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

May 28, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-May-28 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 28 May 2001 Lundi 28 mai 2001

WEARING OF RIBBONS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

VOLUNTEERS

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT

ONTARIO TRILLIUM FOUNDATION

WAWA MASCOT

BEAR CONTROL

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

ROY EDWARDS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VICTIM EMPOWERMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'HABILITATION

DES VICTIMES

FIREARMS SECURE LOCKING

DEVICES ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES DISPOSITIFS

DE VERROUILLAGE SÉCURITAIRE

D'ARMES À FEU

PHYSICAL FITNESS DAY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA JOURNÉE

DE L'APTITUDE PHYSIQUE

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

RURAL CRIME

EDUCATION FUNDING

SCIENCE FAIR

HOME CARE

EDUCATION FUNDING

WINE INDUSTRY

EDUCATION FUNDING

NORTHERN ECONOMY

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

POLICE PROVINCIALE DE L'ONTARIO

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REMEDIES FOR ORGANIZED CRIME

AND OTHER UNLAWFUL

ACTIVITIES ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES RECOURS

POUR CRIME ORGANISÉ

ET AUTRES ACTIVITÉS ILLÉGALES

Monday 28 May 2001 Lundi 28 mai 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish to ask the House for unanimous consent to wear a yellow ribbon,

with the support of the community of Wawa, asking that Henrietta be returned safely home.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

I thank the member.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): Humewood is a public elementary school located in the western part of St Paul's that is going through the hell

that is public education under Mike Harris. The school is losing three and a half teaching positions next year: three full-time and one part-time. That's more than one in seven of the school's

from one librarian always on duty to the library being open only 70% of the time. The vice-principal is reduced from full-time to half-time. Grade 2 is reduced from three teachers to two and a

half: there will be three classes of 20 in the morning and two classes of 30 in the afternoon. It's all because of the government's broken funding formula.

One mother of a first-grader and a fourth-grader wrote to me, "I cannot foresee that the children of the city of Toronto will be able to compete on a global

level.... I do not understand why the Ontario government is spending so much money on testing our children, when the funding is not available to help the children who are not meeting the government

standards.... What is being done to our schools and therefore our children is a disgrace. Give us our schools back."

Another mom wrote, "My twin daughters will be in grade 4 classes with 29 children in them. The grade 2s, which my son is in, will have three classes of 20 in the

morning and then" will "be reorganized into two classes of 30! in the afternoon."

This makes no sense. That's why Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals have a better alternative for working families and public education: a real cap of 20

students in the primary grades; scrapping the broken funding formula; lighthouse schools that innovate and permit schools to succeed; and curriculum flexibility, emphasizing the basics but giving

schools the opportunity to innovate.

I say, on behalf of the parents of Humewood school and on behalf of parents across the riding of St Paul's, it's time for the Harris government to wake up and

check out the McGuinty plan. For those of you in Ontario who have it: www.OntarioLiberal.com. Follow the links to "Education."

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): For the member for Durham, the clock isn't working, so the member didn't have any time. The clock isn't working for

your members. I would beg a little bit of indulgence. The table will remind me, and I'm sure all the members won't --

Interjection.

The Speaker: He got the "www" in on time.

For all members, the countdown clock isn't working but the table will still watch the clock to make sure it doesn't go extra-long. I appreciate the indulgence of

the House.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): This evening in Cobourg there will be a celebration in recognition of 141 volunteers for their valuable work

throughout the community. Volunteers are being honoured during the International Year of Volunteers. They will be presented with the Ontario Volunteer Service Awards for their hard work and

dedication over the many years.

It is with an event like this that the Ontario government has the opportunity to thank and recognize the province's volunteers. Youth volunteers are being

recognized for two or more years of continuous service, and adults are being recognized for five, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and new this year is 50-plus years of continuous service.

In Cobourg tonight there will be two local residents honoured for 50-plus years of community service. They are Mary Cappler, figure skating club, Port Hope, and

also Ruth O'Neill, with the corporation of the Town of Port Hope and Hope.

This is an opportunity to express our appreciation for the long-term commitment that these individuals have given to their community. As their work is being

recognized this evening, they also act as role models for other individuals to become volunteers or continue to volunteer in their community.

Ontario's International Year of Volunteers theme this year is "Everyone Counts." This is very true in Northumberland, as ordinary people are making extraordinary

differences through their efforts in their community.

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I rise in the House to speak about the most needy and vulnerable members of society: the children.

In particular, I wish to bring to the attention of the House and to the Attorney General in particular a situation of growing urgency in the Hamilton-Wentworth area.

For over 30 years, Hamilton has had a Unified Family Court addressing the needs of children and families in struggles for custody and, most importantly, to

protect the rights of the child. However, increasingly there is statistical evidence to show that something is not functioning correctly in the system. There's gridlock. Children are falling

through the cracks and being forced to exist in limbo for extended periods of time as their cases drag on for months and sometimes years.

In 1998-99, there were 1,609 motions heard in the five unified court jurisdictions pertaining to the Child and Family Services Act, 1,360 of them in the

Hamilton-Wentworth court. Hamilton has the lowest caseload on a per capita basis, yet ranks worst in the number of motions resulting from those cases, often by a factor of 10.

This trend is replicated in the number of court-ordered supervised visits. While Toronto has over 5,000 children under their care, they facilitated 46,000 trips;

Hamilton has 1,200 children in care and facilitated 42,000 trips.

Of greatest concern in the Hamilton area is the length of the temporary care situation. By constantly remanding cases, filing dozens of motions, requiring

multiple appearances in these cases, children are forced to live in limbo, often in foster situations while their parents continue to have access to them. Research has shown that this has a

detrimental effect on growth and development, particularly emotional development.

I believe that the situation in Hamilton is untenable. I believe the system is in a state of dysfunction. I call upon the Attorney General to order an

independent review and conduct a needs analysis to explain the anomaly of the Unified Family Court in Hamilton-Wentworth.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Members' statements.

ONTARIO TRILLIUM FOUNDATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'd first like to introduce a student who is shadowing me today from Port Perry High School. David Jehu is a grade 10

student who is joining me.

Mr Speaker, through the Ontario Trillium Foundation, our government has consistently shown that it supports many community-based projects throughout the

province. Today I want to recognize some of the projects in my riding of Durham that will be receiving funds from this agency of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

The Clarington Concert Band will receive a grant of $55,000 for the second annual Great Canadian Town Band Festival, running from June 15th through the 17th in

Orono village. Organizers of this three-day music festival, which attracts bands from across Ontario and the US, include Dave and Judy Climenhage, Janet Cringle and Barry Hodgins. They and many

others are working hard to ensure that the musical traditions of small-town Ontario are kept alive and well.

Receiving Trillium grants of $300,000 over four years is the Scugog Shores Millennium Project in Port Perry. This is an innovative plan for shoreline restoration

that will see the creation of an ecology park stretching three quarters of a kilometre along the shores of Lake Scugog and will include a walking trail. I recently had the pleasure of taking

part

in project chairman Reverend Sandy Beaton's commissioning of this important event.

The Port Perry Legion, Branch 419, will also have a $50,000 grant for making their facility more accessible to those in need.

I also want to congratulate Cartwright Sports and Recreation and the Clarington Tigercats football club for their successful applications. Clearly, this is a

case where the government is working for the community.

WAWA MASCOT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): The township of Michipicoten wants Henrietta home. People are wearing yellow ribbons awaiting

Henrietta's return. Businesses are displaying yellow moose-crossing signs in their windows.

Some time ago, government agents arrived at Young's General Store. They politely but unceremoniously spirited Henrietta off to lock-up. She has been held without

bond and incommunicado since the seizure.

Anita Young, the store's proprietor, Reeve Doug Woods and the whole community of Wawa want Henrietta back. I ask the Legislature, do we want those thousands of

tourists and children who have had their photographs taken with Henrietta to come to the realization that they may have been consorting with an underworld mooster?

Henrietta is not just a stuffed moose. Henrietta is an icon that has attracted thousands of people to the beautiful town of Wawa. People come to town to visit

the many fine restaurants, hotels, outfitters and other businesses and attractions, but they also come to see and be seen with the charismatic Henrietta.

I have asked the Minister of Natural Resources to return Henrietta to my custody. I will see that she is returned home. I personally guarantee any necessary

court appearances, and I guarantee that I will take every step necessary to ensure that her testimony will not be influenced.

Minister Snobelen, I ask you to free Henrietta. Free our moose.

BEAR CONTROL

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I really do hope that moose gets free some time.

I want to say to the minister responsible for natural resources across the way, Minister Snobelen, that what we told you would happen two or three years ago is

happening. The government cancelled the spring bear hunt. They said this was a good thing for all kinds of reasons. We in northern Ontario said you have to have some sort of controls in order to

control the population, otherwise we will be inundated by bears, especially in smaller communities.

We now have stories across northeastern Ontario, in my region of the province, where we have bears coming into the community. In fact, the town of Chapleau is

being inundated by bears as they go into the community in record numbers than seen before.

Just recently I was up in Moosonee -- I think it was on Saturday -- and they've got bears running out on the runway. I've got to tell you, it's pretty hard to

land my plane when I've got to be ditching around bears that are running down runway 08.

I say to the minister across the way that what really bothers me is that when we contact the Ministry of Natural Resources and say, "What are you going to do

about it?" they say the ministry has lost the responsibility to do anything about this because they have been cut back so badly that they don't have the staff to go out and do anything about

getting the bears out of the communities. So they say it's passed on to the provincial police. You call the OPP and the only response they've got is, "Other than shooting them down, we've got no

money."

I just say to the government across the way, this whole policy doesn't work, and before somebody gets hurt, we ask you to do something positive in this

regard.

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): This year, Habitat for Humanity of Waterloo region will build a brand new home in New Hamburg in my riding

of Waterloo-Wellington.

I want to congratulate the Abarca family, who can look forward to earning the better living conditions for which they dream as they work with Habitat for

Humanity to build a home of their own.

Pat McLean, Woolwich township councillor and executive director of Habitat for Humanity in Waterloo region, has advised me that Habitat for Humanity's goal is

the elimination of poverty housing.

They are doing this for people with strong coordination, public support, work by volunteers, what they call "sweat equity" and homeowner training by the

prospective home-owning families.

These homeowners learn home maintenance, how to be good neighbours and how to budget and pay the mortgage, and this formula has been a tremendous success.

Since 1988, Habitat for Humanity has developed 34 homes with families in Waterloo region. Three are being built this year, and five are projected for next

year.

The home to be built in Waterloo-Wellington this year is a first for New Hamburg, with special thanks to Doug Wagner, a Ross Dixon financial services adviser,

for sponsoring and helping Habitat for Humanity make this dream of a home a reality for the Abarca family.

Last month, my family and I had an opportunity to offer our support and to meet many of the supporters of this project at the Habitat for Humanity fish fry in

New Hamburg.

Their compassion and understanding of the pride and importance of home ownership for families is inspiring to all of us, and I encourage everyone to help Habitat

for Humanity give a hand up to people in our communities across this great province.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I spent this past Saturday morning in a wheelchair touring my community to get a sense of the

obstacles that face citizens in wheelchairs. It was a profound event for me when I realized that what seems like a minor barrier is in fact major to those in chairs.

This is National Access Awareness Week. The Premier promised in writing in 1995 to pass an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during his first term in office. To

this date, not only has that act not been put in place, but the Premier has refused to meet with any citizens from that committee. He has refused their requests 27 times. Five times he indicated he

was too busy, four times he referred them to someone else and 18 times he ignored their requests to meet with them.

This is not acceptable. Ontarians with disabilities have a voice. This week, I will be tabling a resolution that requires the Premier to meet with the Ontarians

with Disabilities Act Committee. They are full citizens and are entitled to nothing less than a meeting with him. We know only what we experience or what we are told and learn from others. To

ignore this request from citizens is an absolutely unbelievable and unforgivable situation.

I call upon all members of this House to support my resolution, which will require the Premier to meet and dialogue with, learn about and serve Ontarians with

disabilities.

ROY EDWARDS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm very pleased to rise this afternoon to pay tribute to a constituent of mine who recently was honoured by

the Simcoe County District School Board for 45 years of dedicated service to the youth of Simcoe county as a school trustee.

Roy Edwards, a very proud husband, father and grandfather, served Simcoe county schools and communities with dedication and enthusiasm as an elected school board

trustee from 1949 to 1994. Throughout his 45-year tenure, Trustee Edwards maintained a strong commitment to Simcoe county's public education system as it evolved from one-room schools to a

county-wide network of urban and rural community schools. Mr Edwards chaired the Simcoe County Board of Education from 1979 to 1981.

A long-time resident and farmer in the Medonte area, Roy Edwards earned the trust and support of students, staff, parents and community members by carefully

considering local education issues with his respected blend of reason, common sense, fairness, warmth and friendly sense of humour. In June 1995 the Ontario Public School Boards Association

presented Roy with the Dr Harry Paikin Award of Merit in recognition of his dedicated service.

I congratulate the Simcoe County District School Board, under the leadership of director Sharon Bate and chairperson Mary Anne Wilson, for naming their boardroom

at Midhurst the Roy Edwards Meeting Room on May 9 this year. On behalf of the citizens of Simcoe county, I want to thank Roy for his commitment to education.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VICTIM EMPOWERMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'HABILITATION

DES VICTIMES

Mr Sampson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 60,

An Act to give victims a greater role at parole hearings, to hold offenders accountable for their actions, to provide for inmate grooming standards,

and to make other amendments to the Ministry of Correctional Services Act / Projet de loi 60, Loi visant à accroître le rôle des victimes aux audiences de libération

conditionnelle et à responsabiliser les délinquants à l'égard de leurs actes, prévoyant des normes relatives à la toilette des détenus et apportant d'autres

modifications à la

Loi sur le ministère des Services correctionnels.

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

Does the minister have a short statement?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): Yes, thank you, Speaker. The title of the bill actually speaks quite directly to the

content. We believe that victims should have a greater role in the criminal justice system, so the bill would propose that they have more role to play in parole hearings. The bill establishes a

framework for the implementation of some minimum and basic grooming standards in jails in Ontario, and it also requires that internal disciplinary hearings proceed when an inmate is accused or

alleged to have assaulted a correctional officer, regardless of whether criminal charges are laid.

FIREARMS SECURE LOCKING

DEVICES ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES DISPOSITIFS

DE VERROUILLAGE SÉCURITAIRE

D'ARMES À FEU

Mr Bryant moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 61,

An Act to require secure locking devices for firearms / Projet de loi 61, Loi exigeant des dispositifs de verrouillage sécuritaire pour les

armes à feu.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): The bill prohibits the sale of any firearm that does not have a secure locking device incorporated into its

design unless the purchaser is provided with or purchases a secure locking device for that firearm at the time of sale.

The bill would also prohibit the sale of any firearm manufactured after the bill comes into force if the firearm does not have a secure locking device

incorporated into its design. The bill would not apply to firearms purchased for police use.

The bill would come into force six months after it receives royal assent. Trigger locks save lives, and this is the Firearms Secure Locking Devices Act.

PHYSICAL FITNESS DAY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA JOURNÉE

DE L'APTITUDE PHYSIQUE

Mr O'Toole moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 62,

An Act proclaiming Physical Fitness Day / Projet de loi 62, Loi proclamant la Journée de l'aptitude physique.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): This bill proclaims the first Friday in September in each year as Physical Fitness Day. Medical studies have

consistently shown that a moderate amount of physical activity is one of the keys to a long, healthy and productive life. This bill provides for a special day to promote physical activity and its

benefits.

Evidence suggests that many people in Ontario live an increasingly sedentary life. This is a dangerous and expensive trend: it endangers our health, lowers our

quality of life and costs taxpayers billions of dollars in health care premiums that would not otherwise be necessary.

The principles of the bill also recognize the valuable contribution made by coaches, volunteers, educators, parents and medical professionals in promoting

physical fitness. These community leaders serve as role models in encouraging Ontario to include a moderate amount of physical exercise in their daily lives. A healthy body certainly contributes to

a healthy mind.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from

6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, May 28, Tuesday, May 29, and Wednesday, May 30, 2001, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I apologize. The motions were introduced on the order paper separately. You'll have to do them separately, if you

would.

Hon Mrs Ecker: In the attempts of efficiency, we will go back. I move that pursuant to the standing order, the House shall meet from 6:45 pm

to 9:30 pm on Tuesday, May 29th.

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

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1355 to 1400.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 43; the nays are 35.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Motions?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, May 28, 2001, for the

purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1404 to 1409.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 45; the nays are 36.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Motions? The government House leader.

Hon Mrs Ecker: One more time. I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Wednesday, May

30, 2001, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1413 to 1418.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 45; the nays are 36.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege under standing order 21, on business arising out of the

House.

The budget was tabled in this House on May 9, and the Treasurer has not attended one question period since that day. It is extremely frustrating for the

official opposition not to be able to stand up and --

The Speaker: Sorry to interrupt the member. He does know that a point of privilege needs to arise out of the business here today. Relating to

the attendance of any member, the member will kindly know that I have no authority whatsoever on attendance. I will let him continue if he could get very distinctly to the point he is trying to

make arising from the point of privilege.

Mr Duncan: The point is that tonight we begin debate on the budget bill, and for nine or 10 sitting days since the budget was tabled, we have

not been able to question the Minister of Finance about that. It undermines the very essence of this chamber and what parliamentary democracy is about.

The Speaker: Again, the member will know the Speaker has no authority regarding attendance of any member in this House.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We were informed that the Premier would be in attendance today.

The Speaker: Just for any clarification, the government House leader.

Hon Mrs Ecker: There was never any notification that I'm aware of about his attendance today.

The Speaker: I thank the government House leader.

Same point of order?

Mr Duncan: Normally we're informed, and it happens quite often that we're informed the Premier will not be here. The Premier's

schedule today

indicates he is in his office down the hall doing appointments at Queen's Park. We have not been informed that the Premier will not be in the House today.

The Speaker: Again, I'm not privy to what whips and government House leaders inform each other of.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm asking for your assistance and guidance and, ideally,

direction with respect to the private education tax policy. In particular, I want to ensure, on behalf of opposition members and the Ontario public, that it garners the attention it deserves

according to the principal values of democracy that govern this Legislature.

As a point of reference, when funding was extended to Catholic schools in 1985, there were extensive public hearings across the province. I understand that

those hearings took some 80 days, including 68 days of public hearings. Earlier today, I delivered a letter to the government House leader requesting that there be full debate among members of this

Legislature, as well as extensive public hearings on the government's newly introduced policy to extend tuition tax credits for private schools.

As leader of the official opposition, I'm asking you now, as Speaker of this assembly, that you ensure that the significant and dramatic departure in our

province with respect to education policy receives thorough debate among the members, as well as ample and sufficient public hearings.

The Speaker: I've said in the past that the Speaker is governed by the standing orders. I don't have the power and authority to do that.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): We wish you did, though.

The Speaker: Some may wish I did, and on occasion I may even wish to have some more power, but unfortunately we're governed by the standing

orders and I have no authority regarding the hearings.

Mr McGuinty: Mr Speaker, on a separate point of order, then, and in light of your ruling, I would ask for unanimous consent from members of

this Legislature to amend Bill 45, the budget bill, by removing those sections of the bill that deal with the extension of tuition tax credits for private schools so that they may be introduced as

a separate piece of legislation and thereby become entitled to separate debate and separate, full public hearings.

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

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe it is the prerogative of the Speaker, and I believe there is

a federal precedent in which the Speaker of the House of Commons exercised his authority to divide a bill if he felt that it could not be given due consideration because of the nature of the

omnibus bill.

I would submit to you that this particular amendment that the Leader of the Opposition has requested is in essence a division of the bill. It separates out a

section of the bill which does institute a substantive change in long-standing policy. Even if you do not have the authority to order hearings, I believe you do have the authority to divide the

bill and allow a portion of the bill to be dealt with separately in the interests of due parliamentary procedure.

Hon Mrs Ecker: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: First of all, as the honourable members are well aware, this legislation is budget policy.

It's well within the orders.

Secondly, if the honourable member, the leader of the party, wishes to debate this issue, I welcome him to the debate tonight and on subsequent occasions when

this legislation is indeed being debated in this chamber.

Mr McGuinty: Mr Speaker, if I may, further to my colleague's point of order and for purposes of your consideration: Last week was constituency

week. I had the opportunity to visit schools and to meet with a number of constituents. I can tell you -- I haven't got an exact tally now -- that we have received close to 700 separate letters on

this issue. It is a matter of grave concern to the people of Ontario and I believe --

The Speaker: I appreciate it. As you know, some bills that have appeared here -- Bill 26, for example, was an omnibus bill that was allowed to

pass through. This is not even close to some of the other bills that have appeared, so the bill is entirely in order.

The member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan on the same point of order.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, it's actually asking for clarification, because I believe the decision not to separate Bill 26 was made by the Speaker

of the day. If my recollection is correct, it was recognized at the same time that he did have the authority to divide the bill but made the decision that it would not be divided.

The Speaker: There are some bills that have come up and there has been some discussion on the same point of order. Basically, it's based on

the size of the bill, being omnibus. This one is not even close in terms of being out of order and it is in fact very much in order. It's very controversial, I may say, and may be as controversial

as some of the other bills, but it is perfectly in order and there is nothing wrong with the bill.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is, as might be expected, for the Minister of Education. During the 1999 election

leaders' debate, your Premier looked directly into the camera and said the following: "I've been asked, would I support private schools. I went to the Jewish congress and I told them no, my

priority is public education." Your Premier made a very specific campaign promise and I am absolutely certain that many Ontario voters relied on that specific commitment. They were induced by that

specific promise to vote for Mike Harris and the Conservative Party.

I think it's time, Madam Minister, to inject at least a little bit of honesty into this debate. Will you be straight now with Ontario families and admit that

you have broken your promise to them?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Before the honourable member starts throwing around accusations, I should

refer him to an

article in Now magazine that he might want to read.

This is about respecting parental choice, very, very simply. This is also about continuing a commitment to the public education system that this government

holds very, very seriously: more money, higher standards, better choice for parents, more information for parents -- initiatives which the honourable member continues to oppose.

Mr McGuinty: If you won't defend the Premier, then we'll see if you're prepared to defend yourself, Madam Minister. On January 13, 2000, you

sent a letter to Minister Axworthy and you said, "Extending funding to religious private schools would result in fragmentation of the education system in Ontario and undermine the goal of universal

access to education." On January 19 of the same year, you sent a letter to me and you said, "Complying with the UN's demand ... would remove from our public education system at least $300 million

per year, with some estimates as high as $700 million."

Can you tell me why it is that a policy that not so long ago was viewed by yourself as something that would fragment and undermine public education, a policy

that would cost public education somewhere between $300 million and $700 million, has now become your personal cause célèbre? Why is it that suddenly something that was so wrong yesterday

is so right for you as Minister of Education today?

Hon Mrs Ecker: If the honourable member recalls, the reason the Premier and I wrote to him was because we weren't quite clear what he was

saying and where he was coming from.

Secondly, my commitment --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Will the minister take her seat. Members, come to order. We're not going to continue if I can't hear. Sorry,

Minister of Education, for the interruption.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We might even correspond with the honourable member again just to make sure we're clear where

the Liberals are coming from on this, because it seems to depend on who you're talking about what their position is.

I don't need lectures from the honourable member about my commitment to public education, which is as strong today as it was when I first took this portfolio

and for as long as I shall stay in this portfolio.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, you can dance over there, you can dance all you want, but you are dancing on your own and you have seriously

damaged your own personal credibility.

In your letter to me of January 19, 2000, you implored me, you beseeched me, you begged me not in any way to accede to the request put forward by the UN.

Here's something else you said at the time: "Quite obviously, such an action would run directly counter to Ontario's long-standing commitment to public education."

I'm asking you on behalf of working families which relied on the Premier's specific promise during the course of the election and your specific commitment made

not that long ago, why is it that you have suddenly changed your mind and have betrayed public education and our families?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I might refer the honourable member to Now magazine, which has a wonderful

article here: "As usual, the Liberals want to have

it both ways." It quotes his education critic as contending that "funding for religious schools doesn't necessarily mean less money for the public system."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the minister take her seat. Order. I'm going to start to pick people out now. Just so you know, we're going to start picking

people out and we're going to start throwing them out.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Even the honourable member's own education critic has said publicly that funding religious schools doesn't mean taking money

out of the public education system. I happen to agree with the Liberal critic, because this government has increased public education funding yet again this year, over $370 million this year of new

money, new investment.

We're continuing to move forward with what we promised the voters we would do: higher standards, standards which the honourable member opposes; testing so we

know how our students are doing, testing which his critic this weekend was saying, "Who needs testing" --

The Speaker: Order. I'm afraid the minister's time is up. New question.

Applause.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, they can clap for you, but you are swinging all on your own on this one. This is about your personal credibility

and integrity, and you should have the decency and the honour to castigate this policy, to disown it and to say that it's wrong for public education and wrong for our families.

Ten years ago the leader of your party, Mike Harris, felt so strongly about the need for public hearings on the budget of the day that he tied up this House

for three weeks, and let me tell you what he said at the time: "I am fighting and will continue to fight for the right of the public of this province to be heard, to come before the parliamentary

committee to pass their comments on this budget...." Your Premier, Mike Harris, said that a public hearing on a budget was a right for Ontario voters.

Will you do today what your Premier said yesterday was the right thing to do? Will you give Ontario families the right to appear before a parliamentary

committee and to voice their concerns about your private school voucher policy?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member may want to sit here and cast aspersions about the integrity of people on this side of the House; he can

be personal if he wants. I don't think that furthers legitimate public debate in this chamber or in any other place.

This issue is clearly about parental choice, a choice that parents make within the public system, a choice that some parents may wish to make outside the

public system in independent schools, and we believe that is a choice that should be respected, that parental choice should be respected.

I know the honourable member, after dithering on both sides of the issue here, is now going to say to those parents, those families in his riding, in Mr

Kwinter's riding, in Mr Kennedy's riding, in Mr Caplan's riding and in Mr Bryant's riding, "We don't respect your choice. We don't think you know best for your kids, and we're going to take that

away from them."

We respect parental choice; it's time the honourable member did.

Mr McGuinty: It is painfully obvious to all who paid any attention to this that one day you said that this was wrong and a terrible thing and

now you stand up in this Legislature and tell us that it's a wonderful thing and a wonderful development for public education.

Do you know what you need to do? You need to hold public hearings. Presumably you are proud of this policy; you are quite prepared to defend your policy. Why

is it that you won't allow Ontario families to appear before you or the representatives of the government during public hearings to voice their concerns?

I'll ask you the same question again, Madam Minister: will you hold public hearings so that Ontario families will have an opportunity to voice their concerns

about your private school voucher policy?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, the honourable member keeps describing it as a private school voucher, but that's not what it is, and he knows

that. So he can try and twist that if he wants.

Secondly, it was Ontario working families who told this government, who came to this government and said, "We want this government to respect parental choice,"

and that is why we took the decision we did. That is why the budget laid out not only more money for our public education system, money above enrolment growth, new investments in public education,

but also laid out a way that we can respect the parents who choose independent schools.

Mr McGuinty: Let's review this for the public now. First of all the Premier said he would never do this. After the election you said you would

never do this. Now you're doing it. No other jurisdiction in Canada funds private schools in this way. No other province has money for a tax credit so that they're inviting parents to abandon

public education, and by the way, no other government has been so determined to kick the stuffing out of public education for six years straight. This is radical, this is a broken promise, but

first and foremost, this is wrong.

Madam Minister, if you are so darn proud of this public policy, I ask you once more: why won't you commit to public hearings so that Ontario families and

everybody concerned about the future of public education can attend and voice their concerns about your private school voucher program?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We're not holding public hearings on private school vouchers, because there's no one promoting that.

Secondly, the honourable member can try all he wants to make statements that do not reflect the reality in this country, but there are five other provinces

that do fund independent schools. Other countries that the honourable member likes to cite in this House as having great records in public education also have support for independent schools. With

all due respect, it is not an unusual thing for a government to do.

Thirdly, we respect and support parental choice within the public system. We're putting in place mechanisms by which parents can have stronger voices in the

public system. We also respect parental choice outside, in the independent schools. I don't know why the honourable member doubts the wisdom of parents. I don't know why the honourable member

cannot accept that parents may wish to make a choice --

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

New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): A question for the Minister of Education. At the same time that your government intends to extend

public funding to private schools, you are closing 138 public schools across the province. The school boards are very clear about why it's happening. It's because there's not enough money in the

funding formula to allow them to operate their schools, and therefore they have to close. When you close schools like that, it tears the heart out of the community. But what it also means is

thousands of young children spending hours on a school bus to get to the next school.

How do you justify closing 138 elementary schools in Ontario at the same time you extend $300 million of public funding to private schools? How do you justify

that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We have increased funding for school accommodation, for school construction in this province. He may not have noticed it, but

we have construction of over 200 new schools, schools in my riding and the ridings of all members here with growing communities with growing families that need new schools. For the first time --

under this government, not under his government -- we're actually seeing a decrease in the number of portables across this province, a trend I would have thought the honourable member would

support, and that is because of the way we assist school boards in funding capital expansion in this province.

Mr Hampton: You're telling boards of education to go out and borrow money if they want to build new schools. The same school boards are

telling you that part of the process is that they have to close existing schools. Other boards of education across this province are having to close schools. Kids are having to spend hours on

school buses to get to the next school. That's the question, Minister: how do you justify closing 138 elementary schools, forcing children to spend hours on school buses to get to the next school

at the same time that you say you've got $300 million a year in public funding to support elite private schools? It doesn't match. You're closing public schools in order to find the money to fund

private schools. How do you justify that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We have more children in the public education system. That's why we're building more schools -- "more" being the operative word

here. If the honourable member would like to pretend that in communities where there have been shifts in population, where children have grown up and moved out -- if he wants school boards to sit

there and pay overhead for schools that are less than a third full in some communities, he should say so. What we are doing with school boards is helping support an expansion in those communities

that are growing. We are helping to support higher standards in the classroom with our funding. We are helping to support an improvement in capital construction. His government didn't have the

courage to do it. We've made that decision. It's a decision that school boards have said is working well for them in terms of meeting the needs of growth communities. That is the purpose and

objective of trying to build new schools where those are needed.

Mr Hampton: If you're so convinced that using public money, taxpayers' money, to fund private schools is such a good idea, then you ought to

hold public hearings and go out there and talk to those parents who are seeing their children bused an hour and a half to get to the next school.

You ought to come to my community, Minister, where the school that I went to is brimming its overflow. They're using portables, yet they have to close the

school and bus the children.

You ought to get out there, Minister, and hold those public hearings. You ought to tell those parents who are seeing their school closed, their community

school shut down, their children being bused for an hour and a half, why that's a good idea.

Will you hold public hearings, Minister, so that all those parents who are seeing their public schools closed while you fund private schools can have a say in

this and tell you whether they think it's a good idea? Will you hold the public hearings?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member has asked this question before and we have said that the government is making decisions about how

consultation should occur on the implementation or the initiatives that are in the budget. You will be one of the first to be informed, sir, when that decision is made.

Let's go back to what's important here. What's important here is, one, that initiative is respecting parental choice. Second, what is also important here is

that there is over $315 million out there for school construction. We have more school construction going on now, some $3 billion in projects that are going on out there, because of investments

we've made in the public education system, because of the commitment to the system, investments that will continue because we agree and we support the public education system.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Hampton: Again to the Minister of Education, at the same time that you intend to make $300 million of public money available to private

schools, there are thousands of children across this province who need junior kindergarten, who need early childhood education, but they aren't getting it. The boards are clear on why it's not

happening: because the money isn't in the funding formula to do it.

Your own study by Fraser Mustard said that this had to be a priority, that if we want children to do better in the education system, we should be funding

junior and senior kindergarten.

Minister, how do you justify denying thousands of children across this province the junior kindergarten they need, that Fraser Mustard, in your own report,

recommended, while at the same time you can afford public money for private schools?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The budget included $1,000,200,000 for health care. I don't hear the honourable member saying that that was taken out of the

public education system.

The budget also included more money for GTA transit. I don't hear the honourable member saying that that was being taken out of the public education

budget.

There was a 40% increase for children's treatment centres, something that his government didn't manage to do when they were there, a long-overdue decision. I

don't hear him saying we took that out of public education, because the truth is quite the contrary: we are putting more money in the public education system, new investments, to help that

system.

Mr Hampton: It's interesting that the Minister of Education, who's supposed to be the defender of public education, wants to talk about

transportation to deflect attention away from what she's doing to the education system.

Your own Education Improvement Commission said that extending full-day junior kindergarten had to be a priority if children were going to succeed. They said

that, yet we see that thousands of children across the province continue to be denied access to junior kindergarten and the senior kindergarten that they need, because you don't have the money. Yet

at the same time you can be generous to elite private schools, you can give their parents a $3,500 tax credit.

Minister, how do you justify it? You deny children who need access to JK and SK. You deny them that access, you won't fund it, but you've got lots of money for

elite private schools. How do you justify that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member well knows that we do fund junior kindergarten and senior kindergarten in this province. We do, sir, and

there has actually been an expansion in some of those junior kindergarten classes.

Second, we continue to increase investments in the public education system. We continue to move forward with a testing agenda, with a comprehensive

teacher-testing program, with safe schools, all important priorities that parents said were needed in the public education system. That commitment, those new investments, that commitment to public

education stands, and it's as strong today as it's ever been.

The Speaker: New question. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: For the Minister of Education. Madam Minister, your private school voucher program represents a dramatic departure from Ontario

education policy. It was something that was never promised; in fact, it was something that the Premier specifically said he would not do. Until recently, you yourself, in your letter that you sent

to me, specifically said that we should not do this. You said yourself that this would cost the public education system at least $300 million per year, with some estimates as high as $700 million

per year. Those are your words. Ontario parents are very concerned about the impact this is going to have on the integrity and viability of public education, where 96% of our children go to

school.

I ask you again: why is it that you will not allow those concerned parents to attend before a parliamentary committee through the public hearing process to

voice their concerns?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, it was concerned parents who said, "Invest more in the public education system." We did. It was concerned parents

who said, "We want to make a choice to go to a school that might better reflect the religious values of my family." We respected that.

The other thing that I think should be very clear is the budget made very clear that our financial commitment to public education stands, that our financial

commitment to public education will increase as it should. No one on this side of the House, no one, supports taking money from the public education system to put it anywhere. That's why we are

putting more in the public education system.

The Speaker: Final supplementary?

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, what are you afraid of? Why are you ashamed of this policy? Why won't you put it before a parliamentary committee

and have it travel the province and give Ontarians the opportunity to comment on your policy? What are you afraid of? Do you know that your government, for a snowmobile safety act, sent this to a

travelling public committee that spent five days travelling the province to get feedback from the Ontario public? We're talking here about a dramatic departure for public education.

I ask you once more: why is it that you are afraid of holding public committee hearings that will give the opportunity to Ontarians to voice their very serious

concerns about your policy?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The only fear in this chamber is the fear of listening to the honourable member trying to decide which side of this issue he's

been on for couple of weeks.

The government is considering decisions about a range of pieces of legislation in terms of how they're going to be discussed. I would welcome the honourable

member to come to the debate when this legislation is going to be debated in this House.

It's the views of parents which make a very strong impression on this government. That is why we made the commitments we made to public education. That's why

we've made the investments in public education that we've made. That's also why when parents came to us and said they wanted us also to assist, to respect that choice to go to an independent

school, for example, a school that might well better reflect their religious values, this government said we were prepared to respect that choice.

The honourable member, again, clearly showed that he thinks he knows better than those parents about what works best for their kids. If he wants the public

education system to succeed, then perhaps he might consider supporting --

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

New question.

RURAL CRIME

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): My question is for the Solicitor General. One thing we know for sure about crime, it's not unique

to large cities. Roughly a quarter of Ontario's population resides in rural communities and on farms. Residents in my constituency of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant are in that 25%, and they're worried.

They're worried about rising crime, as are our big-city cousins. For example, car and truck thefts always seem to be high in our area. We've had tractor theft in Haldimand. One farm meeting I

attended, virtually every farmer there had either a tractor or farm equipment stolen from farm buildings or from their farmyards.

Minister, what is the status of rural crime in our province?

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): Regrettably, there has been an increase in rural crime over the last few years. Livestock and farming

equipment are very valuable, and farmers and their families have much of their livelihood tied up in these items. Rural communities obviously face a unique challenge, and that is that neighbours

often live far away. Everyone deserves to feel safe, whether they live in a city or a rural setting, and that's why the OPP have developed a strategy to respond to rural crime.

Mr Barrett: Minister, I wish to report that in my riding, the Haldimand-Norfolk OPP have confirmed that break and enters did decrease from 921

incidents in 1999 to 908 in 2000, so it has gotten a little better in recent years. As well, auto thefts fell from 504 to 435 in the same period. Unfortunately, thefts over $5,000 increased from 39

reports to 57 between 1999 and 2000. Could you tell my constituents and other residents of rural Ontario what our government and the Ministry of the Solicitor General are doing to address rural

crime?

Hon Mr Turnbull: In 1998 the OPP introduced a special rural crime prevention strategy aimed at reducing the number of break-and-enter

crimes.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Turnbull: Apparently the Liberals think this is funny. Our party takes it seriously. You've done nothing about this, you and your

federal cousins.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The Solicitor General, take his seat. Thank you, folks.

The Solicitor General.

Hon Mr Turnbull: The Liberals are soft on crime; we know that.

Funds for the initiatives through the front-line policing crime prevention grant have, in a six-month period, reduced break-ins by 8.8% where OPP jurisdiction

lies. So we've expanded, and now have dedicated rural and agricultural crime teams. We're funding $4 million per year, allocated for the next three years.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. I want to draw to your attention Bill 12,

An Act

to increase the safety of equestrian riders, a private member's bill put forward by a colleague of yours in your party. The bill is one page in length, and I wonder if you know that this bill is

the only matter of business before the justice and social policy committee and a full day of public hearings has been set aside to consider the matter of equestrian helmets.

It seems to me, in the grand scheme of things, that if your government believes it's important to award one day of public committee hearings for equestrian

helmets, surely you can see your way to seeing that we have several weeks made available for public committee hearings for your private school voucher bill.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): First of all, I can give you one guarantee: there's not going to be one day

of public hearings on a private school voucher bill proposal, because that's not what's before this Legislature.

Secondly, I think it is important to have hearings on that particular bill, which the honourable member has worked very hard on. Many pieces of legislation

that come through this House have hearings, and when the government has made some decisions around the hearings around bills, around the consultation and discussion that have to be done on any

number of pieces of legislation that are coming before it, we'll certainly let the honourable member know.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, I want you to explain this to the Ontario public now, because I'm sure they're somewhat confused about your

priorities over there. When it comes to an equestrian helmet bill, you can set aside one full day of public committee hearings. When it comes to a snowmobile safety bill, you set aside five full

days -- extended over the course of two weeks -- of public committee hearings, which travelled.

Why is it, then, that when we have your new education policy, a matter which is far-reaching, which is unprecedented, which represents a dramatic departure

from traditional education policy in Ontario, which was never promised during the course of the campaign -- in fact, it was specifically promised by the Premier not to go there and, more recently,

you yourself said you weren't going to go there. Why is it, in view of all of that, Madam Minister, that you can't give us even one single day of public committee hearings on your bill?

Hon Mrs Ecker: As the honourable member, if he would bother to listen, would know, first of all the Ministry of Education --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister, take your seat. Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I've already answered the honourable member's question. He doesn't want to listen, and that's fine, but you know what? The

legislation that is being debated in that committee had to do with a child who died. Now, he may not think that's important, but the members on this side do believe that that particular debate is

important. When the government has decided about the range of discussions and consultation that may be needed on budget bills, on other legislation that is before this House, we will certainly be

announcing that. But for him to continue to try to make allegations in this House I think is grossly unfair to all of the members in this Legislature.

The Speaker: Stop the clock.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I think it's important at this point to make it very clear that

the bill, Bill 12, which is indeed valuable legislation, has all --

Interjections.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, if I may. That bill --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Next one this side yells, they're out.

I hear points of order, point of privilege; I've told you a lot of times, I need to hear them. You can heckle the other politicians. I need to hear points of

order and points of privilege. Next one on the government benches that does it is out.

Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, sorry for the interruption.

Mrs McLeod: But that is a bill which has all-party support. It is totally non-controversial. We agree it's important, we don't believe it

needed to have public hearings to give it our support; we do believe --

The Speaker: Order. There's no point of privilege on that. Sorry for the interruption. We're back to questions.

SCIENCE FAIR

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): To the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. Minister, we are all aware how important it is to have

young people of this province interested in science. Science is a necessary component of our future. How is the government working to interest young Ontarians in science careers?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I thank my colleague for the question. The government is committed to increasing

young people's awareness of science, technology and innovation in this province through a number of initiatives. Most recently the Ontario government was proud to support the Canada-Wide Science

Fair in Kingston. The fair saw approximately 450 of Canada's top young minds in science and technology from grade 7 to high school graduation compete in a number of categories, including computers

and biotechnology.

Over 150 of those competing students were from Ontario, and I'm pleased to report that Ontario students earned 10 gold medals and 51 medals overall, as well as

33 honourable mentions. Ontario students attending the fair were part of Sci-Tech Ontario, a project sponsored in part by the Youth Science and Technology initiative of the Ministry of Energy,

Science and Technology. This initiative will commit $5 million -- that's the first time in the history of this province -- toward science and technology awareness partnership projects by the end of

Mr Arnott: Minister, I want to thank you for that fine answer, and I want to say that I've been informed that a student from

Waterloo-Wellington, Ben Schmidt, was very successful at the science fair. Could you please tell the House about his gold-winning project.

Hon Mr Wilson: I had an opportunity to meet Ben Schmidt of Elora, and yes, he was awarded best junior project at this year's fair.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wilson: Hey, this is important to Ben Schmidt and his family and to science and technology in the province, so why don't you pay

attention over there?

His project, called RAT: Remote Access Topography, was judged to be the best of the 125 grade 7 and grade 8 projects from across the country presented at this

prestigious annual event. He designed, built and programmed a robot to create a map while finding its way to a goal through an obstacle course. This robot then uses the map to return, using the

most direct path, just like a rat solving a maze. Hence, the name of the project.

Ben will be a guest of honour at the Ontario Research and Development Summit to be held by the Ontario government Research and Development Challenge Fund on

May 30. I think the honourable member, and all members of this House, should extend congratulations to Ben Schmidt for his award-winning project.

HOME CARE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the associate Minister of Health. Minister, community care access centres all across

this province are sending out notices to tens of thousands of frail seniors, telling them the bad news from the Harris budget. An 80-year-old who is incontinent and has had to make do with two

baths a week has been told she can only have one. A 90-year-old who just had knee surgery has had all of her homemaking hours cut and now will only get one hour per week of personal care. A retired

civil servant who is a polio survivor with one paralyzed arm and a 50% breathing capacity has been cut from three hours per week to one, and others are being cut off completely.

I've heard from CCACs in Windsor, Niagara, Waterloo, East York, Scarborough, Kingston, Sudbury -- all across this province. The bottom line is that your

inadequate base funding plus your new no-deficit law means that tens of thousands of frail seniors and disabled people are losing their services starting Monday, June 4. Minister, will you

reconsider and increase the CCAC base funding so they can meet the need for services in their communities?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): I'd like to thank the member opposite for the question. Let me say

that health care in the province of Ontario is very important. As we heard earlier today, the Mike Harris government put $1.2 billion into health care this year in their budget. It was a

substantial increase of about 5.4% to health care.

With respect to CCACs, let me say that from 1994-95 to 2000-01, we have increased long-term-care community services by 57% and we've also increased in-home

service funding by 77%. We've made a substantial commitment to CCACs across the province.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Minister, the question was, will you increase base funding to CCACs so that everyone who needs in-home health

care can get it? You know, Minister, that ever since you've been the government, every single year you've had to bail out CCACs at the end of the fiscal year. We have a situation in northern

Ontario now where eight of the nine CCACs have a combined deficit of $20 million.

In the case of Sudbury-Manitoulin, as a direct result of your underfunding of the CCAC, the CCAC held a press conference last week and announced it would have

to cut $1 million in critical home care services, which will have a terrible effect on seniors, on the disabled and those being discharged from hospital. The result will be they will have to pay

for it themselves even if they can't afford it, they will have to go without because they can't afford it or you will force them into long-term-care institutions because they can't remain in their

own homes because they don't have the support.

Minister, despite a promise made by Cam Jackson in 1998, the Manitoulin-Sudbury CCAC has still not received equity funding. It was supposed to last year and

this year, and not a cent has been received. The question is, when will you provide additional base funding to all CCACs and when --

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Mrs Johns: The Mike Harris government is very committed to making sure that health care is in the communities where it's needed, when it's

needed, and we take that commitment very seriously. As I said earlier, we have made substantial commitments by putting dollars into in-home services in the province of Ontario, increasing them by

some 77% since the party took power in 1995. It's our goal to continue to make sure that we provide the best-quality health care services we can in the home. We know that this helps seniors and

people who are at home to ensure that they are able to stay in their homes as long as possible, and that's a very serious commitment. That's why this government has made those kinds of substantial

commitments, not only to community care access centres but to health care all across the province.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, I want to return to your total absence

of any sense of proportion when it comes to the value of public hearings for your private school voucher program. Not only did your government hold one day of public committee hearings for the

equestrian helmet bill and five days for the snowmobile safety bill, you also held four days of public hearings for the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, you held two days of public hearings

for the Electronic Commerce Act and you held public hearings in connection with the Savings and Restructuring Act, the aggregate and petroleum act and a host of others. Madam Minister, we're

talking here about a policy that will impact the 2.25 million Ontario children who attend public schools. It's their future that hangs in the balance and, by that, our future as a province.

So I'm asking you, Madam Minister, on behalf of all those kids and all their parents, why is it that we can't have public committee hearings when it comes to

your bill?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): The biggest threat to those over two million children in the public

education system is those individuals who believe -- and it's not a unanimous thing -- that political protest is acceptable in the classrooms. That is the biggest threat to public education that we

have in this province today, because teachers went to teachers' college to teach, not to be involved in political protests. Students who go to school are going to learn; parents are sending them

there to learn.

When the task force we put in place to make recommendations about how to resolve the current disputes that existed over extracurricular activities said that

everyone should join together to tell the unions to help, support and encourage their teachers to do extracurricular activities, instead of using it to be a political protest, did the Liberal Party

support that recommendation? Did they come out with the students and the parents?

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

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, on behalf of those 2.25 million children, I wonder if you might, just for a moment, stop finding enemies of the

state everywhere, stop fighting with teachers and unions and focus on the issue at hand.

You are putting forward a policy which is very far-reaching, which is unprecedented, which we had no notice of, which is going to affect our children and the

education they receive inside the public education system. You've given public hearings for all kinds of other bills which, while worthy in the grand scheme of things and with a measured sense of

proportion, are not as worthy as your policy in terms of the impact that it's going to have on our kids and their future.

I ask you once more on their behalf and on behalf of their parents, why is it that we can't have full, travelling, public committee hearings for your

policies?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Public committee hearings, travelling hearings and meetings with stakeholders are all part of the consultation decision that

occurs on budget bills. That is not unusual.

As I said to the honourable member, when decisions are made about what discussions, what consultations, what meetings and what hearings will take place about

any of the pieces of legislation that are before this House or that will come before this House, we will certainly let the honourable member know.

I will be very pleased to tell all of those other stakeholders who think that those bills that are having public hearings are not as worthy as another issue. I

don't think ranking the worthiness of legislation and bills in this House is appropriate.

Our commitment to those over two million students in the public education system stands. That's why we're bringing in higher standards, which he opposed, safer

classroom legislation, which he opposed, testing --

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

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Minister, the Niagara region is well known as a tremendously

abundant fruitland area, particularly for its grape and wine industry. I know that grape growers and winemakers have made great inroads in the past few years into new markets. Past ministers have

worked with myself and the member for Erie-Lincoln on successfully bringing in new VQA legislation, direct delivery regulations and have opened up the European market.

Could you stand in your place today, Minister, and tell this House what you, as the Minister of Agriculture, are doing to ensure this industry continues to

thrive?

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I thank the member for Niagara Falls for the question. Just a few weeks

ago, I was in the heart of wine country at one of the many terrific wineries that are in the Niagara Falls area. My colleague the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation joined me at Vineland

Estates to announce our government's announcement of just under $1.2 million.

This project will expand domestic and export markets for Ontario wines and, at the same time, create a stronger tourism industry in the wine region. Under the

healthy futures for Ontario agriculture program, we've joined forces with the Wine Council of Ontario and the Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association to put the wines of Ontario front and

centre across this country and in countries around the world. We expect this project to increase domestic sales of Ontario's wines by $51 million, increase export sales by $1 million and create an

additional 1,000 jobs.

Mr Maves: I'm glad to see you are continuing to work in co-operation with the wine industry, ensuring that Ontario's wine is enjoyed around

the world. However, being from the Niagara area, I know the wine industry demands a pretty highly skilled labour force. Have you done anything to help fill those 1,000 new positions?

Hon Mr Coburn: The member is quite correct that the new jobs in the wine industry will demand talented, highly skilled people. That's why we

have, under the rural youth job strategy, invested more than $570,000, and another $2-million project will prove to be a win-win situation for young people in rural Ontario and certainly in the

wine industry. This gives students from across the province an opportunity to learn about, and eventually get a job in, one of the province's most exciting sectors. In addition, the industry will

benefit from a new generation of well-qualified wine experts.

This project is a joint effort between the provincial government and the private sector. I believe this project is a great resource for Ontario's youth,

especially for those interested in working in the wine industry.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the Minister of Education: you're telling us now that you're talking about some

kind of consultations and some kind of hearings after this bill becomes law. We don't want those hearings at that time; we want, on behalf of Ontario families, and especially Ontario parents, the

opportunity to voice concerns before this bill becomes law, in the hope that somehow we can influence you into understanding something you and the Premier used to understand, that a voucher program

is not in the interest of public education. It's not in the interest of the 96% of Ontario children who go to public schools. It's not in the interest of the 2.25 million Ontario kids who go to the

public system day in and day out. On behalf of those children and on behalf of those parents, tell us why we can't have public committee hearings.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): First of all, I agree with the honourable member that vouchers are not in

the interest of the 2.25 million students. That's why we're not doing it. That's why we're putting in place something that respects and supports parental choice.

Secondly, I've already answered the honourable member's question on a number of occasions regarding further steps of consultation, discussion, hearings or

whatever with this legislation, as with other legislation.

We on this side of the House do not need any lectures from the honourable member about commitments to public education. We've put forward more money, new

investment. Every piece of legislation we've brought forward to put in standards he's opposed. When we said school boards shouldn't take special education money and spend it on other things, he

disagreed with that, because he voted against the bill. When we brought in legislation that said that classroom dollars could only be used in classrooms, he voted against that. Every standard we

bring in to --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: If the minister won't accept my advice, then how about a lecture from one Janet Ecker in your letter to me, Madam Minister,

before you performed your flip-flop of Olympian proportions. You said at the time, "extending funding to religious private schools would result in fragmentation of the education system in Ontario

and undermine the goal of universal access to education." You also said this would cost somewhere between $300 million and $700 million. Furthermore, you said that would have to come out of public

education funding. If you are so proud of your policy, which apparently you are, then why are you afraid to take it out and expose it to the light of day and give parents an opportunity to comment

on this bill? I ask you once more: why can't we have public committee hearings on this bill?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I've already answered the honourable member's question on public hearings. I'm opposed to taking public money --

Interjections.

The Speaker: We'll wait.

The Minister of Education.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I've already answered his question, but his caucus was making so much noise that I'm sorry he missed it.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Are hissy fits allowed in the standing orders?

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Interjections.

The Speaker: OK, folks. Everyone take their seat. I'm going to start to throw people out starting right now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister? Thank you.

We were at the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka with a question.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the comments made by the member opposite with respect to

the Minister of Education were both unparliamentary and unnecessary, and --

The Speaker: Take your seat. Do you know what we're going to do? I allow points of order because I treat them very seriously. They are now

getting abused, and I'm going to get up very quickly. It's not going to be part of the debate any more. If you want to use a point order and you want to use it up, we're going to let the clock run

and I'll stand up and we won't have any question period. It's as simple as that. It is now being abused.

Applause.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. I don't need any clapping on it.

The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka on a question.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I hope this is not considered abuse. While I may disagree with the

minister, I found the remarks of the member from Windsor extremely sexist and I am offended. I would ask him to withdraw them.

The Speaker: Any of the members can withdraw if they would like.

The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Thank you. I feel like a yo-yo over here, jumping up and down.

My question today is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Interjections.

Mr Miller: I guess the yo-yos are on the other side.

Last Wednesday --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. Again, if you guys want to keep it up, that's fine. I'm going to pick people out starting right

now. If you don't want to be here for the day, that's fine. The same for you, member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

I have to get up just as many times. We've been up three or four times. We're going to ask him to ask the question. A lot of it is the government members. It's

your own member asking the question. I'd appreciate it if you would let him do it.

The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Mr Miller: Thank you, Speaker.

Last Wednesday in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, I had the privilege of announcing a $100,000 investment from the northern Ontario heritage fund to

construct an outdoor recreation facility on the Wasauksing First Nation reserve. This new facility will be used for hockey, skating, basketball, roller hockey and other sports throughout the year.

The Wasauksing First Nation has about 500 residents, and they will also be able to use the facility to host powwows and other cultural and recreational events.

The residents of my riding were very excited to see that the Mike Harris government is keeping another promise, that of fostering economic development in the

north and in First Nations communities.

Minister, could you tell my constituents about some of the other projects that have been announced lately which will foster growth in northern communities in

the 21st century?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka makes an excellent point: our government is

firmly committed to economic development in northern Ontario.

So far during this month alone, the northern Ontario heritage fund has invested more $4.5 million in northern communities. Some of the projects include more

than $4 million to expand cellular phone service in the Kenora and Greenstone areas, more than $243,000 to expand the Valley East industrial park in the city of Greater Sudbury, $102,000 to conduct

a tourism study to attract new businesses to the town of Kirkland Lake, $100,000 for the construction of a new main lodge at Camp Bickell in the Iroquois Falls area. All these announcements further

demonstrate the Mike Harris government's commitment to northern Ontario.

Mr Miller: I'd like to thank the Minister of Northern Development and Mines for his answer. As a tourism operator and as the member for Parry

Sound-Muskoka, where many of my constituents are involved in the tourism industry, could you please tell the members of the House today how the northern Ontario heritage fund has benefited and

strengthened the tourism industry in northern Ontario?

Hon Mr Newman: Again I'd like to thank the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for his question. Tourism is one of northern Ontario's most

important industries. In fact, direct tourism expenditures amounted to $1.2 billion in 1999. In addition, the northern Ontario tourism sector supported almost 43,000 jobs in 1999.

As a result of the investments in the northern tourism industry in 1996, a further economic gain of more than $400 million province-wide, an additional 7,600

jobs and an additional $109 million in tax revenues to the three levels of government have been generated. From 1996 to 2000, the northern Ontario heritage fund has approved 141 projects related to

tourism, which have totalled over $8.5 million, and these projects alone have created 2,380 jobs. This is great news for northern Ontario.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Last week, Abitibi-Consolidated announced that they're

closing their paper mill in Kenora for the next three months and possibly longer; 333 people lose their jobs for at least the next three months and 147 are out of a job for good. The manager of the

mill was very clear. He said that a 14% increase in electricity rates has forced up their costs of production.

Minister, there are over 20 paper mills across this province that are directly responsible for over 15,000 jobs. As you go about your process of increasing

electricity rates and then privatizing electricity so that the rates can go even higher, how many paper mills are you prepared to sacrifice and how many thousands of jobs?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): The decision to pay off Ontario Hydro's debt is one that the honourable member

should have taken when he was in office and the Liberals should have taken when they were in office. It's a shame that they didn't do anything during their 10 years in government. As a result,

we're faced with the situation that the debt has increased, that the payments coming in from an eight-year freeze in electricity rates in the province are simply not enough to cover the debt

repayments, some $38 billion left behind by previous governments. Secondly, we spent over $2 billion on Ontario Power Generation over the last six years improving our environmental record, and the

Minister of the Environment has announced tough new emission standards which will require us to spend another $1 billion. That's $3 billion that we don't have to put toward the debt and therefore

we have increased electricity prices slightly across the board for all consumers and all companies and Abitibi. I regret that we had to make that decision, but I think they understand that we have

to pay the debt off.

Mr Hampton: The question was, how many thousands of jobs are you going to sacrifice in this industry and in other industries? Your phony story

about the debt doesn't wash, because what you're doing is selling the assets to your private corporate friends at a cheap price and you're going to saddle the people of Ontario with the debt.

You're giving away good assets and you're forcing up the price in the process.

Minister, there are literally hundreds of other jobs in this community that depend upon those jobs in the paper mill, and so my question is, what are you going

to do to ensure that we don't lose thousands of other jobs in this province because of your privatization of electricity, and what are you going to do to help this community, to help them get back

on the road? So far all you're doing is putting more obstacles in their place.

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member knows that we continue to have very competitive electricity prices in this province. In fact, he has

complained so often that because we have such competitive electricity prices we're going to sell all our power to the States, which has higher prices. The honourable member can't suck and blow at

the same time.

Abitibi is very much in favour of deregulating the market. I met with company officials in April. Let me tell you what they said the day after our meeting in

April. "Ontario business cannot withstand the inefficiencies of a market that is not truly competitive. Abitibi-Consolidated has been diligent in preparing for deregulation and will be ready to

fully participate." That's from Pierre Côté of Abitibi-Consolidated.

I know the company management understands that this is a difficult decision for the company, and I have offered the assistance of the government of Ontario in

anything else we can do to help the company through these difficult times.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): In the absence of the Minister of Health, I'll direct my question to the acting Premier. It may be

appropriate, since she is of course the former Minister of Health. As such, Minister, you will be aware that there is a new treatment for macular degeneration, a condition which in many patients

cannot be treated by current treatment methods. That treatment is Visudyne. The request for approval for funding under the drug formulary for that treatment has been before the Ministry of Health

for some time now.

In answer to the requests of literally hundreds of people who are waiting for approval of that to be able to start the treatment -- the answer was expected by

the end of February. It is still being delayed. It is being considered only as a

section 8 request.

Minister, whether in your capacity today as acting Premier or in your capacity as the former Minister of Health, can you tell those hundreds of people who are

waiting to know whether they can get treatment that will prevent them from becoming blind when they are going to get that answer?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): Certainly I share the concerns of the member. You can be assured that I'll certainly take

the question under advisement. I hope that the Minister of Health will be able to provide a response to you.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the citizens of Victoria county had no direct say in the creation of the new city of Kawartha Lakes; and

"Whereas the government by regulation and legislation forced the recent amalgamation, against the will of the obvious majority of the people; and

"Whereas the government has not delivered the promised streamlined, more efficient and accountable local government, nor the provision of better services at

reduced costs;

"Whereas the promise of tax decreases has not been met, based on current assessments;

"Whereas the expected transition costs to area taxpayers of this forced amalgamation have already exceeded the promised amount by over three times;

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Immediately rescind this forced amalgamation order and return our local municipal government back to the local citizens and their democratically elected

officials in Victoria county" --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Will the member take his seat.

We won't have behaviour like that from the associate Minister of Health. It's lucky she left.

Laughter.

The Speaker: And there's no laughing back there either. Coming up and yelling at people like that is a disgrace.

Member for St Catharines, sorry for the interruption.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'll get to what they ask for in the petition:

"Immediately rescind this forced amalgamation order and return our local municipal government back to the local citizens and their democratically elected

officials in Victoria county and remove the bureaucratic, dictatorial, single-tier governance it has ordered on all local residents."

I affix my name to the petition, as I'm in agreement.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I've received hundreds of letters and now petitions asking for choice to attend private schools, a

petition signed by people from, for example, RR 1, Jarvis; 2nd Line, Hagersville; 4th Line, Caledonia; and the town of Simcoe.

"Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

"Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or other religion, is best for their

children; and

"Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children;

and

"Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

"Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

"Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of the tuition fees paid for that

education;

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

"To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible."

I fully agree with the people who have signed these petitions and I hereby affix my signature to these petitions.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition to the Ontario Legislature. It's dealing with northerners demanding that the Harris

government eliminate the health care apartheid which is still being practised in the province of Ontario.

"Whereas the northern Ontario health travel grant offers a reimbursement of partial travel costs at a rate of 30.4 cents per kilometre one way for northerners

forced to travel for cancer care while travel policy for southerners who travel for cancer care features full reimbursement costs for travel, meals and accommodation" -- we consider that health

care apartheid;

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

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

"Whereas northern Ontario residents pay the same amount of taxes and are entitled to the same access to health care and all government services and inherent

civil rights as residents living elsewhere in the province;

"Whereas we support the efforts of OSECC (Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care), founded by Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario, Northeast

Region, to correct this injustice against northerners travelling for cancer treatment;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to fund full travel

expenses for northern Ontario cancer patients and eliminate the health care apartheid which exists presently in the province of Ontario."

Of course, I'm in agreement so I affix my signature.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

"Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or another religion, is best for their

children; and

"Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children;

and

"Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

"Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

"Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of the tuition fees paid for that

education;

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

"To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible."

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

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

"Whereas this government is planning a complete overhaul of the developmental services system, which could result in the closure of the three remaining

developmentally handicapped regional centres;

"Whereas suitable quality medical, behavioural, social, emotional and spiritual services are readily available in the three remaining centres; and

"Whereas there is a distinct deficiency of services available in the private sector, including dentists, kinesiologists, psychiatrists, physicians, and

emergency services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ask that you recognize that the three remaining centres for developmentally handicapped

individuals are providing a community for the residents that live there, and acknowledge that these centres deliver quality care and services by keeping them open and by directing private/public

agencies with limited resources and services to access the resources at the centres and to work in partnership with them."

It's signed by a number of residents from Chatham, Leamington, Coatsworth and Blenheim, and I have affixed my name to it.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

"Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or another religion, is best for their

children; and

"Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children;

and

"Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

"Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

"Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of the tuition fees paid for that

education;

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

"To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible."

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

"Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or another religion, is best for their

children; and

"Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are the best for their

children; and

"Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

"Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

"Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit" -- not a voucher -- "for a portion of the tuition

fees paid for that education;

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

"To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible."

I agree with this and am pleased to affix my signature.

POLICE PROVINCIALE DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I have a petition with more than 2,500 names from concerned citizens of the village of

Casselman.

« À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

« Attendu que la sûreté provinciale de l'Ontario doit déménager de Casselman après 35 ans et plus d'existence, à cause

du manque d'intérêt des entrepreneurs locaux de leur fournir un nouveau local de 8 000 pieds carrés ;

« Attendu que le manque d'intérêt des entrepreneurs locaux de soumissionner pour fournir un nouveau local à la sûreté

provinciale de l'Ontario est la durée du terme de location maximum de cinq ans ;

« Attendu que la population de Casselman et des environs s'objecte au déménagement de la sûreté provinciale de l'Ontario,

« Qu'il soit résolu que l'Assemblée législative demande au premier ministre de l'Ontario, l'honorable Mike Harris, et à son

ministre, l'honorable David Turnbull, que de nouvelles soumissions soient ouvertes avec location de bail pour une période minimale de 10 ans, et renouvelable après l'expiration ; et

de plus,

« Qu'il soit résolu que l'Assemblée législative demande au premier ministre de l'Ontario, l'honorable Mike Harris, et à son

ministre, l'honorable David Turnbull, de s'assurer que si les soumissions ne sont pas ouvertes à nouveau, les conditions du bail offert pour une durée de cinq ans soient

respectées.

« Nous, soussignés, résidents et commerçants du village de Casselman, nous objectons fortement au départ du détachement de

la police provinciale de Casselman. »

J'y ajoute ma signature.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition here concerning the tax credit for independent schools, and it's to the Legislative Assembly of

Ontario:

"Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

"Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or another religion, is best for their

children; and

"Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children;

and

"Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

"Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

"Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of the tuition fees paid for that

education;

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

"To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible."

It's signed by a great number of my constituents.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it has been determined that recent funding allocations to the developmental services sector in the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent and

Windsor-Essex have been determined to be grossly inadequate to meet critical and urgent needs;

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

"That the Ministry of Community and Social Services immediately review the funding allocations to the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent and

Windsor-Essex and provide funding in keeping with the requests made by families or their agents."

I affix my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition that reads:

"Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

"Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or another religion, is best for their

children; and

"Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children;

and

"Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

"Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

"Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of the tuition fees paid for that

education;

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

"To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible."

I affix my signature to the petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Northern Ontario residents are still outraged by the lack of action related to the northern

health travel grant, and I have petitions that continue to come in.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): They're still outraged.

Mr Gravelle: They're still outraged.

"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 the Ontario government acknowledged that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents and, therefore, that

financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; 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 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 their communities."

I am strongly supportive of this, of course, and happily sign my name to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REMEDIES FOR ORGANIZED CRIME

AND OTHER UNLAWFUL

ACTIVITIES ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES RECOURS

POUR CRIME ORGANISÉ

ET AUTRES ACTIVITÉS ILLÉGALES

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 17, 2001, on the motion for second reading of Bill 30,

An Act to provide civil remedies for organized crime and other

unlawful activities / Projet de loi 30, Loi prévoyant des recours civils pour crime organisé et autres activités illégales.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): It's finally my turn. It's been a long time coming, but at the same time this is all so much like

déjà vu all over again, because it seems like only a short while ago this bill was before this Legislature, albeit with a different bill number. But then the government killed their own

bill. I find that peculiar. I suppose I shouldn't. It demonstrates the naïveté that I have, after even this many years here, that there are things that governments could do that still

surprise me, that shock me, that leave me pondering, as I scratch my head, saying, "How could this be?" How could the government introduce a bill with such fanfare? All the flags were waving and

the trumpets were blowing and there were backdrops and there were spotlights and there were loudspeakers and there were microphones and there was hoopla. There was everything but pompoms.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): We'll do that next time.

Mr Kormos: Listen, yes. There are more than a few government backbenchers who would be more than pleased to line up to do the pompom routine

just to get in good standing. We see the pompoms being shaken and rattled and flayed around from time to time.

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: I do too. Those were the good days, let me tell you. A lot has changed since then, hasn't it, Mr Tilson?

So there was this grand, remarkable, energetic, enthusiastic announcement of this bill in its first incarnation. But it was killed by the government. Heck, we

had second reading debate. It went to committee. I was there at committee.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): No, we didn't. It was after first reading of the bill.

Mr Kormos: It didn't even have second reading debate. Thank you very much, Mr Tilson. He's got me rattled now. I'm grasping for words. I'm

shaken. Perhaps I should just relinquish my time and sit down. I've just been cut off at the knees by the rapier-like attack of my counterpart here on the front benches, but off to the side, of the

Tory caucus.

In any event, we had committee hearings and the government was promising amendments. But then, boop, the bill crashed and burned at the government's own hand.

Incredible, you say. And here we go, we've got the bill one more time. This time, though, the press conference was down at police headquarters, and they had the backdrop once again and they had the

loudspeakers and they had the movie cameras and the TV cameras. They had the little PC caucus camera person there and all the hangers-on and functionaries with their little tape recorders making

sure the minister was recorded so that just in case somebody said the minister said something he didn't say, it was on tape. It was the same bill, the same theme all over again.

I would not suggest -- it would be irresponsible to suggest -- there is any member of this Legislature or, quite frankly, that there ever has been that I'm

aware of, who wouldn't agree that crime has to be tackled, that crime has to be fought head-on. In fact, I'm dismayed, and I know a whole lot of the people are, who read some of the same headlines

I did over the last week or 10 days by authorities saying organized crime will never be defeated. Did you read some of those same headlines? "We'll never stifle, we'll never crush, organized

crime." I don't find that particularly heartening.

I think it's an attitude that could be just an attitude. It could be an acknowledgement by policing leaders or, if it were to be uttered by government leaders,

an acknowledgement by government that there are never going to be sufficient resources given to the police and to the criminal justice system to indeed take on crime, especially organized crime --

very vague in its own right -- organized/biker crime. The government has, in the announcement of this bill, both the first time and now for the second time, successfully and not inappropriately

talked about organized crime -- the mob, I suppose, from time to time, but the mob in all its forms, and, of course, biker crime. The press has made us all aware of the extent to which biker

organizations have permeated certainly Quebec and Ontario, and I'm sure the rest of Canada, the United States and beyond North America. And this is what the government tells us is going to tackle

organized crime.

As I said, it would be irresponsible to suggest that any member of this Legislature doesn't share a serious level of concern about crime in general, and there

isn't a single member of this Legislature who would take any glee in the victimization of people.

More often than not, who are victims of crime? Victims of crime tend to be young people. Victims of crime tend to be old people, senior citizens. You see,

really rich people don't tend to get B and E'ed. Their houses don't tend to get broken into, because really rich people have big gates and spotlights and electronic surveillance and those burglar

alarms. Sometimes they've got private security guards who patrol their estates.

I'm not sure, but I suspect it's been a long time since John Roth got B and E'ed. I suspect it's been a long time since Frank Stronach got B and E'ed. The fact

is that B and E artists don't break into the houses of John Roth or Frank Stronach. How do I put this? If you were going to B and E a place, John Roth's stereo system has got to be worth a heck of

a lot more than the stereo system in some ordinary folks' family home. But rich people have big gates, they've got fences, they've got dogs, they've got private security. They tend not to be

victims of break and enters. Really rich people don't have to walk on dark streets from the subway stop to their home. Really rich elderly women tend not to get mugged, because really rich elderly

women have the car waiting for them on Yorkville Avenue. They get in the car and get driven up The Bridle Path to where they live and the driver lets them out and everything's fine.

Victims of drugs and drug trafficking -- our young people are the perpetual victims of drug traffickers. Young people perhaps whose lives, for reasons beyond

their control, quite frankly, because of their academic circumstances, become increasingly desperate, they're the victims of drug trafficking. We're told, and I have no reason to disbelieve this,

and in fact all of the evidence indicates, that organized crime and biker gangs, as an integral part of organized crime, are right there, are critical to the large-scale trafficking of drugs and

the addiction of more and more young people.

The people who get duped by the con artists, the telephone scams and the door-to-door solicitations, which we're told again are very much the activities of

organized crime, the fraud -- not the violent crime now, except how can you say it isn't violent to steal some senior citizen's modest savings? The fraud crime, the bunco artists, again they prey

on seniors and lonely people, and it's a source of some great despair to think that there are people in law enforcement, people in government who say, "No, we can never win the fight against crime,

especially the fight against organized crime." It seems to me to be throwing in the towel or, as I say, it's an acknowledgement that this government is not prepared to, and will not, and nor can we

expect it to, devote sufficient resources to fighting crime.

The government says this bill is going to be its tool, its weapon of choice, if you will, for its attack on organized crime. Look, New Democrats here have

supported every effort that has come up in this House to attempt to make our streets safer, to attempt to make our criminal justice system work better. Indeed, on the sex offender registry, New

Democrats moved amendments to make that law tougher so it would include yet more convicted sex offenders. With its majority power in committee, the government voted down the New Democratic Party

amendments that would have made the sex offender registry tougher and more effective. Who's tough on crime now and who's soft on crime?

Remember the legislation dealing with high-speed chases and the penalties imposed upon people who force the police to pursue them in that very dangerous way?

New Democrats moved amendments to make that legislation tougher, and the government voted them down. When it came time to deal with the impounding of vehicles for suspended drivers whose licences

were suspended by virtue of the fact they were not just drunks but drunk drivers, New Democrats moved amendments to make the law tougher, but the government voted those amendments down.

I have some real concerns about this government's persistence in describing itself as being tough on crime, of course with the implication that the opposition

somehow is soft on crime, when in fact the evidence and the history are very clear, and that is that New Democrats have been there in the forefront to give the courts better tools, more effective

tools, to give the police a more meaningful arsenal. Indeed, it's New Democrats who have been standing up in this House over the course of the last six years reminding this government as often as

we've been able to that there are fewer police per capita on the street today than there were when the Conservatives got elected. How can you fight crime, how can you bust drug dealers and how can

you investigate sophisticated scams and frauds when cops don't have the resources in terms of staffing to do it?

There are police forces in this province, I suspect more than a few of them, and I've talked to some of them, that no longer attend at the location of a break

and enter. You understand what I'm saying? You come home from wherever, from vacation or from work, your house has been broken into, your stuff is scattered all over, stuff is stolen, gone -- I've

got to tell you, you never really can identify everything that's stolen in most break and enters. Long after you've settled with the insurance company, you realize that that wedding ring that you

got from your mom, for instance, or your grandmother, that yes, it was in that cupboard, in that drawer, and that's gone, too -- long after you settled with the insurance company. Break and enters

malinger; they impact on people for literally