases and increases to maximum rent for all sitting tenants in Ontario for a period of at least two years."

I support this fully, and I affix my signature to it.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): This is again a unique petition, sort of handed out in a newspaper, but it's very important.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there are many Ontarians who have a passion for perfection in the restoration of vintage vehicles; and

"Whereas unlike many other jurisdictions, Ontario vintage automobile enthusiasts are unable to register their vehicles using the original year of manufacture licence plates; and

"Whereas Durham MPP John R. O'Toole and former MPP John Parker have worked together to recognize the desire of vintage car collectors to register their vehicles using vintage plates; and

"Whereas the Honourable David Turnbull as Minister of Transportation has the power to change the existing regulation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to pass Bill 99 or to amend the Highway Traffic Act to be used on vintage automobiles."

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas charities such as the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada, Goodfellows, the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, firefighters and many others participate in fundraisers on streets, sidewalks and parking lots;

"Whereas the Safe Streets Act, 1999 effectively bans these types of activities, putting police forces in the position of ignoring the law or hindering legitimate charities; and

"Whereas charitable organizations are dependent on these fundraisers to raise much-needed money and awareness;

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

"We ask that the government of Ontario amend provincial legislation by passing Bill 64, the Safe Streets Amendment Act, 2000," standing in the name of Mr Crozier, "to allow charitable organizations to conduct fundraising campaigns on roadways, sidewalks and parking lots."

In support, I affix my signature and give the petition to Tim to take to the table.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I've got more petitions on the province-wide freeze on rents.

"Whereas the annual rent increase guideline for multi-unit residential dwellings in Ontario increases every year more than the rate of inflation and more than the cost of living increase for most tenants;

"Whereas no new affordable rental housing is being built by the private sector, despite the promise that the implementation of vacancy decontrol in June 1998 would encourage new construction;

"Whereas one in four tenants pays over 50% of their income on rent, over 100,000 people on the waiting list for social housing, and homelessness has increased as a result of unaffordable rents;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to implement an immediate province-wide freeze on rents which will stop all guideline increases, above-guideline increases and increases to maximum rent for all sitting tenants in Ontario for a period of at least two years."

I support this fully, and I sign my name to this petition.

OPP DISPATCH CENTRE

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to locate the eastern regional OPP dispatch centre in the vacant and relatively new OPP building on Wallbridge-Loyalist Road in Quinte West."

I am pleased to add my signature to this petition.

PHOTO RADAR

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Mike Harris made the decision in 1995 to cancel the Ontario government's photo radar pilot project before it could properly be completed;

"Whereas two Ontario coroners' juries in the last year, including the jury investigating traffic fatalities on Highway 401 between Windsor and London in September 1999, have called for the reintroduction of photo radar on that stretch of `Carnage Alley';

"Whereas studies show that the use of photo radar in many jurisdictions, including British Columbia, Alberta, Australia, many European countries and several American states, does have a marked impact in preventing speeding and improving road and highway safety, from a 16% decrease in fatalities in BC, to a 49% decrease in fatalities in Victoria, Australia;

"Whereas photo radar is supported by the RCMP, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, several police departments, including many local Ontario Provincial Police constables and many road safety groups;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Ministry of Transportation reinstate photo radar on dangerous stretches of provincial and municipal highways and streets as identified by police. The top priority should be `Carnage Alley,' the

section of the 401 between Windsor and London, and all revenues from photo radar should be directed to putting more police on our roads and highways to combat aggressive driving."

I affix my name to this very useful 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 147,

An Act to revise the law related to employment standards, when Bill 147 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 general government; and

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

h) shall be permitted; and

That the standing committee on general government shall be authorized to meet on Wednesday, December 13, 2000, during its regularly scheduled meeting time for one day of clause-by-clause consideration; and

That the deadline for filing amendments with the clerk of the committee shall be 9:00 am on Wednesday, December 13, 2000; 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 pm on the day designated 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 14, 2000. In the event that the committee fails 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 general government, 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): Mr Stockwell moves government notice of motion number 84.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): On a point of order, Speaker: Would you confirm for me that this is the 15th time that the government has moved closure on the last 18 bills that it has introduced in this House, thereby cutting off democratic debate? Would you confirm that for me, Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. The Chair recognizes the Minister of Labour, from Etobicoke.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I'll help you, though: that's not right. So there you are. You're so wrong, it's incredible. I think I would be safe to say that I don't think we've moved closure more than one or two times, in fact, during this sitting.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Time allocation; he's playing a word game.

Mr Gerretsen: Time allocation is closure.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Thank you so much. The sky is green, the grass is blue, then.

Mr Speaker, I'd like to just have a brief overview on this whole modernization of the workplace Employment Standards Act, but I will be sharing my time. If you could just give me a second here in my notes, I'll tell you who I'm sharing it with. Here we are. I'm sharing my time with the member for Kitchener Centre, Mr Wayne Wettlaufer. I'm also doing it with the member for Peterborough, Gary Stewart; also the member for London-Fanshawe, Mr Frank Mazzilli; and where would we be if we didn't share it with the member for Durham, John O'Toole?

I don't want to get too involved. We had a lot of debate on this at second reading. We've had a lot of public hearings on this. I spent a lot of time on public hearings on this bill. I spent time in Thunder Bay, in Sudbury, in Windsor, in London, in Ottawa, in Toronto. I went out to Sarnia and Oshawa. We had a white paper that was issued in the ministry. Two years ago, we actually did another white paper and sent all this stuff out as well.

You know, we've had a lot of public input into this piece of legislation. We've had a lot of discussion about this bill. From stem to stern, there has been discussion.

Now, I can't tell you that it's accepted by all sectors within the provincial government or the province of Ontario, but I can tell you those people who actually take the time to read the bill, phone my office, or the people who I speak to in public hearings about this bill-I've got to tell you, once I've had the opportunity to explain the government's rationale, to explain the government's position on this bill, a lot of the fearmongering and scare tactics that have been used by the ne'er-do-wells have usually been allayed, and those problems don't seem as horrendous or as difficult for the communities out there to accept.

That's what I find most heartening about the bill, because when you get the chance and you get to take the time and explain to the individuals what exactly the bill does, they're not nearly as vociferous or as heated in their comments and their exchanges. They say things like, "I didn't understand it to be that way. Somebody told me that you're forced to work 60 hours a week," and son of a gun, if I explain to them how the process works and how the old process worked, they say, "Well, that's better. This new process is better than the old process."

I don't know why the opposition would be so upset about that. I say, look, opposition parties are there as Her Majesty's loyal opposition and they're there to oppose. I understand that. I appreciate the fact that you have a role to fill, and it's an important role: to oppose government initiatives and offer up alternative points of view. I don't suggest for a minute they shouldn't be doing that.

But after you get down to the nuts and bolts on the bill itself, when you talk to people at public meetings-and this one in Oshawa is a perfect example. Once you get down to explaining what the bill is going to do, and the kinds of checks and balances that I see in the bill, and then explain them in the bill, they're not nearly as cantankerous as they were on their way in, when they got a few half-truths from some people who are involved in certain sectors out there.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I hear the member for-is it Don Mills?

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): Close.

Hon Mr Stockwell: He's cackling away over there. I don't know what he said, but I don't feel any the less for it.

The point I'm trying to make to you is this: we as members of the government have an important role to fill, and that is drafting legislation and ensuring there's a good public debate. When we put this white paper out, and this piece of legislation, we sent this broadly across the province. Their arguments over there are saying, "No, you tried to do this under the cover of darkness." That's not right. We drafted up a white paper and basically outlined what we were going to do. We shipped it out to everybody, including the members of this House.

Then, after we shipped it out, we said to the people of the province, "If you want to make written submissions, please make written submissions. We're open. We want to hear what your thoughts are." But that wasn't it. Then we went out to seven cities and had public hearings in all seven of those cities. I have to tell you, most of those places were dominated by union people, the union executives and, to some lesser degree, by legal clinics that represented certain affected groups. They dominated the public hearing process. They made a lot of suggestions.

For the members opposite, I just want to tick off a few of the suggestions they made that we incorporated. I want to just tell you what some of the union reps who came to the public meetings said that we incorporated into the bill. First of all, they said that the inspectors need the power to subpoena records. Right now they don't have that. One of the legal clinic workers from Gravenhurst, I think it was-I'm not sure; I think it was Gravenhurst-said, "We need to have that inspector have the power to subpoena records from the employer so they can get a full flavour of what the arguments are." You know what?

We put that in the bill. We said, "You're right; they should have that power." We put it in the bill.

They also told us that the inspectors should be able to spot audit. Just because you are an employer shouldn't leave you off the hook from a spot audit, like your taxes can be spot audited. Any inspector on any day can show up at that place, demand the records and say, "OK, are you meeting the guidelines of the Employment Standards Act?" That's what the unions were asking for and we put that in the bill. We said, "You're right. That's a good point." We put that in the bill.

One of the very important parts of this bill with the inspectors, and my friend from Hamilton West often commented about this in previous incarnations-I think I'm being heckled from the gallery, Mr Speaker.

The other problem is that the member for Hamilton West said to me, in other incarnations when he was in opposition or when he was in government-I shouldn't say that.

I'm not certain that's true, in government, but definitely when he was in opposition he did say, "What we need for the inspector is also any reprisal powers." I don't think he'd debate this with me; I think he agrees that the inspectors needed the power to reinstate employees who had been improperly released or let go or fired, the argument being-as we heard at the public hearings-that the employer has more power than the employee and they can simply dismiss them if they don't agree to work overtime, and base it on some fruitless or made-up argument about them not doing a good job.

The member for Hamilton West mentioned that. We heard that at the public hearings. We said, "You know what? You're absolutely right. If an inspector goes in and makes a finding that `This is an improper firing and you're really firing for other reasons and not for the reasons you're trying to lay out, and you're firing because they didn't want to work overtime or they wouldn't take their holidays one day at a time or something,' the inspector now has the power to reinstate that individual."

Another thing that we said in our white paper that we shipped out across this province, that we found agreement on with the union activists and the legal aid clinics who came in and said, "You should be putting that in the legislation"-and we did put it in the legislation. Do you know what else they said during the public hearings? They said, "Do you know what other power the public inspectors need? Do you know what else they need? They need not just the power to reinstate, not just the power to anonymously inspect and not just the power to enforce these legislative initiatives.

They also need the power to anonymously accept a tip from a worker to go in and inspect without telling the employer who was complaining."

A lot of the deputants from the union movement asked for that, and you know what? We agreed. We said, "Yes, you're right, they should have that power." This argument that somehow we didn't listen, that somehow we weren't hearing what the concerns were, is not right. We did hear them. They brought these deputations before us. They made salient, cogent arguments, and you find those arguments in the legislation before this House today.

We also adopted the 10-day crisis leave. I've heard that being berated across the floor. I heard the member for Hamilton East the other day berating the 10-day crisis leave.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): It's not long enough.

Hon Mr Stockwell: He says it's not long enough. That's the point. I've got to tell you, never in the history of this country has any government introduced any crisis leave in any legislation before any Legislature or House of Commons, including when they were in office. This is the first of its kind. Rather than saying, "Oh, good for you. You've taken an initiative that protects employees that we didn't take," their argument is that it's not long enough.

Mr Agostino: It's a good start. It's not long enough.

Hon Mr Stockwell: It's infinitely longer than you had in legislation and infinitely longer than anyone has in legislation in this country. That was another provision we implemented that was asked for by employers and unions and people out there. This is a bit of a misnomer. This is a misnomer to suggest that all this legislation is employer-driven. It's not. There's a balance, but the problem you have-

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I didn't hear that, and I feel just as good for it.

Mr Gerretsen: Selective hearing .

Hon Mr Stockwell: No, I heard that.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: You see, you weren't listening. You're too busy signing your Christmas cards. I just went through four or five examples from the public hearings where we heard from the unions and heard from the people making deputations who said, "You need to make these changes," and I just told you, they're in the bill. They're in the bill today. I gave five or six examples, and I can go on. That was not it. There are other provisions.

The maternity leave is a good example. We took our time. We consulted with the public, we consulted with employers, and we decided this was a reasonable approach to take. Now, there is concern in the employer community out there. I want to caution the members opposite, I think the concern is broader than you think and I think the sympathies are greater than you imagine. This is not as cut and dried, slam-dunked as you think it is. There's a broad cross-section of the community out there who honestly believe 12 months is too long to ask an employer to hold a job open. But we did consult, we did request, we did ask, and we implemented that.

There's another provision in here that's employee-driven. If you want to talk about this idea that there's a 48-hour maximum workweek and then beyond that, you have to get written agreement between the two, that's a reasonable response, I think. You don't think it is. But to make the argument that there's nothing in this legislation at all for the employees in Ontario is absolute balderdash. It's gobbledegook. It's simply not reading the legislation, not reading the deputations that were made to me when we travelled this province, and not hearing the concerns in the past.

Quite honestly, many people, particularly with the provision of reinstatement, anti-reprisal-let me tell you what the old legislation talked about.

This thought emanating from the opposite benches that there's nothing in this for the employees is absolute balderdash. It just means they haven't taken the time to fully understand and read the legislation and comprehend the decisions and the changes we've made to benefit the employee and benefit the employer in the hopes this brings together parties to create a better working environment for all those people involved.

Mr Caplan: Just like in the schools.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I often discover, especially with the member for Don Mills, that there's no point in arguing the bill at hand. He tries to argue something else because he knows nothing about the bill at hand. I want the member to stand in his place and make the argument that doing it any other way or under the previous method was better. It wasn't better. Deputation after deputation came before me and said, "You can't do this. People are frightened to complain, and if they do complain they only complain after they're fired. They don't get reinstated and it takes six months.

They're terrified." We removed the barrier of fear, we removed the barrier of reinstatement and we removed this clout the employer has-the bad employer, I might add-over the vulnerable worker.

That's a protection, a protection the people of this province need, that was introduced and will be adopted by a Conservative government. They're not interested in rhetoric, not interested in talking about half the truth. They're interested in talking about the bill and how the bill protects the people of this province who go to work every day. These are the kinds of things the bill does, and these are the things that the people in this province can look forward to.

I'm running down to a minute or so left in my discussion. I look forward to the discussion. I look forward to clause-by-clause.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I do. I look forward to the amendments offered by the other side. I want to see what it is that you think is wrong with this bill so corrective action, in your opinion, can be taken. It's very interesting. I've not seen any legitimate argument made that says the present situation is good.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I'm listening. You're not saying anything. That's the difficulty. I want to hear what your concerns are. If you're arguing with me that the present legislation is good, you're the only person making that argument, because nobody out there in the public world is saying that. You're the only one who's telling me the present legislation is worthy. So if the present legislation is no good and apparently our legislation is no good, then let's see the amendments that are going to make your legislation work better. I'm really, really interested in seeing those.

Mr Gerretsen: Don't ask us. It's your legislation.

Hon Mr Stockwell: There you go. You see, the member for Kingston and the Islands falls back into the old opposition refrain, "Don't ask me for answers. I'm just in the opposition. I'm not paid to think. I can only move amendments that can change bills. I'm not paid to think of the solutions. All I can tell you is, the old bill stinks and the new bill stinks." Well, what's your solution? I ask the members opposite, what is your solution? Move the amendments at committee. Tell me what you can do to make this bill better. We're always open for discussion. Let's hear it.

But it's the same thing every time: "We're not in government so I'm not paid to think." That's a sorry, sorry state of affairs. Yes, you're the opposition, but that doesn't preclude you from offering legitimate amendments. In the past, I have had legitimate amendments from the opposition which I've accepted and we've adopted because it was a legitimate amendment. I'm looking forward to seeing those legitimate amendments that you've spent more than five seconds thinking about and have also obviously consulted about with communities out there that would find them acceptable.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Agostino: I'm certainly pleased to spend a few minutes speaking to the bill. A number of my colleagues want to speak to this important piece of legislation.

When you listen to the minister, you get the sense that this thing is totally employee-driven. You get the sense that workers were lined up at the minister's door saying, "Please make these changes. Please increase the workweek to 60 hours. Please change the overtime provision in the legislation. Please change the vacation period and the fact you can be dictated to as to how you are going to take your vacations, whether it's one day a month, in blocks or whatever the employer feels is appropriate."

When you look at this, it is a very significant piece of legislation. It impacts about five million workers who are non-unionized, generally work in lower-paying jobs and generally don't have the protection a union shop would provide. These are some of those vulnerable workers. They're often new immigrants, younger people or people who have a difficult time accessing our bureaucracy-government-to complain if there's a problem. That's who this bill impacts, and I find it significant.

The minister talks about the fact that there has been lots of consultation, that we had a white paper over the summer. There hasn't been one minute of public hearings on the specifics of this bill that has been introduced by this government.

This government found it appropriate last year to have public hearings on snowmobile trails. As important as that may be to some people in this province, I suggest that the impact of this piece of legislation on five million Ontarians is going to be much more significant than snowmobile trails. But we had public hearings to talk about snowmobile trails; we took this on the road. As important as that is to some people, we don't think this piece of legislation is important enough to take out to public hearings.

We don't think about those vulnerable workers who, I'm sure, were not consulted over the summer and through the white paper the minister released. This government doesn't think those people should have an opportunity to come to the table and tell us what they think of this legislation, because it impacts them. It doesn't impact any of us in this Legislature. It doesn't impact anyone in this building, but it does impact some very vulnerable workers across Ontario.

If you look at the workweek, everything is voluntary, right? The government says, "They don't have to if they don't want to. They can refuse." The reality is that the balance between the employer and the employee is not there. Anybody who suggests otherwise is dreaming if they believe it's an even, balanced situation and that you can negotiate and if you say no, that's the end of it. It's not that simple. There's going to be the fear of reprisals, fear of getting fired, fear of not getting a promotion. There are a lot of intimidating factors. Basically when you have a 60-hour workweek, the reality is you're going to be asked to do it and most of these workers are going to do it.

What makes it even sadder is that not only have they gone to 60 hours, they have also changed overtime provisions to average out over four weeks. Under current legislation you get paid overtime beyond 44 hours per week. Now the government says it is over a four-week period. Can someone from the other side of the House explain to me how someone who works 52 hours the first week and then 40 hours the other three weeks and averages 43 hours over this four-week period does not get one cent of overtime pay? Under the old legislation you basically had eight hours of overtime pay.

The old legislation basically said that overtime kicks in after 44 hours. So someone explain to me how that is an advantage to an employee. Can someone tell me how you're helping this employee by ripping him off for eight hours of overtime over that four-week period? I'd be curious to know that. I'd also be curious to know how many workers have come forward and said, "Please do this. Please take away some portion of my overtime. I'm asking the government of Ontario to take away overtime." Maybe you can tell me which employees have come forward and made that request? I'm certain the employers are happy about this.

The minister spoke about emergency crisis leave. And yes, I was critical, because it doesn't go far enough. It is a start, but I think 10 days to take care of or look after or be with a member of your family, often someone who may be dying, a relative or a parent, a child, is nowhere near enough. If you're going to take that step, then let's do it.

We have pressed for and we have talked about 12 weeks. The Liberal caucus and Dalton McGuinty's platform in the last election was a 12-week leave. We believe that makes it more reasonable, that makes it fair for people. It's an unpaid leave, we understand that, but someone shouldn't have to choose between a job and caring for or looking after a dying relative or a dying partner or child. People in Ontario should not be forced to make that choice. With this legislation you're forced to do that after 10 days.

When you look at the provisions as they deal with vacations and hours of work, again as I said, this legislation basically allows the employer to dictate when you're going to take these, whether it's in daily increments-and the 24 hours off in seven days now is averaged out over 48 hours or two weeks so that means you can be forced to work 12 consecutive days without a day off. That protection has been taken away.

I only have a few minutes left of the time I have to speak on this. It's unfortunate this government is moving closure again on another debate, another significant piece of legislation. They keep talking about democracy all the time. When you look at their labour bill, they keep talking about workplace democracy. It's the height of undemocratic practices by this government to continue to ram bills through the House without any public hearings, without any consultation.

The sad part of this is that it has been a pattern right from day one. This government came in with an anti-worker agenda. It came in with a pro-business agenda. It has basically catered to big business. They call the shots. They have called the shots with this bill, as they have with every other piece of labour legislation you have brought in.

If you can point out one piece of legislation in labour that you have brought in that workers have been asking for-when these announcements were made it was widely acknowledged by the government, not only with this bill but with the previous couple of bills that we just passed in the House with regard to labour legislation, that these were business requests. We know that. That's what drives this agenda here. That's what drives this piece of legislation.

It is unfortunate that we have to cater to the few wealthy friends of this government. You're hanging out to dry and exposing five million Ontarians to an unfair workplace. You're exposing five million Ontarians to practices in the workplace that are going to be discriminatory against them. You're exposing five million Ontarians to lower wages, fewer benefits and less control of their workweek, and all of this is wrapped around flexibility. What it does is take people away from their families, it takes people away from their kids. You talk about flexibility in the hours that you work.

I'm just not sure how many daycares are open at night, if you want to talk about flexibility so they can pick and choose when they can work, as you put in this legislation. There is nothing in this legislation that is fair and balanced on the whole. The power is clearly with the employer against the employee, and as much as you can couch it in any way you want, the reality is that this is another bill that's been driven by big business.

This government should listen to all sides, but what I don't agree with is the provision that this government decides to cater to their wealthy friends, and this bill is another example. You decided to cater to the folks who pay $25,000 a table to sit in that first little circle at the Premier's dinner every year, and those folks will benefit from this bill. The average working person who could nowhere near ever afford to get near the Premier's dinner in this province or afford access to dinners hosted by cabinet ministers or MPPs on the government side of the House, those folks have been shut out again.

They're shut out of this agenda; they've been shut out of public hearings, and this, then, is another bill that they're moving closure on today. This is supposed to be another part of workplace democracy. This is supposed to be democracy at work in this Legislature. What is this? Another attempt by this government to ram through very quickly another piece of anti-labour, anti-worker, pro-business legislation that we've been getting sick and tired of and that Ontarians, frankly, are getting sick and tired of.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): It's really interesting when I hear the rhetoric from the other side. I'd just like to address a couple of the comments made by the member for Hamilton East. He said that the employer is allowed to

schedule vacation in blocks that the employer feels is appropriate. That's not quite factual. The status is that the employees can agree to take time off. The employer, granted, is allowed certain flexibility. The employer, for instance, can

schedule vacations in a minimum of one-week blocks unless the employer-and I want to emphasize this-and employee agree to

schedule vacation in shorter periods, ie, one day at a time or two days at a time. The alternate scheduling-and this is the key here-can be initiated not by the employer but only by the employee. That is hardly at the discretion of the employer.

He also talked about the fear of reprisals under the proposed legislation, that the employee is going to feel so intimidated by the employer. Pardon me, but the fear of reprisals exists today under the existing legislation, not under the proposed legislation. The proposed legislation is designed to take away this fear of reprisal. It is designed with penalties for the employer who tries to intimidate the employee, for the employer who tries to take action against the employee-

Mr Caplan: On a point of order, Speaker: Would you please check if there's a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Would you check and see if a quorum is present, please.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Kitchener Centre.

Mr Wettlaufer: Thank you, Speaker. It's very noteworthy that when that quorum call was made there were only two Liberals in the House and only one NDP, and presently there's only one Liberal in the House and no NDP. It's very noteworthy.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Speaker: If I'm not mistaken, it is not correct and parliamentary to mention who is here and who is not here.

The Acting Speaker: That is a point of order.

The Chair recognizes the member for Kitchener Centre.

Mr Wettlaufer: It's noteworthy that it was the only Liberal who is in the House who made that statement.

I would like to point out that the comments from the member for Hamilton East were not entirely-I'm not going to say they weren't entirely factual. They were confused. I think that's about the only way I can put it. He described this proposed legislation as anti-labour, anti-worker, pro-business. It's really interesting. Over the course of the last week and a half I've had a number of discussions in my constituency office with some of my business constituents, and do you know what? They've described this legislation as pro-labour. Now, you can't have it both ways. I know the Liberals like to think they can suck and blow at the same time, but that's just not possible.

What I would like to explain here is that this proposed legislation has been described by the Liberals, has been described by the NDP and has been described by the OFL-on the weekend, I saw the protest that they had that was on television. Wayne Samuelson was up there talking about how we were going to force workers to work 60 hours a week. No. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not an introduction of a mandatory 60-hour workweek. There is no possibility that the workers can be forced to work 60 hours a week.

Four-week overtime averaging? Yes, that's permitted. Does that mean that a worker might work 60 hours in one particular week? Well, it might be possible, if-and I say if-the employer and the employee agree in writing. But it must be in writing. If the employer threatens to fire the employee, or he intimidates the employee into working those 60 hours, what happens? He can be fined, and he can be fined heavily. We're not talking $50,000; we're talking $100,000. That's pretty substantial. I would say that's a deterrent in any employer's mind.

I would also like to say that this legislation does something else, and it's not exactly pro-business. When the federal government de