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

November 3, 1999

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 1999-Nov-03 (PDF)

Wed 3 Nov 1999 / Mer 3 nov 1999

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

OF ONTARIO DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 3 November 1999 Mercredi 3 novembre 1999

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CANCER CARE

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

COURTROOM SECURITY

ONTARIO RENTAL HOUSING TRIBUNAL

SMALL BUSINESS

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

REMEMBRANCE DAY

GUELPH OVERPASS

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL HEALTH CENTRE ACT, 1999

TOWNSHIP OF NORTH KAWARTHA ACT, 1999

HARBOURFRONT TRAILER PARK LTD. ACT, 1999

STUDENT HEALTH AND SAFETY PROGRAMS ACT, 1999 LOI DE 1999 SUR LES PROGRAMMES DE SANTÉ ET DE SÉCURITÉ POUR ÉTUDIANTS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

SPORTS FACILITY TAXATION

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

RENT REGULATION

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

FAINT HOPE CLAUSE

MINE CLOSURE

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

ABORTION

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

PARAMEDICS

EDUCATION FUNDING

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

HIGHWAY SAFETY

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

SCHOOL CLOSURES

HEALTH CARE

HIGHWAY SAFETY

OPPOSITION DAY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOGEMENTS À PRIX ABORDABLES

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CANCER CARE

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I want to address my remarks to the Minister of Health. During the recent Breast Cancer Awareness Day, the minister praised the screening advances made in our province and confirmed that indeed early detection saves lives.

A constituent of mine, Mrs Antonietta Quaglietta, has been on the waiting list to be seen by an oncologist for breast cancer treatment since September 21. She has been told of a waiting period of three to four months, and her doctor is increasingly concerned that his patient has to wait too long for critical radiation treatments. My constituent has already had major surgery twice, in June and July, and has now been presented with the option of going to either Thunder Bay or Buffalo. Five weeks of treatment away from her family business is not an encouraging option.

This clearly shows that women in the same condition as my constituent, detected with breast cancer, are left at the mercy of their fears and worries as the days slip by and turn into weeks and months waiting for treatment. I wonder if this is the way we treat women in Ontario. I ask the minister if this is what the government calls saving lives.

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

Mr David Young (Willowdale): I rise today to recognize national Take Our Kids to Work Day.

Take Our Kids to Work Day was established four years ago in the greater Toronto area by an organization known as the Learning Partnership. Grade 9 students from across the country are encouraged to spend a day at work with a parent, a relative, an adult friend or a volunteer host.

The Learning Partnership is a non-profit, volunteer-driven, professionally staffed organization that was established in 1993. The focus of the Learning Partnership is to develop positive and constructive relationships between education, business and the community.

Take Our Kids to Work Day has experienced phenomenal growth in the last four years. In fact, last year over 300,000 students and 75,000 workplaces took

part in the program. This year we anticipate it will be far more successful.

There are three aims of the Take Our Kids to Work Day program: to offer students insight into the working world, to allow students to see their parents at work, and to encourage and emphasize that education goes beyond the classroom.

I can tell you from personal experience that this is a worthwhile program. My daughter Sara is with me here today, which makes this day and the program all the more special to me. I am certain that all participants in the program will be similarly proud and will agree that this is an excellent investment of our time in our children’s future.

COURTROOM SECURITY

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul’s): This government pays lip service to cracking down on crime, and yesterday they revealed their flagship policy on crime, a three-page act cracking down on squeegee kids. Some flagship. Some crackdown.

Yet this government cannot even control crime in the very heart of our justice system, the very place where we try criminals—the courtrooms of this province. Judges and police reported last week that breaking into a courtroom is as easy as looting a convertible with the top down. When the sun goes down, the Attorney General takes responsibility for security of our courtrooms, and that’s exactly when thieves easily break into courtrooms and judges’ offices, stealing highly confidential information about victims of crime.

Last Thursday, after a series of recent break-ins in the courthouses, Judge Derek Hogg, the chief administrative judge, threatened to shut down the courts in Etobicoke until something is done about the mess. If the courts are closed for business, then crime is left unchecked and victims continue to suffer. Judge Hogg has been put in an impossible position: close the courtrooms or leave the courtrooms open to thieves. The Premier’s limo has better security than the courtrooms of Ontario.

Judge Hogg has said to this government: “They have been told a thousand times that something bad could happen.... Not just for us, but for the public as well. I don’t know why they don’t do something about it.” I don’t know why either, and I look forward to a response from the minister.

ONTARIO RENTAL HOUSING TRIBUNAL

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal has one mediator to handle landlord and tenant disputes across all of northern Ontario. In November, this mediator, who is located in Sudbury, will be rendered surplus. Northern tenancy issues will then be handled by mediators in eastern and southern Ontario, probably by video or teleconferencing. This arrangement discriminates against northern landlords and tenants because they don’t have access to complete mediation services as do people in the east and south.

The problem stems right back to the creation of this tribunal by the Harris government. In the original plan for the organization, there was no mediator position in Sudbury for the north. It was only due to transitional money to get the tribunal operating and the fact that 45 rent officers were surplus that the northern Ontario regional office of the tribunal received a mediator in Sudbury for the short term. Now even this has gone. This situation is unacceptable.

The Harris government has an obligation and an opportunity to fix the mess. Right now, KPMG is completing an operational review of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I am convinced that KPMG will identify a need for mediators in northern Ontario, both the northeast and the northwest, so that landlords and tenants can access a specific individual personally for mediation services.

The minister must recognize that this service is needed and respond positively by ensuring that those in the north receive the services they need.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): I am proud to stand in the Legislature today to inform the House of a great success story in my riding of London-Fanshawe.

The London Community Small Business Centre was started in 1986 through the generous sponsorship of the city of London, the London Chamber of Commerce, the University of Western Ontario, Fanshawe College and the province of Ontario.

Attached to the small business centre is a program called the small business incubator. The business incubator is designed to meet the special needs of start-up companies, providing flexible space and a wide variety of services on a shared basis, all at an affordable cost to entrepreneurs. There are 24 companies currently housed in the incubator, mostly involved in manufacturing, and 43 companies have successfully passed through the incubation process and graduated into the community.

Later, the small business centre, in partnership with the city of London and the province of Ontario, established a resource centre. The centre has a reference library available to the public covering a wide range of topics for aspiring entrepreneurs and one-on-one counselling with entrepreneurs in proposed ventures and business plan development.

This government realizes that governments do not create jobs, businesses create jobs. We have worked hard for the last four years to create an economic climate for new entrepreneurs to succeed. I’m proud to have members of my community supporting and encouraging these enterprises.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Yesterday, this building was filled with the incredible sound of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra. They performed on the steps of the Legislature to raise the profile of the dire circumstances facing these world-class musicians. This concert was enjoyed by members of all three parties and members of the public.

Toronto’s cultural industry, which includes music, theatre, film and art, is a major contributor to tourism, taxes and employment. Yet the government of Ontario gives less financial support to cultural institutions as a percentage of their overall budget than any other province in Canada.

Maintaining Toronto’s and Ontario’s reputation as Canada’s cultural centre without a world-class symphony orchestra is simply not possible. This strike by musicians is not about higher wages but is an attempt to wake up the board and our governments to the potential loss of a 76-year-old icon.

All great governments support culture and the arts. It, along with heritage, is vital to the health of any society. Let us not lose this calibre of orchestra because of government complacency and indifference.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I am honoured to inform the House that the Silver Cross Mother who will be laying the wreath in Ottawa this Remembrance Day is a resident of London West, Mrs Loyola Helen Park. She is the mother of Corporal Michael William Simpson, a Canadian peacekeeper who was killed with eight other Canadians by anti-aircraft fire in the Mideast in 1974. This is the first time that a peacekeeper’s mother has been so honoured.

Both Mrs Park and her late husband, William James Simpson, were veterans of World War II, Mr Simpson having been a D-Day veteran who served in France, Belgium and Holland. Both Mrs Park’s mother-in-law, Ormenta May Simpson, and her maternal grandmother, Elizabeth Snell Tutty, were Silver Cross Mothers.

Corporal Simpson was born and grew up in Toronto, joined the Canadian Army in 1965 and was posted to the Mideast in 1974. He was posthumously awarded the UN service medal.

Mrs Park’s family is an outstanding example of people who are prepared to come forward to serve their country and humankind generally in order to create a better world for all. It is their kind of people who have made this country what it is and who are making the world what it should be.

Corporal Simpson’s brother, Jack Simpson, is with us in the gallery today. I ask all members to join with me in recognizing him and his family.

GUELPH OVERPASS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Last week, the people of Ontario learned that they are out millions of dollars thanks to the Ministry of Transportation. The headline in the Guelph Mercury says it all: “Overpass Fiasco Costs $3.2 Million.”

Thanks to Tory cuts to MTO’s planning and design department and the need now to contract out the work, the ministry made an expensive mistake in its initial plan for the overpass at Highways 6 and 7 in Guelph. Then the ministry entered into a bizarre dispute with its own contractor, which caused delays for months, costing Ontario taxpayers $3.2 million, with nothing to show for it.

The Minister of Transportation should be ashamed of this blatant incompetence and scandalous mismanagement. This matter went to court and the judge in the case called the actions of his ministry “unconscionable.” Here we have our roads and highways in a state of crisis, yet the Mike Harris government just wasted millions of dollars in a shockingly inappropriate dispute, which they lost, and then tried to hide the facts from the public, for it was only when they were forced to reveal the facts that the ministry acknowledged the true costs.

Today I think the minister should stand up and apologize to the people of Guelph and Ontario for the mismanagement, the delays, the extra costs and the blatant attempt to hide the real story from the public, because the public was not well served by this fiasco.

Make no mistake about it: If the ministry tries to handle their foul-ups as they did with the Guelph overpass fiasco, it can happen again, causing countless other delays and pointless disputes, all because of penny-wise but pound-foolish decisions. What a shame.

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): I rise today to speak on a similar topic already mentioned by my friend from Willowdale.

I wish to inform the House that this is National Career Week. To commemorate this week, the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board and the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board have organized Take Our Kids to Work Day for grade 9 students.

All across Hamilton-Wentworth today, parents and guardians are taking their kids to the office, to the store, to the factory and even to the Legislature to allow the students to see them at work. Seven thousand students will join their parent or guardian at work today.

This day provides our kids with a view of the working world to help give them an understanding of its demands and opportunities. They are expected to tour the workplace, meet with the employees and other participants and gain a better appreciation of their parent or guardian and the work they do to support their family.

At this time, let me introduce my daughter Brienne, who joins us in the east visitors’ gallery. I’m proud to report to the House that Brienne has already learned a lot during her first day at Queen’s Park. In fact, she wants to actively pursue a change to the standing orders of the Clark household. She would like to have the same powers as you, Mr Speaker, so that every time I begin to lecture her at home, all she has to do is stand up and I have to sit down and shut up.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL HEALTH CENTRE ACT, 1999

Mr Stewart moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr3,

An Act respecting Peterborough Regional Health Centre.

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

Pursuant to standing order 86(a), this bill stands referred to the Commissioners of Estate Bills.

TOWNSHIP OF NORTH KAWARTHA ACT, 1999

Mr Stewart moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr8,

An Act to change the name of The Corporation of the Township of Burleigh-Anstruther-Chandos to The Corporation of the Township of North Kawartha.

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

Pursuant to standing order 84(a), this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

HARBOURFRONT TRAILER PARK LTD. ACT, 1999

Mr Dunlop moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr1,

An Act to revive Harbourfront Trailer Park Ltd.

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

Pursuant to standing order 84(a), this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

STUDENT HEALTH AND SAFETY PROGRAMS ACT, 1999 LOI DE 1999 SUR LES PROGRAMMES DE SANTÉ ET DE SÉCURITÉ POUR ÉTUDIANTS

Mr Gravelle moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 10,

An Act to bring health and safety programs to Ontario students / Projet de loi 10, Loi visant à offrir des programmes de santé et de sécurité aux étudiants de l’Ontario.

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

A short explanation, member for Thunder Bay-Superior North.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): As we all know, there are far too many accidents and fatalities in the workplace in the province. My private member’s bill addresses this by forming a health and safety educational council made up of members from labour, business, injured workers, students and educators whose role will be to recommend programs in the classroom that will inform all Ontario students of workplace safety issues, hopefully leading to fewer tragedies once they do enter the workforce.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W.

Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following changes be made to the ballot list for private members’ public business: Mr Coburn and Mr DeFaria exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr Coburn assumes ballot item 45 and Mr DeFaria assumes ballot item 12; and Mr Conway and Mr Ruprecht exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr Conway assumes ballot item 4 and Mr Ruprecht assumes ballot item 6; and Mr Ramsay and Mr Gravelle exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr Ramsay assumes ballot item 48 and Mr Gravelle assumes ballot item 8; and Ms Di Cocco and Mr Phillips exchange places in order of precedence such that Ms Di Cocco assumes ballot item 68 and Mr Phillips assumes ballot item 9.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Sterling has moved that, notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following changes be made—dispense?

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

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding the membership of certain standing committees.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The government House leader has requested unanimous consent. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that the following amendments be made to the membership of certain committees: Mr Skarica and Mr O’Toole exchange places such that Mr Skarica is on the standing committee on finance and Mr O’Toole is on the standing committee on estimates; Mr Hastings and Mr Coburn exchange places such that Mr Hastings is on the standing committee on public accounts and Mr Coburn is on the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

The Speaker: Mr Sterling has moved that the following amendments be made to the membership of certain committees—dispense?

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

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On Monday of this week a member of the third party stood in this House and asked that the Toronto Symphony Orchestra be allowed to play within the precincts of the Legislative Assembly building. Mr Speaker, I believe that you allowed this to happen, although there was an indication by the Toronto Symphony Orchestra that they wanted to undertake a demonstration and hand out pamphlets. That has normally taken place outside the building, and I guess that right has been granted to any group that wants to undertake that.

I understand that yesterday the orchestra was allowed to come into the building. However, they did undertake a demonstration while in the building, which is contrary to the rules we have agreed to in this place.

Mr Speaker, I would like to know what agreement you had from the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, and I would also like to know what your plans would be for allowing this to happen in the future. I believe that the rules which we had should be adhered to, and I was very sorry to see the Toronto Symphony Orchestra break these rules. But I would like to know what the agreement was between you and the orchestra.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): As the members know, it is my position that we should try to keep this House open and give as many opportunities for people to come in. As you know, we’ve had choirs come in here. There was some concern voiced over this particular.

It was my feeling that I give everybody the benefit of the doubt on the issue. We were very clear, in the forms that are signed by the members coming in here, that there was to be no demonstration. They were clearly aware of that. In light of the circumstances, I made sure it was reaffirmed with them that they were very clear that demonstrations—and that is not only demonstrations but in situations like this when, as you know, choirs come in to play, it would not be acceptable for any of the choirs to hand out information and solicit commercial business and play.

We were very clear with the Toronto Symphony that they were not allowed to do any demonstrating. I did, however, say in the beginning it is my belief that we should try to keep this House as open, as accessible, as possible. They were very clearly made aware of the rules, and I understand they did not follow those rules. In the future I will have to take that into consideration when a request is made.

I thank the member for his point of order. That is the understanding.

I want to be clear to everybody that we cannot allow any demonstrations as they come in here. They are guests coming in, and we cannot and will not allow any demonstrations to take place. I think all members will be good in that regard, as will the vast majority of the groups that come in. That is the situation. I thank the member for raising that.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was there throughout the whole proceeding. We did discuss this with you and you did indicate that there should be no political speeches. I passed that on, and there was no political speech made because of the direction you gave. I’m not sure what the government whip has indicated by way of demonstration. I didn’t see any demonstration that he’s talking about. They played, as we had agreed. There was no distribution of flyers that I was able to see, so I’m not quite sure what, if any, reference was made in that regard.

With respect to any demonstration, I didn’t see any, so I’d like some clarification from the government whip about what demonstration he’s speaking about.

The Speaker: The member will know, as I understand it—and I wasn’t there, so I didn’t see it—that there was during the performance something written on their shirts, before they played. I didn’t see what it actually said.

All I’m saying to all of the members is that I will try to be as accommodating as we can for any group that comes in. As you know, the Toronto Symphony is a world-renowned group. As I said to all members, we will try to work through this but we have to be very clear that any group coming in here cannot participate in a demonstration. That’s the situation, as I understand it. I thank all the members for raising their concerns.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Mr Speaker, I stand today on a point of personal privilege regarding comments made yesterday by the Minister of Education to the member for Parkdale-High Park. I found that the honourable member imputed false motives to members on this side of the House when she said, “I really hope that the Hamilton board doesn’t take their political advice from the member opposite, because it’s not going to be of assistance to them as they meet with ministry officials to sort out what they are doing with the increased special education funding they’ve received from the ministry.”

We were elected to represent our constituents, and when my constituents called to let me know that their disabled children were still at home because of lack of resources, I recommended that they approach their trustees. The trustees, in turn, called my office for advice. My advice was then to go to the ministry. When those attempts failed and the board called me back, I then, and only then, recommended that they approach the Liberal critic for education.

I understand that this is part of my responsibilities and felt that yesterday the minister was imputing false motive, that somehow the members on this side of the House were in some sort of unethical collusion with the Hamilton board. That is not the case. As well, I felt her comments were a direct threat to the board and to the parents of these children.

A strong democracy demands a strong opposition. The board is well within its rights to consult with its area MPPs. In fact, they consulted with all of the area MPPs. I, unlike the minister, respect that. I was doing my job in representing my constituents and the Liberal critic for education was doing his job for raising the issue. The minister’s comments were far beneath her position. I ask that the honourable minister withdraw her accusations and guarantee that the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board’s funding request be given professional and objective attention.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Mr Speaker, the same as my colleague, I submitted notice to you that I intended to raise this same point of personal privilege in regard to the comments made by the Minister of Education.

Under

section 23 of the standing orders, I believe that the minister, Mr Speaker, and I ask you to rule on this, attempted to intimidate the school board with her comments and clearly attempted to intimidate the opposition. Speaker, if you read—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I cannot hear the member’s point of order.

Mr Agostino: The minister says, “I really hope that the Hamilton board doesn’t take their political advice from the member opposite, because it’s not going to be of any assistance to them as they meet with ministry officials.” Clearly, a board could read into that that the minister suggests that if they dare speak to the opposition about an issue as important as special needs and children without schools, that may hurt them in their chance to get further assistance.

This is clearly intimidation of the House, intimidation of the board, totally improper with the rules of this House, and I ask you to rule on that and rule that the minister has erred in that. She should at least withdraw the comment and apologize both to the school board and to the opposition for clearly a bullying, intimidating tactic to get people to shut up on an important issue such as kids who have special needs, who can’t go to school because this government can’t fund them properly.

The Speaker: The member for Parkdale-High Park on the same point of order.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I want to add my objection to the loss of privileges to myself as an individual member of this House and to the House as a whole by the remarks made by the Minister of Education in this House yesterday.

The minister implied directly in her comments that public bodies such as school boards would not do well by dealing with individual members such as myself, acting in the capacity of adding to the well-being of this government. It shows a misreading of this House, of its precedents and of parliamentary democracy to use this House as a platform to make a public pronouncement that the opposition is not a worthy part of the formulation of policy and better government in this province.

It does reflect on a political basis a certain outlook, a certain attitude that we’ve come to associate with the government, but importantly, it cannot be allowed to stand as a pronouncement of this House by a minister of the crown taking away from the privileges that I’m supposed to be able to exercise on behalf of the residents of Parkdale-High Park and, by inference, the province as a whole as the critic for the loyal opposition for education.

Mr Speaker, I would ask for your consideration of this point for the privileges of myself, the other members who have raised a similar point and for the House as a whole.

The Speaker: The member for Hamilton West on the same point of privilege.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): On the same point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I just want to point out the importance of this given the fact that the trustees in Hamilton have bent over backwards trying to follow all the procedures, follow all of the process the government has offered up in terms of responding to questions the ministry has to resolve the issue. The issue, of course, as my colleague from Hamilton Mountain has mentioned, is about kids, kids who have special needs who were not in school.

The trustees were feeling the pressure from our constituents, and rightly so. Any suggestion that our trustees ought not talk to MPPs who aren’t from the government, in effect, takes this whole issue and puts it under a cloud of secrecy, to be judged and juried by government members only, and that is an affront to our democratic way.

So I offer to the Liberal official opposition our support, certainly my support as an NDP member in the Hamilton area, for the point they are raising and overall for the treatment of our board by this government, by the minister. Speaker, I would just ask you to recall the way the minister conducted herself while these points were being raised, laughing and joking once again that none of these things are important. They are important, Speaker. We need you now here to reaffirm our legitimate role in the democratic process.

The Speaker: I thank the members for their notice. However, in the notice of a point of privilege, it also should indicate what the point of privilege is and it did not. In the future, if you could do that. I know all the members referred to standing order 23(i), the standing order regarding if a member imputes false motives to another member.

First of all, it would not have been a point of privilege; it would have been a point of order. It should have been raised at that particular time. It is not a point of order.

I will say this: There has been some escalation. I will be listening very carefully to all members on all sides so that we don’t have circumstances like this again. But it is not a point of order.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On Monday, November 1, the member from Niagara Centre made a response to the Minister of Correctional Services during his statement on Crime Prevention Week. In that response, I believe it was implied that my absence from the House that day—and also imputed motives as well as to why we were not making that statement.

I believe nothing could be further from the truth than that. Certainly, we all support Crime Prevention Week as a vehicle to make sure that the citizens of understand the importance—I was in Bancroft that day. I was at the funeral of police cadet Allan Christiansen, who was tragically killed on his way back from his graduating exercise at the Ontario Police College. This is a great tragedy because this young man had decided to dedicate his life to protecting his community.

I would like to convey our condolences from the members of this House to Allan’s family and friends, and also to the Police Chief McAlpine and the members of the Durham police. I believe it’s appropriate to ask the member to withdraw that imputing of motivation.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): It’s remarkable that these statements couldn’t have been deferred to later in the week.

I am indeed pleased that the Solicitor General was at this young man’s funeral. I wish he could have seen fit to attend the funeral of the murdered police officer as a result of a criminal motor vehicle accident in Niagara some few weeks ago. I withdraw anything that was uncomplimentary or inappropriate.

The Speaker: I thank the member. As all members will also know, they should not be speaking about members’ attendance in this House. I thank the members for raising the point of order.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege today under standing order number 21. I should point out that pursuant to standing order 21(c), I submitted this point of privilege to your office prior to 12:30 today.

At approximately 6:15 last night during the adjournment debate, the member for Hamilton East, Mr Dominic Agostino, attributed a movement on my part to acknowledge agreement or disagreement. I do not feel that the member should have presumed my support for his comments or a condemnation thereof. I would like to put that on the record.

The point comes up because of the peculiar rules of the adjournment debate, or what is sometimes referred to as the late show. Those peculiar rules state in part that no question of privilege or points of order may be raised during the time provided for the late show.

I’d like to first of all say that the Acting Speaker from Algoma-Manitoulin made the correct ruling. I’d also like to say, secondly, that it is not my position that the member for Hamilton East deliberately exploited the peculiar rule.

My points are: My body language was interpreted perhaps falsely, my nod described as “shaking,” with no comment as to whether it was assent or dissent. The member for Hamilton East presumes I agreed with the member, without indicating which member. Could it be that he indeed meant the member for Hamilton East, himself? Could it be the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant? Or could it have been the member from York North?

The member for Hamilton East goes on, “Maybe that’s the first member” etc and concludes, “Mr Johnson does.” I’d like to point out that there are two Mr Barretts referred to in his story and I don’t think my body language called for any such conclusion.

The remedy that I’m asking is that the member for Hamilton East consent to deleting the last three sentences in that paragraph on page 316 of the official records of this House.

The Speaker: I thank the member for the point of order and for the point of privilege and for giving me notice. He correctly alluded to it being during the adjournment debate. Nevertheless, I think the member for Perth-Middlesex will know that the member may not correct the record of another member. If any member does want to correct the record, he or she may do that, but is not a point of personal privilege.

VISITOR

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On a lighter note, I would like to indicate to members of the House that the former member for St Catharines-Brock, Tom Froese, is in the government members’ gallery.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): That’s not a point of order, and in fact that was my next task. We’ll refrain from doing it again, but I thank the member for that.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I would like to invite all members to join me in proclaiming this week, November 1 to 7, as Ontario’s 15th annual Waste Reduction Week. I would say parenthetically, I think it was when the member for St Catharines was minister that this week was first proclaimed.

This event, coordinated by the Recycling Council of Ontario, raises awareness on the 3Rs—reduce, reuse and recycle—and encourages all people to reduce waste.

This year’s theme is: “Make your R2K resolution. Step lightly into 2000.” Our government is leading the challenge with a long-term plan to sustain our waste diversion programs, including the blue box. We will achieve our target, to cut in half the amount of waste sent for disposal.

This morning I joined the RCO at an industry breakfast to share some exciting news: An agreement has been reached by industry, municipalities and the provincial government to help fund municipal blue box and other waste diversion initiatives. I was pleased to sign a memorandum of understanding with our industry and municipal partners, including the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and the Recycling Council of Ontario, to launch Ontario’s new Waste Diversion Organization. The organization will begin its work immediately.

The Waste Diversion Organization is based on a one-year voluntary memorandum of understanding. WDO members have committed $14.5 million to develop, implement and fund municipal waste diversion programs. We asked for and received voluntary participation from a wide range of partners. Industry’s resources and expertise, along with those of the municipalities, will help improve existing programs and find more effective ways to reduce and divert waste.

Specifically, the Waste Diversion Organization will establish programs to fund municipal blue box costs related to wine and liquor glass containers to the extent of $8 million; increase diversion of organic wastes with an investment of as much as $2 million; establish additional depots for municipal special household wastes—which are sometimes referred to as household hazardous wastes—involving as much as $1 million; improve the efficiency and effectiveness of blue box programs with funding of as much as $2 million; and support municipalities in informing the public about waste management activities with $1 million in free advertising in daily newspapers.

The Waste Diversion Organization’s industry partners are drawn from the following sectors: food and consumer products, daily newspapers, paint and coatings and chemical specialties. Other members represent the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, the Recycling Council of Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment. Our ministry’s role will be primarily advisory.

I believe that we are laying a solid foundation for waste reduction in Ontario for years to come. I am personally committed to working with the Waste Diversion Organization to ensure that it continues to work well beyond the one-year initiative.

This, for me, is my second high point in Waste Reduction Week. On Monday, with my colleague the Minister of Education, I had the pleasure of joining RCO members and about 250 young people at the Ontario Science Centre to launch the week itself and a new Ontario eco-schools waste reduction recognition program. I hope all honourable members will join me in supporting Waste Reduction Week and participate in the events in their constituencies. Let us all offer our congratulations and appreciation to the RCO and to the hundreds of volunteers working to make Waste Reduction Week a success.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Responses.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to join, first of all, in congratulating the Recycling Council of Ontario for the very important role it has played over the years in encouraging waste diversion. We were in circumstances many years ago in many jurisdictions where virtually everything was dumped in what we call a garbage dump or thrown into an incinerator and burned, to a point where we, in the 1980s and 1990s, have looked at and implemented a number of policies to divert a lot of that waste.

The minister will know that I will restrain myself in my applause, knowing that the government members are in fact there to applaud ministers and policies of the government. I will simply say to him—because I want to help him out, as he knows; that’s my goal in this House, to help him out—that what is happening here is that the government is attempting to find money to replace the money the government has diverted from municipalities for the support of blue box recycling.

You’ll remember that municipalities used to get a large quantity of money from the provincial government to assist in meeting those obligations. Now what has happened, because this is waste diversion week, is that the government has diverted something, but it’s not waste; it has diverted money.

As you would know, the government collects 10 cents per container at the LCBO and the Beer Store but has snatched this from the municipal recycling program. That’s about $35 million a year that the government has taken away from that program. I want to help the minister get that money back in his ministry, because I know the parsimonious Chair of Management Board, his perhaps rival someday, is a person who may be looking at getting that money for general government revenues. So I want to help the minister get that money back that his government has diverted away from those assistance programs for municipalities.

The minister is here today with his broom. His broom is to sweep the mess created by his Conservative predecessors in terms of waste diversion. I want to tell him that I wish him well in cleaning up that particular mess. I wish him well in securing the necessary funding for the program. I also wish him well in going beyond the voluntary aspect of this. You see, I applaud the people who voluntarily take

part in these programs. I think they deserve a lot of credit. But there are a number of people out there who don’t volunteer and should be brought into the grand coalition assisting with this. I know it will be the minister’s goal to have those people make their contribution, to have stewardship over the waste they create.

I also want to say that I think there is always a need for continuing education and opportunity in the field of hazardous waste; for municipal hazardous waste to be collected by municipalities, to allow people to be able to find places other than the drain or the garbage in which to place those hazardous wastes.

One of the problems the municipalities have, of course, is that the government of Mike Harris has downloaded so many additional responsibilities, which present a huge financial obligation in those municipalities, that they have a hard time continuing to operate their waste diversion efforts within those municipalities. For instance, in regional Niagara I know that the regional government now is responsible for $18 million more, responsibility passed down from the provincial government. It was not a revenue-neutral exercise.

I had hoped that perhaps when the minister rose in the House today he might be giving us an assurance that he was going to now accept and implement the recommendations from the environment groups and conservation groups concerned about the Oak Ridges moraine. If he would like further time, I would be happy to ask for the unanimous consent of the House at the conclusion of my remarks to give the minister a further opportunity to say that he’s going to implement the fine recommendations of the conservation groups in the Oak Ridges moraine. I think he would probably want to do that; if he does, I’ll be happy to accommodate him in that regard.

I also wish the minister well in getting back some of the staff and investment in the Ministry of the Environment that he has lost. The member for Hamilton East, the former Liberal critic, tells me that about 40% of the staff has been eliminated in the ministry—some of that is going to be in the waste division—and about 45% of the budget has disappeared from your ministry.

We on this side want to help out the minister. We’re here to try to assist him in securing those items for his ministry, and I certainly hope he is successful in that effort. I can assure you that he will have our support.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): We’re indeed in a charitable mood today, because I too want to help the Minister of the Environment. First of all I want to help him make clear what his announcement is really all about. Since his government has essentially abandoned recycling, he has to go out and cobble together one-year funding, otherwise the recycling programs we have in this province will begin to fall apart. What he is really announcing here today is that he managed to go out and cobble together funding to cover one year.

It will not be completely adequate to the task, it will not provide all the funding that is necessary, but he has, as a stop-gap measure to cover up the chaos and destruction his government has created, managed to cobble together one year’s funding. I hope he’s able to do much more than that, otherwise the sins of his government, in terms of neglecting this aspect of the environment, will be all too clear to everyone across the province.

I also want to help the minister with some other things. I was hoping that the minister was going to get on his feet today and apologize for writing a letter to the Uxbridge municipal council, essentially trying to tell Uxbridge and Durham region that they should abandon their concern about the Oak Ridges moraine, that they should side with the minister’s developer friends and that they should ignore the environmental assessment that was done in 1996 and in 1997. I was hoping he was going to get to his feet and apologize for that completely inappropriate letter, for that completely inappropriate conduct.

I was also hoping that he was going to get to his feet today and announce that he had seen the light, that the government had seen the light, and was going to impose a development freeze on the Oak Ridges moraine. We were disappointed, but I want the minister to know that we’re going to continue to help him along in that direction, because he knows, and I suspect many other members of the government know, that’s what they should do.

Finally, I was hoping the minister would get on his feet today and announce that the government is going to hold a commission of inquiry into the relationship between the private interests of developers on the Oak Ridges moraine and his government’s handling of land-use planning and environmental protection, or lack of environmental protection, on the Oak Ridges moraine. That too needs to be done, and we’re going to do all we can in the Legislature to help the minister get to that position.

Again, we want to say that we’ll do all we can to help the minister, but he’s got an awful long way to go from the announcement he made here today.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I too want to congratulate the Recycling Council of Ontario and all those who have been involved for many years in Waste Reduction Week and the ongoing tons and mountains of volunteers out there, as big as our mountains of garbage, trying to improve our 3-R system in Ontario.

I do want to say to the minister that he has in the past cut funding to municipalities for recycling, and the minister knows that. This is a stop-gap measure; it isn’t going to resolve the problem.

The other thing I was hoping the minister would speak about today was that he would give us his opinion on the proposal that’s been brought to Toronto city council today to move towards a wet-dry system, which I believe has been very successful in Guelph. In fact it saves millions of dollars, creates more jobs and is easier for people to do. I would like to know his position on that.

The other issue is incineration. As you know, when we were in government we banned incineration as an option for garbage disposal. Your government brought it back. We now have controversy in some communities where a referendum showed that the majority of people do not want incineration as an option, yet the government and municipalities continue to allow that option at a time when we need to be improving the three Rs, not bringing in more pollution. Even with the latest, state-of-the-art technology, burning garbage creates air pollution. As everybody knows, we have a bad air pollution problem in Ontario.

I hope as well that the minister will take a look at that policy and reverse it once again.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): My question is to the Minister of the Environment and Municipal Affairs. Earlier this month, your colleague Mr Gilchrist resigned from cabinet as a result of a police investigation into allegations that government policy was for sale for the price of $25,000. You, sir, wrote a letter clearly attempting to influence a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board on behalf of developers with clear financial ties to your party. In fact, Jay-M Holdings contributed over $15,000 to your party.

Minister, you’re aware that a number of other developers have a great interest in the Oak Ridges moraine and they too have a great potential to gain from your involvement. To what extent was your interference prompted by financial contributions to your party and to what extent are you prepared to stand up today and put a freeze on the Oak Ridges moraine to ensure that proper development takes place over time?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the honourable member for the question and would say to him, as I said in this House last week as well, that the letter he makes reference to was not a letter to the OMB; it was not a letter to any member of the OMB. It was a letter to the regional chair. It did not take a position on the issue before the OMB. It took a position defending a piece of legislation over which I have carriage. It was advising him of the letter of the law and in no way was it an attempt to in any way influence a quasi-judicial tribunal.

It was not even written about an issue that the tribunal had carriage of. So I disagree with his characterization.

In terms of who gave what to whom, I know that all political parties receive donations from individuals. I’m aware that our party has been the most successful at that because we have the best record for the people of Ontario, but it had no impact on my decision to write a letter or not to write a letter.

Mr Duncan: According to a report prepared by noted York University professor Robert MacDermid, 28 companies with links to the Cortellucci and Montemarano Development Group made 209 contributions to your party, totalling $335,000, between 1995 and 1997. That same group of companies made no contributions to this political party.

One of those companies, is Fernbrook Homes Ltd. Let me read to you an ad about Fernbrook Homes, and I quote this from their ad which is readily available on the Internet: “Now previewing, a private, gated community overlooking ... the Oak Ridges moraine.”

Can you confirm that this is the same Fernbrook Homes Ltd which is tied to the Cortellucci and Montemarano group of companies who made 209 contributions to your party totalling $335,000?

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member knows more about the contribution records of individuals or companies in Ontario than I do. Certainly it had no impact on my decision, because this is the first I’ve ever heard of it.

Mr Duncan: Let’s talk about the principles then, Minister, because principles seem to be lacking over there. A developer has an interest in the moraine. It gives more than $335,000 to the Tories, and guess what happens. The Minister of the Environment goes to bat for greater development in the moraine, as evidenced by his letter with respect to the Jay-M development. That’s the bottom line, isn’t it, Minister? They helped you, now we help them. This is not only an issue of your letter; this is a matter of public policy being for sale. Moreover, it’s a matter of the public interest being for sale.

Minister, isn’t that what’s going on here? Aren’t you prepared to sell out the public interest for your friends in the development industry?

Hon Mr Clement: I guess the answer to the question is no. That is a complete mischaracterization of the intention of this government, which is to protect the public interest. That is what we were elected to do; that is our carriage day in and day out. I can only say to the honourable member that the accusations he is enunciating are news to me. Our goal is to ensure that public policy is maintained on the moraine or anywhere in Ontario.

I would say that our record is that we have prosperity in Ontario. We have had jobs and opportunity in Ontario for the first time, over the last five years, compared to 10 years previous to that. It’s because we have this prosperity that we have development going on, but we always have to balance that with environmental interests and the interests of the public. But the fact is, that kind of balancing never occurred before we got elected simply because the economy stopped before we got elected and we were the ones who had to restart it. Those are the challenges we face as a government and we are up to that challenge.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr Duncan: My second question is also to the Minister of the Environment. Let’s agree that certain people are prospering under this government, there’s no question.

Let’s review the facts, Minister: Mr Gilchrist has resigned from cabinet. The police are investigating allegations from developers who say they were told that if they wanted the government’s help, they had to cough up at least $25,000. You wrote a letter clearly attempting to influence a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board on behalf of developers with clear financial ties to your party. Your party has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Cortellucci and Montemarano group of companies, who it appears have an interest in the moraine.

The message is clear: Your friends are the people who give you money and you reward your friends. Isn’t that the way you’re doing business, and wouldn’t you agree that’s not a proper way of doing business in Ontario?

Hon Mr Clement: In answer to his questions, no and yes.

Again I want to correct the honourable member’s message and say that my letter was not to the OMB, it was not on an issue that’s before the OMB. I wish to correct the record on that point.

If the honourable member has evidence that there is something untoward that has happened, evidence that he wishes to share, I encourage him to share it inside this House and I encourage him to make the allegations outside the House, since he is making allegations against individuals whose character he is impugning. If he feels so strongly about it, perhaps, if he is not protected by parliamentary immunity, he can make those allegations outside this House.

Mr Duncan: Professor MacDermid found that companies linked to this same group donated over $335,000 between 1995 and 1997. We have uncovered an additional $43,000 worth of contributions in 1998. While no one knows yet how many tens of thousands of dollars were given during the election, we do know this: The Premier is going back for more. Tonight, this very evening, Premier Harris is attending another fundraiser. This one is for $400 a plate. Guess who’s hosting it. None other than Cortellucci and Montemarano.

Minister, in addition to the hosts of tonight’s gala fundraiser, how many other developers with an interest in the moraine will be attending with the Premier this evening?

Hon Mr Clement: To the best of my knowledge, the event this evening is sponsored by the PC Ontario fund, so I wish to correct the record there.

There is no evidence he has presented before me that draws a connection between his allegation and anything that is untoward in terms of public policy. I would say to the honourable member that clearly he deems it to be a necessity that his leader surprise a leadership challenge later on this month, and we all know what necessity is the mother of.

Mr Duncan: A pattern is emerging here, and even though the minister is not able to and the members opposite are, we can certainly connect the dots. This government rewards its friends, and its friends are the people who give the Conservative Party thousands—

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock. Order. Start the clock.

Mr Duncan: I would call it a web, a web of arrogance, a web of corruption.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Take your seat. Stop the clock. Start the clock.

Mr Duncan: This government rewards its friends, and its friends are the people who give to the Conservative Party. It appears as though this group of companies are advertising and looking into further development in the moraine. We know they’ve given $378,000 to the Tory party. In addition to influence, we also find appointments. There’s more: In the summer of 1998, Mario Cortellucci was appointed by this government to the York Region Police Services Board. Isn’t that the way it works, Minister?

If you pay, you’ll have a say, whether it’s on the development of environmentally sensitive land or the provision of police services. Will you agree today to freeze development on the Oak Ridges moraine?

Hon Mr Clement: Again, there is a whole bunch of allegations there. If he wants to follow it up with some hard evidence, that will be helpful to this House, because all there is before us is a lot of sound and fury. It signifies nothing. We have allegation heaped upon allegation. If he feels so strongly about it, say it outside the House.

With respect to the moraine, I would only say that this government is looking at a whole host of possibilities. To have a freeze without a policy in place I don’t think is the right way to go. I think our obligation is to come up with a coherent policy. We inherited no policy from the previous two governments on this issue. We are developing a policy, and we will come up with a policy that not only ensures prosperity in Ontario but ensures the balance of that prosperity with ecological soundness as well. That is the challenge we face. They never had to face that because there was no economic growth at the end of their term.

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, we thought it impossible for your government to create more chaos than you created at the Family Responsibility Office, but in fact that’s exactly what you’re doing at the disability support office.

My specific question is about the sad state of affairs at the disability adjudication unit. As you know, someone who is disabled, after they’ve jumped through all the other hoops you’ve created, has to apply to the disability adjudication unit. They get sent an application package. They fill that out, they send it in. If they’re lucky, they get a letter from you telling them that in four to six weeks at the earliest, perhaps six to eight weeks, it will be adjudicated. But when we follow up on applications, we’re being told by the disability adjudication unit that they’re just now working on July’s applications—a four- or five-month delay.

Minister, why are you telling disabled people something that isn’t true?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Meeting the needs of people with disabilities is an important priority for this government. That’s why we’ve set up the Ontario disability support plan. With more than 200,000 people on ODSP across the province, we’re working our very best to try to improve services, provide a whole range of employment supports to try to get rid of the label of “permanently unemployable” and to provide the supports for people in their communities.

When I was first elected as a member of provincial Parliament in this place, people had to wait up to two years for adjudication. Those of us on this side of the House thought that was unacceptable and we set out to change that. Our goal is to have cases adjudicated within six to eight weeks, and I’m pleased to say that we’ve got that caseload down to an average of eight weeks. We’ve made some solid progress. Can we do a better job? You bet. We continue to work on customer service.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, you ought to be very concerned, because if you check the Hansards, you’re going to find that your answer sounded an awful lot like the former Attorney General when he was dealing with FSP. We know what a boondoggle that was.

My office is swamped with cases. Jim Knox can only stand for about 10 minutes at a time—

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think I heard the leader of the opposition say that the Minister of Community and Social Services had said something that wasn’t true. I would ask the honourable member to please withdraw that comment. I don’t think it is an accurate reflection of the facts.

The Speaker: I was listening carefully. I did not hear that, but if the member of the third party wants to withdraw it, he may. I did not hear that, but I will be listening. I caution all members, I’m going to be listening very carefully to what is said. I will sometimes occasionally miss things, but I’m going to listen very carefully.

Member for Hamilton West.

Mr Christopherson: As I was saying, Jim Knox can only stand for about 10 minutes at a time. He can’t get physiotherapy because he just hasn’t got the money to pay for it. He sent his application in May. In August, he had heard nothing from the ODSP. They told our staff it would take a few weeks. They told us the same thing in September. In October, they told us it would take another two to three weeks.

William MacDonald was diagnosed with a degenerative disc disease. He applied in May 1998; never heard a thing. We contacted the ODSP in July and were told they couldn’t find his application. He couriered them another application. Is a year and a half a reasonable waiting time?

Another constituent has schizophrenia. He sent in his application in February 1998. He couldn’t get answers to his questions. He was told it was never received.

Minister, how long are disabled persons in this province expected to wait for entitlements that you have already acknowledged they’re entitled to?

Hon Mr Baird: We’re setting about to try to improve the system for disabled people in the province. The Ontario disability support plan has been an important part of that process. I think the transformation from the old way with which we did things to the new way has been a good one.

Can we do a better job than up to two years to adjudicate decisions to people with disabilities? You bet. That’s why our adjudication process will be ensuring that, on average, we can adjudicate claims within six to eight weeks. That is significantly better than two years.

We continue to work with people with disabilities to try to improve the system so that we can do the best job we can for people with disabilities in Ontario.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): Minister, you don’t know what you’re talking about. We are dealing with cases from July. Stop the platitudes and listen to the problem.

Your government promised these people they would have an answer within eight weeks. We’ve had cases where applications sat unopened at the adjudication unit because staff and the local ODSP and Ontario Works office were never told to refer pending files to Toronto. We have cases where people go without medication for months because of adjudication unit delays. The fact is that disabled people are slipping through the cracks because of your mismanagement of the transition to ODSP. There aren’t enough staff and the system just isn’t in place to do what it’s supposed to do. As a result, files are misplaced and applications are lost.

Minister, you made a promise to disabled people, which we supported in good faith. You’ve let those people down. You’ve broken that promise. When will you show some leadership and clean up this mess?

Hon Mr Baird: I don’t believe it will come as any surprise to the member opposite that I don’t fully share her characterization of this process.

We are trying to ensure that we can adjudicate claims for those who are applying for the Ontario disability support plan in an expeditious fashion. It used to take more than two years and I thought that was unacceptable. I believe we can do better. That’s why we’ve put a system in place to try to better make these adjudications to ensure that people can get a timely response.

While that adjudication process goes on, people with disabilities can receive emergency assistance through Ontario Works in that interim period.

I know we can do better than the up to two years when the members opposite were in government. We continue to work to try to improve the system. As of the end of October we got the average case time down from up to two years to eight weeks. That’s a tremendous improvement and we’re going to continue to work hard to make it even better.

SPORTS FACILITY TAXATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Finance. It’s pretty clear that your government doesn’t have time for the disabled. I now want to ask why you have so much time for NHL millionaires. Your decision to provide tax breaks for NHL millionaires enjoys no support across this province. The Liberal leader and the Liberal caucus may support it, but it is not an acceptable issue anywhere else in Ontario.

You don’t have money for schools; you’re closing schools. You don’t have money to support disabled people and ensure that they can get by in life. You don’t have money for daycare spaces. You don’t have money for a northern health travel grant system. You don’t have money for supportive housing. Yet you’ve got money for NHL millionaires.

Minister, I want to put a proposition to you. If you think that your decision is supported, then let’s go out there and hold public hearings across the province and let us see how much support there is—

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Minister of Finance.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, the leader of the third party obviously doesn’t understand what the announcement last Thursday was about. The announcement was all about allowing individual municipalities to choose—

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): It’s one taxpayer, Ernie.

Hon Mr Eves: Just a minute—to choose whether or not they want to charge a full commercial rate on sporting facilities owned by private enterprise that are competing with municipally owned sporting facilities that pay no taxes. That’s the first point that the leader doesn’t seem to understand. I don’t know what he has against municipal decision-making and autonomy, but it’s entirely up to them to decide what’s best for their community and their facilities in their community.

Second, he’s assuming that whatever option the municipality chooses, if they choose one, they’re not going to get the money back from other commercial and industrial taxpayers in those classes. They can. That’s their decision.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: The minister’s problem is that we understand all too well. This means a tax break for millionaire NHL operators at the municipal level, and then you’re going to match it through the education portion at the provincial level. What this means is that your government doesn’t have money to support disabled people, you don’t have money for affordable housing, you don’t have money to protect the environment but, by God, when a couple of NHL millionaires come to the table, you have no problem at all, the money’s right there.

Minister, I put to you this simple request: If you think the people of Ontario believe this is a good idea, then let’s hold public hearings across the province. You can go and say to people why you believe it’s a good idea. The Liberals tell people why they think it’s a good idea. We’re going to be there asking why there isn’t money for health care, why there isn’t money for education, why there isn’t money for the disabled but there’s money for NHL millionaires.

Will you hold those public hearings and give the people of Ontario a say?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the third party might want to ask himself why he and his party supported tax-free status for the interim casino in Windsor, Ontario: So 90% of their clientele could come from Detroit and gamble tax-free. That was your idea of a subsidy. That was your idea about supporting people in different endeavours; they’re not even Ontarians to start with.

It is entirely up to a local municipality whether they want to put their sport franchises and facilities on a level playing field with those that they’re competing with elsewhere within Ontario, within Canada or within North America. If the leader of the third party has something against municipal autonomy, doesn’t think that Toronto is big enough or intelligent enough or informed enough to make that decision, or Ottawa isn’t, all they have to do is stand up and say so.

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. We are now on the eve of another scandal linked to your government. This involves the Ontario Realty Corp, involves a high-profile Tory fundraiser, Mr Jeffery Lyons, and the CEO of the Ontario Realty Corp, Mr Tony Miele.

We know that Mr Miele is a long-time supporter of yours and appointed by you to the Ontario Realty Corp. It involves the sale of the property the government owns at Jarvis and Wellesley.

John Berman, the president of Cityscape Development, has said in court documents and made clear allegations of bid-rigging against the Ontario Realty Corp, Mr Miele and Mr Lyons. He says, and I quote, that the overturning of this deal “reflects political corruption on the absolute highest level.” Mr Lyons, your friend, your fundraiser, alleges in court documents as well that he agrees that there is corruption, only that it involves employees of the Ontario Realty Corp, not Mr Miele. These are very serious allegations, not made by the opposition, not made by the media, but made by two key proponents.

In view of all this, will you today call for a police investigation of the Ontario Realty Corp and its dealings with Keg property at Jarvis and Wellesley?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I think the member of the opposition is aware that this matter is before the courts and he’s also aware that I can’t talk about the specifics. I can tell you one thing, though: There was no agreement of purchase and sale. Some of the allegations you are making are totally false.

In terms of Jeff Lyons, I think all members of this House and most of the public realize that people of all political stripes get involved in the political process. Some volunteer to do door-knocking, others put up signs, others donate money. So the question isn’t whether Jeff Lyons contributed to my riding or to the PC Party. The question is, did he get preferential treatment because of his involvement in the process with my office? The answer to that is no. That has been pointed out in newspaper articles and that has been pointed out in the research you’ve done as well. I’m sure you’re aware of that.

Mr Agostino: I’m sure the minister is aware that what is before the courts is a civil suit, not a criminal matter, and he has no authority to deal with a criminal matter.

These allegations are not made by the opposition. Let me go back. They’re made in court documents filed both by the proponents on one side, that the deal and acceptance of the deal was overturned. They were made in reply to a Mr Lyons in those same court proceedings. It is not the opposition raising this out of the blue. These are folks involved in the deal and it involves the Ontario Realty Corp at a time when that corporation is involved in some of the most massive land sales in the history of this province.

The integrity of your government and the integrity of the Ontario Realty Corp are at stake here. The integrity of the tendering and bidding process for all Ontarians and for all corporations is at stake here.

We know who the players are: Mr Lyons, well connected to your party; Mr Miele, appointed by you to the Realty Corp. Very clearly, we don’t know if anything wrong has been done here, but we know that both parties, in these court documents, have alleged bid-rigging and corruption at the Ontario Realty Corp.

It falls under your jurisdiction. You have responsibility to find out if it went on. If you’re not willing to do that, as you seem to be satisfied with its operation, will you today again lift this cloud that’s over the Ontario Realty Corp and call for an OPP investigation into this deal, and into the allegations made by Mr Lyons and by a proponent on the other side of bid-rigging and corruption at the Ontario Realty Corp?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I just want to point out that I know the member from Hamilton East and he has far too much intelligence and too much integrity to—I just want to correct the record on his accusation that I hired Tony Miele. He knows full well, and everyone in this House that’s involved knows—the government knows it—that the Ontario Realty Corp has a board of directors. They had a search and they hired Tony Miele to be the president of that corporation. The reason they hired him was because of his qualifications.

He worked for the federal government on the Canada Lands Corp in charge of all eastern Ontario sales programs. He is immensely qualified for that job and the member knows that his accusation is false and it’s got a separate board.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Southwest): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, recently there has been much talk in the media about maximum rent and its effect on tenants in this province. It seems to me that maximum rent was unfair when it was introduced by the Liberals in 1986 and it is unfair today. Under this provision, landlords are allowed to bank rent increases over several years and then hit tenants with huge rent increases all at once.

Let me quote David Cooke of the NDP from Hansard way back in 1990: “As of 31 March 1990, 323,000 tenant families in Ontario have been hit by rent increases above the government’s guidelines.” I am going to read through the following examples: 44 Dunfield Avenue, 44%; 100 Gamble Avenue in East York, 23%; 150 Cosburn in East York, 27%; 4918 Bathurst Street in North York, 29%; 147 and 175 Barrington Avenue in East York, 29%.

Minister, maximum rent obviously didn’t work then and it doesn’t work now. What are you going to do to abolish this terrible, ill-conceived pandering to landlords?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the honourable member for his question. There has been much confusion about this topic and I can understand why, because different people have different points of view and it depends on who you listen to.

For instance, the member for Parkdale-High Park, while calling on our government to fix their mess, says maximum rent is “a legal stickup,” and that “there is no possible excuse to attack these families.”

Although he is right that there is no excuse, I find it ironic that it is Liberal legislation that is causing the hardship in the first place. In the typical flip-flop fashion of the Liberals, I would like to remind the honourable member that Phil Dewan, who is Dalton McGuinty’s chief of staff, has stated: “Eliminating maximum rent harms both landlords and tenants.”

He goes on to say: “What are the consequences of preserving legal maximum rent? Simply to maintain the framework which has functioned for the last 10 years. There is no evidence of widespread problems resulting from the concept of maximum legal rents during the past decade, nor will there be in the next.”

It is clear the Liberals don’t care about tenants and that is why it has been up to this government to fix their mess.

Mr Newman: My supplementary question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing again. This afternoon before the House there will be a motion debated by one of the opposition members calling on this government to, among other things, “stop its attack on affordable housing and tenants.”

Minister, I can’t wait until later this afternoon so I’m going to ask you now: When are you going to stop this so-called attack on affordable housing and tenants?

Hon Mr Clement: I thank the honourable member again, and I’ll answer it in this way. Again, there has been a lot of misconceptions out there. There are a lot of people talking about this issue. Mr Dewan, as I mentioned, is also quoted as saying: “The fact is, rental housing is a non-issue. Tenants across Ontario have more choice than ever and rents are static, that is, competitive.”

He goes on to say: “The Conservative government has not removed rent controls. Though some Liberal Party literature took this line of attack, they should have recognized their own vulnerability. The 1986 Liberal legislation placed no limit on increases for sitting tenants as a result of capital improvements.”

He goes on to say: “The question to be put to successful Liberal candidate Mike Bryant, who spread this line during the campaign, is simple: ‘Were you ignorant of the facts or did you purposely distort them?’” Those are Mr Dewan’s words.

On our side of the House I can say with pride that this government knows where it stands when it comes to caring for tenants and we have acted. As of June 17, 1998, we have frozen maximum rent and started phasing it out. We have provided the private sector with incentives to build and we are finally seeing a return on the cranes that were extinct for this province for so long.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment and Municipal Affairs and Housing. It’s regarding the Oak Ridges moraine and his letter on behalf of developers who wanted to see development take place on the Oak Ridges moraine.

I’d like to ask the minister if, in addition to the letter that he was copied—he was cc’d a letter and as a result of that he said he took action and wrote his own letter to the chair of the region of Durham. In addition to that, did the minister ever engage in a telephone conversation with any developer interested in the Oak Ridges moraine or any representative of any developer in the Oak Ridges moraine?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Not to the best of my recollection, unless you want to refresh my memory.

Mr Bradley: I’ll try to help the member’s memory along. He is quoted in NOW Magazine, which is a Reform-minded Toronto weekly, as you would know, as saying the following: “Enter Environment Minister Clement who tells NOW he was called by Tanenbaum’s people: ‘The pitch to me was there were plans for the Toronto Symphony Orchestra to have a pastoral site,’ says Clement. ‘I’m not an expert, but as a way to foster the arts it seems like a great plan.’”

There’s an indication from this

article that indeed you were called by Tanenbaum’s people, by his representatives, to discuss this matter.

Now that I’ve refreshed your memory, or perhaps you want to deny this, one of the two—I’ll accept either—could you tell us what transpired in that conversation, and did it influence you in any way to send a letter on behalf of the developer in the Oak Ridges moraine?

Hon Mr Clement: I guess it was the

preamble that led me astray, and I apologize if I got him round a wrong angle.

In fact I did have a conversation with the lawyer about the pipe, not about the development. In the course of that conversation, the TSO proposal did come up, and I indicated to him that I could not take a position on the development, but I was in a position to protect my legislation. I guess you saw an iteration of that or an

interpretation of that in NOW Magazine.

FAINT HOPE CLAUSE

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): My question is to the Attorney General. I understand that

section 745 of the Criminal Code, which falls under federal Liberal government jurisdiction, allows convicted murderers who have been sentenced up to 25 years in prison with no parole to apply for parole after serving only 15 years. This

section I’ve come to know as the faint hope clause. I’m sure the House can appreciate my shock and amazement that a convicted murderer, who has been sentenced to life in prison with no parole, is allowed to apply for release after only 15 years. I would ask the Attorney General, does this clause really exist?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for London-Fanshawe for the question. The member is correct, the faint hope clause does exist, and convicted murderers can be released after serving only 15 years of a 25-year sentence, a sentence which states “25 years without parole.”

The federal government just doesn’t understand the concerns the people of Ontario have about crime. For the last four years, the federal government has ignored Ontario’s pleas to hold criminals, particularly young offenders, accountable for their crimes. Ottawa hasn’t gone far enough to support victims of crime. Ontario has repeatedly asked the federal government to restore truth in sentencing and repeal

section 745 of the Criminal Code, known as the faint hope clause. Under

section 745 of the federal Criminal Code, convicted murderers sentenced to imprisonment without parole for 25 years can seek parole eligibility after only 15 years.

Mr Mazzilli: I would ask the Attorney General to describe to the Legislature what action our provincial government has taken on behalf of victims of crime and the people of Ontario to address the effects that

section 745 and the faint hope clause have on victims and families in Ontario.

Hon Mr Flaherty: We responded to Ottawa’s failure to reform the Criminal Code by announcing on October 4, 1999, that Ontario is the first province to establish a special fund to help family members of murder victims attend federal hearings reviewing killers’ applications for early parole. This year’s budget for the

section 745 fund is $100,000. Each family of a murder victim is eligible to receive up to $5,000 towards expenses incurred in travelling to these

section 745 hearings. The fund is the latest in the Ontario government’s actions to improve victim services and to ensure victims receive the support and the respect they need and deserve.

MINE CLOSURE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. As you know, the Royal Oak mine in Timmins was closed in September due to the bankruptcy of its parent company. This has resulted in the loss of about 300 well-paying jobs in Timmins. You will also know that there are two offers before the receiver, Price Waterhouse, to purchase this mine: one from a company called Kinross, which has an offer to purchase the mine in a closed-down state—no jobs—and who are currently trying to secure concessions from your government on environmental closure liabilities.

The second offer is from a group of local investors who want to reopen the mine and rehire many of the laid-off workers.

My question to you is: Whoever buys this mine is going to need to come through your government to get operating permits and also to address the requirements of environmental closure plans. Will you commit to only deal with those people who are prepared to purchase that mine, reopen it and put the workers back to work?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I thank the member for his question. We have had the opportunity to discuss this issue personally on a couple of occasions, and I anticipate we will in the future. To inform members of the House, unfortunately Royal Oak’s properties did go into receivership some time ago, and a process has been in place since then and the properties have reverted to the receiver, PricewaterhouseCoopers. My understanding is that the receiver is currently in negotiation with one company, Kinross.

I understand from media clippings and from the member that another offer has been put on the table, but the question does rest with the receiver. They’re currently in negotiations.

I’ve had the opportunity to speak as well with Mayor Power of Timmins, who has a different perspective on what he sees as the best route for long-term investment in the Timmins area, to make sure that far into the future there will be jobs in the mining sector in Timmins. I appreciate the member’s advice but, as I said, it lies with the receiver at this time.

Mr Bisson: Minister, there ain’t no jobs because the mine is closed down, and Kinross has no intention of reopening it. That is the public record. There is a group of investors who are prepared to buy the mine at a fair price, compared to Kinross, and to put it back into production. The ball is in your court. They have to come to your ministry, to your government, to get all the operating plans and to deal with the environmental closure liabilities. Under the law, that is the responsibility you have to deal with.

So my question to you is: It’s not up to Price Waterhouse, it’s up to you. I want you to work with our community to make sure that whoever ends up buying this mine is committed to reopening it and rehiring the workers who were laid off. Will you commit to that?

Hon Mr Hudak: Again in response, I understand the receiver is in negotiations with at least one offer that is on the table. It remains to be seen how those negotiations progress. I appreciate the member’s advice. Mayor Power of Timmins spoke with me recently as well, on his thoughts with respect to the Kinross offer, which he sees has good potential for long-term investment. I appreciate that the member has some opposite advice. As I said, the receiver is making the decisions.

The ministry’s commitment to the Timmins area is very strong. There has been some very good news lately in terms of exploration of the Timmins area. I was very pleased to be in Timmins as recently as a week and a half or two weeks ago to announce a $5-million investment from the northern Ontario heritage fund through the Mike Harris government for the gold mine tour and for the Shania Twain exhibit. That means more jobs in the Timmins area and more tourism in the Timmins area, and that demonstrates this government’s commitment to northern Ontario and the Timmins area.

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. It has to do with the Ontario Realty Corp, which as he knows is a huge operation. He has responsibility for this on behalf of the public. The board of directors is “subject to direction from the Chair of Management Board.” I understand from media reports that you said, “There was never an allegation of corruption made to me or any of my staff.”

My question to you: Is it correct that over the last year and a half there was never an allegation of corruption at the Ontario Realty Corp made either to you or to any of your staff?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The question they’re referring to is a specific item around the process involving what is referred to as the Keg mansion. There was a series of articles in the spring and there were some articles written by Mr Barber of the Globe and Mail. He asked some specific questions on that. The matter on the specifics is before the courts. In reference to my office’s participation, I was asked, “Did Mr Lyons ever talk to you?” No, he never talked to me directly. He phoned my office in November. We sent back a message: “Here’s the process. Here’s the public information around this process.”

There was a letter that came in in December 1998 and that was referred to the ORC board of directors to have a look at. In the letter there was never any accusation of illegality. There was a question about the process involved that was taking place.

I just want to remind the Legislature there was no deal signed here, there was no agreement of purchase and sale. The process was looked at by the—

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the Minister take his seat. Supplementary.

Mr Phillips: I asked you if allegations of corruption had come to you or any of your staff over the last year and a half. I’m gathering from your comments today that there were allegations that either you or your staff were made aware of. I understand that in late December or early January the president resigned. I understand that three board members resigned, whom you replaced. But again, my question is this: Over the last year and a half have there been any allegations to you or your staff of corruption at the Ontario Realty Corp?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The quote that he started out with was a very specific issue that’s before the courts. Then he wants to know generically if we heard any allegations. There have been no specific ones that I am aware of, but I can check the records, if you wish. If there had been, I’m sure we would have followed the proper procedures inside the government to report it to the ORC board and they would take appropriate action or to go through the assistant Deputy Attorney General, criminal law division, depending on the nature of the accusation.

I don’t have that at my fingertips today. I can tell you that when he started out on the quote in the newspaper, that was in regard to a specific question on a specific file.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is for my honourable friend the Minister of Health. My constituents of Waterloo-Wellington are very interested in the issue of mental health reform. Members may recall that in 1998 the minister’s parliamentary assistant, Dan Newman, the honourable member for Scarborough Southwest, did a consultation and a review of the mental health services across the province. In fact, the member consulted directly with my constituents on these matters.

Will the minister provide the members of this House an update of this government’s mental health reform initiatives?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Our government has certainly indicated our very strong commitment to mental health reform and to the improvement of services for those who suffer from mental illness. Since 1995 we have invested over $83 million into the mental health system. We are reforming the system in a way that we focus on prevention and we ensure we have the community services in place. Of course, we also need to ensure that we have the hospital-based services in place as well.

In June 1998, last year, we announced $60 million. That money is going to community organizations, funding for community assertive treatment teams and also an expansion of the community investment fund. As well, aside from the $83 million, we have also announced $45 million for supportive housing for the mentally ill and we are presently developing a very comprehensive housing policy.

Mr Arnott: In our Blueprint document, our election platform, the government made a commitment to ensure that people who pose a danger to themselves or others can be taken off the streets to get the care they need. Could the minister provide the members of this House with an update on our commitment to help people under these circumstances?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Yes, our government did make a commitment in our Blueprint to ensure that people who do pose a danger to themselves or others have the opportunity to access and receive the care they need. Presently the staff of the Ministry of Health are in the process of taking a look at how new legislation will be drafted. They are taking a look at what other jurisdictions throughout North America and elsewhere have done. We would hope that we could introduce those legislative changes in the very near future.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I’ve just returned from Durham regional council. They unanimously rejected the development proposal for 2,500 units, the proposal that you butted in on in support of the developer with your letter. They were outraged by your letter. They were flabbergasted. Almost every councillor proudly stood up and said they were going to decide themselves, despite your interference. To their credit, they said no to that application.

In your response to the member for St Catharines, you said that you spoke to a lawyer for the developers, the Tanenbaums. What is the lawyer’s name, for the record, please?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr Diamond.

Mr Colle: Interestingly, today Mr Diamond was asked that specific question: “Did you, Mr Diamond, speak to anyone from the ministry or to the minister about the application?” Mr Diamond’s specific response, on the record at Durham council today, was, “I spoke to no one at the ministry.” Either Mr Diamond is wrong or you spoke to someone else. Who did you speak to? Did you speak to other developers in the Tanenbaum group besides Mr Diamond? Because Mr Diamond says he never spoke to you.

Hon Mr Clement: Let me say two things. First of all, on the issue that the honourable member raised first, it is the municipality’s responsibility to take a position on the proposed amendments to the official plan. They’ve made that recommendation. I acknowledged that resolution. They fulfilled their responsibility. That’s their decision to make; it’s always been their decision to make.

I can tell you that I have not spoken to Mr Diamond about the development. Mr Diamond is correct: I’ve spoken to him about the pipe. If I can make it clear to the honourable members, once again, for the second week in a row, my job is to defend the class environmental assessment. That’s my job as a minister. I was fulfilling my responsibilities as a minister. I did not take a position on the development. I did not take it then; I did not take it last week; I don’t take it now.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the minister responsible for women’s issues. I’m aware that November is Wife Assault Prevention Month. Megan Walker, the director of Battered Women’s Advocacy Centre, was quoted as saying, “In the 12 years I’ve been involved in women’s abuse issues and violence against women, I really haven’t seen the public awareness commitment I’ve seen over the last two years from all sorts of different providers.”

Minister, can you tell me about some of the initiatives this government is undertaking to increase awareness of domestic violence in this province?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): I’d like to thank the member for her keen interest in women’s issues, especially in this important Wife Assault Prevention Month. Let me say first off that I’m very concerned about wife assault in Ontario. We all need to do better to ensure that we reduce and finally obliterate this horrible violence in the province. From the perspective of the province and the Mike Harris government, we have committed to ensure that we spend $100 million on programs and services to prevent and address violence in the province.

This week and last week I’ve been involved in two very important initiatives which I believe will lead to a reduction in wife assault. The first was when Minister Tsubouchi and I went to work with Crime Stoppers to ensure that we came out with a video that talked about wife assault being against the law and let people know that they had an ability to call Crime Stoppers to help women who were in need of their help and might not be able to help themselves.

The other launch was a video this week called A Love That Kills. It was announced at Glenforest school. It talks about students who need to be cautious about entering into relationships where violence exists.

Mrs Munro: Minister, you mentioned the video A Love That Kills. Can you please tell us more about the significance of this video.

Hon Mrs Johns: I believe that this is a very important video for all young women in the province to see. First of all, it’s very powerful. It’s a tearjerking film that talks about the prevention and the early identification of abusive relationships that might happen with young people.

What it does is talk about a mother’s story of a daughter who was killed by her ex-boyfriend. The mother is Dawna Speers, and she has a story and a commitment to this video which couldn’t be surpassed by anybody. This video was funded by the Ontario Women’s Directorate. It was funded with the help of CAVEAT, the National Film Board, the BC Ministry of Women’s Equality and also by the Ministry of the Solicitor General. I’d once again like to thank Minister Tsubouchi for being involved in this.

If anyone here has young women who need this kind of help, I suggest they see the video.

ABORTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Solicitor General. This is a frightening time of year for physicians and other health professionals providing abortion services in Ontario. Since 1994, the period between late October and Remembrance Day has seen five attacks by snipers. As we’re all aware, a New York doctor was killed last year and before that three Canadians and one American were seriously wounded.

Last year my colleague Marilyn Churley, on behalf of our party, put forward a resolution in this House stating that federal, provincial and territorial governments must co-operate to provide adequate resources to police forces across Canada specifically to ensure the safety and security of all abortion providers. It passed unanimously, it was quite an accomplishment, but I have to ask, where’s the action?

The fact is that the number of obstetricians and gynecologists willing to perform abortions has decreased significantly over the last years. I have to ask you if you’re going to stand by and let extremists take away women’s right to safe, legal abortions. What are you doing right now to protect those doctors who provide abortion services?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): Everyone who lives in this province deserves to be safe—and that’s everyone. That’s why it’s very important for us to support our efforts to support the police in this province, so they can provide an adequate level of protection for everyone without exception in this province.

That’s why we’ve embarked upon a quality assurance exercise across the province, to make sure that all police forces, regardless of where you live, whether you live in Brockville or Markham or Niagara Falls, are able to provide protection in all ways for all crimes across this province.

We believe as well in our initiative to try to help the police in this effort. We’ve embarked upon a community policing program. The end result will be 1,000 new police officers on the front line, on the streets, who will assist to make sure that citizens of this province are protected. This is an investment of about $150 million which we think is well spent.

Ms Lankin: We all want all Ontarians to be safe, but we’re talking about people who are specifically targeted at this time of year, and we’re talking about a resolution passed in this House which you and your party supported and on which there’s been no action.

Others are taking action. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada has sent out notices to physicians telling them to wear body armour. Let me quote from the circular: “Consider wearing body armour, including at home. Do not put on or take off your body armour in public, including parking lots and public bathrooms.” The OMA has sent out security advisories to physicians. It’s deeply disturbing that they have to take these precautions. In the midst of all this panic and fear, I have to say that there is one voice that is notably absent, and that is your government’s.

Why are you not taking a leading role in speaking out on this issue against violence and intimidation, and why have you not taken this opportunity to assure physicians and nurses who provide abortions that it’s your government’s priority to ensure that they’re safe, that women can and must continue to have safe and legal access to abortion? Why have you not given the public assurances of actions your government is taking to ensure the safety of abortion providers?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The Ontario Provincial Police are aware of the situation currently. They are on alert for it, as are many of the municipal police forces. There is an international police task force that is investigating these incidences. I can only reiterate my message from before, that it is very important for us to protect all citizens in this province. It matters not where or how or who, all people deserve to be safe in this province. Certainly that’s the direction we have with the OPP, and the OPP certainly acknowledge that, and they participate in making sure that people are safe in their communities and participate as well in this international police force.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): My question is to the Attorney General. I will try to make the question as difficult as the member for London-Fanshawe, but I don’t think I can get there.

Weeks ago your ministry referred the now infamous Gilchrist affair to the Ontario Provincial Police for investigation. We on this side of the House have every confidence that an excellent job will be done by the investigators from the OPP.

I want to speak up about the tenor of what is happening in the House. Today we found that we’ve got ministers who have been named in concerns, we’ve got ministers who seem to be inconsistent at best and downright confused about who they spoke to and who they didn’t speak to. We’ve got the Minister of the Environment mentioned, we’ve got the ex-Municipal Affairs minister mentioned, we’ve got the Management Board chair mentioned, and we also have heard that there are people linked to the Premier’s office who have been mentioned. We’ve also got new allegations arising that the Ontario Realty Corp is in a mess. We’ve got a web that continues to grow.

Knowing that the records from the OPP investigation are not made public unless criminal charges are laid, and knowing that a very dark cloud hangs over this House, and knowing that there are unanswered questions to this growing problem, I’m asking if the Attorney General will now call a public inquiry and be helpful to this House, and bring dignity and respect back to this House by calling that public inquiry.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The member may know that when allegations are made against any member of this House, against any member of the Ontario Public Service, against any minister, against the Premier, should there be such an allegation there is a protocol that is followed. It is strictly followed. It is followed in all instances.

The report goes to the assistant Deputy Attorney General, criminal law division, and the job of the assistant Deputy Attorney General in charge of the criminal law division is to review the allegation being made and to make a determination, which he does, about whether to refer it to a police force or not. This is absolutely strict, and I can assure you that it is followed.

Mr Levac: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Again, for the umpteenth time, this protocol has been mentioned, and I would like to know whether or not the Chair feels that because it’s been mentioned it needs to be tabled.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I have mentioned, I guess this is the third occasion, that it is referred to but it has not been quoted at length and I have ruled that it is not a point of order. This is the third time I’ve ruled on that.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In answer to a question today, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing stated, and I believe I quoted him correctly—I don’t have Instant Hansard—that his government provided the private sector with incentives to build. I would request unanimous consent for the minister to give a statement as to what incentives he has actually given to the private sector to build housing in this province.

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

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to indicate my dissatisfaction with an answer given by the Minister of Finance today, and I’m asking for a late show. I’m processing that and will have it in your hands forthwith.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member very much. All the members will know that if they do table that, they need to table that with the table. Also, the members should know that the table will inform the appropriate minister.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition here which is signed by a number of residents of Davenport, but also a number of residents from the west end of Toronto, and it reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario government’s decision to slash education funding will lead to the closure of many neighbourhood schools, including one of the most community-oriented schools like F.H. Miller Junior School; and

“Whereas the present funding formula does not take into account the historic and cultural links schools have with their communities nor the special education programs that have developed as a direct need of our communities; and

“Whereas the prospect of closing neighbourhood community schools will displace many children and put others on longer bus routes; and

“Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools; and

“Whereas F.H. Miller Junior School is a community school with many links to the immediate neighbourhood, such as the family centre, after-school programs, special programs from parks and recreation, and a heritage language program;

“Therefore we, the undersigned citizens, demand that the Harris government change the funding formula to take into account the historic, cultural and community links that F.H. Miller Junior School has established.”

Since I agree with this petition, I’m signing my name to it.

PARAMEDICS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): “To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Health this past spring amended O. Reg. 501/97 under the Ambulance Act so that paramedics are considered no longer qualified to do their job if they accumulate a minimum of six demerit points on their driving record; and

“Whereas this amended regulation has resulted in at least one paramedic being fired from employment”—and again that’s now six people, two of whom are from my hometown of Hamilton—”and

“Whereas the Ministry of Health’s regulation is far more punitive and harsh than the Ministry of Transportation’s, which monitors and enforces traffic safety through the Highway Traffic Act; and

“Whereas the Ministry of Transportation mails out a notice to drivers at six to nine demerit points and suspends a person’s driver’s licence at 15 points for a 30-day period; and

“Whereas none of the other emergency services in Ontario, eg, fire and police services, are held to the same standard or punished so harshly; and

“Whereas this amended regulation is not needed since other sections of the Ambulance Act protect the public against unsafe driving and/or criminal behaviour by paramedics (specifically O. Reg. 501/97,

part III,

section 6, subsections 8, 9 and 10); and

“Whereas the Ministry of Health’s actions are blatantly unjust and punitive, and they discriminate against paramedics;

“Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To immediately eliminate any references to the accumulation of demerit points during employment from O. Reg. 501/97 under the Ambulance Act (specifically

part III,

section 6, subsection 7), thereby allowing the Highway Traffic Act to apply to paramedics; and

“To order the immediate reinstatement of paramedics who have been fired under the regulation.”

I continue to support the cause of these paramedics and add my name to this list of petitioners.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Brian Coburn (Carleton-Gloucester): I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the member from Nepean-Carleton, the Honourable John Baird:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned taxpayers of Ontario, wish to document and convey our requests that

“The Legislative Assembly of Ontario recognize the need for a public elementary school in the Longfields-Davidson Heights community;

“The Legislative Assembly of Ontario recognize that Longfields-Davidson Heights has a current population of 12,000 and a growth rate of 18% per year, and that 1,000 public school children from this community are expected to enter junior kindergarten by September of 2002;

“The Legislative Assembly of Ontario realize that

the designated facility servicing Longfields-Davidson Heights, Merivale Public School, is at maximum legal capacity and a second temporary location cannot accommodate more than one year’s growth;

“The Legislative Assembly of Ontario allow the use of the education development charges to build new public schools.”

It’s signed by myself and the Honourable Mr Baird.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan and I continue to receive thousands of signatures on petitions related to the inadequacy of the northern health travel grant. I have some here today that I’d like to read.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the northern health travel grant was introduced in 1987 in recognition of the fact that northern Ontario residents are often forced to receive treatment outside their own communities because of the lack of available services; and

“Whereas travel, accommodation and other costs have escalated sharply since the program was first put in place, particularly in the area of air travel; and

“Whereas the Ontario government has provided funds so that southern Ontario patients needing care at the Northwestern Ontario Cancer Centre have all their expenses paid while receiving treatment in the north which creates a double standard for health care delivery in the province; and

“Whereas northern Ontario residents should not receive a different level of health care nor be discriminated against because of their geographical locations;

“Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the travel grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their communities until such time as that care is available in our communities.”

I have hundreds and hundreds of signatures, and I’m very proud to add my name to that petition.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

“Whereas 13 people died during the first seven months of 1999 on Highway 401 between London and Windsor; and

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

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

“Whereas road funding is almost completely paid through vehicle permit and driving licence fees; and

“Whereas Ontario road users pay 28 cents per litre of tax on gasoline, adding up to over $2.7 billion in provincial gas taxes and over $2.3 billion in federal gas taxes;

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

“We respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario place firm pressure on the federal government to invest its gasoline tax revenue in road safety improvements in Ontario.”

I concur, and I will affix my signature to it.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas 13 people died during the first seven months of 1999 on Highway 401 between London and Windsor; and

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

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

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

“Whereas Ontario road users pay 28 cents per litre of tax on gasoline, adding up to over $2.7 billion in provincial gas taxes and over $2.3 billion in federal gas taxes;

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

I agree with this petition, and I affix my signature.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Earlier, my colleague the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North read into the record a petition that is being signed by literally hundreds of residents in our communities and across northwestern Ontario who are concerned about two-tier access to health care in northern Ontario and the fact that they have to pay often considerable costs to access medically needed care. Because my colleague has already read this petition today, I will not read all the “whereases.” I will simply read:

“Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their communities until such time as that care is available in our communities.”

Again, it’s been signed by a number of concerned residents. I have affixed my own signature in full agreement with their concerns.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a number of petitions from various schools. The residents who have signed these petitions are very concerned about school closures, and there is such public anger out there that I have received many of these. I will read the one from Earlscourt public school. It’s addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

“Whereas the Ontario government’s decision to slash education funding could lead to the closure of many neighbourhood schools, including one of the most community-oriented schools like Earlscourt public school; and

“Whereas the present funding formula does not take into account the historic and cultural links schools have with their communities nor the special education programs that have developed as a direct need of our communities; and

“Whereas the prospect of closing neighbourhood schools will displace many children and put others on longer bus routes; and

“Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut at least $1 billion from our school budget; and

“Whereas Earlscourt public school is a community school with many links to the immediate neighbourhood, such as day care, a games room, an open gym, fitness classes and a site for sports activities;

“Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens, demand that the Harris government changes the funding formula to take into account the historic, cultural and community links that Earlscourt public school has established.”

Mr Speaker, since I agree with this petition wholeheartedly, I will sign this to present to you.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I have another petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, headed, “Say no to the privatization of health care.”

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

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

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

“Whereas we won’t stand for profits over people;

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

“Do not privatize our health care services.”

This is a good petition. I concur with the content and I will affix my signature to it.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas 13 people died during the first seven months of 1999 on Highway 401 between London and Windsor; and

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

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

“Whereas road funding is almost completely paid through vehicle permit and driver licence fees; and

“Whereas Ontario road users pay 28 cents per litre of tax on gasoline, adding up to over $2.7 billion in provincial gas taxes and over $2.3 billion in federal gas taxes;

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

“We respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario place firm pressure on the federal government to invest its gasoline tax revenue in road safety improvements in Ontario.”

I am pleased to add my name to those signatures.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): This petition is of such importance that residents from all over Ontario have signed this, and it reads as follows:

“Whereas 13 people died during the first seven months of 1999 on Highway 401 between London and Windsor; and

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

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

“Whereas road funding is almost completely paid through vehicle permit and driver licence fees; and

“Whereas Ontario road users pay 28 cents per litre of tax on gasoline, adding up to over $2.7 billion in provincial gas taxes and over $2.3 billion in federal gas taxes;

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

“We respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario place firm pressure on the federal government to invest its gasoline tax revenue in road safety improvements in Ontario.”

This petition is so important that I’m signing it as well.

OPPOSITION DAY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOGEMENTS À PRIX ABORDABLES

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): It gives me great pleasure to move the following motion:

Be it resolved that, in the opinion of this House, the Mike Harris government should stop its attack on affordable housing and tenants, restore rent controls, and implem