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

October 17, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Oct-17 vol. A (PDF)

L090A - Tues 17 Oct 2000 / Mar 17 oct 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROPERTY TAXATION

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

HIGHWAY 407

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM

POVERTY

RENT REGULATION

QUILTS FOR CANCER

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

OLYMPIC ATHLETES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

UNANIMOUS CONSENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TORONTO GARBAGE LAKE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE LAC D'ENFOUISSEMENT DES DÉCHETS DE TORONTO

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER QUALITY

AIR QUALITY

EMERGENCY SERVICES

CHILD POVERTY

SCHOOL CLOSURES

FIREFIGHTERS

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POLICY

SCHOOLTEACHERS

FIREFIGHTERS

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

POVERTY

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

EDUCATION FUNDING

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

PENSION FUNDS

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

WATER EXTRACTION

RENTAL HOUSING DEMOLITION

SNOWMOBILE LEGISLATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

NATIVE CHILDREN'S SERVICES

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): Some three years ago, the government tinkered with the old property tax system and in its haste created an even bigger problem. By the end of this year, the province must review again how properties are assessed, and as a remedial measure the government is now considering a 5% tax increase for stores, offices and factories.

A 5% annual tax increase on stores, offices and factories would affect small businesses and small business owners in a very adverse and dramatic way. This will surely sound a death knell for many small businesses in our province. A 5% annual increase in property taxes would impact on thousands of small, local community stores that are so vital to thriving and vibrant neighbourhoods. Small commercial properties in the city of Toronto already pay a disproportionately high tax rate compared to counterparts in the GTA and other parts of our province.

I call on you, Premier, on behalf of the many thousands of small businesses, to abandon any idea to impose a 5% annual tax increase and stop penalizing already overburdened small businesses in the province of Ontario.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Last Thursday, newspapers carried pictures of protesters at Toronto city hall. On page 5 of the Toronto Sun was a photo of the leader of the third party participating in the protest. Not only that, but he was ejected from the council chambers for his unruly behaviour.

What sort of message is the leader of the third party sending to the public? The message that I think he's conveying is that it's OK to use temper tantrums and unruly, mob-like behaviour to get your own way.

One would think that a person in his position, in his role, in his stature as a member of the Ontario Parliament and a leader of the NDP, would at least show respect for elected city officials and for the political process. I should think that the leader of the third party would have an understanding of how the political process works, but his unseemly behaviour seems to indicate something else: he'd rather play to the audience back home.

Quite frankly, I'm embarrassed both for him and for the New Democratic Party. Is it any wonder that there is a widespread lack of public respect for the politicians and for the public process?

HIGHWAY 407

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): The sale of Highway 407 and the decision by the Harris government to exempt it from paying property taxes has meant the loss of $90 million per year in combined education and municipal taxes.

Pickering town council recently passed a resolution with the intent to recoup lost municipal tax revenue that they believe was unjustly taken away by the Harris government. The town of Pickering views the exemption of the 407 from paying property taxes as nothing less than a taxpayer rip-off. The exemption places the 407 consortium in the same class as charities, churches, hospitals and schools. The 407 should be subject to taxes, just as railways and utilities are.

This SkyDome was a public asset. It was sold to private interests but still pays property taxes.

The newly privatized Ontario Hydro was not granted an exemption under the Assessment Act and currently pays over $68 million a year in property taxes.

At a time when municipalities are struggling with the costs of provincial downloading, this decision is nothing short of a taxpayer rip-off. Worst of all, it creates a terrible precedent for future privatizations, if any are done. This decision was a huge mistake by this government and it will cost future generations of Ontarians hundreds of millions of dollars. You should be ashamed of that.

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): It is with great pride that I stand before you today to tell you about the town of Meaford. In only its second year of competition, Meaford, which is located in my riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, won its category in the national Communities in Bloom program for the year 2000. The town was competing in the population category of 3,000 to 5,000.

The town itself was showcased recently at the 2000 national editions awards ceremony held in Edmonton, Alberta. Members of the Meaford Bloom Committee were there to proudly accept the award on behalf of every resident in Meaford. Indeed, this award was due to each and every resident of Meaford, for the judges were especially impressed with the community involvement, giving the town a mark of 94 out of a possible 100 for this community involvement and winning the town a special mention in the national awards for this as well. In their ruling, the judges noted that almost every citizen appeared to be involved in some aspect of community life.

The judges wrote that the downtown area, with its historic streetscape, is tidy and litter-free, and the new tree and floral plantings add colour and life to the concrete and asphalt. The town is alive with a multitude of colourful flowerbeds, all maintained by volunteers, in public areas. There is a healthy urban forest and trees are well cared for.

Meaford faced stiff competition for the award, facing off with 10 communities, ranging across the country from British Columbia to Newfoundland. Mr Johnson has already told the House about the honour bestowed upon Stratford-St Marys in winning the classic city category.

I would like to extend my congratulations and those of this House to the residents of Meaford for a job well done. Rural Ontario has once again made this province proud.

POVERTY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I am pleased to rise today on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party in support of the United Nations resolution that declares October 17 as the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. While the Mike Harris government likes to brag about the economic boom sweeping our province, the sad fact is that many people are being left behind and the number of people living in poverty is on the rise. It's a shameful reality and one that requires action by all levels of government.

Today, the Ontario Association of Food Banks released their report on hunger in Ontario, and the news wasn't good. The use of food banks in our province continues to increase, and 42% of those benefiting from food banks are children. There are increases in the number of employed people using food banks, as well as the number of people who have no income at all. Seniors, who are frequently living on fixed incomes, are using food banks more.

In northern Ontario, the news is even worse. Food bank use is up 15%, partly because food simply costs more in the north. The Thunder Bay District Health Unit recently issued a report that indicated it costs an average of $545 a month to feed a family of four, $55 more than it costs elsewhere in the province.

I believe the public expects our government to care and to act to solve these problems. It is said that good governments are defined by how they treat the most needy in our society. If one accepts that definition, we clearly have failed the test. I believe the neglect of hunger as a health issue and as an object of concern in public policy is unacceptable to all Ontarians. We must simply do better.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I'm calling upon tenants to help me out. I want tenants-there are 3.3 million tenants in the province of Ontario-to support my Bill 127 that would freeze rents for two years.

It's not a solution. I know that. The Toronto Star in Ontario says it doesn't go far enough. I know it doesn't go far enough, but I also know I can't move that beast on the other side. I can make them a little more reasonable. I can appeal to the public to say it's a reasonable request. Landlords have done well with the Tenant Protection Act. They made huge profits in the last couple of years. They did OK, but the tenants are hurting. The tenants are hurting because your wages have not kept up with the huge rent increases.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Tories don't like tenants.

Mr Marchese: Tories passed the bill because they know that tenants don't vote. We want you to vote. We want you to vote and we want you to send a message to this government. One of the ways you can send a message is, support Bill 127. Call the Minister of Housing and tell him he has to support this bill. Call Mike Harris and tell him he has to support this bill because it's the reasonable, fair thing to do. Isn't it, Peter?

Mr Kormos: Tell him to resign. Tell Harris to resign.

Mr Marchese: It's a fair thing to do. Call me if you want to reach me and let me know what you think: 325-9092. I want your opinion but, more important, tell Mike Harris what you think.

QUILTS FOR CANCER

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): As members of the Legislature will know, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I'd like to tell my colleagues about what one of my constituents is doing to fight this disease.

Carol Miller of Russeldale, Ontario, was diagnosed with breast cancer in April 1997. Carol came up with the idea for an exhibit and auction of quilts to generate profits for cancer research. A lifelong quilter herself, Carol knew of the laughter, sharing and support that could result when individuals gathered together for a quilting bee.

She founded the Quilts for Cancer project to support survivors and to support the research that helps them to survive. At her first exhibition, Carol hoped to receive 35 donated quilts. Instead, she received 134. The project has only continued to grow.

This summer the exhibition of quilts was held at the armoury in Stratford. The exhibit moved on to Toronto, and the quilts are currently on display at Casa Loma until the end of October. On November 18, a gala dinner and quilt auction will be held in Stratford, and 100% of the money raised will go directly to the Canadian Cancer Society.

Church groups, women's institutes, community service clubs and individuals from all across Ontario have contributed to the project. I applaud Carol Miller for her efforts in fighting breast cancer and I congratulate her for her hard work and dedication to this important cause. Carol Miller is truly a survivor.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): Today I want to speak about my deep concern for the needs of the disabled in my riding of Chatham-Kent Essex and of course all of Ontario. I have met with many parents in the past who rely on the special services at home program to maintain disabled children at home. Though they save this government millions of dollars, this program is being systematically starved. Parents are at the breaking point.

Last week I attended a public meeting hosted by local community living associations. The families of disabled clients served by community living, many of whom live in group homes, have also had their funding strangled by the Harris government, from $500,000 last year to only $114,600 this year. It will not even begin to address the highest one or two priorities, our local agency says. To add insult to injury, the aging parents of the 300 remaining residents at Southwest Regional Centre are faced with recurring rumours that the centre will be closed.

At a public meeting I hosted last week, parents said residents must be allowed to remain at SRC. The final 300 are faced with the most serious care requirements and are best served by the excellent staff in the close community at SRC.

I am meeting with Minister Baird this week and I hope I can convince him that all the disabled children and adults in my community urgently require a serious commitment of stable funding. They must have the government's assurance that it will not deny the disabled the dignity, security and care programs they urgently require simply because Mike Harris believes they are not a public priority.

OLYMPIC ATHLETES

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It was very exciting to tune in to the Sydney 2000 Olympics this year, especially since seven of the athletes and coaches were from my riding of Niagara Falls.

Today I rise to take some time to make mention of the participation of four of these athletes in a Canadian basketball program. Nikki Johnson, a graduate of A.N. Myer high school, played for the women's national team. Nikki completed a career at A.N. Myer and went to Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. She fared very well, along with the rest of the women's team, as a defensive specialist on a team that is young and is going to continue to do better.

On the men's team we had Greg Newton and Pete Gurasci, teammates at A.N. Myer. Greg went on to Duke University for a successful career and is playing pro in Europe and South America. Peter went on to Fairfield University and also Simon Fraser University. Pete had an excellent game, especially against Russia, where he scored an amazing 21 points. Greg had a couple of great games against Angola and Spain.

All three of these athletes followed in the footsteps of A.N. Myer's Jay Triano.

Jay went on to Simon Fraser University after Myer and spent over a decade as the captain of the men's Olympic basketball team.

Jay has brought his tenacity and intelligence as a player to the Olympic team to be a coach now. This team will get better and better. They had the best performance they've had in the Olympics, I think, in the history of men's Olympic basketball. Congratulations to those Niagara Falls performers.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer given by the Minister of Community and Social Services concerning Native Child and Family Services of Toronto. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As you know, today, October 17, has been declared by the United Nations as the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. We know there has been a great increase in poverty in this province certainly over the last several years, and I would like to seek unanimous consent to have all three parties have an opportunity to speak about that issue and our support for that resolution in the House today.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Often if I'm approached before a member of the opposition rises on a request for unanimous consent, all three party House leaders can agree to it. But when we're surprised day after day with requests to put aside other government business in order to have unanimous consent for another idea that is brought from the backbenches of the opposition members, unfortunately we can't accommodate that. We can do it if we have some advance notice, but in this case there was no advance notice to us. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the past, on other items we have in fact approached the government-not on this particular item-and on many occasions the government indicated to us that they won't agree anyway. It's to the point where there's frustration on this side.

The Speaker: I thank all members. Hopefully, the House leaders will get together and agree on it. I know at the end of the day it probably isn't that difficult to do and hopefully the House leaders will be able to agree.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TORONTO GARBAGE LAKE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE LAC D'ENFOUISSEMENT DES DÉCHETS DE TORONTO

Mr Ramsay moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 130,

An Act to name the Adams Mine the Toronto Garbage Lake, 2000 / Projet de loi 130, Loi nommant la mine Adams lac d'enfouissement des déchets de Toronto.

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 nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1349 to 1354.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

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

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 41; the nays are 0.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The member for a short statement.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I just felt it would be appropriate to rename the Adams mine site since it hasn't been an iron ore mine now for 11 years. As you know, presently it is a lake, and as of October 11 Toronto decided to send its garbage up there, therefore making it a garbage lake.

I would seek unanimous consent to have second and third reading today.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? No.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Minister of Economic Development and Trade is scheduled to make an announcement at 4 o'clock today with respect to an agreement with truckers. I seek unanimous consent of the House to have the minister give a ministerial statement now, since apparently this deal has been struck.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I heard some noes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER QUALITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Premier. Premier, if Walkerton tells us anything, it's that we desperately need a plan in Ontario to protect our water. The Provincial Auditor told us the same thing back in 1996, and I ran on a platform in 1999 to introduce, at the soonest possible time, a plan that would protect Ontario's water. But what's at issue here, Premier, is your plan-more importantly, the absence of such a plan. So since we couldn't get one from you, we asked the freedom of information people if they might provide us a with a copy of whatever work you are doing over there in your government when it comes to protecting our water.

I have before me a draft copy of the plan. But what's really interesting is that when it comes to the action plan, which is found on page 14 of your draft, it is completely blank. It turns out that you have no action plan. This is your sixth year of government, seven people have died in Walkerton, we've been talking about this issue now for years and years, and you still have no plan to protect Ontario's water. Premier, why are you continuing to fail Ontarians when it comes to protecting their water?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think you're well aware that the Minister of the Environment has outlined a whole range of initiatives that we have taken, even in advance of the very unfortunate situation in Walkerton and as a result as well of the Walkerton situation, which I think we all acknowledge has been a substantial wake-up call for all governments, and indeed all Canadians and all who are concerned in this issue. There's a whole range of initiatives from new standards, new reporting mechanisms, new rules and regulations that need to be followed.

I think you're well aware too that there's been a substantial amount of consultation that's been taking place on groundwater, both on quality and quantity. These discussions were actually begun last spring, pre-Walkerton, and obviously continued post-Walkerton. We are consulting on even further actions that we can take in the future.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you have been unmasked. This tells us that you have no action plan of any kind whatsoever, and you are now in your sixth year of government. Toto has pulled back the curtain and, like the Wizard of Oz, you are nothing but hot air when it comes to protecting our water. You can tell us what you will, but we now have a copy of your draft plan, and under the

section entitled "Action" there is nothing at all. You have not moved forward in any means, way, shape or form to put in place a new law in Ontario that will protect our drinking water. So I ask you again, Premier, why are you continuing to fail Ontarians when it comes to protecting our water?

Hon Mr Harris: As I indicated, we've made a number of announcements and a number of initiatives. The Minister of the Environment throughout the summer and again in this Legislature-I don't know what copy of what thing you have, but it's not my plan, it's not the government's plan, so maybe it's your plan. I can't comment on that.

I can tell you-for example, you talk about the last six years-we set up the provincial groundwater monitoring network in March of this year and dedicated some $6 million to this network. The Ministry of the Environment's been working with conservation authorities and municipalities to monitor ground water levels across the province. You saw the new drinking water standards that were outlined this summer. We have signed agreements, for example, with the Hamilton region, Toronto region, Lake Simcoe region, Gray-Sauble, Grand River, Saugeen Valley, South Nation and Upper Thames conservation authorities.

I could go on and on. I'd be happy to repeat the initiatives. At the same time, I think you know we are consulting on even more steps that we can take, and if you have something to contribute, boy, we're glad to hear it.

Mr McGuinty: You know, Premier, you're quite right: you can go on and on, but the facts are before you. We got a copy of this document through the freedom of information office. It was supplied by your ministry. It tells us that you have no concrete plan of any kind. The page is completely blank when it comes to protecting Ontario water. It's not that it can't be done, and if you're looking for some advice, as you just mentioned, why don't you look to the BC experience? They've got an action plan and, under their

section marked "Action Plan," they've got 58 separate initiatives to protect their drinking water, so it can be done. This, Premier, is what leadership is all about.

I'm asking you again, for the final time on this issue at least today, why do you continue to fail the people of this province? This is the sixth year of your government. Seven people have died in Walkerton, but you continue to fail us by not putting forward a law with real teeth that will protect our drinking water.

Hon Mr Harris: Let me go on: $4.3 million dollars approved through the groundwater management study involving over 120 municipalities; some $12.2 million dedicated to groundwater strategy; in 1999 we announced the water-taking transfer regulations to prohibit the transfer of water from Ontario's major basins. So we've been taking a number of actions. This year, as you know, we've placed even more conditions on permits to take water. The Ministry of the Environment continues to meet with stakeholders on this issue.

Val Gibbons, right now as we speak, is looking at other jurisdictions, including British Columbia, so we can have not only the steps that we've taken now but absolutely the best assurances into the future.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): The second question is also for the Premier. I want to move along to another area in which you are failing Ontarians, when it comes particularly to their health and our natural environment. I want to talk about your government's continuing failure to protect our air. Your minister lately has been crowing about some smog plan, which he tells us will be of tremendous benefit to Ontarians. You know what, Premier? There's something he is overlooking and failing to mention, and that is the fact that your smog plan is 100% voluntary.

There is no law behind it whatsoever, no teeth of any kind. Your plan to ensure that our air is cleaned up and that we reduce emissions that contribute to smog which makes our people sick and even contributes to premature deaths is voluntary.

I'm asking you now, Premier, once again, to tell us why it is, whether we're talking about protecting our water or cleaning up our air, you are continuing to fail Ontarians.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Drive Clean is not voluntary and has already been touted as the most comprehensive plan certainly in Canada, and indeed of all the states that we border on.

As you know, our minister of both energy and of environment is currently meeting with his counterparts from across the country, where we have taken a leading role for national standards. We have said, even though Ontario's electricity, for example, has the second-lowest emissions per electron in Canada, second only to Quebec, far lower than other provinces, far lower than the all the states around us, that we're prepared to go even lower.

But we're asking the federal government to make sure that other provinces have to meet these standards that we're prepared to go to as well, and let's make sure we don't sign a phony-baloney agreement with the United States that asks them to do less than we're doing.

Our Minister of the Environment is taking a leading role in these areas, both on specific power plants that we have here in the province and on the overall pollutants caused by electrons of electricity, where Ontario is far ahead of these other jurisdictions. We'd like to go further. We'd like other jurisdictions to come with us.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, we have become a laughingstock in North America. You have become a polluter's best friend. There is no more welcoming jurisdiction in all of North America when it comes to pollution than Ontario. That's happened as a result of things you have done. You've made tremendous cuts to the Ministry of the Environment. You've extended welcoming arms to polluters right across North America. We've become the favourite dumping ground for toxic waste in North America. All of this has happened, Premier, on your watch.

I want to talk about your 1996 smog plan. It is completely, absolutely, thoroughly and 100% voluntary. You're the guy who was supposed to get tough on lawbreakers. You were going to crack down on lawbreakers. Once again, you've proven that you're all talk and no action.

Tell us again, why is it that when it comes to either our water or our air, you are failing to protect the rights of Ontarians?

Hon Mr Harris: Here's what some independent, third party people are saying:

Pollution Probe executive director Ken Ogilvie, May 29, 1998: "Some of the major air pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide and total suspended particulate matter in the air, have gone down significantly," when asked by CBC Radio if Ontario's air quality has improved in the past five to 10 years.

The chair of the Windsor air quality committee, Bill Marra: "Time for finger pointing over. Time for action."

That's why we're in Ottawa taking a leading role offering to reduce our pollutants per electron far below any of the northern states, far below any of the states, including New York, far below all of the other provinces save, I will say, Quebec, which does not have any coal-fire generation and, as you know, has a lot more water generation. So at the same time we're there leading the way, asking the federal government, "Let's have national standards.

While Ontario is prepared to lead-we're prepared to lead Canada; we're prepared to lead the United States-let's make sure other jurisdictions do the same," for two reasons: both so our industries aren't found to be uncompetitive because we ask them and we are asking them to do more than other jurisdictions, but also that there's a 50%-

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

Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Well, Premier, it's wonderful for you to quote from Pollution Probe some years ago, but you might want to take a look at their recent criticisms of what you've been doing in our province. They point to the fact that 1,900 Ontarians are dying prematurely every year as a result of breathing bad air. They point to the fact that there has been a 400-fold increase in childhood asthma as a result of breathing bad air.

You can stand up in here and proclaim to the world at large that you are at the cutting edge when it comes to protecting our air and our water, but the facts speak volumes otherwise. We have become a national embarrassment, and this has happened because you have failed to show any real leadership when it comes to protecting our air and our water.

Premier, open your eyes. Why don't you admit the truth once and for all? When it comes to our air and our water and the legacy that we owe this generation and generations yet to come, you are letting this province down.

Hon Mr Harris: I can give you quotes from when you were in government and the disastrous job you did-"Liberal delays in updating air quality standards." You didn't bring updated air quality standards. We have brought updates on the standards. We have set objectives. We have set goals. CEIA Ontario, the Canadian Environment Industry Association, says to Minister Dan Newman in a letter, "Your ministry has shown leadership through its endorsement of the pilot emission reduction trading program that allows emitters to take action to reduce their emissions."

The minister right now is taking action, is leading, is offering to have Ontario go even further, lower than any other jurisdiction right now in Canada, lower than the other provinces are prepared to go. But we're asking for a national plan. We're asking the national government to let's make sure that as our power plants reduce, as our emissions reduce, the same happens in other provinces, and let's not sign an agreement with the United States that they seem to be prepared to sign that says they can pollute far more than we're going to pollute. This is absolute nonsense. It's a lack of leadership, and going into an election, I'm surprised Liberals are so wimpy on the environment.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Premier. I want to know when you're going to step in and order your Minister of Health to stop slapping bandages on the crisis in our emergency rooms and do something to start cleaning up the mess your government has created. I want you to commit today to reopening the Wellesley emergency room and to cancelling any further plans for emergency room closures.

Despite your minister's smoke-and-mirror announcements, the crisis is worsening. Yesterday 17 out of 22 hospitals in the GTA were turning away ambulances. As of 9 o'clock this morning, 12 hospitals were turning away ambulances. By noon that number was back up again to 17. On November 9, 1999, the same number of hospitals-17-were turning away ambulances at the beginning of the flu season. The newspaper headlines screamed "Emergency Rooms Overflowing." Here we are in October. It's not even flu season yet and hospitals have been turning away ambulances in record numbers for months. In fact, under your watch the numbers have tripled over the last two years.

Premier, I want you to step in. Will you please commit today to cancelling any further closures of emergency rooms.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the advice and, as always, I'm happy to pass the advice on to the Minister of Health. But let me tell you that the Minister of Health, as you know, has already responded to get ready for this season with significant announcements of increased money for emergency rooms. Yes, it's true, some emergency rooms are scheduled to close down, only so that we can rapidly expand the staff and resources at other emergency rooms.

In addition, there have been a number of other initiatives the minister has taken as part of this strategy, working with our partners, working with nurses, doctors, hospitals, paramedics and ambulance drivers. So to suggest that we're not taking action is certainly not correct.

I appreciate the member's concern. It's a challenge we are wrestling with, indeed all across Canada, and it's a challenge the minister takes very seriously. I'll be happy to pass any other comments or advice you have on to her.

Ms Lankin: Premier, the question was, will you step in? Your minister has been promising immediate steps since 1998 and the situation continues to get worse. Listen to these numbers: in 1995 the total number of hours that GTA hospitals were turning away ambulances was 12,700; in 1996 it was 17,000; in 1997 it was 25,000; in 1998 it was 39,000; last year, in 1999, it was 47,700. The situation continues to get worse.

It is nothing now for ambulances to line up for 45 minutes to get patients off their stretchers. We talked with someone who told us that at a hospital on Sunday, here in Toronto, there were six ambulances backed up and it took over two hours to get the patients off the stretchers and into that hospital. That means they weren't available for other calls. Do you get it? The ERs are backed up, the ambulances are backed up, and now the emergency calls on dispatchers' desks are getting backed up. Would you want to be the parent of a sick child, knowing that your emergency call has gone on to a pile waiting for an ambulance to be freed up?

Premier, please. It is time for you to step in. Will you commit today to reopening the Wellesley ER and cancelling the closure of any further emergency rooms in the GTA?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate the comments and advice. It is clear that emergency rooms are being used dramatically more than ever in the past because, even as we've increased capacity, these challenges are there.

The member suggests that we haven't done anything since 1998. We've invested over $725 million dollars into improving emergency access since 1998. Had the federal Liberals not slashed funding, we might have been able to put it in sooner, but nonetheless, that's how much we did without their funding.

As you know, we are pre-committing already in spending-in anticipation that they'll at least give us back what the Liberals slashed out of our budgets come next spring, unless there is a mini-budget pre-election tomorrow where we get the money sooner; we'll be happy to wait and see that-$115 million in alternative funding plans to ensure physician coverage in the emergency rooms; $100 million to improve access to emergency rooms, a number of flex beds to be available, even though they're not required for the ongoing operation of the hospital, to make sure we're funding them on a standby basis for the emergency rooms; immunization programs.

So clearly, I think you would agree, we have done a lot. But I think you would also agree-

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

Ms Lankin: Your minister has been making announcement after announcement since 1998, and the situation continues to get worse. Your latest announcement was nothing more than smoke and mirrors. It amounts to shifting more money out of hospital operating budgets to pay doctors. The truth is that each hospital is going to have to come up with $90,000 per emergency site in order to get the new plan in place, and they're already facing deficits.

The emergency room at Hamilton General was so clogged yesterday that today, they're cancelling surgery. Even if they had the money to open new beds, they can't hire the nurses to staff those new beds. The $90,000 could hire two nurses.

You continue to close emergency rooms in the GTA and yet your minister is baffled as to why there's a problem in emergency rooms. You extra-bill hospitals for doctors and yet you wonder why you can't hire nurses. It's pretty clear that some emergency action is needed from your government. Will you commit today to reopen the Wellesley emergency room and to cancel all further closures of emergency rooms in the GTA?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate the comments about Hamilton. I don't know how Wellesley is going to help Hamilton.

But we have done a number of things. Any time elective surgeries are cancelled, we're disappointed. I know it happened with your government and the Liberal government. It happens from time to time in unavoidable ways.

But I can tell you that there were no surgery cancellations at the Hamilton General site on October 16. The hospital has opened 12 flex beds in response to the ER admissions, effective yesterday. No other hospitals in Hamilton have cancelled elective surgery. There's $115 million in AFP funding for physicians to assume emergency room coverage. HHSC and St Joseph's are eligible for this funding.

Clearly it is a growing challenge. Let me say to the member-let me be the first, and I think the minister would as well-that we've not solved this problem completely. It hasn't been solved across Canada; it hasn't been solved in Britain; it hasn't been solved in Europe; it hasn't been solved in North America. To suggest that this government and this minister have not, for the first time-and you know that 10 years of inaction and the disgraceful record of your party, with the cancellation of long-term-care beds-

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

CHILD POVERTY

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question to the Premier regarding why so many Ontario kids are living in poverty. In the past two weeks, two very important reports have been released which clearly show the very negative impact that your government is having on kids.

The Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres showed that 52% of aboriginal children living off-reserve live in poverty. The Ontario Association of Food Banks showed that the use of food banks by families has jumped 18% from last year to this. There are now 118,106 children using food banks. Premier, it's clear that your housing and your social assistance policies are having a very negative, detrimental impact on Ontario kids. How can you possibly justify that?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think you are aware we have taken a number of initiatives to both improve the economy and improve the lot of low-income people: massive tax cuts, when you had them taxed at one of the highest rates in Canada, and a number of initiatives to allow them to help themselves in working co-operatively, breaking the cycle of dependency.

I know there are studies out there. I'm happy to report to you a study from Olivia Chow, hardly a friend of this government, a New Democratic Party member I believe, who says: "Outlook for Children `Rosy.'

"`It's a very rosy picture,' child and youth advocate Olivia Chow said as she released her report."

The latest report shows that the city's children and youth, while there are still some on waiting lists for affordable housing, while there are still some living in shelters, showed some marked improvement over two years ago.

Ms Martel: The question was, how can you justify the level of child poverty in Ontario, which is worse than ever before in the history of this province? Two weeks ago you went to the Toronto Board of Trade and encouraged companies to invest in kids. When is your government going to start investing in kids?

You could do any number of the following to stop this slide of child poverty: you could restore rent controls; you could raise the rental allowance for families living on social assistance; you could stop the clawback of the national child supplement for families living on social assistance; you could build affordable housing again; you could raise the pay of the lowest-income families in Ontario who live on the minimum wage.

You've done none of those things. It's very clear that the economic prosperity in this country hasn't trickled down to the poor; in fact, in this province, it has completely bypassed the poor. I ask you again, when are you going to take some concrete action to stop child poverty in Ontario?

Hon Mr Harris: Even with the $11-billion deficit, a disastrous record of your government, I think the report you're quoting from is a 1994 report, which pretty much explains not only the disastrous shape the province was in but how that terrible economy was affecting women and how it was affecting children.

Olivia Chow's report, you see, is a current report, not 1994 data. This-

Interjection.

Hon Mr Harris: I'm sorry, if the member from Riverdale does not care about the statistics as she screams and yells about the city of Toronto, then I am surprised. We are very concerned about Toronto. If there is one child living in poverty, it is one child too many. If there's one hungry child , if there's one homeless child, it is one too many.

I think of the myriad of programs that we have brought forward. Olivia Chow, obviously a New Democratic Party member, in her current study says it's "a marked improvement over two years ago, when it was doom and gloom for Toronto's children." She talks about the numbers of improvements.

I can tell you, just the fact that 550,000 men, women and children have broken that cycle of dependency on welfare that you condemned them to for-

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

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question's for the Minister of Education. The Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, as you may know, is struggling at the present time to make some very difficult school closure decisions. They want to make sure that they get it right. As you may be aware, the population in the Ottawa area is exploding. The best available demographic information will be available in the middle of December, so you have on your desk now a letter from the board asking that you grant them a one-month extension.

At the present time, you've told them they have until the end of this year, December 31. They're asking if they might have until January 31 so that they can make their decisions based on the very best available information. I think that's a reasonable request, Minister, don't you?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I'm well aware that the school board has asked for extra time, unlike other school boards. I also understand that they have been asked for the information upon which they believe they have been disadvantaged by these reporting requirements.

I should stress that school boards have many reporting requirements. This is not a deadline for this school board to close schools or not close schools. We're talking about the funding process that school boards have been well aware of for several years now, so there's nothing new or untoward there.

The local MPPs have been involved with this board to try and work out this issue with them within the community. They've been asked for information upon which they based this request. They have claimed population figures which I gather they have not yet been able to produce. So the ministry is certainly interested in talking to the school board, listening to concerns they may have, but I would like to stress to the honourable member that all school boards' trustees are required to make difficult decisions about allocating their space. That's not new. That is something that school board trustees have done for many, many years, and that responsibility continues.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Madam Minister, I gather you are open to the idea of this request. The school board is looking for data that are being done by the planning department of the regional municipality. That won't be available. This is new information that really illuminates the population boom that is occurring at the moment.

We are totally unanimous within the city. Your members on that side will know this. The board of trade has sent a letter to you as well asking for a one-month extension. It costs nothing, it changes nothing in the process, and it allows the board to make their decisions on school closures based on more recent factual data. Is that not fair? Is that not something that you would want to support to be helpful to a very difficult process in the Ottawa area?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I am surprised, coming from the members opposite, that now since the board of trade says something we're supposed to immediately jump, and yet when our hard-working business community is sometimes consulted on initiatives, they like to criticize us for doing that.

First of all, I would be very surprised if out of the blue, all of a sudden thousands of new people are showing up somewhere in any community and that has not been planned, has not been foreseen. School boards have been asked-and again this is not new. They do long-range planning here. They are well aware of the fact that they are to be submitting information this fall to allow us to better support them in the decisions they make for accommodation. They are well aware of that process. They are to be submitting those long-range plans, and if they have new information I'm sure they can submit new information to the board. We've done that before. We're quite prepared to do that again.

We've heard from some boards, "Oh, well, there's information coming, there's new data." There's new data out of the blue, and it never materializes. We're quite prepared to continue to work with this school board, as we are with all school boards, as they make the difficult accommodation decisions that trustees are elected to make.

We understand that challenge and we'll continue to work with this school board.

FIREFIGHTERS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. As I arrived this morning, it was clear there was a special group of visitors on the front lawn of the Legislature. Can you please tell this House about this group?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member from York North for the question. Indeed, as members from all parties arrived this morning and went to their various caucuses, there was a demonstration of our fire rangers and some of the techniques they use to extinguish fires, not only in Ontario but around the world. The member from Timiskaming-Cochrane was able to get out from caucus and come and join me in greeting our fire rangers.

Every member in this chamber knows that earlier this summer the people in Montana and Idaho faced some very serious conditions-6.9 million acres on fire, a threat to personal property and, more important, lives. When the Americans put the call out for some help with those fires, we responded within three days: 1,300 Canadian firefighters went and did us proud and over half of those firefighters were from right here in Ontario. The reports have come back on their professionalism, their courage, their leadership and, more important, their kindness.

Applause.

Hon Mr Snobelen: The Premier and I had a chance to acknowledge our fire rangers last week in Sault Ste Marie, and I'm glad all my colleagues have joined in doing that today.

Mrs Munro: I am pleased to see that-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the member take a seat. Order. It was very gracious to give our guests a hand. I don't think we need any shouting while the question is being asked. It was a fine gesture on all the members' parts, on all sides. It's now time to carry on with the supplementary.

Mrs Munro: Thank you, Minister. I am pleased to see that not only were our-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take a seat. Order. Member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale, I just called order and I'm not even in my seat and you're yelling at her. I'd appreciate-otherwise, we'll have to name people. I think this one's a non-partisan issue where everybody agrees.

Supplementary.

Mrs Munro: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you, Minister. I am pleased to see that not only were our fire rangers here to be recognized, but also to give a public demonstration of some of their techniques. In recognition of their achievements, the fire rangers presented a permanent record of the Montana experience to the Archivist of Ontario. It seems to me that our fire rangers should have an enviable reputation. Is the American achievement consistent with our international reputation?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again I thank the member for her question. In fact, we have had delegations from around the world visit Ontario to visit with our fire management program and look not only at the new CL-415s that were added to the fleet two years ago to help make us one of the most modern firefighting groups in the world, but also to look at our training techniques, which are the best in the world.

I can tell you, as the Premier mentioned in Sault Ste Marie last week when he was praising our fire rangers from across Ontario who did us so proud this year, that when those people leave Ontario they are not only enthusiastic about our equipment but, more importantly, they are enthusiastic about our people and the character of our people who take on this very brave work. Again, we thank them for making us proud right around the world.

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question for the Minister of Education. As everyone in this House knows, some more than others because they've been back to school in their ridings, there has been turmoil in schools that you started. Six weeks ago, you passed measures that made it possible to lose out on extracurricular, to lose out on teaching quality in places like Kawartha, in schools-I have a list here that touches every single riding, where there has been student protest.

Minister, it's your responsibility and now we hear that you are going to do something about it. What we hear you're going to do is to invoke some of Bill 74, some of what you put on the table, that you're going to compel boards to compel teachers.

I want you to understand what that means. That would be a failure. It would be provocative, it would be disruptive, and you'd be missing the point. What students and parents and teachers have been saying to members of this House is, "Why don't you stop fighting and put peace back in our schools so that kids can learn properly?" Minister, will you do that instead?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): Yet again the member is misinformed. That is not what we're doing.

Mr Kennedy: The minister has to do something, but she doesn't have to do the wrong thing. This minister has had her head in the sand for the last number of weeks. Some 76% of public schools, according to the Ontario Principals' Association, have lost some or all of their extracurricular activities. You are worsening the conditions for teachers such that in the Sandwich Secondary School, a teacher, Adam Vially-he coached hockey and soccer; he sat on three school committees; he taught grades 11 and 12 science. On October 6, he resigned because of your new teaching system that is robbing kids all across Ontario.

Minister, you say you're not going to invoke Bill 74. I challenge you to stand up in this House and tell us what you're going to do so we don't lose more good teachers like Mr Vially and that we actually have better education for our kids. You have lowered education. You have taken extracurricular away. What will you do that will actually improve things for kids this year?

Hon Mrs Ecker: What I said was we would not do what the honourable member said we were going to do. First of all, we have done many things. We will continue to do many things to make sure our students receive the services they need and deserve, including extracurricular activities.

There are thousands of teachers who are providing extracurricular activities because they care about the students. I know that because I've been in schools, Mr Kennedy, and I don't need staged field trips to do it, either. There are thousands of teachers who are providing extracurricular activities, and some of those teachers are getting considerable criticism in their community for doing that from some people. If he doesn't recognize the work those thousands of teachers are doing, I would suggest he should get out there in the schools and see the work they are doing, because it is indeed happening in other communities-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Minister, take a seat. The member has asked the question; we need to hear the answer now. We don't need shouting across to her when she's trying to answer.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

In those communities where we do have problems because some teachers have chosen to exercise work to rule-we don't agree with that. We share the concerns of the students that they're not getting the extracurricular activities they should have. As I've said many times, I've begun meetings with student trustees and we're quite prepared to take appropriate steps when they are required, to try and fix this issue in those communities where teachers are choosing to continue to work to rule. It's not fair to students; they deserve better.

I would like to focus our attention in this House yet again on those teachers who are indeed doing those activities, which the honourable member obviously has not noticed that they are doing.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): My question today is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. The former Newfoundland Premier Brian Tobin was today sworn in as the federal Minister of Industry, jumping to the federal government, despite his claim a year ago that he would fulfill his term as Premier, another flip-flop-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the member take his seat, please. Sorry for the interruption. The member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale, that's your last warning. One more and I'll have to name you. Sorry, member for Halton, for the interruption.

Mr Chudleigh: The former Newfoundland Premier Brian Tobin was today sworn in as federal Minister of Industry, jumping to the federal government despite his claim a year ago to fulfill his term as Premier, another flip-flop-which is understandable, the man being a Liberal.

In the past, the federal government promised that it would treat all provinces fairly when it comes to seeking new investments and jobs. However, given the federal government's record of handling finances, for instance, under Human Resources Development Canada, and the likelihood of a federal election-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member, take a seat. We'll just let the clock run down, I guess. Member for Halton.

Mr Chudleigh: -and the likelihood of a federal election coming any day now, Mr Minister, do you believe that the new minister will maintain the federal government's long-standing policy of fairness and will you remind him of that policy?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I did have some difficulty hearing the member's question, but I think I have the brunt of it.

I want to take the opportunity to congratulate Mr Tobin on his new appointment as the federal minister. I certainly look forward to working with him to see how we can bring continued investment to the province of Ontario.

I believe the member is correct that the previous federal minister, the Honourable John Manley, did make a promise that all provinces would be treated equally when it comes to attracting investment into Canada. The federal government should not play favourites among the provinces when it comes to creating jobs and investment opportunities.

I certainly look forward to working with the new federal minister, and I trust that Mr Tobin's appointment will mean a continued assurance that the federal government will maintain their ongoing commitment to treat all provinces equally.

Mr Chudleigh: The Quebec government and the company, Mosel Vitelic, have asked the federal government to provide special assistance to establish a semiconductor plant in Montreal. I understand the plant was being considered for Burlington, in my riding, but that location did not reach the short list, because the Ontario government would not put any money into the project. Is it possible that the change in federal ministers will be followed by an announcement of federal assistance for that project?

Hon Mr Palladini: While working with the-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Some of the noise, I say to the minister, is coming from his own bench. Would the government benches let the minister answer.

Hon Mr Palladini: I want to say that while working with the city of Burlington, I know how hard they worked to try to attract this investment. Our government was very much involved on a day-to-day basis, and we made it very clear from the beginning that the province of Ontario would not provide direct financial assistance to companies seeking to locate in Ontario. We believe lowering taxes and creating an excellent economic climate is the best way to attract investment.

I can assure the member that the government of Ontario will be keeping a close eye on this investment and making sure the federal government's long-standing commitment to treat all provinces alike is not broken. I certainly hope that Minister Tobin, as a former provincial Premier, understands there must be a level playing field when it comes to attracting investments across Canada.

SCHOOLTEACHERS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I have a question to the Premier. You and the minister behind you are driving away our children's best and brightest teachers in the middle of a national teacher shortage. Maybe you don't know this, but we are on the brink of a crisis. Sixty percent of our boards are experiencing a teacher brain drain. I'll give you one example.

Andrew Barally is one person who is the kind of dedicated professional we need-that you need-in the classroom, an award-winning science teacher, a head hockey and junior soccer coach, and a student adviser. Do you know where he is today? I'll tell you: he's working in Detroit as a computer analyst. Your vindictive war against teachers has turned him and many like him away from the teaching profession. Why are you and your minister hell-bent on creating education orphans in Ontario?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I assume that if he's teaching in Detroit, he's teaching for less money but paying lower taxes and probably working longer hours. Clearly our goal is to be a magnet for the best and brightest. We believe we are, in offering excellence in curriculum, in offering opportunities, in offering less than the national average for actual classroom times so there's more time for preparation, for counselling, for one-on-ones and for co-curricular activities. As you know, we pay among the highest wages in North America, but we think that's fair. We think we have good teachers; we think they are professionals.

I am aware of the demographics, of the number of teachers retiring. I think we had a period of time when we had fewer than normal retirements, because under your government the economy was so lousy there were no other jobs for them. There are other opportunities; there are other challenges. As you know, we've dramatically increased the number of teacher places in our universities and our colleges of education. As a former teacher, a profession I'm very proud of, I believe the future is very bright for teachers in this province as we move from mediocre and OK to the best in the world.

Mr Marchese: The reasons have nothing to do with salaries and nothing to do with your tax cuts. Vector Research, which has done a study on this, tells us that the reasons for the teacher brain-drain are the following: teacher burnout, a reduction in support services for schools, deteriorating working conditions and a negative public perception of the teaching profession. That's what the study reveals. That's what I'm asking you to comment on.

I've got testimonials from two teachers who are sick of what you are doing to the education system. Dale Huddleston, a devoted and passionate teacher, coach for 23 years and national volleyball official, is desperately looking for a new job outside of teaching. You're driving him out of the teaching profession. Mike Doyle, head of physical education and a long-time coach-you're driving him out of the educational system too. Nothing to do with salaries and nothing to do with your tax cuts; it's all to do with the fact that you are turning him off from a profession that he loves.

You, Minister, are creating an entire generation of children who will never know the joy and rewards of a first-class education. Premier, you and your minister have got to address these questions, not the issue of tax cuts. That's not why they're leaving. Speak to that if you can.

Hon Mr Harris: I think the member is wrong.

FIREFIGHTERS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier. We were all delighted to pay tribute to the forest firefighters who are in the gallery today. They have been honoured by representatives of all three parties. They've done just an outstanding job on behalf of the people of Ontario, both here in Ontario and in other jurisdictions.

My question is this: if they have done such a great job for the people of Ontario, why is it that the Premier has cut from 186 to 166 the number of fire crews, and why has he closed 17 of 38 fire houses?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the question, because, as the member knows, when it comes to fighting fires we have an unlimited budget. We budgeted a certain amount of money. In a year like this past year, of course, we had very few fires in Ontario and so our budgets would be down. Last year, when we had a considerable number of fires-I think for a couple of years-you would have found that we made every nickel available that was required and we would go way over budget. That's the nature of firefighting budgets.

But the member is quite right. We have consolidated into three centres of excellence throughout northern Ontario on the advice and recommendation of the professional firefighters themselves. We provided, as you've heard, new equipment, nine new water bombers after 10 years of inaction. The last time we had new water bombers was when Bill Davis-I think you wanted him to buy an executive jet and Bill Davis said, "No, we're going to get two new 415 water bombers." That was the last time. Then we had 10 years with you and the NDP-

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

Mr Bradley: It's quite obvious that the Premier should be going into the business of writing fiction, because many of the answers in the House do not always correspond with the actual facts that are presented.

You see, Premier, when you extol the virtues of a group in our province, when we recognize how important they are and the service they provide, and when they make recommendations to you-I know of no forest firefighter in the province who said, "Please cut the number of crews by 20. Please close so many of the fire bases." In other words, you've closed 17 of the 38 fire bases in the province. If you are truly recognizing the importance of these individuals and these groups, would you not want to invest the appropriate amount of funding in them and ensure that we have the full 38 fire bases and the full 186 crews?

Hon Mr Harris: First of all, let me correct the record. There has been no funding drop for firefighters this year-none. So let's get the record straight on that.

No, you would not want to sit pat with old equipment and old ways. You would want to constantly modernize, constantly be on the leading edge. I think it's acknowledged, when we saw the reports of the firefighters and the techniques that came back from Montana-we saw reports there that said, "The Canucks are coming. Now we're going to see some action." So we've always taken a leading, advocate role.

We have consolidated into a number of centres on the advice-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier, take a seat. Sorry. Member for Windsor West, I can't hear. You looked at me and then you turned and you started shouting. I can't continue.

Interjection.

The Speaker: You're still shouting. It doesn't matter to me if you want to spend the day out; that's fine. It doesn't matter to me. I've said this before. But I'd appreciate, at least, if you're going to do it, that you don't look right at me and start doing it.

Sorry for the interruption, Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: There's enough hot air in here; we might be able to put out even more fires in the future. That might be a better use of the rhetoric we hear from the opposition anyway.

Let me say that when you look at the period from 1985 to 1995, and particularly 1985 to 1990, when the economy was stronger, the shameful lack of reinvestment in the forest industry and forest management plans and firefighting and not one new aircraft-as I said, I think the last time we had aircraft-

The Speaker: Sorry, Premier.

New question.

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Aggressive driving, including speeding, tailgating and improper lane-changing, is a safety issue for drivers throughout this province, yet we know very little about the cause of the problem. Why do people drive aggressively? Who is likely to do this, and under what circumstances?

How we effectively combat aggressive driving is one of the keys to enhancing road safety in Ontario. Can you tell me what action you're taking to advance our knowledge about aggressive driving behaviour?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): I certainly thank my colleague the member for Peterborough for this question. He's absolutely right. Aggressive driving is a very serious concern. We know the number of traffic fatalities could be significantly reduced if we could stop aggressive driving.

MTO is sponsoring a Web conference on aggressive driving behaviour, with discussions taking place on-line. The conference began yesterday and will run through November 30. The conference will provide easy access to new and existing research on aggressive driving, and a discussion forum for road users, safety researchers and policy staff worldwide. This is an opportunity for the public to learn more about aggressive driving. The research topics were chosen by the Ontario Advisory Group on Safe Driving.

Mr Stewart: I applaud you for taking this innovative approach to advancing our knowledge about aggressive driving. What else can you tell me about this conference? Specifically, how can members of the public participate and how will this conference enhance your ministry's efforts to reduce aggressive driving in Ontario?

Hon Mr Turnbull: The conference is being held at www.aggressive.drivers.com. The site will be open after the conference for researchers to review the transcripts and all of the available research. We will discuss and debate the nature and causes of aggressive driving and possible solutions.

It provides a one-stop information source-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order.

Sorry, Minister. I wasn't yelling at you for order, but I know it is confusing when you yell at the members.

We're getting down to where we're going back to the official opposition for the next question. Hopefully, we can get to the question and not have the time run out. We will do that if we don't shout. Particularly when a minister is further down the line, I can't hear down there when people are shouting across.

Minister of Transportation. Sorry for the interruption.

Hon Mr Turnbull: This is an extremely cost-effective way of getting this very valuable information. The public is free to log on and participate in this conference and post comments on the Web site. They can register free of charge because, as we have always said, road safety is our top priority.

POVERTY

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. On September 20, a coalition representing over 80 women's groups came to Queen's Park to ask for all-party co-operation on a package of emergency measures which they are asking to have implemented in this session of the Legislature. Today, on the lawn of Queen's Park, women again came to ask for immediate action to end poverty and violence against women. They too have solutions for this government.

Minister, as you know, poverty and violence against women are inextricably linked. Women represent some 57% of all persons living in low-income situations. Notwithstanding the Premier's earlier remarks, single mothers with children under seven have poverty rates of over 80%, and approximately 30% of them are on social assistance. It's no wonder that 60% of shelters report that women prefer often to return to abusive situations where they can at least feed and clothe their kids, rather than stay safe.

It's been nearly a month since the cross-sectoral strategy group came to Queen's Park asking for support. Minister Flaherty was personally handed a copy of these demands. Dalton McGuinty was proud to sign these measures on behalf of the Ontario caucus. Will you rise in the House today and commit to the women of Ontario that you will finally sign on to these emergency measures?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): Let me say that in this House we're all concerned about poverty. We're all concerned about women's safety. We're all concerned about domestic violence. We all work to do things that we think will make a better life for people, and for women especially in that area.

We have reviewed a number of the proposals that have been put forward. We've brought the ministries together to be able to talk about the proposals that are brought forward. Let me remind the House that we spend over $135 million every year-we will do that in 2000-01-on programs and services that prevent violence and address violence issues with women all across this great province. In 2001-02 this number will once again increase, to $140 million, so commitment certainly is happening on this side of the House.

Mrs Bountrogianni: Minister, these commitments were there before the sectoral group came and brought to your attention that they weren't enough. I'm happy that the three ministries finally got together; the Attorney General didn't even know about these requests. However, what is your action plan, Minister?

Concern is a good first step, but without action it's actually a slap in the face of the women of Ontario, a patronizing statement. You are failing the thousands of women who were last year admitted to shelters in Ontario. You are failing the women who are abused by a partner and you are failing the women and young girls who have been sexually assaulted. Many of these women struggle to provide for their families on incomes far below the poverty line. A recent study, on top of many other studies, showed that 20% of children living in poverty in Ontario have health problems: asthma, nutritional difficulties.

The cross-sectoral group gave you a very clear list of demands. They recognize that poverty and domestic abuse are linked and, where's there's domestic abuse, there's high potential for child abuse. I have children. I know you have children. Our children can't be guar anteed safety unless all the children in Ontario are guaranteed safety. Will you stand up, Minister, and agree to the demands of the cross-sectoral group now?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me say that this government is committed to improving the lives of women and families all across this province. In effect, what we do is we work with women's groups all across the province to ensure we've moved toward economic independence. We have some wonderful statistics of things that have happened in Ontario in the last five years: 768,000 new jobs have been created since September-

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Beaches-East York come to order please. Minister.

Hon Mrs Johns: There have been 768,000 new jobs created since September 1995, and 550,000 people have left the welfare rolls. That's good for women and children in this province. In 1999, 42% of the gains in female employment took place in the higher-paid industries such as manufacturing, educational services, finance, insurance, real estate.

When they talk about me meeting with groups, I have to tell you that I'm meeting this afternoon with two of the groups that they had press conferences with this morning. I've made efforts to try and arrange meetings with the group they're talking about. We're doing all we can to meet with women's groups all across the province to ensure that I represent the women of Ontario in this important issue.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): The northern health travel grant continues to be a source of great frustration for everybody in northern Ontario; petitions continue to come in. I'd like to read another one.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support this strongly, will continue the fight and am proud to add my name to this petition.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario which reads:

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to take an additional $1 billion out of the education system this year and every year; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has decided to hire uncertified teachers in kindergarten, libraries, for guidance, physical education, the arts and technology; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wishes to remove the right to negotiate working conditions; and

"Whereas the Ontario government would remove at least 10,000 teachers from classrooms across the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has become the sole decision-maker on class size, preparation time and the length of the school day; and

"Whereas the Ontario government proposes to take decision-making powers out of the hands of locally elected community-minded trustees,

"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, strongly urge the government to repeal" any anti-education bills "and create an accessible public consultative process for students, parents, teachers and school board administrators to study alternative solutions that have universal appeal and will lead to an improved educational system."

Since I agree, I signed my name to this petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature and it concerns northerners demanding the Harris government eliminate health care apartheid.

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

I affix my signature, as I am in complete agreement with it.

PENSION FUNDS

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

"Whereas the Ministry of Health announced a new model on January 25, 1996, for improving and coordinating long-term care services. The amalgamation of the home care and placement coordination services function did shift to community care access centres (CCACs). The governing bodies of various pension plans, namely the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Savings (OMERS), Victorian Order of Nurses (VON), Family Services Association (FSA) and Hospital of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) have failed to successfully negotiate agreements for a transfer of pension assets.

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

"That the pension adjustments are a transition item which the ministry has not yet addressed. We are requesting a one-time adjustment to enable the transfer of pension assets. This transfer is required to ensure that employees transferred from predecessor employers (namely health units and the Victorian Order of Nurses) to community care access centres as part of the mandatory government reform initiative for `single access to long-term-care services' receive pension benefits equal to those which they formerly enjoyed. Provincially over 3,000 health care workers are affected.

The individuals who transferred to the CCACs had no control over what would happen to their prior pension contributions. Unless a one-time adjustment is made to enable the transfer of reserves, the typical employee will lose about $2,000 annually in pension benefits compared to the position they would have been in had they been allowed to remain in OMERS."

I affix my signature to this petition.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced Bill 112,

An Act to amend the McMichael Canadian Art Collection Act;

"Whereas the McMichael Canadian Art Collection has grown and evolved into one of Canada's best-loved and most important art gallery collections of 20th-century Canadian art;

"Whereas the passage of Bill 112 would constitute a breach of trust made with hundreds of other donors to the McMichael Canadian Art Collection and vest too much power in the hands of the founders, who have been more than compensated for their generosity; diminish the authority and responsibility of the board of trustees; limit the focus of the art collection and hamper the gallery's ability to raise private funds, thereby increasing its dependency on the taxpayers; and significantly reduce its capacity and strength as an educational resource;

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

I affix my signature.

WATER EXTRACTION

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we strenuously object to permits to take water being issued by the Ministry of the Environment without adequate assessment of the consequences and without adequate consultation with the public and those people and groups who have expertise and interest;

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

"We request a moratorium on the issuing of permits to take water for non-farm, commercial and industrial use and the rescinding of all existing commercial water taking permits that are for bulk or bottled water export, outside of Ontario, until a comprehensive evaluation of our water needs is completed. An independent non-partisan body should undertake this evaluation."

I very happily sign my name to this petition.

RENTAL HOUSING DEMOLITION

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I proudly submit this petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the apartment buildings at 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue," and many other apartments in the riding of St Paul's, "are slated for demolition;

"Whereas the vacancy rate in the city of Toronto is currently below 1%;

"Whereas many of the residents are elderly and/or disabled on fixed incomes;

"Whereas the Ontario Municipal Board has determined that the city of Toronto has no control over its own rental housing stock, and in turn;

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has made no attempt to assist the residents to keep their apartments or find alternative living arrangements;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the demolition of rental housing."

I affix my signature in support.

SNOWMOBILE LEGISLATION

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

"Whereas Bill 101,

An Act to promote snowmobile trail sustainability and enhance safety and enforcement, does not exempt trappers from driving a motorized snow vehicle upon a prescribed trail except under the authority of a trail permit for the motorized snow vehicle issued under subsection (2) or except on lands occupied by the owner of a motorized snow vehicle;

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

"That subsection 2.1(1) of Bill 101, 2000, should be amended to:

"`No person except trappers with a valid trapper's licence shall drive a motorized vehicle upon a prescribed trail except under the authority of a trail permit for the motorized snow vehicle issued under subsection (2) or except on lands occupied by the owner of a motorized snow vehicle.'"

I affix my signature to this petition, as it is very important to trappers in northern Ontario.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I move that pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 119,

An Act to reduce red tape, to promote good government through better management of Ministries and agencies and to improve customer service by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting two new Acts, when Bill 119 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be ordered to the standing committee on general government; and

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

h) shall be permitted; and

That the committee be authorized to meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment on the final day until completion of clause-by-clause consideration; and

That, at 4:30 pm on the final day designated by the committee for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, those amendments which have not been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill, and any amendments thereto. Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the completion of clause-by-clause consideration, and not later than November 16, 2000. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on general government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That, when the order for third reading is called, the remainder of the sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, the debate time being divided equally among the three parties, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

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

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Mr Runciman has moved notice of motion number 64. Debate?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to begin debate on the closure motion by saying that this is a typical pattern of the government. The public should be aware that we're dealing with a bill that's 135 pages long, that deals with, I think, 12 different ministries and is part of a pattern of the government where they will bring in this omnibus legislation, much of it relatively straightforward but a portion of it extremely significant, hoping they can get it through without the proper debate.

You may recall, Mr Speaker, that the very first time this was tried, the Harris government had been barely in office and it was then called the omnibus bully bill, Bill 26, but now they continue that process, and it's unfortunate because much of what's in this bill does deserve some substantial debate. As we are rushing through a bill that is 132 pages or 135 pages long, I remind the public of the consequences. In my opinion, the problems we are undergoing now with our environment can be at least in part traced to the things we have done in the past in dealing quickly with these "red tape" bills.

I would urge us to be aware that by rushing through these bills, we are in danger of making major mistakes. I go back to Walkerton and, tragically, I also happen to think the Adams mine will be a similar bad mistake that this government has made, allowing that to proceed. But Walkerton was, I think, at least in part as a result of that.

The government publishes this document, "Doing Business in Ontario," and it brags very much about how they have changed the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. They say approvals have been, to use their language, simplified.

That's language for, "It is now far easier for you to get through approval in Ontario under the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Assessment Act." My leader, Dalton McGuinty, today in one of his lead questions to the Premier pointed out how now in Ontario we are becoming seen around North America as perhaps the easiest jurisdiction to get environmental approval in. Why is that?

It is because we have made, in the last six years under the Harris government, dramatic changes in the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. They have been "simplified" through, at least in part, these so-called red tape bills.

Here we are now with another major red tape bill and the government is telling us today, "The debate is over." We are now going to allocate the time. The debate on second reading will be over as of the end of today. We'll have a short period of time in the committee, and then it's back here for approval. I'm just warning all of us that allowing this to happen without proper debate is dangerous, and we can see no better example than the Walkerton example.

Within this particular red tape bill, there are several problems. One is particularly under the Tenant Protection Act. I will guarantee us there is a time bomb ticking out there around housing. The province of Ontario should be seeing built every year at least 15,000 rental units. We're seeing less than 1,000 a year built. In the last three years, we should have seen 45,000; there have been 3,000, and those 3,000 are almost all at the high end of rental accommodation. We have a powder keg ready to explode. There is no doubt about that.

And if the Harris government thinks they're going to be able to go through the next election without having to face the consequences of that, they're dreaming. My colleague David Caplan debated yesterday this very matter here in the Legislature.

There are major changes in this red tape bill that further strip protection for tenants. So here we are being forced to approve this red tape bill, the debate is over on the red tape bill, and it contains a substantial lessening of protection for tenants in Ontario at the very time when they're going to need, frankly, the maximum protection. I have tenants in my area who are being strongly encouraged to move. Why? Because the day they move out, the landlord, the owner of that building, jacks the rent up on that unit dramatically. I've had people in my office with some substantial concerns. But we are going to ram this through in this bill. That's one of the major problems in this bill.

I must say that I and our party have no difficulty dealing with a bill that simply gets rid of things that should be changed, things that no longer apply, things that no longer work, regulations and legislation that may have made sense 20 years ago. We have no difficulty in dealing with that and we have no difficulty in dealing with it in one bill.

What we strongly object to is when the government uses that goodwill to try and simplify things to ram through substantive changes. Within this bill there are also many examples where the power to make decisions will move from the Legislature to regulation. What that means is that, rather than the duly elected public people having a chance to debate things, the cabinet is able to deal with it behind closed doors through regulation.

I've been watching Minister Palladini. Two weeks ago he said: "I may have to bring in legislation to solve this. In fact I'm going to bring in legislation." He must have taken that to cabinet and they must have said, "There's no way we're going to allow a debate in the Legislature around this problem you've got," so he's now talking about dealing with it through regulation. Why is that? So that democracy doesn't get in the way of efficiency, so that the public doesn't have a chance to debate it, it's done behind closed doors.

In the next few days we expect a property tax bill. There again the government, Premier Harris, will set tax rates raising property taxes of around $6 billion, not through any debate here in the Legislature but through regulation.

Why is this important? It's a huge bill. Much of it is relatively benign, things that all of us can agree upon, but hidden within this bill are some significant problems. We're being asked to ram this thing through with virtually no further debate. It's over today. The time allocation has been read by the government and we will no longer debate it.

I point out that we surely should have learned our lesson in allowing these omnibus bills, hidden in hundreds of pages of detail, to be sent through without adequate debate. We should have learned from Walkerton where, to use the language of Premier Harris, we have substantially simplified. To use the language of those who are worried about it, we've substantially made it easier to get around good environmental protection.

The public should be, I think quite rightly, concerned when they see major legislation being forced through with virtually little, if any, debate. In this instance, the major concern will be the Tenant Protection Act, but there are other pieces within this legislation. There are several examples where the government is now taking away the right of the Legislature to debate an issue and will give itself the authority to deal with it through regulation.

For the public, what does all that mean? What it really means is you will not know about the debate. The government will make the decision, not here in the Legislature but in the cabinet room, without any input from the elected people. If you want to know a great example of it, in the next few days you'll see a piece of legislation dealing with property taxes where Premier Harris will be able to set whatever rate he wants to set, raising $6 billion of property taxes through regulation.

To conclude, I hope the public can appreciate the concern that Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party have with this process of trying, under the umbrella of an omnibus bill, to force through substantive legislative changes that really deserve to be debated on their own merits with the proper amount of time and the proper opportunity for public input.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): It's a pleasure to speak on this motion. We have had three sessional days of debate on this bill. We've heard a number of well-thought-out comments from all sides of the House. It's now perhaps time to give the public an opportunity to offer their comments on this bill, to do the clause-by-clause analysis that's so important, and then let the Legislature decide on the merits of the bill itself.

This bill is important, really, because it's part of our overall strategy to create better customer service on the part of the government of Ontario and to attract investment and jobs to this province.

I remind the House that our definition of red tape is any procedure or process we put anyone through that's not absolutely essential to achieving an identified government objective. It does not in any way weaken health, safety or environmental protection. What it does, in fact, is strengthen those protections, because it achieves better regulation.

Unlike some in this House, we are not married to the past. We don't look at how things have been done for a while and say, "That's why, and how, they've always got to be done." We want to eliminate all but the absolutely essential. We want to make Ontario the best jurisdiction in the world for regulatory excellence. It's a difficult, time-consuming and challenging task, but it's an exciting task, and it is also absolutely essential to good service and economic growth.

Even our friends the socialist government of France have established a red tape commission. They understand how important this is to achieve better customer service and to attract investment and jobs.

Since its founding in 1995, the Red Tape Commission has helped some 170 people and businesses with red tape problems, undertaken extensive consultations on red tape issues, coordinated the preparation of some 14 red tape reduction laws, helped revoke some 1,300 outdated regulations and helped improve many regulatory processes.

How are we going to continue this work? We are going to continue it by continuing our ombudsman function. We, of course, take individual complaints. When a complaint comes in, we have our civil servants meet with civil servants from the ministry involved and try to solve the problem. If that fails, we take it up with the office of the minister and, if necessary, the minister himself or herself, and try to solve the problem. If that fails, we take direction from the Premier of the province in terms of how to solve the problem. We hope that everyone, both in the Legislature and throughout Ontario, will ask for the help of the commission when that help is needed.

We are also going to work very hard to get new red tape cutting ideas and implement them. We need ideas from our citizens, from business, from other jurisdictions, from the public service and from all members of this Legislature.

We hope to develop a business impact test. We want to find out what regulations cost the government, and hopefully determine what they cost business as well. We want to make sure we have at least one red tape bill in the Legislature every year, so that the changes in the law that are needed to create better customer service and attract investment and jobs can be done within a fast time frame. That, by the way, is one of the reasons I support this motion today.

We also want to make sure our government's forms and form systems are 21st-century-friendly. We want them to be the clearest, simplest and most efficient possible.

Computers have great potential to both improve customer service and help get rid of red tape. We've got to look very hard in terms of how to move as quickly as possible to 21st-century service in this area.

This bill offers the latest proposals to cut red tape in some 15 ministries. If it's passed, it will remove two unused acts from the books and streamline 75 acts to provide improved customer service and more efficient government.

Some examples of what this bill does are: it eliminates the requirement to apply for a change of name within 90 days of marriage; it protects consumers by prohibiting the charging of significant up-front fees by credit repair companies for services that consumers can do for themselves at little or no cost; it provides insurance benefits to volunteer auxiliary police officers if they're injured while providing service; and it enhances the Niagara Escarpment Commission's ability to issue stop-work orders regarding unapproved developments.

Red tape reduction is about making it easier, faster and less expensive for both business and the public when dealing with government. It's about encouraging investment in Ontario by breaking down barriers to conduct and manage business. It's about simplifying processes to reduce overlap with other legislation and improve overall efficiency and customer service. Finally, it's about harmonizing and modernizing legislation among ministries.

Cutting red tape is essential to giving better service to our citizens and attracting investment and jobs to Ontario. I urge all members to support this motion and to support the bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate, the member for-

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Essex.

The Acting Speaker: Essex. Why didn't I remember that?

Mr Crozier: I'm proud to be there. It's newly going to be called the South Shore, as well. You'll hear more about it in the future.

I'm generally pleased to stand and speak to the Legislature, but in these instances, a time allocation motion, in my view, is one of the most undemocratic things that can be brought forward in this House.

As I pointed out when we opened debate only three sessional days ago, we have received a red tape bill that-in fact, I don't know how many pages there are in this-covers some 75 acts. I understand there are over 200 amendments, and yet the government member will stand and say, "I think we've had enough debate on this." Three sessional days; I don't know, six to maybe eight or nine hours. There's so much in here to discuss and so much that's important that I agree with my colleague from Scarborough that this very well might come back to haunt us because we don't take the time to debate and to recommend and to discuss what this bill contains.

I don't think anybody disagrees with getting rid of red tape. It was suggested that we come into the 21st century, look at our laws and get rid of the red tape. I agree with that. Much of what's in here, I'm sure, is housekeeping and much of it, under normal circumstances, I could agree with. But the problem is, there's a lot in here that just is not simple housekeeping. There are two new acts. To me, creation of a new act is not getting rid of red tape. When a new act is introduced, I think it deserves to be dealt with in the fullest ways, and time allocation certainly isn't one of them.

I would remind the Legislature that last fall and in this spring session there have been some 32 government bills introduced. Almost half of them have been time-allocated. Twelve bills have received time allocation, which means that the government in its wisdom said, "We don't need to follow the democratic way of a Legislature and allow all members to have the opportunity to speak on this bill. We've heard enough from you," which indicates to me that they really don't want suggestions, they really don't want recommendations, they really don't want a full discussion of the issues. I don't know why not.

That's what we're here for. We're here to represent our constituents, and to do that, we have to be given the fullest opportunity to speak to the issues, and time allocation certainly isn't the way to allow that democratic debate.

The government is suggesting that this will go to committee, and I suspect there will be some sort of public hearing, or at least I certainly hope there would be. But the average number of days that bills have been considered over the fall and spring session of 1999-2000, the average number of days that this government has allowed for committee hearings, is 2.83, almost three days.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): That's all.

Mr Crozier: And that's all. We were just discussing this earlier. My colleague is relatively new to the Legislature. She's been here a year, she's doing an outstanding job, and if I could get all the way through your riding name-

Mrs Dombrowsky: Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.

Mr Crozier: Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. She's done an outstanding job in the year she's been here and she too can't understand why we have to treat these bills with such haste, why we can't take time to debate the issues the way we should.

Be that as it may, I would like to point out that those parts of this omnibus bill that we might want to support-we are prevented from doing so because there are parts of the bill, significant parts of the bill, that we can't support. In fact, it's unfortunate that when they bring a time allocation motion in, we have to spend a sessional day just debating the time allocation motion when we could be better spending the time debating the bill itself.

In the opening remarks that were made on this bill when it was introduced but a few days ago, the government wanted some recommendations on how they may better serve the public, because what they're telling us is that this bill will help us better serve the public. I had a couple of suggestions for them. I haven't heard from them in the last couple of days, but I can tell you ways that they aren't serving the public and that they could well make an attempt to do so.

A couple of examples in my own riding: recently a licence-issuing office was closed in Kingsville. What this causes is that constituents of mine are now going to have to go to another community to renew their driver's license, renew their automobile licence plates. That's not a good way to serve the public, in my view. Something like this, a bill like this, does nothing to improve service to the public in the way that the government says they intend to do.

There's another battle that we've been fighting over the last couple of years and that's when they closed the driver examination centre in Leamington-in the southeast corner of the riding, the furthest it could be from the cities of Chatham and Windsor, where driver examination centres remain-which causes a lot of distress to elderly constituents in my riding because they have to go to a totally new community under different driving conditions than they've ever been used to, to get their driver's licences renewed. They have to stand in longer lines.

It takes longer to get an appointment to have your driver's licence renewed in our area now. That's not better service to the public. In fact, one might say that it's creating more red tape; it's more difficult to get something done than it was before.

I think of the young people in the riding, too, those who are getting their driver's licences for the first time, who are in school. What do they have to do? They have to take half a day off school because they have to travel further distances to get their driver's licence renewed.

In fact, if you want to talk about red tape, it's so bad at times that we have even had suggestions from the Minister of Transportation down our way that somebody go all the way to St Catharines to get their driver's licence renewed: "Well, we've got appointments open in St Catharines or we've got appointments open somewhere down in the Golden Horseshoe area where you can get your driver's license test." That's not serving the public better.

So when they stand here today and say that they're presenting this red tape bill so that they can serve the public better, you can understand why I just might not take that as being the gospel truth, that I'm not sure that all of this is to better serve the public. What we might find if we had more time for debate, more time to bring the issues forward, is that the public is going to be ill served by some of the changes that this bill will bring forward.

Why we need time to inform the public, why we need time to debate these issues, is that not always does the government fully explain to the public what they are doing. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars patting themselves on the back in partisan advertising, money that could be better spent on health care, education, transportation, long-term care, could be spent on having better water quality in the province, could be better spent in those areas. I guess it's a question of priorities.

When you bring forward something like this, and there are good parts of it, then fine: take the time to inform the public, give us the opportunity to debate the issues, give us the opportunity to bring out those parts of the bill that in fact are good and that we might agree with.

I used another example earlier this week of what might not be understood about this bill. There's a very significant change in the Insurance Act with regard to life insurance. At the present time, if you have a terminal illness, there is an opportunity under the Insurance Act to take advantage of what are called "living benefits." You go to your insurance company-in fact, insurance companies are encouraged to promote this-and they will advance a significant amount from your life insurance because of the shortened lifespan and perhaps the economic hardship that it may cause. You still own your insurance policy. You still deal with your insurance company.

What they are proposing here-and as I say, it may not be a bad thing, but I don't think people understand it-is that they're going to allow what are called viaticals. I said the other night that even though I'm not a gambling person, I would bet that most people in the province, and I would even venture to say most in this Legislature, don't know what a viatical is.

Far be it from me to suggest or explain the whole thing here today, but what it really means is that you can go out and discount your life insurance and, as with living benefits, you're able to get a certain amount of the face value of your life insurance policy. The problem is that you have to understand under those circumstances that you're not necessarily going to be dealing with your insurance company. You're going to be discounting what the value of the life insurance is and it's going to be a third party that's going to own your insurance policy.

As we all know, by far the majority in this province are honest, forthright business people, but as sure as I'm standing here, there will be some who are not so upstanding and forthright and will not tell individuals what this really means when they discount their life insurance. It's that kind of thing that I think shouldn't even be in a red tape bill. It should be a subject that's discussed on its own merits so that we have a full opportunity to disclose not only the advantages but the disadvantages of it and people can make an informed decision. These are important life decisions and we should have the opportunity to debate those to their fullest extent.

As much as I want to reduce red tape, as much as there are parts of this omnibus bill that I would like to support, I'm not going to be able to for a couple of reasons. One is because it isn't quite as perfect as the government would lead you to believe; second, we simply haven't had the time to discuss all of the issues that are contained in this omnibus bill that we should have.

I really wonder when the Red Tape Commission comes and reports and says that everything in here is going to be to my benefit, and particularly to the benefit of the public.

I can give another example of red tape, too. This has been brought up several times in the past few weeks, and as we approach Christmas it's even going to become more critical. Last December, this government, with a lot of fanfare, said they wanted to get squeegee kids off the streets of Toronto. They wanted to get them out of the face of drivers. Again, I have no problem with that. If they are being offensive, if they are being aggressive, if there are panhandlers who are being aggressive, I agree that the general public shouldn't have to face that every day.

Anyway, they wanted to get rid of panhandlers, so they brought in, with a lot of fanfare, the Safe Streets Act. Well, Speaker, you and I and others here, and I think even the government members, recognize what really happened was that not only did they get at the squeegee kids, not only did they get at the aggressive panhandlers, but they also got at a lot of charities in this province.

Mrs Dombrowsky: Unfortunately.

Mr Crozier: As my colleague said, that's unfortunate. We know, for example, that the Muscular Dystrophy Association, through its work with the firefighters in the province of Ontario, are looking at a possible reduction of some $750,000 in their fundraising over the next calendar year because their fundraising effort was swept up in the squeegee bill. I have no idea whether it was the intent of the government to do that or not. I certainly would hope that it wasn't. But we were dealt a poorly written bill that not only got at the core problem, as the government saw it, but it takes in a whole other group of innocent people.

The firefighters who carry on boot drives, who have helped build burn units across this province, are affected by it. The fundraising efforts for muscular dystrophy are affected. Come this Christmas, the Goodfellows's work in this province is going to be hurt dramatically, in their fundraising efforts. In Windsor-Essex county, for example, 40% of the money raised by Goodfellows comes from the sale of their papers.

All that the Goodfellows and the people who work with them do is stand on a street corner at a stoplight-they have the appropriate identification, the bright orange vest with the yellow cross, so everybody can see them-and when the light turns red, if a driver in a car rolls down the window and motions to them, they collect some money.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Doesn't sound bad to me.

Mr Crozier: It doesn't sound bad to me. It doesn't sound like squeegee kids to me. And now, because the government won't change that bill, they won't back off, they won't say, "Yes, we made a mistake," and amend the bill, these charities are going to suffer. That, to me, is red tape. That, to me, is getting the government in the face of honest, hard-working volunteers who want to do something for their community. That's red tape.

If you agree, if I can get someone to agree with my definition of that being red tape, I think in committee we should amend this red tape bill. We should give municipalities the opportunity to approve registered charities being able to collect money the way they have, in the case of the Goodfellows, since the early 1900s.

When this bill comes back to us after probably a short time in committee, we're going to have one more chance, one more sessional day, to discuss the issue, and then it will be a done deal.

In my view, time allocation motions are simply undemocratic.

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): It's a pleasure to be able to rise today and make a few remarks on Bill 119. I'm going to concentrate my remarks today on a

section of Bill 119, that part which deals with the Dog Owners' Liability Act.

In prefacing my remarks to the bill itself, I have to take us back to a most tragic and horrific event, and that was the death of Courtney Trempe on April 28, 1998. This was a very tragic experience and accident in our community. It became the focus of a subsequent inquest and one which, frankly, speaks to a number of issues in our community. The jury made 35 recommendations in areas that are as diverse as education, legislative changes, reporting, recording and research. It also spoke to breeders and trainers, animal shelters. It spoke to the need for some financial support as well as a role for the federal government.

It meant that, in the course of the inquest, many questions were asked on the issue of the responsibility of individuals who are stakeholders within the community at large. Whether we're talking about people who own dogs-as the Dog Owners' Liability Act obviously deals with-people who have puppies for sale, people who go to shelters, the responsibility of recording institutions like the Canadian Kennel Club, the role of the publicly provided charitable groups like the Ontario SPCA, there was a huge and complex group of stakeholders identified in the inquest.

The areas that seemed to gain most attention were education, training and the Dog Owners' Liability Act. In the area of education, it became clear that both the public at large, and children specifically, need to have greater awareness of the way in which dogs should be approached, the way in which dogs should be handled and the way in which people should think, expectations of their pets.

Another area that received a lot of attention was the role of training and the responsibility that people have in making sure they have a well-adjusted animal that can be comfortable and confident in a home setting.

But obviously, in relation to this piece of legislation, I'm going to concentrate my remarks on the Dog Owners' Liability Act.

In the report on the inquest into the death of Courtney Trempe, there were two particular areas that I would like to just make reference to. Each of the various stakeholders, some of whom I have mentioned, was asked to respond to the recommendations from the inquest. Of course, one of those was the office of the Attorney General. I would like to read a couple of lines that I think set the stage for the legislative framework that we are looking at today. This, then, suggests that the ministry supports the specific recommendations: two involve dog restraining orders, one restricts pet ownership and two relate to fine provisions.

There is another comment that I would like to read into the record. This comes from Andrew Fordham, who at the time was the chief municipal law enforcement officer for the town of Georgina. Because of his relationship with the Whitchurch-Stouffville area, he was then very much involved in the work that went into the pre-inquest activity.

It certainly speaks to the importance of the legislation we are looking at today to look at a couple of the comments he made. One of the first would be the question of the need in legislation to be able to issue an order to restrain a dog where a statement seeking an order to destroy has been filed. This then would also need to be clarified in terms of being able to give the owner of the dog some comfort as to due process. The second one, which I'll just highlight, is his recommendation of increasing fines to no more than $5,000.

I point out these two examples in this report on the inquest simply to set the stage for the kinds of things we're looking at in this piece of legislation. When you take those particular suggestions that were in the report of the inquest and then look at the specific legislation we have before us, it becomes very clear that those recommendations have been adopted in this piece of legislation.

The first one I would draw your attention to is the inclusion of an interim order, again reflecting the concerns that had been raised with regard to an order to destroy the animal. The next

section of this proposed legislation also gives the court some opportunity to make a decision here, where the court may decide if it's necessary for the protection of the public that the dog be destroyed in the manner specified, or that the owner of the dog take measures specified in the order for more effective control.

It also speaks to something that again was suggested in the jury recommendations, and that is the opportunity for the