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

October 10, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Oct-10 vol. A (PDF)

L086A - Tue 10 Oct 2000 / Mar 10 oct 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

GARTH CARTER

CANADIAN WOMEN'S FOUNDATION

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM

EMERGENCY SERVICES

THORNHILL WHEAT SHEAF FESTIVAL

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

TAX REBATES

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOUGHEST ENVIRONMENTAL PENALTIES ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SANCTIONNANT PAR LES PEINES LES PLUS SÉVÈRES DES INFRACTIONS DE NATURE ENVIRONNEMENTALE

QUESTION PERIOD

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS (CONTINUED)

DEAF-BLIND AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE MOIS DE SENSIBILISATION À LA SURDI-CÉCITÉ

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

WASTE DISPOSAL

WATER QUALITY

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

LABOUR LEGISLATION

VICTIMS OF CRIME

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

TEACHER TRAINING

SEATBELTS

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

CHARITABLE GAMING

NATIVE PEOPLE

ROAD SAFETY

PETITIONS

INVESTIGATION INTO CHILD ABUSE

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

EDUCATION FUNDING

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

NORTHERN RURAL MEDICAL SCHOOL

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

LORD'S PRAYER

INVESTIGATION INTO CHILD ABUSE

FARMFARE PROGRAM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE COMMERCE ÉLECTRONIQUE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My leader, Dalton McGuinty, and the other Liberal MPPs from the Ottawa area are joining the chorus of distressed and dissenting parents, and now the entire business community, in their concern and distress about the closing of 20 to 30 schools in the inner city of Ottawa. We know that these closures are the result of the totally inflexible and rigid pupil accommodation formula that has been imposed on school boards across the province.

What we are seeing in Ottawa are, unfortunately, the worst aspects of this formula. It does not allow the differing geographical zones, such as rural, suburban, city and inner city, to formulate their own differing needs for accommodation. In the end, these areas are all pitted against one another to fight for scarce space that is available to their single board. The formula doesn't allow for important classes such as adult education, and ESL for the children of immigrant families.

By having the formula arbitrarily close our schools, we are facing the devastation of downtown communities on a scale that many American cities have already seen decades ago. In the Ottawa area, the formula is causing closures based on information that is five years old. Recent statistics are showing the opposite of what the board is planning for: a rise in the number of school-aged children.

I am proposing to the government, through a private member's bill, that there is a better way to approach the problem of accommodating our students here in Ontario.

The public board has written to the minister, pleading with her to allow some flexibility into the system. I hope she is listening.

GARTH CARTER

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): Today I rise to mourn the passing of a true friend, a proud Ontarian and a stalwart of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. Garth Carter was the immediate past president of my riding association in Scarborough Centre. He was a tireless worker who assisted me in many ways during the past five years.

I will always remember Garth's soft-spoken and gentlemanly manner, his generosity of spirit, and his great love of his family and his community. Garth was one of the most selfless men I have ever known. It seemed to me that he was always giving and never took, that he always helped but never asked for help. He could always be counted upon to give of his time and his treasure to every worthwhile community endeavour.

Garth did not seek recognition but was recognized as one of the many unsung heroes who contributed tirelessly, without personal gain or reward, to make our province and its communities better places for us all.

Garth was a wonderful man, and I will miss him. Please join me in conveying the condolences of this House to Garth's wife, Chris, and his children Richard, Frances and Sandra, as well as his grandchildren, on their loss of a devoted husband, father and grandfather.

Thank you, Garth. I shall always remember you.

CANADIAN WOMEN'S FOUNDATION

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): On Thursday, September 28, it was my pleasure to attend the Canadian Women's Foundation breakfast. The breakfast raised over $80,000 to support the work of the CWF in its delivery of programs aimed at assisting women to achieve greater self-reliance and economic independence.

To date they have raised more than $3.2 million and provided grants to over 450 organizations. The CWF delivers financial support to result-oriented solutions to problems of poverty and violence faced by women and their children. The foundation recognizes that these two issues are linked and delivers programs on this basis.

The violence prevention fund provides support to shelters for assaulted women, sexual assault centres, outreach to high-need women, and initiatives to help educate teens about violence in relationships before abusive patterns begin, and for projects that help coordinate violence prevention strategies between local community stakeholders.

Women in Motion, another non-profit organization, hosts conferences, seminars and mentorship programs for young women to alert them to the diversity of career options available to young women. This organization links young women with dynamic female role models in business and industry. Already they have reached out to over 20,000 young people, and they are continually growing.

Women are 51% of the population and playing an increasing role in business and industry. Groups like the Canadian Women's Foundation and Women in Motion provide an important service to society. They also fill a gap that this government's individualist policy leaves unfilled.

On behalf of the Liberal members of this House, I say congratulations to these women who are fostering the leaders of tomorrow today.

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Last week I joined students from E.L. Crossley Secondary School in Pelham at their picket line that they had set up as their way of drawing attention to and protesting the new absence of extracurricular activities.

I know these students. I know their families. I know their teachers. E.L. Crossley has excelled across the board and has an outstanding staff and an outstanding student body and families that are very supportive of the school.

For the largest part, these students understood that the impasse reached between teachers and the Ministry of Education is one that could be resolved immediately by this Minister of Education, that at the end of the day the responsibility for the reduction in extracurricular activities, which are an important part of any student's school year, has to rest firmly with the Minister of Education.

She has put the teachers in an untenable position with more students, fewer teachers, longer working days for those teachers and simply no time left for the preparation that's necessary for extracurriculars and indeed the participation in them.

I encouraged those students to-and I recognize their right of protest in a democratic society, but as well to put their views in letter form. I spoke with Troy Minor, their student council president, along with some of its executive and their principal and encouraged them to get their positions down in writing so that we can bring them to this Legislature and make this minister accountable.

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to congratulate the city of Stratford and the town of St Marys for winning the classic city category in the national Communities in Bloom competition. Communities in Bloom is a Canadian organization committed to fostering civic pride, environmental responsibility and beautification through community participation.

This year's winners were announced at the national awards ceremony held recently in Edmonton. The Stratford-St Marys team was chosen over teams from Manitoba, Alberta, Quebec and British Columbia. Stratford was chosen to host the 2003 national conference.

The judges described Stratford as a "world of pleasures, simple and rare, a community Victorian in its roots, progressive in its attitudes and outstanding in its accomplishments."

St Marys was characterized as "peaceful family living with good schools, churches, excellent facilities for sports, recreation, cultural activities and health care, all provided in a picturesque natural setting."

I'd like to commend Stratford and St Marys for receiving a five-bloom rating, the highest possible in the competition.

Earning the distinction of being one of the most beautiful cities in Canada is a tribute to the residents and businesses of Stratford and St Marys.

I also want to recognize the municipal staff and elected officials of Stratford and St Marys, and the many volunteers, like Ted Blowes in Stratford, who help to establish a sense of pride in their community.

I encourage all members of the Legislature to visit the Festival City and Stonetown and see two of the most beautiful communities in Canada.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): The Minister of Health needs to understand that paying doctors more to work in emergency rooms in rural hospitals is not going to solve the crisis in hospitals and emergency departments in cities across the province. If she is paying any attention at all to the inquest into the death of Joshua Fleuelling, she should understand that.

An unquestionably expert witness, Dr Scholl, testified at the inquest on Friday. He made it clear where the emergency room problem began, and it began with the Harris government's restructuring of hospitals. Dr Scholl made it clear that the overcrowding of emergency rooms in Toronto is a new and distinct problem. The crisis began when the Harris government started closing emergency rooms and shutting down hospitals.

Dr Scholl also made it clear that this was not just a seasonal problem. Flu shots may be a good idea, but they will not likely be helpful in solving the emergency room crisis because patients with the flu are not the ones causing the problems. Dr Scholl said that what was needed was more care for seriously ill patients, which is exactly what Dalton McGuinty said when he called on the Harris government to stop closing emergency rooms and to reopen 1,600 hospital beds.

It is a fact that Ontario has the lowest number of acute care beds per capita in the country. It is a fact that our hospitals are operating at 93% capacity, and that means they are constantly facing crisis situations. It is a fact that patients are clogging up emergency rooms because there are no beds for them in the hospitals. And it is not just emergency rooms that are affected; surgeries are being cancelled and delayed because there are no beds to put people in after they have their surgery.

It is chaos. It's chaos the Harris government has created. It's time for the government to admit their mistakes and do what Dalton McGuinty has called on them to do.

THORNHILL WHEAT SHEAF FESTIVAL

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): It's an honour for me to rise in the House today to tell you about the Thornhill Village Festival, also known officially as the Wheat Sheaf Festival, that is held in my riding of Thornhill.

On Saturday, September 16, I had the privilege of participating in this annual event for the second time since my election. This is the 24th year of the Thornhill Village Festival, which is always held on the third Saturday in September. The theme is set in the 1800s and many of those who attend come in costume. It brings us all back to the heritage of Thornhill.

Organized by the Thornhill Historical Society, the primary focus is to bring more than 42 groups together to celebrate the heritage of Thornhill. This year, more than 10,000 people visited the Thornhill Wheat Sheaf Festival. A subcommittee of 20 volunteers from the historical society, and many more event day volunteers, including high school students, bring a wide assortment of events for everyone's enjoyment.

A parade featuring community service groups, dignitaries and marching bands always delight the thousands of spectators. Arts and crafts displays, community service booths and refreshment areas add to the enjoyment of the day. This year at my booth, I had the pleasure of hosting Child Find Ontario, which fingerprinted over 75 children for identification purposes.

On behalf of the people of Thornhill, I would like to congratulate the Thornhill Historical Society for this successful festival and ask that the members join me in recognizing Victor Stecyk, the current chairman of the Thornhill Village Festival, and his wife, Elaine, and Bill Trow, the first chairman of the festival, and his wife, Lucy, who are with us today in the Legislature.

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Today I would like to address the effect of Bill 74 on the extracurricular activities of schools within my riding. I believe that extracurricular activities are an important part of our children's education. We know that teachers devote countless hours on their own time to these important activities. With Bill 74 in place, many of our teachers have to teach an extra course every day.

Take Natalie Clermont from Pleasant Corners school as an example. She has to teach six classes every morning, with an average break of five minutes between classes. This, unfortunately, reduces the amount of time that teachers can spend on extracurricular activities and leaves many students not knowing where to turn for help.

Today in the gallery I have three students from Rockland District High School who are here to try and find answers to their questions and solutions to their problems. Since Bill 74 passed, they have had very little extracurricular activity in their school and are concerned that they will not have the well-rounded education required to compete for entrance spots to colleges and universities.

Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party are committed to helping these students, and I encourage the Mike Harris government to do the same.

TAX REBATES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Last Friday, as promised in Minister Eves's budget, the first Ontario taxpayer dividend cheques were mailed out to households across the province. The cheques were issued because the families of Ontario worked hard, paid taxes, created jobs and turned the $1-million-per-hour deficit to zero.

The Ontario Liberals believe the opposite and feel that balanced budgets mean more spending. The opposition leader, Dalton McGuinty, has said, "We have turned the corner. We are in a post-deficit era. The issue now is not how to raise the money, it's how to spend it." Time and time again the Liberal leader has spoken out against the idea of giving taxpayers some of their own money back. The only thing he is concerned about is how to spend the taxpayers' money.

The people in my riding of Simcoe North are happy to be receiving some of their own money back in the form of a dividend cheque, because they are the true investors in the Ontario economy. One lady tells me she will replace her TV. Another lady tells me she will buy a stroller for her new granddaughter. Another will take her parents to the Royal Winter Fair. Many will donate the money to charity.

We encourage the recipients of the rebate to make their own decisions on how they want to spend their cheques. The decision of how to spend this money is not up to the government or the opposition parties; it is the taxpayers' money, and once again we have kept a promise to the taxpayers of Ontario.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I want to take this opportunity to invite all members to welcome to our chamber a special visitor who is seated at the table: Mr Pedro Eastman, the Deputy Clerk of the Parliament of Barbados.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Does this mean that all members of the Legislature are invited to go to Barbados in February?

The Speaker: If only it were so. There would be unanimous consent on that, I'm sure.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOUGHEST ENVIRONMENTAL PENALTIES ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SANCTIONNANT PAR LES PEINES LES PLUS SÉVÈRES DES INFRACTIONS DE NATURE ENVIRONNEMENTALE

Mr Newman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act in respect of penalties / Projet de loi 124, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement, la

Loi sur les ressources en eau de l'Ontario et la

Loi sur les pesticides en ce qui concerne des peines ayant trait à l'environnement.

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

The minister for a short statement.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Since taking office, this government has remained firmly committed to setting and enforcing tough environmental standards.

Last month I announced a crackdown on deliberate and repeat polluters. This involved creating a SWAT team and introducing the toughest penalties and longest jail terms in the nation for serious pollution offences.

Today I am pleased to introduce the "toughest penalties" bill, as promised by the government in the Blueprint. This bill would give us greater ability to deter and punish those who choose to operate outside the law and threaten our environment. This would also help level the playing field by ensuring that polluters will not prosper. This is good news for the vast majority of individuals and companies in this province who refuse to profit at the expense of our air, water and land.

This government is keeping its promise to get tough on polluters. Should this bill be passed by the Legislative Assembly, Ontario would have the toughest fines and jail terms in Canada for major polluters. The result will be cleaner communities for all Ontarians.

I urge all members of the Legislative Assembly to support this important piece of legislation.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise on a point of order with respect to standing orders 15(a), 15(

b) and 15(c).

Standing order 15(

a) states, "If a member on being called to order for an offence against any standing order persists in the offence, the Speaker may direct the member to discontinue, and if such member refuses to comply, the Speaker shall name the member to the House." Standing order (

b) goes on to talk about suspension and naming of the member and (

c) goes on to the force available to the Speaker to enforce.

Mr Speaker, my point is this: the operative word in all three clauses is "member." The standing orders contemplate an individual member being named or in fact being warned. On two occasions now, once last week, the Speaker warned our entire caucus, based on circumstances, frankly, that should not have applied to all members of our caucus.

I would ask, sir, that you review the standing order, and these standing orders have been agreed to by the parties, as the Speaker has often noted, in many cases reluctantly. But I would ask the Speaker to review that standing order in terms of naming entire caucuses. I would also ask the Speaker, and I do this with great respect for the Chair, to consider that in the context that in fact only one caucus has ever had that particular rule applied against it.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On the same point of order, the government House leader.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, the House leader for the opposition's standing up and drawing his point of order I think does draw to the attention of the Speaker the strategy of the loyal opposition to disrupt this House on a regular basis, which has denied ministers the opportunity to respond to questions and to allow the citizens of Ontario to hear those responses. The very nature of the point of order I think puts to the fore the strategy of the opposition party to actually cause disruption in this House, to not allow members of this House the opportunity to have their say.

This also works to the disadvantage of the third party which, because of the-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The opposition will know I listened quietly to the member for Windsor-St Clair. I would appreciate it for the government House leader as well.

Hon Mr Sterling: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think that's a prime example of what has been happening here over the last two to three weeks.

Mr Speaker, you know that we have an order of questions that rotate in a certain order. What has happened over the last two to three weeks is, because of the loyal opposition's frequent interjections, the third party has been denied their last question. This is untenable. This is not fair to the third party nor to the other members of this Legislature, but more particularly to the public of Ontario, who want to listen to the answers to the questions and not just to the questions.

The Speaker: I thank all members. I will listen to the member for Niagara Centre on the same point of order.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Speaker, first I very cautiously acknowledge the sensitivity of the government House leader to the welfare of the New Democrats in the Legislature.

Having said that, Speaker, and you know we've spoken to this matter before, I don't in any way suggest your power to control the decorum of the House is restricted solely to the letter of the standing orders. But I would suggest to you that disruptions that let the clock run, whether they are by any of the three caucuses, at the end of the day almost inevitably serve to the detriment of the New Democratic Party caucus because of where we stand in the ranking in terms of questions. Those four questions are very precious to us, and frankly I think they're important to the public as well.

I rise only to reiterate this point: I understand the New Democrats have heckled; some of my colleagues have heckled from time to time, Speaker, and I know you've been very cautious about stopping the clock so as not to punish any caucus in terms of the rotation. But can I suggest that if you adopt, however difficult it might be, a means whereby the time utilized for a disruption, if it's identifiable with a caucus, could be deducted from the time of that caucus and not the third party in rotation, that seems to me to be an effective way of dealing with the problem.

Those who want to be the authors of their own misfortune would suffer that misfortune, and it seems to me the most effective deterrent against grossly interrupting interjections that slow down the progress of question period. I think that's a reasonable and modest proposition. I would ask you to consider it.

The Speaker: I thank all members for their participation. I think we're going to need a shot clock in here if we keep track of all the times.

On a serious note, let me say it is my intention to get as many questions on as possible. Just so you know we have done that, we have gotten more questions on in this session since I've been Speaker than any other, notwithstanding the disruptions sometimes. I say that because it's important for official opposition, third party and government members to get questions in. That's why we shortened the questions a bit.

I will say to the third party that on two occasions last week we would have gotten to your fourth question. On one occasion, the member for Toronto-Danforth was named and as a result the clock went. We were well on our way to getting to that question. In fact, we would probably have even gotten past that question, if memory serves me.

On another occasion last week, we were well on our way to getting to the third party's question, and the member for Timmins-James Bay got up on a frivolous point of order that made it so we didn't get to the question.

Having said that, the third party has been very good and very well behaved in waiting for that question. They ask tough questions, but there aren't too many disruptions. I say to all members that there are two ways of doing it. I can names members, and I say to the member for Windsor-St Clair about naming everyone that there's no provision. I don't even need to warn you, if need be. I could simply throw you out. I do you the courtesy of warning you, and I must say the warning does work. The vast majority of members, on the warning, are very good. In fact, I know some members leave the chamber so they don't inadvertently blurt something out. The warning is done as a courtesy to all members.

There are two ways to handle it, quite frankly. One is to name people and throw them out, which I am prepared to do. The other is to simply stand and let the clock wind down. I say to the House leader of the official opposition that in circumstances like that the vast majority of members, if I were to look at it, easily 90% of the members are very quiet. They sit there patiently waiting. They may be punished, even in the official opposition, for a few members. That's the same in any organization. Sometimes in school the few who are disruptive ruin it for everybody else.

I will say, and I've said this on a number of occasions: one way or the other we are going to maintain order in this House. It's up to the members. We can do it by naming them and simply having the members removed, or we can do it by simply letting the clock run down. Maybe in that case, the members who have questions on will put pressure on those members who do not.

I think it's important to note that in the scheme of things the vast majority of the 103 members are behaving very well. I also say, and I've said this to numerous school groups, all sides believe passionately in the reasons they're here. No one side has the issue of compassion. All the members in here believe fundamentally that their ideas are best for the people of this province. Occasionally there are going to be circumstances where people's tempers do rise. But in spite of that, this is still the best system.

In other countries, when oppositions have that, we don't settle it this way; it's settled with guns and bombs and in other ways. As much as the behaviour in here sometimes may be not quite what we would see in church or in school, it's only because the members believe passionately.

I've said this to all members: the House is not going to be totally quiet in here. There is going to be some heckling. My job will be that when I see it getting out of order, I will either name the members or will simply stand and let the clock run down. I say to all members, that isn't helpful to anybody on any side if that happens.

Having said that, I'm sure all members, since we have reviewed this, will be on their best behaviour. I appreciate the comments of the members for Windsor-St Clair and Niagara Centre and the government House leader.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS (CONTINUED)

DEAF-BLIND AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE MOIS DE SENSIBILISATION À LA SURDI-CÉCITÉ

Mr Young moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 125,

An Act to proclaim the month of June as deaf-blind awareness month / Projet de loi 125, Loi proclamant le mois de juin Mois de sensibilisation à la surdi-cécité.

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

The member for Willowdale for a short statement.

Mr David Young (Willowdale): I'd ask you for a moment to imagine living with neither sight nor hearing. This is the startling reality for approximately 3,000 deaf-blind Canadians who share our communities. Deaf-blindness is a unique disability that incorporates the dual sensory loss of both sight and hearing. Persons with this disability experience extreme isolation and the inability to access the services and information that most of us take for granted.

June is the birth month of Helen Keller, a deaf-blind person known around the world for her perseverance and achievements, an inspiration to the deaf-blind community. It is appropriate during the month of June to celebrate the achievements of the deaf-blind people in this province and to recognize the increased public awareness and the need for even more public awareness of this disability. It's crucial in expanding opportunities for those individuals who live with these special challenges.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Tuesday, October 10, and Wednesday, October 11, 2000, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): The Mike Harris government is committed to safeguarding our environment and ensuring that Ontario's communities are healthy, safe and prosperous. I am proud to be part of a government that has set ambitious environmental goals and is taking unprecedented action to achieve them.

Today I am pleased to tell the honourable members about a major environmental milestone for Ontario. This afternoon, I have introduced for first reading the Toughest Environmental Penalties statute law amendment act, 2000. If passed, this bill, which was promised in our Blueprint document, would give Ontario the toughest fines and longest jail terms in the nation for major environmental offences.

The proposed bill would increase the maximum fine for a first conviction of a major offence for a corporation from $1 million to $6 million per day, and for a subsequent conviction from $2 million to $10 million per day. It would increase the maximum fine for a first conviction for a major offence for an individual from the current $100,000 per day to $4 million per day, and for subsequent convictions from $200,000 to $6 million per day. It would increase the maximum jail term for a person convicted of a major offence from two years to five years and would increase the cap on administrative monitoring penalties from $5,000 to $10,000 per day.

These proposed penalties would apply to offences under the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act. In addition, the penalty structure in the Ontario Water Resources Act would be amended to ensure that these tough new penalties apply to the most serious offences under the new drinking water protection regulation. Those offences would be the failure to report samples that exceed standards, as well as the failure to use minimum levels of treatment.

This legislation, if passed, would give us a greater ability to deter and punish those who choose short-term profit at the expense of our air, our water and our land. We will not tolerate companies or individuals who deliberately or repeatedly harm our environment. The vast majority of individuals and companies in this province care about the environment and comply with the rules. The proposed penalties are good news for them, because they will help level the playing field by taking away any incentive to pollute. Polluters will not prosper.

The tougher penalties we are proposing build on a strong record of environmental accomplishment. We have announced the formation of an environmental SWAT team with highly trained inspectors and new investigators. The focus will be on companies or individuals that systematically or flagrantly defy the law by threatening public health and damaging the environment.

Drive Clean is well on its way to meeting its goal of reducing smog-causing emissions by 22% in program areas. Drive Clean is complemented by the smog patrol, which continues to target the most grossly polluting vehicles on our roadways. We have announced unprecedented initiatives to clean up Ontario's air and to address global climate change. As members will recall, I indicated my intention to introduce the toughest penalties bill when I announced the SWAT team last month. These actions show we are serious about ensuring that companies and individuals comply with Ontario's environmental laws.

With this bill, this government is keeping its promise to get tough on polluters. Should this bill be passed by the Legislative Assembly, Ontario would have the toughest fines and jail terms in Canada for major polluters. The result will be cleaner communities for all Ontarians. I know this goal is shared by all members of the House. I urge my colleagues in the Legislative Assembly to support this very important piece of legislation.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): After that statement, I'm sure Ontario polluters are absolutely shaking in their boots. At this very moment they must be fleeing south, given this minister's new-found commitment and iron will to crack down on polluters in Ontario.

Minister, I'm sure government members already know where we are in Ontario when it comes to your record. But for the purposes of viewers, let's take a look at a bit of the record.

At some point in time in the not-too-distant past, you will remember we had the best environmental record in North America. Under your government's watch, we now have become the third-worst polluter in North America. Also, your commitment to your own ministry goes so far that you have cut its budget by 42%. That has happened on the Mike Harris watch. That's a sign of your real commitment to your own ministry: cut it back by 42%. On top of that, you have let one third of the staff go. That's over 900 people, including hundreds of inspectors and enforcement officers.

By the way, since the Walkerton tragedy you have not rehired a single inspector or enforcement officer. These are fine words that you are spouting forth in the Legislature today, but your actions have yet to back them up.

You talk about your desire to crack down, but let's take a look at the record again when it comes to actual convictions for breaches of environmental laws in Ontario. In 1998, there were over 3,300 documented cases of water pollution law violations in our province-3,300 documented violations. Do you know how many your ministry actually took the time to prosecute and to convict? One; 3,300 violations, and you come up with one measly, embarrassing conviction.

Minister, if you are really committed to cracking down, then why don't you take a new look, a close look at what's happening at Adams mine? They propose to use that as a dump site. They propose to bury 20 million tonnes of garbage in essentially what is a lake that leaks. If you want to crack down on pollution, if you want to stand up for the interests of future generations of Ontarians, then why don't you weigh in to this matter? And why don't you say you had an opportunity now to revisit this, and you understand that all things being considered, this is not in the interest of Ontarians, that you cannot possibly guarantee the safety and well-being of our children if this project goes ahead?

It seems to me, Minister, that if you should be cracking down on anybody, you should be cracking down on yourself. Maybe you should be turning yourself in, for being the best friend Ontario polluters have ever had. They're having an absolute joyride. We've become North America's favourite dumping ground when it comes to toxic waste. This is happening on your watch.

The Ontario Medical Association has now told us that 1,900 Ontarians die annually prematurely as a result of breathing bad air. The Canadian Medical Association recently told us that childhood asthma rates have gone up by 400% in the last 20 years. At one point in time we stood, in terms of the North American context here, head and shoulders above our American cousins. Now we are an embarrassment. Now they are pleading with this government and the federal government to have you come onside.

The fact of the matter is, and this is a terrible embarrassment to have to acknowledge today, that our pollution is making American children sick-and you have refused to do anything about converting our coal-fired electrical generating stations into natural-gas-fired electrical generating stations.

If you are really committed to eliminating, wherever you possibly can, pollution that is eliminating from within our province, then why don't you stand up and announce that you are going to crack down on pollution over which you have absolute control? The government of Ontario is the only shareholder when it comes to Ontario Power Generation. Why don't you stand up and say that you're going to order, you're going to mandate that we convert from coal-fired to natural gas, which is a much cleaner burning form of energy? Why don't you do that, Minister?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Well, here's the Minister of the Environment trying to pull the wool over our eyes once again; more window dressing. I went to the press conference this morning to hear what the minister had to say, thinking that he might be responding to the report on deep well water-and not a word about it until the press asked him specifically, and then there were no answers. "Oh, we have to wait." How many more people are going to have to die in this province before the minister and this government finally take action to come up with real solutions to the problem?

Let's be clear about one thing: increased penalties won't help as long as this government has a policy to not prosecute industrial and municipal polluters, and that has been the history with this government. Information obtained under FOI shows that just in waste water pollution alone offences by industrial and municipal sources increased from 1,000 in 1996 to 2,234 in 1997 and-get this-3,300 in 1998. That's a 200% increase in two years. These are just waste water offences alone.

The Sierra Legal Defence Fund report identified 16 facilities that have been violating Ontario's water pollution laws for five years straight. The MOE also uses program approvals to give permission to industry to continue to violate the pollution laws. Did you know that? Do you know what that means? The program approval actually signs a deal with industry to say, "You can continue polluting."

The March 14, 2000, draft cabinet document that the NDP released says that there are 79-oh, the minister laughs. He should read that document himself. There are at least 79 industrial polluters putting poisons into waterways that affect drinking water. It says that they have been out of compliance for more than two years and that your ministry is doing nothing about it.

That same document says that the MOE is now inspecting less than 10% of known sources of pollution, which affects our health and the environment, and that you need in excess of 500 new staff hired to inspect all the sources.

The sad truth is that after that cabinet document was released here in the Legislature and the government was forced to respond about some vague promise about a SWAT team, what did they announce? They fired almost 1,000 people, many of whom were front-line workers, the ones who go out there and monitor, the ones who go out there and inspect, the scientists who do the testing, the ones who prosecute. They fired those people and then their sad response was to hire 65 new people-not even new-on an 18-month contract, some of whom, we've been told, are not even coming from the outside. They've been moved around internally.

This is nonsense when you know that more than 80% of sources of pollution-this was in your own document, Minister. They keep saying that. They're saying "wrong" to everything. Every report, including their own ministry's report, they say is wrong. When are you going to wake up and listen to what your own ministry people are saying and the people of Ontario are saying, Minister?

Let me tell you one more thing that the minister didn't say today when he was talking about increased penalties and fines. I don't know if the minister is aware of this yet, but he should be: the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in November 1999 that polluters-this was a specific case but it was the Supreme Court-are now allowed to write off fines for environmental offences on their taxes, Minister. Did you know that? Ontario hasn't done anything about it.

Today you brag about increasing the fines-"the highest in Canada"-but they are now allowed to write those fines off. Guess who's going to be paying them if you manage to go ahead and actually prosecute and fine them? The taxpayers are going to be writing off those huge fines.

So we've got two problems here: there's no staff there to enforce and make sure people are prosecuted, and if they are and they are fined, they can write it off on their taxes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of the Environment. Bill Davis, David Peterson and Bob Rae were never afraid to make our province a leader when it came to protecting our air and our water. Things have certainly changed. Minister, your failure to protect the air that we breathe is not just a provincial embarrassment; it has become a national disgrace.

We are poised now, at the international level, to sign a treaty between the federal government and our American counterparts. It's a historic, cross-border air pollution treaty. The only thing that is getting in the way of us signing on to that deal, which most assuredly is in the interests of Ontarians today and generations yet to come, is your failure to order Ontario Hydro to convert from coal-burning to natural gas-burning.

Minister, why is it that you refuse to give that order, and why is it that you continue to act as a real obstacle in the way of a historic air pollution treaty?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Nothing could be further from the truth coming from the Leader of the Opposition. I want to say to him today that, yes, on May 17 of this year I did place a moratorium on the sale of all coal-fired facilities until a thorough review has been completed. These decisions are indeed important ones-that's why the review is continuing as we speak-but it's important that we consider all factors and input from stakeholders, and it's important that we consider options such as the conversion to natural gas for maximizing environmental performance.

It's important that we consider individual plant emissions as well as the impacts to local and regional air quality. It's important that we consider the timing of improvements as well as a reliable electricity supply. It's also very important that we look at the age and efficiency of the plants. We're doing this because we want to continue to protect the air quality for the people of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, do you know what it's important to consider? It's important to consider the health and well-being of the people who live in this province. That's your job, Minister. That's what you're supposed to be doing.

I'm going to give you the opportunity, because there's a bit of confusion over there between you and the Premier on this score. We want to know whether or not you're going to permit our coal-fired stations to continue burning coal, and we want to know whether or not you're going to order that they convert to natural gas. Yes or no?

Hon Mr Newman: I did indicate to the member opposite that there was a moratorium put in place on May 17 of this year. The review is underway as we speak, and it's continuing. It's a very exhaustive process looking at all the coal-fired facilities in our province, looking at all the options, from conversion to natural gas, so that we can ensure we are maximizing the environmental performance of those plants, looking at the age of the plants and the air emissions. We're taking all of those factors into account.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you will know that Ontario Hydro has said that they have no intention of making the conversion. They're saying they're going to put on these newfangled scrubbers, at a cost of $250 million, and that in and of itself will be sufficient to meet your needs. As you well know, those scrubbers will eliminate nitrogen oxide, but they do nothing for the 29 other pollutants that emanate from the coal, notwithstanding the use of those scrubbers.

So the question I've got to bring back to your attention, Minister, is this: will you or will you not accept Ontario Power Generation's proposal that they proceed not to convert from coal to natural gas but that instead they simply put in place scrubbers? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Newman: Again, there is the moratorium in place, and I don't know how much further I can go with that with the member opposite. I have told you that there is a review of all the coal-fired facilities.

But he raised an issue earlier with respect to negotiations with the federal government and the United States. I want the member opposite to realize that over half of the smog-causing emissions that come into Ontario come from the United States, and it seems that the best the federal government can do to negotiate with the United States is to have a reduction for five months of the year during smog season. That isn't good enough for the people of Ontario.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the same minister. We'll give him an opportunity to see if he can do any better on another issue.

I want to return to the matter of the Adams mine dump. I have a real concern that your government has not taken all of the necessary steps to ensure that, if this should proceed, we will give every protection to the health, safety and well-being of the people of Ontario, but particularly the people who reside in that community.

You are telling us that you firmly believe that this is in fact safe for the people who live in that community and for Ontarians generally. I'd like you to stand up now and simply confirm, so we get this on record, that you are convinced that this proposal is nothing less than safe and will not in any way compromise the health, safety and well-being of Ontarians.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I again remind the member opposite that there was a full environmental assessment that took place on this site in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act. The Minister of the Environment requested that the Environmental Assessment Board review the hydraulic leachate collection system and contaminant system to ensure that groundwater contamination would be prevented. The hearings lasted over a six-month period. The board attached 26 conditions to that plan. A certificate of approval was issued after further technical analysis of the project.

The certificate carried with it 66 conditions. There were eight independent peer reviews that carefully analyzed the details of the plan. Obviously, if all the conditions are met, this facility is indeed one that can be considered safe.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I'm sure you'll expect that's not good enough, so I've arranged to have a pledge of responsibility drafted. I'll have the page take a copy of it to you. It's very straightforward and says:

"To the people of Ontario:

"On behalf of the Mike Harris government, I guarantee the Adams mine dump will be safe and will never jeopardize the health of Ontarians or their natural environment."

Minister, the people of this province need your reassurance. They need to know you have every confidence in this process and every confidence in the outcome, and they need your specific guarantee that this proposal is safe. Would you please tell us now whether you're prepared to sign this pledge of responsibility?

Hon Mr Newman: Rather than props, we on this side believe in protection of the environment. That's the difference between this party and your party, sir.

I want to bring to everyone's attention the Northern Daily News from Kirkland Lake, October 6, 1999. This is what the headline read: "Liberal Leader Gives Adams Mine Thumbs Up While our MPP Opposes the Adams Mine Project: His Party Leader Gives it Conditional Approval." What brought about your latest flip-flop?

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I wonder if I could bring you back and have you focus your attention on the matter at hand, and that's whether you are prepared to guarantee the people of this province that the Adams mine dump proposal is safe. They're looking to you. You are the Minister of the Environment. You are the representative in the government of Ontario who is there to stand on guard against pollution and stand up for the rights of Ontarians when it comes to their health, safety and well-being.

I'm putting forward to you a pledge of responsibility. It's a very simple pledge, and I'm asking you on their behalf to simply provide them with the guarantee they need. They need your assurance that this proposal is in fact safe.

I ask you again on their behalf, why will you not sign this pledge of responsibility?

Hon Mr Newman: On April 23, 1992, this is what the member opposite, Dalton McGuinty, said in this House, "An environmental assessment affords an opportunity for an issue-

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): That is so ridiculous. How much do you pay those people?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. Member for Windsor West, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Newman: I seem to have struck a nerve over there today.

This is what Dalton McGuinty said in 1992: "An environmental assessment affords an opportunity for an issue to be heard in an impartial, objective manner by a group of experts who consider these matters-

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the Minister of the Environment take his seat, please. Member for Sudbury, come to order as well, please. The Minister of the Environment.

Hon Mr Newman: I was just trying to indicate what Dalton McGuinty said in 1992. I'll start again: "An envi ronmental assessment affords an opportunity for an issue to be heard in an impartial, objective manner by a group of experts who consider these matters intelligently, expertly in a forum devoid of emotion."

This project underwent a full environmental assessment and Environmental Assessment Board hearings as well.

The Speaker: The member's time is up. New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of the Environment and it concerns the Adams mine garbage proposal. We learned on Friday that officials in the federal Department of Indian Affairs are calling for a federal environmental assessment of the Adams mine garbage proposal to consider the impact of the proposal on the land and water of First Nations adjacent to the mine site. Why do they feel a full federal environmental assessment is required? Because your limited process didn't consider any of that.

My question to the Minister of the Environment: will you join those federal officials in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and call for a full federal environmental assessment?

Hon Mr Newman: We had a full environmental assessment in this province in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act. The Minister of the Environment also requested that there be an Environmental Assessment Board hearing that took place on this very subject, and it did. The board attached 26 conditions to the plan. There was a certificate of approval that was issued after further technical analysis, and the certificate carried with it 66 conditions.

Right from the outset, throughout the environmental assessment process here in Ontario, the federal government has been involved and the Quebec government has been involved as well.

Mr Hampton: Yesterday I was in Earlton and there were literally hundreds of protestors who turned out on Thanksgiving Day to point out that your so-called environmental assessment was nothing of an environmental assessment. It was a process aimed at one thing: giving approval to this project without considering any of the questions. This morning, I was at Toronto city hall, where, again, hundreds of residents from northeastern Ontario and Chief Carol McBride of the First Nation were there to say to the Toronto city council that they should refuse to become part of your disastrous process.

She asked for a meeting with the mayor of Toronto to consider the issues from a First Nation perspective. He refused. You say that this isn't an important issue. She's come here today. Will you meet with the Chief of the Timiskaming First Nation so that you can hear first hand the concerns they have about the potential disaster of that mine site?

Hon Mr Newman: Again, there was a full environmental assessment that took place in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act in this province. There were hearings under the Environmental Assessment Board as well. Twenty-six conditions were attached to the plan. The certificate of approval that was issued had with it 66 conditions. There were eight independent peer reviews that carefully analyzed the details of the plan, and they submitted their reviews to the Environmental Assessment Board to handle this situation.

Mr Hampton: This is a chief whose First Nation is immediately adjacent to the mine site, immediately down the water table, if you will, from the abandoned pit mine. She's come here and she simply wants to talk to you. We know that federal officials are now calling for a federal environmental assessment to look at this exact issue.

Minister, if you won't support a federal environmental assessment and you won't meet with Chief McBride herself, will you stand here today and guarantee that the pit won't leak, that there won't be earthquakes and there won't be any polluted water that will affect their community? Will you stand here today and give that guarantee?

Hon Mr Newman: Each and every issue that the leader of the third party has brought forward in this House with respect to the Adams mine proposal was dealt with through the environmental assessment process. He brought forward the contention about the government of Quebec not being involved when in fact they had been involved right from the beginning. He raised the issue a couple of weeks ago about earthquakes. They actually, through the Environmental Assessment Board hearings, dealt with the issue of earthquakes. He asked about the federal government. The federal government was involved.

Each and every proposal the member opposite brings forward was dealt with through the environmental assessment and the Environmental Assessment Board hearings.

WATER QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): To the Minister of the Environment: you still haven't given us your guarantee that the dump won't leak.

I was in Walkerton a few days ago and I met with many of the residents there. They were shocked to hear about the crass political game that you and your government played with Bill 96, the Safe Drinking Water Act. They sent you an open letter which calls on you to send the Safe Drinking Water Act to committee. It says, "If anything positive is to come out of the loss and suffering of the citizens of Walkerton, it should be comprehensive legislation to protect the province's water supply."

Minister, I ask you, what is your answer to the people of Walkerton?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Each and every member of this House obviously wants to have safe drinking water in all parts of the province. The public has the right to clean and safe drinking water. That's why we brought forward the safe drinking water regulation that for the first time had the full force of law in this province. This regulation protects the health of Ontarians and makes the province's drinking requirements among the toughest in the world.

This means that by law, drinking water must be sampled and analysed. Whenever there is an exceedence, it must be reported to the local medical officer of health, as well as the owner of the waterworks and the Ministry of the Environment. As well, corrective action must be taken to deal with that.

The government is making sure that all municipalities in our province understand the rules and have all the necessary information to ensure that they are doing the right thing. The government has provided information packages not only at the AMO conference but throughout the province to share that information with the affected municipalities.

Ms Churley: Minister, the medical officer of health, Dr Murray McQuigge, says your regulations won't work. A host of environmental groups, environmental experts, say that your regulations won't work. That's why there is the safe drinking water bill before this House. Your regulations won't work. When are you going to start listening to people?

I'll tell you something else that Dr Murray McQuigge said, and you know about this. He says that deep water wells are not safe and that your testing is inadequate. Minister, tell us, are deep water wells safe in this province?

Hon Mr Newman: The member opposite raises the issue of what people think about the new safe drinking water regulation in this province. I want to share some views of other Ontarians with her today.

Let's hear what Mayor David Thomson of Walkerton has to say. "It's good news for all of Ontario. It's going to restore faith in the quality of water, so hopefully these tests will be a big benefit to everyone."

As Canadian Press reported on August 9 this year, "Ken Ogilvie of the environmental watchdog group Pollution Probe called the new law a good piece of work because it transforms what were guidelines into legally binding standards."

Canadian Press, August 10, 2000: "The Association of Municipalities of Ontario called the announcement an important first step in restoring confidence in the province's drinking water."

I've got a hundred other quotes to go with those.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I read with interest the comments the Premier made regarding the entertainment industry in this province. The Premier found it ironic that the automotive industry commands so much political attention, complaining that entertainment executives don't receive the respect their industry deserves.

Minister, what respect does the second-largest industry in this province receive from this government? The agricultural industry employs 60 times the number of people and generates 25 times the dollars that entertainment does. The farmers of this province have been trying to get your attention and the Premier's attention for months.

For the past five and a half years, the Premier has not formally met with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Public meetings were held throughout the month of August and extensive lobbying was held within Queen's Park, even though only a little over one third of your caucus was prepared to meet with the farming community of this province.

Trying to get this government to wake up and address the serious issue of the crisis in agriculture is of extreme importance. Minister, what are you doing to ensure that the farmers of this province get the respect they deserve and the assistance they are entitled to?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): To the honourable member across the aisle, thank you very much for the question. I want to say that we are a strong supporter of agriculture, the second-largest industry in this province. As the member mentioned, it is exceeded only by the auto industry, but when it comes to providing the food we eat, there is nothing as important.

I want to assure the member that we are very concerned about the downturn in the commodity prices for our agricultural products and we have been working with the farm communities to deal with the farm safety net to make sure our farmers are protected.

The member will be aware that we have had negotiations with the federal government to get our fair share for Ontario's farmers, which up until now had not been the case. In those negotiations with the federal government, we got them to agree to give us $30 million more for our Ontario farmers. That will be matched by $20 million from the Ontario government to make sure we provide our 60-40 assistance to our farmers and to protect their interests while we go through this downturn in the economy.

I appreciate the question and I know-

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

Mr Peters: Minister, I'd just like to tell you about a province that has gone beyond their fair share and recognized the importance of agriculture, and that's Alberta. They've just announced an additional $233 million in emergency support for farmers. That's in addition to $145 million they put in in March. These are provincially funded dollars, well above and beyond the 60-40 cost-sharing arrangement with the federal government. Alberta's industry is roughly the same size as ours, yet this fiscal year alone they have spent $700 million in assistance, almost twice the entire budget of your ministry.

Even the cut-and-slash government in Alberta has acknowledged a serious crisis in agriculture. They've acknowledged that the 40%, which you make so much about, is just a minimum contribution.

Why do you continue to pass the buck? The farmers of this province do not have time to continue to listen to the finger pointing between you and Minister Vanclief. Will you show some leadership, put your money where your mouth is and commit to doing whatever is necessary to provide the needed assistance for the farmers in this province, who are experiencing a crisis they have never experienced in the past? Will you do it, Minister?

Hon Mr Hardeman: I want to say that we recognize Ontario farmers are facing a very difficult year in terms of commodity prices, especially the grain and oilseed producers. We want to help farmers through this difficult year. The member opposite mentioned Alberta. In fact, Ontario is the only province that still has the market revenue insurance program for our farmers. As the downturn in commodity prices arrived, the farmers in Alberta had no fallback position. In fact, in Ontario we provided $65 million last spring to help the grain and oilseed industry through the market revenue program.

As recently as last week, we mailed out $35 million more to our Ontario producers through the market revenue insurance program to make sure we could help them get through this difficult time.

Of course, as I said, we have different types of programs in different parts of the Dominion of Canada. I want to tell you that as we were negotiating with the federal government, the farm community very actively told us that they didn't want ad hoc programs in individual provinces. They want-

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

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question today is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, you might know that this past summer the Ontario Federation of Labour issued to workplaces a document entitled Hours of Work-Health and Safety Alert. In this piece, the Ontario Federation of Labour says this government-which, by the way, has created over 750,000 net new jobs since elected in 1995-plans to change labour law in Ontario.

What they highlighted here was: making people work 60 hours a week, forcing employees to take vacation one day at a time, paying less overtime-pure rhetoric here-forcing employees to work in an unsafe workplace-which is unacceptable to me. These statements and other rhetoric here have been brought to my attention by members of the CAW and other constituents, and I support their concerns. In order to respond accurately, Minister, what can you tell not just me but also the people who may be watching today?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): First of all, the idea of the legislation was to develop an opportunity for the employers and employees to mutually agree upon a more flexible workweek that is beneficial to both. If the two can agree on a flexible workweek that is beneficial to both, that may be instituted without going forward and getting a permit like you used to do in the old days.

You've got to remember, though, nowhere is it written in legislation or has it been discussed that if the employee does not want to restructure their workweek or isn't happy with the workweek restructuring, they don't have to agree to the new workweek. The old Employment Standards Act applies. What then takes place is that the employee and the employer continue to work under the old scheme and those particular programs are still in place. It's designed to make a more flexible workweek for the benefit of the employee and for the benefit of the employer.

Mr O'Toole: I might just say, Minister, it's good to have you back in the House with that charm and for clarifying the issue for my constituents.

I agree with your assertion that this is the right time to modernize this legislation. Can you give further information to the people of my riding of Durham and of course all the people of Ontario-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It's lucky I'm Speaker. Sometimes I want to shout out too.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you. I was absolutely interrupted by the loyal opposition there.

On a more serious note, Minister, could you share information with us on what actions your ministry intends to take to modernize, and I might say harmonize, the workplace for our employees in the future.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Thank you very much for the question. I remind the member that it's improper to refer to members who are not in the House at the time.

We are going a long way to modernize the workplace. Let me give you an example of a compressed workweek. If an employee today wanted to work 10 hours a day, four days a week and take every Friday off, they couldn't. They'd have to apply for a permit and go through a very arduous process. If the employer and the employee agree, why should the government get involved in telling an employee that they can't work four days a week if they want? This makes a lot of sense. These are the kinds of directions we're giving to employers and employees.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: The babbling from the member for Hamilton-I don't understand where you're coming from. Under your government, 18,000 permits were issued to allow workers to work more time. Under your government, 28 sectors were not even under the Employment Standards Act. Under your government, millions of employees didn't even fall under the Employment Standards Act. I don't know why, all of a sudden, because we want to modernize the system-

Interjections.

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

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the same minister, and I appreciate the set-up on this from the member across the floor. Clearly this legislation proposed throughout the summer, the 60-hour work- week, is nothing more than the old American right-to-work, regressive southern states legislation which works to the benefit of your corporate friends but not to the benefit of working men and women.

Minister, a few minutes ago you said, "... an opportunity ... to mutually agree upon a ... workweek." Somehow you suggest that someone working in a minimum-wage job in an non-unionized shop or factory has the balance of power to negotiate with the employer, under threat of being fired, demoted or harassed. The reality is that this legislation does nothing to benefit working men and women. All it does is benefit your corporate friends.

We're going back to legislation that was in place in 1944. We expect you to move legislation to the year 2004, not roll it back. This is a bad piece of legislation. It's an attack on working people. Will you do the right thing today and commit to the House to withdraw the provision of the bill that requires a 60-hour workweek?

Hon Mr Stockwell: First, not only does the member have the whole right-to-work thing completely confused; he's also clairvoyant. He said it's a bad piece of legislation. There isn't even a piece of legislation before our House yet. How do you know you're going to oppose a piece of legislation that doesn't exist?

As far as right-to-work legislation is concerned, do you know what right-to-work means? Right-to-work means that if you go into a union shop, you have an obligation to belong to the union. You can't be given the option to opt out. Where you saw that in the white paper, I have no idea. This has got to be left-wing rhetoric. You've been sitting in union halls talking to OFL representatives far too long. It didn't appear in the white paper. I don't know why you said it was in the white paper. I don't even know why you brought it up today. Maybe you should go out and get a definition of right-to-work before you start asking silly questions.

Mr Agostino: I appreciate the history lesson by the Minister of Labour. I promise that you're wrong. As usual, Minister, you don't know what you're talking about. Your consultation paper talked about a 60-hour workweek. You had a chance, in the set-up from your stooge back there, to withdraw that. You made it very clear that you intend to bring in the 60-hour workweek. You are simply jeopardizing not only the rights of working men and women but their health and safety.

If they're forced to work the 60 hours, they're more likely to be tired and they're more likely to get injured or killed on the job, as much as the fact you're taking their rights away. If you believe I'm wrong that you're going to bring in the 60-hour workweek provision, you have a great opportunity now to act in the best interests of working men and women and tell us clearly for the record once and for all that you have no plan to bring in a 60-hour workweek in your upcoming legislation.

Hon Mr Stockwell: First of all, the member from Durham is certainly no stooge. I think the only name I could call you is Curly, Larry or Moe. The only stooge in here is not the member for Durham.

Secondly, right-to-work legislation is what you brought up in the first place. That's what we're debating here. Now you've returned to the 60-hour workweek. Don't start off a question with something that's completely outrageous like the right-to-work.

As far as the 60-hour workweek that you suggested coming forth is concerned, it simply says that if the employee and the employer-the member for Beaches-Woodbine would know this-agree that if they want to configure workweeks differently, so that the employee and the employer agree, then they're allowed to do that. What's the matter with that? It's called a democracy. People are allowed to structure their workweek the way they'd like to structure it.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. For too long the criminal justice system treated victims of crime as an afterthought. I'm aware our government has supported victims by creating a Victims' Bill of Rights and continues to expand programs making it easier to bring civil suits against offenders and by launching an office of victims of crime which is staffed by victims of crime and front-line justice professionals. What can our government do to ensure that the voices of victims are heard?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): On a day when the page from Mississauga Centre has his parents in the gallery watching the activity today-his mother and father and his sister and his grandmother are here-on this very momentous day I'm pleased to confirm that this government does believe that there should be a strong role for victims in the criminal justice process, which is why we spent the time and effort to draw the victim as much as possible into the criminal justice process, including parole, where we've allowed, as the member from Hamilton would know, the victim to have a say in the parole hearing.

Now there's always more to do, and I will say in front of this House and to the member who has raised the question in the House today, that we indeed have and will commit to do more for victims because that job, frankly, is never done.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I know that the people of my riding of Peterborough will be heartened to know that this government continues to make victims' rights a priority. But some critics of this initiative suggest that it will be tougher for inmates to be granted parole.

I know, for example, that when the NDP formed the government, they believed that the criteria for granting parole should be relaxed. I'm glad that this government takes their responsibilities for public safety more seriously.

I understand that under this government we don't just hand out parole like the federal Liberals give their "Get Out of Jail Free" cards. Minister, can you inform the House of the progress we have made to ensure that public safety is protected?

Hon Mr Sampson: Thank you very much again to the member from Peterborough. To the members of this House, to the page Michael Cancilla from Mississauga Centre, I do want to say that this government does, indeed, take the issue of public safety very seriously.

In fact, as it relates to parole, we took the initiative to tighten up and make parole truly a privilege that should be earned by an inmate and not a right to be automatically granted.

The federal Liberals believe that they should have this quota system and 50% of those in prison should be automatically let out. We, of course, cautioned them against that, and it still stands that that is the wrong policy. In fact, the police from Kingston have done their own internal study that says that 47% of those released from federal prison on parole or early release reoffend.

I say to the member from Peterborough, that's why we need to get tough on parole. That's why we have taken parole grant rates from about 60%, which is where they were in 1995, to the current rate of just around 33%. That is protecting public safety.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health regarding her government's ongoing discrimination against northern cancer patients. We learned on Friday that Cancer Care Ontario and the Princess Margaret Hospital have to send more southern Ontario cancer patients away for treatment, and your ministry has requested that these officials prepare a proposal outlining how many patients will have to be sent and the cost to pay 100% of their travel, accommodation and food to access cancer treatment somewhere else. This proposal is due by October 19.

Minister, if we save even one life by this, then it's something we must do. But if your government has enough money to send more southern Ontario cancer patients far from home for cancer treatment, then your government has enough money to end its discrimination against northern cancer patients now. Minister, will you use this opportunity to finally fund 100% of the costs for northern patients who have to travel far from home for cancer treatment too?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The member knows that there is no discrimination. There are two programs. The northern community is entitled to a northern health travel grant, which is not available to people in the south. So if there's discrimination, it's that people in the south don't have access to the northern health travel grant. However, the CCO referral program for cancer is accessible and will be provided to all people, whether they live in the south, the north, the east or the west.

Those are the two programs that we have in this province.

Ms Martel: Minister, the question was, what are you going to do to end your government's discrimination against northern cancer patients? Even your Minister of Finance, who is sitting next to you, said publicly in May in this province that there was something wrong and this situation should be reviewed.

We know that your ministry has asked Cancer Care Ontario for a proposal regarding how much money it will cost to send even more southern Ontario cancer patients away for treatment. We assume you're asking for this proposal because you're going to fund 100% of the costs for these patients to travel far from home for cancer treatment too.

Minister, for 18 long months now your government has refused to fully fund the costs for northern cancer patients who daily travel far from home, to Sudbury and to Thunder Bay, or who have to leave the north altogether to get cancer care here in Toronto and in Ottawa. If you have the money to send even more cancer patients away for treatment and pay 100% of their costs to do so, your government has the money to fund 100% of the costs of northern cancer patients too.

I ask you again, Minister, will you use this opportunity that is now clearly before you and end the discrimination against northern patients by fully funding their costs too?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member knows full well that the northern health travel grant program is the same program that they supported and that was initiated by the Liberals. It is absolutely no different. It is there for northerners. In fact, our government is doing more to ensure that programs and services are provided for people in northern Ontario than ever before.

We are expanding health services in Sudbury, in Sault Ste Marie, in Timmins and in Thunder Bay. We are building new hospitals. We are expanding cancer services. Sault Ste Marie will soon have a new one. We are expanding dialysis services.

Again, I remind the member that the referral program that CCO has initiated is a temporary program. It is there in order to ensure that the patients in Ontario, no matter where they live-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm sorry; the minister's time is up. New question.

TEACHER TRAINING

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. In my riding, we are aware of a number of education students who have had their practice teaching placements cancelled because of the crisis your government has created in education.

The crisis in the elementary and secondary system has impacted university programs as well. My constituent David Kassera is an education student at Queen's University. He and his wife decided to put their plans to buy a home and start a family on hold so David could return to teachers' college. David wants to teach history and biology to secondary school students. However, David is one of 60 teacher candidates who have had their practice teaching placements cancelled.

Minister, you are hiding your head in the sand if you think that your government's education reforms have not demoralized teachers in Ontario. Teachers no longer have the time, energy or heart to supervise these young, aspiring teachers. What are you going to do to ensure that David and other teacher candidates across Ontario will get the teaching experience they need?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): In response to the question I'd like to begin by saying that I'm not aware of this situation and I will in fact talk to you about it, if you'll share this with me.

In the meantime, I would say that that's exactly what we did try to alleviate when we increased the number of opportunities in our teacher colleges across the province for more teachers to be trained this year. So I'm definitely going to have to find out what happened in this regard and get back to the member, but maybe you can tell me in a supplementary what the real issue is here.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Minister, my colleague told you the real issue. Your answer tells us that you don't have a backup plan for the fallout of Bill 74. With respect to the 3,500 spaces that you say you're creating over the next four years, we will have a shortage of 10,000 teachers in the next five years. That's hardly a solution.

Minister, let me tell you something else that you need to investigate: in Hamilton, close to the Brock University campus for teachers' college, a very enterprising businessman has opened a business selling American placements to our Canadian students for $500 apiece. That's what we've come to. Surely someone in your ministry could have communicated with someone in your colleague's ministry to prevent this from happening.

Minister, what concrete steps are you taking to ensure that each and every student teacher in this province will finish their certificate this year?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In regard to this specific request, the government in fact is taking steps to ensure that we can meet the expected demand for new teachers in the province. To be specific, we invested an additional $45 million in faculties of education, in fact to fund 31,000 new spaces for teacher training. This is through 2003-04.

You talk about 10,000 new teachers; you just heard the numbers. Part of teacher education is practice teaching. So again, if the member would tell me what the real problem is-

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for Kingston and the Islands come to order, please.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: This is in fact an addition of some 6,000 newly funded student spaces which include practice teaching. So if we're talking about the way we teach our students in our faculties of education, I would be pleased to talk to both of the questioners today. I want to know about how we can do it better.

But in the meantime, let there be no doubt in this House that we have planned for 6,000 new spaces in the next three or four years. This in fact is over the provincially funded 25,000 spaces, so we now have 31,000 spaces. Let there be no doubt that we do in fact have the spaces for those who are qualified.

Yes, I will say that if you're talking about practice teaching, which we know a fair bit about on this side, I would be interested in your absolute best recommendations.

SEATBELTS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Transportation. Statistics reveal that close to a third of the drivers and passengers who are killed in motor vehicle accidents are found not to have been wearing their seatbelts. Probably many of those deaths would have been prevented had they been wearing those belts. The importance of wearing a seatbelt, in my opinion, can never be overemphasized, and there's evidence that still more can be done to raise public awareness on this critical safety issue.

As a matter of fact, yesterday afternoon at just about this time in the village of Northbrook, I was fortunate to go through a seatbelt check being carried out by the OPP. I can also report that all of us in the car had our seatbelts on.

Minister, both myself and the constituents in Northumberland would like to know what your ministry is doing to encourage drivers to wear seatbelts.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): Yes, indeed, this is an issue which I feel very passionately about. Road user safety and vehicle safety is our highest priority. As you have correctly pointed out, in fact one third of the fatalities on our roads are people who were not using a seatbelt when they died.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Turnbull: I would have imagined that the members of the opposition would take this issue seriously. One third of all of the people who die on our roads are not buckled up then they die. They're subject to a $90 fine and two demerit points.

On September 29, I launched the fall seat belt campaign in co-operation with police services and the insurance industry. A key component of this year's campaign is the seventh annual seat belt challenge. Some 2,000 volunteers will be at intersections in 150 communities, counting how many people are buckled up.

Mr Galt: Despite all of the effort and progress that has taken place, there still appear to be a number of people in Northumberland and across Ontario who consistently refuse to buckle up. I've been buckling up for over four decades and believe very much in the use of seat belts. I realize that there are many people who do choose to buckle up. What action have you taken to ensure that all drivers and all passengers realize their responsibility of buckling up?

Hon Mr Turnbull: In fact, 91% of Ontarians are buckling up. That's the second-highest rate in Canada. But there is clearly more to be done.

In our spring and fall campaign, we targeted all of the people who are not buckled up. In the spring campaign, 635,000 vehicles were checked, 11,000 charges were laid, and 191 motorists were charged for child restraint violations. What we do know-

Interjections.

Hon Mr Turnbull: Why don't you listen? You might learn something.

Ninety percent of all child seats were not properly installed, so I appeal to everybody listening to this to make sure that child seats are properly installed. They may be a correct seat, but they may not be properly installed, and that leads to a great number of fatalities. We know that-

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

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): My question is for the Solicitor General. Last Friday, the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada, in conjunction with firefighters across the province, held three news conferences: one in Kanata, one in Toronto and one in Chatham.

At the Chatham meeting, the Muscular Dystrophy Association announced that it could lose up to $750,000 as a result of your safe streets bill. In fact, in excess of $200,000 will be lost this year. Firefighters condemned your Safe Streets Act and its extremely negative impact on the voluntary fundraising efforts of firefighters across the province. As a direct result of the legislation, proclaimed in December of 1999, in large and small communities across the province, their fundraising efforts have been cancelled.

Your government, through the Attorney General, assured the Muscular Dystrophy Association and the firefighters that the focus of the act was on the so-called "squeegee kids" and aggressive panhandlers, and not charitable organizations. Why don't you honour your promise that this act would not impact on the fundraising efforts by firefighters and other registered charities? Why don't you exempt registered charities from the act and let them get on with their fundraising activities?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): I don't think anyone would disagree that the firefighters and a number of other organizations raise a lot of money for charities, and in fact we applaud that. I know for a fact that even up in my area, the Markham firefighters have a similar type of toll thing, but they have it on the grounds of Markville Mall itself.

I've been advised by the Attorney General that the Safe Streets Act does not prevent someone from soliciting money as long as that person is positioned on the sidewalk or on the shoulder, boulevard, median or other place that is not a roadway. Clearly there is an intention to ensure that these types of activities would continue to go on. Secondly, we encourage the charities to work with the local police services in advance of these events so we can ensure that not only can they raise money for charities, but that they do comply with the act.

Mr Crozier: Minister, when you were first elected as the member from Markham, you came to this House to represent the people in Markham and, to some extent, the people in the province of Ontario. Now you carry the name "honourable" because you're a minister, and you have a much wider scope with which to influence the decisions of the government. So why won't you do the honourable thing and exempt charities from this act so they can get on with fundraising activities?

Minister, you know they're losing money. It doesn't take much of a government to admit you had a poorly drafted act that was more inclusive than you intended. You can do one of two things: you can take my private member's bill and pass that, and we'll do that unanimously, or you can do it even more quickly by bringing in amendments yourself, and we'll get unanimous consent on those as well.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I would like to reiterate that the Safe Streets Act does not prevent someone from soliciting money for charity as long as that person is not positioned on the roadway itself.

I remind members of the House that the reason this act was passed in the first place was to make sure people in this province were not approached aggressively by panhandlers. Clearly we on this side know the difference between an aggressive panhandler and a charity. The charities can continue to solicit funds as long as they're not actually on the roadway itself. There are ways of doing this. Other communities have done this, and we certainly support firefighters or any other charity in their efforts to raise money for their charity.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The firefighters in my community were collecting for muscular dystrophy over the last weekend, but I've recently been hearing some concern raised about the future of the bingo industry in Ontario. Some bingo halls feel they are suffering as a result of the increase in casinos and slot machines around the province.

Minister, could you please explain what has caused the recent bingo hall closures, and what looks to be on the horizon for the bingo industry?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): There is no question there's been a rationalization of the bingo industry in Ontario, and that's primarily a result of the consolidation effort underway across the province by one of the major players in the bingo industry.

There are legitimate concerns about the future. They are being addressed. The Alcohol and Gaming Commission is meeting with operators, charities, municipal governments and others who have concerns in this area. I am meeting with officials as well, and we're working to meet the challenges of the industry.

Mr Johnson: It's good to hear that the future of bingo seems to be brighter in Ontario. However, some people may be concerned that the government is abandoning bingo in favour of flashier casinos.

Interjection.

Mr Johnson: Even the member for Windsor West might be interested in something in the Legislature.

Minister, is there anything else the province is doing to help bingos and other charities actively plan for the future to ensure they continue to prosper?

Hon Mr Runciman: A bingo advisory committee was formed to address the declining bingo matter and advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission. The working group is made up of operators, suppliers and the Provincial Bingo Charitable Activities Association. They've developed a paper entitled Charting Our Course: A strategic review of bingo and related charitable gaming. That's been distributed to charities, bingo hall operators and licensing staff this past summer. The document focuses on both long- and short-term goals and objectives for the industry, including proposals for new games and new staffing models.

The group is currently receiving feedback on their paper and will present their findings to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission. As well, the commission continues to meet regularly with the group to deal with both day-to-day issues and long-term strategies to maintain the bingo industry.

NATIVE PEOPLE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier. We know your government has been talking to the mining and logging companies about operations in the far north. For example, we saw your proposal for 10,000-hectare clear-cuts last week. But your government refuses to talk to the only people who live in the far north, the First Nations.

Can you explain why you're willing to talk to mining companies about mining in the far north and logging in the far north, but you refuse to talk to the First Nations about revenue-sharing, environmental protection, resource management or anything else? Why?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I don't believe that is the case; however, I will bring it to the attention of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Mr Hampton: I have something else you can bring to the attention of the minister. It's a letter from De Beers to your government. De Beers is one of the companies that's been in the far north, and they've clearly been talking to your government. This is what they say to your government, "The whole question of aboriginal rights is like a simmering pressure cooker in the northern part of the province....

Most of the communities have major socio-economic problems, chronic unemployment, poor health support and ... insufficient educational and training ... opportunities." Then, under "Revenue-sharing" they say, "We have emphasized the economic plight of the First Nation communities in northern Ontario. We believe the government of the province must commence negotiations with the First Nations to conclude a revenue-sharing agreement based on transferring to them a share of the taxes and other revenues received by the province." This is De Beers. They talk to your government.

They're asking why you're willing to talk to them but not willing to talk to the First Nations themselves. What's your answer?

Hon Mr Eves: I did not say we were not willing to talk to the First Nations people. In fact, I've given you a commitment that I will bring it to the attention of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I quite agree that we should be talking to First Nations people, and I'm kind of surprised that the leader of the third party is now getting his advice and consultation for question period from De Beers.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, you're talking the talk about a crackdown. It's interesting, because last summer, while this House was not in session, 10,000 traffic tickets were thrown out of traffic court because we have less than half the number of justices of the peace today we had when your government came to power.

What is the point of having a crackdown if at the end of the day there is no trial or prosecution before a judge? What happened this summer?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): Clearly we're disappointed when any cases are thrown out of court. The principle our ministry works under is to make our roads as safe as possible. Since we became the government, we have enacted laws which have made our roads safer. We are now the fourth-safest in the whole of North America, and when any case is thrown out of court it is a great disappointment to me.

Mr Bryant: The concern is that the media strategy is very well thought out, but the legislative strategy has not been thought out at all. You undertake the crackdown but don't bother to check that you have enough justices of the peace. You've conceded here that there's a major problem; you've conceded that the government is disappointed. Will you tell us what you're going to do to deal with the fact that you're ticketing everybody and everybody is laughing at the ticket as they head home because they know they're never going to have their day in court. What are you going to do to solve the problem?

Hon Mr Turnbull: We recognize there is a problem dealing with traffic matters in the provincial court in Toronto, and we are committed to fixing this deficiency.

PETITIONS

INVESTIGATION INTO CHILD ABUSE

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Garry Guzzo, MPP, Ottawa West-Nepean, has brought forward Bill 103,

An Act to establish a commission of inquiry to inquire into the investigations by police forces into sexual abuse against minors in the Cornwall area; and

"Whereas Bill 103 has the public support of John Cleary, MPP, Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh,

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

"To enact Bill 103, Inquiry into Police Investigations of Sexual Abuse Against Minors in the Cornwall Area Act, 2000."

I have signed the petition, as have 10,797 other residents of eastern Ontario.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to correct the record. I misspoke myself. Right-to-work means that an employee who goes into a union shop to work has the opportunity to opt out of the union and therefore collectively negotiate on his own.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: It was just a definition. Sorry.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

This has been signed by a number of residents in my community, and I agree with them. I want to thank Gerry Lougheed Jr for all his efforts to get these signatures.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, the Premier and the Minister of Education:

"Whereas the current school funding formula needs to be amended to allow for flexibility in considering unique qualities in inner-city neighbourhood schools; and

"Whereas the current formula will render vibrant city centres like Ottawa unattractive to families as a result of school closures;

"We therefore request an immediate review and amendment of the formula to address the unique situations of inner-city schools and ensure quality schools for all children.

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

"We, the undersigned, strongly object to the closing of Ottawa's Elgin Street Public School, a vital and essential part of the social, economic and civic life of our community. One less school downtown is one less reason for families to live downtown."

I affix my signature to this petition as well.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a petition signed by several people from northwestern Ontario and it reads:

"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 affix my signature as well.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition to the Ontario Legislature and concerns northerners demanding the Harris government eliminate the health care apartheid which exists. These signatures were garnered by Mrs Teresa Doan from 13 Montgomery Street in Sault Ste Marie, and I proudly read the petition into the record.

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

"Furthermore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition Mike Harris"-who is in Sault Ste Marie this evening-"to ensure that this health care apartheid ends immediately."

I proudly affix my signature to this petition.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Further petitions? The member for Sarnia-Lambton. I'm sorry, I got us out of sync here. I do this on a regular basis, it seems. The member for Beaches-East York.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): It's really bad when you do it to one of your caucus mates, Mr Speaker.

This petition to the Ontario Legislature is from northerners who are demanding that the Harris government eliminate health care apartheid.

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

As a former Minister of Health in this province and as the health critic for the New Democratic caucus, I affix my signature in full agreement.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced Bill 112,

An Act to amend the McMichael Canadian Art Collection Act;

"Whereas the McMichael Canadian Art Collection has grown and evolved into one of Canada's best-loved and most important art gallery collections of Canadian art;

"Whereas the passage of Bill 112 would constitute a breach of trust made with hundreds of other donors to the McMichael Canadian Art Collection and vest too much power in the hands of the founders, who have been more than compensated for their generosity;

"Whereas the passage of Bill 112 would diminish the authority and responsibility of the board of trustees, limit the focus of the art collection and hamper the gallery's ability to raise private funds, thereby increasing its dependency on the taxpayers, and significantly reduce its capacity and strength as an educational resource;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to withdraw Bill 112."

I affix my signature to this petition.

NORTHERN RURAL MEDICAL SCHOOL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the undersigned residents, living in the city of Thunder Bay in northwestern Ontario are in need of a northern rural medical school situate in the city of Thunder Bay to provide said residents with quality health care services; and

"Whereas it is important for the future of northern Ontario to develop and provide high quality medical education shaped for the needs of rural/regional, and other aboriginal northern populations; and

"Whereas such a northern and rural medical school will produce more doctors with the knowledge, skills and interest in practising rural and northern medicine, and will provide an academic and research infrastructure to support physicians teaching and practising in the north;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to create a northern rural medical school."

This is signed by over 300 residents in support of that call on the government to provide a northern rural medical school. I affix my own signature in full support of their concerns.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have more petitions to add to the thousands that have already been presented here in the Legislature.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Ontario government acknowledged that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents and therefore that financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; and

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

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

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

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

These particular constituents who have signed this are mostly from the Elliot Lake area.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have yet again further petitions from the Canadian Auto Workers, forwarded to me by Cathy Walker, the national health and safety director. These petitions were generated by Cecil Mackasey and Rick Rose of CAW local 222 in Oshawa.

"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 known as carcinogens; and

"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; and

"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; and

"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."

I continue to support these petitioners by adding my name to theirs.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the prayer, Our Father, also called the Lord's Prayer, has always been used to open proceedings of municipal chambers and the Ontario Legislature since the beginning of Upper Canada under Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe in the 18th century; and

"Whereas such use of the Lord's Prayer is part of Ontario's long-standing heritage and a tradition that continues to play a significant role in contemporary Ontario life;

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is a most meaningful expression of the religious convictions of many Ontario citizens;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings, in accordance with its long-standing established custom, and do all in its power to maintain use of this prayer in municipal chambers in Ontario."

I'll sign that as well.

INVESTIGATION INTO CHILD ABUSE

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I have a petition here with over 1,000 names that comes from Alexandria and the county of Glengarry.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Garry Guzzo, MPP, Ottawa West-Nepean, has brought forward Bill 103, 2000,

An Act to establish a commission of inquiry ... into the investigations by police forces into sexual abuse against minors in the Cornwall area; and

"Whereas Bill 103, 2000, has the public support of John Cleary, MPP, Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh;

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

"To enact Bill 103, Inquiry into Police Investigations of Sexual Abuse Against Minors in the Cornwall Area Act, 2000."

FARMFARE PROGRAM

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a petition from the United Farmworkers, forwarded to me by Stan Raper, their representative.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario introduced farmfare on September 21, 1999, to supplement their workfare program, forcing social assistance recipients to work on farms for their benefits; and

"Whereas the Harris government of Ontario has not provided for any consultation or hearings regarding this initiative; and

"Whereas the Harris government has excluded agricultural workers from protections under the provincial labour code by passing Bill 7; and

"Whereas this exclusion is currently being appealed under the Canadian Charter of Rights for infringing on the right of association and equal benefit of law;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to retract the farmfare program until hearings have been held and to reinstate the right of agricultural workers to allow them basic human rights protection under the labour code of Ontario."

On behalf of my NDP colleagues, I add my name to these petitioners.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE COMMERCE ÉLECTRONIQUE

Mr Martiniuk, on behalf of Mr Flaherty, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 88,

An Act to promote the use of information technology in commercial and other transactions by resolving legal uncertainties and removing statutory barriers that affect electronic communication / Projet de loi 88, Loi visant à promouvoir l'utilisation des technologies de l'information dans les opérations commerciales et autres en éliminant les incertitudes juridiques et les obstacles législatifs qui ont une incidence sur les communications électroniques.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent in this House to divide this afternoon's debate equally among all three caucuses until approximately 6 pm, and at that time the question on third reading will be put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Martiniuk: I will be sharing my time with two members of my caucus, the member for Northumberland and the member for Simcoe North.

It is my pleasure once again to rise to speak to Bill 88. A similar bill was presented by my good friend and colleague Mr John Hastings, and though this is the bill of the Attorney General, it is similar except for small differences. I compliment my colleague Mr Hastings for his initiative in bringing this matter to the fore.

This is a government that keeps its promises. We promised to create jobs. We promised to cut red tape. We promised to attract business. I am proud to say that we have kept all of those promises.

Ontario's economic engine is moving forward and consumers are once again confident. Since 1995 we have created over 725,000 new jobs. I remember when we first released the Common Sense Revolution, which was in May 1994. I had just been nominated to represent the Progressive Conservative Party in the riding of Cambridge and I remember one of the promises in our plan was that we would be creating over 700,000 badly needed jobs in this province. If you take your mind back to that time, this province was in a state of disarray. This province seemed to be without hope. We are on track to our goal of 825,000 new jobs as promised in the election in 1999.

We have cut red tape by presenting over 12 red tape bills.

We have attracted an unprecedented amount of business and investment to Ontario.

The Electronic Commerce Act is also about cutting red tape and giving Ontario business a boost. The Electronic Commerce Act would cut red tape by removing outdated legal barriers to e-commerce. This would help to ensure Ontario's competitiveness and bolster forward-looking businesses.

We are now living in a world where people are shopping on-line, banking on-line and downloading information at an unprecedented rate. The electronic world is here now. The electronic world of business is booming.

During the next three years, it's estimated that worldwide e-business will reach US$1.3 trillion annually. For Ontario, that means creating new jobs and the potential sale of millions of dollars in goods and services.

Progressive Ontario companies are embracing the future by going on-line. Ontario consumers can now browse through virtual auction houses and superstores. With a simple click of the mouse, we can purchase anything from books to clothes to household supplies and even big-ticket items such as automobiles.

It is a well-known fact that any successful business must be creative, modern and competitive. But the uncertainty surrounding the world of e-commerce is hinder ing some companies from expanding in the e-world. They are prevented from signing electronic contracts because our laws recognize contracts signed only on paper. A law governing contracts may require documents to be in writing or in original form. This is not the way to attract electronic investment and business to Ontario.

Ontario must be on the leading edge electronically or on-line business growth will be inhibited or, yet worse, go elsewhere. If passed, the Electronic Commerce Act would ensure that electronic contracts, documents and signatures have the same legal effect as their paper counterparts. This bill would truly strengthen public and private sector confidence in e-commerce, and it would signal to the world that Ontario is progressive and competitive.

Over the course of the last few months, we have listened. We've had discussions before the bill was introduced and at the committee stage. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for its work on this groundbreaking bill.

We have heard from many businesses that agree Ontario is taking a leadership role in the e-commerce world; companies like IBC Canada, which have publicly called on other provinces in Canada to adopt similar measures; companies like Teranet, which have commended Ontario for recognizing that e-commerce has the potential to simplify and enhance the profitability of businesses. These companies know that this bill is vital for the positioning of Canadian companies as world business leaders.

In short, they know that the Electronic Commerce Act will make Ontario competitive on a global scale. In fact, the act is based on the United Nations model law on e-commerce. That means, if passed, that Ontario law will be consistent with e-laws around this globe, because we know that the world of e-business has no borders and the laws that govern e-business should also be borderless. Ontario is one of the first provinces in Canada to be moving forward with an e-business bill of this type. Other provinces have or are expected to follow suit with their own versions of the UN model law.

We believe that this bill will strengthen business confidence and consumer trust in their on-line transactions. Although 80% of e-business is done between businesses, consumers need the confidence that their transactions have legal certainty and clarity. Consumers want their dealings with business