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

April 30, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Apr-30 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 30 April 2001 Lundi 30 avril 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WALLEYE WEEKEND

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

LINCOLN M. ALEXANDER

SECONDARY SCHOOL

GOLF TOURNAMENTS

EDUCATION ISSUES

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

CANADIAN DRILLING RIG MUSEUM

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

SCENIC CITY ORDER OF GOOD CHEER

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC SERVICE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT

À LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE

CHARITY FUND-RAISING

ACTIVITIES ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES ACTIVITÉS

DE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES

DE BIENFAISANCE

PROTECTING THE PRIVACY

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PERSONNEL ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA PROTECTION DE

LA VIE PRIVÉE DU PERSONNEL

DU SYSTÈME DE JUSTICE CRIMINELLE

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LE CODE

DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

GREEN PLANNING ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT ÉCOLOGIQUE

DE LA MORAINE D'OAK RIDGES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

ORAL QUESTIONS

PRIVATE HOSPITALS

PROPERTY TAXATION

PRIVATE CANCER CLINIC

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

PRIVATE CANCER CLINIC

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

LONG-TERM CARE

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTES

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

CHILDRENS' SERVICES

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

CHILD CARE

KARLA HOMOLKA

AIR QUALITY

BRAIN TUMOURS

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

HORSE RIDING SAFETY

AUTISM SERVICES

PROTECTION OF MINORS

HEALTH CARE

CELL PHONES

HEALTH CARE

ROYAL ASSENT

SANCTION ROYALE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Monday 30 April 2001 Lundi 30 avril 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WALLEYE WEEKEND

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I am pleased to stand in the House today to invite the people of Ontario to a

very special event that will be taking place in my riding on the weekend of May 4 to May 7. The town of greater Napanee will host the annual Walleye Weekend 2001.

The Napanee and District Rod and Gun Club sponsors this well-known fishing derby with the assistance of the local volunteer firefighters. The annual live-release

walleye and pike event is based out of Conservation Park in Napanee and the event can attract upwards of 6,000 participants.

Tournament organizers will release some 300 fish, both walleye and pike, that weigh over eight pounds, although record holders from previous years are in the 12-

to 14-pound range.

Every year the people of Napanee look forward to the many visitors who flock to this tournament to try their luck in the Bay of Quinte. It is one of the many

reasons Napanee is recognized as the walleye capital of the world. So to the organizers and participants of this year's walleye derby, they are wished good luck and a very pleasant stay in greater

Napanee which, by the way, has been judged in the Harrowsmith magazine as one of the 10 prettiest towns in Canada. So do make some time this weekend, and if you're in the Napanee area, come by for

this very popular event.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Last Tuesday evening the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Mr Coburn, came to my riding to visit with a

number of agricultural people.

This was an important meeting for, as I have mentioned in this Legislature before, and will continue to reiterate, agriculture is the second-largest economic

factor in Durham region. In fact, it's the second-largest factor in the province.

A variety of key agricultural issues were brought to the table that evening: concerns with disaster relief insurance, financial problems farmers are facing due

to subsidies received by their American and European counterparts and, most important, how farmers perceive the future of agriculture in Ontario and especially in my riding of Durham.

Among those who met with Minister Coburn were Dave Frew, Rick Geisberger, Steve Grove, Trevor Nesbitt, Hubert Schillings, Ted Watson, Kevin Werry, Joe Christl,

Bert Werry, and Dale Mountjoy, who, by the way, is the president of the Durham region corn producers.

Since 1995, our province has made it very clear that it is behind our farmers all the way. We're looking forward to a made-in-Ontario solution to the problems

that are affecting our agricultural producers in rural communities.

It is clear the problem lies with the federal government, which has failed to pick up the challenge. One example was the initiative to grant not just $70 million

as the relief program would have dictated, but $90 million to help the grain and oilseed producers in this province. That $20 million speaks volumes about this government's support for agriculture

in this province today.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I thought there was a consensus in this province against junk mail arriving in our mailboxes, but you in

Oakville, as well as I in St Catharines, may have been amazed to know that the Harris government has sent out yet another piece of propaganda, my guess would be at the cost of at least hundreds of

thousands of dollars, perhaps as much as a million dollars, in self-serving, blatantly partisan government advertising. Mr Speaker, you would like to know that the Premier has his picture in here,

smiling, with a message from the Premier.

Now, is this paid for by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario? No, it's paid for by the grateful taxpayers of the province of Ontario. The figure is now

$234 million of wasteful spending on self-serving, clearly partisan government advertising. One need only drive down the highways of the province to see the Premier's name on a number of signs

advertising himself or his ministers.

I would like to direct a question to the Premier this afternoon if I could -- I'm unable to do so, I understand -- about this issue. I have not been able to

direct a question to the him about this since December, and I understand it'll be May 1 before I have an opportunity to direct a question to the Premier of this province. I'm not allowed to say

why, under the rules of the Legislature, but I'll tell you, by gosh, when he gets back I'm going to be gunning for him.

LINCOLN M. ALEXANDER

SECONDARY SCHOOL

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Last Thursday saw the official opening of a newly reconstructed school in my riding of

Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale. Lincoln M. Alexander Secondary School, in Malton, was officially opened by its namesake, the Honourable Lincoln M. Alexander.

Members of this House may think of Malton as just the airport, but it is much more. Malton is a thriving multi-ethnic and multi-racial community, home of people

from every walk of life. The new high school builds on the strengths of the two older schools it replaces and on the strength of the close-knit community it serves. Congratulations go out to all

those who played an important

part in the reconstruction and opening of this school: principal Maurice Hudson and the wonderful teachers and staff members, the hard-working local trustees,

superintendent and board employees. But perhaps most importantly, congratulations go to all of the parents and students who are the heart and soul of education. My constituents are very proud to

see this newly reconstructed school open, and also proud of the great Ontarian who gave it its name.

Lincoln M. Alexander's accomplishments are too many to list in a short time, but I can tell you that he lit up the crowd at the opening. Staff, students and

parents there embraced him to their hearts. The former Lieutenant Governor is well known to this House through his years of public service to Ontario.

GOLF TOURNAMENTS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): As a member representing a large northern Ontario riding, I wish to express my outrage at the Premier's

pilfering of money from the northern Ontario heritage fund for the benefit of his friends. Your Premier's a crook and he's dirty, and you're the most corrupt government Ontario --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Stop the clock. We're not going to start with language like that. I'd ask the member to withdraw.

Mr Ramsay: As revealed in the Saturday and Sunday Toronto Star --

The Speaker: Order. I've stopped the clock to give you time again, but you have to withdraw. You can't use the word "crook" in here.

Mr Ramsay: I withdraw that, Mr Speaker.

As revealed in the Saturday and Sunday Toronto Star articles by feature writer Bill Schiller, Mike Harris's friends have contrived a way of siphoning off up to

$400,000 to put on golf tournaments in northern Ontario. The Premier's hand-picked ex-general manager of the northern Ontario heritage fund, Royal Poulin, suggested to the Premier's friend Peter

Minogue, of Adams mine fame, a way of setting up a non-profit golf company owned by another set of Harris friends, the Rainos. It was Royal Poulin's son -- it's an incestuous little group we have

here -- who helped Peter Minogue with the details of how to set up the shell company and how to apply for the grant. Like the Adams mine deal, we're seeing another example of how Harris's friends

have taken control of the public purse for their own benefit.

This is doubly galling when over the past year, northern Ontario heritage fund assistance has been reduced to a trickle as they realign their criteria. Our

region is severely economically depressed. We lose hundreds of people each month to the south as economic opportunities dry up. We look to our heritage fund to bring assistance to an increasingly

challenging economy. It is not a private fund for the Premier and his friends. He's like a reverse Robin Hood: he steals and gives to the rich.

EDUCATION ISSUES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I want to communicate to the Minister of Education very briefly in a statement today, and to some extent

the Minister of Labour, because we have seen or are witnessing the most demoralized and dispirited educational system and the most dispirited teachers we have ever, ever had to deal with. I'm not

quite sure the government is seeing it. Maybe they know it, maybe they don't. My suspicion is they know that their assault on the educational system has been effective inasmuch as people have lost

a great deal of interest and desire to do their job well. That's at the teaching front. The workload, through Bill 74, has caused the most serious problems to the profession that I have ever seen,

and unless we restore some of that time back to the teachers so they can do their job and do it effectively, we've got a problem.

On the non-teaching side, with your back-to-work legislation, I have to tell you, once again you have dispirited, disillusioned a whole non-teaching profession

that has been serving our schools very well. I know that you have to work at this to be able to bring back some cheer into our school system. You need these workers; everybody needs them, teaching

and non-teaching alike. You, Minister of Labour, and the Minister of Education have got to do some work to bring back some healthy system in order to get the most effective teaching out of

them.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'd like to review the statement made by the member for Timiskaming-Cochrane. If I

heard correctly, he said, implying the Premier, "He steals from the rich." I don't think that is parliamentary language and I think it should be examined, and I would expect a full and complete

apology.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I will review it. If indeed that's what he says --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Durham. If he would stop, he could listen to what I am saying. You've made your point of order. Now I'm going

to tell you what we're going to do about it. Do you want to hear or not?

Mr O'Toole: Yes.

The Speaker: OK. The member can withdraw it. I will review it. What happened is at the end of that statement everybody was clapping, I missed

the end of it and I believe, if I'm correct, it was at the very end. I already warned him once. He can freely stand up if indeed that's what he said and correct the record. If not, I will be

looking at it when the Hansard comes out, and I'll leave it up to the member whether he wants to withdraw it or not. He's going to let me look at it and I will review it.

The member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Mr Speaker, on a point of order --

The Speaker: Point of order. Sorry for the interruptions, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant.

Mr Kormos: -- come the day when the Premier starts taking from the rich, I'm on side.

CANADIAN DRILLING RIG MUSEUM

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Speaker, my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant hosts many interesting museums. The most unique has to

be the Canadian Drilling Rig Museum located at Rainham Centre. This museum has been a five-year labour of love for 25 men, many of whom have worked on rigs and in the gas industry for more than 40

years. Local resident and board president Ted Swent donated the land on which the museum sits. While most of the artifacts have been donated by locals or those who have heard about the museum,

board members continually travel across Ontario searching for pieces to add to the current collection.

At the centre of the museum is an 1896 steam-powered Canadian drilling rig which was used to drill wells until 1961. In 1996, the rig was returned to the

Haldimand area and has undergone a restoration worth $30,000. Today, visitors to the museum can see the 62-foot derrick in working order.

In February, the Ontario Trillium Foundation granted the museum $86,500 to assist with operations.

I invite all members to Haldimand to view this Canadian Drilling Rig Museum.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): In a few moments, the chief government whip will be outlining a process by which we will begin to discuss

reforms to the Legislature and specifically, as I understand it, he'll be talking about using new technology in our processes. We welcome the opportunity to discuss that.

However, if we really want to deal with meaningful reform in this Legislature and deal with the question of government accountability, we will deal with things

like the Legislative Assembly Act and recognize -- and I say this to the chief government whip -- that historically there's always been three-party agreement on changes to the rules.

We don't want a situation like we had last year when the governing party tried to shorten question period. We're going to want to look at changes this government

made to the standing orders that make it more difficult for the opposition to do its job. We want to look at changes to the standing orders that won't allow a government to use closure or time

allocation three times as often as any previous government has used it. We want a situation where we'll have an opportunity to ask the Premier questions, not just on December 18. We would have

liked to ask the Premier questions in January. We would have liked to ask him questions in February and March and the first three weeks in April. In fact, we would have enjoyed asking the Premier

questions last Monday. We would have enjoyed the opportunity to ask them Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Unfortunately, we didn't have the opportunity.

Real accountability is about the changes I've talked to and not about the fluff the government is addressing today.

SCENIC CITY ORDER OF GOOD CHEER

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): A great event was held this past weekend in Owen Sound. A group of dedicated individuals held their

annual gourmet festival dinner, auction and entertainment cruise aboard the MS Chi-Cheemaun, otherwise known as the Big Canoe.

For the past three years, the Scenic City Order of Good Cheer has rented the Chi-Cheemaun, which is the ship that sails between Manitoulin Island and Tobermory.

This event raises money for harbour projects in the community of Owen Sound and area. This year, we are funding a $70,000 gazebo right on the shoreline of the Owen Sound bay. The Scenic City Order

of Good Cheer turns these projects over to the city upon completion.

This year, as in the past two years, we had two sailings: the first on Friday night and the second on Saturday night. Each night, we welcomed 500 people on

board, volunteers and patrons from communities from all over southern Ontario. As well as in the past two years, we had excellent weather with calm seas.

The evenings consist of live entertainment, gourmet dining with a full-course meal of roast duck, roast beef and whitefish, all locally grown. Everyone was

entertained as they sailed around White Cloud and Griffith Islands by the Razz Matazz group and by Grey county's very own Peter Irwin, the best Elvis tribute artist in Canada. Both evenings also

consist of a live and silent auction.

The Scenic City Order of Good Cheer annually participates in four events which start in the spring. These consist of the Chi-Cheemaun cruise, Harbour Heatwave,

the Martel's Rock n' Roll show at the Harry Lumley Bayshore Arena and Summerfolk, which is the most popular folk festival in North America.

The Scenic City Order of Good Cheer would like to thank all the people who took

part in this great event.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin, we have with us today in the Speaker's gallery the committee for public petitions and

complaints from the German state of Bavaria. Please join me in welcoming our special guests.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC SERVICE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT

À LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE

Mr Tsubouchi moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 25,

An Act to amend the Public Service Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993 / Projet de loi 25, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la fonction

publique et la Loi de 1993 sur la négociation collective des employés de la Couronne.

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 be please say "nay."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Notwithstanding the sheep on the one side there, as my labour minister friend calls it, "an audible from a farm animal," the ayes

have it. Carried.

CHARITY FUND-RAISING

ACTIVITIES ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES ACTIVITÉS

DE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES

DE BIENFAISANCE

Mr Crozier moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 26,

An Act to amend the Safe Streets Act, 1999 and the Highway Traffic Act to recognize the fund-raising activities of legitimate charities / Projet de

loi 26, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1999 sur la sécurité dans les rues et le Code de la route pour reconnaître les activités de financement des organismes de bienfaisance

légitimes.

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

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): This is essentially to reintroduce a bill that was introduced in the last session and passed second reading. The

bill amends

section 3 of the Safe Streets Act, 1999, and

section 177 of the Highway Traffic Act to provide that the prohibitions in those sections do not apply to fundraising activities that are

conducted by registered charities and are, in addition, permitted by a municipal bylaw or by a resolution of council of the municipality. The

short title of the act is Charity Fund-Raising

Activities Act, 2001.

PROTECTING THE PRIVACY

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PERSONNEL ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA PROTECTION DE

LA VIE PRIVÉE DU PERSONNEL

DU SYSTÈME DE JUSTICE CRIMINELLE

Mr Levac moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 27,

An Act to protect the families of police officers and others involved in the criminal justice system / Projet de loi 27, Loi visant à

protéger les familles des agents de police et d'autres personnes oeuvrant dans le système de justice criminelle.

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

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): The short name is Protecting the Privacy of Criminal Justice Personnel Act, 2001. The bill would create a board to

examine issues regarding the collection, dissemination and safeguarding of personal information about personnel involved in the criminal justice system. The board would be composed of

representatives chosen by the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the Minister of Correctional Services, the Privacy Commissioner and the Chief Justice of Ontario and various police

associations. The board would be required to make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly each year and meet no fewer than four times, along with keeping up with modern technologies to advise

all ministries.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LE CODE

DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

Mr Ramsay moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 28,

An Act to amend the Human Rights Code / Projet de loi 28, Loi modifiant le Code des droits de la personne.

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

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): The purpose of the bill is to provide that persons in Ontario have a right to equal treatment with

respect to services, goods and facilities without discrimination because of place of residence within the province. The current code does not provide for protection regarding place of

residence.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

GREEN PLANNING ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT ÉCOLOGIQUE

DE LA MORAINE D'OAK RIDGES

Ms Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 29,

An Act to freeze development on the Oak Ridges Moraine and to amend the Planning Act to increase and strengthen the protection of natural areas across

Ontario / Projet de loi 29, Loi imposant un moratoire sur les aménagements dans la moraine d'Oak Ridges et modifiant la

Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire de manière à

accroître et à renforcer la protection des sites naturels partout en Ontario.

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

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): This bill was introduced in the last session, drafted by me and brought forward by my colleague Shelley

Martel, the member for Nickel Belt. We are reintroducing this bill. It is the same bill that died on the order paper when the House was prorogued.

It's a bill that would bring back part of the planning system instituted under the NDP. The system would require municipalities, the province and the Ontario

Municipal Board to make decisions in a manner consistent with provincial policy statements, not just "have regard for," which is what the government did.

The system was developed after extensive public consultations by a three-member commission headed by John Sewell back then.

This bill specifically brings in measures to protect the Oak Ridges moraine, to freeze development until an agreement is reached by all that we can all live

with. Furthermore, the bill goes further than that and also brings back components of the green planning act which the NDP brought in and which this government completely gutted.

Once again, I'm hoping for support from all members. As you know, it passed second reading last time and was actually sent to committee but was never brought

forward. So we have an opportunity to do that now.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion regarding the ordering of

private members' public business.

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

Hon Mrs Ecker: I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following changes be made for the ballot lists for private members'

public business: Ms Dombrowsky and Mr Smitherman exchange places in order of precedence, such that Ms Dombrowsky assumes ballot item number 18 and Mr Smitherman assumes ballot item number 4.

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

Hon Mrs Ecker: I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker: Agreed? I heard some noes.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Basically this is just waiving the notice requirement for the ballot items next week. As you know, there is a specific

requirement there, so this just waives it so those two private members may put their legislation forward next week.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 5 and

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

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My colleague from Toronto-Danforth has just introduced a very important

bill to try to stop sprawl on the Oak Ridges moraine and to protect it. That bill went through second reading. We already read it last time. It went through second reading. You weren't here to read

it. I move, therefore, that we unanimously approve second reading of the bill and let it proceed, because even the Minister of the Environment today acknowledged that she supports protecting the

moraine, and there is an urgency to do it.

The Speaker: Consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): We are meeting the challenges of the 21st century. When we took office, we

made a firm commitment to manage government resources in a more businesslike way and to be more accountable, and I can say with pride that we're meeting that commitment. Every year this government

tables business plans for each ministry, reporting back on how we manage tax dollars. All business plans are available through the Internet. No other government has done as much in this regard, and

we plan to do even better.

But what are we doing about the broader public sector, which consumes nearly 38% of our province's gross domestic product? Taxpayers have the right to know if

their hard-earned dollars are being spent wisely by municipalities, hospitals, colleges and universities, school boards and agencies. This drive for transparency is the cornerstone of out throne

speech.

Reforms are needed to ensure that public sector institutions are accountable to the people of Ontario. That's why we plan to empower the Provincial Auditor to

require that institutions funded by the Ontario taxpayers use their money wisely. That's why universities and colleges are now required to provide students with accurate information on student loan

default rates, graduation rates and employer satisfaction rates for certain programs. This kind of information, available on our Web site, can help a student decide which institution to attend and

which program to choose. It means increased accountability.

We now link funding to performance, ensuring that colleges and universities are accountable to students and taxpayers: 2% of college operating grants and 1% of

university operating grants were tied to performance in 2000-01. In June our government's Task Force on Effective Schools will make recommendations on how best to organize schools to support

continual improvement.

I am pleased to announce today that the performance and accountability measures of this government and of school boards, colleges, universities and hospitals

will be gathered and posted on the government Web site. School boards will be required to report annually on how they use their funding. These results will be published.

Our government is ensuring greater accountability to taxpayers. We want these same high standards of accountability to apply to Ontario municipalities as well.

The province leads the way in developing alternative ways to deliver services while easing the burden on taxpayers, and we have taken significant steps to promote local accountability as well.

Ontario's municipalities are already moving in this direction by measuring performance in high-cost service areas.

Our government will continue to support municipalities in these efforts. That is why I am announcing today that the government will create greater

accountability and transparency for taxpayers at the municipal level by encouraging local governments to look for new and innovative ways to deliver services.

The actions that my colleagues and I have outlined today will guarantee a better, more efficient and open government, a government that protects jobs and keeps

families safe, secure and healthy, a government that strengthens Ontario.

We are meeting the challenges of the 21st century.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I rise in the House today to expand on the theme of accountability as it applies to

Ontario's health system.

As you heard in the speech from the throne on April 19, accountability is one of three priorities on which our government will focus to meet the challenges of

the 21st century.

Hand in hand with growth and fiscal responsibility, accountability is an essential requirement, and it's required not just of Ontario's government but of all

governments and indeed all institutions funded by taxpayers. We must never lose sight of the fact that government is the servant of the people, not its master. Citizens are more than just

"customers" or "clients." The entire public sector belongs to them.

And accountability means setting expectations against which we can all be measured. That will be manifested in transparency and openness with the public.

Citizens are entitled to transparency in the operation of public institutions, including openness about how they spend, and reporting of their performance and results.

Nowhere is this more important than in the province's health system.

No member of this House would disagree when I say that a strong health system is vital to all Ontarians, and to ensure that our health system is as effective,

efficient and responsive as it can be requires clear accountability.

Health care spending has increased at a dramatic pace: 27% in five years, 19% in the past two years alone. However, double-digit increases in health spending

are no longer sustainable. At the current rate of increase, within five years health spending would consume 60% of the Ontario government's operating budget, up from 44 cents on every dollar today

and 38% since our government was first elected.

Spending pressures of such magnitude raise serious questions about the long-term sustainability of Ontario's health system, questions about the very real

possibility that demand might outstrip resources. These pressures challenge us to think differently about how about how we organize health care, about how we deliver these vital services and to

which services we should allocate health dollars.

This government is willing to look for new ideas and to think outside the box to help address the question of sustainability. We know that our health care

system is not sustainable as it is. We want an open and honest dialogue about the future of our health care.

But let's be clear about what this debate is all about. A discussion about ensuring that we have a health care system for now and in the future means talking

about our health care services and how they can be delivered differently. We should not be afraid to ask ourselves how we can provide services better. In fact, we should demand it of ourselves, and

that is what this government is doing.

We invite all of the opposition to join us in this debate and we look forward to exploring all of the options in the interest of preserving our publicly funded

universal health system.

As we move through this debate, we must ensure that we entrench accountability for health dollars in every facet of our health system. That's why we are moving

forward with additional initiatives to ensure accountability within our health system right now.

We believe that when the time comes for a person to have access to the health system, it should be there for that person. We believe that your right to a

top-quality health care system deserves to be guaranteed; you should know exactly what you're entitled to when you show up at a hospital or call on community-based care.

A patients' charter to let patients know what they have a right to expect from their health care system is necessary. This government will move quickly to

deliver on this patients' charter.

We also believe that patients deserve access to complete information on their health. We have heard from Ontarians that they want more information on the

services they receive from the health care system and that they want to make sure they are receiving the services that are being billed to the health care system on their behalf.

Our government has taken steps to make sure that health care fraud is eliminated in our health care system. For instance, Ontario is the only province to

contract police officers dedicated specifically to health fraud investigations. As well, we've established a dedicated fraud programs units with a proactive approach to preventing fraud.

I am pleased to announce that our government is moving ahead with yet another initiative to wipe out fraud from our system. Itemized statements will let

patients confirm that services billed to OHIP are actually and were actually delivered. We will work with our health care professionals to implement this initiative, which will give patients

information on the actual cost of the services they receive.

Running deficits is neither sustainable nor acceptable. The government, municipalities and school boards are now prohibited from running deficits.

Expanding on that, the budget will introduce a measure that would require the entire public sector, including hospitals, to act in a fiscally responsible

manner. While economies of scale and common accountability standards promote excellence and efficiency, so do innovation, competition, flexibility and choice. All must coexist in the system.

We have started along the path with hospital report cards. In partnership with the research community and the Ontario Hospital Association, we are building the

most advanced public reporting on hospital performance in the dominion of Canada. We want to know if they are operating efficiently, how their service levels stack up against other hospitals and

where there is room for improvement. We also want hospitals to benefit from the successes they have achieved and to be able to share their achievements with the rest of the hospital sector.

However, the public deserves to know this information as well, not just government. That's why the government will publish the results of hospital report

cards. Teams of experts from the field and top-performing hospitals will work with the lowest-scoring hospitals to help improve efficiency and service. Ultimately, overall funding will then be

linked to how well hospitals perform.

At the end of the day, we all benefit, as government, as providers, as patients and as taxpayers, when we know that health dollars are being spent wisely and

appropriately. The public holds us accountable for ensuring the provision of health services, now and in the future. And with the announcements I have made today we are continuing to increase

accountability to the health care system. As a government, our challenge is to ensure accountability to Ontario's taxpayers and to demonstrate that accountability by performance shows exactly how,

and how well, their tax dollars are being spent.

We must all recognize, however, that health care resources will never meet unmitigated demand. Yet through careful and strategic planning for the future

direction of Ontario's health system, we can bring stability to the system in the face of competing pressures. Intrinsic to this is a system for which all of us are accountable for money spent, for

services offered, for services used and for outcomes.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Statements by ministries? Chief government whip.

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): I am pleased to join my colleagues to further outline our government's agenda --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If the member could take his seat. Stop the clock. Point of order, member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Speaker: While I regret perhaps being responsible for this member being denied the

chance to announce his leadership campaign for the federal Alliance Party, it's my submission, sir, that as a mere Minister without Portfolio and with no duties attached to that ministry without

portfolio, he is not entitled to participate in ministerial statements.

The Speaker: Yes, we will look. I may ask the member to stand up again. If the Deputy Premier could let the House know if this minister does

have a specific responsibility. He might not have heard that, so I'd ask the House leader for the third party to please --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask the member for Niagara Centre to do his point of order and the Deputy Premier will be asked to respond to

it.

Mr Kormos: With respect, Speaker, it's my submission that a minister without portfolio who has no specific duties attached to that ministry is

not entitled to participate in ministerial statements in this House.

The Speaker: I'm going to ask the Deputy Premier if he could outline what responsibility the minister with special responsibility has, and

then if you could reply to us what special responsibility he has.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Far be it from me to tell the official opposition, but the longer you get to do it, the more time they get to run around and

figure out the answer. So you may want to make it quick.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): Mr Speaker, I understand the point of order the member stands on. I would request that by unanimous

consent the whip be allowed to stand and make comments with respect to this issue.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid he does not have unanimous consent.

The chief government whip.

Hon Mr Klees: On a point of order, Speaker: I would ask that the Chair of Management Board make this statement on my behalf.

The Speaker: He can make any statement if it relates to his portfolio, as long as he has the statement, which he probably does.

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Speaker: Again, with respect, and understanding what's attempting to be achieved, House leaders and their

caucuses were advised of three ministerial statements today: one by the Chair of Management Board, one by the Ministry of Health, one by a Mr Klees.

The Chair of Management Board has made his ministerial statement, the Minister of Health has made his ministerial statement. We've received copies of this, of

course. I trust that the Chair of Management Board would have made the ministerial statement attributed to him in terms of the copies delivered to opposition parties. It's my submission that this

ministerial statement can't be cured by merely passing it off. It was identified as Mr Klees's statement; Mr Klees isn't entitled to make a ministerial statement and the copy is identified

thus.

The Speaker: I'm afraid he can and it's going to be the Deputy Premier. They can do that, and I assume that everybody has their copies. Now,

the Deputy Premier for the statement.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I am pleased to join my colleagues to further outline our government's agenda of

growth, accountability and fiscal responsibility.

Our government has considered it a priority to consult and to listen to the people of Ontario, and equally important, we have consistently delivered on our

promises. Increasingly, we are developing new ways of consulting with and engaging the public in dialogue on issues of importance to them and to better understand their views on proposed government

policy.

That is why I am pleased to inform the House today that consistent with the belief that government exists to serve people, and not the other way around, the

government will expand its use of the Internet to help bring citizens closer to their government. The goal is to ensure citizens' access to a wide range of tools and information that will enable

them to participate more fully in the democratic process.

As the first step toward e-democracy, the government will consult and review opportunities for the use of technology to build accountability and transparency

in government. The possibility of increasing citizen participation in the democratic process is available to us. New changes to technology ensure this. Improved audio and video capabilities offer

effective tools to help guide citizens on-line.

Increasing use of voice recognition software has the potential to allow the disabled access to the democratic process in a significant way. The privacy and

security of information exchanged between the government and the public is, of course, paramount.

We will consult with providers to determine the best means of ensuring the protection of our citizens as we investigate new ways of incorporating technology

into service delivery, policy development and the legislative process.

Constantly evolving software and hardware capabilities are opening new channels through which e-democracy may be explored. On-line remote voting for elected

officials, Internet consultation and feedback opportunities allowing for significant voter input and direct access to legislation and related statues are just a few of the possibilities that can be

explored.

It is important to note that these electronic capabilities are becoming increasingly affordable for all Ontario families, and access through public libraries,

school boards and government locations help ensure that digital democracy can be available to all.

Utilizing these new and innovative methods of communication, we as elected representatives can better understand the wishes of our employers, who are the

people of Ontario. As Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor read in the throne speech, the 21st century demands that Ontario's democratic process be modern and responsive.

We will propose that the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly explore reforms that will expand the use of technology as a tool of the democratic

process. We are committed to making Ontario a world leader in this area. The digital age has arrived. We intend to embrace the new era and the possibilities it offers to make government more

accessible, accountable and efficient.

Governments that fail to improve service and accountability are not being faithful to the mandates they have received from the voters and will fail their

expectations. This government has made a practice of keeping its word, of taking on the challenge of fixing government, and it is in that context that I am pleased to inform the citizens of Ontario

and the House that the government will review how its policies and procedures could be changed to save taxpayers money and to improve service.

We have transformed from a government that offers public services through long lineups and counters to one where the public can reserve a campsite, order a

birth certificate or register their business online. We continue to search for other ways to improve service delivery.

Numerous inquiries and comments from constituents and stakeholders, frustrated with government policy or service delivery, stand as proof that there is yet

more to be done in this area.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I cannot believe that any Minister of Health under a Mike Harris government would have the gall to

stand up in this place and talk about accountability in health care.

This is exactly the same government that has just allowed a private clinic to be set up with no public tender, in fact, without any public discussion because

they were afraid there might be a public backlash to their intention to go ahead and set up a for-profit clinic to provide publicly funded care. The Minister of Health last week responded to a

question about accountability on this particular contract by saying, "Well, after all, it was a private sector contract and we have no control over it at all," even though it is being fully funded

with public taxpayer funds.

This government is so bent on pursuing its ideological agenda to let its private sector, for-profit friends make a profit from health care, they don't even

want to ask the questions of whether there is any accountability in the private sector. They are pursuing this agenda despite all of the evidence, every bit of evidence that has been produced from

other jurisdictions when it comes to private sector delivery of health care, or from the private sector initiatives this government has undertaken in other areas where the Provincial Auditor

himself has said these initiatives aren't saving money; in fact, they are costing money. The government doesn't want to concern itself with accountability when it comes to its privatization agenda,

nor does it want to talk about its own accountability.

Today's focus for talking about broader public sector accountability is really on the hospital sector. This government is very good about wanting to hold

others accountable in order to avoid any accountability or any sense of responsibility that it might take unto itself. So today it says, "We're going to release the hospital report card." This is

one thing I will agree with: this will be good news. Let the public see how public hospitals in Ontario are in fact performing despite all the restrictions and restraints that have been placed on

them by the Mike Harris government. Let the public know what those report cards are starting to show. They're starting to show that because of this government's cutbacks, people who have been

discharged into the community quicker and sicker because of hospital cutbacks are coming back into those same hospitals sicker than before and costing the hospital system more money than if there

had been a decent amount of money provided to those hospitals to provide services in the first place.

Where was the accountability of this government when one of its first actions was to take $800 million out of hospital budgets without looking at any of the

consequences for patients, without concerning itself at all about the level of care that might be needed?

This government wants to talk now about tying hospital funding to performance. I ask, what does that mean when you step past the rhetoric of this Mike Harris

government? Does this mean that those hospitals that send patients out sooner, quicker, are going to get more money because they send patients out quicker? Does it mean that the hospital that shuts

down more of its hospital beds, puts more of its emergency rooms on critical care bypass so that people can't get care in the nearest hospital, is going to look efficient, is going to get more

money?

The government's not accountable in this matter either. When we tried to ask about what's happening with emergency rooms being full, being overcrowded, the

government's response was to say, "We simply won't release those figures any more." So much for public accountability when it comes to the performance of hospitals.

The government wants to look at efficient funding for hospitals, equitable funding for hospitals. It might go back to the funding formula that it has been

sitting on for at least two years, and maybe more now, where hospitals have said, "If we're going to have this new funding formula in place, fair and equitable funding for hospitals, you've got to

provide us with some new method of funding." He's had that formula for at least two years and has not been prepared to put the resources into it. In fact, what has the government done with hospital

funding? They've provided one-year funding. Often by October the hospitals find out what they're going to get to be able to run their services the next year, and then this minister has the gall to

come into this House and talk about the importance of strategic planning. I ask him, how can hospitals do any strategic planning unless there is some long-term funding, the kind of long-term

funding that we've been calling for and the hospitals have been calling for for years?

I could go on, if I had more time, to ask where the accountability is in a government that's going to look at hospital funding but hasn't been prepared to put

the resources into home care funding. Their idea of accountability was to ration services for people who need care at home, not based on need but just based on the government's arbitrary decision

about how much care they were prepared to provide, never relating it back to the fact that they just cut money from hospitals and hospitals were putting more patients into the community.

I could go on and talk about simply making it possible for private, for-profit providers to make bigger profits providing those long-term-care beds we've never

seen, but maybe I can best conclude by saying I believe this is a government that has been far more concerned about public relations than it has about its own accountability. The public

accountability starts with government, and we have none here at all.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Another day where the government repeats speeches about accountability. What we'd like to know and I

think the people across Ontario would like to know is this. We have nurses who are underpaid and who are working under greater stress than ever. We have hospitals that are forced into deficit. We

have schools that are so underfunded that they cannot provide the special education programs that children need, or their extracurricular activities or the necessary support staff. But at the same

time we find out that this government is funnelling hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Premier's golfing buddies, and guess what for: to run golfing tournaments that nobody wants to go to.

That's what we want accountability on. How is it that this government has money to funnel to the Premier's golfing buddies when the things that ordinary people need are being ignored? That's where

we want some accountability.

The Chair of Management Board talks about how they're going to give the auditor more powers. The auditor already pointed out in his last report that this is a

government, in its dealings with our hydroelectricity system, that is going to sell off the money-making assets at bargain basement prices to its corporate friends while sticking the taxpayers of

Ontario with the debt. How about some accountability there? Then, as we learn every day, the taxpayers of the province are going to get hit again on this deal because they're going to pay higher

prices for electricity. That's where we'd like some accountability.

We understand that you can make a lot of money buying up the assets of Ontario Power Generation cheap and then selling the power into the United States at

American prices that are much higher than our own. But where's the accountability for the citizens and the taxpayers and the hydro ratepayers of Ontario?

The Minister of Health boasts about this, he boasts about accountability, but we know that this government has set up a private, for-profit cancer treatment

clinic at Sunnybrook hospital, and they won't give us a copy of the contract; they won't give any information about how there's not enough money for cancer treatment elsewhere in the province but

they've got money for a private, for-profit clinic. That's the kind of accountability we want, not this shallow reannouncement that we hear every day.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): The Minister of Health's continued rhetoric of accountability is impossible to believe, given that this

same minister has continuously refused the New Democratic Party's demands to produce the copy of the contract between Cancer Care Ontario and the private, for-profit clinic running the after-hours

services at Sunnybrook. He also refuses to produce the copy of the funding agreement between the Ministry of Health and Cancer Care Ontario with respect to that, and yet he says that citizens are

entitled to transparency in the operation of public institutions, including openness on how they spend. Where is the transparency? Where is the openness?

He talks about bringing in measures that will prohibit hospitals from running deficits. I remind the minister that in the late 1980s, the policy implemented in

the Ontario government was to prohibit deficits in hospitals. That was continued throughout the entire New Democratic government period of 1990 to 1995. In 1996, when you indiscriminately slashed

hospital budgets, you changed the policy to allow them to run deficits. Now you're saying they are not being accountable.

Minister, how are you going to enforce that? You refer to school boards where you've passed a law that makes it an offence for school board trustees, paid

trustees, to plan for a deficit budget. Are you going to criminalize the volunteers on hospital boards? They are asking that question out there. Are you going to bring in director liability? We

want to know what your mechanisms are.

Lastly on accountability, you talk about an honest dialogue in terms of health care reform, and you frame it in terms of the need to debate who will deliver

the services. What about debating a strategy of government being committed to determinants of health, of what it means when there's a growing poverty gap, when we have more homelessness, when we

have bad air and bad water, when we have inequalities in education? How does that promote a sustainable health care system? What about a debate on shifting from illness treatment to illness

prevention? What about home care based on need, not based on arbitrary limits of rationing? Primary care that doesn't have medical doctors as the gatekeepers? Those are the things we want to

debate. Our question is, will your debate be honest enough for those things to be on the table?

INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On Tuesday, April 24, 2001, the member for Timiskaming-Cochrane rose on a question of privilege to indicate that

his rights and privileges as a member had been abused by the actions of the assembly's former Integrity Commissioner and that there had been interference with an officer of the assembly within the

meaning of paragraph 4 of

section 46(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act.

In particular, the member indicated that pursuant to the Members' Integrity Act, he had lodged complaints with the former commissioner about an alleged

conflict of interest involving the Premier, that the former commissioner had investigated and dismissed the complaints, that the former commissioner's responses to his complaints were "unusual and

to some extent curious," and that a press report had subsequently quoted the former commissioner as saying that he had relied on a friend who was not a member of staff to assist in writing the

report clearing the Premier of any wrongdoing.

The member was of the view that there had been an interference while the former commissioner was considering his complaint, that the Speaker should investigate

and rule on what transpired, and that he had a right to have the Integrity Commissioner -- not an outsider -- decide his complaint.

The member for Niagara Centre (Mr Kormos), the government House leader (Mrs Ecker), and the member for Windsor-St Clair (Mr Duncan) also made submissions.

I have had the opportunity to review our precedents and the usual parliamentary authorities on this matter. Let me preface my substantive response to the issue

by saying that some members would have the Speaker "investigate" the allegations. However, the role of the Speaker is not so much to investigate as it is to rule on questions of privilege raised by

the members drawing salient facts to the attention of the House.

Turning to the substance of the concerns raised by the member for Timiskaming-Cochrane, let me say two things.

First, an allegation that there may have been interference with an officer of the assembly may well raise privilege issues in a proper case. Erskine May

states, at page 125 of the 22nd edition, that the House will treat as contempt "acts directly tending to obstruct their officers in the execution of their duty...." But for there to be a prima

facie case, the facts drawn to the attention of the Speaker must tend to support the claims being made. Some serious allegations have been made in the case at hand, but it does not appear from

various members' submissions that the former commissioner was interfered with in his duties; on the contrary, it appears that he actually solicited the assistance.

This case should be contrasted with the case that was the subject of my May 18, 2000, ruling, where a prima facie case of contempt was made out in

circumstances where the Information and Privacy Commissioner, in a special report to the House, indicated that a government ministry had frustrated an investigation into the release of personal

financial information by the Province of Ontario Savings Office.

My second point is that addressing the issues raised in the question of privilege entails interpreting the Members' Integrity Act. However, members will know

from my previous rulings on this subject that Speakers should generally avoid interpreting or giving legal advice on legislation.

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

In closing, I'd like to thank the member for Timiskaming-Cochrane for raising this matter.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PRIVATE HOSPITALS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): The question is for the Minister of Health. The Premier appeared on TV this weekend and dropped

a bombshell on Ontario's working families. He said he is considering allowing private hospitals to make a debut on the Ontario scene. We searched through your campaign platform and found no mention

whatsoever of private hospitals going into Ontario. On the contrary, here's a promise you and the Premier made at the time of the last campaign: "Our government is fully committed to the five

principles of the Canada Health Act, including universal access to a publicly funded health care system."

My question to you today, Minister, on behalf of Ontario's working families, is, when did you decide to break this promise? Was it prior to the election

actually occurring, or is this something you and the Premier recently decided?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): There has been no breaking of any promise, certainly not with respect to health

care. I hope the honourable member agrees with us on this side of the House that everyone in this province, regardless of where you live or how much you make, should get the health care, the

medically necessary services, you need, when you need it and from the publicly funded, universally accessible health care system.

How you get those services within that context -- I believe we have a responsibility as a duly elected government to look at all the possibilities, not with an

eye to any particular ideology or any particular frame of mind, but simply from the frame of mind that we have to have pragmatically the best delivery of the best services. In many cases, that is

the public sector. In many cases, that's the private sector even now. We've had private sector delivery of publicly funded health care since we've had publicly funded health care.

Mr McGuinty: I want to draw your attention to a release put out by your predecessor on March 3, 1999, and it reads as follows:

"Attention news/health editors:

"Harris government protects public health care -- private hospitals to close.

"Health Minister Elizabeth Witmer announced today that the government is closing two private hospitals ... as part of its ongoing efforts to protect Ontario's

public health care system....

"`Protecting access to our public health care system has been an important ongoing priority for our government,' said Witmer. `By taking this action, we are

ensuring that patients have equal access to high-quality publicly funded health services.'"

Minister, how can you tell us before the election that private hospitals threatened health care for our working families, but that today suddenly they can

actually be working families' best friend?

Hon Mr Clement: The real issue before this House and before the Ontario public is, how do we ensure that we have a sustainable, publicly

delivered health care system, not only for future generations but indeed for present generations? The honourable member must be aware by now that in the last two years alone public funding for

health care has increased by 19%, 27% over the last five years of the Mike Harris government. This is the challenge. Right now, the tools in place will almost ensure that the current system will

within the context of no member of our society being denied access to medically necessary services on the basis of money -- within all that context -- to make sure we deliver it in the best way,

the cheapest way, the most effective way, the safest way.

That is our goal. If he is not part of that goal, that is his business. But that is the goal of the Ontario public as well.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, that's a lovely and elaborate dance, but I wonder if you and the Premier might do-si-do back to the question.

I specifically brought to your attention the fact that just a little over two years ago you made a specific commitment to shut down private hospitals because

you said they were not in the interests of universally accessible and publicly funded health care for our families. Why is it that your predecessor said private hospitals were a bad thing, but now

you and the Premier are telling us that they are in fact a good thing? Can you please now tell us exactly why you came to this flip-flop so that Ontarians better understand where you're going on

this matter?

Hon Mr Clement: I am disappointed that the honourable member, as the leader of his own party, is seeking to play politics with a very serious

issue. I guess it's his right to do that. Every leader throughout this country who is worth the term knows the truth, that the current system is unsustainable, that the status quo is not

acceptable. The leaders in Nova Scotia know that; the leaders in Saskatchewan have said that; Health Minister Allan Rock has said that; the former Premier of Saskatchewan, Roy Romanow, has said

that. He can bury his head in the sand, he has that right, but that is not leadership.

As to the position of former governments on this issue, I need only quote a former Liberal Ontario Health Minister, Elinor Caplan, who said, "We are seeing

them (the NDP) force the private sector out of the delivery of health services, all in the guise of health reform, and ... what is important in my experience as a former Minister of Health is not

so much who delivers the service but the result" of the service. We on this side agree.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question, the leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the same minister. Minister, you and the Premier have become so fond of private hospitals, I can only assume

you know something about them that Ontarians don't. So I will ask the minister now to share with us any evidence, any studies showing that private hospitals not only deliver a profit to their

owners and operators but also deliver equal or maybe even better-quality care to Ontario's working families. Would the minister kindly share those studies and those data with us here and now?

Hon Mr Clement: I'd be happy to share with this House exactly what the Premier did say. Perhaps that would enlighten the discussion for this

afternoon.

If we're going to have a universal system, if we're going to guarantee health care to every citizen of Ontario, we should not be afraid to say, "Can the

private sector run this hospital better? Can they provide the service better? If they can, why should we fear that?" We should welcome that.

I am fully in agreement with my Premier. There are cases in the health care system where the public sector delivers the health care better, cheaper, safer,

more qualitatively than the private sector. There are instances in our health care system now, as we speak, where the private sector delivers that health care for publicly funded, universally

accessible use better, cheaper, safer, faster.

We should not be afraid to ask the questions. If you are afraid to ask the questions, I say to the honourable member, you are not part of the solution; you are

part of the problem.

Mr McGuinty: It's not the questions; it's the answers that Ontarians are afraid of. We're looking to you for answers. I've put a number of

questions to you and you've refused to come up with the answers. If you have no studies, Minister, is it not being irresponsible to float this idea of private hospitals?

There is quite a bit of evidence when it comes to privately owned and operated hospitals, and you should be aware of that. Take a look at the New England

Journal of Medicine. It reported in 1999 that care for seniors in the US cost 16% more in private hospitals than in public hospitals. In Australia, studies now show that privately owned hospitals

resulted in longer waiting lists and increased costs. In Alberta, we now know that private cataract operations mean longer waits and greater costs.

In the absence of your evidence and in the face of mine, we've got to ask ourselves here, is this really about improving health care for our working families

or is it really about ideology and helping out your friends in the private sector?

Hon Mr Clement: I encourage the honourable member to talk to some real doctors rather than spin doctors 24 hours a day. That would be the

start of a solution on this issue.

There is no question that this is part of a comprehensive debate that has to occur in our province and in our country. Indeed, we took our lead from the

honourable Minister of Health, Allan Rock, who has said that the current system is not sustainable. We take our lead from the new head of the Romanow commission, the Honourable Roy Romanow, Premier

of Saskatchewan, who says the current system is not sustainable. So the Premier did say we have to turn over every rock, we have to look at every possible solution in a very pragmatic way, not

being blinded by ideology, not being blinded by the status quo and the protection of those special interests, but to do the right thing on behalf of the people of Ontario, which is to guarantee

better, safer, more accessible health care and health care that is there when they need it. That is our mission on this side of the House.

Mr McGuinty: It just seemed to me, Minister, if you liked this notion of private hospitals, that you have some evidence that would support

that they in fact deliver at least the same quality, and ideally even better, care and that they also, at the same time, cost less.

Let's be straight with working families about what you are talking about here. You want to take the same amount of money that you would give to public

hospitals and give it to a private hospital without any reduction in the quality of care, but in the case of the private hospital they're going to have to generate a profit, they will be subject to

property taxes and they can't issue charitable receipts, so that's going to make it very difficult when it comes to fundraising. I don't know of many volunteers who sign up to work for a business.

You don't get many volunteers over at Wal-Mart these days.

Given all that and given the fact that you could produce no evidence, no studies, today that would show that private hospitals will improve health care, is it

not irresponsible for you to advance the cause of private hospitals when you have no evidence and no factual basis for putting this forward?

Hon Mr Clement: With the greatest of respect to the honourable member, I wouldn't accuse this side of the House of irresponsibility. Another

definition of irresponsibility would be to deny that there is a problem in the health care system, to deny that there is a sustainability gap and to stick your head in the sand and say, "Everything

should march merrily along in the same old way," ensuring that we have future problems for future generations. We are not prepared to do that on this side of the House.

The honourable member knows we have nursing homes run by the private sector now, we have laboratories run by the private sector, doctors in their private

practice are part of the private sector and home care is part of the private sector. We have private sector health care delivery of publicly funded, universally accessible programs even as we

speak.

What is wrong with asking: can we do it better, can we deliver better services for the people of Ontario, safer, quicker, when they need it? On this side of

the House we are not afraid to ask these questions. On that side of the House they bury their heads in the sand.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier. We know that homeowners across the province are being hit with

higher property taxes and we know that municipalities are desperate for property tax revenue because of the costs that you've downloaded on them.

But at the same time that homeowners are paying higher property taxes, we are told that your government is being lobbied to give big property tax breaks to

private golf courses in the greater Toronto area, who also happen to be big financial contributors to the Conservative Party.

I think this is absurd, but I've already seen your government's largesse for the Premier's golfing buddies. What I want you to confirm today, Deputy Premier,

is that your government will not change the property tax assessment system in any way to benefit private golf course owners at the expense of homeowners.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the member opposite: as he may be aware, my predecessor as Minister of Finance, the

Honourable Ernie Eves, appointed the member for Elgin-Middlesex, Mr Beaubien, to look into the Ontario Property Assessment Corp and to report on that. That report has been prepared by the

honourable member and will be released today, I believe.

That's an important report in terms of the functioning of that municipally run property assessment corporation. As you know, that is controlled by the

municipalities. Their councillors comprise the board, with the exception of, I think, two appointees by the province.

They are an important board in Ontario. There is a reasonable prospect for some reform in that area and in that regard I invite you to read Mr Beaubien's

report.

Mr Hampton: What we've just heard, though the Deputy Premier tried to talk around it, is that this government is indeed in the middle of a

strategy to give private golf course owners a tax break when the homeowners of the province are taking it in the neck.

Deputy Premier, just to confirm, this document I have is from a very well connected Conservative lobbyist. It spells out the strategy being used to lobby the

Premier's office, your office and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to obtain property tax decreases for millionaire golf club owners like Club Link and Kaneff.

The document also details Mr Beaubien's report and how that's going to figure into it. This review of the Ontario property assessment system is going to be

timely so that you can give these tax breaks.

Minister, don't you see something wrong with this? Don't you see something wrong with giving the Premier's golfing buddies even more tax largesse while you go

after the homeowners across this province to pay higher property taxes?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The member opposite of course is making an assumption with respect to the contents of the budget to be delivered here on May

9. He'll have to wait until May 9 to see what changes are in the budget for the current fiscal year 2001-02.

I can say that I've heard suggestions from in excess of 300 different people now about what they'd like to see in the budget, what they'd like to see done on

the spending side and on the revenue side and in tax credits in Ontario. I'll be pleased to deliver the budget with the appropriate, responsible choices having been made on May 9.

Mr Hampton: I'm going to send you a copy of this document. You should read it. It's from Hugh MacKenzie, who is well connected to your

government as a lobbyist. But what's even more disturbing about this is that in talking about the lobbying campaign, it suggests that your predecessor the former finance minister, former Deputy

Premier Ernie Eves, should be the person to make sure this happens.

Based on this document from your Conservative lobbyist friends, will you join me in asking for an investigation by the Integrity Commissioner? Under your own

rules, Mr Eves is forbidden from taking

part in any kind of lobbying, any kind of decision like this for at least a year. Please assure us that this isn't happening, but also assure us that you'll

support an investigation by the Integrity Commissioner to make sure that Mr Eves isn't involved in this in contravention of the law.

Hon Mr Flaherty: What has been handed to me is a letter to someone at a consulting firm dated March 1, 2001. It doesn't seem to be addressed

to anyone in government and certainly not to me.

The budget formulation process is, of course, confidential. We preserve the confidence of those who come forward to us with various ideas and suggestions. It's

the government's responsibility, through the Minister of Finance, to consider what all parties have to say to us about various proposals they may have about tax reform in the province of Ontario. I

would think the leader of the third party would want the Minister of Finance of the day to listen to all people from across the province with respect to whatever their suggestions are -- listen,

take them into consideration, make responsible choices and deliver the budget in this place on May 9.

PRIVATE CANCER CLINIC

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is for the Minister of Health. Now that you and the Premier have launched an all-out drive

for private delivery of health care, it's more important than ever that we get the facts on your new private cancer clinic out in the open.

Minister, it's our understanding, and I'd like you to confirm or deny, that the private, for-profit company is reimbursed $3,000 for every course of radiation

treatment administered. This is the same amount that is paid for a course of radiation treatment offered in the publicly run system. However, the private, for-profit company is neither staffed nor

equipped to deal with a full range of complex radiation treatments. Those complex cases will be referred back to Cancer Care Ontario. So their average costs therefore are significantly lower, thus

they can make a profit, but the taxpayer is paying more for less. How, then, do you justify not only the use of the private, for-profit company but one that costs considerably more than the public

system, considering the level of care that will actually be available to patients?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'd be happy to put some of the facts on the table as the honourable member has

indicated. Cancer Care Ontario has contracted with Canadian Radiation Oncology Services for 1,000 cases at $3,500 per case, plus $500,000 for overhead costs. Right now, the ministry pays CCO $3,000

for each case treated at normal hours, but here's the difference. If we fly those people to Buffalo, if we transport them to Detroit, it costs the taxpayer $17,000 per case to send a patient to the

United States of America. So I would encourage the honourable member to compare apples to apples: $17 million was the total cost to shuffle off to Buffalo; $4 million is the total cost of this

contract -- better cancer care services; better for the taxpayer of Ontario as well.

Ms Lankin: Minister, we've absolutely agreed that it is better to treat patients here. But what we've told you is that it is cheaper and more

effective and that there is a broader range of quality care in the publicly funded, publicly administered Cancer Care Ontario system. Your comments just proved that. You said earlier on this

afternoon that sometimes the public sector delivers better, cheaper care. Well, this is an example, and it's a real-life example, of how your government is now paying more for less and profit is

being made at the expense of range and complexity of care for the patient. On top of that, you've also agreed to a high-volume bonus of an extra 15% if the private company meets and exceeds your

patient quotas.

Let me summarize that for you. You're paying more for less; you're not only rewarding but you're building in incentive for revolving-door medicine. Is this the

Tory vision of cost-effective, quality health care?

Hon Mr Clement: In fact, we're paying less than the alternative; we're giving it closer to home right here in Ontario, rather than in a

foreign jurisdiction, so they can be closer to their families and the support services they need in their community. I'll stand in the House every day to defend that.

Perhaps, to settle the issue, the patients themselves should have the last word. We received, on a no-names basis, some letters that were unsolicited to Cancer

Care Ontario and to the government after these patients received care. They said things like, "We're so impressed with the excellent quality care and services which you and your staff provided that

we felt compelled to share our experience with others." Another says, "We offer our sincere congratulations and thanks to the entire staff. In particular, we congratulate Dr McGowan for

coordinating and running the clinic, which is providing timely treatment for many cancer patients." I couldn't have said it better myself.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Premier Harris has been using some rather extreme

language about health spending. He's almost scaremongering, in our opinion, in an attempt to force a two-tier health plan.

Most jurisdictions use health spending as a per cent of gross domestic product to measure health spending. In Ontario, when Premier Harris became Premier,

health spending as a per cent of gross domestic product was 5.7%. Today it is down to 5.3%. That is the measurement that most jurisdictions use to measure a government's commitment to health

care.

My question is this: can you tell us why Premier Harris would be saying we are heading toward bankruptcy when health spending as a per cent of gross domestic

product is lower today than it was 10 years ago, substantially lower than when you became the government?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Of course, is that because of the tax reductions, reduction in red tape, downsizing of

government? With the finding of efficiencies, we've managed to grow the gross domestic product of the province dramatically in the past six years. That's what makes the difference in terms of the

size of the gross domestic product in Ontario. Base operating spending will be $22.5 billion in 2000-01. Per capita spending on health in 1994-95 was $1,625. In the third quarter of the fiscal year

2000-01, per capita spending on health was $1,928.

Mr Phillips: The fact is that this government's commitment to health care has declined as a per cent of gross domestic product. The Premier

said that health spending will go up 5% a year. The government's health spending has gone up 4% a year. On average since you became the government, spending has gone up 4%.

The reason for this is to say that Premier Harris is trying to frighten Ontario into saying, "We've got to move to two-tiered health." I would say to the

people of Ontario, we now spend less per capita in Ontario than the rest of the provinces spend on health care -- less. We spend dramatically less on health care as a percentage of our gross

domestic product than we did five years ago or 10 years ago. Health spending has gone up 4% a year when Premier Harris said the cost went up 5%.

I repeat my question: where is this bankruptcy coming from if we now are spending less on health care as a percentage of our gross domestic product than we did

when you became the government? Where is this bankruptcy coming from?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): We are currently spending in the province of Ontario $2.5 million per hour, $42,800

per minute and $1,928 for every man, woman and child in the province.

The Ontario Hospital Association, the Fyke commission in Saskatchewan, the government of Nova Scotia, almost every government in this country has recognized

that we have a spending crisis in health care and that it would be irresponsible not to address that spending crisis to ensure that we have sustainable long-term health care.

There's a particular politician whom I quote here now, who said, "I am convinced there is enough money in the health care system. I don't think we are spending

it as effectively as we can." His name is Dalton McGuinty, the Kitchener-Waterloo leadership debate, September 22, 1996.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question is for the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet. The government of Ontario is responsible for a

number of services which are delivered by the civil service. What steps are we taking to ensure that the civil service continues to operate top-notch services for the people of Ontario and to

ensure that these services will meet their changing needs?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): We believe in government that people are the most valuable resource that we

have in delivering efficient, effective and reliable services to the people of this province.

The Ontario public service is structured primarily by the Public Service Act and it sets out how government will shape its human resource policies and

practices. The Public Service Act is now more than 120 years old and parts of it no longer really suit the demands of today's business practices.

Today I introduced legislation which, if passed, will help make the public service better able to deliver the services Ontarians need and deserve. The

legislation, which will provide for more efficiency and flexibility, will also introduce choice and democracy to the way in which the civilian members of the Ontario Provincial Police are

represented.

Mr Dunlop: I've received a number of phone calls and letters from people in my riding who are concerned that civilian members of the Ontario

Provincial Police who work closely with uniformed officers are not represented by the OPP association but through the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union. Some of those I have talked to have

led me to believe that the OPP association can better represent their interests than OPSEU.

As the minister will know, civilian members of municipal police forces are represented by their local police associations. Will the minister grant the civilian

employees of the OPP the same right to be represented by their police association?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I thank the member for the question. I'm also aware of these concerns because, quite frankly, I've received hundreds of

letters and phone calls from civilian members of the OPP, as has my colleague the Solicitor General.

As an employer, though, the government cannot unilaterally change the collective bargaining unit of a group of employees even if the members themselves request

it. But what it can do in this case is amend the act to allow for people to democratically choose the bargaining unit that represents them.

The legislation I have introduced today, if passed, will make it possible for these people to decide, through an open and democratic process, whether or not to

join the Ontario Provincial Police Association if they feel in fact that it represents their interests.

We are committed to maintaining a public service which is effective, efficient and reliable, and we will continue to look for ways in which we can improve the

services to the changing needs for the people of Ontario.

PRIVATE CANCER CLINIC

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, I have to tell you that I don't believe your

government has ever been interested in saving medicare because every bit of evidence is that every action your government has taken has undermined health care at every step of the way.

I believe you've been setting up the publicly funded health care system for failure and then you offer privatization as a totally phony answer, and the best

example of exactly that is the way you've handled cancer care.

Minister, I remind you that it was your government that created the crisis in waiting lists for cancer care; that your government delayed in setting up the new

cancer treatment centres; that your government shut down the radiation therapy training program, so we have a shortage of radiation therapists; that it's your government that's refused to act on

the physician shortages, so we have a shortage of cancer care doctors. Now you say you're going to be able to fix the mess that we've made by setting up this new private clinic.

Minister, I need to understand something very basic. I need to understand how this new private clinic is in any way going to deal with the real problems facing

cancer treatment in this province. How exactly is this private clinic going to get the radiation therapists or the cancer care doctors that you have refused to provide to the public system? Exactly

what does this private clinic do for patients that you couldn't or wouldn't do for the public system?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Speaker, in response to the first part of her question, "setting up for failure,"

we've funded the system 19% more over the last two years, 27% more over the last five budget cycles. That is not setting up for failure, that is racing, given the cuts to the federal health

transfer, racing to try to make sure the system is sustainable, at least for the short run. I believe we need no tenders of apologies on that.

When it comes to Cancer Care Ontario, the after-hours clinic, 149 patients have gone through, 149 patients who don't have to leave their families behind, 149

patients who have a support network, 20 to 23 per week. If we go on at that pace, I have been assured we will get through the entire waiting list of people who were going to go out of country, out

of this province, to Buffalo, to Detroit, to wherever, by the end of May, the beginning of June. That is the kind of commitment we've made to make sure that Ontarians get the service delivery they

need on such a terrible scourge as cancer right here in their own community, in their own province.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, we all want to see the waiting lists for cancer treatment reduced, but I need to understand something that you don't

want to answer. I need to understand exactly how a private clinic is going to get those same radiation therapists, those same cancer care doctors, when exactly the same man who failed to find those

people to shorten the waiting lists in the publicly run clinics is now running your private clinic. I just don't understand that, Minister.

I don't understand why, if this new private clinic is actually going to enable patients to be treated faster in Ontario, you couldn't have brought exactly that

same solution fully two years ago so that cancer patients didn't have to wait as long for treatment as they've been waiting in this province.

Your private clinic, Minister, can't cost less. That can't be the answer. There's not a shred of evidence that this private clinic can cost less. In fact, we

know you're going to be paying very hefty premiums to try and fix this crisis. So I ask you to try once more to answer this very basic question: exactly what will the private clinic do for cancer

patients that you could not have done for those same cancer patients in public clinics at least two years ago?

Hon Mr Clement: I'll answer the honourable member very directly. We were advised by Cancer Care Ontario that nobody would step up to the

plate, based on the extension of the current collective agreements and the current situation within Sunnybrook or any other cancer care facility.

If the honourable member has other information, other evidence, tender it. I have already agreed to a value-for-money audit. I'm willing to put the books to

the province on the table, put the contract that CCO signed with the third party deliverer on the table. If there's a better way to deliver it, let's look at it. We've said from the very beginning

of this question period we want better services, we want more efficient services, we want safer services, we want quicker services. If the honourable members on the other side have a better idea,

let's hear it.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): For the last four months I've spent a fair amount of time talking to my constituents --

Interjections.

Mr Wettlaufer: Yes, about 16 to 18 hours a day. As a matter of interest, many of the constituents are very concerned about the accountability

issue, whether it be health care, education or whatever. But the key one that they've been addressing over and over again is colleges and universities.

We have Conestoga College in Kitchener. We have a couple of universities in Waterloo. They are large institutions. They have an important role to play. They

need to ensure that young Ontarians get the relevant skills they need to get jobs and to keep our economy growing.

It was interesting, I just received a letter this morning from one of my constituents asking whether or not these colleges and universities are accountable to

taxpayers and students for their performance, and whether or not they are accountable for delivering the services that the constituents, the taxpayers, the students and all Ontarians, of course,

need.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): I'm pleased to respond to

the question from the member from Kitchener Centre.

Actually I was at the University of Waterloo this morning and I think that all of us in this House should be proud of our university and college system. The

way that Conestoga, the University of Waterloo, Guelph and Sir Wilfrid Laurier are working together is something that we should all be proud of.

Of course, accountability is very important. It's important because we want to support quality programs and we want to support quality programs that meet the

needs of our students.

Last year we implemented a performance-based funding system. Dollars were distributed on the basis of key performance indicators such as graduation rates and

the satisfaction of our employers with the young people who graduated. It does ensure and give information to students and their families about how successful our programs are.

Mr Wettlaufer: You've instituted a system of checks and balances. While those checks and balances will measure accountability, what have we

done to ensure that accountability? What do you do to ensure that colleges and universities will perform as our taxpayers and our students expect?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Once again, we want to ensure that our colleges and our universities are accountable to the students and to the parents

and of course to the taxpayers, and the students get good information so that they can make good decisions while they choose not only the courses that they take by faculty but each and every

program.

Therefore, the college system did very well. My colleague representing Conestoga College would like to know that 91% six months after graduation is the highest

employment level for Ontario college graduates since 1989 -- that's right across the system; this is very good -- and Conestoga was a little bit above that average, at 92%.

As a system, employer satisfaction was at 91%; again Conestoga was at 91.6%. He should be very proud, as the rest of us are, about the students and how well

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

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Minister of Energy: Minister, last Thursday Mr Osborne, the chief executive officer of Ontario

Power Generation, admitted that your government intends to sell off over half the electrical power generation capacity in Ontario in the next 12 months. At the same time, two experts on

hydroelectricity markets have come forward and said that deregulation will integrate Ontario and American markets and allow wealthy electricity-hungry Americans to deplete Ontario's supply, forcing

us to bid against wealthy New Yorkers to buy our own Ontario-produced electricity and will double electricity prices in Ontario.

These are people who've worked at Ontario Hydro, finance experts from the academic community. Minister, why are you so intent on selling off the power

generation capacity that belongs to all people in Ontario to international energy corporations whose only interest is to raise the price?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I don't know where the honourable member has been for the last three and a half

years, but this has been a long, cautious and prudent process.

The market design committee, almost three years ago, reported to this government that Ontario Power Generation, in order to make room for new investors and

competition in the generation side of the energy market, must vacate its dominance or its 90% position in the domestic market right now. Therefore, it has to sell off plant, lease plant or swap

plant. In other words, if we don't do this, Ontario Power Generation will continue to be an electricity monopoly in this province, something that has driven us into some $38 billion worth of debt

in this province. We would continue to do things the old way and we would have no competition in electricity, which will help bring choice, green power and the lowest possible prices to

consumers.

I don't know where the honourable member has been, because a market design committee in a public process recommended this some years ago, and the government is

getting around to implementing that. It's a positive thing for our economy, a positive thing for jobs and the right direction to go in electricity.

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: You can tell by the rather tepid response from the minister's own backbenchers that this isn't getting very far.

Minister, this is what Myron Gordon, who is a finance professor at the University of Toronto, and John Wilson, who used to be on the board of directors of

Hydro One, say: "Electricity deregulation in Ontario will double our bills, increase the cost of everything ... cause industry and businesses to shed jobs and raise our taxes." That's their point

because, as they say, once you open up the market, once you start selling off our generating stations to international companies, they will want to sell the power where they can get the highest

price, which is in New York, Detroit, Chicago. The only way Ontarians will be able to purchase electricity will be if we're willing to pay the much higher price.

They point out that this will have repercussions for jobs, for the economy, because the price is going to go higher. Why would you want to do that to Ontario

industries, Ontario consumers? Why do you want to push the price higher and put --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister of Energy.

Hon Mr Wilson: April 27, the Ottawa Citizen: "Financially, Ontario Hydro was out of control for many years. It became a mammoth company with

ludicrously high salary costs and serious efficiency and safety problems. It piled up a debt of $38 billion guaranteed by Ontario taxpayers. Premier Harris had no choice but to dismantle this

money-eating giant.... Yes, electricity is the juice of life of this economy. But the recent past has taught us that a monopoly system for providing this commodity is a public policy disaster.

Bring on the marketplace." That's a full-page editorial endorsing the direction the government is going in.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, on August 17, 2000 -- last August -- your ministry

sent out a communiqué regarding the final round of long-term-care bed allocations. That bulletin said, "The new selection process will be different than the 1998 and 1999" requests for

proposals, and it will be designed to encourage new, smaller and non-profit applicants.

Minister, we believe, and most working families can now see, that you instead are bent on further favouring the private sector. In fact, two thirds of all the

beds that you've allocated so far have gone to the private sector, a major increase to the private industry. But you did say in your bulletin "smaller and non-profit applicants."

Could you explain to us what is different in the request for proposal? Tell us exactly what will be different. How will it be designed to encourage new and

non-profit applicants?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm happy to reconfirm to this House that we on this side of the House are

responsible for an unprecedented $1.2-billion investment of the taxpayers' money for long-term care that will include the construction of 20,000 new long-term-care beds. This has been a bedrock

commitment of this government and necessary in this province, considering the lack of investment by previous governments when it comes to long-term care.

There has been an RFP process of which the honourable member speaks. It's a process that involves competitive tendering from both the not-for-profit side and

the for-profit side. The objective is quite simply better health care, better care in the community and better long-term care on a basis that is justifiable when it comes to the taxpayers' money.

Those are the criteria that we use: is it the best care that has been tendered on and the most effective way to deliver taxpayer dollars in the form of new beds? Those are the criteria.

Mrs Pupatello: To the Minister of Health, I am asking for an answer to this question about what you supposedly changed about the process to

more benefit the non-profit sector, which is what you said in a bulletin that you sent out to that industry. But let me tell you that two weeks later you removed that bulletin from this memo you

sent and you decided you're not going to benefit the non-profit sector. We on this side think you've been influenced by the $360,000 the long-term-care industry donated to the PC Party.

I'd like to tell you what you changed in this new round. What you said was that in the new application process the applicant must own property. Maybe you can

tell us where the non-profit sector has an advantage over the for-profit sector when you and I both know that's the sector that likely doesn't own property. In fact, you've changed the process to

further favour the private sector in the allocation of these long-term-care beds. Minister, we expect you to come clean on something you should have said in the last campaign.

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member has taken something a bit out of context. Yes, it is part of the RFP process: to be eligible for

consideration you've got to own or have an option or a long-term lease on land, demonstrate that you meet the ministry's financial land development and operating tests. Yes, we want you to own the

property so you can build the building. That is not exactly rocket science. It is there to ensure that we get the most beds, the best beds as soon as possible, so that our long-term care --

Mrs Pupatello: It's about the fastest and who you can get through your friends.

Hon Mr Clement: No. This is an RFP process designed to ensure we have the beds on the ground, built, with the ribbons cut and with the

residents in the beds as soon as possible.

If the honourable member can't understand that, maybe she'll understand this: when it comes to competing for those long-term-care beds, what municipality

doesn't own land?

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTES

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Labour. I read with considerable interest several articles over

the weekend indicating how much effort you personally spent in making sure Toronto kids got back into school today, and yet it seems to me that all I heard on Friday were these dire warnings from

the third party that the kids would not be back in school until at least Wednesday. Could the minister please confirm to this House today whether or not the kids are back in school today?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I first want to thank the members who were here Friday in our caucus and supporting the legislation

that I think was a proper piece of legislation, that showed some clear leadership and offered some hope for the parents and children in Toronto and in Windsor and gave them an opportunity to get

their kids back in school after many weeks of being off.

I also want to suggest to the members of the House here that I was a little dumbfounded by the position put forward by the NDP during that debate, that (

a) there was a settlement in Windsor, when in fact no settlement existed, and they wanted me to withdraw the bill because the settlement, they claimed, was at hand; and (b), which I found very

interesting, that they guaranteed this government that schools wouldn't be open on Monday if we passed this bill because they would ensure that schools wouldn't be open till Wednesday. I'm very

happy to report that 95% of the schools in the city of Toronto and 100% in Windsor are open and operating today.

Ms Mushinski: I thank you, Minister, for that response and I want to express to you, certainly on behalf of the constituents, the parents and

kids in my riding of Scarborough Centre their gratitude for bringing in legislation that got the kids back into school and saved their school year. There were serious concerns that the school year

was about to be lost. Could the minister please assure me today that all the kids will be back into school and that their school year will be saved?

Hon Mr Stockwell: It's my understanding, hearing from the directors at Toronto and Windsor, that their school years are not --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I hear the Liberals heckling. I was happy that you voted in favour this time to legislate the support workers back to work.

I appreciate the fact, when it came to Hamilton-Wentworth, that you didn't vote in favour of sending them back. So now, as true Liberals, you can go back in the next general election and tell

unions that you didn't vote in favour of sending them back and you can tell parents and students that you did vote in favour of sending them back. You're safe on all sides in this one.

I'd like to say that, come tomorrow, I think there will be 100% compliance as far as school openings are concerned. I appreciate the opportunity to say that in

future we have to be very certain, when we introduce back-to-work legislation, that we get co-operation in this House, because we can't form part of the collective bargaining process. When

leadership is needed, when direction is needed to be taken, I think parents and children can count on one thing: this government acting in a responsible manner.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In the throne speech, once again the Harris

government promised to ensure equal opportunity for those who live with physical and mental disabilities, yet your actions speak louder than empty words and phony promises.

The disabled no longer trust you. You have slashed the funding of the Chatham and District Association for Community Living. Parents are struggling to care for

disabled children because of cuts to special services at home, and parents of children at the southwest regional centre live in terror about the future of the centre for their children, who depend

on that care.

Minister, you and your government have failed them all miserably. When will you keep your promise and restore the funding that is critical to equal

opportunity?

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

affairs): We have cut no funding for people with developmental disabilities that he speaks to in terms of services offered in his community.

This is a genuine priority for me, it's a genuine priority for this caucus, it's a genuine priority for this government. We've tried to do a substantial amount

more for people with developmental disabilities. We were able to seek and achieve the biggest increase in services to support people with developmental disabilities -- more than $50 million this

past year -- building on the $35-million budget increase that we got in 1999. We've tried to do a substantial amount to support aging parents who have cared for their adult children for many years

in their communities. We've tried to put more money into special services at home, to provide families with more options. We've tried to put more money into respite care, we've tried to put more

money into out-of-home respite care, and we'll continue to make this a substantial part of it. I'll put my record up against anyone in this regard.

Mr Hoy: Minister, I don't know how many times you said "tried," but keep trying and try to get it right for these people. You need to tell

that to the struggling families and their agencies.

The associations for community living face a funding crisis. There are almost 9,000 people waiting for services. Many of them are from my riding. They need

$440 million for the needs of existing clients and those on waiting lists. The Chatham and District Association for Community Living has followed every requirement that you dictated to achieve the

outcome-based performance measures, but still their applications are denied and they remain critically underfunded.

No more rhetoric. Mr Minister, it's your job to fight for the disabled in the budget process. Will you fight to restore this funding?

Hon Mr Baird: I reject the notion that the member opposite is suggesting, that we've reduced funding in support of people with developmental

disabilities. That is simply not the case. He is dead wrong.

The member opposite quotes what associations for community living say about this government. Let's read what they say. Let's listen to David Barber, president

of the Ontario Association for Community Living: "You have rebuilt these channels of communication and re-established the trust." "It's reassuring to have a minister who understands the needs of

people with developmental disabilities and their families," June Chiu, president of the Toronto Association for Community Living. I could go on. "Your May 5 announcement" -- the $50-million

announcement I cited earlier -- "demonstrates the government's commitment to individuals and families with developmental disabilities," Sue Dolan, president of OASIS.

We've worked tremendously hard to make this a priority. We've expanded services each and every year over the past two years since I became minister. This

caucus, this party, sees it as a substantial priority and we're going to continue to fight for more money.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Recently you provided $90

million in additional funding to the oilseed producers in Ontario. I must admit that most of the farmers in Ontario are certainly grateful for the help that you provided.

But recently I was reading an

article in the Farm Business Journal, and it says, "Competition with low-cost producers such as the United States is nothing new,

says Kim Cooper, marketing coordinator with the Ontario Soybean Growers. "We can't compete with the United States in commodity soybeans. With Brazil, we can't do anything. But the whole premise

years ago was that we should be looking at markets in which we would not compete against the United States."

I realize, Minister, that you can't do anything about low commodity prices, but indicators indicate that we'll probably be facing low prices next year. What is

your government doing with regard to dealing with the situation facing the farmers this year?

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): As you know, the responsibility for international trade rests with the

federal government, and I take every opportunity to encourage the federal government to defend Ontario farmers at the World Trade Organization.

It's essential that the federal government continues to fight for our farmers to eliminate unfair practices and subsidies from our international trading

partners.

If it was a level playing field, our grains and oilseed producers would certainly be the frontrunners. They have the capability and the expertise to produce

crops efficiently, effectively and competitively. Unfortunately, the field is tilted because of the subsidies that we get from the European Union and from our neighbours to the south.

Mr Beaubien: I know that the feds are having difficulty in finding the cheque book and handing out their money. I wonder if you could give

them a hand.

In a more serious tone, Minister, what is your ministry doing with regard to opening new markets and doing research in the field of new products with the

oilseed, and could you inform the House of any other endeavours that your ministry may be doing?

Hon Mr Coburn: Certainly, because the United States is a major player in the global market, it's virtually impossible to avoid competing with

them. That's one of the reasons we've worked with our growers, producers and processors to develop new and lucrative niche markets. Ontario's agricultural food industry has earned a worldwide

reputation of producing commodities to customer specifications.

For instance, over the past five years we've expanded our market into Japan for food-grade, identity-preserved soybeans. Soy, as you know, is a key part of the

diet in Japan. Last year, more than $290 million worth of oilseeds and oilseed products were exported to Japan from Ontario. The Ontario growers benefit from these new markets in that niche

marketing.

CHILDRENS' SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, how much money from the national

children's agenda will you give to Ontario municipalities to support children's services in our communities?

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

affairs): We're committed to spend $114 million of additional funds to support children in communities around the province.

Last week we had the first discussion about our vision. We talked about early years centres to try to do more to enrich community supports, to provide more

supports to parents, to provide a mix of universal supports that are accessible to all parents and to provide substantially more supports to help children who are at risk and to provide children

with special needs.

I think all ministers would love to be able to jump the Minister of Finance and announce funding prior to the presentation of the provincial budget.

Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to be able to do that, but the announcement of how the government will move forward with the expansion of supports for the early years initiatives will follow

the budget on May 9.

Ms Martel: Minister, the question was, how much money will you give municipalities from the national children's agenda to support children's

services in our communities?

I attended a press conference at city hall this morning, and there were representatives from the city of Toronto, Markham, Ottawa and Kingston who all called

on your government to let them know how much money you're going to provide.

You're the government that downloaded services like public health, regulated child care, family resource centres and libraries onto these municipalities

without giving them the additional money to ensure they could deliver these important services to our children at the local level.

I ask you again, Minister, since municipalities are providing the services to children that you downloaded on to them, how much money will they get from the

national children's agenda to support these critical services?

Hon Mr Baird: We'll be coming forward with an agenda on how to expend the national children's agenda money. I think what is exciting is that

now you have all levels of government in Canada rowing together. Our support for children, our support for the early years, didn't begin on April 1 when the federal government joined us. I think it

is a very positive symbol, though, when we have the federal government working with provinces right across the country to ensure we meet the provinces' local needs. When we come forward with the

announcement, I think you'll see it's very much along the lines of the Mustard-McCain study that came out in 1999.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

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

"Whereas we believe that universally accessible, publicly funded health care is sacred and must be protected;

"Whereas Mike Harris intends on turning his back on working families and transforming our system into an American-style, two-tier system where only the rich

will get quality care;

"Whereas we believe that Mike Harris has a secret agenda to promote two-tier health care in Ontario and now the secret is out;

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

"Do not turn your back on Ontario's working families. Fight Mike Harris's agenda to destroy medicare and fight his plan to create a two-tier health care

system."

I am in full support with those sentiments. I affix my signature to this petition.

CHILD CARE

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

"Whereas the Conservative government under Mike Harris has cut funding for regulated child care spaces in Ontario by 15% between 1995 and 1998;

"Whereas the Conservative government under Mike Harris has yet to implement the recommendations of its own commissioned Early Years report by Dr Fraser Mustard

to create a seamless, integrated early years education system;

"Whereas the Conservative government will receive $844 million over the next five years from the federal government for early years development projects;

"Whereas the Conservative government lags behind other provinces in announcing its plans for the $844 million in federal money for early years development;

and

"Whereas other provinces are implementing innovative, affordable and accessible child care programs, such as Quebec's $5-a-day child care program ... ;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We demand the Harris government immediately match and earmark a significant portion of the $844 million from the federal government for expanded, regulated

child care spaces and family resource programs."

This is signed by about 150 people from Windsor and I affix my signature to it.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads in part:

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

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

crimes; and

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

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

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

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

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

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

I'll affix my signature to this and send it up to the appropriate people.

AIR QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

result of air pollution; and

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

the operator of the Nanticoke plant will likely stoke up production to maximize profits which will only worsen the air