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

April 4, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Apr-04 (PDF)

L036 - Tues 4 Apr 2000 / Mar 4 avr 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

JESSE'S JOURNEY

HIGHWAY SAFETY

PENSION FUNDS

MICHAEL STARR

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

COMMUNITY POLICING

CHURCH FIRE

SCHOOL SAFETY

SPEAKER'S RULING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ PARENTALE

ONTARIO REALTY CORPORATION CLEAN UP ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'ASSAINISSEMENT DE LA SOCIÉTÉ IMMOBILIÈRE DE L'ONTARIO

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

DEFERRED VOTES

CHRISTOPHER'S LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY), 1999 / LOI CHRISTOPHER DE 1999 SUR LE REGISTRE DES DÉLINQUANTS SEXUELS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

HEALTH CARE

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

DRIVERS' LICENCES

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

HEALTH CARE

CANADIAN FRANCHISE ASSOCIATION

GLOBAL WARMING

INTERNET

LOW LAKE LEVELS

AIR TRANSPORTATION

GOVERNMENT'S ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

PETITIONS

WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES

PROTECTION OF MINORS

HEALTH CARE

ABORTION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

KARLA HOMOLKA

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ABORTION

CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS

ABORTION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I stand once again to tell Mike Harris that my community is 100% dissatisfied with his inexcusable underfunding of our hospital restructuring project and the associated capital construction and equipment costs. Five years ago, we were told restructuring would generate huge savings. How ironic it is that we are now faced with the largest fundraising event in Sudbury's history, the $40-million-plus Heart and Soul Campaign.

It is unrealistic and unfair to foist this on Sudburians. In February, campaign organizers went before our regional council, which gave them $5 million while rejecting the request for an additional $23 million, saying that the Mike Harris government has to take responsibility for these costs.

Sudburians strongly oppose picking up this multi-million-dollar tab. Even Heart and Soul organizers have labelled this in part as "the campaign nobody wants" and are trying to bring in Jeopardy host and native Sudburian Alex Trebek to serve as its spokesman. I respect Gerry Lougheed Jr, Alan Katz and the rest of the campaign organizers who are looking for solutions to the Harris underfunding problem. However, with all due respect to them and Alex Trebek, our community does not only need Alex Trebek; we need Mike Harris to come to the table and to bring more money. Our local politicians and community leaders will be travelling to Queen's Park to ask for additional monies.

Mike Harris, take responsibility. Give us those additional dollars.

JESSE'S JOURNEY

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I rise today to give the Legislative Assembly a progress report on Jesse's Journey. In 1995, John Davidson pushed his son Jesse Davidson 3,300 kilometres across Ontario in a wheelchair to increase public awareness of Jesse's Duchenne muscular dystrophy and raised $1.3 million for research into neuromuscular diseases.

In 1998 and 1999, with a large assist from family and volunteer support, John Davidson spent 10 months walking 8,300 kilometres across Canada to raise more funds toward the creation of a $10-million foundation for neuromuscular research. To date, Jesse's Journey: A Father's Tribute has progressed to the $3-million mark.

Already the foundation has provided seed money to help create the Jesse Davidson Neuromuscular Disease Laboratory and the Neurological Research Group in partnership with the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and the University of Ottawa.

On Friday, April 7, the foundation is promoting a London and Middlesex area casual day to raise funds, with over 800 businesses and both school boards participating.

I know all members will join with me in recognizing the contributions of two great Ontarians and Canadians, Jesse and John Davidson.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have repeatedly called for photo radar as the safest, most immediate deterrent for Carnage Alley. We also need significant safety upgrades, not minor corrections, on this deadly stretch of the 401.

Thirty-three lives have been lost in 13 months, yet the Harris government refuses to do what is needed. It took six months of lobbying and a public call for Turnbull's resignation by victims before the government coughed up the money they promised. It's in the press. It seems that only the court of public opinion makes the government act. Ministry staff said they wanted to deliver the money sooner because it was a priority. Why didn't you? Who was stopping you? Is that how you treat priorities? It will take another six months before officers can start.

Now the damage control begins: Deflect attention; blame other governments. It's the Harris way. Mr Mazzilli said, "It's an area neglected by several governments." Nonsense. There were four deaths in 1997, two in 1998, but 33 deaths in the last 13 months. Take responsibility for once in your mandate. Five million dollars to upgrade 200 kilometres of substandard road is totally inadequate.

I have 5,000 replies to my questionnaire. They show great public support for photo radar and immediate action for centre median barriers, extra lanes, and paved, level shoulders on both sides. The CAA has also presented 8,000 safety petitions.

What is the cost of human life, Premier? How much public pressure will it take? How many more deaths before you listen?

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Yet another example where workers end up at the bottom of the list when it comes to questions of bankruptcy and when it comes to questions of pensions.

A number of constituents have come to my office over the last week or so. They have been receiving letters from a company by the name of Morneau Sobeco, which is the actuarial consultant for the Royal Oak pension. As all members in the House would know, the Royal Oak company went under back in 1999 and, as a result, all those workers have lost their jobs.

The tragedy continues. Here we are, less than a year later, and it turns out, as we knew, the former employer and owner of Royal Oak, Peggy Witte, along with Price Waterhouse, which managed that company through the whole bankruptcy procedure, did not make pension contributions to the workers' pension funds, and now we find ourselves in the situation where the workers have a pension fund that's not fully funded. Now we've got the actuarial consultants sending people letters saying, "Hey, surprise, surprise, your pension that you worked all your life for is being reduced by 25%."

I say to the government across the way, it's high time that we do something in order to correct this injustice. Far too often, workers such as we find at Royal Oak are in a situation where employers take contribution holidays or skip out of town and the workers get left holding the bag. I call on this government to work with the New Democratic caucus to introduce pension reform that guarantees the dollars put forward in these pension plans to workers, where those dollars should be.

MICHAEL STARR

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I rise today to pay tribute to the passing of a man whose commitment to politics in Oshawa is legendary.

The Honourable Colonel Michael Starr, a Privy Council member, passed away on March 16 at Oshawa General Hospital in his 90th year. This was a man who had dined with the Queen on the royal yacht Brittania, a man who was asked to review his winter works program with John F. Kennedy in the White House.

This is the man responsible for developing our current college system; a man whose past included audiences with the Pope, as well as being the former chair of the WCB, citizenship court judge, let alone mention the 16 years as a federal member of Parliament, seven of which were as the Minister of Labour, and five years as an alderman, followed by four years as the mayor of Oshawa. Mr Starr was Canada's first federal cabinet minister of a proud Ukrainian descent.

Politics is an interesting lifestyle, and sometimes achievements are seldom known, but one of the numerous ones Mike shared with me was when, in opposition, he turned to his leader at that time, Robert Stanfield, and declared, "There, I've just made you Prime Minister of Canada," as Mike led a vote defeating the government of the day by one vote on the third reading of the budget bill.

Mr Starr is survived through daughter Joan and son-in-law Bob Nichol, grandsons Mike and Mark Nichol.

Dearly missed but never forgotten, the Honourable Colonel Michael Starr.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): One of the commitments of our publicly funded health care system is to provide a high quality of care as close to home as possible. Yet just last week a Brampton woman who was in premature labour had to be flown to Ottawa, 450 kilometres away, to give birth to her twins. There was no place for this woman in any hospital in the country's largest metropolitan area. Emergency rooms are still overcrowded, surgeries are being delayed or cancelled and a woman in premature labour has to go 450 kilometres from home to give birth.

The $3-million taxpayer-paid government advertising campaign says that there's a plan for health care, but there has been no plan for hospitals-there have just been cuts. In fact, Toronto has fewer beds today than were supposed to be in place after the government finished shutting down its 10 hospitals, and there are more cuts ahead for hospitals across the province. Sunnybrook hospital is planning to close more beds, Timmins hospital is planning to lay off 32 full-time staff and Hamilton Health Sciences Centre is closing the Henderson hospital. Half the province's hospitals have been told to get rid of their deficits, and the ministry staff are telling them, "But you can't cut programs."

For months now, the Minister of Health has said there will be a new funding formula to fix the hospital deficit problems. But no formula will help unless there is new money. This government must stop putting Band-Aids where the bleeding is worst. It is time to reverse the cuts to Ontario's hospitals.

COMMUNITY POLICING

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): Crime and justice are a major concern to my constituents in Scarborough Centre. There are few elements of the justice system that touch the everyday lives of our citizens as policing. That is why I am proud to have been able to present Chief Julian Fantino and the Toronto Police Service with a cheque for $1,048,000 this morning, as part of the Mike Harris government's community policing partnership program. This money represents the province's portion of the cost of putting an additional 106 front-line police officers on the streets of Toronto.

Many of those officers will find their way to my constituency in Scarborough. Some of the new officers will undoubtedly make their way to the new 43 division that Scarborough councillors David Soknacki and Bas Balkissoon have fought so hard to get established. I'm proud to have been able to lend my voice to that project as well.

Since the program was introduced in 1998, the community policing partnership has contributed to the hiring of 539 front-line police officers to make Ontario's streets safer. Today's investment is just another example of the Mike Harris government's commitment to ensure that all law-abiding Ontarians feel safe on their streets, in their neighbourhoods and in their homes.

CHURCH FIRE

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On behalf of the Liberal caucus and I think all members of the Legislature, I want to express our sorrow to the Greek community as a result of the devastating fire yesterday at the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary Greek Orthodox Church.

To His Eminence Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios, Mr Costas Menegakis, the president of the Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto, and indeed all the members of Greek community, our deepest sympathy.

As Father Peter, the cathedral priest, said yesterday, "The church is the people, not the building." However, this loss of the building will be deeply felt.

We all know the strength of the Greek Orthodox Church and the Greek community of Toronto, and we know that literally out of these ashes will rise a spiritual centre again for the Greek Orthodox Church.

It was a significant loss yesterday for the Greek community as this magnificent building was virtually destroyed.

We were pleased to hear that tonight there will be a community meeting where the community leaders will come together to begin to plan, as I said earlier, to make certain that out of these ashes arises a spiritual centre once again for the Greek community.

To His Eminence Archbishop Sotirios and to the Greek community, our deepest sympathy. We know that with the strength of the community they will once again have a magnificent structure as a centre for their spiritual needs in the community.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Last year in my riding I held a community forum and the topic was rights, responsibility and respect in our community.

This well-attended event featured a number of panellists including, of course, students and parents; students like Greg Koenderman, an OAC student, and parents like Donna Lucas-Astley, who is also on the Ontario Parent Council, as well as Durham Regional Police Inspector Ross Smith.

At this forum I heard a wide range of viewpoints and found there was support provincially for a defined code of conduct in our schools. Since then I have been reading the press and have had a large number of letters in support of a code of conduct.

Just recently, in an issue of Time magazine, I was shocked to learn that a six-year-old boy who shot his classmate a few weeks ago had a knife taken away from him the very morning of the shooting. I share the outrage of the woman who wrote this letter in Time who wondered why this boy had been allowed to stay in school after the knife had been discovered. Being an assistant principal, the author pointed out that her school has a strict discipline policy on possession of weapons that had led to the misadventure in the school.

I am pleased that our Premier and our Minister of Education have taken the important steps of bringing forward a province-wide code of conduct, and I am certain that not just my riding of Durham but the people of Ontario, and more importantly the students and teachers in our schools, will gain from this important initiative by this government to make our communities safer for people.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On Tuesday, December 21, 1999, the member for Broadview-Greenwood rose on a point of privilege to bring to the attention of the House a letter written by the member for Halton to the three House leaders. The letter sought to rebut comments made by the member for Broadview-Greenwood about the way in which the standing committee on general government had selected a candidate for the position of Environmental Commissioner.

I have reflected on the submissions, together with the written notification, as well as the submissions of the government House leader.

In her submissions, the member for Broadview-Greenwood indicated that the letter attacked her integrity as a member, that it made allegations about her conduct and character, and that it was intimidating and threatening. The member took particular objection to a statement in the letter that expressed the hope that the Legislature and its members could, with the co-operation of the House leaders, find some way to "extract" from her an apology that the standing committee's candidate for that position deserved.

In response, let me say I can appreciate that, to some extent, the word "extract" implies the use of force. However, after reading and rereading the sentence containing that word, as well as the entire letter, I do not believe this letter seeks to intimidate. I say this for several reasons. First, it is important to note that the letter was written and authored by an honourable member of the House, not a non-member. Secondly, the letter does not suggest that the apology should be secured by anything other than legitimate means.

Third, the letter does not suggest that some person or institution not associated with this House should seek to secure the apology; on the contrary, it suggests that the Legislature and its members should do that. Fourth, the member for Halton may have been argumentative in his view that the member for Broadview-Greenwood owes an apology to a prospective assembly officer, but such a view does not in and of itself amount to a matter of privilege. In essence, what we have here is a disagreement between two members.

For these reasons, I find that a prima facie case of privilege has not been made out.

I want to thank the member for Broadview-Greenwood for her point.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr Speaker, on a point of order-

The Speaker: Just so you know-and the member may have been here yesterday-in the first three months of the opening session we took a great deal of time going back on points of order. I have made my ruling. Can we very quickly get to the point of order, and if it has anything to do with this one, I will very quickly ask her to take her seat.

The member for Broadview-Greenwood.

Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, thank you very much for taking the time to rule on my point of privilege. I just want to make it clear that I'm not easily intimidated and none of the House leaders in this place is my boss. I just wanted to be very clear there.

The Speaker: I appreciate that.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I beg leave to present the 1998 annual report from the standing committee on public accounts and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Gerretsen: In February 1998 the committee members began the lengthy process of examining the report and held public hearings with the appropriate officials and staff from eight ministries. The report summarizes the committee's findings and also those of the auditor, and includes 19 specific recommendations. Five relate to the Ontario student assistance program, four deal with the Ministry of Health's public health activity, and the Ministry of the Attorney General's courts administration program is the subject of the remaining three. Many of the recommendations ask that the appropriate ministry report back to the committee as and when requested.

I would like to thank the members of the committee and the staff who worked on the production of the document. We also appreciate the work of the Provincial Auditor and his staff. The report, unfortunately, was not filed before the House recessed last spring. Like them, the committee wishes to ensure that the mechanisms are in place to guarantee economy, efficiency and accountability of government operations and the effectiveness of the programs in achieving their objectives.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ PARENTALE

Mr Flaherty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 55,

An Act to make parents responsible for wrongful acts intentionally committed by their children / Projet de loi 55, Loi visant à rendre les pères et mères responsables des actes fautifs commis intentionnellement par leurs enfants.

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

Just before the Attorney General makes a brief statement, there is a point of order.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: We were already asked to carry a motion, and I believe we will get the bill and the compendium right now. Often we get it before we're expected to do that. I would ask the government, and you, Mr Speaker, to ensure that we at least get to look at the bill and the compendium before such time as we have to carry some item.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I believe it's normal practice in the House that once the bill is tabled, which is in effect what you do on first reading, it is given to the opposition with the compendium after that particular part of the procedure.

The Speaker: As the member will know, the standing orders are very clear in saying that the attachments will be tabled at the time the bill is introduced. That is being done now. I would assume the ministry will have the appropriate appendices as well.

The Attorney General for a short statement.

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

ONTARIO REALTY CORPORATION CLEAN UP ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'ASSAINISSEMENT DE LA SOCIÉTÉ IMMOBILIÈRE DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Agostino moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 56,

An Act to amend the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993 to ensure that the Ontario Realty Corporation awards contracts in a fair and public way / Projet de loi 56, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1993 sur le plan d'investissement pour veiller à ce que la Société im mobilière de l'Ontario accorde des contrats de façon équitable et transparente.

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

Does the member have a short statement?

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): This bill will be debated for second reading in private members' business on April 13. It's a bill to frankly clean up the mess that is occurring at the ORC, and to put guidelines and conditions in that would stop the abuses and the fraud that are happening at the ORC today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The people of Ontario want safe communities. Our government has already acted, and we're proposing to do more. We're working to help restore the time-honoured values of respect and responsibility.

A child shouldn't arrive at a playground to find broken equipment. Homeowners and tenants shouldn't arrive home to find that their personal possessions have been damaged or stolen. Merchants shouldn't have to start their workday cleaning graffiti off their storefronts and doors.

These are some examples of the almost 20,000 property-crime-related cases in young offenders court in Ontario in 1998.

As part of our commitment to community safety, we promised parental responsibility legislation in our throne speech and in the budget. We are delivering on that promise.

Earlier today I introduced the Parental Responsibility Act. If passed, it would hold parents financially responsible for the damage, loss or destruction of property intentionally caused by their children who are under 18 years of age.

Under the existing law, much of the onus for proving the case is placed on the victim. We think this is unfair.

The Parental Responsibility Act would shift more of the onus to parents and make it easier for victims of intentional property damage to get compensation of up to $6,000 in Small Claims Court.

Some would suggest that property damage is inconsequential or that it is a victimless crime, but victims tell a different story. They tell you that they feel violated and that their security has been shattered. They are victims of crime and they deserve justice.

This bill responds to the concerns raised by people who took

part in 70 public forums held across the province by the Ontario Crime Control Commission. Many people told the commission that parents should take a more active role in shaping the behaviour of their children. Some concerned citizens representing community and business associations have joined us here today to lend support for this bill. I acknowledge their presence and thank them for taking the time to attend: Fred Chorley, executive director of the Mississauga Crime Prevention Association; Sharon Maloney, general counsel of the Retail Council of Canada; and Stu Auty, executive director of the Canadian Safe School Network.

As mentioned earlier, the people of Ontario and our government firmly believe in the values of respect and responsibility-respect for others, respect for the law and an understanding that actions have consequences. These are values that we must teach our children. We recognize that most parents do their best to raise law-abiding children. The Parental Responsibility Act is aimed at reinforcing the principles of respect and responsibility, values that help to make our communities safer for everyone.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Recognizing the minister's ability to acknowledge some people in the audience, which I do, I would like to bring attention to the House of Mr Joe Barnes, his board of directors and some of his clients to 2nd Avenue Lodge. They walked the 200 kilometres from Owen Sound to be here today to talk to the Minister of Health, so I thought I'd bring acknowledgement to our guests. Thank you very much for being here.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member, who will also know it's not a point of order.

Responses?

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I listened with interest to the comments of the minister. We will be debating this bill and seeing whether or not it's actually going to be harmful, useful or useless. We look forward to that debate.

I'm about to say something that sounds familiar: Ontarians care about the safety of their streets and personal security in their homes. The government would like to trademark that observation, but they can't.

In talking to Ontarians, they tell me that they care about in-your-face crimes: break and enters, car theft, assaults. These are the in-your-face crimes that Ontarians deal with in their day-to-day lives. Ontarians are also very concerned about a gun epidemic which is sweeping Ontario. One out of three homicides, one out of five suicides and one out of five robberies in this province involve a gun. We're the largest province in a nation in which gun violence costs us, in economic and health care costs, $6 billion, according to an OMA study.

We read every week, sometimes every day, about shootings in our neighbourhoods. So they're very concerned about in-your-face crimes and they're very concerned about the gun epidemic.

Ontario Liberals believe in solid, whole communities. Our focus is on the community, an individual's responsibility to the community and the government's responsibility to ensure that individuals are safe in their community. That's why for us, for the Liberals, crime is a top priority, because we care about the safety of our communities. So too do we support, respect, laud and wish to push forward family responsibility and parental responsibility. Who wouldn't?

With respect to the gun epidemic, Ontario Liberals have put forward a five-point plan to curb gun violence and recoup its costs. With respect to crime prevention, law enforcement and rehabilitation, it's our position that investments need to be made by government to ensure that all three components of our justice system work. In education, in First Step programs, in investments in the police, in investments in the crown, in stopping the court backlog and in investments in rehabilitation in our correctional facilities, this is our approach to how we're going to curb crime to provide for a safer community.

What has been the position of this government? I regret to report that with respect to guns, mainstream Toronto wants to curb gun violence and recoup its costs. Mainstream Toronto supports responsible gun use and responsible gun storage, as most gun owners do, but they also support reasonable gun control legislation that will avoid the suicides and accidents and guns getting into the wrong hands. That's where Ontario is. Unfortunately, this government is far to the right of the people of Ontario when it comes to the issue of guns.

This government, I regret to report, is in the holster of the gun lobby, siding with the gun lobby in the courts and the Legislature, shilling for the gun lobby at fundraisers and in an NRA commercial that airs every week on your local cable station here in this province. We're with mainstream Ontario in trying to do something about guns. This government, for some reason, is in the holster of the gun lobby.

What else is this government doing about crime? I regret to report that after all the talk about crime by this government in the year 2000, it appears that when it comes to crime, this government is all talk and no action.

The squeegee bill somehow was going to send a message, and the squeegeers would drop their squeegees and pick up a briefcase and lead more productive lives. Of course it will not happen; it will not be so.

This act-and I'm shaking it right now. Ordinarily the pen is mightier than the sword, but not when it comes to crime. When it comes to crime, you need to make investments in crime prevention, in law enforcement and in rehabilitation. The concern with this bill is that the victims still have to go to court to recoup these costs. In fact, these are Small Claims Court matters. I don't know why we're limiting it to that, I don't know why we're repeating a Family Law Act provision, and I certainly don't know why we're helping our insurance companies make subrogated claims against parents.

I look forward to seeing whether or not this bill is just more of the same: more talk-

The Speaker: Order. The time is up. Responses?

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): This announcement and this bill today expose how fraudulent this Attorney General's party's position on law and order and on prevention of crime and on protection of victims certainly is.

This bill does nothing more than restate what was already expressed in

section 68 of the Family Law Act which, I should tell you, was passed during the period of the NDP-Liberal accord in 1986, which clearly put the onus on parents of children who commit crimes, and not just against property but against the person. The Attorney General omits today any consideration of crimes against persons by young offenders or, for that matter, by any other offender. As well, the Attorney General knows, or he certainly ought to know, that his suggesting that somehow this creates a new presumption with respect to the defendant young offender is totally naive.

He suggests that this bill somehow establishes that the conduct was intentional. There wouldn't be a conviction if the conduct wasn't intentional, whether it's in young offender court or in adult court. This Attorney General knows, or ought to know, that the long-standing principle in British common law applicable in our civil courts, in Small Claims Court and in General Division courts, through the maxim of res ipsa loquitur, establishes that presumption of intention in any event.

This bill does nothing to add to the current state of the law. This bill does nothing to change the status quo. This bill mocks victims and is part of a litany of that disdain for victims that this government has displayed since 1995. This government wants to talk about victims? Well, let it start talking about its Victims' Bill of Rights that this Attorney General's predecessor passed in this Legislature and which was condemned by the courts of this province as "not establishing any statutory rights for the victims of crime," and I quote Mr Justice Day. Mr Justice Day said, once again, "There are no rights provided for in the Victims' Bill of Rights."

This government's pattern at least has been consistent with respect to victims. This government wants to talk a big game about standing beside victims, yet in fact it has abandoned them over and over again and continues to do so with this bill. This government suggests that somehow it's changing the process. The fact is, victims of crimes could always litigate against the parents of youthful offenders when those parents were displaying negligence during the course of their counsel or supervision of their children.

The fact also remains that there are thousands of families out there who suffer dramatically from a wayward kid, from a child who has gone off the track. These families already are spending thousands and thousands of dollars of their own money; they're mortgaging their homes to set up kids with counsellors and in residential programs.

These are the families who are finding themselves abandoned by this government, as more and more mental health programs for young people absolutely disappear from the face of our province, as public health programs and school programs that were designed to intervene in the lives of these very disturbed and troubled young kids are again being written off by this government in exchange for tax breaks for the very rich. This government denies those families in crisis any support whatsoever and gives false hope to the victims of crime and ignores in this bill the victims of violent crime.

I'm not going to diminish, nor would anybody, the impact of property crime, of a break and enter, on a family or a homeowner or a resident in a home or apartment. But I tell you, Attorney General, for you to post huge blown-up pictures of broken, abandoned factory windows and somehow suggest that that's what people in our communities are afraid of is not only naive, it could be interpreted as less than candid by most of the population of the province of Ontario.

I'll tell you what we're going to do, because we will make suggestions to in fact enhance the rights of victims. We'll tell you, for victims of crime where there have been convictions in either young offender courts or in adult criminal courts, to waive Small Claims Court fees so that they don't have to pay out the $150 or $200 up front to proceed in Small Claims Court to collect a judgment that may never be enforceable when you're dealing with an impecunious defendant.

We will insist that you enhance the support for our courts, and especially talk to some probation officers, Attorney General, and understand how stressed they are in trying to perform their job. We'll fight for victims, Attorney General. Will you listen?

DEFERRED VOTES

CHRISTOPHER'S LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY), 1999 / LOI CHRISTOPHER DE 1999 SUR LE REGISTRE DES DÉLINQUANTS SEXUELS

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 31,

An Act, in memory of Christopher Stephenson, to establish and maintain a registry of sex offenders to protect children and communities / Projet de loi 31, Loi à la mémoire de Christopher Stephenson visant à créer et à tenir un registre des délinquants sexuels en vue de protéger les enfants et les collectivités.

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

The division bells rang from 1408 to 1413.

The Speaker: Will the members kindly take their seats for the vote.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Clark, Brad

Cleary, John C.

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 90; the nays are 0.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

The member for Broadview-Greenwood on a point of order.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): Unanimous consent, Mr Speaker. I'm asking all members to join me today in congratulating Premier Harris for putting together a longer streak so far this April than the Leafs, Raptors or Blue Jays, and for equalling his personal best in appearances. Two is nice, but let's-

The Speaker: Unanimous consent? I heard some noes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My questions today are for the Chair of Management Board.

I believe people should take responsibility for their actions, and today I want to speak to you about your actions in connection with some land deals in Ontario. In particular, on June 16, 1998, the Ontario government sold a piece of land in Brampton for $1.27 million. Six days later, that property was flipped for $3.92 million. That meant the taxpayers lost out on over $2.5 million in connection with that deal alone. You were the Chair of Management Board at that time. You are responsible for land sales in Ontario. You failed to make sure the interests of taxpayers were protected. Tell us now why.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): As the Leader of the Opposition is fully aware, myself, our ministry, and the board of directors of the Ontario Realty Corp have taken the proper steps through the proper process. It's a government protocol. The first step they did was that the new team evaluated all the past transactions. They found some irregularities. They called in an audit. That audit had found some irregularities and asked the police to come in and review the files. He's fully aware of that. We've done the proper process. There's an investigation underway, and he knows full well that I can't comment on the specifics of an investigation.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you approved this deal and other deals I'm going to talk about. I'm only asking questions today that Ontario taxpayers want me to put to you.

Let's go on to the next deal. On March 29, 1999, the Ontario government sold land in Mississauga for $1.92 million. In November, that parcel was flipped for $4.39 million. From the speculator's perspective it was a flip, but from the taxpayers' perspective it was a flop. In that particular case, they lost out on $2.4 million.

Again, you were the Chair of Management Board at the time, Minister, and, as such, you were responsible for land sales in Ontario. Again, you did not protect the interests of taxpayers. Once again I ask you, Minister, why did you not live up to your responsibilities and protect the interests of taxpayers?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think the Leader of the Opposition is fully aware that I and the Management Board ministry as well as the board of directors of the Ontario Realty Corp are taking all the proper steps, according to government protocol, to get to the bottom of these issues. He also knows that I can't comment on the specifics, but he can rest assured that this organization in all its actions is working hard to make the Ontario Realty Corp act better for the people of Ontario in all its actions.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, if you are genuinely interested in providing some reassurance to the people of this province and Ontario taxpayers, you will tell us why this happened. It happened on your watch.

Here's another deal now. On March 3, 1999, you approved a sale of government property for $5 million. According to industry standards, that property should have been sold for $10 million. Here's the order in council approving that sale. It is signed by one Chris Hodgson, Chair of Management Board. It specifically says, "recommended by Chris Hodgson."

Again, Minister, I ask you on behalf of Ontario taxpayers, how could you let them be the butt end of a shortfall of $10 million? And that's only in connection with three deals that we've uncovered to date. Why did you not stand up and protect the interests of Ontario taxpayers?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The Leader of the Opposition is making very specific allegations. If he's so convinced of that, he can mention those facts outside the House, where he doesn't have the immunity.

I can tell you-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. It's the members' question period. If the time runs down, they're not going to have the questions. I'm prepared to stay here as long as we need to.

The Chair of Management Board.

Hon Mr Hodgson: These are very important questions that the leader has asked. We're trying to get to the bottom of this in the most open and fair manner possible to all parties involved. We've followed the government protocol. When their senior management noticed irregularities of past transactions, the board of directors of the ORC called for an audit. That auditor asked for independent help with people with forensic accounting. When they found out that there were irregularities, they asked the police to review those files.

We're trying to be as open and as fair as we can be, and we have to follow the government protocol. If you have any specific allegations of any other wrongdoing, by all means-

The Speaker: The minister's time is up. New question.

Mr McGuinty: These questions are also for the same Chair of Management Board.

Minister, these are not allegations. They are just facts that I'm putting before you, facts that are well known to the public of Ontario. We're talking about land flips in very short order that have secured incredible profits for speculators. You have not stood up for the interests of Ontario taxpayers. These are not allegations; these are facts. That's what it's all about.

Today the police are looking to see if anyone should be going to jail. When we raised this matter with you in the past in this Legislature, you said everything was OK, that there was nothing wrong. Today we discover that on your watch there are three deals to date which have been brought to the light of day which show that clearly you have not stood up for the interests of Ontario taxpayers.

Again, Minister, I ask you on their behalf, why have you failed to protect their interests?

Hon Mr Hodgson: First of all, an investigation was conducted by the senior management team, which asked for independent auditors to come in. They noticed some irregularities, and they have asked the police to review the files. So on the facts you talk about, there is a review process going on and the proper process is being followed.

When you were talking about statements last fall, that was in regard to specific allegations, and at the time I asked your critic who asked the question, if he had any evidence, to please share it with us; we would like to get to the bottom of it to protect the taxpayers.

Mr McGuinty: What we're talking about here is a huge sum of money. The three deals I have talked about total 10 million lost taxpayer dollars. Do you know what that would have got us? Let's just take a look at health care for a minute. Ten million lost taxpayer dollars would have got us 800 cardiac surgery operations, 10,000 cataract surgeries for our seniors, 50,000 emergency patient visits in our hospitals. That's what $10 million is worth to Ontario taxpayers.

I ask you one more time, and I personally can't understand why you are going to allow yourself to be left swinging in the wind over this one: Why did you fail to protect the interests of taxpayers when it came to these land flips?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I don't have the luxury to be able to swing away with all the bombast and rhetoric that an opposition leader can. I have a responsibility to make sure we follow the proper process to get to the truth. The proper process is being followed, and I can repeat that for you. Last fall I was asked about a specific allegation-and you can read the Hansard. I asked you, if there were any specific allegations you knew about, to please share them with us. The opposition didn't come forward with anything. The senior management team conducted a review on past sales, and that has led to a process which is the proper process to get to the bottom of these matters.

I can assure you that the Ontario Realty Corp board of directors is doing a lot of things to change the policies and procedures that, going forward, will make the ORC operate in a way that will achieve better value for the taxpayers of this province.

Mr McGuinty: This really is not a very complicated matter. In the documents establishing the Ontario Realty Corp, it says, "The Ontario Realty Corp disposes of real property as the agent of the Management Board Secretariat." That's you. When it comes to selling these parcels of land, they have to be approved by order in council. You make the recommendation, you sign off on the deals. Ontario taxpayers have lost millions of dollars as a result of your failure to protect their interests.

It seems to me that you have two options today: You can either defend your decision to sell off Ontario land at rock-bottom prices, or you can resign. Those are your only two options. So I ask you now, which option will you avail yourself of today? Will you either defend these decisions, or will you resign?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I have a responsibility to make sure the proper processes are followed and that it's done in an open and accountable manner. If you are trying to prejudge this investigation, I don't have the liberty to do that. We have to follow proper procedure, and the proper procedures are being followed. An audit review process is going on, on all past transactions where there may be irregularities. The police have been called in, where the auditor found some irregularities, to review those files. In the fullness of time, those investigations will be thoroughly reviewed, and we'll get to the bottom of this.

In the meantime I can assure you that the senior management team and the board of directors of the ORC have changed policies to try to make the organization more accountable and responsible, to make sure the taxpayers receive better value from this organization.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the minister's response to the first question of the Leader of the Opposition, he referred to a protocol of standards that apply in these cases. It is my understanding, according to the standing orders of the Legislature, that those protocols ought to be tabled with the Legislature. I wonder if you would ask-

The Speaker: We've been through this before in the first session. It is when it is being quoted from and being referred to continuously, and it was not in this case. But I will say this-and I will entertain another point of order-I have been very simple on this, very clear on that. So you are not going to be able to get up again on the same point of order. I have been very clear on this. The rules are there, and I will be listening. If, in fact, as occasions happen in this House, they do quote from them and do repeat them, then I will be asking the government to table them. He has not done that, but I assure the member that I am listening very carefully.

Mr Duncan: A point of order on another matter, Mr Speaker: In your response to me last fall, you did not specify how many references would have to be made-

The Speaker: That is the same point of order. Would the member take his seat when I'm standing, please. Would the member please take his seat while I am standing. That is on the same point of order. I am not going to repeat it. We are very clear. What has happened in doing these points of order during question period-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I warn the member, one more outburst and I will have to name him. One more outburst and I will name the member.

Continuing with the member of the third party.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday and today the people of Ontario are watching you and the Liberals play a game of tag with our health care system. You say you'll have to see the Liberal chequebook before you can improve patients' access to doctors, to nurse practitioners and nurses. But before the recent Liberal budget, you were out there everywhere across Ontario not pleading for health care funding;you were pleading for tax cuts. Liberal backbenchers were out there doing the same thing, talking about tax cuts rather than health care.

Premier, the issue is this: Are you going to move now to make sure that family doctors, nurse practitioners and nurses are more available to the patients of Ontario, or are you going to continue to play tag with the Liberals over who should take the lead in health care?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me say that I think it is a good question and it's a timely question. The answer is yes, we are moving ahead with more nurses, with more nurse practitioners, with more doctors, with more specialists, with more equipment, with more home care. We are moving ahead with more primary care reform. We are moving ahead on all of those fronts.

Let me be very clear that I led the charge through two first ministers' conferences in advance of the last federal budget. In both of them the number one priority we called for was health care: restoration of the $4.2 billion cut from the health care funding. At the same time, there's no question we also called, because the surplus was so massive at the federal level, for tax cuts. Why? Because in addition to first quality health care, we also wanted jobs for Canadians all across this country.

Mr Hampton: I think out of that, Premier, we're clear on one thing: You and the Liberals, when it comes down to the crunch, favour tax cuts for the well-off over health care funding. That's the bottom line.

In your own government, you said five years ago that you were in favour of primary care reform. Yesterday you said that it costs too much. Premier, maybe you don't understand the concept. It costs more to send a patient to an emergency room than it costs for that patient to have access to a physician or a nurse practitioner. Making optimum use of the skills of nurse practitioners and nurses will save the health care system money. It costs more to treat a person after they've become ill than it costs to prevent them from becoming ill in the first place. That's what primary care reform is all about.

Premier, if you have a study that shows us that primary care reform is more-

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

Hon Mr Harris: Let me first of all correct the record on a couple of statements that were part of the question. First of all, we have put health care funding first and foremost. We made up a $1.7-billion cut to Ontario and then we added $3 billion more. That's $4.7 billion more into health care in our term of office than was being spent before.

Surely you, and whoever is nattering away beside you, appreciate the terrible mess you left us in, in health care, the terrible inaction that you and the Liberals left us with. You would know how difficult it was to make up not only $3 billion of new money with a $10-billion deficit, but in fact to make up $1.7 billion worth of health cuts as well coming from the federal level. With regard to primary care before, I have not seen one study that says it costs less. I have seen-

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

Mr Hampton: Premier, I accept that your government spent a lot of money laying off 10,000 nurses and then trying to figure out a way to hire them back, you spent a lot of money closing down hospitals and then deciding that you couldn't close them down, and you spent a lot of money shovelling more dollars into doctors' pockets without getting primary care reform.

I've heard you say you believe in primary care reform but that you want it to be voluntary. I've heard Mr McGuinty and the Liberals say, "We want primary care reform but we want it to be voluntary." You know, I know and the physicians know that it won't happen voluntarily. It's going to take some leadership. You know, I know and everybody else out there knows that primary care reform-making optimum use of the skills of nurse practitioners and nurses, moving doctors off fee-for-service and on to salary-will save us money. Premier, when are you going to show some leadership on health care and stop passing the ball back and forth from the Liberals, who are in the same game that you're in?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me be very clear. You've defined the Liberals' position. They've had about eight on primary care that I've seen over the last little while. At one point they were in favour. At one point, two or three years ago, I heard Dalton McGuinty say, "We'd just order it." Now we hear him say that it should be voluntary.

Let me say that you at least have been consistent. You would just order it; you would just say to doctors, "We'll order you to do this." But here's the tragedy in that argument: You were in government for five years and you did nothing. You did nothing on nurse practitioners. This government, this Minister of Health, brought in the new legislation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier, take your seat.

I apologize. Is the Premier finished?

Hon Mr Harris: It was this government that brought in the seven pilot projects. It's this government that started teletriage services in northern Ontario and in the pilot projects. This government brought forward legislation on nurse practitioners. This government has now hired 220 nurse practitioners with $50 million. You talk-

The Speaker: Order. The Premier's time is up. New question.

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My next question is for the Chair of Management Board. All of the most controversial land deals at the Ontario Realty Corp, where the taxpayers of Ontario have been swindled out of millions of dollars, have happened while you were the minister in charge: the Joseph Chetti case in Brampton, the Frank Gabriele situation in Mississauga, the 145 Eastern Avenue deal. Minister,

section 85 of the Ministry of Government Services Act says: "Any disposal by the minister or the Ontario Realty Corp of real property or an interest therein is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council." Minister, tell us, did you go to cabinet and recommend those deals? Because that's the only way they could get past cabinet. Did you go to cabinet and recommend those deals?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The member is fully aware, or he ought to be aware, that the proper steps are being taken according to proper processes when allegations that have been made are being reviewed. The senior management team of the ORC discovered some irregularities and they followed the proper process by asking for an audit to be conducted. That auditor needed assistance and asked for a forensic auditing outside team to take a look at it. They saw some irregularities and they've referred the matter to the police to review. He knows that I can't comment on the specifics on any of these files that may or not be under investigation.

Mr Hampton: Minister, this is a bit unbelievable. You try to say that you're fixing the problem, but the fact of the matter is that the three biggest swindles happened while you have been the minister. You say you've taken action. The only action I can see is that you got your twin, Mr Miele, who was fresh from selling off federal land in another swindle, to come and help you.

It boils down to this: You've presided over this. You've got to go. You can't sit here and claim that you're going to clean it up when you presided over it. As for your refusal to answer the question, it boils down to: Are you corrupt or are you merely incompetent?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I would ask-

Mr Hampton: I withdraw.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. He has withdrawn it. I appreciate it.

Mr Hampton: Are you merely incompetent or do you have another problem?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think anybody who is objective and has reviewed the facts in this matter would say that this is a government that's being open and accountable. We're the ones who supported the ORC's board of directors to start this review, and that has led to the police being called to review these transactions in the past.

Going forward, this new board, which was unanimously approved by this House and through their committee, appointed a new senior executive team that has brought in new policies and procedures to improve the way the Ontario Realty Corp conducts its business. Those policies will lead to a more open and accountable ORC, which will add to the value that organization brings to the taxpayers of this province.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the same minister. Last fall, on November 4, we asked in the Legislature about allegations not only about the two deals that were in question at that time but specifically about any other allegations. Your answer was, "With respect to your question about any other allegation, the answer is `no.'" That was on November 4.

Since that time we have seen a number of deals that are questionable, that are scandalous, and frankly they have defrauded the taxpayers of Ontario. You claimed in November and again in December in this Legislature that everything was fine, that everything was under control and that there were no problems with the ORC. Based on that, can you advise the House today on what date you or any of your staff were made aware of any irregularities at the Ontario Realty Corp?

Hon Mr Hodgson: For the record, on November 3 and 4, 1999, the member asked me to call for a police investigation into allegations of bid-rigging and corruption. He asked me if I was aware of those allegations. I told him I was not aware of any specific allegations, which was true.

In December of last year, the president of the ORC brought to my attention the fact that, through the course of his due diligence and senior management's due diligence, he had discovered some irregularities that he wanted an independent body to review. What I was aware of at the time, in answer to the member's question, is that I had directed the ORC board of directors to put in place a sales process that is accountable, transparent and open to the public. It was through their due diligence that this proper process began. I also asked at the time if this member or anybody in his party had any information of specific allegations, and to this date I've heard none from that party.

Mr Agostino: I'm amazed at the fact that an audit was carried out over the summer and fall which showed irregularities. The minister wants us to believe that as minister in charge of the ORC, he was not made aware of any of these irregularities until December. You're telling us that an audit was carried out in the summer and fall and that you were only advised in December that there were irregularities at the Ontario Realty Corp.

Minister, the audit was in the fall. You claim you were told in December. You called in a forensic audit a day after the story broke in the media. Only at that time did you call the forensic auditors. You rejected our calls at that time for the OPP to come in, and the police were only called in at the end of March. That is a gap of anywhere from four to six months when the irregularities were first discovered. That can only lead one to believe there are two things here: either (

a) incompetence at the ORC and incompetence on your part for not having this information, or (

b) a political cover-up by the Ontario Realty Corp and by your staff and your office and your government.

Can you explain the gap, why it took so long for the police to-

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

Hon Mr Hodgson: First of all, I disagree with the premise. It was a review by the senior management team and the president that uncovered some irregularities in past transactions that had taken place in the Ontario Realty Corp. That was in late fall. It was in December that they called for the audit, and this spring that auditor asked for assistance, for outside help. Those are the facts as I know them, and the proper process is being followed. We want to get to the bottom of this. If you have any specific allegations, by all means please share them. It would be helpful.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Last fall, after your announcement that you were going to be taking immediate action to reduce the backlog and waiting time for road test exams that are required as part of your ministry's graduated licensing system, you and I visited the John Rhodes examination centre in my riding to see at first hand the difficulties new drivers are having in obtaining their licences. We all know that the economy of Ontario is driven in large part by the automobile, and for many people in this province it's absolutely crucial that they are able to take these road test exams in a timely manner.

Minister, can you update us on what progress the ministry has made in reducing the waiting time for road tests?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): I'm very pleased to announce that province-wide the average wait time has been cut in half. The average wait time for G1 tests is now seven weeks and the average wait time for G2 tests is now 12 weeks. Saturday appointments have been made available, and now over 6,800 tests have occurred on Saturday. We have a province-wide toll-free number, 1-888-570-6110, and it is working well in advising people where the closest test date will be.

We have extended for one year the temporary licences which allow people to drive until the next available test. We have made 325,000 more tests available per year, almost-

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

Mr Gill: Thank you, Minister, for that update. I know the residents of my riding, in particular, will be interested to learn the update you provided on improving the road test backlog locally.

Minister, all Ontarians are concerned about the safety of the roads we drive on. Can you tell me, how does the graduated licensing system increase safety for Ontario motorists?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Turnbull: Pay attention; this is rather important.

Collisions for novice drivers are now down by 31% and fatality and injury rates are down by 24%.

We've brought in many other safety measures since we became the government: absolute liability offence for truck wheel separations, remedial measures for convicted drunk drivers, vehicle impoundment for suspended drivers who drive, increased fines for failure to stop for a stopped school bus and commercial vehicle impoundment. We now have the lowest number of fatalities since 1950. We are the fourth safest roads in the whole of North America.

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): The question is for the Chair of Management Board. Minister, I want to go back again to when you were made aware of irregularities at the Ontario Realty Corp. These dates are important because these dates reflect ministerial accountability and ministerial responsibility for actions that have taken place.

You were asked on November 3 and 4 about irregularities or problems at the ORC. You claimed you did not know of any others at that point that had been brought to your attention. You claimed in your previous statement that you were made aware there was an audit ordered in December. Again, I go back: You said you were made aware in December. Can you provide to this House the specific date in December that you were made aware of the allegations and the date in December that the audit was ordered?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I don't have the exact dates. I can tell you it was late November when Tony Miele and the senior management team discovered some irregularities in past practices, and it was some point in December when the auditor from Management Board was retained. I can get that for you.

Mr Agostino: I would hope that now that the minister has the question, his staff or the minister can get back to us with the dates specifically when you or your staff were made aware and in regard to when the audit was called.

Let me quote from a letter of March 7 that you sent to Mr Mavrinac, the chair of the board of the Ontario Realty Corp:

"Over the summer and fall of 1999, as part of appropriate due diligence, the CEO began a review of sales transactions. In cases where concerns were noted, specific files were provided to the Management Board auditor for review in the fall of 1999."

Suggesting that late December refers to the fall of 1999 I think is stretching credibility and is simply trying to protect what you said in this House in November and on December 4. Very clearly, these problems were noted over the summer and fall of 1999.

Minister, how can we believe that late December 1999, when you were advised that this audit had taken place, and in the letter that you sent-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I'm afraid the member's time is up. Chair of Management Board.

Hon Mr Hodgson: There's absolutely no contradiction there. That shows the due diligence that I asked the ORC board to ask their senior management to do throughout the fall, to do a review of all past transactions. They spotted some irregularities in late November and they asked for an audit, and they took the proper process to do that. They have to have evidence.

We want to make sure that this organization acts in the best interests of the taxpayers of this province. This is part of their job and their due diligence, and they followed the proper action.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, in the past week our government began a process of explaining to Ontarians through a media cam paign the realities of the federal Liberal government's declining contribution to health care.

Since 1995, the federal Liberal government's contribution has declined to the point where that government's contribution is now only 11% of health care costs. Ontario pays the remaining 89%.

Furthermore, the Ontario Liberals have stood idly by, never criticizing their federal cousins or even acknowledging that the federal cuts took place, all the while trying to deflect blame to us. The federal government has no plan for improving health care.

Last week you met with the country's health ministers and you outlined what Ontario was doing and what our plans were for improving health care. I wonder if you could share the information with us that you shared with them.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Yes. I'm pleased to say that last week, when I met with my provincial, territorial and federal colleagues, we had the opportunity to share with the federal government the tremendous innovation and reform that we were undertaking in this province without any support or leadership on the part of the federal government.

We spoke about the initiatives that we had undertaken in the way of primary care reform, that that had been a priority for this government since 1995, in order to ensure that people could have access to 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week care by doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners.

We spoke about our expansion of 20,000 long-term-care beds to respond to the needs of our older population.

We spoke about the expansion of our home care and our community services, the provision of nursing, therapy, and other services in the community, and the fact that we were funding this-

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

Mr Wettlaufer: Minister, the Prime Minister's response was to launch a media campaign in an attempt to discredit you and hide the fact that they don't have a plan.

What was Allan Rock's response when you suggested what our plan was?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As we presented our plans for reform, for transformation, adaptation and innovation, the health minister politely listened. However, unfortunately we left the meeting with absolutely no additional funding, no indication of any plan that the federal government had for health care reform whatsoever. That was perhaps the most disappointing: that there was no direction and there was no vision on the part of the federal government, and they were unwilling to commit to work with us on our plans of reform and innovation.

CANADIAN FRANCHISE ASSOCIATION

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, the Canadian Franchise Association, a very influential adviser to you and your staff on Bill 33, claims to be committed to fairness in franchising. But there are hundreds of franchisees out there who dare to differ, who say in fact the opposite is true.

The Canadian Franchise Association refused to accept a registered letter of complaint from Bulk Barn franchisees. When I tried to deliver it to the president of the CFA during the hearings in March, he returned the same letter. Today, I'm asking you if you would take a look at this letter and investigate the complaints of Bulk Barns and also investigate the actions of the CFA in this instance and how they stack up against the so-called code of ethics they keep talking about, both at the hearings and in an

article today in the Globe and Mail.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'm not aware of the specific concern the member raises, but I'll certainly be more than willing to take a look at the correspondence he has made reference to, follow up on it and get back to him in a timely way.

Mr Martin: I want to thank the minister for that commitment. You need to know, Minister, that there's a very troubling story brewing out there in Ontario. Today, we have with us in the gallery one Brenda Hope, a franchisee who has been treated terribly by a company called Chemwise. Her story was written up in the Toronto Star on the ides of March. The CFA has refused to look at her case.

As a matter of fact, the CFA knew there was a problem with Chemwise a year ago and did nothing to correct it or to look into it so that people like Brenda Hope wouldn't become victims of that system and franchising here in Ontario. The CFA knows of her troubles. They know of troubles with a myriad of other systems in Ontario today.

Will you agree today to meet with Brenda Hope so that she might tell you her story and investigate her story, the Bulk Barn story that I presented to you by way of that registered letter and the Canadian Franchise Association so that-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I'm afraid the member's time is up, unfortunately. Minister.

Hon Mr Runciman: I acknowledge the member's interest in this issue and appreciate his hard work. It's regrettable that his party didn't have the same degree of interest in this issue that he clearly has. This is the first government to move on this issue, on this initiative, only the second government in Canada. In fact, our legislation, as I'm sure if he wants to be fair he would acknowledge, is stronger than the legislation in Alberta in terms of protecting franchisees.

Certainly if someone has a concern, I'd be more than happy to hear that concern and to address it as best we can. But I don't want anyone to have an impression from this discussion that this government has not been committed to introducing and passing legislation that's going to protect franchisees in this province.

GLOBAL WARMING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. At a key meeting of environment and energy ministers in Vancouver last week, held to devise a federal-provincial agreement on climate change, Ontario, instead of providing leadership on the environment as it has in the past, was labelled as the chief obstacle to progress.

According to even normally cautious industry spokespersons, Ontario has taken an environmental posture that makes Ralph Klein look progressive. Your foot-dragging is so anti-environment that even the polluting industries are complaining about you. David MacInnis of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said of your government, "Until the provincial government steps up and takes a leadership role, it's going to be tough to convince Ontarians to take global warming seriously." According to reports from the meeting, "Ontario Energy Minister Jim Wilson and Environment Minister Dan Newman spearheaded the opposition to any specific action."

Minister, why are you using discarded anti-environment rhetoric that even the big polluters have abandoned in your attempt to block any meaningful action on global warming?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I want to thank the member opposite for his question. I also want to thank him for showing up at my swearing-in. I didn't even have to invite him and he still showed up, so I think he endorses my appointment as minister.

In Vancouver at the joint ministers' meeting on climate change, Ontario took a very active role. I want to tell the honourable member and all members here today what I did as environment minister. I emphasized how we needed to proceed with reducing greenhouse gas emissions through provincial action, and we're doing that in Ontario. I pushed to continue to lobby the federal government for a comprehensive and effective strategy on climate change, and I also pushed to require the federal government to respect provincial jurisdiction in responding to the climate change issue.

The member opposite mentioned today a story in the paper. That's what it was: a story. If he had read the story further, he would have seen that one of the conditions listed in the newspaper was the fact that there would be a 20% reduction in emissions. This government has reduced emissions by 40%. Why would we-

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

Mr Bradley: The biggest single roadblock to making a deal on climate change in Ontario, according to Robert Hornung, climate change director for the Alberta-based Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development-he referred to Premier Mike Harris's government as "anti-environmental" and compared Ontario to some industrialized countries at the 1997 Kyoto conference, who were concerned mainly about the economic costs of taking action.

Yet hundreds of business leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, recently voted climate change as the greatest challenge facing the world at the beginning of this century. Some 200 scientists in 50 countries surveyed by the United Nations identified global warming as one of the top two most worrying problems for the new millennium.

Why, in the face of all the evidence of impending catastrophic environmental change that would result from global warming, are you and your government leading the charge against any significant action to head off this major problem? Why are you using yesterday's polluters' rhetoric and script to justify your dinosaur-like attitudes on the environment?

Hon Mr Newman: Nothing could be further from the truth. We took strong action in Vancouver at the joint ministers' meeting. In fact, federal environment minister David Anderson congratulated Ontario for the role that it played in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In Ontario, we have reduced greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality with programs like the Drive Clean program, by our emissions reduction trading pilot program, Ontario's anti-smog action plan, by landfill management regulations and by our proposed environmental regulations for a new, competitive electricity market. We've taken strong action. Why won't the federal government?

INTERNET

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is to the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. The Internet has generated a great deal of excitement around the world. Will the minister inform the House what the government has done to ensure that areas like Waterloo-Wellington and the rest of the province fully benefit from the developments in this electronic revolution?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I thank the member for Waterloo-Wellington for the question. The Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology has supported information highway initiatives since 1997 through the telecommunications access partnership program, TAP. TAP has assisted 35 projects involving over 300 partners, with a commitment of $32.5 million toward projects exceeding $100 million in total value. Two of these leading-edge information highway projects are located in Waterloo: the rural Waterloo community network and the Waterloo information network.

Recently, the Minister of Natural Resources and I were in Waterloo to announce a new initiative to further advance the information highway in Ontario, called Connect Ontario. This SuperBuild initiative will invest $82 million to connect 50 communities across Ontario. Connect Ontario will enhance the competitiveness of our communities in the new digital economy and spur growth in jobs, new investment and economic development opportunities. We are leading Canada, indeed we're leading North America, in Internet connectedness, a government record we are proud of.

Mr Arnott: I want to thank the minister for that response. I happen to know that this week he's celebrating his 37th birthday. I wish him a happy birthday as well.

Could the minister, by way of supplementary, inform the House on how Connect Ontario will work and how it will benefit the people of Ontario.

Hon Mr Wilson: Thank you for that enlightening piece of information. If I'm celebrating my 37th, then in four days the honourable member is celebrating his 37th.

Connect Ontario will invest $50 million in broad-based partnerships to create a high-tech network of 50 connected smart communities across Ontario. An additional $32-million component called GeoSmart will make land-related geospatial information available to and usable by connected smart communities. GeoSmart will integrate land-related data across the province and will facilitate geospatial business applications required by most communities and many large and small businesses.

Connected communities will have interactive Web sites which will allow the public to conduct many transactions, like obtaining licences and permits and paying taxes and bills on-line. Through GeoSmart, you'll be able to find local businesses, tourism sites and cultural attractions on a computerized map and obtain directions on how to get there. This new initiative will become a one-stop portal of information.

Through connections-

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

LOW LAKE LEVELS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. As you are aware, abnormally low lake levels have affected rivers, streams and harbours in the Great Lakes area. Therefore, marinas and lake access in my riding of Essex, bounded by Lake St Clair, the Detroit River and Lake Erie, have been affected. Indeed, the problem exists on many parts of the Ontario shoreline. These low lake levels are having a devastating effect on small business employment and on tourism as a whole. In fact, I recently wrote you about the problem.

Minister, I'm asking that you give this emergency your personal attention. Will you consider giving special assistance to residents and marina owners in my riding of Essex by sharing the cost of necessary dredging?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to thank the member for bringing up what is a very serious issue in Ontario, not just with the Great Lakes but with other bodies of water. I think there are people in communities right across this province who are concerned about low lake levels.

I can tell the member opposite that, in co-operation with the Ministry of the Environment, my ministry and other agencies of the government have taken on an initiative to make sure we fully understand what is happening in terms of low lake levels and can provide the proper information to communities both in Essex and other parts of Ontario which need that information to do proper water planning, not just for this season but for the future.

Mr Crozier: Minister, I appreciate that, and that's speaking perhaps of groundwater. But this is a special circumstance that has been created and it is adversely affecting tourism in the province. Out-of-province boaters simply can't have access to marinas in the location of my riding. Property owners and marinas have lost almost total access to rivers and lakes.

In fact, I would hope that you look at this as a special circumstance, in addition to the groundwater problem, and at least come to the table with the marina operators in my area and provide some expertise from your ministry to help them solve that problem.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, I thank the honourable member for the question, for raising in the House a very serious issue. We in our ministry certainly are very interested in working with conservation authorities and municipalities in their concern about lake levels, about access. I'd be more than happy to provide the expertise that the ministry has to those agencies.

AIR TRANSPORTATION

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. We in Ontario are fortunate to have access to many different airports-and believe me, if you've been to Fort Severn, you certainly know about airports-that take our travellers all around the globe. For the most part, these trips are successful and enjoyable. However, complaints about airline services are too frequent. Inability to find out information about delays, seating options and competitive fares are just some of the concerns that air passengers have raised, as we have seen through the reports in the media.

Through claims of individuals such as Cliff Mackay's of the Air Transport Association of Canada about what the problem is, we certainly have questions about what the media are saying about air transportation.

Minister, could you explain to me what steps you have taken to improve the experiences of Ontario travellers?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The consumer ministry is responsible for the travel industry act, and as part of a consultation late last year I met with stakeholders in the travel industry in Ontario and listened to a range of concerns about airline passenger complaints with respect to operations out of Ontario and out of other provinces in this country.

As a result of those discussions, we developed a discussion paper, Improving Quality Service Standards for Airline Passengers, and have passed this on to the federal Minister of Transport, Mr Collenette, with the sincere hope that he will follow the advice of Ontario consumers and Ontario travel agents operating very successfully in this province.

Mr Ouellette: The service that Ontarians receive in the air should be, without question, of the highest quality. I appreciate your taking on the task of informing the federal government what Ontario travellers are looking for.

Some people may be concerned that these recommendations may add additional red tape to an already highly regulated industry. Can you assure this House that your suggestions do not contain any unnecessary rules and regulations?

Hon Mr Runciman: There is nothing in this report that would suggest a return to the regulated environment that existed some years ago. These are purely voluntary recommendations, in the sense of providing advice to the federal government and to airline and charter operators across this country.

I have to say that I was concerned when I saw the response of the Canadian transportation association suggesting that there were no problems, no complaints of consumers in this country. Certainly my office has been inundated with concerns and complaints and, to be quite frank, horror stories. We're hoping that the federal government will respond. One of the reasons the Canadian transportation association is not hearing complaints is because consumers do not know who to complain to or how to complain. We have suggested the establishment of a registry at the federal level to receive consumer complaints and to deal with them and to inform the public in a timely way.

GOVERNMENT'S ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I have a question for the new Minister of the Environment. The 1994 Canada-Ontario agreement committed Ontario and Ottawa to clean up 17 heavily polluted areas of concern on the Great Lakes, to reduce persistent toxic substances that pollute the lakes and harm our health, and to make serious financial commitments to support these efforts. Since the Harris government came to power you have systematically cut funding, and now you have let this important agreement expire. The Great Lakes are once again at the mercy of polluters, and you just let the feds walk away from this.

Minister, this is a disgraceful start for you as the new minister. What are you going to do about it?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): This government is indeed committed to cleaning up, protecting and conserving our Great Lakes. In fact, the Great Lakes today are cleaner than they have been in decades, and Ontario recognizes that still more needs to be done. Yes, the Canada-Ontario agreement has expired. Officials have been speaking with our federal counterparts, and we've agreed to continue our co-operative efforts and to examine how we can best expand upon the momentum and progress we've made to date. Although the agreement has expired, I want to assure you that the commitments, programs and funding of the Canada-Ontario agreement remain in place.

Ms Churley: That is nonsense. You have already cut the funding. Go back and check that with your officials.

But I want to ask you another question. The National Post, the Globe and Mail and many others have recently said that you led the charge against concrete proposals to help Canada reduce greenhouse gas emissions. You should know, even if you are new to this, that Ontario's role is important for all of Canada to meet its Kyoto commitments. You went to the federal-provincial meeting as our new environment minister and you embarrassed us. You went to be there for the environment and you opposed every concrete proposal to reduce greenhouse gas. Minister, is there an explanation, or should we ask for your resignation today?

Hon Mr Newman: That's the best one I've heard since March 3. At the joint ministers' meeting, Minister Wilson and I played strong roles to get the federal government and the other provinces to go along with what Ontario is doing. In fact, to implement Kyoto without an assessment of the different options, including the costs, benefits and risks, would lead to ineffective, overly costly actions that will burden our industries and put Ontario's economy at a disadvantage with our trading partners around the world.

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Despite a moderate winter season, concerns about the maintenance of our provincial highway system have never been greater. As you change your standards by, among other things, lengthening road patrols, public confidence in the safety of our roads has plummeted. Now, as you move relentlessly towards full privatization of highway maintenance across the province, the facts indicate that not only are our roads less safe but that this privatization will actually cost taxpayers more money for diminished service levels.

In his report last November, the Provincial Auditor exposed the financial disaster that is likely awaiting us if you continue down this road, yet you continue to dismiss his report and our strong concerns as baseless.

Minister, will you stand in the Legislature today and guarantee that your privatization of road maintenance will achieve the 5% savings you are committed to, and if you are proven wrong, as we believe you will be, will you resign?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): Let me start by saying that road safety is our government's absolute top priority. Let me be very clear with you: There has been absolutely no reduction in winter maintenance standards. Do you understand? No reduction.

MTO has been outsourcing work since the early 1970s, and MTO staff monitor the work of the private contractors before, during and after winter storms. Contractors are contractually obliged to meet MTO standards. There is absolutely no room for cost cutting.

Clearly, we urge all motorists to adjust their driving-

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

Mr Gravelle: Minister, you began this privatization move back in 1996 with a three-year pilot project in the Chatham-Kent district, which we now sadly know as Carnage Alley. Years before the pilot was completed, and certainly before its effectiveness could be evaluated both from a fiscal and a public safety point of view, you pushed ahead with a plan to fully privatize this important public service across the province.

My question is very simple: How can you justify moving ahead before your own pilot project in Chatham-Kent was completed, without any evaluation of whether the privatization of highway maintenance was of benefit to taxpayers, let alone not affecting the public safety of drivers on this incredibly dangerous and frightening stretch of road? Minister, how can you justify that?

Hon Mr Turnbull: We are committed to finding efficiencies in government, unlike your party when they were the government. The auditor reviewed only 20% of the contracts. Subsequently more competition has been found and higher savings have been achieved. Regardless of the accounting method used, we are achieving or exceeding, in all cases, 5% savings. That's good news for taxpayers. We are investing the 5% in the roads, something you wouldn't relate to, because your party left the roads in a disastrous state when you were thrown out of office.

We are committed, on an ongoing basis, to finding efficiencies. But it will not be at the cost of safety, sir.

PETITIONS

WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas all women in Ontario should have access to the highest quality health care; and

"Whereas all women in Ontario should have access to drug therapies that will prevent diseases that most affect women after menopause, such as osteoporosis, heart disease and breast cancer;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government provide immediate access, through the Ontario drug benefit plan, to scientifically proven drug therapies, such as Evista, where a physician believes it is appropriate" and in the best interests of the woman.

I affix my signature to this petition.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I have a petition from the riding of Durham, of course. It's presented by Maria Speciale.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas children are exposed to sexually explicit material in variety stores and video rental outlets;

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to sexually explicit material;

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

"To enact legislation which will:

"Create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to sexually explicit material in retail establishments; and

"Make it illegal to sell, rent, or loan sexually explicit materials to minors."

I present this on behalf of my petitioners and I'm pleased to support it.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I have a further petition which I have received in my office that states: "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;

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

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

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

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

"Do not privatize our health care system."

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

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to present a petition from residents in the riding of Durham, constituents Pat Wilson, Monica Hoy and Paul Hoy, who, by the way, is a doctor, and Marie Gagnon. It reads as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas we have recently learned that our tax money is being used to pay the rent on the Morgentaler abortuary; and

"Whereas by the end of his lease this amount will be $5 million;

"Whereas we strongly object to this use of our tax dollars;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to immediately cease these payments."

I'm pleased to support this petition.

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 route 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 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."

This petition is signed by a number of residents from Leamington and area and I sign my name to it.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a petition on behalf of many of the citizens in the Hamilton area.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government has cut $40 million from the budget of the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp, which has resulted in a health care crisis in Hamilton-Wentworth and left the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp with a $40-million deficit; and

"Whereas the HHSC is now planning to downsize and cut back services at the Henderson hospital by converting the hospital to a day care with urgent care, rather than an emergency department; and

"Whereas this will have serious impact on emergency services for the 200,000 residents of Hamilton Mountain, upper Stoney Creek, Glanbrook, Ancaster and other communities above the escarpment; and

"Whereas the mountain population is a rapidly growing community and deserves and needs a full-service hospital; and

"Whereas an ambulatory care centre is not an acceptable replacement for a 24-hour emergency ward; and

"Whereas it does not make sense to spend $100 million for a new cancer centre rather than half that amount to expand existing facilities at the Henderson General Hospital; and

"Whereas Mike Harris said in February the Henderson would remain open for acute and cancer care;

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

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario direct the Harris government to restore the funding cuts to the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp and develop long-term solutions for the maintenance of appropriate acute care services at the Henderson hospital to serve the needs of the growing population of Hamilton-Wentworth and central south Ontario."

In support of these petitioners, I add my name.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure, on this day when our Attorney General is standing up and speaking out for victims, to present a petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to support this and put my name to the petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): The people of northern Ontario continue to be incensed about the inadequacy of the northern health travel grant. Petitions keep coming in. I have over 1,000 signatures here. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am very pleased to sign this. I have heard this from many people across northern Ontario.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I continue to receive petitions from auto workers. They are forwarded to me by Cathy Walker, the national health and safety director, and Buzz Hargrove, the national president of the Canadian Auto Workers.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I add my name to theirs in support of this petition.

ABORTION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I have a petition signed by a number of people from Mount Forest and Arthur. It's addressed 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 46,000 abortions in 1995 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."

CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have one to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas cultural organizations make an outstanding contribution to our province by sharing their customs, traditions, language and arts;

"Whereas our cultural organizations are generous in their benevolent contribution to the people of their communities;

"Whereas dramatic and unjustified increases in assessment for our cultural halls have created an extreme hardship for their membership;

"Be it resolved that the provincial government reinstate the previous assessment treatment for such facilities and abandon the assessment change that is so detrimental to our cultural organizations."

I affix my signature as I'm in agreement with it.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I continue to get a number of petitions, and although they are on the same topic, it's my duty to read them in the Legislature.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas we have recently learned that our tax money is being used to pay the rent on the Morgentaler abortuary; and

"Whereas by the end of his lease this amount will be $5 million; and

"Whereas we strongly object to this use of our tax dollars;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to immediately cease these payments."

I'm pleased to sign this petition.

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 geographical locations;

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

It's signed by another 170 concerned constituents.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I move that the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

(

d) Reminds the federal Minister of Health, the Honourable Allan Rock, that the sincerity of his commitment to medicare and the principles of the Canada Health Act would be best demonstrated not by idle rhetoric and vague words but by restoring the health funding he has cut.

I would like to split my time with the members from Kitchener-Waterloo, Waterloo-Wellington, Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey and Willowdale.

This is the first motion we introduced for this session. I believe that we have provided some time to all opposition parties. Notice that (

a) we said we would introduce the motion, and (

b) we introduced it yesterday so we'd have some time for all members to consider it.

During the mid-90s, the federal Liberal government made a very historic decision. This was a decision that would have an enormous impact on the people of Canada, a decision that we are still struggling to deal with today. The Chrétien government began making the biggest cuts to health care funding in Canadian history. Whether they want to admit it or not, that decision hurt this country's health care system and it hurt this country's people.

Today, annual base funding for the CHST-this is the federal program that supports health care-is still $4.2 billion lower than when the Liberals began cutting. Tax points, as phony an argument as that is, have not changed in the last 25 years. They were there 25 years ago, they were there 20 years ago, they were there 15 years ago, they were there when the Chrétien government was elected, and they are there today in exactly the same form as they were 25 years ago. What has changed is the actual federal dollar contribution to health care.

That has been $4.2 billion, real dollars, not indexed for inflation, not indexed for the cost increases in health care-4.2 billion real dollars less each and every year from the federal government.

As well, every third party, every independent, every government document from every ministry, including every budget document, indicates clearly that they have cut $4.2 billion, regardless of whatever rhetoric they may have in paid advertising or in speeches. This has left every province in Canada struggling to make up the difference, to close the funding gap created by the federal government's cuts. It has left every province struggling to increase funding even further to provide more and new services to patients.

But, although the federal government's health care funding has decreased, our people's need for health care has not decreased. Ontario has maintained a quality system. I want to repeat that: We've maintained a quality system despite the federal cuts. Not only have we made up for the federal cuts costing Ontario $1.7 billion; we've increased annual funding by $3 billion more, on top of that, since we took office. Even though we've called on the federal government time and again, the recent federal budget provided no permanent health funding.

Our government has launched an advertising campaign to convince the federal government to give back over $4 billion that Ottawa cut from health care across the country. This $3-million advertising investment is to get $4.2 billion back into the hands of our provincial health ministers, where those dollars belong.

You know, as the Minister of Health has said, "We have no choice but to increase pressure on the federal government, since its cuts continue to put serious pressure on all the provinces."

The calls to restore funding aren't just coming from the government of Ontario; they're coming from health providers, they're coming from all other Premiers and territorial leaders, they're coming from all other health ministers, they're coming from doctors, from nurses, from professionals all across the country.

Newfoundland Premier Brian Tobin was interviewed during the recent federal Liberal convention, a pretty well identified federal and provincial Liberal. Here's what he said: "We"-meaning the federal Liberal Party whose convention he was attending-"need to put our money where our mouth is."

Ontario's doctors, nurses and hospitals have published an open letter to the Prime Minister. They say: "Now, in an era of large budgetary surpluses and strong economic growth, it is time for the federal government to reinvest in our health care system and fully restore transfer payments to the provinces. Mr Prime Minister, we look to your government to reinvest in our cherished health care system. We ask that you work with the provinces to ensure health care services are maintained at the level Canadians expect and need."

When we launched our advertisements, the Ontario long-term care association issued a statement. They said, "The association and its members are supportive of the message contained in the public awareness campaign launched today by the provincial government to address the issue"-to address the issue of the underfunding, to put pressure to restore the $4.2 billion and to educate Ontarians and indeed Canadians as to what has happened to federal health care funding since the Chrétien government was elected.

We must, as a government, and I believe as individual members of the Ontario Legislature, condemn the federal government for failing to restore permanent health care funding, particularly now, at a time with such significant surpluses.

We must condemn the recent statement by a spokesperson for the federal finance minister, who implied that increasing health funding was a waste of money.

Despite earnest-sounding commitments to medicare and the principles of the Canada Health Act, Allan Rock will actually commit to one thing, and one thing only: talk, time frames for more meetings-not money, not real reform; time frames for more meetings.

I explained yesterday that while Allan Rock likes to talk about reforming the health care system, last week he wasn't ready to engage in meaningful dialogue about reform. I think he clearly lacked a mandate from his government, his party, his Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance to do so. The meeting's failure was directly attributable to the federal government's failure to do its homework, failure to come prepared to talk about reforms that the federal government had claimed to want to discuss.

Our Minister of Health went to those meetings prepared. She brought to Markham information and figures about Ontario's reform agenda, our health action plan. She was happy to explain to Allan Rock the reforms we are in the process right now of implementing, what they cost, what it would take and the cost to extend Ontario's reforms nationwide, home care, community care, pharmacare, expanded long-term care, primary care reform, hospital restructuring, and investments in new technology.

Allan Rock didn't come to the meeting with a commitment to provide stable long-term funding, and while that was a disappointment, it was not entirely a surprise. What was surprising is that he did not even have anything to say about our health reform agenda. Does the federal government support these reforms? Does it oppose them? Does the federal government think Ontario should be moving faster? Does it think we should be moving slower? Should we be doing things differently? Does the federal government take any position on the reforms now being implemented in each province all across this country?

What new ideas does the federal government have? What new ideas does the federal health minister have? We don't know, because the federal minister won't, or he didn't, say.

Instead, Allan Rock talked about process. His call for more meetings was simply more foot-dragging from the federal government. They implied-they have done this through the media, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance. They've left the impression that there's more money for the system if the system is reformed. Well, Allan Rock may not have noticed, but we've already moved from plans and process to action. Reform is underway. The reform train has left the station and they are not on it. They are not trying to get on it. They don't seem to want to be on it.

We are already improving our health care system in Ontario, and the other provinces are too. Consider some of the so-called new ideas that Allan Rock has mentioned, ideas that for some reason he was unable to discuss in a meaningful way last week.

First, expanded access to family doctors on a seven-day/24-hour basis. Health experts call this primary care reform. We announced primary care reform in July 1996. We have pilot projects running now in seven communities. We're working with the Ontario Medical Association to expand public access to family physicians. Since we're already at work, we don't need rhetoric from Ottawa; what we need is federal funding. Ontario already spends $4.2 billion annually on physician services. So today I ask Allan Rock, aside from the federal contribution to start-up costs, what portion of physicians' compensation will the federal government cover?

Second, Allan Rock has talked about home care and community care. These services take pressure off the hospital system by allowing patients to be treated at home or close to home-a good idea, but not exactly new. Ontario's home care program is already the most generous in the country. As we continue to expand community- and home-based care, we don't need more talk from Ottawa, but federal funding would certainly help. Ontario spends nearly $1.5 billion annually on home care and community care. So today I ask Allan Rock, what portion of that will the federal government cover?

Third, pharmacare. Allan Rock has talked about helping patients pay for drugs. Well, guess what? Ontario already offers the most generous public drug plan in the country. Except for modest deductibles and fees, the provincial government pays the cost of prescription drugs for seniors, social assistance recipients and families burdened by catastrophic illness. We continue to increase our support for drug care. We don't need words from Ottawa, but federal financial support would be welcome. Ontario already spends $1.6 billion annually for drug care.

So today I ask Allan Rock, what portion of that will the federal government cover? I ask Allan Rock, what kind of national pharmacare project do you support?

As I said yesterday, if there are to be future meetings, Allan Rock needs to do his homework and he needs to come prepared with ideas. He should tell us what new national reform programs he is prepared to support. He should come prepared to tell us which provincial reforms he doesn't support. He should tell us what else he thinks we should be doing. And when he comes, he must know how many long-term, stable, inflation-adjusted dollars will be available to the provinces to embark on these reforms.

Provinces are leery of new national programs without guaranteed funding. We're happy to talk about upping the standards to Ontario's level of pharmacare, long-term care and home care. We're happy to discuss how we can have a national program so Canadians from coast to coast in some of the have-not provinces can have these very real, cherished and tangible benefits that we have in Ontario.

But why are we leery of a new national program without guaranteed funding? Think of medicare: 50-50 to start, 50% federal and 50% provincial. The New Democratic Party plans to introduce a motion, I believe, called the Tommy Douglas bill: 50-50, Tommy Douglas said, 50% federal and 50% provincial. Today in Ontario it is 89% Ontario taxpayers, 11% federal taxpayers. That sums up the federal government's health care record: less funding. More talk, lots more talk, but no ideas and no financial support for reform.

Allan Rock talks about innovation, but either he does not have any new ideas or he is not prepared to talk about them. Why? We're not sure. We don't know if he's waiting for this fall or next spring. We don't know if he wants to wait until after an election before he talks about them. But I'll tell you, that's the impression he leaves with Canadians when he says he has ideas. He says, "I've got money if we'll just have reforms," but he won't tell us what reforms and he doesn't acknowledge the reforms taking place all across Canada. He does not acknowledge the changes that are taking place.

He does not acknowledge the contributions that provincial governments across this country have made to reform at the same time as we've had to do it with two hands tied behind our back because the federal government slashed funding.

Provincial governments have been innovating for years, despite the federal cuts to health care. Provincial governments are reforming to meet the needs of our growing and our aging population, despite these cuts. My colleague Premier Gary Doer of Manitoba recently