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

October 15, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Oct-15 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 15 October 2001 Lundi 15 octobre 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

EVENTS IN DURHAM

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

ONTARIO PUBLIC LIBRARY WEEK

SITE OF EARLY PARLIAMENT

ST MARY'S MANOR

CHILD HEALTH NETWORK

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

REENA FOUNDATION

SPEAKER'S RULING

MONIQUE GRENIER

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

QUALITY IN THE CLASSROOM

ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA QUALITÉ

DANS LES SALLES DE CLASSE

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

APPOINTMENT OF HOUSE OFFICERS

HOUSE SITTINGS

MINISTERS' STATEMENTS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION REFORM

CITIZENSHIP WEEK

EDUCATION REFORM

CITIZENSHIP WEEK

EDUCATION REFORM

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

NUCLEAR SAFETY

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

RENT REVIEW

TAXATION

HIGH TECHNOLOGY SECTOR

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

FOREST INDUSTRY

EDUCATION REFORM

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HIGHWAY SAFETY

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

VISITORS

PETITIONS

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

NURSES

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

PERSONAL NEEDS ALLOWANCE

AIR QUALITY

OHIP SERVICES

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

OHIP SERVICES

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

OHIP SERVICES

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Monday 15 October 2001 Lundi 15 octobre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): It is simply incredible that this government has refused to address the crisis in home care across the

province. In my community, as in too many other communities, the crisis is building to intolerable levels.

Last week, the Thunder Bay Regional Hospital described the backup that's starting to build in the hospital because patients can't get support at home and so

can't be discharged. Where's the sense of keeping someone in a hospital bed when the hospital is already full and when home care is less expensive than hospital care? Does this government think

it's OK to let waiting lists for surgery get longer and longer while they ignore the fact that cuts to home care mean more time spent in a hospital bed?

We get constant calls from the families of seniors who are faced with having to go into nursing homes because they can't manage at home without help. Why is this

government forcing seniors into nursing homes when they could stay in their own homes with a little more support?

We get many calls from individuals trying to manage at home on their own: people like Mrs M, who used to have nine hours of personal care but now only gets two

hours and was upset because she just can't manage to care for herself. Does this government want Mrs M to spend the rest of her days in a chronic care bed?

In my community, some of the most distressed calls we receive, though, are from parents of children with special needs who can't get the physical care they need

to be able to go to school. One of these families has a 21-year-old son who has cerebral palsy. Thanks to physiotherapy, speech therapy and support from the community care access centre, he made it

to the last year of high school. But this year his support has been cut and he's back on a waiting list, along with hundreds of others who used to get help before this government cut the

funding.

Cuts to home care make no financial sense, but, more than that, they are simply cruel. I say to the Mike Harris government, shame on you for making the most

needful people in our communities suffer so much.

EVENTS IN DURHAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House to recognize the business communities of Orono, Newcastle and downtown Bowmanville. They again

have exceeded all expectations in hosting outdoor fall festivals.

On Saturday, the annual Bowmanville Apple Festival and Craft Sale took place. Special attractions included huge tents filled with crafts on King Street. There

was also a lumberjack competition, musical entertainment, there were displays by community groups, plenty of locally grown apples, fritters, apple treats and cider. Over 10,000 people attended.

I'd like to congratulate Ron Hooper, chair of the Bowmanville Business Improvement Area, along with board members Jamie Kennedy, Jim Schell, Brian Purdy, Lori

Allin, Justin Barry, Edgar Lucas and Michael Sullivan. Congratulations also go Garth Gilpin, the BIA general manager, who is retiring shortly, and indeed all the BIA members and volunteers.

The Newcastle and District Chamber of Commerce Fall Festival was Saturday, September 29. This was another outstanding example of the whole community getting

together for a great family event. I'd like to congratulate and commend the chamber, the executives, specifically Terry and Jean Graham, and the membership and volunteers. One of the highlights was

the Newcastle Lions' walkathon for funds in support of guide dogs.

I would also like to recognize the Orona BIA and its successful chili cookoff that took place on Saturday, September 22.

I'm proud to report that the Durham riding has a 200-year history of building strong communities. The fall festivals in Clarington and Port Perry are just a few

examples that community spirit is alive and well in my riding.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): It is true, and this government wants to deny it, that the province is facing a crisis when it comes to

home care. CCACs are forced to cut services, and this is becoming evident in my community.

In my riding, I want to point out the case of Mr Derango. He and his wife have been looking after his elderly mother for some time. Now Mr Derango is undergoing

cancer treatment himself, if you can imagine. He is turning 70 and has to look after his elderly mother. The fact is, he can no longer do that and has applied for home care. Sadly, he has been told

that there isn't enough home care available, so he has been turned away.

Then there's the case of the Oddi family. A daughter-in-law who has a heart condition is looking after her father-in-law, who has Alzheimer's. She is also a

senior and is forced to look after this elderly parent.

We have a state of crisis in this province when it comes to home care. We repeatedly have told this government that this is the case. We now have real people

with real problems here. Can you imagine seniors in our province having to look after their elderly parents? That's the state of affairs we in Ontario find ourselves in, and it's completely

unacceptable. It's a result of this government's lack of funding for home care.

ONTARIO PUBLIC LIBRARY WEEK

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): As a former head of the library board in the former city of Etobicoke, it is with great pleasure that I rise

today to mark the opening and beginning of Ontario Public Library Week. This year's theme, "OPL: It's not just by the book any more," focuses on the information technology services offered by

today's libraries. Public libraries are offering so much more than just books. Patrons visiting any one of the excellent facilities in Etobicoke North will notice that there is so much more in

today's libraries, from books on tape and CDs to videos, DVDs, CD-ROMS, e-books, and of course the Internet.

As part of Ontario Public Library Week's celebrations, libraries across Etobicoke North will be holding special programs. Some libraries will hold sessions

designed to instruct patrons on how to tour the virtual reference library. As well, Web designers will hold workshops for children on introductory Web design skills. Local libraries will hold

workshops for students on how to effectively utilize homework help sites. In many libraries, patrons will be asked to mark on a map the locations they send e-mail to, with the expectation that the

entire globe will be covered.

Ontario's PL system has harnessed the power of information technology through the implementation of technology-based services. The local library has become an

indispensable service for the benefit of all Ontario citizens.

SITE OF EARLY PARLIAMENT

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I'm very pleased to inform Ontario parliamentarians that the first Parliament site, dating back

to 1813, has been found. It exists in my riding, and over the past several months I've had opportunities to be on the site of the archaeological dig building on the work of great people like Jane

Beecroft and Peggy Kurtin, who have worked so long on the matter of historical preservation. Archaeologists were on site -- Frank Dieterman and Ronald Williamson -- who have produced this book,

Government on Fire, a copy of which I'll be providing to the relevant minister.

Rollo Myers and a group called Citizens for the Old Town have championed doing an appropriate excavation of this site, and we've found important artifacts which

clearly date this to the War of 1812 and to the burning at the hands of the Americans. But this site requires action on the part of the Ontario government to find the resources within to make sure

the historical

interpretation of this site is made possible for the long term for all the citizens of Ontario.

Currently, this archaeological treasure lies beneath a parking lot held in private hands. So we ask the government to do the right thing, which is to invoke

part

VI of the Ontario Heritage Act to expropriate these lands and for the very first time use these very strong powers to preserve this very important site for the future of Ontario, for all Ontarians

to be able to go back and see where Ontario's first Parliament lies.

ST MARY'S MANOR

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I want to bring to the Minister of Labour's attention something that's happening in the community of

Timmins that has the potential for being quite serious. We have a private nursing home called St Mary's Manor in Timmins that resides at the old Timmins and District Hospital, and in that

particular residence there are some 67 seniors who make their home at St Mary's Manor.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees organized a bargaining unit some three years ago and have been trying for three years to negotiate a contract with their

employer. For three years the employer has stalled and has found all kinds of excuses not to come to the bargaining table, everything from firing his lawyers to saying people are sick or the

weather doesn't allow him to travel.

The thing is getting quite serious at this point. As of the last meeting that the union had with the employer, which was some two weeks ago, at the end of the

meeting the employer told the union that he didn't want to go and bargain a collective agreement, didn't feel that he had any responsibility under Ontario labour relations law and that he would

fire the employees of St Mary's Manor, all 19 of them, by the end of this month, putting the residents at risk of not having staff to be able to operate that residence.

I'm calling on the Minister of Labour to intervene directly to make sure the employer understands that he has a responsibility, in order to find a solution so

that the residents can go to sleep tonight with confidence that they're going to continue in their home where they are now with the current staff. The employees are not being unreasonable. Paying a

nurse $10 an hour, by today's standards, is by no means an exorbitant amount of money, and we ask the minister to intervene.

CHILD HEALTH NETWORK

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On Tuesday, October 9, I had the honour of attending the official launch of the new electronic information

exchange linking Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital to the Hospital for Sick Children and other hospitals that provide children's health services.

The electronic child health network, eCHN, was developed by the Hospital for Sick Children, IBM Canada, Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, St Joseph's Health Centre,

Rouge Valley Health System, St Elizabeth Health Care and 12 pediatricians associated with these particular hospitals. The eCHN promotes the sharing of resources and knowledge to reduce costs and

create efficiencies. The three components of eCHN include your child's health, a Web site of health information for children and parents; PROFOR, an electronic room for health care professionals'

continuing education; and HiNet, a health information system.

According to Dr Alan Hudak, an Orillia pediatrician, "Using HiNet, I can keep track of my patients being cared for both at Soldiers' and the Hospital for Sick

Children. I can see their latest lab results, medical images, notes from other treating physicians and more." He goes on to say, "Parents will find HiNet more helpful for keeping their child's

health information in one secure place."

I congratulate the stakeholders and Minister Clement for his ministry's $11.5-million commitment to this very valuable program.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): The Week of the Child will be celebrated across Canada from October 16 to 23. It

is a time to highlight the commitment of our society to ensure that the basic needs of children are met.

In Ontario, parents work very hard to provide their children with these necessities with the help of many people in their communities. Child care workers and

teachers work tirelessly to ensure that the children entrusted to their care receive the attention and support that children need to develop to their fullest potential. People from virtually every

profession -- health care, police, firefighters, bus drivers, just to name a few -- are dedicated to ensuring that our children receive the care and protection they deserve.

However, there is always more to be done. In Ontario the fastest-growing demographic among the homeless is families with children. Over 40% of the people who use

food banks are children. There are over 2,000 children in this province waiting to be adopted. The Harris government has passed legislation that may extend the workweek for families to 60

hours.

Our children are our most precious resource. The Week of the Child is an opportunity to focus on the promise in the face of every child. It is time to thank

child care workers, teachers and those who work to keep children safe. It is also a time for all of us to commit to invest the resources that will assist those children in Ontario who so

desperately need our help.

REENA FOUNDATION

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): It is my pleasure this afternoon to speak about the Reena Foundation that is located in my beautiful riding of

Thornhill.

This morning, Reena Elder Home and Battle Centre was toured by the Minister of Community and Social Services, John Baird.

Reena is a non-profit social service agency dedicated to integrating individuals who have a developmental disability into the mainstream of society. Reena was

established in 1973 by parents of children with developmental disabilities as a practical alternative to institutions. Reena strives to create an environment that respects and promotes dignity,

individuality, independence and freedom of choice within a framework of Jewish culture and values.

I've had the privilege and pleasure of visiting Reena on a number of occasions and meeting their wonderful workers and clients. Reena now provides services to

almost a thousand people who have a developmental disability and their families. Visiting this facility and seeing how they have improved the lives of so many clients is truly a heartwarming

experience.

I congratulate all the volunteers and staff at Reena for the work they do for the community of Thornhill and for all the families of Ontario.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On Thursday, October 4, the member for Northumberland raised a point of order during private members' public

business concerning a motion moved by the member for Windsor West. The Deputy Speaker, who was in the chair at that time, recessed the House briefly to consider the point and returned to the House

and delivered a ruling in which, in the interests of fairness to the House and to the member for Windsor West, he permitted the motion in question to proceed. I concur with the position taken by

the Deputy Speaker that day, and agree it was a reasonable step which permitted the House to continue under the circumstances.

The Deputy Speaker also committed that the Speaker would return to the House to clarify the standing orders concerning

preambles and recitals in motions, and

that is what I intend to do now.

The issue was perhaps best addressed by Speaker Stockwell in April 1999 when he wrote to all members of the House in advance of the beginning of the third

session of the 36th Parliament. In his letter of April 19, and a subsequent statement to the House on April 26, Speaker Stockwell expressed concern about the growing tendency for motions to appear

on the Orders and Notices paper which contained lengthy recitals and

preambles. Speaker Stockwell drew members' attention to the standing orders relevant to this issue and advised members that from

then on he would be applying them diligently and would remove out-of-order notices of motion from the Orders and Notices paper.

Speaker Stockwell was correct, I believe, when he stated, "Ensuring motions are not self-contained debates that precede the main debate they purport to raise is,

in my view, in the interests of all members and will make the best use of the time of the House."

Speaker Stockwell's point was that a motion should indicate some succinct, specific opinion that the House agrees to, or some specific action the House agrees

should be taken. A motion should not include the arguments as to why an opinion should be adopted, or why a certain action should be taken; those arguments belong in the debate on the motion

itself, when members have the opportunity to persuade their colleagues either to accept or reject the proposition. A simple, argument-free proposal before the House gives the House the best chance

to clearly decide, and maximizes the chance that the proposal, being uncluttered by extraneous and possibly irrelevant argument, will find acceptance among a large number of members.

Since Deputy Speaker Brown invited these on October 4, I have received written submissions on this matter from the House leaders of all three parties and I would

like to thank each of them for providing me with their advice. All three are supportive of the Speaker providing a clear statement on the admissibility of notices of motion, and are desirous of

seeing this policy consistently applied. The submissions of the two opposition House leaders quote sections of the parliamentary authorities, Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice and Beauchesne's

Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which confirm that

preambles and recitals should not be contained in motions.

Therefore, having carefully considered the House leaders' written submissions and Speaker Stockwell's 1999 statement, I want to reinforce his direction on this

matter and indicate my intention to pursue an identical policy. I have asked the Clerk to draw to my attention any notices of motion that may appear to be in conflict with my

interpretation of the

standing orders and, if they are, I will direct that they be removed from the Orders and Notices paper.

In that regard, I want to indicate that I am directing that private member's notice of motion number 2, standing in the name Mr Dunlop, private member's notice

of motion number 3, standing in the name of Mr Bryant, private member's notice of motion number 6, standing in the name of Mr Parsons, and private member's notice of motion number 15, standing in

the name of Mr Galt, be removed from the Orders and Notices paper today.

I want to point out that this action, as contrasted with the situation involving Mrs Pupatello's motion last week, has no immediate detrimental impact on either

Mr Dunlop, Mr Bryant or Mr Galt, since neither member has an imminent spot on the order of precedence for private members' public business. As a result, they can easily substitute an in-order

version of their existing motions without affecting any preparations they or other members might have done in anticipation of an approaching debate, and I encourage those members to do so. In the

case of Mr Parsons, his private members' public business ballot item will be considered this Thursday, but he has already designated Bill 54 as his item, so the removal of his notice of motion does

not impact his ballot item.

I want to thank the member for Northumberland for raising this issue, as it has given the Speaker the opportunity to clarify and provide direction in an area

that has been confusing to very many members.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker, if I may: I want to thank you, and we respect the ruling. I also want to

thank you for giving the opposition caucuses an opportunity to respond rather than having the matter dealt with promptly, thereby preventing us from responding. I do want to thank as well the table

clerks, who have in the past been very helpful, for their direction, I'm confident, to all of the caucuses here in screening these things and in ensuring that they comply, as they will in the

future, with the order of the Speaker today.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If I may, I just rise to thank you for your ruling and thank you very much for

going into the detail that you did. It's certainly very much appreciated.

MONIQUE GRENIER

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I would also at this time like to draw to your attention the presence at the table of a guest of the Clerk's office

who will be with us this week. Monique Grenier is a clerk assistant/journals clerk with the Manitoba Legislative Assembly and is visiting the Ontario Legislature this week on a professional

development exchange.

Please join me in welcoming Ms Grenier to the Ontario Legislature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

QUALITY IN THE CLASSROOM

ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA QUALITÉ

DANS LES SALLES DE CLASSE

Mrs Ecker moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 110,

An Act to promote quality in the classroom / Projet de loi 110, Loi visant à promouvoir la qualité dans les salles de classe.

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

The minister for a short statement.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): At ministers' statements, Speaker.

MOTIONS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I have a fairly lengthy motion. There has been extensive

discussion between the House leaders of all three parties, and I believe we have the agreement of all parties to move motions relating to committee business -- that's general government -- to have

the question put without further debate or amendment on the motion relating to the mandate of the Legislative Assembly committee, and to appoint a presiding officer.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Are you asking for unanimous consent?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Yes, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I move that the standing committee on general government be authorized to

meet on the evening of November 5, 2001, at Queen's Park to consider Bill 77,

An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of Adoption Disclosure.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I move that the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly be authorized

to inquire into and, within 12 months of this referral, report on parliamentary reforms that will improve democracy and enhance accountability;

That this review take place in two phases:

(

i) reforms that would expand the use of technology in the House and its committees; and

(ii) reforms that would enhance the role of private members;

That, in addition to its regular schedule, the committee shall have the authority to meet concurrently with the House and during any adjournments of the

House;

That the committee be encouraged to employ a staff person or persons, reporting to the committee through the Chair, to be dedicated to the review;

That the committee shall have the power to hear witnesses, commission reports relevant to the terms of reference, employ staff and adjourn from place to place

in North America and abroad as the committee may deem advisable, subject to normal budget approval;

That, if upon completion of the report or reports, the House is not sitting, the committee shall have authority to release any reports by depositing a copy of

them with the Clerk of the Assembly, and, upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair of the committee shall present such reports to the House in accordance with the standing

orders.

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

APPOINTMENT OF HOUSE OFFICERS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding the order of the House dated October 26, 2000,

David Christopherson, member for the electoral district of Hamilton West, be appointed First Deputy Chair of committee of the whole House, effective immediately; and

That for the period from October 29, 2001, to October 27, 2002, Bert Johnson, member for the electoral district of Perth-Middlesex, be appointed Deputy Speaker

and Chair of the committee of the whole House; and

Mike Brown, member for the electoral district of Algoma-Manitoulin, be appointed Second Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House; and

That, effective October 28, 2002, David Christopherson, member for the electoral district of Hamilton West, be appointed Deputy Speaker and Chair of the

committee of the whole House; and

Bert Johnson, member for the electoral district of Perth-Middlesex, be appointed Second Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House.

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

HOUSE SITTINGS

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

6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, October 15, Tuesday, October 16, and Wednesday, October 17, 2001, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1400 to 1405.

The Speaker: Would members kindly take their seats, please. All three whips have arrived.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gill, Raminder

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Parsons, Ernie

Phillips, Gerry

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 62; the nays are 5.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

MINISTERS' STATEMENTS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There has been a tradition in this House that when a minister makes a

statement, the statement is given to members of the opposition at approximately 1:30. Today the Minister of Education tabled her statement with the House leaders of both opposition parties at

approximately 2 o'clock in contrast to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, who had tabled his statement at 1:30. Is this a new direction for the Minister of Education, and if so,

would she inform the House?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Just to add to that, as I have explained to the opposition before, the

convention is that we deliver statements concerning introduction of bills when the bill has actually been introduced. That's indeed my understanding of what staff did today. If there's any further

direction the Speaker wishes to give the government, we're quite prepared to abide by that.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): As I have told the House, and I will tell them again, and I will keep a yellow sticker on page 30, "Two copies of

each ministerial statement shall be delivered to the leaders of recognized opposition parties, or their representatives" -- and the

part is -- "at or before the time the statement is made in the

House." I think all members would like to get it as soon as possible, but the standing orders are very clear, "at or before the time the statement is made in the House." I thank the member for his

point of order.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION REFORM

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Our government has continued to deliver on its plan to improve student

learning and achievement in the province. We're moving forward with initiatives that ensure our students get the skills and knowledge they need to succeed. This afternoon, I introduced legislation

that, if passed, would be another step in that plan: to further promote teaching excellence in Ontario's schools.

The legislation,

An Act to promote quality in the classroom, would put in place two more components of our comprehensive Ontario teacher testing program. I

first announced the framework for this in May 2000, and we've been working with our stakeholders to put this plan in place.

First, let me say that we all recognize the important role that a teacher can, should and does play in the lives of their students. We have many committed,

excellent teachers who, on a daily basis, make a positive difference for our students. And it is important that we have ongoing professional development and training to ensure that all of our

teachers consistently remain up to date and provide the best teaching possible to our young people.

Much of the work we've done to implement our teacher testing program has focused on teachers' knowledge of the curriculum or teaching strategies. But, as we

all know, having knowledge doesn't mean you can impart it to students in the classroom. Of equal importance is how teachers are able to actually do that on behalf of their students.

That is why

An Act to promote quality in the classroom will, if passed, provide for fair and consistent standards for teacher performance appraisals in every

school. The proposed act will also set out the requirements for a qualifying test for new teachers before they can obtain their certification. I think it's important to stress that both the

provisions of this legislation, the qualifying test and the performance appraisal standards, respond to specific recommendations we have received from our education partners.

As members will recall, this spring we passed legislation to establish a professional learning system for our teachers. Teachers will be completing 14 approved

professional development courses during a five-year period to maintain their teaching certification. Again, it is important to recognize that the recommendation for recertification on a five-year

basis originated with the Royal Commission on Learning, which all three parties supported. The new performance appraisal system will ensure that the knowledge our teachers obtain is being

successfully used in our classrooms.

Many school boards in the province currently conduct various forms of teacher performance appraisals, but organizations such as the Council of Ontario

Directors of Education, our principal groups, have pointed out that the nature and frequency of these evaluations, the rules around them and the implementation of them vary greatly across the

province. This new proposal contained in the legislation would make those rules very clear and fair. It would put in place a province-wide performance appraisal system for our teachers. Again, I

think it's important to stress that this legislation is built on the principle that good performance appraisal is supportive of teachers and supportive of excellent teaching.

School principals and vice-principals under these proposals would evaluate the classroom performance of current teachers, teachers who have been in the system

for some time, every three years. New teachers would be evaluated -- new to the profession; new employees to a school board -- twice a year during their first two years.

The purpose of the assessment will be to provide teachers with opportunities to improve their teaching skills, if necessary. And school boards will be

expected, as many are already doing, to provide support measures for those teachers who need to improve their classroom performance.

If a teacher is not able to improve after continued opportunities, the legislation proposes a very clear and very fair procedure to remove that teacher from

the classroom.

The legislation also initiates another very important improvement. It proposes that parents and senior students will have an opportunity to provide input into

the evaluation of a teacher. Again, it has been recommended to this government by education partners that this should be put in place.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That's just terrible.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I love the way the opposition likes to dump on our education partners when they make recommendations that the government agrees

with.

While the feedback of parents and senior students on its own cannot result in the dismissal of a teacher, providing a role for parents and senior students in

this process emphasizes the importance of effective communications between parents, students and teachers.

The legislation, if passed, would also mark the introduction of the new qualifying test to ensure that those who want to teach in Ontario have the necessary

skills and knowledge required before they become certified. The qualifying test will be phased in, starting this spring. Candidates will have to successfully pass this qualifying test to obtain

their teaching certificate from the Ontario College of Teachers. Those who fail will have the opportunity to rewrite the test, of course, at a later time and as many times as required in order to

pass it.

I'd like to also point out that it was recommended to have this kind of certification test. It's very similar to what many other professions -- lawyers and

others -- have as an entrance to the profession test and it responds to recommendations from the Ontario College of Teachers.

Improved student learning, the goal of our education plan, requires excellent teaching. Ontario has a teaching profession that can and does make a difference

in the lives of students. In today's ever-changing world we must ensure that the quality of teaching continues to meet the challenge for our students. This legislation is another step to do that,

and I encourage all members to support its passage.

In closing, I would like to thank the staff of the ministry and the representatives of our education partners -- teachers, school boards, principals and

parents -- for their advice and input into developing this bill.

CITIZENSHIP WEEK

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): I'm pleased to rise and discuss Ontario Citizenship Week.

As Minister of Citizenship, I'd like to begin my comments by asking the House to recognize this year's recipients of the annual Ontario Medal for Good

Citizenship. There are 14 citizens this year who received their distinguished awards last June. I am pleased to say that some of them have joined us in the House today to celebrate Citizenship

Week. I would ask them to stand as I recognize their outstanding contribution to the social fabric and well-being of our province.

I'd like to recognize Lynda Arthey of Brampton, Jane Beecroft of Toronto, Penny Dainard of Orangeville, Dr Yuqiu Guo of Ottawa, Barbara MacArthur of Walkerton,

Ken and Patricia Wilson of Wainfleet, Dr Joseph Wong of Toronto, and Andre Mak of Mississauga. Each and every one of these honourees has demonstrated the true spirit of citizenship in their

respective communities. They are role models for good citizenship to all of us.

It is a privilege to be a citizen in the province of Ontario. We are envied around the world for that distinction. Such is this province of ours that people

from all over the globe dream about living here and achieving citizenship. Each year, for 100,000 immigrants the dreams come true as we welcome them to our province.

This evening, to launch Citizenship Week, I will be participating in a Citizenship Court at the Burlington Central Library. We will be swearing in 50 new

Canadians this evening, and they come from the following countries: Scotland, India, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Egypt, Northern Ireland, Iran, Israel, China, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Philippines, England,

Jamaica, Ghana, Germany, South Korea, Colombia, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

Newcomers, past and present, have made immense contributions to our province culturally, socially and economically. In turn, this government supports a number

of settlement programs to help newcomers adjust and become full citizens as soon as possible so that they can take every advantage of what this province has to offer.

The cultural harmony that we enjoy in Ontario as a result of immigration is something we can all be justly proud of. Within that harmony is a province in which

its citizens are quick to help each other out through such programs as Good Neighbours, which has helped thousands of people live safely in their communities.

Volunteerism is also a long-standing tradition in Ontario. Our celebration of the International Year of Volunteers is still going strong in our province. When

terror struck in the United States on September 11, thousands of Ontarians came forward to offer practical help to stricken neighbours and close friends to the south. Across the province, our

citizens were all too willing to offer up whatever they could to help the United States lift itself up from the shadows.

As a government, we take a leadership role in providing for those who may be vulnerable because of age, illness and disability so that everyone can achieve

full citizenship, but we cannot do it alone. That's why, when we see so many of our citizens willingly offer to help others in need, we know we are on the right track and that we are at the helm of

a province that is home to some of the most caring people on earth.

People coming to our province contribute significantly to all of our communities. They obey our laws, recognize individual freedoms and share the Canadian

values of tolerance and understanding.

Today marks the start of Citizenship Week. What better time is there for us to remind ourselves to celebrate our good fortune? What could be a more appropriate

time for us to reaffirm our values and our belief in the rights of every individual to live with dignity and respect, whatever their background, whatever their colour and whatever their faith?

It is a week that provides us all with the golden opportunity to reflect on what it means to be a good citizen in Ontario, the best place to work, to live and

to raise a family, all of us together working hard, contributing to our economy and participating in Ontario's prosperity.

This week is also a perfect time to reflect on what has happened in the past few turbulent weeks, when all of our outlooks on life have been radically altered

by the type of evil that has come to us and is so incomprehensible. We are all having to come to terms with extra security precautions and more vigilance at our airports and border crossings. Yet,

as we look over our shoulders more, we have to strive to maintain and enhance the Canadian values of co-operation, to treat everyone with respect so that we can all live in peace, with dignity and

in harmony. In Ontario, this Citizenship Week is a fitting time for all of us to vigorously pursue the cherished qualities of what being a citizen of this nation and province is all about:

tolerance, caring and understanding.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): We stand here in the province of Ontario, where there aren't enough textbooks for 66% of our students,

where there is a loss of aides for special education children in every single school board, where transportation has become an issue since the children walk dangerous routes to school every day;

where schools are closed prematurely and sometimes unnecessarily and where classrooms are so crowded that young children and older alike have difficulty learning.

And what do we have in front of us from the Minister of Education in the face of all these pressing problems but an administrative item that this government

has turned into a political hand grenade. Rather than taking an issue like the evaluation of teachers, the actual approach that should be taking place at the school and with the school board, and

making it into something that all of us can agree to find a partnership with teachers on, they have turned it into political football.

Today, with the final introduction of legislation, culminates 17 different announcements by this government on so-called teacher testing. For 17 times this

government has tried to exploit the atmosphere of conflict and turmoil that it has created. Instead of actually addressing the issues that would help students learn, that would help ensure that we

have the very best teachers in our schools, the government brings us today something that really properly should be in the hands of school boards and individual teachers.

We see in the legislation today the ideological struggle of this government, the inability of the government to provide equally for all kids because we see a

government standing in its place and saying, "We need a centralized standard. We need to control what happens to all the school kids," but only those kids in publicly funded schools. The

legislation today that purports to increase the quality of teaching, that purports to do something for children, only applies to publicly funded schools. This government doesn't have the courage,

the consistency or the absolute responsibility to ensure that these standards apply to all those who teach in this province.

We see also that this government has done this without regard for the unintended effects. So many of the things that at one time, under different conditions,

people could have found ways to agree on, could have found ways to build partnerships to improve schools, this government has always found the more difficult route in the sense of providing for

more conflict. This will put a burden on principals and vice-principals who have to do the evaluation they think is necessary and then do Mike Harris's evaluation -- the standard evaluation, the

one they are forcing right now, for example, on special education children all around the province and wasting funds on.

We're losing half of our principals over the next five years because they find that the things this government does make no sense for the well-being of

teachers. They find that they're not interested in the well-being of children. We are committed on this side of the House to finding ways to ensure that we can have confidence. Last year, we lost

5,000 teachers in this province for reasons other than retirement. We don't give a blank cheque to this government to do anything when it comes to education that will create further harm.

CITIZENSHIP WEEK

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): On behalf of Dalton McGuinty, on behalf of the Liberal caucus, I'd like to extend congratulations to the medal

recipients here with us today. You have given us much to emulate and we are proud of you.

But that is as far as we go to see eye to eye with this government, because as soon as this government came into office in 1995, they started to decimate the

programs of multiculturalism. What happened, Mr Minister, to the idea of the advisory council on multiculturalism? You have done away with it. You have decimated it. It's gone. It gave us advice on

how to live with each other.

How about the ethnic relations committee and, especially, the race relations committee? What did you do with that one? Where are those programs? Gone.

It doesn't matter what happens here today as the minister stands up and says he wants to congratulate us in terms of Citizenship Week. What we need today is a

foundation of our programs back. We need the foundation. Where is it? What about the whole idea of the Ontario Welcome Houses? What happened to those programs? They were established to give advice,

to open up the doors for immigrants to get jobs -- gone. What about access to trades and professions? I want you to know what happened to that. We had to drag them into the 20th century. Access to

trades and professions is not gone but it is going at a snail's pace.

In short, as we celebrate national Citizenship Week, we know that we need the programs. We ask this minister to stand up, not only in caucus but in cabinet,

and say to the Premier, "Give us back the programs and let's see the money. Show us the money and show us the programs." That's the important part, and we ask him to do it.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I want to say, on behalf of New Democrats in response to the Minister of Citizenship, that we honour

those recipients of the medal for good citizenship. They do tremendous work. In fact, some of them are replacing the work of governments. This government is relying more and more on citizens to do

the work that they have abandoned. That's why they love to honour the citizens of this province and volunteerism. They know that this non-government government is not here to fix the problems and

needs to rely on the volunteers to do that job for them. I say to you, good citizens, that citizens ought not to replace the role of government as they do their volunteer work, and that's what's

happening in this province.

The Minister of Citizenship is going into his riding, I'm assuming, to swear in 50 new Canadians in our community who come from many different countries. I

want to contextualize the problem for him, and he knows it well. He and his government have eliminated the Anti-Racism Secretariat, not the race relations department but the Anti-Racism

Secretariat, that was designed to be proactively working against racism. They got rid of that program. Now more than ever we need it, but this government says, "No, we don't need it."

We had cuts to the ESL program from that ministry, $600,000, to help the very new immigrants whom this minister says he's going to swear in tonight. He and his

buddies have eliminated the welcome houses, all of them. Those houses were designed to receive new immigrants and help them with their transition. They're gone. Then, of course, the ultimate is the

elimination of the employment equity we had introduced, which was designed to bring fairness to people with disabilities, people of colour and aboriginal people. It was designed to bring fairness,

finally, to those groups in our society that weren't getting the fairness they were looking for, and, at the end, he's got the gall to say that this is a society that deals with tolerance -- and

we're happy about that -- respect and understanding. We agree with him, except that these were the programs we had in place that were designed to bring about greater tolerance and respect for one

another in this province.

That's why it's so hard to be able to speak more positively, other than to honour the recipients and to thank them for the good deeds and the good work they

are doing, on behalf of and in place of this government.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): With respect to the Minister of Education, boards of education are already doing performance reviews.

Everyone is doing it across the board -- nothing new. I suspect that teachers will welcome it because they are already getting it, but the government presents it as if it were something very new to

the teachers, and it isn't. I say that's fine, bring it in, Minister. Teachers will accept it and work with it, again, in spite of your assaults and in spite of making it appear that teachers are

not doing a good job and that you need to fix them.

Teachers will do their job, as they have always done. With you and in spite of you they will be there to continue their good work, while you create a two-tier

system -- one private and one public, one that's presumably good for the public system but not for the private -- which is what you are doing today, like every other issue connected to this. You

are expecting public school teachers to be tested, to be appraised, but in the private school system those who are not certified don't have to be tested. They don't have to be appraised. They don't

have to be obliged to report to the sexual abuse bill that we were dealing with just a couple of days ago and continue to deal with. Those non-certified teachers who teach are not subject to that

law, will not be subject to this bill the way regular teachers in our public system are. You are creating two standards. If it's good enough for the public system, I say to you, Minister, it ought

to be good enough for the private school. Put in place the same mechanisms and measures for private schools as for the public school system.

We have so many needs in our public system, so many that the minister needs to deal with. Our schools are crumbling. Students need textbooks. They're sharing

old textbooks, and some don't have any. Teachers are leaving, and we're firing educational assistants at the Toronto board by the thousands.

We desperately need help. As this minister talks about all the great work that she's doing, we need to take the responsibility for what's happening and, above

all else, invest in our public system to make it more effective.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Health. Public health units are responsible for keeping

Ontarians healthy and safe. They make sure our drinking water is safe. You will know that in Walkerton it was a representative of the public health unit who rang the bells there.

Our public health units also have a special responsibility when it comes to protecting us against infectious diseases. With the threat of bioterrorism weighing

heavily on the minds of Ontarians and Canadians -- North Americans, for that matter -- these days, I expect you would see their job to be even more important today over at the public health

offices.

Minister, we have obtained documents from a September 18 meeting between your ministry and the public health branch. In the documents you indicate that you are

considering making further cuts when it comes to the work that is being done by our public health units. Understanding what public health units have done and could still do for us in the given

frightening context that we live in, how can you possibly justify making more cuts to our public health units?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm not sure what the honourable member is referring to. I can state to this House

that health spending for our public health units has increased by 14%. It was up to a record $362 million last year alone. We have also included direct funding for such things as Healthy Babies,

Healthy Children and speech and education and development and public health research. Those kinds of funds have increased from $5.6 million, before we were elected, to $54.6 million last year.

These are the kinds of things that we fund 100% of as a province, and that's our commitment to public health in this province.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, if you're not familiar with the document, I'll refresh your memory. On page 11, it talks about cost reduction

strategies for our public health offices. Some of the things you are actively considering include: "Dropping one or more mandatory programs; reduce the scope of one or more mandatory programs; make

some expenditures ineligible for provincial funding."

I don't know why you're frowning, Minister. It's your document, prepared by your ministry staff. You understand how important --

Hon Mr Clement: I don't know what you're talking about.

Mr McGuinty: Are you telling me that you're not aware that people in your ministry have proposed cuts to the public health office, Minister?

Is that what you are telling me? You should understand how important the work is that this public health office does for the people of Ontario.

I ask you again: given the work they do, given the context we find ourselves in at present, how could you possibly contemplate further cuts to our public

health offices?

Hon Mr Clement: I don't know. This opposition leader excels at fearmongering and scaring and over-theatrics without a scintilla of evidence on

his side. If you've got something to show me, you show it to me, because I don't even know what you're talking about, and you're scaring people. He is scaring people rather than engaging in

legitimate political debate. It should stop right here and right now.

Mr McGuinty: I'll refresh the minister's memory. This is the same document that was presented to you at the estimates committee by my

colleague, my critic for health. You have seen this before. You have spoken to this issue before.

I'll refer again to a document here prepared by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care that's dated September 18. It says on page 11, "Potential cost

reduction strategies," and it includes dropping one or more mandatory programs. It says, "reduce the scope of one or more mandatory programs; make some expenditures ineligible for provincial

funding." This is your document prepared by your people in your ministry.

Apparently you've got $2 billion more for corporate tax cuts, you have hundreds of millions of dollars for partisan government advertising, but you find it

necessary to make cuts to our public health offices. I ask you again, how can you justify that?

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member talks about my policy or our policy as a government. I don't know what he's talking about. I don't know

what he's relating to. He is dreaming in Technicolor.

If the honourable member wants to be helpful when it comes to the public health care debate, perhaps he can join the debate. He can do better than what his

government did when it was in power, which was to reduce the number of hospital beds by 10,000 while paying for the heat, light and administration in hospitals. That was their idea of some sort of

health care policy.

We were elected to clean up the mess. We are cleaning up the mess, but our commitment to public health and our commitment to the health of the citizens of

Ontario is second to none. The honourable member can scaremonger all he wants, but the truth will out. If he wants to be helpful, try acting like a leader rather than acting like a cheap

showman.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): The question is to the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. Today we learned about a

report on the Bruce nuclear station that had been prepared by the World Association of Nuclear Operators, a report that was prepared back in 1998 but which only came to public light today. This

report reveals for the first time that nuclear power plant operators disconnected warning alarms they found too noisy. It reveals that operators sometimes ignored instrument panels and sat with

their backs to them, and it reveals that maintenance work was incompetently undertaken in a number of instances.

This is very alarming information, Minister. Why have you hidden this information, together with Ontario Power Generation? Why have you two conspired to hide

this information from Ontarians since 1998?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): With respect to the WANO report, Ontario is being treated the same way by that

international organization as every other jurisdiction that runs nuclear generating facilities, and that is, WANO does not make its reports public. In light of the circumstances of September 11, it

is even more clear why those reports are not made public.

Mr McGuinty: I'm not talking at present about what might happen on the outside. I'm talking about what is happening on the inside of our

nuclear reactors.

Here's something else that the report reveals. It says that there was confusion over three unplanned reactor shutdowns and that "Operators had a hard time

figuring out why the shutdowns happened because the designs showed wiring layouts from the wrong nuclear stations."

This is very alarming information. I'm making the assumption -- and you should correct me if I'm wrong -- that you've had this information in your hands since

1998 and that you have not disclosed this information to the Ontario public, notwithstanding the urging of our privacy commissioner that you do so. I'm asking you again, why have you kept this

information secret and why have you not acted on it?

Hon Mr Wilson: The world organization requires that you not make the information public, so that employees will feel free to come forward, and

not fear for their jobs, to point out safety issues. I will note that the federal authority with the final say in these matters is the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. I can only say to the

honourable member that that's a 1998 report, and Ontario Power Generation and the world nuclear association were working on improving their performance under that report, and British Power.

I can only say that the federal government would not have given Bruce Power a licence to operate, which it just did a few months ago, if it had any concerns

about safety or any issues outstanding from that 1998 report.

Again, this is an area where the less said at this time, the better.

Mr McGuinty: How convenient, Minister. I guess you must have had this in mind when you exempted Ontario Power Generation from

freedom-of-information requests some two years ago. I guess you had anticipated the 11th of September and understood how important it was to prevent anybody from gaining access to any of this

information.

This is what Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner ruled in connection with this particular case. The only reason this came out today was because this

freedom-of-information request was eventually successful. But the information commissioner said that there was a compelling interest for the public to have nuclear safety information. The issue

here is nuclear safety information, all about how we are doing at managing safety at our nuclear reactors, not about some outside force and what that might do to our nuclear reactors.

I ask you again, Minister, why is it that you have kept very important information that has everything to do with what is going on there and ensuring that you

are taking the necessary steps, that you are being accountable for what is going on there, secret from Ontarians?

Hon Mr Wilson: Again, at the time we were complying with the world nuclear association. All jurisdictions are treated the same and required to

follow the same rules.

I can tell the honourable member, though, that those issues have been worked on, that the reason the report was now made public through access to information

in this case was that those issues have been dealt with. In 1998 those issues needed to be dealt with. They've been dealt with. Bruce has been given a licence by the federal regulator, by the

federal government and its regulator, and we're very satisfied with the measures that have been taken to correct any problems of the past. The report is now public.

I would ask the honourable member, though, to not do any scaremongering in this area. We take this business of security very seriously. Issues are brought to

the attention of the companies. They need to deal with those issues in confidence with their regulators, with the federal government and with police agencies. Then, when appropriate, the

information is made public; otherwise, terrorists might get a leg up.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Deputy Premier. We just received a shocking internal memo from the Children's

Aid Society of Toronto that shows you plan to make serious cuts to child welfare agencies across Ontario effective immediately. The memo shows that you are using the threat of a recession and the

tragic events of September 11 as an excuse to cut funding to child welfare agencies.

At a time when children's aid workers can't even begin to tackle all of their existing casework, how could you possibly restrict their funding even

further?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The Minister of Community and Social Services will answer the question.

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

affairs): We've made child welfare and child protection a tremendous priority over the past six years. We've increased spending by more than 118%, which I think underlines the priority

this caucus, this government and my predecessor, Janet Ecker, have placed on this issue. At no time have we ever contemplated reducing funding on an annual basis with respect to children's aid

societies. At no time have we considered reducing funding to children's aid societies on an annual basis. I want to be tremendously clear.

I can say to the member opposite, I have never seen any options with respect to reducing expenditures for children's aid. What we have seen is a tremendous

increase in the number of children who are being taken into care and taken into custody, which I think is a productive and positive aspect.

Ms Churley: Let's stop playing games with this. I'm sending the memo across to you. It says that you are making cuts and the increases you're

talking about are part of a funding formula for new cases. We all know it's still not enough.

This is what the memo states: "We were informed that recessionary trends in the province have worsened and further exacerbated by the events of September 11.

As a result, we were informed that all government spending is being affected, and funding for child welfare agencies across Ontario will be seriously restricted."

Front-line child welfare workers are already worried about liability under the extreme heavy caseloads they currently carry, especially after the death of baby

Jordan Heikamp. Haven't you learned anything from that death? Guarantee me, right now, that you will not cut a dime, not a dime, from child welfare programs that are already stretched beyond their

capabilities. Guarantee the House that today, Minister.

Hon Mr Baird: The member opposite in her first question said that changes and cuts have been recommended to take place immediately. That is

simply not the case. As Minister of Community and Social Services, I have not seen any proposal cross my desk with respect to reducing expenditures for our children's aid societies. I think it is

incredibly important that we recognize the huge policy priority that this government has given child welfare and child protection: 118% is an incredible priority. I can't name a single other area

anywhere in the public sector which has seen a 118% increase.

I can tell the honourable member at this time that our biggest challenge with respect to children's aid society funding is to see the levels of increase be not

upward of what they were last year, of $123 million. Last year we saw a significant increase in children's aid society spending. This year we saw another increase, and I don't see any plan

whatsoever to reduce funding from that level.

Ms Churley: Minister, the cat is out of the bag. It says here right in this memo that came out of your ministry. The memo indicates that all

government spending will be affected by cuts -- all government spending.

So I say to the Deputy Premier today, it is astounding that you'd be so quick to cut such a vital program as child welfare. But it's even more astounding that

you want to make across-the-board government spending cuts after years of gutting vital programs.

Walkerton should serve as the ultimate example of why it's wrong -- wrong, Minister -- to value corporate tax cuts over government funding to protect our

health and our lives. I want to know, right now -- right now in this House today -- what other ministries have you told to slash spending? I want you to guarantee that no vital services that save

lives will be cut to accommodate your reckless corporate tax cuts.

Hon Mr Baird: The member opposite spoke about a memo from my ministry. The memo she sent me over is not a memo from my ministry. It is not a

memo from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. It is not a memo from the government of Ontario. She's wrong.

RENT REVIEW

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to Minister Hodgson. Minister, the courts on Friday ruled in a case of landlord who was

double-dipping his tenants. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice says your tribunal allowed the landlord to both charge tenants the cost of washing machines and then to make a profit by charging

those same tenants to use those washing machines.

The courts have said this is double-dipping; the courts have said it's illegal. Why is your tribunal rubber-stamping landlord rent increases and

double-dipping?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The details that the member talks about were outlined in an

article in the

paper on the weekend. There was a court decision. I think the system's working the way it should.

He has pointed out that the tribunal, he feels, erred in how they calculated what was eligible for rent increase, and he sent it back to the tribunal. It was

referenced in the paper that they think they might even settle before going back to the tribunal. But I want to assure the member that the tribunal hears most cases within 20 days, and decisions

are issued within 72 hours. Their performance is good. They're handling a lot of cases that used to go to court. Under your government's policy, all these cases went to court.

Mr Prue: Minister, this tribunal and the Tenant Protection Act has been unfair to tenants since it was enacted. When you get over half of all

the evictions happening without a tenant ever being heard, when you have above-guideline increases, when you have people actually becoming homeless as a result of this particular legislation, your

tribunal needs to be overhauled from the top to the bottom.

But today I ask you just one small thing: will you issue instructions to the tribunal members and change regulations to end double-dipping and to put an end to

the drawn-out and expensive remedy that tenants are having to use to go through the courts?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I don't understand the question. Under your party's policies, every one of these decisions went to court. It tied up the

courts, clogged up the courts, and it took years getting decisions. So if you're asking to go back to that system, the answer is no.

If you're talking about the rent increase guidelines, the guidelines under our party are lower than when the NDP or the Liberals were in power. I wouldn't want

to go back to that. You've got a strange look on your face so I'll quote you the numbers. In 1990, it was 4.6%; 1991, 5.4%; 1992, 6%. That's what you allowed as annual increases. I don't want to go

back to that system where appeals to this process go directly to the court. I think the rent tribunal is doing a great job and it's quickly done.

TAXATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, Ontario's working families are already

being hit hard by this economic slowdown. On Friday we learned things are going to get worse before they get better. The Conference Board of Canada reported that Ontario will be the only province

in Canada headed for a recession and a report by TD Canada Trust found that your fiscal plan will result in a string of deficits.

Notwithstanding these gloomy predictions, Minister, you remain committed to your $2.2-billion corporate tax cut. It seems to me it's becoming very clear that

this cut in corporate taxes is going to leave you with one of two options: you are either going to run deficits or you are going to make serious and further dramatic cuts to health care, education

and the environment. I simply want to know, on behalf of our working families today, which option will you elect to choose? Are you going to run deficits or are you going to make further cuts to

health care, education and the protection of our environment?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The leader of the third party is in favour of tax cuts; the federal Minister of

Finance is in favour of tax cuts; the ministers of finance across Canada, from the provinces and territories, with whom I met last week in conference together, for the most part are all in favour

of tax cuts. Dalton McGuinty, the leader of the Liberal opposition in Ontario, is the only person I know lately who is talking about increasing taxes, who is talking against tax cuts.

If you want to do something for the people of Ontario, as we are in a time of economic slowdown, then you do want to stimulate the economy. You do want to

accelerate tax cuts, because they create more investment, because they give people more money in their own pockets. I thought you would understand that by now.

Mr McGuinty: Maybe I'll turn the minister's attention to what Canada Trust had to say about your recent economic stimulus package: "The

government's recently announced plan to bring forward personal and corporate tax relief from January 1, 2002 to October 1, 2001 is unlikely to have a major impact on fiscal results." In other

words, it's not going to work. It's not going to create jobs.

If the minister wants my advice, my advice is very clear: don't proceed with the corporate income tax cuts. Maintain some fiscal flexibility so that we might

have some to address these difficult and challenging times. We think that is the responsible thing to do, Minister. You seem to forget that, according to economists now, Ontario will be the only

province in recession, Ontario will have the slowest-growing economy in Canada, both this year and next, and Ontario is now facing a string of deficits.

I want to know again, Minister, which are you determined to proceed with, running a string of deficits or making further cuts to health care, education and the

environment?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I just want to make sure I follow the Leader of the Opposition. What he is saying is that he is against reducing corporate

taxes. He says that he is concerned about deficit. He says that he's concerned about recession. He almost takes joy in the fact that we have an economic slowdown in our country.

We're concerned about jobs. We're concerned about ensuring that there are jobs for the people of Ontario. One of the key ways of doing that is to reduce

corporate taxes. It is a way of creating jobs in our province. It creates more investment; it creates more investment in plant; it creates more jobs. It has worked since 1995 in Ontario. We are

going to stay the course.

HIGH TECHNOLOGY SECTOR

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. Information technology has become an invaluable tool in my

riding of Thornhill and across the province of Ontario. I believe it is important for the government to embrace this development and use it as a means to better deliver services and information to

the people of Ontario.

I know there is more to IT development than Web sites and laptop computers. In fact, there is so much out there it is difficult to keep track of all of it. One

of my constituents told me how much she enjoyed attending Showcase Ontario in Toronto and how informative it was. Minister, can you tell about Showcase and how it helps to improve access to

information and services?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Earlier this month, as the member for Thornhill indicated, we had Showcase

Ontario. Showcase Ontario is a forum in which we bring together both the private sector and the public sector so we can share ideas. This year we had about 3,700 participants in this, with about

144 demonstrations of different types of government applications in e-government. Frankly, we had more than 100 private sector exhibits.

The good part about this is that we also recognized excellence in e-government and many of the different ministries of this government received awards

recognizing their teams that worked together to make the province of Ontario better. There were teams from the Solicitor General's office, from the consumer ministry, from Management Board, from

finance. These employees of the Ontario government were very proud to be a team, to accept these awards for excellence.

This is a good thing: to bring experts in the private and public sectors together so we can find ways to make the government more efficient and better in

e-government.

Mrs Molinari: Thank you, Minister, for telling us what this government is doing to enhance e-government services in Ontario. I know it is an

industry with enormous growth potential, growth that holds promise of new highly skilled and well-paying jobs, and we all know that these high-value-added jobs are important to sustaining an

economy that in turn pays for the services that Ontarians have come to expect.

Within my riding of Thornhill, companies such as Cybermation, Duplium and the student-owned Tri-Dynamic Studios have spearheaded this technological

revolution.

Minister, can you give my constituents of Thornhill and the members of this House some news about the success that this government's efforts have had in

increasing investments in the province both in IT and in other sectors?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I believe Ontario is well positioned to become a leader in e-government in the world by the year 2003.

Earlier this month I had the pleasure of attending and speaking at the software development lab of IBM in Markham. The good news as well was that they are

slated to have 2,500 employees come to Markham and create jobs in the high-tech area. This is 500 more than the company originally intended, which is only a fraction of the 11,000 people that IBM

employs in the province.

One specific reason why this occurred is that Ontario's superallowance credit, over $100 million, was given to assist R&D in the high-tech area. Just in

the last federal budget, the federal government clawed back this particular allowance. Fortunately, through the leadership of my colleague the Minister of Finance, most of this allowance was

restored through our last budget. This of course encouraged the high-tech companies to continue to do R&D in this province and certainly to assist us in becoming leaders in e-government.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): My question is for the Minister of Health. An elderly couple in my riding of Brant in their mid-70s are experiencing

some difficulty with dialysis services and home care. They do not want their names mentioned here in the House, but I would be happy to provide you with those names and addresses after question

period.

Specifically, Minister, for the past several weeks this elderly gentleman has had to drive to and from Hamilton five days a week for seven hours a day to have

his wife receive dialysis and treatment. The reason why seems to be very unclear. It's either that there's not enough nurses available to assist the local CCAC with services or that the CCAC lacks

the funds to hire the additional nurses to assist the elderly patient. This is not an equipment issue because the couple has had the dialysis equipment set up in their home for the last couple of

weeks. The problem seems to be either a shortage of nurses trained in hemodialysis or paying for the nurses trained in hemodialysis. For a government that espouses home care initiatives, especially

for our senior citizens, we're concerned that travelling five days a week for this treatment is not sound for improvement.

Minister, I'd like to have a little clarification. Do my elderly constituents have to travel to Hamilton in what will soon be very cold and wet weather? Is it

because the government underfunds the CCACs or home care or is it because of a nursing crisis we have in our province?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): To the associate minister.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): I'd like to thank the member opposite for the question. Of course,

this government is very concerned about providing care to people as close to home as they possibly can. We are very determined to have the dollars in health care go to the right places so that

people get the services they need. We are happy to look into the specific instances, and if you send over the information after, we're happy to look at that.

Let me tell you that in the county of Brant the CCAC has above-average funding compared to across the province. They have a funding level that is higher than

many other areas across the province, and with that they also have an increase in the funding that they've received over the last three years. So from our perspective it shouldn't be as a result of

the CCAC funding. There's been a substantial increase in the county of Brant in comparison to other counties within the province, but we're happy to look into it because everybody should be able to

receive care in the province of Ontario.

Mr Levac: Minister, the fact that you've just said that implies that my elderly couple are now going to get stuck with having to travel in the

winter to get their dialysis treatment, and that's not acceptable for this patient or for any patient. The fact is that the allocation seems to be a problem with my riding and all the other

ridings, because last Friday the nurse was sent from Hamilton to Brantford in order to treat the couple. They did this because they were concerned that all the travel would cause physical,

emotional and mental hardship on my constituents. So that means Hamilton is now affected by this result.

Has home care gotten so bad in Ontario that elderly citizens have to continue to travel five days a week to wait for a patient to get treatment for dialysis

because of the lack of funding for this nurse? We know that the local, branch CCAC is doing the best that it can with what it has. I commend them for their efforts, of course, and I have met with

them to try to talk about this problem. However, between the funding freeze that you've implemented and critical nurse shortages in the province, you are leaving them with little choice but to send

elderly patients packing to other communities for their care.

Minister, I ask you again, will you lift the freeze from CCAC funding so that my constituents can enjoy the home care service in their home that they're

supposed to have?

Hon Mrs Johns: I guess when I say that I'll look into it for the person, that's not what the honourable member wants to hear today. Let me say

that since we were elected in 1995 the province has put an additional $150 million into dialysis across the province. Dialysis is one of the priority services that we have at the Ministry of

Health. We're focused on bringing it closer to people's homes and providing high-quality services. So from that standpoint, let me say that I said I would look into it. It's a government priority;

we'll make sure that happens.

Let me remind you that CCACs in the province of Ontario have had unprecedented increases in their funding level -- 72% increases across the province on

average. When an operational review was done, the results in the Hamilton area were frightening -- completely frightening. It said that CCAC is a big business and it's at a critical shortage right

now because people aren't treating it like a business. We have to move to ensure that we have the services there when we need them and where we need them. We can only do that with good management

and we're prepared to take the role on to make sure that happens.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question today is for the Minister of Natural Resources. I understand that you were recently in

Atlanta at the University of Georgia meeting with people about our forestry practices here in Ontario. I know that Ontario's forestry practices are among the best in the world and that many

jurisdictions look to us for leadership in this area, the forest accord being an example of that leadership. Minister, can you tell us about your meetings in Georgia and give us some information

about those meetings?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for the excellent

question. I'm sure you and he will forgive me for some awkwardness in answering. I haven't been asked about the results of my travel since I was married.

I can tell you that because of the Ontario forestry accord, because of this unique agreement in Ontario, we were able to go to Georgia recently, as we've gone

to other places in the world, and, with members of our environmental NGO community, our forest industry and government, talk to people like Home Depot who are sellers, obviously, of products that

come from Ontario, about their issues, about the importance of certification of sustainable forestry practices; and also go to the University of Georgia and talk to the faculty of forestry there --

a world renowned faculty I might add -- about what's going on in Ontario. They were very impressed with the presentation and I'm pleased to say that they have suggested an exchange program with

Ontario.

Mr Miller: Thank you, Minister. You mentioned forest certification. How is this important to myself as a consumer and what is Ontario doing to

make sure that more of our crown forests, especially those in Parry Sound-Muskoka, become certified?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, it's been a great result of the Ontario forest accord, of Living Legacy, that we are now able to work with together

our NGO community in Ontario and our forest industry in Ontario in the hopes that our world-leading forestry standards can be recognized around the world by various certification programs. We are

very active on the file. We are confident that our forestry practices in Ontario are the best in the world and we are very proud to let the world know about that.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Minister of Education. I want to know why the minister has created two classes of

teachers in this province. On the one hand, we've got public school teachers trying to educate our young people with less and less money than ever we've faced in our history. On the other hand,

we've got teachers in the private school system, a system that's getting millions and millions of dollars from this government. But who gets to be tested? Who gets the performance appraisal? It's

the public school teachers. Why do we apply one standard to one system and another system to the private system?

New Democrats opposed extension of public dollars to private schools. We opposed it then, we oppose it now, but you've done it. Can you kindly explain,

Minister, why you plan to test and test and test public school teachers while private, uncertified teachers get to be exempt? Tell us that.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): First of all, there have always been different kinds of teachers in the

province of Ontario. That's always been the case; that will always be the case.

Second, the legislation that I proposed -- for example, the sexual abuse legislation, the legislation I proposed today -- applies to all certified teachers

regardless of who employs them.

Third, as you know, the government has been in a consultation process to look at what kind of accountability mechanism, eligibility, might well be around the

tax credit proposal.

The final point is that not one dollar has gone to independent schools from the taxpayers. As a matter of fact, the proposal that this government is pursuing

is to give money to parents, to respect that parental choice.

I appreciate the honourable member's question, but my answer is as I've stated it.

Mr Marchese: I want to say, yes, we always had different kinds of teachers in the past, but in the past we didn't give away public dollars to

private schools. That's the difference. She has the temerity to say that the Student Protection Act applies to the private schools, but she knows better. It applies to the certified teachers, but

there are thousands of teachers in the private system who are not certified for whom this law does not apply. Equally and similarly, the testing and the performance appraisal doesn't apply to the

non-certified teachers in the private system. Speak to that, Minister.

Why are you giving away close to 500 million bucks that comes from a general pot of money to that system and you argue, "Yes, we're trying to help our public

school teachers"? Why can't you be as generous in extending your support to those non-certified teachers who presumably need the same kind of help? Can you explain why you have two different

standards that most citizens do not understand?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We have been, I'll use the word "generous," to the public education system in this province. They're getting $13.8 billion --

$13.8 billion -- that was increased by over $360 million this year, over $300 million last year. That's more money going to the public education system than was going there when we were first

elected. Our priority has been and will remain the public education system, because it's incredibly important to our province's quality of life, to our province's economic prosperity.

Second, I'd like to remind the honourable member that the Royal Commission on Learning, which his party, his government, put in place, recommended very

strongly that there be professional development for teachers, mandatory professional development, recertification, performance appraisal. Those are all recommendations that have come from our

education partners. We promised we would do it; we are indeed doing what we said.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Is he here?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock for a quick minute. There he is. The member for Don Valley East.

Mr Caplan: Minister, I can tell you that we're all disappointed to learn about the problems in your provincial sales tax grant program for

affordable housing. What was originally meant to be a modest but very genuine effort to build affordable housing has turned into your own housing boondoggle.

As I am sure you are aware, I have done a freedom-of-information request that has confirmed that at least $1.6 million of the $4 million from this program went

to for-profit retirement homes or to market rent projects. Although your ministry claims that it made efforts to fix the problems by changing the criteria, it was only done after all of the money

had been spent.

There are true affordable housing projects that could use this money to get off the ground and to get built. Now is your chance to do the right thing,

Minister. I want you to know that many of these retirement home projects have yet to receive a cheque from you. Will you take the money back and recommit to legitimate affordable housing projects?

If you won't do that, will you stand in your place today and announce that you will reopen the program to the amount that you improperly directed to for-profit retirement home projects to the tune

of at least $1.6 million?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I think the member opposite knows the answer; it was in the papers on the

weekend. When the program was brought out, it was geared to smaller-sized rental units. It was an attempt to recognize that smaller units over time are more affordable than larger units. It wasn't

an attempt to create a huge bureaucracy to administer $4-million incentives to try to get some affordable housing going from the private sector in this province. He's got a concern because it went

to long-term-care facilities. That's probably because their government and the NDP government hadn't built any long-term-care facilities in this province for 10 years, and people didn't realize

that they would be eligible. When they realized it and they wanted to clarify it, they changed the rules, and for the last couple of years it hasn't applied there.

Mr Caplan: Geez, that is total fiction. You have yet to issue a cheque to Royal Gardens Retirement Community in Peterborough. You've

authorized a grant for a quarter of a million dollars to this company, which rents their units from between $2,300 and $4,200 per month. Do you feel that this project is more worthy than those

proposed by the Centretown Citizens Ottawa Housing Corp, which was designed to house and support working families?

How about the Margaret Laurence Co-op or the St Clare's Multi-Faith Housing Society? They all applied for money, Minister, and they were told that the money is

gone.

How about the other projects you funded: $178,000 to the Jackson Creek retirement home in Peterborough, $78,000 to the Shorthills Villa Retirement Community in

Fonthill, or $140,000 to Meadowbrook Retirement Village in Lively? There is no affordability component in any of these, and they're not long-term-care centres.

Minister, the choice is very clear. You can make a sincere commitment to build affordable housing and tell us that you're not going to issue the cheques. They

haven't been cut yet. If you won't do that, then tell us that you're going to announce that you're reopening the program in the amount that you improperly directed to for-profit retirement homes

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

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I explained, this program was set up based on unit size. When they recognized that it was going for long-term-care, they

changed the program in the year 2000.

If you want to talk about boondoggles, just look at your own government's record when you guys were out doing the subsidy work trying to be a developer. You

bought Tartaric. You cost the taxpayers $400 million in write-offs with your "Let's be a developer" mode of government.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Solicitor General. Last spring, the OPP had a special drive to get drivers

holding up traffic out of the left-hand lane of multi-lane highways. This project appeared to be very successful for a short period of time. However, it now seems that we have just as many

self-righteous people occupying that left-hand lane and holding up traffic. This was particularly evident on the Labour Day and Thanksgiving weekends when there were significantly more vehicles

travelling in the left lane than in the other lanes in total. When this happens, drivers attempting to pass do so in the right-hand lane. Often this leads to road rage. Did your ministry keep any

statistics on the success of the campaign last spring, and how successful was it?

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): An excellent question. We all know that driving too slowly or refusing to move over is frustrating and

very discourteous to other drivers. Moreover, it's a safety hazard. The OPP's Operation Move Over worked to promote lane discipline on 400 series highways. A team of seven officers dubbed the left

lane team were committed to this campaign. From April to September, 990 charges were laid and 511 motorists were cautioned. I want to say that violators faced a $110 fine and/or two demerit points.

We've had some very positive feedback on this program and I'm pleased that you're interested in it, and I would ask everybody to be courteous on the roads.

Mr Galt: If the left lane could be kept open for passing and drivers moved to the right after passing, our four- and six-lane highways could

handle far more traffic.

I'm curious as to what other programs have been implemented by the Ontario Provincial Police in order to increase road safety. I believe these initiatives are

quite successful and would like to know more about what our government is doing to protect the Ontario traveller.

Hon Mr Turnbull: Last year, we know there were 3,000 people killed on Canadian roads and there were 200,000 injured in collisions. The police

are always looking for better ways to make sure that motorists who break the rules are caught and are told the error of their ways.

To this effect, the OPP had Operation Distraction, which focused on drivers involved in distracting activities. We had Cottage Patrol 2001 where officers

inspected recreational vehicles, enforced seat belt laws and went after aggressive driving. Operation Impact focused on a variety of dangerous driving habits. Since impaired driving is the leading

criminal cause of death in Canada, drunk drivers are always a target of the police.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): My question is for the Minister of Health. For the past three and a half years your ministry has

held discussions on alternative funding for pediatric service positions at the children's hospital in London. The hospital's chief of pediatrics, Dr Timothy Frewen, says it's absolutely essential

to end the continued underfunding of pediatric specialized services in the southwest. Your ministry has already funded such plans in Kingston, Toronto and Ottawa. But London, why not? Is this

health care discrimination?

Now it's clear that the domino effect is starting to take place. Dr Reider pointed out last week that he and many of his colleagues are already receiving

offers from many institutions. The head-hunting vultures are circling the hospital already, once again putting the integrity of service in jeopardy.

Minister, will you stand in this House today and stop this domino, rippling effect on the health care system in London and immediately put in place an

alternative funding program for pediatrics for London and southwestern Ontario?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Let me just reiterate what I indicated to the honourable member in a conversation we

had outside this House. Certainly it's the intention of the ministry to move ahead with alternative payment programs across a whole range of surgical and clinical procedures, and we will continue

in that vein.

Mr Peters: I certainly encourage you to continue on that process, because it is so vitally important. It's become very painfully clear that

these program cuts at this hospital have been given very little forethought. There has been no consideration given to the broader implications, not just for the children's hospital in London and

southwestern Ontario but for the other medical institutions that deal with children's services across this province.

In today's London Free Press, you are quoted as saying there would be additional funding to deal with waiting lines in Toronto to treat London-area patients,

yet on the radio, the London hospital's CEO said he's unaware of a waiting list and transfer difficulties. Why not provide funding to the London hospitals so that they can look after the patients

of southwestern Ontario?

Please, Minister, explain to me what is going on. Who is telling us what's going on? I'm calling on you to halt these cuts now and implement a careful review

of the delivery of pediatric services in all of Ontario's academic centres so that all our children have access to these services as close as possible. Will you do it? Will you do the right thing,

stop this nonsense and implement a thorough, province-wide review of the delivery of pediatric services?

Hon Mr Clement: We will continue to do the right thing. In the case he is referring to, the right thing is to ensure that the clinical

outcomes are the very best that Ontario can offer. If the honourable member will not take my word for it, he is probably aware that Dr Jim Cairns, who is one of the chief coroners in Ontario, also

said last week in London that the decision to divest pediatric surgery "is consistent with what is the internationally recognized way of going in regard to complex pediatric surgery. The less

centres, the better, and the higher the volume, the better."

We are on the side of clinical outcomes and you are on the other side at your peril if what you really care about is the future of our kids.

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, in my riding of Simcoe

North and in ridings across our province, our rural businesses and municipalities are looking for opportunities to increase their standard of living, which is why people were very pleased to hear

about the launch of your $200-million rural economic development portion of the Ontario small town and rural development initiative back in August. Could you please explain to this House how the

program is progressing at this time?

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I'd like to thank the member from Simcoe North for the question. The rural

economic development program is a component of the Ontario small town and rural development initiative, better known as OSTAR. The purpose of that is to make sure that small towns and rural

communities remain as healthy places in which to live, vibrant places in which to work and viable places in which to invest. This rural economic development initiative will address some of the

barriers we have in rural and small-town Ontario which are identified by the very people who live in those communities.

We are investing some $200 million over five years. Our goal is to create a diversified business climate, long-term jobs, increased investment, strong

partnerships and alliances, new products and new markets for those who have the ability to invest in those markets. We'll do that by working with our partners in rural Ontario, making sure they

have the tools and the resources needed to identify new opportunities for economic development.

Mr Dunlop: Thank you very much, Minister, for that response. If businesses, organizations or municipalities from my area or from ridings

across the province want to participate in this particular program, can you give us some examples of the kinds of ideas they should put forward to your ministry?

Hon Mr Coburn: Actually, this program permits lots of room for creativity. We certainly recognize that one size doesn't fit all across this

province nor does it work with the variety of challenges and opportunities that exist in our diverse rural areas. That's why ideas for projects that could be eligible for funding are wide-ranging;

for example, establishing Internet terminals at tourism destinations to market local attractions to visitors, or exploring new technologies and processes for non-traditional uses of agricultural

commodities or developing new food products that promote human health and prevention of disease.

Certainly in keeping with our government's commitment to wisely using our taxpayers' money, applicants must include more than one business or municipality and

must share in the project costs. They must also demonstrate their ability to complete the project and carry on needed work after the project is finished.

Actually, it is a program that rewards innovation and creative ideas --

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

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Dr Burke Baird, the chief of pediatrics at the Sudbury Regional

Hospital, recently sent a letter to your ministry. In it he said the following: "I am writing to share my grave concern with the recent changes to OHIP funding of audiology services. My concern is

Further, "I can guarantee you that this recent change in policy will have a severe impact on our ability to assess and monitor these fragile children." I remind you that this is the chief of

pediatrics at our hospital, someone who knows what's going on in our community.

In light of this letter, will you now listen to the concerns of health care professionals in my community and reverse your decision on audiology services?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Let me assure this House that you don't need the presence of an ear, nose and throat

surgeon. It would be part of the OHIP rules that there be an ear, nose and throat physician who is available. If that is the case, then I can assure this House that that procedure or service is

fully recompensable under OHIP, just as it is through any hospital services and so forth.

If the honourable member has a particular instance that falls outside of that, where someone is being denied care which is available -- and as I say to this

House, it is available through our OHIP system in the same way it's been available at least for the last 30 years -- then she should bring it to my attention. Otherwise, I'm not sure what she's

referring to.

Ms Martel: You clearly don't understand how serious this issue is. We have a lack of ear, nose and throat specialists in northern Ontario.

Thunder Bay now needs three and Sault Ste Marie needs another. We now have 34 northern communities which need 117 family physicians, the same family physicians who are required to get a referral to

an ear, nose and throat specialist to get an assessment in the first place. We have the chief of pediatrics who has taken the time to write you a letter to express his concern about the problem in

our community and what this will mean to fragile children. In light of that, in light of the underserviced areas right across northern Ontario and in light of the fact that in most hospitals there

are long waiting lists for these assessment services, will you now listen to the concerns being brought forward by health care professionals and reverse your decision on the delisting of audiology

services?

Hon Mr Clement: Indeed, it was the recommendations of a series of health care professionals that created this understanding of the policy in

the first place, so we are in fact listening to health care professionals. Of course we listen to health care professionals and that's entirely what we should be doing, rather than making a

political game out of it.

I say again for the record that these services are available by OHIP. They are available through ear, nose and throat specialists; they are available by

community health centres; they are available at a hospital. They are available.

The honourable member refers to shortages of physicians. This has been a concern of this government, and we have acted through the creation of the new northern

medical school, through the creation of an expedited process for international medical graduates, increasing the number of international medical graduates from 36 to 90 who are available per year

for our underserviced communities and through the increased remuneration for doctors who choose to serve in the north. All of these programs are there to help us recruit and retain medical

professionals in our underserviced areas and particularly in northern Ontario, which is a policy about which this government is proud.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Over the last couple of weeks there

have been a number of questions and statements made in the House with respect to the lack of community care funding for nursing and home care services. I know you're doing a review, and I know you

want to hand this question over to the associate minister, but I want to hear from you because right today there are hundreds and thousands of individuals who don't want a review, who don't want to

know what's going to be made available two or three months from now, but they are hurting today. They're coming out of hospitals sicker and quicker. They need help because there's nobody in their

homes to take care of them in any way, shape or form.

What are you doing today for those individuals who need the nursing help, the home care help that they so desperately need? Minister, I'm asking you, I'm

pleading with you, make funding available. Just about every community care access centre doesn't have enough funds to deal with the demands for the services they provide to the people in their

community. What are you doing today in order to alleviate that situation?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'll defer it to the associate Minister of Health.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): Let me say again that funding in this area has increased

substantially since the time our colleague across the road was talking about it.

When we looked at an operational review in Hamilton, they were saying they were under budget by $19 million. When all the work was done, and we had a

ministry-appointed person in there, we found out there were dollars to service the people of the province. What we found out was that at the senior management level there was little understanding

of the factors that contributed to the deficit. We found out that the board provided inadequate strategic planning and leadership. It was ineffective in communicating with its stakeholders. There

was no effective monitoring of management services that were being provided -- utilization and caseloads. About 10% of the dollars that came from the province were used for administration and

another 16% were used for case management.

The party on the other side would throw money at the situation. The Mike Harris government is determined to make the system better so that quality health care

is provided to all the people of Ontario.

VISITORS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to take this opportunity, if I could, to welcome Greg Reid, the

chairperson, and Donna Lucas-Astley, a member of the Ontario Parent Council. They're in the gallery today.

PETITIONS

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I'd like to present a second set of 1,000 names from the Guelph, Waterloo, Fergus,

Kitchener, Cambridge and New Hamburg communities, which reads:

"Whereas the services delisted by the Harris government now exceed $100 million in total; and

"Whereas Ontarians depend on audiologists for the provision of qualified hearing assessments and hearing aid prescriptions; and

"Whereas the new Harris government policy will virtually eliminate access to publicly funded audiology assessments across vast regions of Ontario; and

"Whereas this new Harris government policy is virtually impossible to implement in underserviced areas across Ontario; and

"Whereas this policy will undoubtedly lengthen waiting lists for patients and therefore have a detrimental effect on the health of these Ontarians,

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government move immediately to permanently

fund audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

I concur and will affix my signature to that. We have signatures now from 107 Ontario communities.

NURSES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the nurses of Ontario are seeking relief from heavy workloads, which have contributed to unsafe conditions for patients and have increased the risk of

injury to nurses; and

"Whereas there is a chronic nursing shortage in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has failed to live up to its commitment to provide safe, high-quality care for patients;

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

"We demand the Ontario government take positive action to ensure that our communities have enough nursing staff to provide patients with the care they need.

The Ontario government must:

"Ensure wages and benefits are competitive and value all nurses for their dedication and commitment; ensure there are full-time and regular part-time jobs

available for nurses in hospitals, nursing homes and the community; ensure government revenues fund health care, not tax cuts; ensure front-line nurses play a key role in health reform

decisions."

This is signed by thousands of Ontario residents. I agree with the petitioners and I have affixed my signature to it.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Criminal Code of Canada considers animal cruelty to be a property offence; and

"Whereas those who commit crimes against animals currently face light sentences upon conviction; and

"Whereas those who operate puppy mills should, upon conviction, face sentences that are appropriate for the torture and inhumane treatment they have inflicted

on puppies under their so-called care;

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

"That the Ontario provincial government petition the federal government to move forward with amendments to the cruelty to animal provisions in the Criminal

Code as soon as possible."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's entitled "Listen: Our hearing is important.

"Whereas services delisted by the Harris government now exceed $100 million in total; and

"Whereas Ontarians depend on audiologists for the provision of qualified hearing assessments and hearing aid prescriptions; and

"Whereas the new Harris government policy will virtually eliminate access to publicly funded audiology assessments across vast regions of Ontario; and

"Whereas this new Harris government policy is virtually impossible to implement in underserviced areas across Ontario such as northern Ontario;

"Whereas this policy will lengthen waiting lists for patients and therefore have a detrimental effect on the health of these Ontarians;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the people from Garson, Naughton, Sudbury and Cochrane, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris

government move immediately to permanently fund audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

I affix my signature and give it to Ana to bring to the table as I am in agreement with it.

PERSONAL NEEDS ALLOWANCE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Further petitions from the Hamilton second-level lodging home tenants' committee. The petition reads

as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas individuals who are tenants or residents in facilities such as care homes, nursing homes or domiciliary hostels under certain acts are provided with a

personal needs allowance to meet incidental costs other than those provided by the facility; and

"Whereas the personal needs allowance has been fixed by the Ontario government at a rate of $112 for nearly a decade and has not kept pace with cost-of-living

increases, and furthermore is inadequate to meet incidental costs such as clothing, hygiene products and other essentials;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately review and amend provincial legislation to increase the personal

needs allowance from $112 a month to $160 a month for individuals living in care homes, nursing homes or other domiciliary hostels."

I continue to support these petitioners by adding my name.

AIR QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This one is strictly within provincial jurisdiction. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Harris government's wholly owned Nanticoke generating station is North America's largest dirty coal-fired electricity producing plant and

Ontario's largest producer of the chemicals and acid gases which contribute to deadly smog and acid rain; and

"Whereas the Nanticoke plant, which has more than doubled its dangerous emissions under the Harris government, is now the worst air polluter in all of Canada,

spewing out over five million kilograms of toxic chemicals each year, including many cancer-causing chemicals and mercury, a potent and dangerous neurotoxin; and

"Whereas at least 13 Ontario municipalities and seven northeastern US states have expressed concerns that Ontario Power Generation's proposed cleanup plan for

Nanticoke is inadequate in protecting the air quality and health and safety of their residents; and

"Whereas the Ontario Medical Association has stated that 1,900 Ontarians die prematurely each year and we pay $1 billion annually in health-related costs as a

result of air pollution; and

"Whereas because the Harris government has now lifted the moratorium on the sale of coal-fired power plants and has set a date for deregulation of electricity,

the operator of the Nanticoke plant will likely stoke up production to maximize profits which will only worsen the air quality in cities like Toronto, Hamilton, Welland, Niagara Falls and St

Catharines;

"Be it resolved that the Mike Harris government immediately order that the Nanticoke generating station be converted from dirty coal to cleaner-burning natural

gas."

I affix my signature; I'm in complete agreement.

OHIP SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that has been sent to me by the Sanatan Mandir Seniors Club in Markham. In reads as

follows:

"Whereas the provincial government's decision to delist hearing aid evaluation and re-evaluation from OHIP coverage will lead to untreated hearing loss;

and

"Whereas these restrictions will cut off access to diagnostic hearing tests, especially in geographic regions of the province already experiencing difficulties

due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

"Whereas OHIP will no longer cover the cost of miscellaneous therapeutic procedures, including physical therapy and therapeutic exercise; and

"Whereas services no longer covered by OHIP may include thermal therapy, ultrasound therapy, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, electrotherapy, magnetotherapy,

nerve therapy stimulation and biofeedback; and

"Whereas one of the few publicly covered alternatives includes hospital outpatient clinics where waiting lists for such services are up to six months long;

and

"Whereas delisting these services will have a detrimental effect on the health of all Ontarians, especially seniors, children, hearing-impaired people and

industrial workers; and

"Whereas the government has already delisted $100 million worth of OHIP services,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately restore OHIP coverage for these delisted services."

I agree with the petitioners. I affix my signature to it.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): I have a petition from 150 people from across the city of Toronto who are concerned about the lack of

funding for home care services.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government promised to institute `patient-based budgeting' for health care services in the 1995 Common Sense Revolution; and

"Whereas community care access centres now face a collective shortfall of $175 million due to a funding freeze by the provincial government; and

"Whereas due to this funding shortfall, CCACs have cut back on home care services affecting many sick and elderly Ontarians; and

"Whereas these cuts in services are mostly in homemaking services, forcing Ontarians into more expensive long-term-care facilities or back into hospitals;

and

"Whereas the North York CCAC has projected a shortfall of $10 million and is forced to cut service and move patients to waiting lists; and

"Whereas the York CCAC will find itself in a similar situation if `patient-based budgeting' is not instituted immediately;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately institute real `patient-based budgeting' for health care services, including

home care, so as to ensure that working families in Ontario can access the health care services they need."

I affix my signature to the petition.

OHIP SERVICES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have further petitions from my riding of Hamilton West. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the Harris government's decision to delist hearing aid evaluation and re-evaluation from OHIP coverage will lead to untreated hearing loss; and

"Whereas these restrictions will cut off access to diagnostic hearing tests, especially in geographic regions of the province already experiencing difficulties

due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

"Whereas OHIP will no longer cover the cost of miscellaneous therapeutic procedures, including physical therapy and therapeutic exercise; and

"Whereas services no longer covered by OHIP may include thermal therapy, ultrasound therapy, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, electrotherapy, magnetotherapy and

biofeedback; and

"Whereas one o