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

June 4, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Jun-04 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 4 June 2001 Lundi 4 juin 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

AMERICREDIT CORP

CONTAMINATED SOIL

FIREFIGHTERS IN NORTHUMBERLAND

CLOSURE OF OUR LADY

OF MERCY SCHOOL

CONTAMINATED SOIL

PAUL ROSEN

HIGHWAY 69

EDUCATION FUNDING

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

(ELECTRICITY RATES), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA COMMISSION

DE L'ÉNERGIE DE L'ONTARIO

(TARIFS D'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

VISITOR

1072550 ONTARIO

LIMITED ACT, 2001

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

PRIVATE CANCER CLINIC

CANCER TREATMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

CANCER TREATMENT

ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVES

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

ENERGY POLICY

DEAF-BLIND COMMUNITY

BY-ELECTION

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

GARDERIES

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

STATUTORY HOLIDAY

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION /

ATTRIBUTION DE TEMPS

Monday 4 June 2001 Lundi 4 juin 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): The doctor shortages in my home community of Thunder Bay have never been as critical as they are now. We

are losing one of only two gastroenterologists, and his patients have nowhere to go. These are people who are ill, and they are put on waiting lists to be seen sometime in the year 2002. We're in

danger of losing two of our four radiologists. if that happens, it will not be possible to provide MRI diagnosis in northwestern Ontario's regional hospital.

Thunder Bay already has vacancies for 62 specialists. That means we are 42% short of the numbers of specialists that are needed to provide care in northwestern

Ontario's only regional centre. This creates enormous workload pressures for the remaining physicians, which is why more and more doctors are leaving our community. Emergency room physicians cannot

continue to work all the overtime shifts that are required to keep our emergency room doors open, and there are not enough family doctors to provide backup coverage to the emergency room

specialists.

The ability of our community to provide medical care is barely being sustained, and patients' lives will truly be at risk if this government does not recognize

the urgency of the situation. Announcements of good intent to do something two years from now or four years from now will not avoid the full-blown crisis that's just around the corner.

The minister announced that they're prepared to move ahead with the accelerated licensing of foreign-trained physicians, but they haven't actually done anything

to make that happen. The expert panel on doctor shortages said that $11 million for recruitment and retention initiatives is needed immediately. The minister hasn't even mentioned that

recommendation. Even the new medical school spaces are not to be in place for another year and a half, and those doctors won't be out in communities until 2008 at the earliest.

If patient care and people's lives count for anything at all, surely something more can be done.

AMERICREDIT CORP

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise in this House to welcome a new business to my riding of Peterborough, AmeriCredit Corp. AmeriCredit

Corp, a Texas-based financial services company, recently announced its plans to open a call centre in Peterborough. This means jobs and a boost to our business community. Fortune magazine calls

AmeriCredit Corp one of the 100 fastest-growing companies in America. Founded in 1992, it has grown from a handful of employees to its current complement of 3,600, based in 202 branch offices in

the US and Canada.

Already a multi-billion dollar player in the area of purchasing and servicing of automotive loans, AmeriCredit is dedicated to running a tight ship with

integrity as its rudder while aggressively pursuing future growth. AmeriCredit has a mission statement encompassing integrity, investment, innovation and information, both within the company and

outside of its walls.

As the MPP for Peterborough, I'd like to extend a warm welcome to AmeriCredit and thank them for choosing Peterborough for the new call centre. I know they will

be happy with their choice. Where else can one have a university, a college, a proposed new hospital, beautiful waterways and countryside, all within the very community where they work and

live?

CONTAMINATED SOIL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): With the news that testing done by a consulting firm hired by the lawyer acting for some Port Colborne

residents affected by nickel contamination has shown levels significantly above provincial safety guidelines inside two homes near the Inco plant, it is essential that the Ontario Ministry of the

Environment and the Niagara health unit, with the assistance of the Ontario Ministry of Health, move rapidly to conduct their own comprehensive tests for nickel and any other toxic metals inside

homes in this neighbourhood. It is important that the Ministry of the Environment, even with its vastly reduced staff and financial resources, devote additional human and financial resources to

proceed quickly to deal with the results that are now in and gather further data.

As was the case in the Niagara neighbourhood of Toronto and south Riverdale, extensive removal of contaminated soil should take place and the cleaning of homes

with the latest and best equipment -- industrial cleaning, if you will -- must take place at the earliest opportunity. Residents living adjacent to the plant should be relocated temporarily while

cleaning takes place, and permanently if necessary. Compensation should be paid if costs have been incurred by the residents and if their homes are declared to be uninhabitable.

The lead cleanup in the Toronto neighbourhoods which were located next to old smelters that smelted lead provide, perhaps, a model to follow. Government action

is essential, and I urge the minister and support the minister in any efforts to do so.

FIREFIGHTERS IN NORTHUMBERLAND

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Today, I would like to draw attention to the efforts of the firefighters, both professional and volunteer, in my

riding of Northumberland. On Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the opening of a new state-of-the-art fire hall in Harwood, Ontario, on the shores of Rice Lake. I commend the township of

Hamilton for providing the best infrastructure possible to support the efforts of our local firefighting teams.

Unlike larger municipal areas, rural areas depend on volunteer firefighters to assist in the efforts of professionals to respond to local emergencies. These

volunteer contributions are critical to the success of small departments, and I take my hat off to those volunteers.

Supporting those efforts are the community members. No greater example of this is the contribution of the Harris Boat Works, who have provided half the cost of a

$20,000 emergency services boat for the use of local firefighters at the new Harwood station. Another $5,000 was provided by the local Rotary Club, and the balance will be covered through

additional public fundraising. What a tremendous gift to the community in recognition of the important role our firefighting personnel play in protecting lives and property.

Again, I would like to commend these generous contributions and offer congratulations to the township of Hamilton for these improvements to their emergency

response infrastructure.

CLOSURE OF OUR LADY

OF MERCY SCHOOL

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): We closed yet another school in Sarnia-Lambton. The cuts have forced the closure of Our Lady of Mercy,

whose current enrolment is at about 80% capacity. There's no room in the province under Mike Harris for small schools.

Yesterday I attended the ceremonies in tribute to the contributions made to the community by Our Lady of Mercy school. As I walked through this school, which I

attended for all of my elementary years, I felt as if there had been a death. Any time a school closes, a part of the community is left empty. Why is it that this phenomenon of closing schools has

become so commonplace around this province?

This school has been existence since 1888 and it was renovated at a cost of $500,000 in 1986. I have great difficulty with the decision to close a school that is

at almost 80% capacity. There is something fundamentally wrong here. This is the result of an extreme form of government such as we see here at Queen's Park these days. This government has

forgotten the human impact of decisions made only on the basis of money.

The ceremony at Our Lady of Mercy school lasted a few hours, the struggle to save the school lasted a year, but the loss will have consequences on the community

for a long time into the future.

CONTAMINATED SOIL

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I rise today to urge the Minister of the Environment, and indeed the entire Harris government, to take

seriously the contamination of not just the soil but some of the houses in Port Colborne by nickel nitrate, I believe, or sulphate, it's called.

I was quoted in the Hamilton Spectator today, and in other news releases, demanding that the government relocate some of the people who are living in the houses

where we now know there actually are contaminants that could cause and are known to cause cancer. The local member of parliament there disputed what I said and said, "Well, she's not a medical

officer of health. What does she know?"

I would say that no, I'm not a medical officer of health, but I want to say to that member and to the entire caucus and government that I lived through a period

in south Riverdale where there was land contaminated with lead, and for years the governments of the day said there was not a problem. It took years for members of the NDP, David Reville, Jim

Renwick and others, to convince this government that there was a problem.

By the time they did the tests and took remedial action, many of the children in my riding were contaminated with lead and have learning disabilities to this

day. We cannot fool around with people's health. The government should act now and should act swiftly.

PAUL ROSEN

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): As the Stanley Cup final is coming to a close and many Canadians eagerly await its outcome, a Thornhill

resident is preparing for next year's Paralympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. Paul Rosen is one of 15 players recently chosen to don the red-and-white uniform as a member of the Canadian national

sled hockey team.

Hockey as always been an integral part of Mr Rosen's life in many different aspects. He has always been a player but he has also been an assistant coach, trainer

and general manager of a club team in Israel. His achievement in making the Canadian national sled hockey team is truly remarkable, especially with the adversity that Mr Rosen endured recently. He

lost his leg in June 1999 and he started playing sled hockey only eight months later.

Sled hockey has been a medal sport at the Paralympic Games since 1991. In the last Paralympic Games Canada reached the final, to come second only the Sweden. But

at last year's world championship in Salt Lake City, Canada skated off with the title. With the final roster being chosen, Team Canada will have a training camp in November in preparation for next

year's Paralympic Games and will participate in a three-nations tournament in Nagano, Japan, in November.

On behalf of the residents of Thornhill I would like to extend my congratulations to Mr Rosen and the other Canadian sled hockey team members. I would also like

to take this opportunity to wish them well in the years to come in the Paralympic Games.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Sadly, the carnage continues and the people of Ontario are beginning to see a common theme with this government.

Once again they are being forced to ask, "How many people must die before the Harris government takes action?" This weekend, Highway 69 claimed the lives of six Ontario residents and six more left

in serious condition in two separate vehicle accidents.

For the last six years I have been urging the Harris government to take immediate action and four-lane Highway 69 from Sudbury to Parry Sound. Exactly one year

ago I stood in my place, again after a tragedy, and pleaded with the then minister to begin the four-laning. In the last year and a half alone the carnage on this stretch of highway is staggering.

Seventeen accidents have resulted in the loss of 26 lives.

I am horrified at this irresponsible and negligent government's attitude toward the loss of lives simply because the north doesn't fall into the political

priority of this Conservative government. I am horrified that Ontarians die needlessly on an unsafe, winding and treacherous highway. I am horrified at seeing these horrific accidents and the pain

they cause.

This government's blatant disregard for people's lives, its political posturing. its inexcusable contempt for the north, its lack of a plan and its inaction are

sentencing Ontarians to death road.

Begin the four-laning now. Stop the carnage. Do it before death road claims more victims.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I have in my hand a letter that I received from Yvonne Iza, one of my constituents, and I would like to

take the time to read some of it.

"Dear Wayne Wettlaufer,

"Recently, our son's school informed us of the announcement by the Ontario government with regard to tax credits for independent school tuition.

"We write to support this announcement because we presently support the idea of independent schools, where we feel we are giving our son the best education

possible.

"It is not because we have lots of money to spend. In fact, we have downsized our house to spend more time with the children. What's more, the tuition to send

our child to this school uses up my personal part-time income. I believe our position and responsibility is to raise children to be responsible adults within their communities. We thank the

government for upholding and recognizing their responsibility to all the children in the province.

"Sincerely yours,

"Yvonne Iza."

Much to the surprise of the opposition, Ontario's parents are thanking us for giving them the right to have choice in their own children's education. There is

nothing that is more important to a parent than his or her child. I don't see why the opposition, particularly the Liberals, can be opposed to letting parents have the right to choose where their

children should go to school. At least one of my constituents supports this move, and considering that it's optional and it helps to represent more of Ontario, frankly, I don't see why the Liberals

are telling those parents that they should not have that right, a right that no one should take away from them.

VISITORS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): On a point of order, Speaker: I'm sure that everyone in the Legislature will want to join me

in welcoming 20 students and five staff from St Martin school in the beautiful community of Terrace Bay in my riding of Thunder Bay-Superior North. Thank you, Principal Barb Spadoni. They raised a

lot of money to get here. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): That's not a point of order, but we welcome our guests.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

(ELECTRICITY RATES), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA COMMISSION

DE L'ÉNERGIE DE L'ONTARIO

(TARIFS D'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

Mr Lalonde moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 67,

An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 to provide for protection against increases in the rates charged for the distribution of electricity

/ Projet de loi 67, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l'énergie de l'Ontario de façon à prévoir une protection contre les augmentations des tarifs exigés

pour la distribution d'électricité.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): This bill amends the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, to limit increases that the Ontario

Energy Board can approve or affix in the rates that distributors charge for distributing electricity to consumers after

section 26(1) of the Electricity Act.

VISITOR

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the members' gallery today we have Mr Jagtar Singh Kang,

past member of the state Legislature of Rajasthan, land of my birthplace. He was also minister of industry and irrigation.

I ask all members, please, to join me in welcoming him to the Ontario Legislature.

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

1072550 ONTARIO

LIMITED ACT, 2001

Mr Smitherman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr8,

An Act to revive 1072550 Ontario Limited.

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

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

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

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

6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, June 4, and Tuesday, June 5, 2001, 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.

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

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

The Speaker: Would the members kindly take their seats, please?

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Churley, Marilyn

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 77; the nays are 7.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

VISITORS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know that the members of this House will wish to welcome Mr Wayne

Barnes, who is the president and CEO of Goodyear, one of our leading Canadian companies; and Mr Glenn Maidment, who is the president-elect of the Rubber Association of Canada. They are in our

members' gallery. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): That's not a point of order, but while we're welcoming special guests, we have with us today in the Speaker's

gallery the legislative interns from the province of British Columbia. Please join me in welcoming our guests, who are just arriving.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): This morning I participated in the launch of Pollution Probe's clean air campaign and

commute. For nine consecutive years this campaign has created awareness and inspired the people of Ontario to make clean air choices in their everyday lives. Last year, more than 380 tonnes of air

pollution were kept out of the air as a result of Pollution Probe's campaign. I would like to thank Pollution Probe for their efforts, and I am pleased that our ministry was the lead sponsor again

of this important campaign.

I also want to acknowledge that June 3 to June 9 is Canadian Environment Week. This week began 30 years ago to celebrate activities that care for and nurture

our shared environmental legacy. Canadian Environment Week promotes the need for each and every one of us to recognize our roles in preserving our fragile environment. It reminds us that by making

small changes in the way we live our lives, we can all take steps toward a cleaner and healthier environment.

There is a government-wide commitment to forge a new approach to protecting the environment. By shifting our focus to make the environment a broad

responsibility across all ministries and beyond, we will ensure that Ontario is prepared to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century.

But even with a commitment across all ministries, we cannot do it alone. This government continues to create partnerships with community groups, industry,

businesses, academics, other levels of government and individuals to ensure that the vital responsibility of environmental protection is shared by everyone. Through this shared responsibility, we

will create an atmosphere of continuous improvement.

As the summer season is gearing up across Ontario, I'd like to take this opportunity during Canadian Environment Week to remind my colleagues and citizens of

Ontario of the many things we can personally do to protect our environment. The cottage and the backyard are where many Ontarians relax, enjoy summer and get back in touch with nature, but they may

not be aware of the impact they have on the environment.

For example, running a typical gas lawn mower for two hours can create about the same amount of air emissions as driving a car from Ontario to the Maritimes.

Other gas-powered motor tools like trimmers and chainsaws can be even more polluting than gas lawn mowers. This is why we are proud to have supported the Mow Down Pollution program, an innovative

environmental partnership between government and non-government groups. The pilot program offered people a cash rebate to turn in their old, air-polluting gas lawn mowers for more environmentally

friendly electric or rechargeable models. We were glad to work with the Clean Air Foundation and a number of private sector sponsors to make the program possible.

While more than half of all of Ontario's smog is the result of pollution from sources in the United States, we must do more here at home to improve our quality

of air. Here are some other interesting facts to keep in mind while enjoying Ontario's summer:

A two-stroke, 70-horsepower engine emits the same amount of smog-causing pollution in one hour as driving a new car 8,000 kilometres. Running a 100-horsepower

personal watercraft for seven hours is estimated to cause more air pollution than driving a three-year-old car 160,000 kilometres. Simply driving our cars less and taking public transit even one

day a week can make a big difference to the air we all share.

We also need to make sure that our vehicles are well tuned to run efficiently, and using less gas also helps. We should avoid idling our cars while

stopped.

The products we use also have a large impact on our air quality. We should all try to avoid products such as aerosol sprays, oil-based paint and strong

cleaning products, especially on hot summer days when smog levels are higher.

As well, we need to reduce energy demand. We can turn off lights when we're not using them, we can turn down air conditioners a few degrees, and we can make

sure our homes are well insulated to cut down on wasted energy and air pollution.

The added bonus of these actions is that they will also cut down our energy bills. Other simple actions include recycling and composting food scraps and yard

clippings, which drastically cut down on the amount of waste going to landfill.

As well, we can reduce the number of days that we water our lawns, and we can practise pesticide-free lawn and garden care.

While the role of individuals is vital to protecting our environment, the government of Ontario will continue to do its part to ensure environmental

sustainability. Recently, this government has taken action to improve the air we breathe through proposed regulations targeting the electricity sector. We are also working with the transportation

sector and other industry sectors to ensure the positive momentum of air quality actions underway continues.

Today's Pollution Probe Clean Air Commute is an example of our shared commitment to educate Ontarians about personal environmental choices. Through Operation

Clean Water, we continue to work with our municipal, conservation authority and other partners to ensure Ontario has the safest and cleanest drinking water. And we are already well underway with

legislation to clean up brownfields and are working to ensure that, through careful planning and management, companies are not creating any future brownfields.

So as we recognize Canadian Environment Week, let each of us take stock of our own personal actions. Let us take time today to remind ourselves that the

responsibility for the environment is in our hands, and from our hands it will be passed on to future generations. Let us make sure not only that this summer is safe and enjoyable, but that each

one of us does our part to protect our precious environment.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Responses.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I find it unfortunate that the minister is trotted out these days by her staff to a number of photo ops

instead of having the support from the rest of the cabinet for meaningful environmental initiatives.

I noticed her staff had her out with Imperial Oil, which we know as Esso, which produces the dirtiest gas in all of Ontario, and yet the minister was doing a

photo opportunity with Esso the other day. I thought that rather inappropriate.

Today she was with Pollution Probe. The irony of that is that she's advocating public transit, and I believe she truly believes in it, yet her government has

totally abandoned public transit. No longer do we have funding for various transit commissions across the province or operating funding for transit out of Metropolitan Toronto to other communities.

That is gone. We're virtually the only jurisdiction in North America that does not provide that today.

The only answer they seem to have is to keep widening highways and encouraging more and more urban sprawl, which contributes negatively to the environment. Of

course, the minister is presiding over a ministry which has had its staff cut by an unprecedented one third and its budget cut by some 45% in funding. That is a true example of what the government

really believes the importance of the environment is.

The most powerful initiative within this government is the Red Tape Commission, which seems to walk over all Ministers of the Environment, one after another,

tearing apart the regulations, trying to weaken the legislation, telling them they should be business-friendly instead of, of course, toughly enforcing the environment. Nothing can replace strong

laws and tough and fair enforcement. All of these partnerships you have are very nice, but what you really require is a strong investigations and enforcement branch to go in, investigate, lay the

charges and set an example for everybody else. The good corporate people will support that, as well as the whole population of the province.

I remember that behind closed doors -- talking about air quality -- the previous Minister of the Environment and the previous Minister of Energy were on the

side of the polluting companies. They didn't want to remove sulphur from gas to the same extent as the federal government wanted to, and they didn't want to remove it as quickly. But when the final

communiqué came out, they attacked the federal government, when everybody knew that behind closed doors they were fighting on behalf of the companies that wanted to pollute for a longer period

of time and to a greater extent.

We have coal-fired plants in this province that are virtually untouched by this minister, outside of one. Nanticoke, which is the largest polluter in all of

Canada, is going to be allowed to continue to burn coal. The minister has come up -- at least her government has -- with some hare-brained scheme to trade pollution credits with people down in the

United States, with no overall cap. That certainly is a recipe for disaster in terms of air quality, with 1,900 premature deaths per year from smog in this province.

As a result of Walkerton, we were to see certain action take place. All of us are waiting for action on factory farms. Nothing has happened. The minister has

been mugged in the hallways or the backrooms by her caucus, who won't let her pass this legislation. No action on the spreading of sludge, no staff to look after it, no rules and regulations.

Again, I can't help but believe the minister wants to do this, but the powers that be in the government are not allowing her to do so.

No groundwater strategy, not enough funding for sewer and water projects in this province, all within the purview of the Ministry of the Environment.

Appointments to agencies, boards and commissions: I see people who are clearly anti-environment, in some cases, being appointed to these agencies, boards and

commissions. I hope the minister can find pro-environment people for those particular agencies.

Water-taking permits: that's just totally out of control.

Also, they've abandoned recycling funding in the province to help out the municipalities.

Now, don't just take my word for it, because the minister is going to say, "Well, the opposition is naturally going to be opposed to the government." What I've

got to say to the minister and to the government is, ask the Provincial Auditor. He's had several reports condemning the Ministry of the Environment and the Harris government. Ask two environment

commissioners, even one who is the Tory president in North Bay. Both of those commissioners have condemned this government. I wish the minister well, but I'll tell you, she has no friends on that

side of the House.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I guess I'm not going to be so kind to the minister. Pollution Probe says the focus of the campaign is

to bring individuals to action against smog by promoting alternatives to the single-occupancy vehicle, and that is a good starting point for today. But if there is one individual in Ontario who

should be motivated to action, an individual who is entrusted with being and who is paid a great deal of money to be motivated on this issue but who has not been motivated to take action on this

issue, it is the Minister of the Environment.

To be fair to her, the previous Ministers of the Environment have been dismal failures as well. I say that because there were at least eight memos warning the

government, former Ministers of the Environment, that their drastic budget cuts could put health or environmental protection at risk. Those were former ministers Elliott and Sterling. They were at

meetings when they were warned that their drastic cuts could put people's health at risk and the environment at risk, and they did not tell the people that they were warned that these things could

happen. And then we had Walkerton.

It is absolutely incredible that this minister can stand here telling people today that they should take action to promote alternatives to the single-occupancy

vehicle, when it is her government and cabinet that refuse to fund public transportation in this province, the only jurisdiction in North America and the western world that is not helping support

public transportation. She may be aware, by coincidence, that it is today that fares have gone up on the Toronto transportation system -- right here today. Evidence shows, and the statistics are

there, that ridership goes down when fares are increased.

At the same time they're doing this, they are threatening to build seven new highways without putting a penny into public transportation in this province. How

can the minister stand here today and tell us of her commitment and her government's commitment to curtailing air pollution in this province?

The NDP has put forward a plan. It's called the transportation trust fund. Other jurisdictions are doing something similar, and that is taking two cents out of

the gas money -- just two cents of that money -- and putting it into a permanent transit fund. We would call on the federal government to do the same thing. That could promote public transportation

and make sure that there are dollars in the system, year to year, so that we can plan ahead, instead of doing things that actually curtail and cut and hurt public transportation.

It is this government that repealed the NDP green planning act, which would discourage urban sprawl. And what is this government doing? It repealed that act.

All its policies actually promote urban sprawl, which, as we know, leads to more people driving their cars and fewer people taking public transportation.

We have a situation where we have coal-burning plants, which we know now are one of the deadliest aspects of air pollution. The government has announced -- it

still hasn't been done -- that they will convert Lakeview, after much prompting and urging by us and other people in the community asking this to be done, but nothing about Nanticoke, which is the

largest polluter in all of Canada.

This is a very serious issue we're talking about here today. We know from the OMA that up to 1,900 people a year die from air pollution in this province. That

is not acceptable. There are many things the government can and should be announcing today. The bottom line is, we want to hear that the money the government took out of the Ministry of the

Environment when they took office will be put back, because even after the latest announcement in the last budget, the operating budget is still about $43 million less than when they took office.

That is shameful and unacceptable.

The other thing that they could and must do is to bring back the staff they laid off. It is already clear from the evidence before the Walkerton inquiry that

that is where we need to go, and I call on the government today to do that.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My questions today are for the Minister of Education. Minister, I'd like to pursue a matter

with you which was raised in the weekend media. One of your caucus colleagues, the member for Waterloo-Wellington, attacked your new voucher for private schools here in Ontario. I want to take the

opportunity to congratulate him for his insight and understanding of this issue.

Mr Arnott believes in public education as an integrating force in society, and so do I. Mr Arnott believes that your voucher will lead to fragmentation of the

education system, and so do I.

Madam Minister, you dismissed these very concerns when we raised them here on this side of the House on behalf of Ontario's working families. I now put them to

you on behalf of your own caucus colleague, Mr Arnott. Would you tell him why you are proceeding with a voucher plan, which we all know will fragment and weaken public education?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): As the honourable member knows, we are not proceeding with a voucher

plan.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, this is your own government's position quoted in the UN decision: "If the province of Ontario were required to fund

private religious schools, this would have a detrimental impact on the public schools and hence the fostering of a tolerant, multicultural, non-discriminatory society in the province, thus

undermining the fundamental rights and freedoms of others." That was a decision rendered just 15 months ago before the United Nations tribunal. That was based on the argument that your government

put forward. Can you tell us why 15 months ago you argued, very compellingly, I might add, that funding private religious schools was a threat to a tolerant society but today you argue that it

represents no such threat? Were you completely wrong then, or are you completely wrong today?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, I think we should be very clear about the allegation the honourable member is putting on the table. What he is

putting here in this Legislature is that somehow or other those parents who choose to send their children to independent schools or the education provided in those independent schools is somehow

not tolerant, not acceptable to the values of Ontario. I think that's a very offensive notion that the honourable member is putting on the table here today.

The other thing is that a strong public education system is important to the values of this province, very, very much so, and that is why we are not proceeding

the way that he is suggesting. That is why we are continuing to increase resources for the public education system and at the same time invest a small portion of government resources to respect

parental choice in independent schools.

Mr McGuinty: I will read back to the minister the same quote which was taken from the government's brief presented before the UN. These are

your words, through your government: "If the province of Ontario were required to fund private religious schools, this would have a detrimental impact on the public schools, and hence the fostering

of a tolerant, multicultural, non-discriminatory society in the province, thus undermining the fundamental rights and freedoms of others." That's the Mike Harris government's position, taken just

recently before the UN tribunal.

Madam Minister, you made that argument through the government, through Mike Harris, in a very compelling way. What I want to know, on behalf Ontario's working

families, is, were you right then or are you right today?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Let's be clear what the government was rejecting. The government was rejecting taking money from the public education system

and putting it somewhere else. Let's be very clear: this government has continued to put new money, more money, into the public education system because we believe that should be, that has been,

that will be, that continues to be the priority of this government, to put more resources into the public education system.

We announced $310 million on April 12. When we put forward the compromise solution for extracurricular, we added another $50 million. When I put out the

programs for strict discipline for students who had been expelled, there was another $16 million. When I introduced the early reading strategy, something the honourable member said he thought we

should do, and now of course appears not to recognize that, that was another $24 mil-lion, new investments into the public education system which has been and remains and will continue to be the

priority of this government. Nothing we have ever said has taken away from that.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, I need do nothing more than use the very arguments you made before the UN against you today. That's what this is

all about. I'm not inventing these things; I'm using your very own words.

Ted Arnott said this weekend that his concerns with your voucher plan don't begin and end because of his fears over the fragmentation effect it will have on

public education.

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member opposite is absolutely wrong. At no point did I ever call

this a voucher system. It is not a voucher system. You are absolutely wrong on that.

The Speaker: Order; the member take his seat. It's not a point of order. Sorry for the interruption, leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: The member also expressed the very real concern about the enormous cost. He said this was hard to justify, given your cuts in

other areas. Of course, he is absolutely right: our public education system is in desperate need of funding for everything from textbooks to special education programs to

It seems to me that if you have hundreds of millions of dollars to further invest in education, then what you should be doing on behalf of Ontario's working

families is investing in public education. So why don't you do that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member keeps ignoring -- deliberately, obviously, because it undermines his argument -- the fact that this

government has had four separate announcements in the last month about increasing investments, about increasing money for this upcoming school year, again, for strict discipline programs, for an

early reading strategy to help our children in kindergarten to grade 3.

But if we want to look at the record, and the honourable member loves to talk about the record, let's look at the honourable member's record on this issue.

When asked from the Ontario Jewish community, he said he has no ideological opposition to ensuring public funds support Jewish day schools. "Will you provide families with a tax credit?" "If we're

looking at equity, yes," he said -- but somewhere down the road, not today. Today, it's the fight of his life, but tomorrow? Maybe tomorrow it's OK. If you want to talk about records, to the

honourable member, you better look at your own record, because you certainly have been firmly ensconced on both sides of this issue.

Mr McGuinty: I am very proud to say that our commitment to public education has never once wavered.

Madam Minister, you yourself said in the past that funding private schools could cost as much as $700 million, so I want to come back to what that public money

might be used for. When your finance minister was asked recently whether or not Ontario taxpayers should be paying to send kids to some of the world's most exotic and elite schools, in locales

throughout the globe, he refused to rule out that possibility. I know that you have better sense in this regard. Can you tell Ontario's working families that you will never, ever allow public

dollars to subsidize education in exotic locales like Geneva and Paris and Rome and London and Florence, and instead, you would prefer that those dollars go into public education?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, to the honourable member, one of the arguments we used to the United Nations was -- what they were asking us to

do was take money from the public system and put it in the independent schools, and we said no, because that's not what we're doing. We were also asked to shut down funding for Catholic schools and

we said no, that was something that was recognized by our Constitution in this country and we are prepared to support that.

Secondly, or thirdly, maybe the honourable member thinks that the children of our armed forces personnel don't deserve an education where their families are

stationed. Clearly, we respect that parental choice. We respect those children whether they're here in Ontario or whether they're with their parents on missions across the seas.

The other thing: he says he supports public education --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Come to order, please.

Sorry. Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: He says he supports public education. He tells the Ottawa Citizen, "I support the testing of our schools," yet his education

critic is out there saying no, they don't. He says he's in favour of making changes to stop sexual abuse but the Safe Schools Act that helps us do that, he calls --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, it seems to me you've got three full-time jobs now. You're Minister of Education, you're House leader, and the

other full-time job for which you've assumed responsibility is bailing out the finance minister day in and day out.

Now you tell me you've got the army on your side. It's great to receive this news.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Your federal Liberal cousins aren't on the army's side, so someone has to be.

Mr McGuinty: Every day, Madam Minister, it becomes --

Interjections.

The Speaker: It's too noisy in here. We're getting a little carried away now. Sorry, the leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Every single passing day, it becomes more and more apparent that this was made out on the back of an envelope. It represents a

massive flip-flop of Olympian proportions. You argued against doing this before the UN. Mike Harris said he'd never do this during the course of the campaign. What public education needs is a

friend. You keep kicking it in the shins and bringing it to its very knees.

You know in your heart of hearts this stands for everything that you've argued against in the past. Why not do the right thing and scrap this policy?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, the honourable member has had both feet so firmly planted on either side of a fence post, I sometimes wonder how

he can continue to function. He said on the one hand he doesn't disagree with sending money to independent schools. His education critic agrees. He has members who agree. His new candidate in the

by-election has clearly gone on record as saying, whether by government decree or court order, that Ontario's Jewish day schools will be publicly funded by the year 2000. So he can't make up his

own mind, and clearly neither can his caucus.

What is very clear amid all the political rhetoric --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the government members. The minister can answer for you. You're yelling over top and I can't even hear -- I'm two feet

away -- for all the government members yelling. She can answer very competently for the government. Sorry, Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That's the nicest thing you've said about me.

What is very important here, amid all the political rhetoric of the honourable member across the way, is that our commitment to public education -- new

funding, higher standards -- continues, and I wouldn't stand for anything less, and at the same time, we respect parental choice.

What the honourable member keeps saying is that maybe his principles are important today and maybe they're not important tomorrow --

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

New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Finance. You continue to say that your private school tax credits

or vouchers, whatever you want to call them, will not result in cuts for the public education system, but some opinion research has been done which shows that 15% of parents with children across

Ontario would move their children from the public school system to private schools if you provided the tax credit and voucher enticements.

Now, 15% of students means 330,000 students across the province. Under your funding formula, if 330,000 students move from public schools to private schools,

that's a $2.3-billion cut to public education. Before you take even some small steps down that road, don't you think that people across Ontario deserve to be heard before you create even more

problems for the public education system?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): As the Minister of Education has already pointed out today, our commitment to public

education is firm. We fully fund the public education system in Ontario, which, as you know, includes not only the public schools but also the Catholic schools and the francophone schools. They

have been fully funded; they will continue to be fully funded.

In addition, we propose to provide a tax credit for parents so that they can exercise their choice -- not your choice, not politicians' choice, but their

choice as parents for their children's education in Ontario.

Mr Hampton: Minister, 15% of parents with children across this province are very clear: if you're going to provide an enticement for them to

move their children from public schools to private schools, they're going to choose to take it up. Fifteen per cent means 330,000 students moving from the public system to the private system.

That's consistent with what's happening in the United States. In the United States, they use the same language that you are using. They call it the parental choice program, and in Milwaukee, when

they made the same kind of vouchers or tax credits available, 15% of the students in the public system moved to the private system. In Ontario that means $2.3 billion.

I think you either have to tell people you're going to make an additional $1.5 billion a year available for private school funding and not affect public

schools or you're going to have to cut public schools to find the $1.5 billion in enticements for private schools. Which is it? Are you going to increase the budgets overall or are you going to cut

public schools? And if you're going to increase the budget overall, where is the money going to come from?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I must say at least it can be said that the leader of the third party is consistent in his position. The Liberal Party says

that they will repeal private school tax credits when they form the government and, I gather, paid $50,000 to say that in the Toronto Star the other day. Then their candidate in the riding of

Vaughan-King-Aurora says somewhat differently. He says, "If we don't get it (funding) by a court decision, we'll get it by way of a political decision." He says whether by government decree or

court order, Ontario's Jewish day schools will be publicly funded by the year 2000. He said that in 1994. I guess he says something different today if he's going to listen to his leader, who

apparently believes that he would repeal those tax credits.

Mr Hampton: Minister, thank you for telling us that the Liberals are trying to be on both sides of this issue at the same time, but we know

that.

The issue, Minister, is simply this: in the United States, when they made tax credits and vouchers available to entice parents to move their children from

public schools to private schools, 15% of parents started moving their children. Public opinion research already tells you that in Ontario, 15% of parents are prepared to remove their children from

public schools and put them in private schools. That means a $2.3-billion cut for public schools, and it means you've got to find almost $1.5 billion to cover the tax credits for private

schools.

You have to tell the people of Ontario, Minister. How are you going to do this? Are you going cut the public schools, which is what we think you're going to

do, or are you going to increase taxes to provide for the private schools? Which is it? You can't have it both ways. The Liberals can't have it both ways, and you can't have it both ways. Which is

it?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I appreciate the member opposite saying the Liberals can't have it both ways; they apparently think they can. The Leader of

the Opposition was asked by Andy Barrie on his radio show in the morning on May 17, 2001:

Barrie: "Would you repeal that tax break?"

McGuinty: "Yes."

Barrie: "Unequivocally?"

McGuinty: "Unequivocally."

Then we have the ad last week: $50,000 spent by the Liberal Party to say they'll repeal the tax credits. Then we have an interview by Mr McGuinty at the end of

last week for the Ottawa Citizen, where he's asked, "Will you provide families with a tax credit?" and he answers, "If we're looking at equity, yes, somewhere down the road." That's consistency.

Three weeks later, that's the story he tells the people of Ontario. You've got it surrounded. You're in a fog. You're just not up to the job.

Mr McGuinty: Mr Speaker, on a point of order --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. I need to hear the point of order. Government benches, please let the leader of the official opposition speak.

Sorry for the interruption.

Mr McGuinty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would draw to the Minister of Finance's attention the correction printed in today's Ottawa

Citizen.

The Speaker: It's not a point of order.

PRIVATE CANCER CLINIC

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Health. You have said that the private cancer clinic that you

established at Sunnybrook is paid exactly the same as the publicly funded cancer care system.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member for Beaches-East York has the floor. I can't hear the question. I need to hear it. The Liberals

will get another question in a minute, and then you can start back; but I need to hear the member. Sorry. The member for Beaches-East York.

Ms Lankin: To the Minister of Health: you have said the private cancer clinic that you established at Sunnybrook hospital is paid exactly the

same as the public system: $3,000 per case. You've also refused my repeated demands to make the contracts detailing that available to the public, and now I think I know why.

You see, it turns out there's a nifty little clause in that contract. It's

section 2.6, and it absolutely guarantees that 500 patients will be referred to your

private for-profit clinic. Now, 500 patients happens to be exactly the number that it needs to qualify for what was supposedly a special volume bonus. So there's no risk here for the private owners

at all. The contract guarantees 500 patients and a payment of at least $3,250 per case, not the $3,000 per case that you led this House to believe. So your private for-profit clinic is going to get

a full 8% higher than the amount paid to the public system.

I was allowed to review this contract but not to make a copy, Minister. Why can't all of the people of Ontario, not just one MPP, see the special deal that you

approved with this private health care clinic?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for the question. Certainly I understand that she did

have an opportunity to review the contract and have the discussion of that contract with the CEO. There is a value-for-money audit that can proceed, and we will co-operate fully with the Provincial

Auditor on that.

When it comes to the contract itself, my understanding is that they haven't reached the 500th case, so I guess her

interpretation of the contract is somewhat

incorrect. When I compare, even at the top end, if it is $3,500 per case as she mentions, plus the overhead costs, you compare that to the $17,000 per case that we were costing the taxpayers of

Ontario to send that cancer patient away from her family, away from her support network, to the United States, I'd gladly pay the $3,500 per case rather than the $17,000 per case that we were

paying under the previous system.

Ms Lankin: Do you know what? We'd be really glad if you'd put that kind of money into the public system here in Ontario, Minister. That's the

issue. You're the minister who stands in this House day after day and talks about public accountability, talks about transparency for the taxpayers, and yet you refuse to make this deal public. Now

that I have seen it, I can understand why. You've made a special sweetheart deal with this private company, and then you refuse to let the public even see what's in the contract. That way, you're

able to incorrectly claim that private health care is cheaper and better and the public can't see the contract that proves, in fact, that you're wrong.

I've seen that contract. I think perhaps you and I are the only two people in this Legislative Assembly who have seen that contract. But my question is about

the Ontario public. They have a right to know the secret deals you're making that give public funds for private health care. Given your own words of "public accountability" and "taxpayer

transparency," why won't you make this contract public so that everyone can see what you're doing?

Hon Mr Clement: The logical inconsistency in the argument is that if she's seen the contract, then clearly it is not a secret contract. It is

not a secret contract. I'm quite willing to supply any information that I have, and she obviously had access to that information as well. Anybody in this House can have the same access.

The other point of her argument, and I do want to correct the record: if anyone was confused about the honourable member's suggestions, she has also confused

-- and this happened a lot during the NDP government -- gross versus net. The fact of the matter is that the amounts she was referring to in terms of payment were gross amounts. The contract in

this case meant that they had to pay $220 per patient for equipment, supplies and overhead, which are not usually charged when it comes to the financing of our hospitals. So when you actually

figure out the gross versus the net, the private sector supplier is not in the position that she alleges they are in. I ask the honourable member to keep that in mind. Clearly, it was not something

they kept in mind when they were in government.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Health. I want to talk to you today about something that

means the difference between life and death for Ontarians, and that's cancer care.

Friday morning we heard that you were shutting Cancer Care Ontario down. Later in the afternoon we heard that, no, you may have some different plans for it. It

was in 1997, not that long ago, that your government announced, with great fanfare, Cancer Care Ontario. You felt that it was going to play a very important role in terms of central coordination

and ensuring that all Ontarians who suffer from cancer would have access to treatment in a safe and timely way. But working families are very concerned now about your announcement to wash your

hands of cancer treatment in Ontario.

You've now had some opportunity to consider this. Can you tell us exactly, because Ontario's families are very concerned about this, what your plans are for

Cancer Care Ontario?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Thank you for the opportunity, to the honourable member, and I would say

parenthetically that since 1995 we've increased funding for cancer care by almost 48%. I just wanted to get that on the record as well. That might be something the public might have some interest

in.

I would say to the honourable member in answer to his question that the position of this government in 2001 is the same as our position in 2000, in 1999, in

1998, and in 1997, at which point -- I know it's difficult for them to comprehend, but here's what we said in 1997. The Premier of the province, Premier Harris, stated that one of Cancer Care

Ontario's goals would be to "coordinate and integrate cancer treatment services. That was our position in 1997, it is currently our position and it will be our position in the future. We have been

absolutely consistent and we are moving forward with the integration of cancer care services to better serve the cancer sufferers and the public of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you didn't answer the question. You told us what you said about something in the past. Ontario families who have

members who suffer from cancer are very concerned by your prognostications made last week.

They want to know exactly what you're going to do about their Cancer Care Ontario. It has served an important role as a central coordinating institution in

directing treatment to the appropriate places. It's had some difficulties, no doubt about it, but our concern now is that you're going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The people inside Cancer Care Ontario have expressed these concerns to you. I want to give you the opportunity here and now; you told us what you're not going

to do. What we want to know now is exactly what your plans are. What is it that you're going to do that is going to change in any way from the status quo when it comes to Cancer Care Ontario?

Hon Mr Clement: We are always looking for ways to better deliver services and make sure the funds are there. I mentioned in my remarks earlier

that we've increased funding by almost 48%. That funding will be still in place. It will be a discrete funding envelope so that no other portion of our health care system would try to feed away

money for that.

But we are looking at integrating the services at the local level of cancer care delivery to better treat cancer sufferers, to integrate their needs with the

other needs that they take from our hospitals, so it delivers better cancer care. That is our goal; it has been our express goal since 1997 and we are in fact working with the board of Cancer Care

Ontario and its chairman to realize that goal.

Nothing has changed. We are moving forward with a plan to do that. For the average person who, unfortunately, has to rely on cancer care services, they should

see little or no change.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): My question today is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, I hosted a number of round-table

consultations in my riding. Certainly as a government we believe in listening to the public and what it is they want to see us do as a government.

In the next two weeks I will have the privilege of holding the fourth of five successful round-table sessions. This one will be focusing on the environment.

The residents of Thornhill and surrounding communities have expressed to me their sincere gratitude regarding the scheduled closing of the Keele Valley landfill. However, with the recent reporting

of southern Ontario's first smog advisory, I anticipate provincial pollution control measures to be raised during the round table.

Minister, could you please let me know what initiatives the government has taken in the area of pollution control so that I may report back to my constituents

on our government's proactive approach to maintaining Ontario's precious environment. What is our government's plan to preserve our environment?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): I thank the member from Thornhill and I congratulate her on planning this successful table

discussion in her riding to discuss the environment. We've certainly found that throughout Ontario there is a tremendous amount of interest in the environment.

I would just like to reassure the member that we are moving forward with the implementation of the Gibbons report, which requires all government ministries to

work together. More importantly, this government is moving forward with a very careful monitoring and enforcement program. We believe strong enforcement is integral to the protection of human

health and the natural environment. We have made our SWAT team permanent. We have hired 130 new enforcement and investigative-related staff. The number of charges laid in 2000 increased by 48% from

Mrs Molinari: Thank you, Minister, for your response. Certainly maintaining, monitoring, and enforcing is a program that my constituents will

be very happy to hear about. It sounds like we're doing a lot to preserve the environment. I will be proud to pass all of these initiatives on to the Thornhill constituents during the round table

put forth in the details of the government's plan for Ontario's environment.

I have been informed that the pollution hotline implemented by your ministry has been very successful. Can you please elaborate on this hotline and its success

so that I may be able to highlight some of the uses of helping to preserve Ontario's environment to my constituents.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The pollution hotline which was launched on April 17 of this year has been very successful. It is a public reporting mechanism

which enables anyone in this province to call the hotline at any time, 24 hours a day, to report incidents where they feel the environment is threatened.

I'm pleased to say that in the first two weeks the hotline received 325 phone calls. This resulted in 133 incidents being filed and all of these incidents have

been sent for follow-up to the district office. This is just another indication of the commitment of this government to ensure that we get tough on polluters in the province of Ontario.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health.

Minister, we know what you intended to do to Cancer Care Ontario last week. You intended to turn Cancer Care Ontario into a shell, an empty shell, with no

responsibility for delivering care to patients. You intended to eliminate provincial coordination of cancer services so that the waiting list for radiation therapy could be buried. You intended to

make sure that Cancer Care Ontario would never put pressure directly on you or your government again to provide enough resources to meet standards of care across the province. You intended to go

back to a fragmented system, with no assurance that cancer patients would have equal access to care, no matter where they lived in this province.

What we don't know, Minister, is whether you really are backing down on all of this. By Friday afternoon, all you wanted to do was to get this story off the

front pages of the newspapers. Are you truly prepared to abandon your plans to merge cancer centres with hospitals, or are you just slowing down until the political heat eases off?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): If the honourable member is asking whether I'm backing down from the fictitious plan

that made it into one of our nation's newspapers, I have to concede that since that was never my plan, I guess one could interpret it as backing down. But if the real question before us is, can we

provide better care for our cancer sufferers, can we have a more integrated system for cancer care in our province, one that takes the best of the professionals and the best in our hospitals and

the best in our system and integrates those at the local level, the answer is yes. That has been the position of our Premier, our province and our government since 1997.

We are working with the board, after the board made the unanimous motion to move ahead with integration. We are working with the board of directors of Cancer

Care Ontario, with the chair of Cancer Care Ontario, and with cancer care providers to make a better system for Cancer Care Ontario. If she's against that, I seriously question whether that's the

right thing to do in this particular case.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Minister, are you saying that there was no initiative and no directive sent to Cancer Care Ontario that

there would be a program to integrate their services into local regional hospitals? Are you saying, number one, that that did not happen? Number two, will you categorically state that you're not

moving on dismantling a system that's taken a series of years, implemented by the previous minister -- a very good minister, I might add -- and now you're looking at dismantling this and creating a

situation where no one would be able to tell you the length of time people will have to wait for treatment, the length of time people may have to wait for chemotherapy or radiation? That's what you

will have.

You can appreciate why people might say -- perhaps it's not true; then check the record or change the record and state it clearly -- that this is just a way to

push it aside so that clearly you will not be able to state the case of cancer treatment in Ontario today.

Next, there is a committee that's at work. Will you tell us the function of that particular committee? Is it to review and look at how to improve services and

keep the independence of Cancer Care Ontario or is it an implementation committee, which you say is not the purpose?

Hon Mr Clement: The original questioner asked me whether it was our intention to create an "empty shell," to use her words, for Cancer Care

Ontario. Our intention very clearly is no. There is a need for a standard-setter. There is a need for a results-oriented examination of whether cancer care is delivered properly in Ontario.

If the question is, do we think there should be better integration at the local level to ensure that our cancer sufferers have better care, the answer is yes.

We are moving ahead with that. We are moving ahead with an implementation team that is working with the board and with the ministry to ensure that it's done in a seamless way, in a smooth way, but

the answer is, we're moving ahead.

We think it is important for the betterment of cancer treatment for cancer sufferers in Ontario to have a better integration of those services at the local

level. I'm not equivocating, I'm not trying to deny anything; I'm saying that's where we're going and we are doing so in a way that has a very serious role for Cancer Care Ontario in the present

and in the future, and has better cancer treatment for all of the cancer sufferers in Ontario at the local level.

ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVES

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Minister, as you no doubt are aware, I have recently

chaired the Task Force on Rural Economic Renewal for the Premier. During the task force's consultations and in subsequent meetings with my local municipal councils, I have found that red tape

issues have been a significant frustration. Applications to the government's SuperBuild partnerships initiative have become a source of concern due to alleged red tape requirements. Some applicants

have submitted 44 pages as part of a SuperBuild application. I'm sure you will agree that this seems excessive, particularly for smaller municipalities.

Minister, would you be willing to review the application forms to determine how efficient this process really is?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I thank the member for the question. There has been a phenomenal response to the

SuperBuild OSTAR and SCTP -- that's the sports, culture and tourism partnerships initiative. Some 380 applications were received under OSTAR. SCTP has over 450 applications for contributions.

We did ask the municipalities and others submitting applications to complete business plans after developing them and to include capital asset management

plans. We enunciated that we would be judging the proposals against six specific criteria: the need for the project, partnerships, innovation, cost-effectiveness, the financial plan, and the

capital asset plan.

The information requested, of course, is to help the province make prudent investment decisions. We certainly want to avoid what was done by Human Resources

Development Canada, by the federal government in Ottawa.

Mr Galt: Many thanks to you, Minister, for the response. I'm sure many of the partnership initiatives are indeed of the best intent.

There is also a concern that small-town and rural Ontario does not have the financial resources to become a full partner. Could you update us on the status of

these various partnership initiatives?

Hon Mr Flaherty: OSTAR will provide $600 million over five years for infrastructure and economic development. It's purpose is to invest in

strategic infrastructure. That infrastructure is critical to the economic growth of Ontario and also our small cities, small towns and rural areas.

A minimum of $240 million will be provided to support public health and safety infrastructure. We're proceeding with the mandatory engineering studies.

The sports, culture and tourism partnerships initiative was launched in December 2000. Letters of intent were due February 2, 2001, and the deadline for

applications was extended to April 12, 2001. We expect to be proceeding with the responses to those applications this autumn.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): A question to the Minister of Health: Minister, last week when you were asked about your devastating

cuts to CCACs, about your funding freeze of CCACs, you said that we should not jump to conclusions. You said that you were in the process of discussion.

Today, tens of thousands of home care patients across this province are either losing their home care services or having them reduced. It means, for some home

care patients who cannot get the services any more, they will have to look at moving into a nursing home or a home for the aged, which will cost the health care system more money and deny dignity

to those frail elderly and disabled patients.

Minister, why have you frozen the budgets of community care access centres when you know that it's going to lead to cuts in home care and that cuts in home

care will drive those frail elderly patients into nursing homes and homes for the aged? Give us the logic for doing this when it's going to reduce people's access to home care and result, in the

long run, in more costs to the health care system.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): First the honourable member says that there are cuts, then he says there's a freeze.

I can tell the honourable member that in the last few years community care access centres' home care has seen an increase in their budgets in the order of 72%. So he's got a very strange definition

of cuts.

I will say for the record that we have directed the CCACs to stay within their budgets, pending, as well, a third-party review of the CCACs and their ability

to govern properly and their ability to manage home care properly. I make no bones about that. I think every segment of our transfer partners, as well as what the government does directly, should

always be reviewed. It should always been seen whether there are better ways to deliver better services to more people on a more accountable level for taxpayers. So that is going on, and until that

review is completed we are saying, not a penny less than last year but they have to live within their budgets.

Mr Hampton: Minister, it is less than last year because last year, as they took on all of the frail elderly, as they dealt with more and more

acute care patients being put out of hospital, you covered their end-of-the-year deficit when they found that the demand for services exceeded the budget. This year you've already announced you're

not going to do that. Given the fact that we have an aging population, given the fact that we have a great need for services, the fact that you're now going to freeze their budgets on top of not

covering the end-of-year deficit means they are going to have to cut home care services. It is affecting tens of thousands of seniors across this province today.

Minister, you always talk about fiscal responsibility. If this is going to force more patients into nursing homes and homes for the aged, if it's going to

force them to stay in hospital longer, which is more expensive, tell us, how is this fiscally responsible? But most of all tell us, how is cutting home care services going to improve health care

for tens of thousands of patients across Ontario?

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member, the leader of the third party, makes the fundamental error once more: he equates the ability to live

within one's budget as automatically meaning service cuts. That's the NDP world. That is not the real world. The real world says that when you have to stay within your budgets, look for ways to

deliver better services for less, at a more accountable cost to the taxpayer. That's the world most of our transfer partners inhabit and that's the world in which the CCACs find themselves. We make

no bones about that, no apologies: they have to live within their budgets, something that one didn't hear a lot under the NDP.

Speaking of NDP budgets, I'll just taken one region as an example of how far we have come in terms of meeting the needs of home care recipients. York region,

for instance -- I don't know why that came to mind, but York region came to mind -- under the NDP it was funding of $16.9 million. Under the Mike Harris government, for this year, it is $49.7

million. Yes, we're asking them to live within that budget and we make no apologies for it.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Health and it concerns home care in Ontario. Minister, I'd like to you

to tell the elderly women who today are facing the cuts under your ministry -- because they are no longer getting the home care that they require to keep them in their homes. Last year to two years

ago, the percentage of home care that used to be because of hospital discharges was 30%. Today, under your restructuring and your cuts, that number has moved to 70%. That means that all of the

mostly elderly women who rely on home care to stay in their homes now are at the bottom of the priority list of what community care access centres can care for. I'd like you to tell these women who

aren't getting baths, who aren't getting personal grooming, because you and I both know that community care access centre boards met last week and the week before to determine what services to cut

to try to stay within your budget requirements -- I want you to tell the elderly women, how do you expect them to stay in their homes now that you have mandated these service cuts?

Hon Mr Clement: Again, I'll give some more facts for the honourable member's edification: $550.8 million was announced in 1998-99 in new

community health services, in-home nursing, therapy, homemaking, supportive housing; $389.7 million in new permanent funding has been announced by this government. I believe the record speaks for

itself.

I can tell the honourable member that we provide the most generous level of home care services in Canada, approximately $128 per capita. We are second to none

in Canada. We are proud of that fact, but we are also a government that believes that one has to live within one's budget. That is true of us and it is true of our transfer partners as well. In

this case, the transfer partners have to live within their budgets. We make no apologies about that. We make no prevarications about that. That's the reality and that's what the taxpayers of

Ontario expect of us.

Mrs Pupatello: This is about elderly women trying to stay in their own homes. This is about women who will be forced into long-term-care beds

that you can't seem to build since you took office. Let me ask you this. You now want to freeze their budgets because you're going to do a review of home care, these home care agencies. Community

care access centres would welcome a value-for-money audit. I'm asking the minister, are you prepared to pay for an audit so that they can once again prove to you that they're doing their job, that

the $175-million deficit that community care access centres face across this province is your doing? You cut hospitals, forcing pressure on the home care system. In the end, it's mostly elderly

women who fall to the bottom of the priority list, because they're not getting some very basic personal grooming needs met. You and I know both know these decisions happened, that this is already

happening today in our Ontario. Minister, will you do a value-for-money audit, and will you pay for it, to prove in fact the money has been well spent and there's simply a deficit that will fall at

your feet?

Hon Mr Clement: We would and we have. We have sponsored and paid for an independent third-party operating review of the operating procedures

of the community care access centres. It looks at governance issues; it looks at operating procedures. We hope to have that finalized very soon and we'd be happy to share it with you. I can assure

the honourable member that she'll be the first to know when that becomes available.

To those who are recipients of home care I would say that we have put our money where our mouth is. We have increased the system by 72%, put real dollars into

patient care, direct-line patient care, direct-line home care for these individuals. The answer coming back from the honourable member always seems to be, "More money, more money, more money," not

caring about whether it's actually spent on the front lines; the Liberal answer is more money. I would say I think it's time for the Dalton McGuinty spend-o-meter to be back in this House, because

that is the kind of promise that is irresponsible; that is the kind of promise that they leave for the election campaigns. Now we're seeing it two years before the election campaign. God only knows

how much money they'll spend and promise -- a chicken in every pot -- before the election. That is the irresponsible nature of the opposition.

ENERGY POLICY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. In a news release on energy

issued during the western Premiers' conference on June 1, 2001, the western Premiers said, "It is essential that provinces and territories be full participants in international discussions related

to energy."

Media reports indicate that Premier Ralph Klein of Alberta is scheduled to meet with United States Vice-President Dick Cheney in Washington on June 14 to

discuss Alberta's role in the United States national energy policy. Minister, do you agree with the western Premiers that it's important that provinces be full participants in international

discussions related to energy?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'd like to thank my colleague from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford for the question.

Ontario's success is essential to the success of this great country. Thriving under the policies of the Harris government, over two thirds of the jobs created across Canada have happened right here

in Ontario.

Of course, energy is essential to our ability to create jobs and be competitive. This government is committed to ensuring that Ontario's interests are

considered and met in any negotiations concerning a continental energy policy. We recognize the federal government's jurisdiction concerning international trade and we think that each and every

province should be involved with the federal government in this discussion. It's important, in international discussions of this nature, that commitments on energy policy recognize provincial

jurisdiction over resources. Consultations by the federal government about an energy plan, to be meaningful, must ensure that Ontario's interests are heeded and reflected in any energy

agreement.

Mr Tascona: Energy is critical to Ontario's competitiveness. Minister, can you explain how the Ontario government intends to ensure that

Ontario's interests in energy are well represented?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I want to assure my colleagues here in the House and the people of Ontario that my cabinet colleagues and I continue to work

diligently to ensure that our interests are represented. My colleague the Honourable Jim Wilson, Minister of Energy, Science and Technology, intends to discuss the Bush energy plan with his federal

and provincial energy minister counterparts. He has indicated his interest in an early meeting of the federal, provincial and territorial ministers to agree on a process for full provincial

participation in the development of any plan. And indeed, as my colleague has referred to, the western Premiers have called for a western meeting of energy ministers to take place in June. They've

invited the federal energy minister and other provincial energy ministers to take part. This is a positive initiative.

I've written to my federal counterpart, Mr Dion, asking him to ensure that Ontario interests are well represented in any negotiations with the United States.

There is a role for the federal government in balancing the interests of the provinces that produce with those that consume energy, and it is essential that individual provincial implications are

understood and that provinces and territories are full participants in international energy discussions.

DEAF-BLIND COMMUNITY

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My question today is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, I want you to

imagine being in a room with not one glimmer of light -- no matter how long you're in there, no light. Not only is that room pitch black, but there is no sound whatsoever. I want you to picture

being in that room for six months, with no contact through eyes or through ears.

Last December, we passed in this House a bill to make June Deaf-Blind Awareness Month. Since that time, you've reacted to it by slashing funding for the

deaf-blind by 5%. Only 10% of the deaf-blind community now receive the services. You've refused funding for a training centre for adults with acquired deaf-blindness. While the enrolment for

interveners has plunged at George Brown College, you have done nothing to encourage that. There is no funding for volunteer recruitment, for screening, for training or for supervision.

Minister, in the last six months, what have you done for the blind-deaf community?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for children, minister responsible for francophone

affairs): Providing supports to those fellow citizens with a disability is a tremendous priority for me and for this government. I think we've done a great deal to help the lot of the

disabled, particularly at my ministry, over the last number of years.

The member opposite talks about a funding reduction. If the member opposite wants to stand in his place and give me more details about that, I'd be very happy

to look at it. In the budget we brought in not too long ago we put in additional funding to help graduates of the Ross Macdonald School in Brantford; we've increased the budget there. Last week we

announced more than $200 million in funding, increasing over the next five years, for people with developmental disabilities. We've increased support to help people suffering from autism with early

intervention services. We've put in more money to help infant development. I think we've done a terrific amount to try to improve the services for our fellow citizens with disabilities.

I'm the first to acknowledge that we can do more. That's why we've been making increased investments in the past year.

Mr Parsons: The deaf-blind believe that now that we have the awareness month, it has made them a target rather than attracting support.

There are 4,200 individuals in this province who are deaf-blind. In January, the Canadian National Society of the Deaf-Blind and the Canadian Deaf-Blind and

Rubella Association put together a proposal to help identify the deaf-blind in rural and remote areas in this province who receive no services. They've got federal funding for it. What they need

out of the province is support for it -- not financial support; simply agreement in principle that you believe this is a worthwhile project, no financial commitment, and yet, Minister, they've

received no answer whatsoever from you to their January letter. January to June, they haven't even got a written acknowledgement that it has been received.

At absolutely no cost to this government, you could provide services to the deaf-blind rather than removing them, as you've done. Let the federal government at

least provide some supports and services to our deaf-blind community. Will you now say yes and allow this project to go ahead to identify those in need in our province?

Hon Mr Baird: I will certainly go back to the ministry and look into the proposal which the member opposite cites.

I very specifically asked the member opposite to tell me about the 5% cut, and you offered absolutely no explanation of it, which suggests to me it's not

true.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question? The member for Durham.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question --

Hon Mr Baird: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask for unanimous consent -- if the member opposite would like to get up and

provide that, our party would be pleased to give it to him --

The Speaker: Order. The member now brings attention to it. That was marginal. I let it go. I'm going to ask him to withdraw it. You can't say

that.

Hon Mr Baird: Withdrawn.

BY-ELECTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier. Minister, as we know, there is a by-election in

Ontario. I was quite alarmed by the inconsistent reports from the Liberal candidate, Greg Sorbara.

It's clear here. He was asked to reconcile his strong views with those of his party, which hemmed and hawed on funding for years. Sorbara doesn't back away.

The Liberals were equivocating, for he concedes, "We were not violently opposed or thoroughly in favour, but while in power we didn't do anything about the issue, and we're avoiding it for now."

Minister, could you clarify this apparent inconsistency from the Liberal Party?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I thank the member for Durham for the question. It's very difficult to tell on this

issue. It depends on which Liberal you ask, what kind of answer you get. I know they spent $50,000 on an ad that says they'll repeal the tax credit, but then in 1994 the Liberal candidate in

Vaughan-King-Aurora said, "Whether by government decree or court order, Ontario's Jewish day schools will be publicly funded by the year 2000." He said the Liberals were equivocal. "We were not

violently opposed or thoroughly in favour, but while in power we didn't do anything about the issue, and we're avoiding it now." He said, "We see the merits of both sides of the issue," in

typically Liberal fashion.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for that clarification, Minister. I do look forward to further comments on the debate because we've heard the

Leader of the Opposition state three different times three different positions. Clearly, with a new candidate, who I think has some aspiration for leadership, there will be more to be heard on this

issue in the future.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I thank the member for the question. There's this ad that says the Liberals will repeal the tax credit. Then the Leader of

the Opposition tells the Ottawa Citizen -- but there's a correction here, Speaker, and it's important that we get the correction accurately. It was first questioned -- this was the Ottawa Citizen,

June 1, 2001 -- "Will you provide families with a tax credit?" Answer: "If you're looking at equity, yes, somewhere down the road -- "

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order for just a quick minute here. The questions are supposed to be related to government business. Quoting

other people in here -- I gave a lot of leniency because I'm not going to write the questions for people, but you know what --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. I don't need you guys yelling at me while I'm talking, thank you very much, Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier. I gave

a lot of leeway, but it's supposed to be public policy. To read other people's records during a by-election is not the purpose of question period. I gave a lot of leeway; if the Minister of Finance

could come to some conclusion on that. I will not allow people to use the questions to turn them into partisan situations.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, and who wants to be thrown out first, for the members laughing? Solicitor General, do you want to be thrown out? I will do

it.

Interjection.

The Speaker: No, you're not allowed to yell when I'm doing a point of order.

I will be very clear: Minister of Finance, the questions in here are supposed to be relating to government business of the day; this is not, in my opinion. I

will say very clearly that if the minister doesn't get to his point very quickly, I'll be up and we will go to petitions.

Hon Mr Flaherty: Thank you, Speaker. Relating to the education tax credit, which is part of the budget bill, the quote, and it's important

that we get the corrected quote because the Leader of the Opposition raised a point of privilege, is corrected in today's Ottawa Citizen.

Question: "Will you provide families with a tax credit?" Answer: "If we're looking at equity, somewhere down the road --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

reduced costs; and

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

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

be it

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

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

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

I sign my name on this petition and hand it over to Katie.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I'm pleased to present this petition that again talks about cancer in the workplace, and much credit

to the labour movement, the CAW in particular, for ensuring that this matter stays on the political agenda until it's dealt with properly. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

workplace exposure to cancer-causing substances (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 work; 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."

On behalf of my constituents and the NDP caucus, I proudly add my name to this petition.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

children; and

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

and

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

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

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

education;

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

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature. It deals with northerners demanding that the Harris government

eliminate the health care apartheid which it is presently practising in Ontario.

"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 of Ontario; and

"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."

I affix my signature to this petition of 2,000 people.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): "Whereas the Harris government is planning to take funds that our public schools desperately need and

funnel them to private schools through tax credits; and

"Whereas the government's plan is to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools; and

"Whereas this initiative is in effect a voucher system and is the beginning of the end of quality public education in Ontario,

"Therefore, we, the hundreds of people undersigned, call on all members of the Legislature to fight and defeat this attack on the choice parents most want:

stability, co-operation and respect in clean, safe public schools."

I support this petition.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): This petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

children; and

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

and

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

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

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

education;

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

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

GARDERIES

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) : J'ai une pétition qui provient de résidents de St Isidore de Prescott, ainsi que

de Casselman.

« À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

« Attendu que la garde d'enfants en résidence privée comprise dans la

Loi sur les garderies définit la garde temporaire, moyennant

rémunération ou avantage quelconque, de cinq enfants au plus âgés de moins de 10 ans ;

« Attendu que dans les régions rurales, il y a un manque et en grande

partie l'absence de transport en commun, et étant donné que la

population est majoritairement éloignée des centres et des écoles ;

« Nous, les soussignés, présentons la pétition suivante à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

« Que le gouvernement de l'Ontario apporte la modification suivante sur la définition de la garde d'enfants en résidence privée

comprise dans la

Loi sur les garderies, permettant un nombre plus élevé que de cinq enfants de moins de 10 ans dans les régions rurales. »

J'y ajoute ma signature.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I've got a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will create two-tier education;

"Whereas the government plans to give parents a $3,500 entitlement to pull their kids out of public schools;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society of narrowly focused interests;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will steal money from an already cash-starved public system and deliver public money to special interests who do not

have to account for its use;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario;

"Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure,

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

"We call on the government of Ontario to withdraw its plan for two-tiered education and properly fund public education in Ontario."

That's signed by Mario Iudiciani, David Street, Welland; Elizabeth Jansen, Westdale Drive, Welland; and thousands of others. My signature is affixed as

well.

STATUTORY HOLIDAY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Mr Speaker, it's my distinct pleasure to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Ontario citizens.

I'm not saying it would be completely endorsed by this government, but with your indulgence, I'll read it.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas a recent Ipsos-Reid National Omnibus survey revealed that almost half of Canadians today are suffering from a lack of free time in their lives. In

addition, more than three quarters of Canadians -- 77% -- support the introduction of a new public holiday in the spring or summer months.

"Here in Ontario, eight in 10 respondents -- 81% -- are in favour of an additional holiday. We feel this is a strong indication that the people of Ontario

deserve a long weekend this summer." I might say I support that myself.

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

"To grant the citizens of Ontario a statutory holiday during the month of June."

I am submitting this on behalf of Steve Silverstone from Labatt Breweries of Canada and all of the citizens of Ontario who took the time to sign this important

initiative in the province.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition.

ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Ted Arnott): I recognize the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Jim.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Jim is supposed to take Margaret's picture.

The Acting Speaker: I recognize the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: Thank you. My deep appreciation to all the members, especially the opposition House leader.

It gives me pleasure to present this petition on behalf of the member for Oakville, the Speaker, Gary Carr, and on my own behalf as the member for Mississauga

South. It is a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas Sithe Energies Canadian Development Ltd is actively pursuing the development of an 800 MW electricity generating facility;

"Whereas the 14-hectare parcel of land on which the station is proposed is located on the east side of Winston Churchill Boulevard in the Southdown industrial

district of Mississauga;

"Whereas Sithe has stated its commitment to an open dialogue with communities where it has a presence and to being responsive to the concerns of the same;

and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has a responsibility to ensure the safety of Ontario citizens and to determine how this facility will impact those who live

in its immediate, surrounding area,

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

"That the government of Ontario direct the Ministry of the Environment to undertake a formal environmental assessment of the Sithe project."

There are now about 7,000 names on this petition and I am happy to add my name to it.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

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

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

developmentally handicapped regional centres;

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

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

emergency services;

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

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

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

This petition is signed by a number of residents from Chatham and Paincourt, and I affix my signature to it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION /

ATTRIBUTION DE TEMPS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other

standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 45,

An Act to Implement measures contained in the 2001 Budget and to amend various statutes, when Bill 45 is next called as a

government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be ordered

referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs; and

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

h) shall be permitted; and

That the committee shall be authorized to meet on Friday, June 8, 2001, in St Catharines, on Monday, June 11, through Thursday, June 14, 2001, in Toronto, on

Friday, June 15, 2001, in London, on Monday, June 18, 2001, in Sudbury and on Tuesday, June 19, 2001, in Ottawa;

That the committee meet on Wednesday, June 20, 2001, and Thursday, June 21, 2001, for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

That, on these dates, the standing committee on finance and economic affairs shall be authorized to meet outside of its regularly scheduled meeting times, but

when meeting in Toronto, not during routine proceedings and that the committee be authorized to meet on June 21, 2001, until completion of clause-by-clause consideration;

That pursuant to standing order 75(c), the Chair of the standing committee shall establish the deadline for the tabling of amendments or for filing them with

the clerk of the committee;

That, at 4:30 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2001, those amendments which have not been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee

shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill, and any amendments thereto;

Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant

to standing order 127(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the

completion of clause-by-clause consideration, and not later than June 25, 2001.

In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be

deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report

forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading; and

When the order for third reading is called, that two hours shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, to be divided equally among all recognized

parties, and at the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

and

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

and

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Ted Arnott): The government House leader has moved motion 22. It is now time to call for debate on the motion.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Before I begin my debate, I move the following amendment to the time allocation motion:

The third paragraph of the government motion be struck out and the following inserted:

"That the committee shall be authorized to meet throughout the summer in at least 10 cities and towns, for at least 370 hours of public hearings. The venues

for those hearings will be established by the committee and shall include Sudbury, London, Toronto and St Catharines."

The fourth paragraph of the government motion be struck out and the following be inserted:

"That the committee shall meet for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 45 before the House resumes in the fall and that clause-by-clause consideration not

conclude until all amendments placed by the government and opposition parties have been given due consideration."

That paragraph 5 be struck out.

That paragraphs 7 and 8 be struck out.

That the words "and not later than June 25, 2001" in paragraph 9 be struck out.

That paragraph 10 be struck out.

That paragraph 12 be struck out from the government motion and the following inserted:

"The time allotted to the third reading stage of Bill 45 be the aggregate of 20 minutes times the number of members who did not speak at the second reading

stage of the bill, such aggregate amount to be divided equally among the recognized parties."

I have copies of this for the table.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Windsor-St Clair has moved an amendment to the basic government motion, and it reads as follows: The third

paragraph --

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): Dispense.

The Acting Speaker: No, I'll read the whole thing.

The third paragraph of the government motion be struck out and the following inserted:

"That the committee shall be authorized to meet throughout the summer in at least 10 cities and towns for at least 370 hours of public hearings. The venues for

those hearings will be established by the committee and shall include Sudbury, London, Toronto and St Catharines."

The fourth paragraph of the government motion be struck out and the following be inserted:

"That the committee shall meet for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 45 before the House resumes in the fall and that clause-by-clause consideration not

conclude until all amendments placed by the government and opposition parties have been given due consideration."

That paragraph 5 be struck out.

That paragraphs 7 and 8 be struck out.

That the words "and not later than June 25, 2001" in paragraph 9 be struck out.

That paragraph 10 be struck out.

That paragraph 12 be struck out from the government motion and the following inserted:

"The time allotted to the third reading stage of Bill 45 be the aggregate of 20 minutes times the number of members who did not speak at the second reading

stage of the bill, such aggregate amount to be divided equally among the recognized parties."

Mr Duncan: Last week we confirmed with the Clerk that in fact we could place this amendment to a government time allocation motion, and we did

that for two reasons. The first reason is, we want to force the government members later today -- because they're going to have to vote on this amendment -- to stand up and vote and actually be

recorded as voting to shut down debate on public hearings across the province of Ontario. This is not something we take lightly.

The second reason we've placed this amendment is to force the government to begin to debate this issue of province-wide hearings as opposed to the narrow

shutting down of debates. We intend to use points of order to ensure the debate focuses on the amendment and not on the government's motion, so that we can get the government members to tell their

constituents why it is they're trying to jam this bill into law without adequate consideration.

Let me address the amendments. First of all, why 10 cities and why 370 hours of public hearings? Well, the best comparative piece of legislation we could find

was the Education Amendment Act, 1985. You'll be aware that that was the bill that extended full funding to Catholic schools in Ontario. That bill received a total of 80 days in committee hearings

-- 370 hours and 28 minutes; 68 of those days dealt with public hearings and 12 days dealt with clause-by-clause legislation.

We think it's important on a major initiative of this nature, where the government has clearly changed its position, a position that was enunciated by the

Premier in the election, which was spelled out very clearly in the government's presentation to the United Nations, which was again reaffirmed as recently as last year by the Minister of Education

and the Premier in letters to my leader, Dalton McGuinty.

Why: clause-by-clause consideration being opened up the way it was throughout most of Confederation? So that the public understands, by doing what they were

doing, the government was effectively saying to your member of provincial Parliament, "You cannot make a motion to amend a government bill. You cannot allow your point of view to be debated on the

floor of the Legislature or in committee." The government wanted to effectively eliminate that. That's why we propose that every reasonable amendment be debated -- every government amendment, every

opposition amendment -- and we think that's important. Why do we think that's important? Because this government, the Harris government, has used time allocation motions more than every government

in the history of this province combined. What does that mean? That means, again, they're using their majority to not allow members of provincial parliament to speak about a bill. The way the rules

work, very few members have an opportunity to speak in this House about the bill.

Third reading debate: what we're proposing to do is what has been done throughout most of history in Ontario. This isn't a radical departure. This is going

back to the way things were in terms of democracy, and that is, on third reading debate, to allow the members who did not have the opportunity to speak earlier on to get up and represent their

constituents, to do the job they were paid to do; to be able to speak out and be recorded in Hansard for the public to see and to respond to. We don't think that's particularly radical. We don't

think that it's wrong. What we think is wrong is a government that's taking a fundamental piece of education policy, changing its position entirely, not affording any more than a couple of days'

debate, and jamming it into law in under two months. That is wrong, and this government has done it too often.

You know, we checked a little bit on this. The Davis and Miller governments, between March 1981 and May 1985, introduced three time allocation motions on 292

bills. The Peterson minority government, from May 1985 to September 1987, used time allocation once on 129 different bills. The Peterson majority government used time allocation on three of 183

bills. The Rae government used time allocation on 21 of 163 bills. Now, the Harris government, in its four years, used time allocation 41 times on 118 bills. Since the 1999 election and up to

December of last year, the government used time allocation 22 times on 39 bills -- 22 times they shut down the public's ability to speak on a bill. Effectively, as my colleague from York West says,

they shut down democracy.

This place worked quite efficiently and effectively for many years under different governments of different stripes. Indeed, I see members who served in the

Davis and Miller governments here. Their governments only used time allocation three times on 292 bills.

We place this amendment today as yet another expression, first and foremost, of our opposition to extending tax credits for private schools and t