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

December 8, 1999

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 1999-Dec-08 (PDF)

L025 - Wed 8 Dec 1999 / Mer 8 déc 1999

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

RAMADAN

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURE OFFICES

CHRISTMAS FESTIVITIES IN DURHAM

HOSPITAL SERVICES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

JOHNNY LOMBARDI

EMERGENCY SERVICES

LOCAL HERO IN OSHAWA

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

DEFERRED VOTES

SAFE STREETS ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PLUTONIUM TRANSPORT

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

CANCER TREATMENT

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

HOSPITAL FUNDING

NORTHERN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

RENDERING INDUSTRY

VISITORS

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA PROTECTION DES LOGEMENTS LOCATIFS

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

PETITIONS

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

KARLA HOMOLKA

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

HIGHWAY SAFETY

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I rise today to pay tribute to a document that marked a watershed in international law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was ratified on December 10, 1948.

The declaration is based on the inherent dignity of all people and affirms the equal rights of all men and women, in addition to their right to freedom. The declaration gives human rights precedence over the power of the state. While states are permitted to regulate rights, they are prohibited from violating them.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is significant in both its content and its application. It states, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights," and serves as the driving force behind much human-rights-based legislation, like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In addition, the declaration has inspired the creation of subsequent international documents such as the International Bill of Human Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Furthermore, it makes the protection of human rights an important part of international law. It also serves as a basis for human rights observers like Amnesty International and many other international organizations.

For 51 years now, the declaration has provided international norms and standards to which the world community is expected to adhere. Despite a continuing struggle in many regions of the world, significant progress has been made and it is that progress I wish to celebrate today.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale.

RAMADAN

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Mr Speaker, welcome back.

I would like to wish all members of the House a special Muslim blessing: Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Rahim-in the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful.

Tomorrow, December 9, marks the beginning of Ramadan for the members of the Muslim community in Ontario and across the world.

Ramadan is the holiest month of Islam and it commemorates the time when the Qu'ran was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Observed during the ninth lunar month, Ramadan traditionally begins with the actual sighting of the new moon.

For 30 days, our Muslim sisters and brothers will be living a life of restraint and piety, staying away from food and drinks between sunrise and sunset. Fasting during Ramadan is one of the five pillars of Islam, and with the exception of children, the sick and the very old, all the devout Muslims are expected to participate.

As Ramadan ends Muslims come together in prayer to celebrate the thanksgiving festival of Eid-ul-Fitr. This festival of breaking fast lasts for three days and is marked by feasting and the exchange of gifts between friends and relatives. In fulfilling the teachings of their faith, Muslims all across the world are demonstrating a commitment to righteousness and compassion.

With us today in the members' gallery are distinguished guests from our Ontario Muslim community and members of the Islamic Society of North America. I would like for you to join with me in wishing our guest and all members of Ontario's proud Muslim community Ramadan Kareem and Eid Mubarak. This greeting, which in Arabic means, "May you have a month of giving and a blessed feast," speaks to the central meaning of Ramadan.

Assalam Alaikum. Thank you.

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURE OFFICES

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): On Tuesday, the Minister of Agriculture made a statement about the government's strong commitment to Ontario's farmers. However, we have learned that all field offices will be closed and replaced by only 13 resource centres.

In 1992, the Ministry of Agriculture had 50 offices. Now farmers will be served by only 13 resource centres, a 75% reduction of field offices. Yet the number of senior managers at the Guelph office will increase.

Ontario farmers get up at 5 in the morning and they fall into bed at 10 at night. What they need is access to concise, timely and accurate information. To expect farmers to add to their long day by downloading e-mail or searching the Internet is unreasonable and unacceptable.

Furthermore, farmers in Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington are several hours from the nearest ministry resource centre, time they can little afford to be away from their business. For almost 10 years, the ag rep in my riding has been a key figure in our community. Some say she knows every farm family by name. Now the farmers in my riding and across Ontario will be served by a 1-800 number.

It is ironic that today the Minister of Agriculture is threatening to withdraw from the federal farm safety net if Ottawa does not increase funding. In a year that our farmers face record low crop prices, we need to increase support, not cut services and make ultimatums.

CHRISTMAS FESTIVITIES IN DURHAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Although it does not look like Christmas outside, festivities in my riding of Durham are well underway. Ron Hope and the Newcastle BIA held their annual tree-lighting ceremony. Recently I also took

part in the Bowmanville and Port Perry Santa Claus parades. I want to thank Andy Hendriks and Jim Grieve for their assistance.

I also congratulate members of the Bowmanville BIA, the Orono BIA and the organizers of the Farmers' Parade of Lights for finding fun ways of bringing in the Christmas season in the municipality of Clarington. On Wednesday, December 1, the first annual Farmers' Parade of Lights, coordinated by Bill Hasiuk took place. The parade route travelled through the historic villages of Enniskillen and Haydon and eventually ended up in the historic community of Tyrone.

On December 3, the rain didn't stop the large crowds from attending the annual tree-lighting ceremonies in Bowmanville and Orono. Following the tree lighting in downtown Bowmanville there were chances to ride on horse-drawn carriages, listen to holiday sounds from the Salvation Army band under the direction of Lieutenant Doug Stevens and trumpeter George Forsey, and to do some shopping. Jackie Borassa of the Bowmanville Zoo also brought some animals down to stimulate the children's interest. Garth Gilpin and Ron Hooper must be thanked for their volunteer contributions.

Dan Banting and the Orono BIA, as well as the Knights of Columbus 6361 Council, did an excellent job in lighting the lights of the festive season. Congratulations must go out to the Orono United Church junior choir and the Orono public school.

I would encourage all of the members to attend the riding of Durham during this season that we celebrate in this tradition.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise today to repeat a concern that has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Health on several occasions. Despite the fact that 33,000 people in the riding of Brant said no to the closure of St Joseph's Hospital, and despite the fact that Brantford city council passed a unanimous resolution in support of keeping St Joe's open, and despite the fact that it was not Mike Harris's intent to close hospitals, your government has scheduled St Joe's to close.

The Minister of Health has not responded to a new and creative proposal which saves money, establishes links with other health care facilities in other communities and, most of all, helps solve our area's identified doctors shortage problem.

What does this minister do? She ignores the new proposal. She agrees with the proposal that sends sick and dying patients into a construction zone, into temporary placements only to be moved a second time. Once this construction is completed, whole departments will be temporarily moved to fast-track this mess at a cost of $800,000 for one department alone.

She has in her possession a letter from 18 doctor department heads pleading with her not to do this silly transfer. It's not good health care.

Now we learn that because of this government-approved ridiculous transfer policy, we may lose doctors because they have integrity and genuine compassion and concern for their patients. They would rather leave an area that is endangering patients than be party to this idiotic plan.

Do something, Minister.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): The government's omnibus restructuring bill must be opposed. In general terms, the bill extends those arbitrary powers given to commissions in Bill 26 to impose restructuring orders. It permits non-elected, unaccountable organizations to do an end run around elected councils to try and force amalgamations. It gives the provincial government regulatory powers to impose conditions on referendums at the municipal level. It exempts municipal utilities from provisions of the freedom of information act so public scrutiny cannot occur.

It gives the Harris government sweeping powers to pass regulations to change any act that may affect restructuring-behind closed doors and without public input. This will be used to fix the many mistakes that will be made as the government rams Bill 25 through.

The bill forces amalgamation of communities that have, in some cases, already voted to oppose such change. But the minister has hinted that he may allow two communities in two Conservative ridings to let residents hold referendums on amalgamation.

The bill gives enormous powers to non-elected transition teams for a longer period of time than was even permitted in Toronto's amalgamation. The teams can override municipal privacy and freedom of information laws.

The bill is silent on the critical question of who pays when communities are forced to amalgamate. The Minister of Municipal Affairs told local Sudbury media that the cost issue would be dealt with at a later date, but he didn't know when. He was quick, however, to reject a call for public hearings on the bill and confirmed he would push it through before Christmas.

For these, and many other reasons which I don't have time to list, we oppose Bill 25.

JOHNNY LOMBARDI

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): I take great pleasure in rising today to give praise and recognition to an Ontarian who over the course of his life has acted as a defender, innovator, visionary and promoter. I congratulate and salute John Barba-Linardo Lombardi, commonly known as Johnny Lombardi of CHIN, on his 84th birthday.

Johnny Lombardi was born in 1915 in Toronto. The study of music in his youth led him to play trumpet in numerous dance halls. World War II ended his career as he became a soldier to defend his homeland overseas in Europe. He was decorated for this service with several medals.

Upon his return, he entered first into the grocery business and then moved into radio and television programming. With the ethnic format as the cornerstone, on June 6, 1966, CHIN radio came across the airwaves.

Johnny and CHIN have become synonymous with each other, reaching out to over 30 language and ethnic groups, crossing barriers that previously existed. Over the years, CHIN Radio has grown as it serves succeeding generations, broadcasting across North America. Johnny is recognized as being pioneering and a leading edge, and has been awarded the Order of Canada and the Order of Ontario. Johnny has also been mentioned in the Guinness Book of World Records as the host of the world's largest free picnic.

I wish Johnny Lombardi many more health, and happy years. Happy 84th birthday, Johnny.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I was absolutely astounded today to read in the national press that the Premier thinks redirection from hospital emergency rooms is not something to be concerned about.

Let me tell members of the government what happens in communities where you don't even have the option of redirect. In my community of Windsor, where the NDP closed two hospitals a few years ago, we're down to two emergency rooms. We don't have redirects, we have code 7s. Code 7 is when an ambulance stays in the parking lot with the patient. Last winter, at the height of the flu season, we were running at 50 to 60 code 7s a month. Today, we're at 15 to 16; that is, 15 to 16 ambulances at any one time can be taken out of service.

Let me tell you what's worse. We had four patients in my community sent to Detroit for health care who couldn't access our emergency rooms. They were sent out of the country on a redirect because this government has cut health care funding. It's forcing our hospitals into multimillion-dollar deficits, and no relief. They say to the hospitals: "That's your problem. Look after it yourself and keep running up your deficit."

But what they say to the people of my community and what they say to the people across this province is, "It's your problem if you get redirected, if you get redirected out of the country." What a shame. You ought to fix it now.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Oshawa.

LOCAL HERO IN OSHAWA

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Thank you, Speaker, and welcome back.

I rise today to speak of yesterday's heroic actions of four of my constituents.

Yesterday morning at the King East branch of the Bank of Montreal, a male approached the bank and fired a number of shots in a robbery attempt. Mr Lalande, now affectionately known as "The Chairman," took a moment out from selling tickets for the Knights of Columbus charity to halt the bank heist by clobbering the gun-firing bandit with a metal chair from his ticket booth.

This was

an act of tremendous bravery and I would like to commend Mr Lalande for his actions. It takes a person with great courageousness to put his life in danger for the sake of our citizens and our community.

I do have to say, though, that if the federal government had followed our recommendations for severer penalties for the use or implied use of firearms in criminal activities such as these, I believe that it would have worked as enough of a deterrent to make sure they no longer use firearms in these activities.

I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Shawn Larocque, Kevin Spurrell and Lorenzo Guarini, who helped tackle this armed bandit to the ground once Mr Lalande disarmed the robber.

Oshawa is proud to have citizens like Louis "Chairman" Lalande, Shawn Larocque, Lorenzo Guarini and Kevin Spurrell in our community. I would ask all to congratulate the brave actions of the local heroes.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I would like to inform the members that we have two groups of special guests.

We have in the Speaker's gallery today members of a parliamentary delegation from Ireland.

Also in the Speaker's gallery is the Right Honourable Lord Desai, member of the British House of Lords.

Join with me in welcoming our guests.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr6,

An Act respecting the Association of Registered Interior Designers of Ontario.

Your committee begs to report the following bill, with amendment:

Bill Pr14,

An Act respecting Blue Mountain Village Association.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg leave to inform the House today that the Clerk received the first report of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e), the report is deemed to have been adopted by the House.

DEFERRED VOTES

SAFE STREETS ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 8,

An Act to promote safety in Ontario by prohibiting aggressive solicitation, solicitation of persons in certain places and disposal of dangerous things in certain places, and to amend the Highway Traffic Act to regulate certain activities on roadways / Projet de loi 8, Loi visant à promouvoir la sécurité en Ontario en interdisant la sollicitation agressive, la sollicitation de personnes dans certains lieux et le rejet de choses dangereuses dans certains lieux, et modifiant le Code de la route afin de réglementer certaines activités sur la chaussée.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members; this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1352 to 1357.

The Speaker: Order. Mr Martiniuk has moved third reading of Bill 8. All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Skarica, Toni

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

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.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyer, Claudette

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 49; the nays are 36.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: A press release today indicated that the Premier has appointments at Queen's Park this afternoon. The opposition would have thought he'd want to keep his appointment and be here to answer questions.

The Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Let me start off by saying that we're going to have order today in this House. I want to say very clearly that I will not put up with people shouting across when other members are asking questions. Each side has one minute to ask the question and one minute to answer the question, and if there's any shouting I will proceed to name people in this House.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Speaker, in the absence of the Premier my question is for the Minister of Health.

Minister, to coin a phrase, the debate is over and there is no doubt whatsoever that you have left our emergency rooms in a complete mess. The numbers are in, and your government has bungled emergency care and is today threatening lives. The number of hours Toronto's emergency wards closed their doors completely to ambulances was 14 times higher in October of this year than it was in the same month of 1995, and there is no coincidence that your government was first elected in 1995.

Will you now, for the first time ever, take responsibility for this mess and apologize to Ontario patients whose lives you are today putting at risk?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm very surprised at the statement and the question that has just been asked by the leader opposite. I would have thought he would have recalled the fact that individuals have been saying that the whole issue of emergency room pressures has been around for at least 15 years-in fact, David MacKinnon as recently as yesterday indicated-and it was only our government that recognized that this was a serious issue, that put a task force in place and is now moving forward to relieve those pressures.

If you had taken action years ago when you were in power, the situation would have been dealt with.

Mr McGuinty: You've been in charge for five full years, Minister. This is a crisis of your making. It has your fingerprints all over it. You made the cuts, you closed hospitals, you shut down beds, you shut down emergency wards, and the little bit of money that you have trickled in recently is going to pay down hospital deficits. This is a crisis of your making. What's worse is that your Premier is now saying it's OK that emergency wards are so swamped they're closing the doors to patients. Your Premier says that to say redirect is a bad thing is wrong.

Minister, do you agree with your Premier when he says that it is OK, that it is acceptable, that we now are in a predicament where we have 14 times the number of emergency wards that are shut down because of your mismanagement of health care in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member knows full well that our government has indicated that we are very concerned about health. In fact, it's a priority. It was our government, the very first government, that recognized the emergency room pressures, that set up the task force, that immediately after the task force made recommendations indicated that we would accept every one of the task force recommendations. We have put forward $225 million to support those task force recommendations. Further to that, we've put forward another $97 million to facilitate the construction of emergency rooms, and presently in Ontario, I am proud to say, there are 57 emergency rooms that are being expanded.

Mr McGuinty: When you so-called attacked this problem back in 1997 and 1998, you drove the numbers up from 400 hours to 1,000 hours in Toronto where hospitals were on critical-care bypass in October. When you act, people get hurt, Minister.

It is perfectly clear that this crisis is the result of your doing, of your mismanagement. You shut down the hospitals, you shut down the emergency wards, you eliminated beds, you fired nurses, you made cuts, and hospitals now are so strangled for funds that when they get some from you, they use it to reduce their deficits.

Minister, will you finally, for the very first time, stand up and admit that this crisis is of your making and apologize to the people of this province for the risks you're putting them through?

Hon Mrs Witmer: That's absolutely unbelievable. If his government, when they were in power, had undertaken some action we wouldn't be-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Will the minister take her seat. Order. The member for Essex come to order, please. I will not tolerate shouting across at other members.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I will not tolerate shouting across at other members when they're trying to answer questions. Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition doesn't remember the headlines when the Liberals were in power: January 5, 1988, Toronto Star: "No Room in Metro, Critically Ill Newborn Flown to Buffalo"; or January 4, Toronto Star: "Triplets Mum Flown to Kingston Because Toronto Can't Cope"; or how about the Ottawa Citizen, December 26, 1987: "Diverted From Two Hospitals, Woman Dies."

We are concerned about this issue and that's why we put the task force in place. That's why we've recognized that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Thanks to our efforts, we are now expanding the capacity within the province. We are hiring additional nurses. There are additional physicians. We are constructing 20,000 new long-term-care beds to alleviate the pressure.

If you had undertaken the measures we have undertaken-

The Speaker: Order. Will the minister take her seat. The time is up.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of the Premier, my question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Today we have still more proof that, like most revolutions, yours is followed by a dictatorship. It's about your sledgehammer bill on municipal restructuring. Yesterday we exposed the hammer clause, a clause that is going to allow your cabinet to bypass this Legislature and to change or even eliminate laws under cover of darkness. That's the hammer.

Today we discover the sickle. You put a clause in here that lets you and you alone decide what a municipality can ask its own people in a referendum. You get to decide what it is that people might offer their opinions on and what it is that they may not offer their opinions on.

My question is simple, who died and made you king?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The honourable member excels at misreading legislation and creating obfuscation which is designed to take us away from the fact that he has completely flip-flopped over this issue. He voted against a bill that was giving him exactly what he demanded from this government for a number of years. We will not be silenced on this.

Let me just add one quote to the record. Somebody said, "If Mike Harris doesn't restructure Ottawa, the best opportunity we've had in years to transform our community into an efficient, effective and competitive force in the new century will have been lost." Guess who said that? The honourable Leader of the Opposition, Dalton McGuinty. This man is a flip-flop artist-to call him a flip-flop artist would be an insult to the sandal industry.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I assume you're not familiar with this provision that's found in your bill, so I will enlighten you further. This bill gives you the power to veto any referendum question that a city or town wants to put on the ballot. It gives you that supreme authority. It grants you that divine right. It says that you get to decide what an Ontario community may or may not offer an opinion on. If a municipal council wants to get some understanding as to how people feel about how often they want the garbage removed, you get to decide whether the community might vote on that.

But more important, if a city wants a referendum on your downloading, you get to veto that if you don't like it. If a city wants to make a decision about the municipal restructuring plan being imposed on it, you get to decide whether or not the citizens of that community have a right to vote on that. Minister, if that isn't censorship, if that isn't dictatorship, then tell me what is.

Hon Mr Clement: Let me cite two examples of what perhaps the people of Ontario would like to see and define as dictatorship. Perhaps the honourable member can tell us why, on the Loan and Trust Corporations Act of 1987, the Liberal government put in a clause that he is now condemning this government for putting in. Perhaps he can explain to the people why he flip-flopped on that. That would be the first question.

The second question is, why are you accusing us of that sort of behaviour when you yourself want to force bilingualism on to cities when it is the perfect right of the cities to make that decision? Perhaps he should find out why he is flip-flopping and why he is forcing municipalities to make those kinds of decisions.

Mr McGuinty: If the people of this province would like some hint as to this government's thinking behind this kind of dictatorial provision, then we should remind them that when the municipalities of Ontario decided they wanted to provide some information on the tax bill to make it perfectly clear what the increase in taxes was all about, that it was the result of your downloading, you said they were not allowed to do that. You said it was not in the interests of your party and your government that they do that. That's what this veto provision is all about.

You get to decide what it is that municipalities can and cannot hold referenda on. You get to decide what it is that Ontario citizens may or may not offer their opinions on. That's what your provision is all about.

Yesterday you reversed engines and you said you were going to have to withdraw that other dictatorial provision that we brought to your attention. You said: "Just trust us. We're going to pull it away later on." You've got another provision just as dictatorial that is going to dictate how it is that municipalities may conduct referenda and what citizens may or may not offer their opinions on. Minister, will you now stand up and agree that this provision is also dictatorial and that you've got a responsibility now to withdraw it as well?

Hon Mr Clement: Let me make another quote for the record. The honourable member who asked that question, in a Liberal news release on August 24, 1999, said: "In my mind there's no question that transforming the seven urban local governments that we now have into a single city will save tax dollars, reduce bureaucracy and streamline services. It will also put Ottawa on a more even footing with other cities around the world when it comes to competing in today's global economy for investment and jobs."

I like that Dalton McGuinty. He gets it. The Dalton McGuinty of today doesn't get it and I disagree with him.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Member for Windsor-St Clair, please come to order. Sorry, Windsor West come to order, please. I should have known that; I've said it enough times, and I say that in both cases.

PLUTONIUM TRANSPORT

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Solicitor General. While you seem to be celebrating public safety in Ontario today, I want to ask you a question about public safety.

Earlier this week we asked the Premier to call Prime Minister Chrétien and to tell him to cancel the federal government's plan to ship weapons-grade plutonium across Ontario highways to Chalk River. You refused. Now we learn that one of the possible routes for this weapons-grade plutonium is along Highway 401 through the city of Toronto, the most densely populated part of Canada. We also learn that if there is an accident on the highway causing heat, you could have an 80-kilometre plume of nuclear contamination. We learn that police forces in Ontario have neither the equipment nor the training to handle this.

The Americans have decided this is top secret. They're not going to tell you what highway it's going on or when.

How are you going to protect the public of Ontario if you don't know where it's being shipped, when it's being shipped and your own police forces haven't been trained to handle it? How are you going to do that?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): We all know that the federal government made the decision to bring this plutonium into this country. I certainly do call upon the federal government to make sure they understand that public safety is of a concern in this province.

We've already heard from the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Transportation on this. I believe the federal government should pay some attention to public safety issues. As I understand it, the OPP have been consulted in terms of this transportation issue. If in fact this happens, I understand the OPP will be participating to make sure the public safety is ensured.

Mr Hampton: I want to contrast this government's response with that of the government of Michigan. The Attorney General of Michigan has written to the US federal government to say, "Don't use Michigan highways." She says, "As I am sure you are aware, this proposed shipment has raised grave concern among the citizens of Michigan as well as the citizens of other states."

Government members may choose to laugh about this. I suggest they should take it seriously.

A US federal judge in Michigan has granted an interim restraining order saying, "No transport through Michigan." You say, "Leave it up to the federal government." Look who's running this for the federal government: Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, which has a commercial interest in this. They want to show that they can burn weapons-grade plutonium in their reactors. They think it will help them sell more reactors.

Minister, are you going to leave the public safety of Ontario citizens up to a corporation that has a commercial interest or are you going to act? Call the Prime Minister today and tell him that Ontario highways aren't available. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Clearly the federal government has to have a concern for public safety. I say to the member of the third party that if he expects Mr Chrétien to take my phone call, that's interesting since the justice committee wouldn't even listen while the justice minister of Ontario wanted to make representations about justice issues affecting people in Ontario.

The prime responsibility for this lies with the federal government. However, if in fact this does happen, the OPP will make sure that public safety, to the best of their ability, is taken into account.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): Minister, I ask you to try to understand the seriousness of this issue. The United States Department of Energy has confirmed that accompanying these shipments will be nuclear 007s with shoot-to-kill orders. First Nation communities along the Trans-Canada have said that they will blockade the road to prevent the shipment from passing through their land. Who will give the order to shoot, Atomic Energy of Canada?

Minister, armed road warriors, shoot-to-kill orders, inadequate safety precautions, no advance notice. You're the government of Ontario. It is your responsibility to take action to protect the citizens of Ontario. This is a ludicrous, dangerous situation. Will you stand in your place and say that you take this seriously and you will use your power as the top cop in this province and put a stop to these shipments through our streets of Ontario?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Certainly, if this does happen, if the federal government decides that this will happen, then we will to the best of our ability at the Ontario Provincial Police try to ensure that the people of Ontario are safe.

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a question for the Acting Premier. Could you please share with us today what the Premier's

schedule is, what he's doing that he couldn't be here this afternoon.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The Premier's

schedule is fulfilling the commitments that we made in the Blueprint to the people of Ontario to make sure that we restore the economic well-being of this province after five years of your destructive policies.

Mr Hampton: As we just heard, there wasn't much of substance on the schedule.

Eight months ago the Premier was summonsed to answer questions put to him by lawyers asking him about his knowledge of events surrounding the death of Dudley George. On November 29, he sent a very high-priced lawyer, at taxpayers' expense, to ask for a delay so that he wouldn't have to answer these questions, to ask for a more suitable date. We now understand that your government has hired one of the most expensive lawyers in the province to find more ways to delay this matter.

The truth is going to come out. This issue is not going to go away. The question is, how much taxpayers' money are you going to waste trying to avoid the inevitable questions that the Premier is going to have to answer? How much taxpayers' money will you waste trying to delay answering the questions that should have been answered two years ago?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I know the Attorney General will want to answer this question.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): As the member opposite is a lawyer, he knows or should know that in civil litigation, under the rules, sometimes a judge is appointed to deal with matters such as those he raises here today. Indeed, that's the situation here. The notice of appointment, the notice of examination for the Premier was struck out by the judge the other day. I'm sure the member knows that and I'm sure the member doesn't want to mislead the House about that because he would want the House to know the exact way that the litigation is progressing.

He'd also know, since he is a lawyer, that there are often notices of examination served but that it's unusual for them not to be done on consent, which is indeed the reason why the judge who is managing the motions in the matter has got involved and is dealing with it, I should add, at the request of the crown lawyers, so that he'll know, as a lawyer, civil litigation can proceed in an orderly way.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): In the absence of the Premier here to accept responsibility for the health care chaos in the province, I'll return to the Minister of Health.

Minister, I want to raise with you another troubling question, in this case the debate about who is responsible for cancer care patients having to wait for care.

I want to bring to your attention the case of Mr Payzant from Toronto, who was diagnosed with prostate cancer on September 13. He was referred on an urgent basis to the Princess Margaret Hospital on October 8. Two weeks later he was told by the Princess Margaret that they could not take him and that he'd probably have to go out of province for treatment.

Mr Payzant received a letter from Cancer Care Ontario on October 25 telling him that his file was being reviewed and that he would be informed as to whether he would be a candidate for re-referral. He has not yet heard from Cancer Care Ontario.

On November 26, Mr Payzant was told that he could after all be treated at the Princess Margaret, eight weeks after his referral. He is now being told his costs will not be covered.

Do you agree that Mr Payzant has fallen between the cracks of a cancer care system that simply is not working?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the member knows, our government has certainly indicated that we recognize the need to ensure that people in the province have access to cancer services. We have increased spending on cancer services by about $155 million since 1995. We set up Cancer Care Ontario in order to ensure that there could be coordination and better services provided to individuals.

However, I think it's important to keep in mind that despite all of the investments that are being made, the incidence of cancer across Ontario continues to increase at a rate of about 3% or 4% and we are continuing to invest dollars to ensure that people can have access to the services as quickly as possible.

Mrs McLeod: What seems to be missing in all of your answers to these questions is a recognition that what we're talking about here is not some kind of abstract, theoretical waiting list. We're talking about real people, who are seriously ill, who have to wait in ambulances because they can't get into emergency rooms, who have to wait on stretchers in emergency rooms because they can't get hospital beds, who have to wait to see a physician or have to wait to get care with the knowledge that they have a cancer that's growing and threatening their lives.

People like Mr Payzant don't live comfortably with that knowledge. They want treatment, they want it right away, and your answer to them is: "Don't worry. We're making progress; 35% of people are now seen in the recommended time. Our goal is to have 50% of people with cancer seen within the recommended waiting times." What about the other 50% who aren't going to get treated, who don't know when they're going to get treated, people who like Mr Payzant, who sought his own treatment and is now being told his costs won't be covered?

I ask you, will you take direct responsibility to ensure that our cancer services, all of our cancer services, whether delivered by CCO or Princess Margaret, are coordinated and that patients like Mr Payzant receive timely information about the options open to them even if you can't guarantee them that they can get care in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think the member understands full well that we recognize the period and the emotions that cancer patients have. That's the reason why our government has made the commitment to invest the $155 million. That's why we have set up Cancer Care Ontario.

We are trying to do everything we can to reduce the stress, to reduce the burden, to ensure that the waiting time and the waiting list for patients throughout the province can be reduced. In fact, that's one of the reasons we have indicated that we are the expanding cancer centres across Ontario.

We have new cancer centres that are being constructed in Mississauga and in Durham and in the region of Waterloo. We have a cancer centre in St Catharines. We have another satellite centre that is going up in Sault Ste Marie. It is because we know of the personal hardship and we know of the stress, and it's because we want to do everything we can. In fact-

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

Mrs McLeod: On a point of privilege, Mr Chair: May I ask whether or not I would have permission to send Mr Payzant's file to the minister so that she may review this case personally?

The Speaker: I don't believe you need to ask permission to send it over.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Southwest): My question today is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

As the member for Scarborough Southwest, I'm proud to have Centennial College as part of my constituency. Every year, thousands of young Ontarians arrive at Centennial and graduate with good, high-paying jobs. Many of these students rely on the Ontario student assistance program as well as other government programs to help finance their education and achieve their goals.

Over the past few weeks, there has been a confusing array of allegations swirling about the other side of the House about the government's plans to help students with the costs of a college or university education.

As many of my constituents in secondary school and their parents plan the next steps of their education, they would like to see some reliable information about the government's plans. What can you say to the parents and the students in my constituency who are concerned about the future of student financial assistance?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): In response to the member from Scarborough Southwest, the great home of Centennial College, I'd like to assure the members of this Legislative Assembly and the people of Ontario that there will be a space for every qualified, motivated student to attend our colleges and universities in the future, as there is now and as there has been in the past.

Provincial support for post-secondary education has never been higher. As a matter of fact, it's $3.5 billion now, growing to $4 billion next year.

I think the important fact for members of this Legislative Assembly, especially those who are intentionally, in my view, some days misleading our students, is that we have increased student assistance since 1995-96 by 30%.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I try to listen carefully. I don't know if she said some members were trying to mislead. If she did, I would ask her to withdraw that.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I would happily withdraw that.

I would say that unfortunately for the members in this House there are some individuals who should know better and should be telling the public that in fact we have increased student assistance by 30% over 1995-96 levels. That's very important because these young people need to be reassured that there will be a space for them and there will be the financial assistance they need.

Mr Newman: The parents and students in my riding are going to be glad to hear that this government is prepared to help them achieve their goals.

Having spoken to the concerns of today's students, I'm also concerned about the impact of Ontario's economic success and population growth on our post-secondary system. As the minister knows, post-secondary education is an important part of the government's plan to build a modern and globally competitive economy here in Ontario, and we all know that a skilled and educated workforce is more productive, flexible and better able to prosper in a new economy.

As Ontario's economy continues to grow, demand for college and university education will almost certainly grow as well. Minister, what steps will you be taking to ensure that our post-secondary education system is prepared to accommodate Ontario's remarkable growth and ensure that we have the education and training necessary to compete in the global economy?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In response to the question, I think everyone agrees that the great competition for our province and our country is that young people get a post-secondary education, the best in the world. Quality education is what we stand for in this province and what we promise to provide to our students, as we do as I speak.

We are taking very firm steps to put in place a system for growth in the student population which the member for Scarborough Southwest has brought to our attention today. We have announced $742 million in new capital through the SuperBuild Growth Fund to build these new buildings at our colleges and our universities, and we're working with the best advice we can get from our colleges, our universities and our students. I can assure you we're also designing scholarships. We're not just building buildings but are aiming for the top scholarships, $35 million to help more than 10,000 students, starting next September.

I think this is a great success story for our young people and I'm proud to be part of this government.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): In the absence of the Premier, my question is to the Minister of Health.

ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As you know, it's out of order to draw to the attention of the House the absence of any member of this Legislature. This has been done five or six times by the opposition and we find it intolerable that they continue to break the rules of this House.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. While I'm hearing a point of order, I would appreciate it if members are not shouting across at each other.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Niagara Centre, come to order.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, on the point of order: Given how seldom this House has sat in the last year and the fact that the Premier has failed to attend more than once a week in this time to answer questions, as is part of our parliamentary tradition, I would hope that that would be kept-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order while I hear the point of order, government members.

Mr Duncan: Our parliamentary tradition dictates that we have question period so that ministers, particularly the Premier, can be asked questions. For the Premier to show up once a week is simply unacceptable and unanswerable to the people -

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat.

The government House leader is right. The standing orders are very clear. I let it go the first couple of times.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I will say very clearly, the standing orders do not allow reference to the absence of a member or a minister. I let it go a couple of times; I will not let it go any longer. I will call the members on either side to order if they refer to anybody being away. What is going to happen, I know, is that the government members are going to be doing it and we're going to be back and forth. We're going to start doing this right from now: No member is going to be allowed to refer to any member being here or not being here.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): My question was intended for the Premier. However, it's to the Minister of Health.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Your members were shouting just as much, I say to the third party. Member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr Gerretsen: Minister, we're all aware of the severe doctor shortage in the province. Today I want to bring to your attention two other areas of this province where there is a severe need for family doctors.

The St Lawrence District Medical Centre in Lansdowne, Leeds and Grenville will be closing their doors because they can't find a replacement doctor. Some 1,200 patients will be forced to travel to walk-in clinics in Kingston and Brockville for their medical attention.

In Havelock, Peterborough county, I recently-last week-met with the town council, which operates a rural clinic. They will shortly be without a family doctor as well, stranding a community of over 3,500 people, which goes to over 10,000 people in the summer, without any medical support.

Minister, what will you do today? Don't talk to me about the McKendry report, because all you're going to do there is set up an expert panel as to how to deal with long-term issues. What are you going to do today? Why don't you get together with the OMA and the College of Physicians and Surgeons and immediately implement the unanimous decision of this House, Mr Ruprecht's private member's bill that was passed last week, asking you to do something about getting-

The Speaker: The member's time is up.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The entire issue of physician supply and distribution is certainly one that we have focused a tremendous amount of attention and effort on. As the member knows, we have taken some very unprecedented steps.

This is an issue of very long standing, and I'm very pleased to say that at the present time, as a result of the initiatives that have been undertaken by our government to strengthen the economy of this province and reduce taxes and red tape, the number of physicians who used to go to the United States has decreased dramatically. In fact, between 1997 and 1998, the rate of physicians leaving Ontario has decreased by 37%. Thanks to those efforts, we are retaining physicians. We also have in place many initiatives to encourage physicians to go to areas where they are most needed, and we will continue to address those issues.

Mr Gerretsen: Minister, you just don't get it. Your own ministry records show that we are at least 422 family doctors short in Ontario. Why don't you do something about it?

The township of Havelock recently put in a request for proposal in conjunction with the Peterborough health centre for a nurse practitioner for their centre. I was told today by your ministry that it will be late winter before this issue is made, whether or not they will be successful in their proposal.

That's too late. The people in Havelock and Peterborough county, and their duly elected council, need action today. Rather than passing the buck and not doing anything, why don't you get together with the OMA and the College of Physicians and Surgeons and take action now so that over 100 communities that have a shortage of doctors of anywhere between your figure of 422 and our figure of 700 can be dealt with immediately? Do it today.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think the member knows that in an attempt to ensure that we did have appropriate distribution of doctors throughout Ontario, some measures were introduced that indicated that if you were going to be staying in an overserviced area, you would be discounted. However, even measures such as that have not led to doctors going to areas where they are most needed.

Again, I would remind the member that we are the very first government to have identified this as a problem. We have Dr McKendry taking a look at the scope and the cause. He is bringing in his report, and if there are some additional short-term initiatives, we are certainly prepared to introduce them.

Again, I would just quote from the ICES study. It did find that the number of actively practising doctors has increased from 1991-92 to 1997-98-

The Speaker: Order. The Minister of Health, time is up.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. In an age when most people in this province have access to the world through everything from radio, TV, newspapers, and now by the Internet, the concept of losing our local identity becomes a real reality. I believe that we can attempt to protect our local culture and our local history by promoting rural museums and heritage standards across this province. They identify the culture of our communities and educate us about the history of the respective area.

That is why I am concerned about the loss of funding to the Barnum House Museum located in my riding near Grafton. This was following a review by the community museum operating grants program.

Minister, could you please explain why Barnum House did not pass the evaluation process?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): I would like to thank the member for the question. Let me say, first, I know the member has quite an interest in his local community and in a number of the things that go on there so I take his concerns very seriously.

When we were giving grants to museums in Ontario, in 1982 standards were developed that local museums should be meeting. In 1997, the auditor suggested that at the ministry we were not ensuring that we were living up to those standards, that we were measuring museums by the standards we had in place.

We looked at the standards again in 1997, 1998 and 1999. There are six standards that a museum across the province is to be judged by. It's to be judged by the research it does, by the collection record management it has, staff training, exhibitions, the conservation standards and the standards for

interpretation and education programs.

When we looked at this museum-

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

Mr Galt: Thank you, Minister, for explaining the program standards.

The board of directors in my area have carried out all kinds of activities from barbecues to fundraising dinners. They've had dozens of volunteers giving of their time and of their talents. This board of directors is absolutely exhausted, and by the end of March, they're going to be down to three.

The criterion such as a full-time curator may be just fine for Toronto and big cities, but it really doesn't fit rural Ontario. I believe it's important. By remembering our past, we can create a blueprint for the future.

Minister, what is the government going to do to help small museums with day-to-day operations in this province, particularly the Barnum House Museum in Grafton?

Hon Mrs Johns: We make the commitment to the member today that we certainly have every intention of working with small museums in their day-to-day operations. You're quite right that not every one can have all the services and the staff that are required by something like some of the big Toronto museums.

What we've agreed to do, as a result of your questions, is to look at the standards next year. We've got the community museums in Ontario to come together to talk about standards, to make sure they're appropriate for different museums. We've asked them to report to us to by December 23. That letter was sent out in October or November. We'll ask them to look at those standards.

Let me make a commitment to the member who is so passionate about this. I will work with you to make sure that we look at every standard. I will work with every community museum to ensure that they have an opportunity to understand the benchmarks. It's important to have standards and benchmarks, and we're going to continue to work on those. We'll help any museum that wants to-

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

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the same minister, the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. I've got to tell you, Minister-

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): You didn't like my answer?

Mr Marchese: I didn't like yours, and I'm not sure I'm going to like hers either.

Students and parents across Ontario are outraged over this insulting little millennium project pamphlet of yours. The students are upset that you spent $2.5 million to produce this booklet; even more, they're upset that you've spent over half a million to courier this across the province to every elementary and high school in the system. I've learned you're spending another $30 a pop for another millennium book that you're going to be sending. People are outraged.

A teacher from Sir Frederick Banting says: "I do not have decent books or enough books to distribute to my classes. I am currently using filthy old books that should've been thrown away long ago." That's the reality. How do you find the money to spend on such luxuries when you're bleeding the school system?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): Let me say first off that I believe that any time we ask young children to get involved in thinking about where their future is and thinking about 2020 and thinking about where Ontario is going to be in the future, that's a good use of taxpayer dollars.

But let me say that I'm not the only one who thinks that. I have a letter in my hand from the director of education of the Sudbury board that says:

"I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your government for the Ontario 2000 book. These books will allow our young people an opportunity to read about the aspirations of other young Ontarians and to record their thoughts for the entire year. I know that you have received some significant negative comments about this project. Don't let these negative individuals deter you from this excellent project. Negative people never lead, they only react."

Interjections.

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

Mr Marchese: I have no doubt that-

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: Minister Ecker, please.

Speaker, I have no doubt that this Tory member, director of education, supports this. I don't have any doubts about that. But the students and parents and teachers are hurting. That's why this is fuelling the fury across Ontario. That's money wasted on a luxury when students are being deprived of music, art and personal safety programs. That's what we're dealing with.

I question your judgment, students question your judgment, and I've got to tell you something else: Taxpayers across Ontario are questioning your judgment. You're going to have to justify this waste beyond one Tory director from Sudbury and you're going to have to face the taxpayers across the province. Deal with that, Minister.

Hon Mrs Johns: I can't miss the irony. When we were elected in 1995, the province was $11 billion in debt as a result of this party.

Let me say that we spent a fair amount of time looking for ways that we could recognize the millennium, because it's very important to the young people of the province. We went out, we asked people what they wanted us to do for the millennium. People said: "Whatever you do, include young people in this, because this is really their year. This is the year where they move forward and they're able to view the future."

I went out and got requests for proposals and spent less than $1 per student to make sure they had a record of the year 2000. In that book they have the ability to record. The irony of this is-he's saying that directors are the only people-that I had the teachers' unions help me pick the stories and get the book prepared. It's a wide breadth of teachers and students in the province who put their-

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. I want to ask you about the emergency room crisis you've created in the city of Hamilton. Let me inform you. I have information that shows that in the months of October and November, almost 20% of the time the four Hamilton hospitals were in critical care bypass. McMaster, General, St Joseph's and the Henderson were turning emergency patients away. The four hospitals were on emergency critical care bypass for almost 1,000 hours in this two-month period.

I don't want to hear your garbage about 1985, 1990 or 1995, Minister. What I want to know clearly is, do you find it acceptable that your policy of cuts and lack of health care funding and your restructuring policies have caused this crisis? Clearly you have allowed this to happen. You are jeopardizing patients' lives. Will you tell us today exactly what you're going to do, starting tomorrow, to fix the situation in Hamilton?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Let's set the record straight. There has been no lack of health funding from this government. The only government to reduce health funding is the federal government. They have reduced funding to this province by about $2.8 billion. Our government has increased funding from $17.4 billion to $20.6 billion this year with a further 20%. So for that member to say there are any funding cuts is wrong.

I would also indicate that we have added money, over $300 million, to respond to the whole issue of emergency rooms. Unfortunately the member's party, when they were in office, didn't address this issue. This is an issue of at least 15 years' standing and if the action had been taken then, we would be further along the way to progress today.

Mr Agostino: Minister, you have cut almost $1 billion out of hospital funding in this province. You can sit there and believe it is acceptable under your watch as minister that in two months, for over 1,000 hours, the Hamilton hospitals are on critical care bypass. Do you think that's good performance? Do you think that's acceptable? It is a disgrace

The problem is that you have spent four years making empty promises. The problem is not simply the funding to emergency rooms. It's lack of beds for long-term care. A year ago you announced 600 long-term-care beds for Hamilton. Do you know how many have been built? Zero. Zip. None. In one year not one of those beds has been built. That is the problem. That is why we have this situation we're facing today. I'm sick and tired of your empty rhetoric and garbage. Patients' lives are in jeopardy. Hamiltonians are going to die because of your actions.

Minister, again, how are you going to fix the situation and how are you going to ensure that every patient who needs an emergency room gets one from this unacceptable, disgraceful situation you have caused in Hamilton?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Mr Speaker, I'm rather shocked at the rudeness of the-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order.

The member for Hamilton East has asked his question. I would appreciate it if he would listen to the answer.

Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'd like to quote from the Hamilton Spectator on March 31, 1999, where Dean Olson, vice-president of patient services at St Joseph's Hospital, says she's very delighted about the $895,000 the hospital is receiving. "The funding will be used to increase the number of nurses at times when the hospital's emergency room is overcrowded, she said. Olson added the money will also let the hospital open beds it doesn't regularly have open and staffed, so that it can better get through busy times."

We have increased funding to Hamilton emergency rooms by some $7 million since-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister take her seat.

Order. I'd appreciate it if members do not yell back and forth to each other when I'm trying to listen to the answer. I need to hear the answer and I can't when members are shouting across at each other.

Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have increased the funding for Hamilton emergency rooms by over $7 million since 1998. We are providing an additional $7 million to Hamilton for nurses, and since 1998 we have increased long-term-care funding by $9.4 million. In fact, after 10 years of no construction of any long-term-care beds, it is our government that is finally adding 20,000 beds across this province. I'd also like to add, the Liberal government cut the hospital beds in this province-10,000 beds.

NORTHERN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I've decided that my question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Constituents of mine in the riding of Durham on occasion have to travel through northern Ontario on business, either truck drivers or business people, or people on vacation, but all people in Ontario are concerned that there are harsh climate conditions in northern Ontario that can cause very difficult road conditions, further impacting transportation and safety across the province. Minister, you're responsible for the north. What steps have you taken to ensure that northerners and other Ontarians have first-rate safe highways in northern Ontario?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank the member for Durham very much for his question and for his interest in northern Ontario and, importantly, in northern Ontario highways. I'm pleased to report to the House that this past year the Mike Harris government has invested a record $202 million in northern Ontario highways, including significant investments in the four-lanings of Highway 11 and Highway 69, the gate highways, as well as rehabilitation in other parts of northern Ontario.

That stands as a record, in fact a 30% increase over last year's funding, which was similarly a record amount of funding of northern Ontario highways. Since 1996, $650 million has been invested by the Mike Harris government in northern Ontario highways.

Mr O'Toole: I know you will work with our Minister of Transportation. It's clear to me that you are the voice of the north. That's clear to me. I can see that.

However, you've indicated that your ministry and our government have surpassed the level of any governments of the past. Minister, could you tell us a little bit about the spending levels that have far surpassed the Liberal and NDP governments' commitment to the north?

Hon Mr Hudak: I thank the member for the question. I'm very pleased that he raised this point in the House. I think it's very important to demonstrate to the members of the House and those watching on television in Ontario and in northern Ontario the difference between the commitment of the Mike Harris government in northern Ontario and that of the previous governments. In fact-

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I wonder why you didn't get elected in-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Sudbury, come to order.

Mr Bartolucci: It's because you make fun of us.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Sudbury, this is his last warning. The next time I will name him.

Hon Mr Hudak: In fact, the record shows that between 1995 and 1999 the Mike Harris government invested over $750 million in northern Ontario highways. This compares to the NDP government, which invested about $650 million or so. I think I understand why the member for Sudbury is yelling and heckling, because under his government, they invested a mere $420 million, which is barely half the level.

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Speaker: I respect the Chair. I was not yelling and I was not heckling when he was answering. You told me to keep quiet, Speaker. I was not yelling and I was not heckling and I want him to correct the record.

The Speaker: For the member's mother, who I know watches on occasion, let the record show that after I warned him he did not heckle. But I say to his mother, before that he was definitely heckling.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): On a point of order: I'd like to correct the record. I believe that I said 57 emergency room expansions. That should be 56.

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister, for correcting the record. Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon Mr Hudak: To sum up my comments to the member for Sudbury and the other members of the House, the record of the Mike Harris government is $750 million in northern highways; the record of the Liberal government is $420 million, barely half of the commitment of the Mike Harris government in northern Ontario, a record that we should all be very proud of.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): In the absence of two cabinet ministers, I'll direct my question to the Acting Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. To the member: I know he's just asking a question. I said earlier that we aren't going to refer to any ministers being away. I don't want to get into the technicalities.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister of Labour, come to order, please.

When you refer to it, it gets one step removed. I would ask all members-because if not, I know what will happen. It will be coming across the floor and we will just have chaos in this matter. I would ask all members to please be considerate and not refer to members being here. Sorry to interrupt the member. Go ahead.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Speaker-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock.

Mr Kormos: I understand the Speaker's rigid rulings regarding disruptions during question period, and I'm not going to suggest that members of this caucus haven't engaged in them. However, when the clock continues to run during those disruptions, you know full well-and you've referred to this, Speaker-that at the end of the day it denies our modest caucus access to that fourth question.

Please, Speaker, I would submit to you that it would only be fair that when the authors or sources of the disruption are a particular caucus, if there's going to be a penalty imposed, that penalty should be imposed on that caucus and not on this caucus, or, quite frankly, either of the others. I would submit that today is an illustration of the impact of that.

The Speaker: The number of questions we got on up until this week has actually been a record. It is my intention to try to get to the questions of the third party. I know there have been some occasions where people have used points of order or long answers to try and prevent that. If I see that happening, I've said very clearly, and if I see it is the official opposition, I will attempt to stop the clock to get to that. This week has been rather hectic for a number of reasons and it was difficult to bring the House back under control, but I assure you I will continue to do that.

I may at this point say as well that on points of order I'm going to be a lot stricter. In the beginning I wanted to leave a lot of leeway, I wanted a lot of time for points of order, but if I can immediately assess a point of order is frivolous or something to deny time, I will have to cut the members off. I know all members are very good. They try to use things like points of order for valid points of order. I must admit that over the last little while there have been some members using points of order to get across their debate, and very clearly that shouldn't happen. I want to be fair.

In the beginning I tried to bend over backwards in favour of the members, because I honestly and truly believe most of them are doing it in the best interests of this House.

I will attempt to get down to those questions. I know we probably haven't since early last week, but that is my goal and intention. I will make sure this House does not become disruptive until we get to the third party's question. If, over the next week or so, we do not get to that, I'm going to have to assess how I'm doing my job, whether I need to be stricter, whether I need to throw people out more quickly.

As you know, I'm new to this job and I'm trying to work it out. I will be in contact, as I have been, with the member's House leader, who has advised me of the situation, and I will attempt to get as many questions on as I can. We were doing very well in the first couple of weeks. I understand that towards the end of sessions, when we sit late, tempers tend to rise and we get more controversial bills. But I'm determined to try to get down to those questions because I know it is vital to the third party, and in most cases we're going to be able to. If we do not, I will have to decide how I'm going to run this House in order to get to it.

I gave this undertaking to the House leader of the third party. I will attempt to get down to the question for the third party. If I do see it being points of order on the part of the opposition or the government side, I will have to take action. Up to now I've left it in the House's hands; I may have to be a little bit stricter.

I thank the member for Niagara Centre and I can assure him and the third party House leader that I am monitoring it, to the point where I know exactly how long the questions are every day.

Member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, with 22 seconds left for the question.

RENDERING INDUSTRY

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Acting Premier, who's here. Minister, as you know, there's a serious problem in rural eastern Ontario regarding the rendering industry-in your part of Ontario. The ability to do this important job to remove dead and crippled animals from our farms is in jeopardy due to a drastic drop in prices under your government. Farmers need this service and so does the rest of society if we're going to protect our health and our environment. What are you doing about this problem?

Will you take the advice of the eastern Ontario farm recycling association and AMO to preserve this essential service in rural Ontario to protect the public health and the environment?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): This is a serious issue. I know that the Minister of Agriculture is dealing with this issue. He's meeting with the people affected and the groups to try to solicit input on a solution.

If the Liberal position is that we should subsidize this industry, I don't think that should be jumped to. We've tried to cancel subsidies and corporate welfare. The agricultural community that I've talked to, and I represent quite a large portion of that, have told me that it is a serious problem but they think they can work through and find some solutions. I know the Minister of Agriculture is working on that.

I would mention that he's down with other ministers of agriculture trying to make sure that Ontario gets its fair share from the federal Liberals. It's not fair that our farmers have to compete with the world, let alone other provinces where they get more subsidies from federal tax dollars. So he's trying very hard to represent the Ontario farmers to make sure we get our fair share from the federal Liberal policies.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I would bring to the members' attention in the members' west gallery Hugh O'Neil, the former member for Quinte and a member of Parliament in the 32nd, 33rd, 34th and 35th parliaments.

I would also bring to their attention, way up in the east gallery, so far up I almost can't see him, Murray Elston, the former member for Huron-Bruce and a member also of the 32nd, 33rd, 34th and 35th parliaments.

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On Monday, the House leader of the official opposition raised a point of order relating to Bill 25. Since I'm anxious to give due consideration to the arguments of the omnibus nature of this bill, I'm informing the House that I'm prepared to hear, for a short period tomorrow following routine proceedings, points of order on this matter. At that time the arguments should be concise and to the point since I don't want to unduly infringe on the business of House.

I thank the member for his point of order. I thank the Deputy Speaker. I know he indicated that while there wasn't an opportunity and time to hear the argument on the matter since one had not had the opportunity to read the bill, there would be an opportunity at a later date. Therefore, there will be an opportunity tomorrow for the government House leader, the House leader for the official opposition and the third party to give their points of order. I look forward to hearing them tomorrow.

The member for Trinity-Spadina on a point of order.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Speaker, by way of explanation, I was to have introduced a bill earlier on, but unfortunately I didn't receive it until termination of bills. So I'm asking for unanimous consent to introduce that bill now, please, to revert to introduction of bills.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA PROTECTION DES LOGEMENTS LOCATIFS

Mr Marchese moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 30,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act to authorize certain municipalities to restrict the demolition of rental residential buildings / Projet de loi 30, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les municipalités en vue d'autoriser certaines municipalités à restreindre la démolition d'immeubles d'habitation locatifs.

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

The member, for a short explanation.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): The bill amends the Municipal Act to allow the council of a local municipality with a population of 25,000 or more to adopt a bylaw prohibiting the demolition of apartment buildings unless one of a list of conditions is met.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to return to the response you made to the member from Niagara Centre. I'm going to say quite frankly I was quite encouraged by what I heard you say, and I'm probably going to offend some of my friends in simply encouraging you to follow up on the observations that you made. I know that you will. You've had a difficult week. We are glad to have you back and we see you in improved health.

I speak only for myself in this matter, but I am increasingly concerned about the deterioration of the tone in this place. I am no poster boy for good behaviour; I'm the first one to admit that I have done my share of misconduct. We are, I think, seriously seeing an institution die before our very eyes. For that we are all responsible, and we have got to do something about improving the tone of this place. That does not-

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I'm going to say to the member who is making a comment, we'd better all be careful about how we play the game within the rules, because one of the problems that I see is that there are things that are allowed theoretically under the rules that are incendiary, and I think we all know what they are. Regardless of whether we're a front-bench member of the government or a back-bench member of the opposition, we have a responsibility as honourable members to do within the best of our ability and the political temper and passion of the moment honourable things.

I just wanted to say that I was very encouraged and I want, as one member, to stand up and thank you for the observations that you brought here today. I hope, working with House leaders and all members, that we can have a very lively partisan debate within this place, most especially in question period, while at the same time resisting the temptation to bury and render unto complete irrelevance this parliamentary place.

I think we are very close to needing a funeral. I hope I'm just overly sceptical on a cold December day, and I take my seat again by thanking you for your observations and encouraging you to do the very things that you said you were going to do, in part with the House leaders. As you will know from your hockey-playing days, every game needs a very tough, fair-minded arbiter, and I'm quite confident that you're up to that task.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Thank you very much. I appreciate that, and I'm sure those are the sentiments of a lot of the members. I also should say, as one of the veterans in here, I appreciate his comments. There are often times that I pick out people who are offending. It goes without saying there are numerous members who ask good questions, sit quietly, and ministers who try to answer questions and then sit quietly. So I must admit the offenders are few and far between, but we must all work together to make a better House. Hopefully with the words and comments from the members we will be able to do that.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: With your permission and the indulgence of the House, I want to respond to the member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. I'd also, under your advice, actually make reference to more or less what the member has said but also the general tone. If you were to reflect for some time on the Hansard record over the last number of days, I'd say the week, I've noticed a tone change. There is a certain meanness, and if you are to do any deliberating on this particular point of order, I would encourage you to look to the record, to tone and wording.

The ruling in your decision I know will apply to all members, and I can attest that I would say I'm sensitive to the tone in this House, which has diminished.

The Speaker: It seems we have all parties' co-operation. I'm sure that will be very helpful.

PETITIONS

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has recently imposed a retroactive cap on revenue earned by medical laboratories for services provided under the health insurance plan; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has also required these businesses to refund revenue for services rendered in previous years where the amount of that amount revenue exceeds the retroactively imposed cap for those years; and

"Whereas this legislation amounts to expropriation of economic rights without adequate compensation or due process of law; and

"Whereas the greatest incentive to the provision of efficient and quality services and products by the private sector is competition and the ability to make a profit; and

"Whereas the removal of these incentives by government negatively affects all of society and particularly patients in need; and

"Whereas this type of legislation also unfairly discriminates against one sector of the society;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That adequate protection of property rights is needed to ensure that government cannot erode the property rights of certain sectors of society without fair compensation and due process of law."

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I'm continuing to receive petitions from Cathy Walker of the Canadian Auto Workers regarding carcinogens.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas this year 130,000 Canadians will contract cancer and there are at minimum 17 funerals every day for Canadian workers who died from cancer caused by workplace exposure to cancer-causing substances (carcinogens);

"Whereas the World Health Organization estimates that 80% of all cancers have environmental causes and the International Labour Organization estimates that one million workers globally have cancer because of exposure at work to carcinogens;

"Whereas most cancers can be beaten if government had the political will to make industry replace toxic substances with non-toxic substances in the workplace;

"Whereas very few health organizations study the link between occupations and cancer, even though more study of this link is an important step to defeating this dreadful disease;

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

"That it become a legal requirement that occupational history be recorded on a standard form when a patient presents at a physician for diagnosis or treatment of cancer and that the diagnosis and occupational history be forwarded to a central cancer registry for analysis as to the link between cancer and occupation."

My NDP colleagues and I continue to support these petitioners.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth-Burlington): I have a petition signed by approximately 2,500 people, with another 600 that weren't on the proper form. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas on February 8, 1997, the citizens of Ancaster, Dundas, Flamborough, Glanbrook and Stoney Creek voted 95% against the supercity of Hamilton being imposed upon them; and

"Whereas the only two elected government Hamilton-Wentworth MPPs both campaigned against the supercity of Hamilton being imposed upon their constituents;

"Whereas the duly elected council of Ancaster, Dundas and Flamborough voted to merge in the city of Wentworth and duly elected councils of Glanbrook and Stoney Creek have voted to merge in the city of Stoney Creek; and

"Whereas opinion polls have consistently confirmed that the majority of residents of Ancaster, Dundas, Flamborough, Glanbrook and Stoney Creek are strongly opposed to a supercity of Hamilton being imposed upon them; and

"Whereas the government made pre-election commitments not to impose the supercity on the residents of Hamilton-Wentworth;

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

"The government of Ontario must keep its pre-election promises and accordingly not impose its supercity of Hamilton on the residents of the current region of Hamilton-Wentworth."

I support the petition and I attach my signature to it.

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I have a petition of great concern. It's addressed to the Parliament to Ontario. It reads like this:

"Whereas the Ontario government has recently imposed a retroactive cap on revenue earned by medical laboratories for services provided under the health insurance plan; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has also required these businesses to refund revenue for services rendered in previous years where the amount of that revenue exceeds the retroactively imposed cap for those years; and

"Whereas this legislation amounts to expropriation of economic rights without adequate compensation or due process of law; and

"Whereas the greatest incentive to the provision of efficient and quality services and products by the private sector is competition and the ability to make a profit; and

"Whereas the removal of these incentives by government negatively affects all of society and particularly patients in need; and

"Whereas this type of legislation also unfairly discriminates against one sector of the society;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That adequate protection of property rights is needed to ensure that government cannot erode the property rights of certain sectors of society without fair compensation and due process of law."

I'll affix my signature in agreement with this.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"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 location;

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

It's signed by a number of concerned constituents and again I'll affix my signature in agreement with their concerns.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): As my colleague for Thunder Bay-Atikokan will confirm, the petitions are coming in from all over the north relating to the northern health travel grant underfunding. I have 1,500 signed petitions here. It reads as follows:

"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 resources; 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 location;

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

It's coming from all across the north and I am very pleased to add my name to this petition of 1,500 people.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that's been signed by a number of Ontarians sent to us by Cathy Walker of the Canadian Auto Workers. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas this year 130,000 Canadians will contract cancer and there are at minimum 17 funerals every day for Canadian workers who died from cancer caused by workplace exposure to cancer-causing substances;

"Whereas the World Health Organization estimates that 80% of all cancers have environmental causes and the International Labour Organization estimates that one million workers globally have cancer because of exposure at work to carcinogens;

"Whereas most cancers can be beaten if government had the political will to make industry replace toxic substances with non-toxic substances at work;

"Whereas very few health organizations study the link between occupations and cancer, even though more study of this link is an important step to defeating this dreadful disease;

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

"That it become a legal requirement that occupational history be recorded on a standard form when a patient presents at any physician for diagnosis or treatment of cancer and that the diagnosis and occupational history be forwarded to a central cancer registry for analysis as to the link between cancer and occupation."

I have added my signature to this.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, but I might add that I'm presenting this petition on behalf of the member for Scarborough Centre, Marilyn Mushinski, who has led the fight, led the challenge, for dignity in Ontario.

"Whereas Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo were responsible for terrorizing entire communities in southern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ontario government of the day made a deal with the devil with Karla Homolka resulting in a sentence that does not truly make her pay for her crimes; and

"Whereas our communities have not yet fully recovered from the trauma and sadness caused by Karla Homolka; and

"Whereas Karla Homolka believes that she should be entitled to a pass to leave prison with an escort; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario believe that criminals should be forced to serve sentences that reflect the seriousness of their crime;

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

"Do everything within its power to ensure that Karla Homolka serves her full sentence;

"Continue to reform parole and make it more difficult for serious offenders to return to our streets and communities;

"Fight the federal government's plan to release up to 1,600 more convicted criminals on to Ontario streets; and

"Ensure that the Ontario government's sex offender registry is functioning as quickly as possible."

I am pleased to support and sign this petition along with my constituents.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): This petition regarding the Truth about Ipperwash Act is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas early in September of 1995 there occurred a series of events involving the Premier of Ontario and members of his government, the Ontario Provincial Police and demonstrators representing members of the First Nations at Ipperwash Provincial Park;

"Whereas the events led to the death of Dudley George, one of the First Nations demonstrators;

"Whereas these events have raised concerns among all parties in the Legislature and many Ontarians;

"Whereas there has been introduced in the House a piece of legislation known as the Truth About Ipperwash Act;

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

"In order that there is an answer to concerns of the Legislature and Ontarians regarding the events at Ipperwash, the members of the Legislative Assembly vote in favour of the Truth About Ipperwash Act."

I support that and I affix my signature.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is signed by a number of residents from Chatham-Kent like Mary Jane Clements and Caleb Coatsworth, and I affix my name to it.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a petition signed by over 4,000 people in northwestern Ontario.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services is currently engaged in a restructuring process across all communities in Ontario which will affect all people and their families supported by developmental services; and

"Whereas the consultation process was selective and limited; and

"Whereas those who require services are being pitted against those who have services; and

"Whereas service to one group should not be at the expense of another regardless of age or language; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services corporate agenda is one of wholesale destruction of the support system for the vulnerable; and

"Whereas the corporate agenda will threaten the health, safety and, likely, the lives of many disabled people;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to stop this destructive restructuring process and provide adequate funding for quality services to the developmentally disabled."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition 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 geographic 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 our communities."

I proudly affix my signature to these petitions.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 23,

An Act to amend certain statutes administered by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care in relation to supporting and managing the health care system, when Bill 23 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

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

h) shall be permitted; and

That the order for third reading of the bill may then immediately be called. When the order for third reading is called, the remainder of the sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5:55 pm or 9:25 pm, as the case may be on such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

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

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Flaherty has moved government notice of motion number 19. The Chair recognizes Mr Flaherty.

Hon Mr Flaherty: No, Speaker, I'm not going to speak to it.

The Deputy Speaker: I call on the member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you for the opportunity to speak once again on a time allocation motion, which is a motion shutting off the debate on yet another piece of legislation under the auspices of this government.

I want to say, first of all, that it's lamentable. I think we're probably over 100 such motions since the Conservative government has been in power; at least it seems that is the case. It's become rather routine in this House that rather than debating a specific piece of legislation and the merits of that legislation, we spend the time debating a time allocation motion. That motion, for the consumption of the public, is a motion which no longer allows further debate or severely restricts further debate on a piece of legislation.

I'm going to remind people again that this House did not sit for more than seven days previous to the fall sitting of the House; that is, it did not sit in January, February, March or most of April. I think it sat a few days in April and then we were into an election.

Then instead of bringing the House back, perhaps in the summer if there was legislation of great importance-it wasn't as though it was a brand-new government and there would be a legitimate excuse or an expectation that the government was going to take a longer time after being re-elected or elected, as it may be with a new government, that they might take an extra couple of months to organize. That's certainly understandable. But instead we have the Harris government wait until almost the end of October to bring the House back into session and then rush into evening sittings.

This is not good for the legislation we have before us. I know there are those out there, and some of them are no longer with us in this Legislature but some of them still are, who believe this is great, efficient government. I call upon even the right-wing news media, the right-wing segment of the news media, who are in love with this government's policies-at least editorialists who work for the Hollinger and Southam newspapers and some others who are favourable in terms with what this government does-to chastise this government and call it to account for what it is doing to the democratic system.

My colleague Mr Conway made an astute observation which affected, I think, all of us in this House today. I don't think anyone can plead not guilty to participating in the sometimes raucous debate that takes place in the House. It's a question whether that is a good debate or not. There are occasions, and it's a British parliamentary tradition, where we're going to see interjections in a timely fashion or interjections which are relevant to the case.

When it degenerates into simply a shouting match and wild applause on both sides of the House when anybody scores a point, it hardly appears then to be a good debating forum. It's not just debate for the sake of debate, it's not just debate for the sake of canvassing a number of issues; it's debate for the sake of looking at various pieces of legislation in detail and perhaps persuading the government it should make change.

One of the frustrations that members of all sides of the House would have is that very seldom are there changes made to pieces of legislation brought forward. The government will say it pre-consulted, and sometimes it does pre-consult. I'm sure virtually always it consults with certain segments of the population. But the ultimate bills that we see in this House are really not reflective of a wide consultation. I'm fair-minded enough to know that a government is going to have to ultimately make its own decision as to what it will include in a bill. But this government is very exclusive in the way it deals with its legislation.

Because the House has been reduced in size, and there are those who talk about the virtues of fewer politicians-again Mr Conway made a very good speech the other evening where he said, "You know, it's a very dangerous practice to engage in." I know it's fashionable. There's a segment of the population, the talk show crowd, the Reform crowd, who applaud wildly when you say "fewer politicians." The work in constituency offices today-and part of it because of changed government policies, but it's always been there to a certain extent-has increased tremendously in many constituency offices.

We are doing now-and some members of the government would probably be sympathetic to this as well-a lot of the work of offices such as the Family Responsibility Office. They come to us to do a lot of the work that normally we expect that the Family Responsibility Office or other offices should be undertaking.

What is disconcerting is watching the steady erosion across this country and other jurisdictions of the democratic process and nobody seeming to care. I think you judge a government, any government, anyplace based on what they do when they think no one is looking. If you can get away with it and you simply implement policies which you think are expedient for yourselves-that's more related to the way this House operates perhaps than policies across the province-if you can get away with it, of course, there's a great temptation to do it. The real people of principle will not utilize that opportunity.

If you look at most question periods now, there's nobody up in the press gallery. When I was elected to this place in 1977, along with Mr Sterling, and I'm sure Mr Conway when he was elected in 1975, we would see a full press gallery. I understand as well that they have television sets and they can watch the television sets and do other things. But there used to be considerable interest, particularly during question period, in what was going on in the House. Today we don't see that as often. Does it mean they're not doing as good a job? I would suggest there are just fewer around, again, to do it. Very often, when people leave the press gallery here, they're not replaced by someone else.

That favours government, whoever the government happens to be, not just a Conservative government. That favours a government in power when there are fewer people to look for the foibles of government, whatever government it happens to be; I'm speaking generically. We see a situation now where the news media downsize their office at Queen's Park, eliminate people who've been here for a long period of time, who have what you call context or history in terms of this place. I really can't get into some detail. I'd like to on that.

There was a rather interesting session this morning by one of our former members. Some of the members in the House today were present here. At least Mr Newman was one member of the committee, but there was Isabel Bassett, we would now call her, before a committee. That room should have been full of news media people to hear. She was good. She answered some good questions, I thought. There were some good questions asked by both opposition and government. We had very few people there today.

Whether you agree-the opposition voted against the appointment and the government for it-I thought there were some good questions asked on all sides. Ms Bassett had an opportunity, albeit a shortened period of time-shorter than I would like or most members of the committee usually like to have, because there are always lots of questions on all sides that people can ask and points they could bring out. But there we were, with just a few people from the news media with any interest in the case, and this is the new chair and CEO of TVOntario.

I don't say that in a partisan sense, because those of us who are committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs, we will recall, and those who sit in that chair, are to be neutral. I don't speak of this in any partisan way except to talk about the fact that at one time this would have been a major, significant event, to have a person asked those questions and respond and then people make their judgment. That's the way democracy should work.

I keep seeing this erosion. Mr Conway made reference to a book called Governing from the Centre, which talks about the fact that in various jurisdictions even members of the cabinet are excluded from much of the decision-making that takes place. There is only an inner core of cabinet who really have any influence, and the unelected people. I think if you look at almost any government, that's probably true. I don't just pin it on a Conservative government. I can see it in other jurisdictions where, more and more, that is the case. Is that healthy for the democratic system? No. Just as these constant time allocation motions are not healthy.

I would prefer the government either bring the House back in early September to deal on an extensive basis with legislation and have some public hearings, and actually make some changes if they think some of the suggestions are good. Nobody is going to say that the government is stupid or ill-advised if it makes some changes to its legislation. I think governments should be commended for doing that, when they make an amendment and say, "Look, we thought we had it right, but somebody who came to a hearing or a member of one of the three parties made a suggestion that's a good suggestion," and adopt that. That would be very positive for the system.

I also see, with fewer members in the House, that committees are unable to do their work as well as they could before. It's very difficult for the government to person those committees, to make sure there are men and women on those committees, because people have other responsibilities.

In this particular piece of legislation which deals with health care, it's an extension of another piece of legislation which eroded the power of this Parliament, and that is Bill 26, the infamous bill which changed, altered or abolished, one way or the other, some 47 statutes of the Ontario Legislature in one bill. That gets to another point-and I know my whip will tell me when it's my time to sit down, or my colleague the former whip from Kingston and the Islands will help me out with that, because I'm not quite certain when I started.

I do put that lament before this Parliament. I would like to be able to get an opportunity to talk about the ophthalmologist situation, that aggravation which my colleague from Niagara South who is here, now called Erie-Lincoln, would know is a genuine problem. The ophthalmologists have taken an escalating step in saying that their offices will be closed and they'll be sending people to Hamilton at a certain timetable. That will be a great hardship for the people in our area.

I would like to be able to talk about restructuring. When we have this restructuring bill, I'm sure it's going to be rushed through before Christmas. We won't have an opportunity. There are a couple of anti-democratic-I guess that's my theme dealing with it-because we're not talking about the bill itself. I'm talking about the democratic system, watching governments put hostages in bills so that you can't vote for them, of course. There is some support.

I'm not very supportive of anything that involves big cities, huge cities, but there is considerable support in some of the areas for proceeding with some kind of restructuring. I understand that. I certainly don't want to see it happening in Niagara, but that can happen.

I looked in the bill, and for all members of this Parliament this is dangerous, not just for those of us in the opposition. The cabinet is given the power to simply change any law of the province it wants. The minister gets up and says: "Don't worry. Trust us. As soon as we don't need that power any more, we'll relinquish it." That's an extremely dangerous time and circumstances for members of the House, to have a government not have to come to the Legislature to make significant changes in legislation. For all of us, no matter which party we're in, it's important that the government be accountable.

I know when you're on the government side, because I've been there, it's onerous, it's bothersome and so on, but sometimes democracy is (

a) costly, (

b) onerous, and (

c) bothersome to people, but it's an excellent system that we've developed over the years, that people have fought and died for, that people have stood in legislatures to try to protect from time to time.

A second provision is the 75-person provision. I call that the Frank Sheehan provision, that is, where the former member for Lincoln wants to ensure that there's one big region and he's campaigning for one big region.

So if the people in the local area, from Port Colborne and Fort Erie and Wainfleet and West Lincoln and Lincoln and St Catharines and Niagara Falls and so on, get together and say: "Here's our proposal for restructuring. We're prepared to look at our system.

Here's how we think it might be improved"-it may be very minor changes, it may be significant changes, but even if they come up with a formula, if Frank Sheehan, who is leading the campaign for one big region, doesn't like it-and I know Frank well; I consider Frank to be a friend and I know he has strong views on things-he simply gets 74 other Reformers to sign the petition and that overturns what all the elected representatives in Niagara may have developed as a result of a consensus, and that's a difficult consensus.

Where is the democracy in that, when you allow 75 people to overturn a decision and then hand it over to the provincial government to simply impose its stamp?

The last thing I would mention-I don't know how this fits into the democratic system but I've got a minute left and so I will utilize the chance to mention it-is that the member for Ottawa West asked the Minister of Energy a question about local hydro commissions. The kind of question he asked was, "Do you think that local municipal councils should be trying to make big bucks on selling hydro or should they provide hydro, electrical power, at a reasonable price?" The minister will correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the minister chastized those who were inordinately trying to make a lot of money from those rates.

In our city a very close decision was made, a wrong decision in my view, to charge a huge profit on that. Lots of things should have a profit. Let me tell you, in our system a lot of things should have a profit, but providing a basic service such as electric power to people in the community should not be done at a profit; it should be done at just above cost, as it used to be by Ontario Hydro.

I relinquish my position now to whoever is the next speaker.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It's always a pleasure to follow the member for St Catharines because these days we seem to be somewhat on the same wavelength.

I have become increasingly more frustrated in this place by the lack of opportunity to speak about the real things that affect the people of this province and particularly the people of Sault Ste Marie. There are some really disturbing trends starting to unfold in this province and we're not being given the opportunity to challenge them, to speak about them, to participate in any debate whatsoever around these things that this government feels are in the best interests of everybody but, alas, are beginning to present themselves as really not that at all.

There is a terrible gap beginning to grow in this province between those who have and those who have not, and there's a whole group of people who used to be in the middle-we used to refer to them as the middle class-in this province who are beginning to fall out of that category and are now finding themselves increasingly more in that lower end.

If they're not there and they happen to be fortunate enough to be able to take advantage of some of, yes, the good economy we hear spoken of, particularly as we read the financial pages and sections of newspapers, even those people are becoming increasingly more anxious and nervous about their future and the future of their children and their communities in this province.

Even if they're able to take advantage of some of the opportunity that's out there, it's no longer that very good opportunity, position, job, that takes advantage of the training they've had, the experience they have, their love of whatever it is they do, the commitment they've made that they thought would be lifelong to a good job that they could even think very seriously of one day retiring from and passing on to somebody else, perhaps even, God forbid, their children who might follow in their footsteps.

That's no longer the reality in this province. The reality in this province is that more and more people, if they're lucky, latch on to a job-and usually it's not just one job, it's two or three jobs-but these positions are contract, they're short-term, there's no benefit pack