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

November 2, 1999

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 1999-Nov-02 (PDF)

L008 - Tue 2 Nov 1999 / Mar 2 nov 1999

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COLLÈGE D'ALFRED

PETER KNIPFEL

SYNAGOGUE DESECRATIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

FIRST NATIONS VETERANS

HAZARDOUS WASTE

BRAMPTON BATTALION

CANCER CARE

SCUGOG CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AWARDS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

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

POLICE RECORDS CHECK BY NON-PROFIT AGENCIES ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LES VÉRIFICATIONS DES DOSSIERS DE POLICE PAR LES AGENCES SANS BUT LUCRATIF

MOTIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SAFE STREETS ACT

DEFERRED VOTES

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER'S RESIGNATION

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

SPORTS FACILITY TAXATION

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

INFLUENZA VACCINE

LITHOTRIPSY

HIGHWAY SIGNS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

TENANT PROTECTION

HYDRO RATES

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

COLLÈGE D'ALFRED / ALFRED COLLEGE

HOMES FOR THE AGED

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

ABORTION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

PARAMEDICS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

HEALTH CARE

TAXATION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND BALANCED BUDGET ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION DES CONTRIBUABLES ET L'ÉQUILIBRE BUDGÉTAIRE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

HOMES FOR THE AGED

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COLLÈGE D'ALFRED

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) : Ma déclaration aujourd'hui s'adresse au ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales. L'agriculture est la première industrie en importance dans l'est de l'Ontario et la deuxième en importance dans l'ensemble de l'Ontario ; 80 % des agriculteurs de l'est ontarien sont francophones, et nous avons besoin du Collège d'Alfred pour former notre jeunesse et pour nous assurer que nous conservons nos fermes familiales.

Hier soir, j'ai appris de TFO que 1,5 $ million avait été retranché du financement du Collège d'Alfred. Ce collège ne reçoit que 2,2 $ millions. Qu'adviendra-t-il du Collège d'Alfred avec ces coupures ?

De même, monsieur le ministre, étiez-vous au courant que le président du conseil d'administration et le directeur de ce collège n'avaient même pas été informés de ce pourparler de votre ministère ?

Va-t-il devoir fermer ses portes ? Il semble que votre gouvernement préparait la fermeture du Collège d'Alfred depuis plus d'un an, mais que vous avez attendu après l'élection pour en faire l'annonce. Ceci est déplorable. Nous ne pouvons accepter cette décision.

Ce collège de réputation internationale, le Collège d'Alfred, est connu et respecté par tous les pays francophones. Qu'allez-vous faire aujourd'hui pour garantir la survie de notre collège francophone ? Est-ce que les francophones de l'Ontario doivent se préparer à perdre encore un autre service ? Avons-nous une quelconque importance, monsieur le ministre ?

PETER KNIPFEL

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey): I rise today to congratulate Peter Knipfel from my riding, Chesley, Ontario. Mr Knipfel is the owner of the Knechtel grocery store and yesterday was elected the chairman of the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers.

Mr Knipfel is here in the House today.

Mr Knipfel has served on the board for the past seven years and has been involved in the grocery industry for 25 years. He has a very good understanding of the smaller retailers serving rural Canada.

There are more than 4,000 members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers. They represent 30%, or $17 billion, of Canada's retail food sales. The mission statement of the CFIG is "To further the unique interests of independent and franchised grocers in Canada, through a progressive partnership with retailers, their suppliers and the consumer."

The responsibility Mr Knipfel is assuming is a testament to his commitment and dedication. I am proud that a retail grocer from my constituency has earned the respect and confidence of his peers from across the country.

SYNAGOGUE DESECRATIONS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to respond to a very disturbing report that appeared in the newspapers of the last few days that has to do with the desecration of a Jewish cemetery with anti-Semitic vandalism. Perhaps most disturbing was a Jewish Holocaust memorial.

All of us in the Legislature share the feelings of how reprehensible this act is. It's important that particularly our Jewish community understands that everything will be done to bring the perpetrators before the courts. I'm pleased to see some of our senior police officers here today.

What can we do as individuals? I think it's important to remember, when we hear a joke or we see

an act that's inappropriate, that we respond to that instantly.

There are some very good organizations out there: The Harmony Movement will be having its annual banquet this Thursday night, the Urban Alliance on Race Relations, the council of Chinese Canadians. They all do good work. I particularly recognize in the Jewish community the human rights league of the B'Nai Brith as well as the Canadian Jewish Congress. They are relentless in any act of discrimination or racial bias and they respond quickly.

Finally, I would urge the government to reconsider one of the things it has cut from the Ministry of Education: its race relations division. I don't think that's appropriate and I would hope that the government, as well as all of us, will do whatever we possibly can to make certain these acts do not go unpunished.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I want to inform the Premier and the members of this government that two schools from the separate school board are closing or are threatened with closure: St Peter and St Lucy. They have been organizing steadily and ferociously against those closures and they're devastated that their two schools would close.

St Lucy is a very healthy, viable building constructed in 1962, but with many renovations that have been done to it. It's inconceivable to me and to them that such a school would close.

St Peter is another healthy building, and if it were to close, there will be no school around it in the centre of the city for miles and miles.

That is a serious problem in my community when schools are closing, because they are the centres of our communities. They are vital to healthy communities. You, as a result of your funding formula, are forcing some of our schools like St Lucy and St Peter to close. I want to tell you that if those two schools close, they hold you, Premier, and your government responsible for that and they will not forget.

FIRST NATIONS VETERANS

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): This past weekend, veterans and military service personnel of the Six Nations Veterans Association celebrated their 50th anniversary. Many dignitaries were involved in the ceremonies-including Phil Fontaine, national chief, Assembly of First Nations, and Jack Frost, Ontario president of the Royal Canadian Legion-ceremonies to honour the traditions kept alive by the veterans' association and to remember fallen comrades.

Native people from both Six Nations and the Mississaugas of the New Credit have a long history of military service for Canada and the United States. Over 300 courageous young men and one courageous young woman volunteered in the First World War and over 40 never returned.

During the First World War, at least 4,000 Indian men volunteered to join the Allied Forces on European battlefields, more than 3,000 Canadian Indians served during the Second World War, and it is estimated that several hundred native people volunteered in Korea. Battalion and regimental histories offer many examples of native courage and achievements. On November 11, and always, we should remember that more than 500 native people gave their lives during these wars and others defending values that were meaningful to all Canadians.

First Nations veterans are proud of their wartime contributions. Cairns and memorials have been erected in prominent locations across Ontario to recognize this.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I rise today to put on record my strong opposition to the proposed shipment of MOX nuclear fuel to Chalk River from the cities of Cornwall and Sault Ste Marie.

There is strong opposition in my riding to this ill-conceived plan of Atomic Energy of Canada. As you know, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd proposed to transport nuclear fuel from Russia up the St Lawrence River to Cornwall, where it will be unloaded from a freighter and then transported through my riding and on to Highway 401.

We have witnessed a 500% increase in the importation of hazardous waste into Ontario in the last five years under Mike Harris and we are rapidly becoming a dumping ground for the United States because of our weak and ineffective regulations regarding the disposal of hazardous waste.

Now we are supposed to be taking in nuclear waste in Ontario, and I'm not just talking about one shipment. We may see trucks carting several tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium over Ontario highways annually in the future if this project goes ahead.

I just want to tell you that all sorts of organizations are also opposed, such as the council of the city of Cornwall, the Mohawk council of Akwesasne, the Police Association of Ontario, the all-party committee of the House of Commons on foreign affairs, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Ontario generation company.

BRAMPTON BATTALION

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): Today I rise in the House to give the members a progress report on the growing success of the Brampton Battalion, an Ontario Hockey League franchise in my home riding.

This time last year, I informed the members of the beginning of a piece of Brampton sports history when the team hit the ice last October in Brampton's privately owned, newest, state-of-the-art sport and entertainment facility. The Battalion finished its inaugural season recording only eight wins, 57 losses and three ties, but even with this record, several key members showed early signs of talent.

Head coach Stan Butler was named assistant coach of the Canadian world junior team and Battalion defencemen Jay Harrison and Tyler Hanchuck played for Ontario's under-17 team and recently returned from the Four Nations Cup in the Czech Republic with gold medals.

This year, I'm pleased to tell the honourable members the Battalion has moved onward and upward to top spot in the Ontario Hockey League with 26 points in 15 games, two points ahead of the Ottawa 67's, the reigning Canadian Hockey League champions.

This team's impressive beginning in the second season has caught the attention of fans, the national media and NHL personnel.

I extend an invitation to everyone to come and see the Battalion in full military colours, the future stars of the NHL.

CANCER CARE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Last Friday in Sault Ste Marie, my leader, Dalton McGuinty, and I met with Dr David Walde, a medical oncologist in the city. Health care professionals are worried that delivery of the services for cancer care that had been promised just prior to the election could be delayed upwards of four years.

Cancer care is a very important issue, one of life and death. Dr. Walde has stated that unless Sault Ste Marie receives immediate help, options such as limiting patient care or turning people away are a possibility. This situation is clearly unacceptable. I call on the Minister of Health to take immediate action so that Sault Ste Marie receives a cancer radiation treatment facility now, not four years down the road.

Minister Witmer, the people of Algoma deserve nothing less than first-rate cancer facilities and care. For the record, in addition to the pleas of local doctors, a petition with in excess of 30,000 names has been forwarded to your attention demanding this cancer care facility.

The Harris government made a promise and a commitment to this needed cancer care centre in Sault Ste Marie. It is time to deliver. The lives of cancer patients and their families depend on this. It is my sincere hope that the government of the day is not playing politics with regard to these delays.

It is clear to all parties involved that the need for the cancer centre is immediate. It is not clear why the Harris government has not carried through with its promise.

SCUGOG CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AWARDS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Today I would like to recognize two Scugog business owners who were recently recognized by the Scugog Chamber of Commerce.

I extend my congratulations to Ken Koury of the Nutty Chocolatier, who won business of the year in the category of more than 10 employees.

I would also like to congratulate Dana Smith from Dana's Goldsmithing Inc. Dana won Scugog Chamber of Commerce's business of the year employing fewer than five employees. Dana's business, on Queen Street in Port Perry, specializes in beautiful jewellery design, restoration and repair, as well as carrying other special lines of merchandise. The building Dana's store is located in has received an award from the Scugog Historical Society for heritage restoration.

As we all know, small businesses like Ken Koury's and Dana Smith's are an important part of the Durham and provincial economies. There are many small business owners in my riding who deserve thanks for their role in creating over 542,000 net new jobs in Ontario since 1995. Our government recognizes the important contribution and service of small business owners like Ken and Dana. We are the government that cut red tape, eliminated waste and duplication and cut taxes 99 times.

Again, I would like to offer my congratulations to Les Gower, president of the Scugog Chamber of Commerce, Ken Koury, Dana Smith, and members of the Scugog and local community for their support of small business in my riding of Durham.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the businesses of Durham.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

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

Mr Flaherty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 8,

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

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

The Attorney General for a short explanation?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Mr Speaker, I'll make a minister's statement.

POLICE RECORDS CHECK BY NON-PROFIT AGENCIES ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LES VÉRIFICATIONS DES DOSSIERS DE POLICE PAR LES AGENCES SANS BUT LUCRATIF

Mr Kormos moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 9,

An Act respecting the cost of checking the police records of individuals who may work for certain non-profit service agencies / Projet de loi 9, Loi concernant les frais de vérification des dossiers de police à l'égard des particuliers qui pourraient travailler pour certaines agences de services sans but lucratif.

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

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): The bill applies to non-profit agencies, agencies like Big Brothers, Girl Guides of Canada or Boy Scouts of Canada, who are being charged higher and higher user fees to check out and access police records of applicants who want to volunteer with those agencies. The bill would prohibit a police force from charging any amount to provide a police records check to one of these agencies in respect of an individual who is working or volunteering for the agency or who has applied to do so.

This is going to make those agencies' access to the backgrounds of those volunteers much more reasonable, and it's going to facilitate volunteers who come forward in good faith but who could well be barred by prohibitive costs.

MOTIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): I believe I have unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding some additional amendments to the standing orders.

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

Hon Mr Klees: I move that the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario be amended as follows:

That the last paragraph in standing order 24(

b) be struck out and reinserted as 24(d); and

That the phrase "limited by this clause" be struck out and replaced with the phrase "governed by this standing order";

That standing order 25(

e) be struck out;

That standing order 48(

b) and (

c) be struck out and reinserted into standing order 2 at the end of the definition of "substantive motion";

That in standing order 59(

d) the word "recognized" be inserted before the word "party" in the fourth line; and

That the word "sessional" in the first line of standing order 106 be replaced with the word "sitting."

The Speaker: Mr Klees has moved that the standing orders-dispense?

All in favour of the motion? Carried.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): I believe I have unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding this evening's sitting.

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

Hon Mr Klees: I move that notwithstanding the order of the House dated November 1, 1999, the House shall not sit this evening.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SAFE STREETS ACT

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Our government believes in keeping the promises it makes to the people of Ontario. In the Blueprint, we made a commitment to take action about behaviour that jeopardizes the safe use of the streets.

Last month in the speech from the throne, we reiterated our intention to introduce legislation empowering police to crack down on squeegeeing and aggressive forms of solicitation experienced by many people in Ontario through panhandlers. This is one element of our broad effort to make our towns and cities safer places to live and raise families.

Our government believes that all people in Ontario have the right to drive on the roads, walk down the street or go to public places without being or feeling intimidated. They must be able to carry out their daily activities without fear. When they are not able to do so, it is time for government to act. It is time for government to exercise its responsibility to maintain and protect the ability of Ontario residents to use their streets, sidewalks and parks in a safe and secure manner.

Earlier today, I introduced the Safe Streets Act. The bill, if passed, would regulate conduct that interferes with the safe use of public spaces. It is legislation that responds to the real-life concerns Ontarians have about problems they encounter, such as squeegeeing, aggressive solicitation, soliciting in captive audience situations, and the disposal of dangerous objects in parks, schoolyards and other public places.

Earlier today, I saw and heard first-hand how one neighbourhood is struggling to keep its laneways free of carelessly disposed syringes, needles and other items that endanger health and safety.

Police officers who patrol our streets daily have told me that the activities I have mentioned compromise the safe use of streets in the communities in which the police are charged with the responsibility of serving and protecting. We know that many motorists feel intimidated when people enter the road to offer unwanted services, resulting in a significant safety hazard. I personally have met with business people who say that their employees and customers routinely have difficulty entering stores and offices because the sidewalks are blocked by people who are aggressive in their solicitations.

Mayors are hearing calls for action from community residents. As a result, some municipalities have enacted bylaws to deal with some of the problems.

Some of these concerned people have journeyed to the House today. I would like to acknowledge their presence and thank them for taking the time to attend: Margaret Knowles of the Yonge-Bloor-Bay Association, Acting Chief Boyd, Inspector Randal Munroe and Staff Sergeant Ken Kinsman of the Toronto Police Service.

The Safe Streets Act would create new provincial offences and amend the Highway Traffic Act. It would give certain powers of arrest and the courts a range of sentencing options, including jail for repeat offenders.

Some people say this law is not needed. They expect communities to accept the status quo. They expect communities to accept a diminished quality of life. I say this is unacceptable. I say we are exercising responsible and responsive government. Ontario residents asked us to do something to ensure the safer use of their streets. We have listened and we have introduced the Safe Streets Act. In so doing, we are helping to ensure that Ontario remains the best place to live, work, invest and raise a family.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Responses?

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): We got the name of the act wrong. It should be called the "Let's sweep it under the rug" act. This approach is going to fail. It's doomed to failure.

Last September the minister held a press conference in which he waved a squeegee around in one of the lowest moments in the history of this province's justice department and said, "Mark my words: There'll be no more squeegees in the city of Toronto a year from now." Well, mark my words: The kids will be back.

The reality is that this act attempts to sweep the problem under the rug. There is nothing in this act that is going to do anything more than put them in the revolving door of the criminal justice system. They're going to congratulate themselves when the kids go through the door and hope that none of us notices when everybody is coming right back out and going right back to the streets. You can take a street cleaner down Bloor Street and sweep away the rubbish, but you can't do the same thing with the poverty in the streets of Toronto. These kids are going to come back.

We're going to have to take a good look at the bill, but I can tell you right now from looking at all of its four pages that it fails to learn the lessons of New York City, Vancouver and Montreal, where the important second half of the work has to be done to deal with these people after they're taken off the streets. This is the "Sweep it under the rug" act and, mark my words, it's going to fail.

This government is bent on turning squeegee kids into crowbar and crack kids. Everybody understands that if you take the squeegee out of their hands and give no other alternative, provide no other diversion, all that's going to happen is you're going to be putting a crowbar in their hands and they're going to be coming to a neighbourhood near you soon.

Lastly, the priorities of this government are completely out of whack with the priorities of Ontarians. This government is prioritizing squeegees over stretchers, squeegees over schools. Within the criminal justice portfolio itself, within law and order itself, there are so many more issues we could be dealing with but this is the first one that we're looking at.

It's Holocaust Education Week and hate crimes are going up in Ontario. Is the government doing anything about hate crimes? No. They want to deal with 200-odd squeegee kids.

There's a rise of gangs and organized crime in the province of Ontario. Does this government want to do anything about organized crime? No. The 200-odd squeegee kids.

Proliferation of guns on the streets of our cities. You know what? This government wants to intervene, along with the government of Alberta, to strike down our federal gun control laws.

Interjection: Shame.

Mr Bryant: Shame. This government doesn't want to do anything about guns.

Police and prosecutors tell me that domestic assault has been on the rise over the last few months, and this week in particular it would have been appropriate to bring forth a bill to deal with the mess whereby crowns get files for five minutes before they can assist a victim of domestic assault. Are they going to deal with that? No. They want to crack down on 200-odd squeegee kids.

Deadbeat dads can roam the streets of Ontario without concern. This government committed in 1995 and 1999 to crack down on deadbeat dads, and their great crackdown rate of 1% was reported last month.

Let's just hope the crackdown rate on squeegee kids is more successful. It's not going to be. It's not going to work.

Lastly, the minister was in the riding of Toronto Centre-Rosedale and, in an effort to throw smoke and mirrors at this issue, purported to address the issues of that community. I think the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale has something to say about that.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I say today, shame on the Attorney General. You visited the neighbourhood of Dundas and Seaton Streets today, which has had problems. It's plagued by crack cocaine, not squeegee kids. At 51 division, police resources are pathetic: six drug officers for two downtown divisions.

Minister, you recklessly contribute to class warfare that threatens my riding, yet you offer no new resources to deal with the real problem in that neighbourhood, which is crack cocaine and addiction. You are so out of touch, apparently you need your windscreen cleaned.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): We were expecting a major piece of legislation today and instead we're presented with some fluff that is about as transparent as a clean windshield.

The fact of the matter is this legislation is an embarrassment and it's an insult. It's an embarrassment because there are real crime problems out there in our communities. This legislation will do nothing about it.

This legislation will do nothing about wife assault. This legislation will do nothing about the increasing experience that seniors have of home invasion. This legislation will do nothing about hate crime. This legislation won't even put any more police on the street to deal with those real issues.

Let me tell you how transparent this is. Thank God we still have in Canada something called Statistics Canada. StatsCan has done a study of police officers in the street in Ontario and what they show is that this government has actually cut the number of police officers on the street. In 1994, there were 20,737 police officers in this province. In 1998, there were less: 20,454. When you factor in the growth in population, just to stay equal with 1994 the government would have to have 21,865 police officers on the street, and it's not happening.

Instead, it's this government's priority that the police officers who are out there are going to spend their time chasing after squeegee kids. No effort for wife assault, no effort for hate crime, no effort to deal with home invasion. This government's priority in terms of dealing with crime is to go after 300 or 400 squeegee kids. It is an insult. It is an embarrassment. But even worse, what we see is a government that wants to use the criminal law to go after a social problem. We see young people who want a real job out there trying to make do with squeegeeing to make a few bucks.

The government is going to turn the criminal law loose on them. We see people who are homeless, who don't have a home, our evidence of the growing crisis of homelessness in our major cities, and does the government have a solution? No. They're going to turn the criminal law on them.

What a misuse of the criminal law. What a misuse of police resources. What a missed opportunity to do something about the real crime problems in our society and to put together a strategy to deal with some of these social problems. What an embarrassment. What an embarrassment that the Attorney General today had to take six police officers off the beat to go down the street with him so he could have a photo opportunity chasing some squeegee kids. Embarrassment, that's what it is.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): This government has one real twisted point of view about what constitutes crime prevention in our communities. I note that it's either a new or a used hypodermic syringe, but it's only used condoms that constitute a violation. I don't envy the cop who has to testify in court as to the condition of that condom that is going to be discovered.

Didn't you guys understand? A street junkie or a crack addict couldn't care less about a provincial offences ticket as a result of what they did with their used syringe. We've got a serious drug problem in this province and you guys should be standing up, committing yourselves to devoting specific funds to specific police forces in very specific communities to combat drug trafficking and drug use. That's what's going to solve the problem of syringes being found by kids or other people in public places.

You want to take on squeegee kids? Well, the fact remains that at the end of the day, come winter and salt and snow and slush, I want a squeegee kid at the end of University Avenue before I hit the Gardiner Expressway, and I'm prepared to pay a toonie rather than just a loonie because that kid's out there trying to hustle, trying to keep body and soul together in the hard times that you've helped create.

You want to put squeegee kids in jail? Think about it, Speaker. If they put all the squeegee kids in jail, there won't be any cells left for the cabinet ministers.

This government is trying to divert attention from its incredible mismanagement of law and order and of policing in this province. It's trying to distract attention from its lack of support from crown attorneys and other personnel in the criminal justice system. It's trying to distract attention from its complete failure in the area of corrections, especially youth corrections, and its failure to implement meaningful programs to straighten out young kids who run afoul. This is just another example of trying to steer people away from the real issues. It ain't going to work. You're going to be mocked. It's going to be a subject of laughter.

DEFERRED VOTES

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We have a deferred vote on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session. This will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1408 to 1414.

The Speaker: All those in favour of Mr Hampton's amendment to the amendment to the motion will please rise.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

The Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment to the amendment to the motion will please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Eves, Ernie L.

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Sampson, Rob

Skarica, Toni

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

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 40; the nays are 52.

The Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment to the motion lost.

The next question to be decided is Mr McGuinty's amendment to the motion.

All those in favour of Mr McGuinty's amendment to the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1418 to 1423.

The Speaker: All those in favour of Mr McGuinty's amendment to the motion will please rise.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

The Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment to the motion will please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Eves, Ernie L.

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Sampson, Rob

Skarica, Toni

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

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 40; the nays are 52.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

We now come to the motion of Mrs Mushinski.

All those in favour of Mrs Mushinski's motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

It is therefore resolved that an humble address be presented to Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

To the Honourable Hilary M. Weston, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER'S RESIGNATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. The subject I want to deal with today has to do with the most aggressive panhandling we've ever witnessed in the province of Ontario, and that's the Steve Gilchrist "Buddy, can you spare $25,000" approach to public policy.

On September 30, the assistant Deputy Attorney General-that's the highest civil servant in the province responsible for criminal law-decided that accusations against Mr Gilchrist and his lawyer were so serious that they should be immediately turned over to the OPP for a full police investigation.

Premier, you knew this on September 30, yet you decided to say nothing about either the accusations or the fact that a member of your cabinet was under police investigation until after word leaked out on October 8. That was a full nine days later. Can you explain to us why you decided to cover up the fact that one of your ministers was under police investigation for a full nine days before you disclosed this to the public?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think we have come forward with the information pretty directly and pretty forthrightly. What was determined by the assistant Deputy Attorney General was that the allegations, if substantiated, if true, were quite serious. The decision was made to call in the OPP to see if these allegations were true, could be substantiated. I think that was the correct course of action and we are awaiting that report.

Mr McGuinty: That wasn't the question. The question was, why did you hide this fact from the Ontario public for nine days?

I can tell you what the Ontario public thinks. They are entitled to assume that no member of your cabinet today is under police investigation, and with that assumption comes the legitimate expectation that should that change, you will immediately put them on notice. You will stand up and make sure that Ontarians understand that "yes, there's somebody today in my cabinet who's under police investigation, so I've asked them to resign, at least pending the outcome of that investigation."

What you did was cover up the matter. In the context of the fact that you are a Premier and we're dealing with the cabinet and you lead a government, this is a political cover-up, Premier. That's what it's all about. You knew the allegation involved a plot regarding $25,000 to be extracted from developers. You knew that there was a minister who was under investigation by the police. Again I ask you, why did you deny this fact from the Ontario public for a full nine days?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I would first of all say to the members of this House, and I would caution members opposite, you are throwing about allegations that you think maybe are true or maybe somebody has said. I have no knowledge of that.

Secondly, I can tell you that, to the best of my knowledge, the minister is not under investigation. If a minister of my cabinet is under police investigation, I have asked him to step aside. What is under investigation is: Is there any truth to these allegations? If, in fact, there is truth to the allegations, I made it very clear I would ask the minister to step aside.

Mr McGuinty: You knew for a full nine days that this matter, no matter how you dice it or slice it, was the subject of a police investigation, and you decided that you were not going to inform the Ontario public. You weren't going to inform voters that somebody in your cabinet was facing some very, very serious allegations. You kept this matter secret. You hid this from the Ontario public. You covered it up.

If it was not for the fact that this matter was leaked to the media, we here still today would not have been apprised of the fact that your minister continues to face some very, very serious allegations.

That's why, Premier, we are asking that you hold a full public inquiry so that we can get to the bottom of this growing scandal in our province. Will you do that, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: It's very clear that the difference between you and me is I wait to make sure something is substantiated first. I have no substantiation to date. What I have is a verbal allegation that I have been unable to verify and my office was unable to verify. We asked for assistance to verify that. You, on the other hand, are quite quick to condemn people on the basis of no evidence at all. I would suggest to you that this is most inappropriate.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the Premier. We're not talking about something here on your behalf that was inappropriate; we're talking about something that was nothing short of scandalous. You had information that a member of your cabinet was the subject of a very, very serious allegation. You knew that the Attorney General had referred this matter to the Ontario Provincial Police for them to conduct an investigation. For nine days, you kept that matter secret. You refused to disclose it to the Ontario public. That's what you did.

Premier, tell us, why is it that you continually put the interests of your friends and your cabinet ministers ahead of the Ontario public interest?

Hon Mr Harris: Clearly, the actions that we have taken (

a) have followed the protocol laid out by the government and (

b) suggest that we put the truth ahead of all else, something that the party of the member opposite has had great difficulty doing over their political career.

Mr McGuinty: The Premier is still covering up for his friends. That's exactly why we need a public inquiry.

Let's review the latest. Every day we've got some new information and the sleaze factor jumps just a little bit higher. Today we discover that John Snobelen, another member of your cabinet, knew as well about these allegations. On the weekend, we found out that David Lindsay in your office also knew about these allegations. There are reports that at least two other senior government officials knew about these allegations. The switchboard in your office was lighting up like a Christmas tree with people phoning in and complaining about this matter and this cabinet minister.

Come clean, Premier. Who knew what, when, and why didn't you disclose it?

Hon Mr Harris: I think we've laid out very precisely who knew what. I'm not sure you know anything yet. You seem to think you do. But all I know is there was a verbal allegation, over the phone. My office dealt with it immediately-in fact, before even notifying me. When they notified me they said, "Premier, we've referred it to the Deputy Attorney General," as is the protocol. We need to determine if there's anything factual to it. That doesn't stop you from raising it. I understand that. It never has; it never will.

Mr McGuinty: You can hide behind your protocol, but let me tell you about your responsibility to the people of Ontario. When a cabinet minister is the subject of these kinds of very, very serious allegations, when this matter is referred by somebody in the Attorney General's office to the Ontario Provincial Police, when the Ontario Provincial Police are conducting an investigation into this matter, you, sir, have the responsibility as leader of the government and Premier of Ontario to disclose this to the Ontario public and not conduct a cover-up. That's your job. That's what you're supposed to do.

Either come clean on exactly what went down in your office or agree here and now to conduct a public inquiry.

Hon Mr Harris: Everything that's been done in my office is a matter I think of record, and we've told you all that. We do await the facts before we make judgments. That little difference between you and Liberals and Conservatives is probably why next year we'll go into this booming economy with a balanced budget; it's probably why we have all these jobs created in the province; it's probably why we now have new higher standards in education; it's probably why we now have a revitalized and a reformed health care system, because we do check the facts before we act.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker, related to standing order 39(a): Reference to the protocol has again twice been made today. The minister opposite indicated that that's everyone's protocol. It's not everyone's protocol. We are not in possession of the protocol. Again I urge you to use your chair to protect the opposition's ability to question the government. Will you please intervene and ask the government to table its protocol.

The Speaker: This is the same point of order as yesterday. As I explained to him yesterday, the rules are that you are not allowed to quote at length. The Premier did not do that. He simply referred to it briefly, so it's not a point of order.

Mr Duncan: Speaker, I would suggest to you that that protocol has been referenced on so many occasions that by not asking the government to table it, you, sir, are not allowing the opposition its ability, it's rightful role to question the government on a very serious cover-up.

The Speaker: The member take his seat. I have ruled as I did yesterday: It is not a point of order.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): On a point of order, Speaker: I thought I saw you direct the table that the clock be stopped. You know the importance of that. It didn't stop, sir.

The Speaker: Yes, it did.

Mr Christopherson: No, it didn't.

The Speaker I apologize. The table did not see me. I did say, "Stop the clock," and the table didn't see it. They're going to put a minute back on the clock.

Mr Christopherson: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: New question.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. I want to take the Minister of the Environment back to his responses earlier in the week. When we questioned him about his letter on behalf of a developer friend, he said he was simply pointing out that "he act within the class EA regulations and the law."

This is a report from the planning commissioner of Durham region. The report is about your developer friend Jay-M Holdings and its plan to put 2,500 units of housing on the Oak Ridges moraine, the plan that you wrote to Durham region about. The report is scathing. It finds your developer friend's application to be bad for the environment, bad for urban planning and bad for economics. But what is most striking is their response to your letter. Their view is that under the Environment Assessment Act it isn't legal for them to do what you suggest, that they can't do it.

Minister, would you table the legal advice that you relied upon when you wrote to them advising them of the law and the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I would say to the honourable member that in the first instance the issue is to be determined by the organization in the municipality that you refer to so that they have the opportunity to review their practices. They did so and they came up with that decision and that's their right to do so.

Mr Hampton: That's not what you said last week. What you said last week is that your letter "requests that, in his due deliberations as regional chair, he act within the class EA regulations and the law," and then you point out what your developer friend wants and you point out that your developer friend can be accommodated.

If you read this planning report, they say, "The request by Jay-M Holdings Ltd to extend the York-Durham sewer system to Uxbridge cannot be considered by way of reopening the class EA and by the preparation of an addendum to the original EA, but rather, under the act, it must be considered a new undertaking"-in other words, a new EA.

Minister, not only do the planning staff oppose the suggestion that you make in your letter, but they can't legally do it. They just can't do it.

I ask you again, Minister: They've looked at the act; they've gotten legal advice. Show us the legal advice you relied on before you went out there and wrote that letter on behalf of your developer friend.

Hon Mr Clement: Two things: Just for the record, I disagree with the honourable member's characterization, but I would say to him that there is no discordance between what I wrote and the deliberations. I said merely "take into account in your deliberations." They took it into account. They deliberated. They came up with an answer. There's nothing wrong with that at all.

Mr Hampton: No, Minister. What you said in this House is that you were informing them about the law. That was your whole line of defence for getting cced on a letter from a developer and then taking that cc and writing a very explicit letter to the municipal officials in Durham region. You said you were informing them of the law. Well, they've sat down and they've looked at the Environmental Assessment Act and they are very clear that it would be illegal for them to take the line that you suggested. It would be contrary to the Environmental Assessment Act for them to act in that way and to favour your developer friend.

What I'm asking you is very simple: Table here, so people can see it, the legal advice that you relied upon before you wrote the letter supposedly instructing Durham region as to your version of the law. Will you do that? Will you show us what you relied upon before you went out there and interfered in this decision and instructed this municipality that they should in fact breach the Environmental Assessment Act in order to favour your developer friend?

Hon Mr Clement: For the benefit of all honourable members, the law is quite clear. Any significant modification has to be reviewed by the proponent. The proponent reviewed the case and made their decision, and I'm satisfied with the decision.

SPORTS FACILITY TAXATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My next question is for the Premier. It concerns your government's desire to use taxpayers' funds to subsidize professional hockey teams.

Your Minister of Finance presented on Thursday a strategy whereby your government is going to potentially subsidize two professional hockey teams in this province to the tune of $16 million.

I know you have the support of the Liberal Party on this. They believe this should be a priority for Ontario.

Why is subsidizing professional hockey teams more important than, for example, dealing with the problems in our health care system or dealing with second-stage housing for assaulted women or dealing with the issues of homelessness? Premier, why is giving $16 million to millionaire hockey players more important than looking after these very important issues for a majority of people in Ontario?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think you would know we have been very clear that there would be no direct subsidy of NHL teams, the same as other businesses, from the province of Ontario.

What the Minister of Finance did offer, however, was to private sector owners of arena facilities, who may or may not be the same people who are involved with professional sports. Where instead of using taxpayer dollars to build the arena, a municipality had opted to have a private sector consortium or individual or company build those facilities, the Minister of Finance has offered to the municipalities an opportunity to allow those to be at the same tax basis as those facilities, for example, that were owned by the municipalities themselves. That is the proposal that is there, and we'll see if municipalities wish to avail themselves of it.

Mr Hampton: Premier, let's be very clear. Maple Leaf Gardens, what is now the Air Canada Centre, the Toronto Maple Leafs, you're going to offer them an $8-million subsidy. You're going to offer the Ottawa Senators an $8-million subsidy. Some of that money is going to come out of your education tax; some of it is going to come out of municipalities.

Meanwhile, you don't seem to have money to help, for example, the Gallaher paper mill in Thorold restructure itself and reposition itself so that 300 jobs can be preserved.

I want to quote for you Glen Murray, the mayor of Winnipeg, who says: "We started out subsidizing the Winnipeg Jets to $2 million a year. Then they came back and they wanted $20 million a year. The last year here, they asked for $50 million. Then they went to Phoenix. Now they want the city of Phoenix to build them a brand-new arena at taxpayers' expense."

Why, Premier, do you have money for millionaire hockey players, but none for the health care system, the school system, the situation with respect to the homeless or people-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I'm still awaiting the briefing note from the Liberal Party on Windsor. When I get that and when you ask the question next time, I'll have it about how you gave property tax concessions to, I guess-

Interjection: A casino.

Hon Mr Harris: A casino, I suppose it was. I may not have it accurate; I'm still waiting for the full note. But let me be very clear: We are spending over $20 billion in health care. We are spending a hundred times more dollars than the federal government on homelessness, although they do have a minister with no money; that's the Liberal way, I think you know.

In the case of arenas, public facilities that are owned by municipalities, if they ought to have the private sector builder own them, this now gives them the option of putting those owners of those facilities on a level playing field with municipally owned facilities. Quite frankly, the way I would expect it would be done would be by municipalities spreading that cost, if there is a cost, over all the commercial and industrial taxpayers. That would be a business decision that would be made on behalf of businesses-

The Speaker: Premier, order. New question.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Premier. I want to ask you about comments made by your member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant with regard to restructuring.

His father was quoted as saying that residents in Haldimand are "conservative in their spending" and "rooted in British tradition," while those in Norfolk are "European immigrants" and "peasant stock" who "borrow heavily" and "expect a substantial profit."

The member had the opportunity to clarify this, and what did he say? To quote the member, Toby Barrett: "There are very significant differences" between the two sides of the region, "and the regional census would show that.... There is census data and facts out there. There's so many differences between the two counties and part of that is that it all derives from the soil structure. Haldimand is clay and Norfolk is sandy. It really has had an influence on the makeup" of the citizens.

Premier, what we're now having is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, who is now also in charge of municipal affairs, suggesting that restructuring Haldimand-Norfolk be based on ethnic backgrounds. Do you agree with that? If you don't, what steps have you taken?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the member's comments do not by any

interpretation and certainly do not in any way reflect a view that I or this government share. I'm happy to clarify that and make it very clear.

Mr Agostino: I appreciate that. As Premier, you now have to take steps, I believe, to rectify the situation.

He didn't stop there. Further comment in today's Toronto Star: "There is no question that there has been an invisible [ethnic] boundary within the two counties .... 25 years ago there was a forced marriage and it just didn't work out." The Mayor of Delhi says, regarding these comments that this "is scraping the bottom of the barrel." The Mayor of Nanticoke says, "People's [ethnic] makeup should not be used. I wouldn't want Mr Farrow to say we can't have Germans, Poles and Hungarians together with United Empire Loyalists."

Premier, I agree with you that these comments are inappropriate. These offensive, discriminatory insults involve residents across the province. Will you today take the responsible act and fire the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment?

Hon Mr Harris: I want members of this Legislature and the public to be very clear about what we are doing in reforming local administration. We're doing so to cut down the size of government. We're doing so to reduce the number of politicians. We're doing so to find savings which will then be passed on to the taxpayers through property tax cuts or through improved services.

I want to say this to you: Any suggestions to the contrary would be inaccurate, and any suggestion of any other motivation is false.

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. There are many seniors in Northumberland who are concerned, with this winter season coming on, that they will not receive their flu shots.

It is my understanding that in Northumberland the influenza vaccine has been distributed to family physicians. As you are aware, there are several residents, particularly in the Campbellford-Seymour area, who do not have access to a family physician. Minister, could you please tell the House what your ministry is doing to help people across the province, especially seniors, have access to flu shots in this upcoming winter season?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'd like the member to know that we're certainly aware of the concern that's been expressed. In order to fully maximize the allocation of the flu vaccine in the three counties he has talked about, it is the plan of the health unit to collect the surplus vaccines from physicians and then to establish a vaccination clinic where vaccinations will be provided free of charge to those who are eligible. There will be an advertising campaign to ensure that all of those seniors who require and want the vaccination will have access to that. Those clinics will all occur at the end of November.

Mr Galt: Thank you for your answer and the encouragement. As you are aware, influenza is indeed a very significant problem, particularly with our seniors-a condition which can lead to all kinds of complications and the development of more serious diseases. It can also be spread from workers with seniors to our senior population. In Northumberland there is certainly an aging population and this vaccine is most important to our seniors.

Minister, could you explain to us how this immunization program fits with other immunization programs for our seniors?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Our government is very committed to ensuring that everyone who is eligible has access to the vaccine, so this year we have purchased an additional 200,000 doses of the vaccine. We have an opportunity to purchase an additional 10%.

We are making sure that we expand the eligibility criteria this year. All staff who have the potential for acquiring or transmitting influenza during the course of their work this year are eligible for vaccination. This includes those working in homes for the aged, nursing homes, chronic care facilities and units. We've also made all staff eligible in retirement homes where care is provided as well. It certainly is the intention of the ministry to ensure that all those who work with patients have access to the vaccine.

LITHOTRIPSY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I want to return to the issue of the lithotripter which is presently found in crates in a hospital in Ottawa, bought and paid for by the fundraising efforts of the people of that community and which you refuse to fund for its operating costs.

Yesterday, you effectively said that it was no concern to you that these people who need lithotripsy treatment are forced to travel at their own expense and to pay for their accommodation.

Let's just take a look at the economic side of this argument. Some 340 people at present are travelling to Toronto or London; 225 are going to Montreal. When they go to Montreal, because of an agreement your government entered into with the province of Quebec, we pay $1,060 for a lithotripsy treatment,

whereas we pay $457 for lithotripsy treatment here in Ontario. Some 300 patients are treated by surgery at the Ottawa Hospital because they cannot travel.

In short, my question is the following: Why is it that taxpayers of Ontario are today paying $805,880 as a result of not having a lithotripsy treatment centre in Ottawa,

whereas otherwise, if we had the damned machine in Ottawa, we would be paying less than $400,000?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The member might be well advised to review some of the situations that occurred when your government was in power, regarding this particular issue.

In response to the question that has been asked, I will indicate one more time that we continue to be in discussion with the hospital in Ottawa. We have indicated that we do support the principle. I made that abundantly clear yesterday. We do support the development. It's also important to point out that the waiting list has not increased in this province since 1996; all urgent cases are responded to within 48 hours.

Mr McGuinty: I ask that the Premier pay some attention to this very important issue for the people of Ottawa-Carleton. The people of Ottawa-Carleton bought and paid for a lithotripter. They did that because they were given a written promise by this minister that she would fund its operating costs. At the present time, there are hundreds and hundreds of people who must travel to Montreal, London or Toronto for their treatments. Premier, this is not politically sustainable.

Minister, please stand up and tell us that the bureaucrats are in error; they don't understand that when it comes to health care there is more here than simply considerations related to efficiency. We're talking about the basic emotional and health care needs of people living in a particular community. Can you please do what is right in the circumstances and tell us that you are going to fund the operating costs of this machine for the people of Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think the member opposite would be wise to consider the tremendous commitment that our government has made to increasing health care funding in the province of Ontario. In fact, we are funding health care to the tune of $20.6 billion. It is the highest level of funding at any time in the history of this province.

If we take a look at Ottawa, we have increased funding to the Ottawa-Carleton area by over $259 million since 1995. We have introduced two new MRIs; we have a new dialysis centre. We have taken steps that were totally different to what any other government has done at any time, and we will continue to ensure that the services that are needed are provided for the people in the community.

HIGHWAY SIGNS

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Tourism. Inadequate highway signage has long been a problem for Ontario tourism destinations. They need highway visibility in order to ensure tourists can be directed from our now excellent Ontario highways to their businesses.

Some tourist businesses in Niagara Falls have been experiencing delays in obtaining these signs under the program operated by the Ministry of Tourism. One of my constituents wrote to you some time ago and said that there is not one satisfied hotel owner in Niagara Falls because of the way TODS has handled the area signage. Can you tell me what you are doing to help these businesses successfully market their product to the travelling public?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism): I want to thank the member for his question and remind members in the House that tourism is the fastest-growing industry in the world and it accounts for about $13 billion worth of economic activity in our province. We're very proud of the fact that the tourism-oriented destination sign program was brought in by our government in late 1996. It replaces an outdated program that really hadn't had any work done on it since the early 1980s.

Part of this program stipulates very clearly, though, that the highway signs will not be installed unless there is a municipal agreement to put in place trailblazer signs or directional signs within the community. Unfortunately, there are just a few communities left in Ontario, Niagara Falls being one of them, Halton region being another, and a couple of others, that have not implemented the program.

The other reason that some of these signs aren't going up is because of highway construction; we won't put a sign up in order to take it down. The fact of the matter is that this government is spending more than $700 million on highway construction, the most in Ontario's history, which is more than double the amount the Liberals ever spent on highway construction in the province.

Mr Maves: Minister, it is my understanding, in speaking with my colleagues, that individual tourist operators across the province have been experiencing a variety of difficulties with this program. Can you tell me what your ministry is doing to resolve these problems on behalf of my constituents and those around the province?

Hon Mr Jackson: I've had a couple of meetings with the Canadian TODS corporation. We've been reviewing the files and we're very pleased with the progress this program has made. There are 2,700 Ontario tourist operators who have signs on Ontario highways. They in turn have got about 7,500 panels promoting their operations. These monthly meetings I have with TODS is an opportunity to review each and every case. I know I have a couple from the opposition members. I have undertaken a full review of this program and I meet with TODS on a monthly basis in order to resolve those issues. I encourage any members to write me with any of their concerns.

Clearly, this is a leading-edge program promoting tourism, the fastest-growing industry in our province, and this government is to be commended for putting in place this program.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish to advise you of my dissatisfaction with the response of the Premier in regard to comments made by Toby Barrett, the member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant. The reason for my dissatis faction is the Premier did not satisfactorily answer the question. I would like to ask for a late show.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would you file that with the table.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Premier. Premier, I need your help. I'm not going to be asking for much. You've got to listen to the question before you try to help me out.

The Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation has documented some serious problems with the Tenant Protection Act. What we're seeing is that tenants are being evicted helter-skelter. In fact, in many cases evictions are downright fraudulent. The evictions forms are unclear, some are never delivered and tenants only have five days to file a written dispute. This, Premier, is where I'm asking for your help because you can do this without introducing any new bill. Can you ensure that the tribunal, not the landlord, gives the tenant notice of eviction? It's a simple request. Can you do it?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing can answer this.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the honourable member for the question. Indeed, the issue has been raised by the early intervention project. We have an interim report which I think the honourable member referred to. I would say to this House that it is only an interim study to date. We're awaiting the final study. We take the recommendation seriously. The only other thing I would say is that the report that the honourable member refers to only refers to one area in Toronto. It's not province-wide. Once we have some more fulsome recommendations and a more fulsome study-it is something we take very seriously.

Mr Marchese: I'm glad you're taking it very seriously. Obviously this is an interim report. It can only get worse, not better. All I asked was for the Premier, now you, Minister, to make a change that is within your control. I know you're the non-government government, but you can do this; you're in charge. This is only one simple request that I ask of you and that the Centre for Equality is asking of you. We'll see whether or not you can deal with another request that I'm about to propose to you. Otherwise you're leaving tenants powerless and in the hands of some landlord sharks. In fact, many of these people are being evicted and are on the streets, adding to the numbers of homeless.

The other matter is that the tenants are finding that Rent Check, which is the private sector credit check company, records them as having been evicted even when evictions are not carried out. That has a devastating and totally unfair impact on tenants. No landlord will rent to you if that remains the case.

Minister, will you make sure that the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal removes all tenants who are not actually evicted from its records so tenants aren't unfairly put on a blacklist? It's within your control. I hope you can at least deliver on that.

Hon Mr Clement: I thank the honourable member for his input and would advise him in the House that we are taking this review very seriously. The tribunal is going through a review. We want to see what the outcome of that review is. We thank him for his input.

I would say to the honourable member that the grounds for eviction have not changed. They were the same under previous legislation as they are under present legislation. The number of applications for writs of possession are essentially the same, but we are trying to do things better. We're trying to deliver better services for less to the taxpayer and we would take, certainly, the recommendations once they are finalized under advisement.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of Finance. It's almost a year ago that this Legislature passed the so-called Energy Competition Act, Bill 35, which is supposed to deregulate the electricity marketplace in this province. That legislation gives to the Minister of Finance very considerable responsibilities in this very important electricity marketplace.

My question to the Minister of Finance today is a very straightforward one. Bill 35 made it plain that electricity rates in Ontario were going to come down, so my question today for the Minister of Finance is simply this: Will the Minister of Finance, as a key player in this policy, tell the average residential and farm consumer of electricity when and by how much their electricity bill will come down?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I don't believe Bill 35 said that at all. What is happening in Ontario is that hydro rates have been frozen since 1995; they continue to be frozen. That is a policy of the government. It's a commitment that the government has made. I believe what the honourable member is alluding to is that we indicated competition surely would be the best way of keeping prices down.

Mr Conway: My question remains the same. The bill was so cleverly named. Let me read the bill: "Bill 35,

An Act to create jobs and protect consumers by promoting low-cost energy through competition...." I sat through I think all of the hearings, and the advertisement from the Harris government with respect to this policy was plain: "We're going to give you competition in the electricity marketplace and through that mechanism we're going to bring your electricity bills down."

The Minister of Finance has very significant responsibilities and decision-making authority under Bill 35. Will he tell the House today, and will he tell the average residential and farm consumer of electricity how, when and by how much their electricity bills will be coming down?

Hon Mr Eves: I listened very intently to what the member just read from Bill 35, and he said "low-cost energy through competition." It doesn't say that your rate will go down. However, we happen-

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Just a minute.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, perhaps they missed their feeding time over there this afternoon.

The bill says exactly what it means: This is the best way to keep energy prices down, through competition. I might have a question-would the honourable member be permitted to answer it in question period-as to why he and his party voted for Bill 35 if they think it's such a bad idea.

Mr Conway: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it is important. What the member has asked-on a point of privilege. If he checks the journals and the records, it will be made plain that after all of the evidence was in, we voted against Bill 35.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. As you are aware, the construction of the Red Hill Creek Expressway will represent the completion of a vital transportation link in Stoney Creek and a harbinger of increased economic development throughout Hamilton-Wentworth.

It is unfortunate that the federal Liberal MPs in the area disagree with this and have used their power to block the expressway with yet another study. It is even more unfortunate that their provincial cousins don't dare criticize this delay with the same kind of outrage they can summon against us on the government side.

As for the NDP, they used their term in office to cut the funding for the expressway.

Minister, what has this government done to ensure that this vital transportation link gets built after four decades of demand?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): I'd like to thank my colleague the member for Stoney Creek and congratulate him on his leadership on this issue.

Some months ago, my colleague the Minister of the Environment and I wrote a joint letter to the federal Minister of the Environment expressing our concerns and asked for reconsideration of their position. We believe that it is inconceivable that the federal panel review is going to provide any new information or insight on this matter.

The government of Ontario is seeking intervenor status in the Hamilton-Wentworth court challenge on this matter. The federal environmental review is too broad in its scope, in our view. We should not be covering the need for the Red Hill Creek or alternatives to the Red Hill Creek.

To date, there have been 61 studies-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister, time.

Mr Clark: A lot of people in Hamilton-Wentworth will be pleased with your answer. That would include the region of Hamilton-Wentworth itself, which has taken action against the Liberal roadblocks. They should be applauded for their efforts.

Minister, how is this government assisting the region of Hamilton-Wentworth in this important project?

Hon Mr Turnbull: There have been 61 studies to date on this matter. We believe it's time that Hamilton be allowed to get moving forward on this. We continue to support the project, with $106.76 million for the expressway and $25 million for the intersection at the QEW. We have demonstrated our commitment to the transportation infrastructure, as we continue to in this province, with the highest budget in provincial history. This is more than any other government has done. We will continue to support the people of Hamilton-Wentworth.

STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question to the Minister of Education. Minister, I use that term advisedly because your fumbling has taken away education. Some of your members opposite are making noise. It is the same members who refuse to stand up for the people in their areas. Last week, it was Hamilton. You turned your back on the special needs kids in Hamilton. We forced you to hold a meeting and you still haven't done anything for 550 kids there.

Today I want to ask you specifically about the Grand Erie board. They have had to cannibalize their other programs or other operations to fund 150 kids and they have 60 kids on a waiting list. I want to know, when the supervisors of education in this province say that you've made a mess of special education funding, that you're not acting quickly enough, that it is your responsibility, will you stop whining about school boards? Will you, today, give these kids the education they deserve? Will you promise that here and now?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I really hope that the Hamilton board doesn't take their political advice from the member opposite, because it's not going to be of assistance to them as they meet with ministry officials to sort out what they are doing with the increased special education funding they've received from the ministry.

We recognize that the way special education was previously supported in the province was not correct. That's why we gave boards more money when they asked for it. That's why we changed the funding formula so it did have flexibility and it was tied to students who had special needs. We are continuing to meet with boards to discuss how we can change and improve this funding so that they can meet their responsibility to give these children the supports they need.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): This is a problem across the province. You have a letter from the Greater Essex County District School Board on the issue of special education and intensive support. In that letter the board states that Windsor-Essex has a high incidence of children with special needs.

One of my constituents, Denise Dupis, is very concerned about this problem. Her 11-year-old son, Bobby, is severely visually impaired. In this past year, Bobby's sight deteriorated from 20/200 to 20/800. He also suffers from severe sensitivity to light. Unfortunately, despite Mrs Dupis's best efforts, the medical report was not completed in time to qualify for funding to assist Bobby at school. The Dupis family is trying desperately to keep him in school and now may have to remove him from school.

Boards can't make up these funding shortfalls. You've frozen the intensive support funding. What choice are you giving families like the Dupis family? Is it your message that there's no room in the school system for children with intensive support needs? Don't you treat this with any urgency at all?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The reason that our government has given boards like the Windsor-Essex Catholic board, for example, 48% more for special education funding, and perhaps the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic board 44% more in special education funding, the reason they have increased money, is because we recognize that there is an increased need.

Yes, ISA support grants were frozen because boards said to us that they needed experience in dealing with the new process to meet the special education needs of the high-needs students. We did that at the boards' request. But we also gave them additional monies this year yet again, inflexible monies to help meet these needs.

We understand that there need to be more refinements to this process. That's why we are continuing to meet with the boards. If they need assistance in terms of allocating their funding, again, my ministry staff are prepared to assist them to do that.

Mr Crozier: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Pursuant to

section 37 of the standing orders, I will be filing the form that I'm not happy with that answer because the minister did not speak to the urgency of it.

The Speaker: The member will file with the table.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Southwest): My question is to the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet. Minister, as you are aware, I have a keen interest in information technology and I'm very interested in the government's use of information technology to provide better and more convenient services to the taxpayers of this province.

As the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, can you tell me if you have a strategy in place to take advantage of the benefits of information technology to improve service to my constituents in Scarborough Southwest and to the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I appreciate the question from my colleague the member for Scarborough Southwest. I would just like to say that I'm pleased to get the question because one of the most important things the government is doing is laying the foundation to use information and information technology to the benefit of the people of Ontario so that the people of Ontario can get access to government services when, where and how they want. The implementation of this strategy will be critical to improving customer service in this province.

Mr Newman: The answer was quite informative, and I know my constituents in Scarborough Southwest appreciate that.

In your answer you also wanted to have some further information to give to the House, and to my constituents in Scarborough Southwest, with some examples of how this information technology will help them.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I know the member for Scarborough Southwest's constituents and the people of Ontario will be interested to see some early results from the implementation of our IT strategy, that is, Service Ontario kiosks that allow taxpayers to buy licence plate stickers or change their address or their health card when they are available; not during government office hours but through the Service Ontario kiosks.

Ontario Business Connects is using technology to allow people to register a small business on line within 20 minutes. In the old days that would take anywhere from four to six weeks, and then it would have to be sent back if there were any errors.

Publications Ontario allows people of Ontario through the Internet to have access to the publications produced by the Ontario government. These are huge improvements but small steps in terms of our commitment to improving government services and making government work for the people of Ontario, not the other way around.

COLLÈGE D'ALFRED / ALFRED COLLEGE

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James) : Ma question s'adresse au ministre de l'Agriculture. Votre ministère a recommandé d'éliminer la subvention de 1,5 $ million du ministère au Collège d'Alfred, le seul collège agricole francophone dans la province.

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I appreciate the fact that the member opposite recognizes the importance of agriculture in Ontario. In fact, it is the second-highest employer providing employment to some 640,000 Ontarians. In fact, it provides $25 billion in our economy, and I want to assure the member that we are very committed to education to the agriculture sector in our community.

That's why in 1997 we entered a partnership with the University of Guelph to provide, among other things, quality agriculture education for the people of the province in the agriculture community. In fact, the province presently spends $11 billion a year to provide that type of education.

Enrolment in our agricultural colleges has increased each and every year in the last number of years. The graduates coming out of those colleges are indeed picked off by our agri-food sector and are provided jobs in our growing economy, the economy that's provided through tax cuts in the province. We're very happy for that to be happening.

M. Bisson : Monsieur le ministre, on sait asteur que la communauté francophone a des gros problèmes avec ce gouvernement quand ça vient à comprendre le dossier francophone. On vous a demandé pour quelle raison vous avez éliminé une subvention au Collège d'Alfred. Vous avez l'air de vous planter ici puis nous dire comment le collège de Guelph est important. Oui, c'est important pour les anglophones, mais nous les francophones avons besoin de notre collège.

Je vous demande encore : pour quelle raison avez-vous éliminé, en tant que ministre responsable de l'agriculture, la subvention au Collège d'Alfred ? Répondez une fois à la question.

Hon Mr Hardeman: I want to assure the member opposite that the $1.5 million of which he speaks has not been eliminated from Alfred College at this point. As a ministry, we are looking at all our expenditures to make sure we are providing the best possible service in the best possible way for the people we serve and for our stakeholders in our ministry.

I can assure the member that we will be providing francophone education for francophones in our agricultural community as we have in the past and as we will continue to do in the future. But I want to point out that we want to look at all our expenditures to make sure we are as cost-effective and efficient with the taxpayers' money as we possibly can be.

HOMES FOR THE AGED

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My question is for the minister responsible for seniors. We continue to read daily about the confusion and disagreement around who is and should be responsible for ensuring the safety of seniors in retirement homes. The minister responsible for seniors told us about process, about discussions, about reports that have been sitting on shelves for years. The people of Ontario are tired of proposals. They want action on this issue.

Minister, recently you were quoted as saying, "All I care about is that seniors are protected." Why weren't you there for 81-year-old Teofil Skupien? In February a health care aide from his retirement home went to the provincial government and to city hall and nothing was done. It was not until this gentleman walked into a police station with a bruised face and three broken ribs that charges were laid. How can your government so arrogantly ignore seniors at risk? What action will you take today to ensure the safety of seniors in retirement homes in Ontario?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): I would just like to first off say that as a result of the actions that the city of Toronto has taken recently, obviously if this gentleman walked into city hall today, he would get a very different response than he got three, four or five months ago. Now, of course, they have a hotline, they have people who go out and check different retirement homes to ensure that services are being provided.

But I want to say that there are some responsibilities that the province has; there is no question. Elder abuse is against the law and we have a responsibility to ensure that people are safe in their homes. If a senior is the subject of elder abuse, all they have to do is call the police and the police will go in, because elder abuse is against the law.

Mrs Dombrowsky: With regard to the minister's suggestion that the issue is being managed adequately by municipal representatives, I would suggest that, reading recent media reports, the mayor of the city of Toronto is having some difficulty having that responsibility laid at his feet. He has indicated very clearly that the province must give cities the power to license homes and would suggest that the minister is trying to download yet another provincial responsibility to the municipality.

The government needs to take some responsibility; the minister needs to take some action. We are aware of what's happening in the city of Toronto, but what about the other 585 municipalities in the province where the needs of seniors and their safety in retirement homes are not being addressed?

Hon Mrs Johns: I know the member is new, so let me just explain a few things that have happened in the past.

Let me be very clear when I say that Toronto and Etobicoke both had bylaws present before the amalgamation last year. A number of different communities have bylaws presently, which include Ottawa and Hamilton. Let me suggest to the member opposite that the other day I wrote to the mayor and asked if he wanted me to upload some services, if he didn't want to handle some of the responsibilities that he has. We're prepared to look at this.

What's important to ensure is that our seniors are safe within our communities. The municipality has responsibility, the province has responsibility and every person and every family in Ontario has a responsibility to ensure that seniors are safe in their community.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): On a point of order, Speaker: I would appreciate you indicating whether or not this is a point of order. The minister has just made reference to bylaws that exist at the municipal level. It's my understanding that in the absence of provincial legislation, any municipal bylaws other than in the city of Windsor may be ultra vires, and I'm asking for clarification of that.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Actually, I had a little bit of trouble hearing that. Could you explain the point of order again, please.

Mrs McLeod: I'm asking for clarification by the government, by the minister or any other minister of the government; a clear indication of whether, beyond the city of Windsor, which has a law that has been passed giving them the ability to make bylaws respecting care in retirement homes, other bylaws in respect of care in retirement homes at a municipal level are in fact ultra vires and need to be dealt with by government.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order; it's obviously a question.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): On a point of personal privilege, Speaker: I'd like to correct the record. During question period I indicated that the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and his party had voted for Bill 35. I would like to correct the record, Mr Speaker. They did vote for Bill 35, a vote in principle on June 25, 1998, including the honourable member. Only 10 opposition members, all of whom were NDP members, voted against the bill in principle.

Of course, something happened between voting in principle and the politics of third reading debate, in which case 18 members decided to join the party of principle and vote against Bill 35. I would just like to clarify the record.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish to file my dissatisfaction with the response that I received from the minister and I would like to indicate at this time that I will be filing the appropriate papers for a late show.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member will file with the table.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition signed by a number of persons not only in Davenport but across the province. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed my name to this petition.

ABORTION

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

I will sign this on behalf of the 206 people who presented this petition.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 13 people have died during the first seven months of 1999 on Highway 401 and the carnage on this highway continues; and

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

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned members of the Canadian Automobile Association and other residents of Ontario," including constituents of my riding, from St Thomas, Aylmer, London and Sparta, "do hereby present this petition to the Legislature."

I affix my signature to it.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I have a petition submitted to me by the Canadian Automobile Association and signed by 288 people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): As a former highway engineer who has watched over the last eight years as volumes on highways have increased and upgrades have not kept pace with them, I also would like to present a petition signed by people from Wellington, Belleville, Foxboro and Carrying Place regarding highway 401 and the carnage on it. I am pleased to add my signature to it.

PARAMEDICS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): A petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas this amended regulation has resulted in at least one paramedic being fired from employment"-that's now six and, as I pointed out, two of those are from my hometown of Hamilton; "and

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

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

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

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

part III,

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

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

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

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

part III,

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

"To order the immediate reinstatement of paramedics who have been fired under this unjust regulation."

My caucus colleagues and I continue to support the paramedics in Ontario.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it concerns safety on Highway 401. It says that the undersigned respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario place firm pressure on the federal government to invest its gasoline tax revenue in road safety improvements in Ontario, and that the undersigned members of the Canadian Automobile Association and other residents of Ontario respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario immediately upgrade Highway 401 to at least a six-lane highway with full paved shoulders and rumble strips.

I have affixed my signature to it as well.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I have a further petition received from residents which I'd like to read to the House.

"Say no to the privatization of health care.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

"Whereas we won't stand for profits over people;

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

"Do not privatize our health care services."

I concur with the intent of the petition and I will affix my signature to it.

TAXATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I have a petition from my riding of Durham. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the taxpayers in Canada and indeed in Ontario are the highest-taxed jurisdiction in the G7, let it be known that 25% of the federal and provincial taxes to government is up from 17% as recently as 1980. Therefore, for a family with two children earning $21,000 in 1980 whose income doubled to $43,000 in 1995, their income not just doubled; it went to $10,000.

"Therefore we urge the government of Ontario to implement as soon as possible the taxpayers protection act."

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my own signature in full agreement with the concern of my constituents.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and sell chemicals or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral; and

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffer further forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical or accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience for health care workers, prohibiting coercion and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences, and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

I'll sign this on behalf of the 40-odd people who have signed it in my riding.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's signed by a number of residents from Blenheim, Tilbury and Chatham and I affix my signature to this petition.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition here which is signed by a number of residents of Davenport and it concerns the issue of school closings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since I agree with this petition, I affix my name to it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND BALANCED BUDGET ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION DES CONTRIBUABLES ET L'ÉQUILIBRE BUDGÉTAIRE

Mr Harris moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 7,

An Act to protect taxpayers against tax increases, to establish a process requiring voter approval for proposed tax increases and to ensure that the Provincial Budget is a balanced budget / Projet de loi 24, Loi protégeant les contribuables des augmentations d'impôt, établissant un processus d'approbation des projets d'augmentation d'impôt par les électeurs et garantissant l'équilibre du budget provincial.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Mr Harris.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I want to advise the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Wentworth-Burlington.

It gives me great pleasure to speak on second reading of Bill 7, the Taxpayer Protection and Balanced Budget Act.

For far too long, the taxpayers of Ontario were forced to bear the burden of governments addicted to taxing and spending, governments that believed every problem we faced as a province could somehow be fixed by more spending, more bureaucracy, more programs, more taxes.

Previous governments, I would suggest to you, tried to be all things to all people, and in the process they nearly bankrupted this great province of Ontario. They didn't realize that high taxes kill jobs. I believe they didn't realize that, because I don't think they would have proceeded down that spiralling, escalating increase in taxes had they known the devastation it would wreak on Ontario.

They didn't realize that for government to do a good job of providing the services that matter to people, services like accessible health care, quality education, government had to live within its means to be able to provide these services, not just today but next week, next month, next year, and on a sustainable basis.

Bill 7 would provide protection and insurance for the taxpayers of Ontario from unwanted tax hikes, provide protection and insurance against reckless deficit spending.

The taxpayer protection sections of Bill 7 stem from a very simple, and yet an important, idea: That politicians should not be able to raise the people of Ontario's tax rates without getting their permission first. I think we all know what happened in the past. Politicians would promise a program, and all the attention and focus would be on this new program or new spending, without an accountability to the taxpayers or to the public of how it would be paid for. The sections of Bill 7 now say: "You can't do that. You can no longer promise the goodies without also telling how they are going to be paid for, and identify that."

Our government listened when the people of Ontario told us that taxes were too high. We understood that high taxes were driving jobs and investment out of this province that lead Canada for much of Canada's history and much of Ontario's history. Then there was a period of time when Ontario became so high-taxed, with deficits to boot, because you would argue that you either run up deficits or you increase taxes to deal with this voracious appetite for spending that was there, but the fact of the matter is we had exhausted both. We were running record deficits and record high taxation.

We listened to the people for a number of reasons on this.

Number one, we listened because it was destroying jobs, it was destroying development, it was destroying investment, it was destroying growth in this province of Ontario.

Number two, though, is another interesting sidelight of this, if you like, and it seems counterintuitive, but the facts were these: The higher the former government increased taxes, the less revenue they got. It was like a business. Let's say your primary business was selling refrigerators and you priced your refrigerators at $1,000 a fridge, and business wasn't going very well because your competitors were selling the same fridge for $800.

If a businessman said, "Well, I need more profits so I'll take my $1,000 price to $1,100 or $1,200," thinking, "I'll make more money," that would seem to be the Liberal and NDP way of doing things. Of course, what happened was that the public said, "We're really not buying your fridges now," and this businessman would be out of business and he would have no profits.

That is what happened in Ontario. It wasn't that the 30-odd NDP tax hikes were any worse than the 30-odd Liberal tax hikes before them. That wasn't the problem. The problem was that the cumulative effect of all these tax increases was that Ontario had reached the point where it was into a law of diminishing returns. You increase the rate, you drive more jobs and investment out of the province and you actually get fewer dollars. So there were two very good reasons why we had to address this very serious problem, created exclusively, I might add, by Liberal and NDP politicians in Ontario.

What have we done? Thus far, we have announced a total of 99 tax cuts, 99 different ways and areas that we have reduced taxation. Each one of these tax cuts was designed in a very careful and thoughtful way to increase jobs and investment in the province-each and every one of them. Those tax cuts let those who earn the money in the first place keep more of their own money; more money for them to spend-after all, it's their money in the first place-more money that they could save, more money that they could invest as they see fit, which means, of course, more jobs and more prosperity for Ontario.

That's a very different approach from those in the opposition benches, which is why those few who are here today are so riled up when we point out the facts to them of what happened. It is a very different approach, and we make no apology for being different than the Liberals in particular, who like tax increases. It's something within their nature. It may be in their party's political constitution, I don't know, but for some reason or other they like high taxes and high government spending. It is their mantra. It is interchangeable with the word "Liberal," at least when it comes to Liberals in Ontario.

What happened from those on the opposition benches when they had the opportunity in the 10-year period-and really and truly you could say Liberal, NDP or socialist; it was interchangeable. There's no discernible difference in the 10-year record, nor is there any difference, I would argue, in opposition to our policies today. They seem to be one and the same. They hiked taxes 65 times over 10 years. We don't ever again in the province of Ontario want that kind of job-killing tax-hiking to happen.

That is why our taxpayer protection law would require that future governments seek voter approval if they want to impose new taxes or to increase tax rates on any of the major tax instruments that we have, and we have a variety of them, as I think you know.

Through this legislation, we're asking that governments of all stripes treat taxpayer dollars as carefully as taxpayers treat their own personal finances. The taxpayers of Ontario surely deserve nothing less than that. Ontario families work hard to make ends meet and keep their own budgets balanced. This law would require our government and future governments to manage taxpayer dollars in the same way. We know, first, this: This money belongs to the taxpayers, not to the government, and we are requiring future governments to recognize this reality.

This bill also contains a balanced budget law that would prevent governments from running budget deficits. It is my hope and it is the hope of my colleagues on the government side of the House that the era of deficit spending in Ontario is over once and for all.

Let's look at the facts. In the last 35 years, Ontario has had balanced budgets or surpluses four times: four times in 35 years. Three of those balanced budgets came in the 1960s. That means that a great many people in our province have never seen two consecutive balanced budgets. I'll tell you this: People since the 1960s have never had a government bring in a balanced budget and then keep a balanced budget throughout that budget year. That has never happened since the 1960s, when there were three Progressive Conservative budgets that were balanced.

Today, every child born in Ontario is born in debt, bearing a combined federal-provincial debt load of $28,711: $9,572 for Ontario and $19,139 for the federal government. We all know it has been Liberals in government in Ottawa for most of this century.

In 1998, average households-think of this-handed over 25.1% of their income in federal and provincial taxes to governments, up from less than 17% in 1980. When you look at that, from 1980 through to 1998, 17% of the average household's income went in federal and provincial taxes, and gradually over that period of time it's gone up to 25%. These facts show that for far too long governments just didn't get it. They took out the people of Ontario's credit card and they maxed it out. They took these credit cards and maximized each and every credit card that they could possibly get their mitts on, and they left our children with a pile of debt to pay.

Our balanced budget law cuts up that credit card, all of those credit cards. Under this new law, the Ontario budget must balance. It will be illegal for the budget of Ontario not to be in balance.

Bill 7 is tougher than any of the balanced budget bills of any other province in Canada. Cabinet ministers, for example, will be docked 25% of their cabinet salary for the first prohibited deficit, 50% for the second and 50% for each consecutive deficit thereafter. Not only would it be against the law, but there would be the strictest financial penalties for members of the executive council in Canada.

Beginning in fiscal year 2001-02, a budget deficit may only occur under extraordinary circumstances such as natural disaster or war. The legislation also provides the means to prudently manage any future economic downturn and respond to emergency situations, as we acknowledge government must do.

Our bill also recognizes there may be some situations, such as economic downturns, that require governments to plan ahead and establish a rainy day fund. Three years' worth of surpluses could offset a deficit in the following year. This is the way it's supposed to work: You don't start borrowing first, you put ahead first. That way, if governments plan, they can build a rainy day fund to help during times of economic hardship. This would allow a government to respond to an economic downturn without forcing drastic spending cuts.

It is not our intention, as some have said, to balance at any cost, particularly if it would mean cutting priority programs. In fact, it is our intention, and this legislation facilitates, responsible budgeting and planning so that never has to happen.

In conclusion, taxpayers and voters told us they wanted to be confident that our province's finances will be managed responsibly not only for today but also into the future.

The Taxpayer Protection and Balanced Budget Act is designed to make our great province strong and competitive well into the next millennium.

This legislation will help us to build a better tomorrow for everyone in the province of Ontario; a better tomorrow in which our children are not born into this crushing burden of debt; a better tomorrow in which fewer taxpayer dollars are spent in interest and in debt payments, and more taxpayer dollars are directed to services that matter to people; a better tomorrow in which taxpayers remain as respected as they are by our government, and when politicians cannot hike tax rates without first asking the people who pay those taxes.

It is my hope that we will achieve this better tomorrow and that Ontario will become even stronger and more prosperous as a result of this in the future.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth-Burlington): For me it's both an honour and a privilege to be speaking to this bill. I'd like to go back to 1994. At that time I was not involved in politics in any way. I was working in the crown attorney's office. If I could say this humbly, I was a member of the public and I was very concerned about what was going on. At that time, as you recall, debts and deficit spending of both the federal and provincial government was completely out of control.

I decided at that time to get involved in politics because, like many people in the public, I was totally disgusted with what was happening around me. I'm an immigrant to this province and I felt, just as the Premier has indicated, that this great province is being brought low and that instead of it being a province of opportunity, it was a province facing bankruptcy and ruin.

There was a very deliberate reason why I chose to run for the Progressive Conservative Party. I could have run for any party; I had no political background at that time. The reason I ran for the Progressive Conservative Party was quite simply that they had a plan to deal with what everyone considered was an absolute crisis. The Common Sense Revolution had been published a year ahead of time. I knew what I was running on. The Premier had signed the taxpayers' pledge for this very type of legislation. The Liberals at that time, as you recall, weren't interested in this type of legislation.

So really there was only one party to run for, if you cared about these issues of government overspending, and that was the Conservative Party of Ontario.

If you want to run in politics-I don't think most people are aware of what you have to do-you basically have to sign up members of the party and you have a nomination contest. As I say, I didn't have any political background. What I did was prepare an urgent message indicating what kind of state we were in. I have it here-

Interjection.

Mr Skarica: In 1994. It was entitled, "Urgent Message Number One: Combined Federal, Provincial and Municipal Public Debt." I have it here. I don'