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

April 19, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Apr-19 (PDF)

L045 - Wed 19 Apr 2000 / Mer 19 avr 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HUBERT DELANEY

WASTE REDUCTION

OSTEOPOROSIS

SCHOOL FACILITIES

INDIAN ARRIVAL AND HERITAGE MONTH

AIR QUALITY

DEVELOPMENT IN CAMBRIDGE

PASSOVER

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND ELECTION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REPLICA FIREARMS REGULATION AND PROTECTION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION ET LA PROTECTION À L'ÉGARD DES RÉPLIQUES D'ARMES À FEU

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

GAMING FACILITIES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

TENANT PROTECTION

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

CHILD CARE

MUNICIPAL RESTSRUCTURING

MINING INDUSTRY

HIGHWAY TOLLS

COURT SYSTEM

WATER EXTRACTION

VISITOR

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ABORTION

LORD'S PRAYER

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

WETLAND

ABANDONED MINES

ABORTION

ILLEGAL TIMBER CUTTING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

LORD'S PRAYER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HUBERT DELANEY

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): On Friday, April 7, my wife and I had the pleasure of attending a dinner and roast in honour of Hubert Delaney. The community of Avonmore paid tribute to Hubert for the number of years he has made contributions to our community.

Hubert was a businessman in north Stormont for close to half a century, but still found the time and energy to volunteer. Hubert himself has said, "Volunteering is the most fulfilling hobby you can undertake." He has always lived up to that statement and tirelessly worked in his drive to help others. His numerous and diverse accomplishments all serve to illustrate his deep commitment to volunteerism.

Many communities have benefited from Hubert's spirit of volunteerism. He has worked for the Canadian Cancer Society, driving and transporting patients to Ottawa for treatment. He has also been chair of the North Stormont Heart and Stroke Association. He has participated in the Avonmore Community Athletic Association and was on the executive of the Roxborough Agricultural Society.

Hubert has been a devoted member of Our Lady of Angels parish since 1954 and is a fourth-degree member of the Knights of Columbus. In 1996, his commitment to his faith paid off and he was awarded an Order of Merit from the Roman Catholic diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall.

Hubert and his wife have definitely made a difference in our community of Avonmore and surrounding area. He's a true example of old-fashioned values and should serve as an inspiration to us all.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): The residents of Northumberland county have once again proven they are number one in reducing waste. The proof is in the pudding, since Northumberland county received the silver award Monday evening at the Recycling Council of Ontario's Waste Minimization Awards. This is the fifth year in a row that Northumberland county has received an award from the recycling council. I'm proud to note that Hope township, in west Northumberland, was also honoured at this event when they received the gold award for waste reduction.

Both the county and Hope township received these awards because they diverted a significant percentage of municipal waste from landfill sites. In 1999, only 14,000 tonnes of residential waste was buried in local landfill sites, down from 17,000 in 1998.

The county of Northumberland uses a wet-dry recycling system. Wet wastes are transported to landfill, and dry products are sent to a material recovery facility. This has contributed to a larger percentage of waste being recycled, with therefore less impact on our environment.

It is indeed fitting that they were honoured in the week of Earth Day. This Saturday, Earth Day, is a good time for everyone to follow in the footsteps of Northumberland by making a greater commitment to reducing residential waste.

I commend the residents of Northumberland county for making an outstanding effort to reduce waste, and I hope other communities will take inspiration from our eco example.

OSTEOPOROSIS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Here is another example of how the Ministry of Health fools around with the lives of women suffering from osteoporosis. The ministry's own guidelines identify a number of osteoporosis medications as great therapy. For example, the guidelines identify Evista as a first-line osteoporosis treatment option and a primary prevention option, yet it is not available on the formulary.

There is growing concern among doctors and patients that this significant issue is not being addressed by these bureaucrats. Recent investments in this area, such as the provincial hip registry for $2 million, while laudable, seem to place dollars at the wrong end. Preventing hip and wrist fractures is far more cost-effective than treating them or tracking them after the fact. In 1996, Ontario spent $394 million on osteoporosis fractures, 98% of these dollars going to acute and long-term care.

Given that these therapies, such as Evista, cost only $570 per patient per year, an investment in prevention of fractures rather than costly treatment of fractures makes sense both from a human and cost factor.

We are today calling on the Minister of Health to take action, provide our women with access to Evista in order to lessen their pain and at the same time save taxpayers' money now.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): With the flourish of accusations being hurled by the opposition and the press that the Harris government is destroying our education system, I am pleased to acknowledge the significant decisions made by the two school boards in York region.

The York Catholic District School Board and the York Region District School Board committed $151 million and $350 million respectively to build or expand schools within York region. The boards' decisions reflect a fundamental shift in the way the new capital funding model allows boards the autonomy to plan for growth.

This year, not only are new school facilities slated throughout York region but additions to existing schools as well. Thornhill schools have directly benefited with additions to St Joseph the Worker Catholic Elementary School, St Rene Goupil, Glen Shields Public School and Thornlea secondary. These large, new and aggressive capital projects are the result of this government's changes to the capital funding model facilitating faster school construction periods. The new spaces will reflect our commitment to fewer students being taught in portables and will help to ensure an enhanced learning environment for students in our thriving region.

Both boards consistently emphasize the needs of the students as a priority in all their decisions. With this flexibility in capital allocation, they are able to focus on the needs of the students as the fundamental focus.

INDIAN ARRIVAL AND HERITAGE MONTH

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Wednesday, April 26, is the launch of Indian Arrival and Heritage Month 2000. This celebration is to commemorate the arrival to the Americas of the peoples and heritage of the Indian subcontinent.

Indian Arrival and Heritage is a month-long celebration in May where groups throughout Canada, the United States and the Caribbean mark the day in history. May 5, 1838, is the date when peoples from the Indian subcontinent left their homelands for foreign shores.

Ontario's history is woven by stories, experiences, legacies and traditions of peoples from all around the world. The Indian community has grown to over three million in the Americas, with approximately 500,000 in Canada. I would like to take this opportunity to wish the Indo-Canadian community all the best in their celebrations.

I invite all the members of the Legislative Assembly to participate in the launching of these celebrations on April 26 in the rotunda at Toronto city hall. Again, I want to take the opportunity to wish the Indo-Canadian community all the best in their celebrations.

AIR QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): Spring is here and summer is just around the corner. Unfortunately, so is smog. Smog kills at least 1,800 people in Ontario each year. It causes more than one quarter of all summer hospital admissions for breathing problems and substantial increases in respiratory emergencies for infants.

It hit home personally last winter when my little grandson, James, had a terrible asthma attack which hospitalized him for a week. I can't tell you how worried his mother, father and I are, looking toward more smog this summer.

Those health effects pose a burden on the health care system through increased emergency room visits and increased hospital admissions. Regrettably, this scenario will likely be a repeat of previous years.

We can, however, take concrete steps to avert this health and environmental disaster. Yesterday, my colleague Shelley Martel asked the Minister of the Environment to ensure that the conversion of Lakeview generating station from coal to natural gas be made a condition of sale. The minister spoke platitudes about the environment but did not answer her question about Lakeview.

This generating station is the single largest polluter in the GTA. According to Jack Gibbons of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, Lakeview operating at 80% capacity creates a smog equivalent to roughly one million cars. I would ask the minister to get on this and make the announcement today.

DEVELOPMENT IN CAMBRIDGE

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I proudly stand in the House today to announce the decision by Toyota manufacturing to build the first Lexus vehicle outside of Japan at the Toyota motor manufacturing plant located in my riding of Cambridge.

This is a major achievement for the employees at the Cambridge plant. The Lexus line is the crown jewel of the Toyota family of families. Toyota will begin building the Lexus RX 300 sports utility vehicle to meet the demand as the biggest-selling vehicle in the Lexus lineup. This $650-million investment is expected to create 300 new jobs over and above the 2,700 jobs at present.

Toyota has chosen its Cambridge plant to produce this world-class luxury model, proving business is booming in Cambridge and that Ontario is the best place to invest.

The Toyota Cambridge plant has already been recognized with the prestigious Harbour award for efficiency and a number of J.D. Power awards for quality. I congratulate each and every individual at the Cambridge plant for their commitment to excellence and quality. Ontario is justifiably proud of your achievements. Ontario companies are taking on the world and winning.

PASSOVER

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): Tonight, members of the Jewish faith from around the world will begin the celebration of Passover. Passover is the Jewish holiday that celebrates and memorializes the freedom of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt and always begins on the 15th day of the Hebrew month of Nisan.

The traditional Passover Seder, or ceremonial meal, not only symbolizes the feast of freedom from slavery; it also represents a reminder of gratitude for maintaining faith in one's belief.

The youngest person at the Seder table traditionally asks four questions, which gives a complete overview of the story of Passover. There is also a reference to four children representing different methods of reading the Passover story to people with different types of personal attributes. One child is wise, another is slow, still another is wicked, and the final one is silent. The reciting of the story of Passover to match the different attributes of various people is also a reflection of the flexibility inherent in freedom, as opposed to the rigidity of slavery.

Passover is also celebrated by the eating of matzoh, also known as the bread of affliction. This symbolizes the unleavened bread that the Israelites made in haste as they fled the tyranny of Egypt. Although these events took place over 3,000 years ago, as told in the biblical Book of Exodus, the lessons learned are as relevant today as they were then.

We extend a hearty Hag Samaech to all members of the Jewish community as they celebrate at this Passover festival season.

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND ELECTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to rise today to offer my congratulations to another common sense team. As you all know, the Conservatives of Prince Edward Island, under the leadership of Premier Pat Binns, won the election on Monday.

Premier Binns and the Conservatives of PEI have presided over almost four years of record growth and prosperity in their province. The Premier and his team campaigned on their record of education reform and their plan for more changes to improve schooling for the province's children. They have also invested in health care, strengthening the province's most vital public service.

The Conservatives of PEI offered their people a tax cut so that they too could spend, save and invest more of their own money-clearly a page out of our successful plan.

Premier Binns asked the people of PEI for another mandate to keep moving their province forward with his blueprint for renewal. The people clearly responded to the message. For the first time since 1912, back-to-back Conservative majority governments have been elected in PEI.

On behalf of my colleagues in our Ontario PC caucus, I extend my congratulations to Premier Binns and his caucus for their Prince Edward Island victory, and I wish them well in the months and years ahead. Clearly, the people of PEI have spoken. More importantly, they have done the right thing.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg leave to inform the House that today the Clerk received the sixth report of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we get to introduction of bills, in the west members' gallery is the former member for Hamilton Mountain, Trevor Pettit, who was a member of the last Legislature. Would the members join in welcoming Mr Pettit.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think all members of the House would want to know that both sides of the public galleries today are graced by school groups from my riding, Rosedale Junior public school and St Josephs College school.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REPLICA FIREARMS REGULATION AND PROTECTION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION ET LA PROTECTION À L'ÉGARD DES RÉPLIQUES D'ARMES À FEU

Mr Bryant moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 67,

An Act to protect the public by regulating the sale of replicas of firearms / Projet de loi 67, Loi visant à protéger le public en réglementant la vente des répliques d'armes à feu.

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

Does the member have a short statement?

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): This bill prohibits the sale or purchase of a replica firearm unless the purchaser is at least 18 years old and provides certain docmentation, the seller has received confirmation that the purchaser has not been found guilty of a criminal offence, and there are no criminal charges pending against the purchaser. The bill requires the seller of such replicas to maintain a record of each sale for a period of five years.

The Speaker: I thank the member. Introduction of bills?

Mr Bryant: Point of order, Mr Speaker: Given the importance of this bill, and given that the Premier has already expressed his support-the Premier has had the bill for 24 hours-I seek unanimous consent to give second and third reading to this bill right now.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Health. Last week we learned that you broke your promise on providing timely cancer care in Ontario. This week we'd like to ask you about the promise you made a year and a half ago that no Toronto woman would ever have to endure a three-hour ambulance ride to deliver her baby in another hospital. Minister, could you please tell us, how is that promise going?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'd like to go back to the cancer care issue and just let you know, because there was no broken promise, as you very well know, that our government has undertaken steps on an ongoing basis to ensure that the needs of cancer patients in this province are addressed. In fact, this morning I launched a $3.8-million genetic screening program to detect the risk of hereditary breast, ovarian and colon cancer. I can tell you that this will have a tremendous impact in the saving of lives among the women and the men of this province, who will have the opportunity to have the genetic testing if they have a history of this in their families.

We are moving forward. We are the only province in Canada to set up this program and an advisory-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the Minister of Health's time is up. Supplementary.

Mrs Pupatello: I'd like you to answer this question. I'm going to tell you about Rachel Ross. Rachel Ross is one of 12 mothers from Toronto-she's from Caledon East-flown to the Ottawa General Hospital in the last 12 months to deliver babies. Rachel was the first-time mother of twins. She went into labour after 26 weeks of pregnancy on March 17. That was last month. First, she went to Brampton Memorial. She was told there were no neonatal beds available in Toronto or Hamilton. She had to make a choice: Ottawa or Windsor. She chose Ottawa because she has some family there.

Then she was told she would have to go by land ambulance, but the doctor wouldn't allow the five-hour drive there. After several delays she was airlifted by helicopter and told that an obstetrician and paediatrician had to go with her. There was no doctor on that helicopter ride to Ottawa. Her husband wasn't allowed to fly with her; he had to buy his own airline ticket.

Could you please explain how today in Ontario you could possibly let this happen to expectant mothers?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As the member knows, we have been expanding the system in the province to ensure that these deliveries can be delivered as close to home as possible. We have put the program forward to you where we are expanding the capacity within the system, and that is ongoing and that is happening. Any decisions that are made concerning these issues are clinical decisions that are made by physicians who are in the best position to know what is going to be the most appropriate level of care that is going to be required for patients they're dealing with.

Mrs Pupatello: Minister, here's what you said on December 17, 1998: You vowed no other women would be turned away and sent to another city. That was your promise. In this case, the doctor said the twins were ready to be moved back to Toronto in a week. They spent two weeks at the Ottawa General because there were no neonatal beds available in the largest city in the nation. As the mom, she was out of the hospital after four days. She stayed two weeks in Ottawa. She was given a one-way ticket to Ottawa and had to find her own way home when it was time to come home.

Minister, please explain to Rachel Ross and every other expectant mother in this province how you could allow this to happen in the province today after the promises you made a year and a half ago.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member might be pleased to know that unfortunately this was a problem that existed under your government and under the NDP. For more than 10 years in the province we have not had enough NICU beds-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, take your seat. Order. Member for Windsor West, come to order. You can't ask a question and then yell at the minister when she's trying to answer it.

I will say this: When I have to stand up, it gives the cabinet ministers a lot of time to answer, notes get sent in. It's in your interest to let them answer the question, because quite frankly, if we need to stand here, we will do that. You can't ask a question and then yell at the minister when she's trying to reply.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I say to the member for Windsor West, this is your last warning. We can't continue to go on. You've got the question asked and you cannot shout at the minister after you've asked the question. This is your last warning.

Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I began to say, although the previous two governments chose not to address the issue, our government acknowledged that there was a need to increase access to neonatal intensive care services. Presently, in the city of Toronto, neonatal intensive care beds are available at three hospitals. We are working to expand the capacity at these hospitals: Women's College, Mount Sinai and the Hospital for Sick Children.

There was $10 million annually set aside to fund 18 new bassinets at these hospitals; 14 are already up and running, with the others to come on board shortly. There was an additional $4.1 million put aside for equipment purchases, training and minor renovations. We are fast-tracking 14 additional beds at the Hamilton Health Sciences Centre.

The Speaker: The Minister of Health's time is up.

GAMING FACILITIES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question, I was going to say for the Deputy Premier, but it's for the heir apparent, the Chair of Management Board. Your government is very good, I must say to the Chair of Management Board, at orchestrating press conferences. You have them at the SkyDome, where the Premier is putting the boots to the people on welfare. You have them in the tops of these big towers of business whenever you want to announce something. But you forgot to have a big press conference when you were announcing a huge expansion of gambling in Ontario.

In fact, you had to look in the Ontario Gazette. I don't think this is on many coffee tables in Ontario or required reading-maybe at the Albany Club.

Minister, why is it you did not make any huge announcement about a very significant regulatory change made to convert racetracks in Ontario to full-blown casinos complete with all the bells and whistles that go with casinos in this province?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): It's quite simple. The reason is that there's no change to our policy. We've merged, for operational efficiencies, the Ontario Casino Corp with the Ontario Lottery Corp. We also have had to bring into line the regulations around that change so that it's legal.

If we hadn't brought in clarification to our existing policy that no means no unless you have a council resolution and a referendum for an expansion to gaming, the Liberals in their newsletter, the Toronto Star, would have been screaming that we had allowed for an expansion of gaming at racetracks, because now the Ontario Lottery Corp, which racetracks were under, is merged with the Ontario Casino Corp.

What we've done in the regulations is make it quite clear that there's no expansion unless you have a council resolution and a referendum. That's closing the door, not expanding it unregulated or unchecked without the support of the local community.

Mr Bradley: In fact, your plan all along, Mr Minister-you know this as well as I do-when you got the boots put to the 44 casinos by municipalities across Ontario who held referendums and said, "No, we don't want these new Mike Harris gambling halls," when the boots were put to that, you beat a retreat. But I think a lot of people in this province knew that you were going to try to slip new casinos in the back door by having established gambling places, called racetracks, and then putting a full casino in there.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: Now, let me get to a referendum. I'm glad the Minister of Education mentioned a referendum, because they had one in Toronto which said they didn't want the slot machines. What happened? You imposed 1,700 slot machines at the Woodbine Racetrack. How can anybody believe you when you talk about a referendum having any influence at all on your policy when you imposed 1,700 slot machines in the Woodbine Racetrack against the will of the people in the area expressed in a municipal referendum?

Hon Mr Hodgson: This initiative is in response to making sure that if gaming takes in place in Ontario, it is done in a regulated and responsible manner. We cancelled the three-day casinos, which the Liberal Party thought were fine but the police had concerns about; the charities had concerns about how you regulate and supervise and make sure that minors don't have access to gaming in this province.

The issue of slot machines in racetracks was asked for by the horse industry of Ontario. It went before this House's committee in 1996. From that all-party committee, there's a quote on October 22, 1996, by one Jim Bradley agreeing that racetracks are established gaming facilities, that a racetrack is a controlled environment in terms of gaming activities. You were in support of it then. Now you're trying to let on that this is some new initiative.

Mr Bradley: I tell the minister, he can bring in all the bafflegab he wants. Everybody in this province knows that your real plan-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Member take his seat. Order. Government members, come to order so the question can be asked. We ask the opposition to be quiet for the answers. We also ask the government benches to be quiet when the members are asking the question. It's only fair on both sides.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I tell the minister that's a huge leap of faith saying that somebody wants casinos in all of these racetracks in Ontario, and that's exactly where you're heading. You can make all the denials you want. Your real policy is to bleed as much money as possible-hundreds of millions of dollars-from desperate, vulnerable and often addicted people in this province so that you can fill your coffers so you don't have to tax the people who go to the Albany Club, the richest people in this province. That's what this is really about.

I ask you now, how can people have faith in any referendum you're going to have when the Minister of Municipal Affairs is the one who dictates or approves what's going to be in any referendum in this province? Obviously you're going to rig the question so you get the answer you want, so you'll get all of the revenues bled from people who are desperate, bled from people who are vulnerable and addicted in the province. Shame on you and your government.

Hon Mr Hodgson: That's a nice speech. It's unfortunate that the facts are different, but I understand you're not interested in the facts.

The facts are that we closed the three-day roving casinos that you thought were quite acceptable, which the police had problems with in terms of controlling and regulating; charities had problems with them. We brought in gaming facilities which are regulated and well-established. Not only was Jim Bradley in 1996 in favour of this initiative at the racetracks, but in August 1998 in Niagara Falls one Dalton McGuinty said, "I don't have a concern with slot machines going into existing horse racing institutions."

The reason why is that it's common sense. They've had gaming at these facilities forever. They're not allowed to expand as charity casinos unless they have a referendum, like any other community in Ontario. That has been our policy. We've closed the door on that being brought in quietly by bringing in a regulation governing the merger of the Ontario Lottery Corp with the Ontario Casino Corp.

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

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. On Monday I asked the minister about a little boy in the city of Dryden. His name is Cody Saunders. He's four years old. He has very serious dysentery-like symptoms. He now weighs less than his two-year-old brother. His mother tried to get him an appointment with a doctor on March 17-no appointment for two months. She took him to the emergency room-no doctor. A week later she took him to the emergency room-no doctor. This family has finally had to take this four-year-old boy out of the province of Ontario. They had to take him four hours down the highway to Winnipeg just to get an appointment with a doctor.

While you negotiate with the Ontario Medical Association, while you have the authority and the capacity now to ensure that the doctor is in for all the patients in the province and that nurse practitioners and nurses are in, what are you doing and what have you done in situations like poor little Cody's?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Our government has recognized that there is a need to ensure that we have the appropriate distribution and supply of physicians in the province of Ontario. As you know, we originally asked Dr McKendry to take all of the information available, and he has reported. As a result of his report, we have expanded the number of foreign-trained doctors into Ontario. We are making available spaces within our program here for people who want to return from the United States. We have expanded the number of nurse practitioners.

In fact, it was our government in 1998 that made it possible for legislative changes to take place, and we are presently funding approximately 226 nurse practitioners, although I know there are more practising in the province.

We recognize that people need-

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

Mr Hampton: Minister, your government has been in charge now for five years, and for five years the situation has gotten worse and worse and worse. I could take you to the city of Kenora, where the same situation prevails, or I could take you to literally dozens of communities across this province. The fact of the matter is, you're negotiating with the doctors, with the Ontario Medical Association right now.

For five years, you and your Premier have said that you believe in primary health care reform; you believe in a system where doctors would have a roster of patients, where they would be available full-time; where nurse practitioners would be available; where nurses would be available. But for five years, nothing has happened, and this little boy has to go outside the province just to see a physician.

You are negotiating with the OMA right now. What is going to come out of the Ontario Medical Association negotiations that's going to help this little boy and literally hundreds of thousands of patients across this province? Are you going to do anything, or simply blame governments of the past?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would remind the leader of the third party that it was unfortunately his government that cut medical school enrolment by 10%. We, of course, have been moving forward. I am pleased to report that the number of specialists in Ontario has increased since 1995 by 450. We have recruited 115 specialists for designated underserviced areas in northern Ontario. According to CIHI, the Canadian Institute for Health Information, the total number of active physicians in Ontario has increased by over 260 since 1997. So certainly there are increased numbers of physicians in the province, there are more in northern Ontario, and there continues to be more that we need to do.

We have moved forward. We did introduce the primary care pilots. We started with four and we have now expanded to seven. We want to continue to evaluate and make those available to all people.

The Speaker: I'm afraid the Minister of Health's time is up. Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: Let me get back to real people in real communities. Two doctors have left Dryden in the last year, two more are leaving this year. If you go down the highway to Kenora, a similar situation: More physicians are leaving.

Minister, this comes back to the choices you have to make as Minister of Health. We've seen how you've mismanaged the system. You cut $800 million from hospitals. You discover you made a mistake so you put $600 million back in. You boast about laying off nurses-the Premier calls them Hula Hoop workers- then you discover you can't run the health system without them, so you start rehiring nurses.

Right now you've got two choices: You can continue to go down the road that you're on, which leads you to a Ralph Klein style of privatized health care, or you can have a serious set of negotiations with the doctors and begin to change in a serious way the delivery of primary health, the access to nurses, nurse practitioners and doctors. It's in your hands right now. Are you going to keep on mismanaging the system until we have more of these or are you going to take the doctors on and change the system?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Our government has undertaken the modernization and the strengthening of this health system. I have said on many occasions that we were the first government to do so and the last province in all of Canada.

I would just remind the leader of the third party that in the last full year of your government there were 345 doctors who left Ontario. In 1997, that rate had been reduced by a third. It was your government that reduced entrants to medical schools by 10% and reduced postgraduate training positions by 10%. It was your government that saw the greatest decline in nursing supply: It went down 8.9% from 1993 to 1995. We are having to deal with the consequences of your actions, and that's why we're moving forward to ensure there are appropriate physicians everywhere in the province and that we hire 12,000 additional nurses.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. I understand the minister made a visit to Penetanguishene.

From the beginning, your government has not been completely open with the people of Ontario about your megajails. Initially you said nothing about deals you were hatching with Corrections Corp of America, a notorious outfit in terms of the violence and escapes in their prisons. Your predecessor, Mr Runciman, announced that the government was scrapping privatization plans. He agreed there were just too many unanswered questions. Your government promised communities that prisons would remain public.

Last week my colleague put forward a private member's bill to do just that. You refused to support it. Your government has talked out of both sides of its mouth. Last night the people of Penetanguishene sent you a message loud and clear. They joined the majority of Ontarians saying nobody should profit from crime: not the person who commits the crime nor corporations that try to profit. Are you going to live up to your promises or are you going to sell the people of Penetanguishene out? Which is it?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): I'll tell the leader of the third party what we're going to do. We're going to make sure we have a correctional system in this province that is delivering results; we're going to ensure that there's a correctional system in this province that the taxpayers of this province can afford to fund; we're going to ensure that the correctional system in this province has standards and levels of accountability-all of which you refused to do when you were in government, sir.

Mr Hampton: I want to talk about these tough standards. This is a government that can't even manage to go out there and inspect the nursing homes on a regular basis, and now you're going to go out there and tell people that you're going to hold accountable corporations that have a notorious record in the United States? Look at the record of some of these companies: 93% of the prison escapes in the United States since 1995 have happened from the jails of the corporations you're talking to.

And now Corrections Corp of America and Wackenhut, two of the companies you've been talking to, are going belly-up in the United States. They can't make the bottom line, never mind assure communities of standards.

Minister, will you listen to the people and what they're trying to tell you? No one should profit from crime-not the person who commits the crime and not these notorious outfits like Wackenhut and Corrections Corp of US which have a terrible record there. What's it going to be? Are you going to let these people profit from crime? Are you going to sell the people of Penetanguishene out? Are you-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister.

Hon Mr Sampson: To the leader of the third party, I am quite aware of the fact that you have had some difficulty with numbers as a government. We had five years where you had big difficulties with numbers, and it cost the taxpayers of the province $50 million.

Let me tell you the challenge here. One day you're standing on your feet saying these corporations are making large profits, and today you're standing on your feet saying they're bankrupt. You can't have it both ways. That's clearly your method of accounting. But I can tell you that what we will have in this province is a correctional system that is producing results and is indeed warranting the word "corrections" in its title.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Sampson: You want to talk about escapes? I'm happy to talk about escapes. The escape record from the Ontario correctional system when you were in government was twice as high as it is now. That's the record, that's the fact, and we're going to have fewer escapes.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services as well. Last night at a public meeting that I attended in Penetanguishene you were asked a very direct question by the deputy mayor. The question was: If a private company is selected to operate the correctional facilities, will that company pay taxes like any other business? Your answer was, and I quote, "Yes." According to the deputy mayor, the difference to Penetanguishene would be approximately $160,000 in lost taxes per year if the company doesn't pay taxes.

Minister, it has come to my attention that Project Turnaround in Oro-Medonte township, run by Encourage Youth Corp, a private company, does not pay taxes like any other business. In fact, they only pay, in lieu of taxes, a fee of $75 per bed, for a total of $2,400 per year.

Given this obviously inconsistent tax policy that you're proposing, will you now commit that all private companies which are invited to run the correctional facilities will indeed pay their fair share of taxes like any other business in Ontario and not get a free ride at the expense of our already cash-strapped municipalities?

Hon Mr Sampson: I would say to the member opposite that we believe all corporations and law-abiding citizens in this province should bear their fair share of the tax burden. There might be some dispute between you and I as to what that is. I know on your side of the House you think that should be two or three or four times what it currently is, because that's your view of life.

I stand on the statement I made last night that if private corporations are running correctional facilities, they should pay their fair share of taxes, as any private citizen should pay. But you might want to phone the Corrections Canada folks and ask them whether they're doing that for their federal jurisdiction jails in this province. You might want to make that phone call.

Mr Levac: First of all, they're not privately run, and second of all, you're not committing for your boot camp, which is not paying taxes, so let's do that switch for me, please.

I also want to help you clarify another point from last night's meeting. Last night, in front of hundreds of people who attended the meeting, a meeting that the people of Penetanguishene and Midland were waiting four long months for, Sharon Dionne of CAPS asked if you would follow the lead of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I might add that the Chair of Management Board indicated they're really interested in casino choice-but not here.

Would you agree to Simcoe North having a choice of for-profit, American-style correctional facilities in their own back yard or publicly run facilities which are accountable to the public? They want to make the decision and not have American lobbyists or the backroom boys make the decision for them. Minister, one more chance for you to answer the people of Penetanguishene: Will you let the people of Penetanguishene, in a binding referendum, decide the issue of having a for-profit, private facility or a public facility in their own backyard, yes or no?

Hon Mr Sampson: I spent some time last night explaining to the people who were attending, including the member opposite, that it's not our intention to duplicate here in Ontario the correctional mistakes that US operators have made. We will have a made-in-Ontario solution, as we have a made-in-Ontario solution for Camp Turnaround, which is having tremendous success in changing the lives of young offenders in this province, lowering recidivism rates and doing that at a fair cost.

I should say to the honourable member opposite-I hear the heckles from the Liberals across the floor-we know what you believe in in corrections. To understand what the Liberal view of corrections is, all we have to do is look at your federal cousins-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister, continue please.

Hon Mr Sampson: We clearly understand where the Liberals are on corrections policy. Your federal Liberal colleagues, north of the border, who are running the federal corrections system believe we should be letting criminals out of jail. They believe that-

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

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Summer is going to be on us very soon and there are thousands of high school, college and university students who are going to be out looking for work. When you and I were in university, things were a lot different than they are today. We were out looking for summer jobs to help pay for our tuition or just to have a lot of money to spend in the summertime. But these students aren't looking for that.

These students are looking not just for some income over the summer, but for some career experience for their futures. Many of these young adults have been calling my constituency office over the last few weeks wondering what we as a government would do to help them find work. What can we do?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I think it's very timely. The members of this House should know that the summer jobs program 2000 was launched about three weeks ago in Etobicoke. At that point in time, we certainly told everyone what our challenge was, and that's 57,000 summer jobs. We're hoping to achieve this target. It's reasonable and we have a lot of response from the public. Actually, it's twice as many jobs as we had in 1995 for summer students, so people are very excited about this.

We're spending about $50.8 million on this summer jobs program, almost triple what the federal government will be spending this summer. I want to say, though, that in Ontario we will be helping 57,000 young people find these summer jobs, and that's twice as many as 1995 for-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid your time is up. Supplementary.

Mr Wettlaufer: What you have said, then, is that this government is prepared to make a very serious investment in our young people. That's good news, but I think what you've also said is that if we had a fair labour market development agreement from the feds, we could do a whole lot more. In effect, I think you also said there are another five ministries, a total of six ministries, participating in the Ontario summer jobs program and that there are a variety of options for young people seeking summer employment. Many students who want to work are looking for a place to start.

Can you tell us how students, and employers, for that matter, can access the resources you have mentioned?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In response, I think most of you should write this down because you all have students. It's 1-888-JOBGROW. That is the number you should be calling, or assisting your young people in calling. What does this do? It actually helps young people match up with employers, or vice versa, the employers match up with the young people. We will have wage subsidies, as we've had in the past, and our programs range anywhere from those programs with student exchanges across Canada, the Rangers program and many, many more.

I think the young people are already accessing the Internet far beyond what any of us did at that time. They're seeking support and information from their guidance counsellors, and it depends on-

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Your time is up.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): A question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: You'll know that Liberals believe there should be equal access to justice for all Ontarians. The Harris government has a much different view, and it's obvious. Minister, this is the December-January issue of the Multi Unit Report. It's a publication for landlords of rental buildings. The

article called Tribunal Tribulations speaks volumes about applications at the tribunal: how many were processed for landlords and how many were processed for tenants. In reference to the extremely low number of tenant complaints processed, Carol Kiley, the manager of program development of the tribunal, one of your most senior bureaucrats, said, "We don't

schedule tenant applications with the same kind of urgency."

This double standard is appalling. Your senior manager, your senior official of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, is saying we'll move landlords to the front of the line but tenants must start at the back. Can you explain why this is your standard operating procedure at the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I want to say for the record that I would be happy to follow up on the honourable member's specific concerns, but I can say generally that that is not the operating procedure of the tribunal. In fact, the operating procedure of this tribunal has been very effective at reducing backlogs and reducing the waiting time, which specifically benefits tenants more than landlords. The reason for that is that tenants have more to lose. They don't have the resources perhaps some landlords do. Although that's not necessarily the case, by and large it is the case.

By reducing the backlogs and being more efficient in delivery of the service to the public, which is obviously what this is all about, we have been of great benefit to tenants, because they don't have to wait as long and don't have to tie up as much of their resources. Based on the annual report, which is just about to be released, because I signed off on it a couple of days ago, I think the honourable member will hopefully agree with me that we have a more efficient system and a better system-

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

Mr Caplan: Obviously the minister needs to be grounded in reality. Here are the statistics his own manager gave: As of the end of November last year, almost half of the almost 7,700 tenant applications had not yet been resolved. So much for helping tenants, Minister, and these are not minor matters, by the way. We're talking about harassment, rent reduction applications for disrepair and bad faith actions by landlords. These are very serious matters. Not to

schedule them with the same kind of urgency is unacceptable. I'm sure you've read these comments. This appears in a publication. It is a direct quote.

By the way, Minister, this is the next bi-monthly publication. There is no retraction, no letter to the editor. You have obviously given your stamp of approval to this type of discrimination. So give Ontarians a direct answer. Tell us what steps you are going to take today to put an end to this unfair and discriminatory practice.

Hon Mr Clement: As the honourable member probably knows, we're dealing with a quasi-judicial tribunal. There are rules of conduct for all quasi-judicial tribunals. Indeed, the purpose of having things done in a quasi-judicial manner is to make sure there is fairness across the board, that you can't play favourites and you can't favour, institutionally, tenants over landlords or landlords over tenants. That is the whole purpose of a quasi-judicial tribunal.

I would be shocked if they were operating in any way other than being fair and impartial. If the honourable member has any evidence, I'd like to see it and would certainly analyze it. But it would shock me to the core to think there is any sort of institutional unfairness. In fact, the system is working so well now, in terms of dealing with complaints as they come in, that I think that institutionally helps tenants in a way that was not understood or seen or experienced when the honourable member's government was in power a few short years ago. I'm satisfied, but if the honourable member has a particular complaint, I'd like to hear it.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Throughout most of the province the economy is absolutely booming. Unemployment rates in places like Toronto and Ottawa, and even Oshawa, have dropped significantly. In my own area of the province, the unemployment rate has dropped by some 2.8%. Although these numbers sound great, the real situation is that unemployment in my riding is still at 7.1%. The economic boom has not impacted our community to the same extent as the rest of the province.

Does your ministry have a plan to help rural communities take advantage of the economic boom-communities like Port Hope, Cobourg, Colborne, Brighton, Quinte West, Campbellford, Warkworth, Hastings, Grafton, Baltimore and Bewdley, just to name a few?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): It is true that we have come a long way, but there's still much more to be done. I'd like to inform all my colleagues in the Legislature that my ministry has taken action. I have instructed my people to organize a tour to visit available industrial buildings and sites along the 401 corridor, from Port Hope to Belleville. The tour is going to include the top people in my investment and business development division, as well as local economic development officers. These are the people whose job it is to sell Ontario as a good place to invest.

Knowing more about the products we have available will allow my ministry to better market this part of the province to site locators and prospective investors. You have to know what you have to sell if you want to make a sale.

Mr Galt: On behalf of my constituents, Minister, thank you very much for what you are planning for my riding.

As you know, I am chair of the rural economic renewal task force, and consequently economic development is certainly very important to me. I have travelled across the province and have noticed that communities in eastern Ontario have many things in common. One of those things is the high unemployment rate.

Minister, you just explained to the House what you're going to do in my riding for communities like Gores Landing, Trent River, Codrington, Gosport, Harwood and Welcome, but what are you going to do for the other communities east of mine along the St Lawrence River?

Hon Mr Palladini: These are the same concerns that have been raised in my discussions with the members for Prince Edward-Hastings, Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, and Leeds-Grenville. This is why my ministry is planning to tour up the St Lawrence to visit even more sites. My team of investment and business development consultants will work to help the communities along the St Lawrence to reach out to prospective investors.

Through this program, and other ministry initiatives, as well as our government's open-for-business attitude, it is my hope that all communities across Ontario can share in the positive economic climate that has helped create over 700,000 jobs. We will continue to work with our partners so that Ontario will continue to prosper.

CHILD CARE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): To the Minister of Community and Social Services: I was shocked to learn this week that you are planning to siphon money away from licensed child care in order to fund unlicensed recreation programs for school-aged children. You can't honestly believe you can get away with this: allowing cash-starved municipalities to take money away from licensed child care centres so that you can repackage it as creating extra recreation opportunities for school-aged children. We're all for better recreation opportunities for youth, and they should be funded, but lifeguard duty is not a substitute for quality day care.

Minister, will you promise the parents of Ontario that you will not rob the child care banks to pay for recreation programs?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): For many Ontario families child care is an important resource that helps parents balance the challenges of work and family. This government has shown a tremendous amount of dedication to providing child care choices to Ontario parents. In fact, this year the Ontario government will spend well in excess of $700 million supporting parents with their child care needs. I'd remind the member opposite that that is more than any other government in Ontario's history.

We are also committed to providing more choice and more flexibility for parents. Some parents and some child care delivery agents, democratically elected municipal councils around the province, have indicated that extending child care subsidies to children enrolled in recreation programs would enhance both choice and flexibility. As is the case when municipalities make requests-

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

Ms Churley: The choice you're giving many parents is no choice at all. If they can't get good, regulated child care space, then it is no choice for them. I am shocked that you did not deny this today. I know you like to stand up and claim you do more for child care than ever before, but the fact is that it's a smokescreen for what is really happening here. What you're trying to do is squeeze more money out of the child care system and claim that you're doing more for children. But let me tell you, that act wears thin very quickly.

Minister, I am going to ask you again-this is your opportunity to give a very clear answer that you won't do this-will you promise today, will you stand up and tell the people of Ontario that not one cent will be taken out of the existing pool of regulated child care centres with qualified early childhood education staff?

Hon Mr Baird: The member won't be surprised whatsoever to discover that I don't share her conclusions with respect to child care. The member opposite stands in her place and talks about choice. In fact, the record of the New Democratic government says exactly the opposite: that it was all non-profit providers, all institution-based child care. Ninety per cent of parents in the province of Ontario opt for community-based, non-institutional child care in their communities. A number of municipalities and parents have come forward looking for some alternatives.

When a municipality or one of our delivery agents comes forward, we're certainly prepared to consider any suggestions, as I am prepared to consider the member opposite's conclusions.

Many parents now consider recreation programs-

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

MUNICIPAL RESTSRUCTURING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. You're aware that the county of Essex completed a significant restructuring and that the number of municipalities went from 22 to seven and the number of councillors went from 44 to 14. This was done under restructuring guidelines approved by the minister who preceded you. It was a made-at-home solution by elected representatives in the county. Now the city of Windsor wants a chunk of the county, and the county has made I think a very substantial offer to the city.

The county views this as a boundary issue and in fact back in December, some four months ago, sent you a proposal to that effect. There have been recent public meetings in LaSalle, in Tecumseh and in Lakeshore and residents are saying overwhelmingly, "We don't want to be a part of Windsor."

Minister, my question is this: In the absence of a local agreement, and I really don't think there can be one, are you prepared to tell the residents of Essex county that you will accept the county's proposal?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the honourable member for the question. This has been a very controversial issue in the county, in places like LaSalle, Tecumseh and so on. I can thank the 1,500 residents who have taken time to write to me from LaSalle. I've enjoyed reading all of those letters and responding to each one individually, so I have a fairly good idea where LaSalle is coming from. They don't, in fact, have to write me any more. I've got a pretty good idea of the sense of the way things are.

The issue before us, obviously, is to try to weigh the different points of view. I can tell you that our great preference is towards a local solution. Each time that this Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and my predecessors have written to local county and city officials, we've said, "Try to come to a local solution." So I still have aspirations that we can reach that goal.

Mr Crozier: It's spring and the time for skating is over, except for perhaps the playoffs, and it's time that you got your oars in the water and started to pull.

There won't be a local solution. This has gone on for months. You said in fact that you wouldn't let it go past last December. It's clearly a boundary dispute. You said if there was a log-jam, you would clear it up. Well, Minister, there's a log-jam, so that's why I want you to get that boat in the water and clear it up.

County residents have said, overwhelmingly, "We don't want to be part of the city of Windsor." Municipal elections are just a short time away. There will be residents who don't know what municipality they're going to be voting in if you don't make up your mind.

Will you accept the county's boundary adjustment proposal and advise the city of Windsor that it's a fair deal, a fair proposal and it should be implemented?

Hon Mr Clement: I appreciate the member's input into this emotional and complex issue. I take it as a given, since he is asking the question with the concurrence of his House leader, that the member for Windsor West and the member for Windsor-St Clair agree with him on that position? One is shaking his head. That's a good sign. I want to make sure that the honourable members are not talking from both sides of their mouth when it comes to this issue, because there perhaps is a Windsor point of view and there perhaps is a county point of view, and I wouldn't want the honourable members to-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. Member for Essex, come to order. Member from Essex, this is my last warning. We cannot have a situation where you shout across, particularly when the Speaker is standing. It's your last warning, and I will have to name the member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We don't need any groans from the government benches, thank you very much. Start the clock.

Hon Mr Clement: I give the honourable member every assurance-and I do not want this to become a personal issue between he and I; this is an important issue for the community-that I will take his views into account. I will take the views of the member for Windsor West into account and the views of the member for Windsor-St Clair into account.

The Speaker: I think time is up. I may have lost track.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): My question today is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. As you know, the mining industry is a significant contributor to Ontario's wealth, and the strength of the mining sector is particularly important to the economic viability of the northern regions of Ontario, where so many communities have been built on the prosperity of this industry.

Minister, what initiatives has your ministry taken to facilitate the growth of the mineral sector in Ontario?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I thank the member for his continued ongoing interest in mining and northern development issues. In fact, that's a principle of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, to make sure Ontario remains one of the safest and most attractive places in the world in which to invest. In fact, my parliamentary assistant, Jerry Ouellette, is on the road doing draft legislation and geoscience legislation to renew that interest in mining investment in the communities.

In addition, we've allocated $19 million for our airborne and regional mineral surveys through Operation Treasure Hunt, investing in modern technology to make sure that information is available to the world 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in addition to streamlining the Mining Act by eliminating red tape.

I'd like to remind the members as well that this evening the OMA, the Ontario Mining Association, is hosting a Meet the Miners reception in the legislative dining room from 5:30 to 7:30. I encourage all members to attend.

Mr Spina: Thank you, Minister. I look forward to that reception.

As you know, I was born and raised in Sault Ste Marie and I've travelled extensively across northern Ontario. I know a lot of people in the north.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Have you been to Manitouwadge?

Mr Spina: I've been to Manitouwadge.

Northern Ontario has not experienced the same positive Harris government economic boom to the extent that we have in the south. Minister, can you tell me what you're doing to help the mining communities in northern Ontario re-establish their positive economic potential?

Hon Mr Hudak: The member's statement is appropriate. While the province is once again a world leader in economic growth and job creation, it's important for the government to ensure that all regions of Ontario have the same opportunity to benefit from that kind of growth in jobs and in the economy. While the unemployment rate is heading down in northern Ontario, there is still more work to be done. That's why it's important to stay on this path of lowering taxes, cutting red tape and working towards balancing our books.

In addition, as the member indicates, there are some special initiatives in northern Ontario, including over $240 million into the northern Ontario heritage fund to date, helping to create about 7,000 new jobs in northern Ontario, and about $650 million into the northern Ontario highways program, a record investment in northern Ontario highways, to spur growth, to spur job creation and to help those communities that the member is concerned about.

HIGHWAY TOLLS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance responsible for the SuperBuild fund and has to do with the Highway 407 deal. I realize that the government believes this is a terrific example of private-public sector partnership; in fact, it's your flagship. We in the Liberal Party disagree. We think it was a blatant cash grab. We think that the 407 toll users have been sold down the road. It is a rip-off for them. The road cost $1.5 billion to build and you sold it for $3.1 billion, exclusively because you sold the toll road users down the road.

I want to read to you a part of what the owner says about the tolls, and I want you to answer why you allowed this to happen. The toll users said that provided they meet certain peak-hour traffic flows, tolls may be raised without limit. Why would you sign an agreement that would allow the owner to raise tolls without limit?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, with respect to toll roads, no individual has to use a toll road. There are plenty of other avenues that people can take-pardon the pun-like Highway 401 across the top of the city of Toronto. A toll road is there for the convenience of people who are willing to pay to use it.

I know that the Liberal Party has difficulty operating within the free marketplace out there in terms of economic things. He might have a point if this were the only route that people could take to get from point A to point B across the top of the city of Toronto.

I use the 407 and I'm happy to use it at the current toll, an increased toll or any toll-

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Who pays for it?

Hon Mr Eves: I pay for it.

Mr Phillips: For those of us who know the congestion that takes place around the 407, the answer is a bit like: "If they can't afford the 407, let them eat fumes. Let them go on the 401 and smell the fumes, be in those traffic jams."

I just say to you this: Your secret deal has another provision in it, in addition to the "without limit" on toll road increases. Another part of the secret deal says that if somebody doesn't pay the exorbitant tolls, if for some reason they have not paid those exorbitant tolls, here's what the owner says they can do: They simply notify Mike Harris and the government, and the government will deny the renewal of an Ontario licence plate for the vehicle in question. There's no choice; they will deny it. So I ask you again, on the second part of this secret deal: Why did you agree to this deal to sell the 407 to this user, allow them to raise tolls without limit and then-

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

Hon Mr Eves: I'm sure the Minister of Transportation can provide the details for this.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): Clearly, when you're talking about an electronic toll road such as we have on the 407, which is the world's first, it is impossible to deny access to the road physically, because you do not have toll booths. So one of the integral parts which was agreed to and planned by the NDP government at the time was that plate denial would be an integral part of the process to ensure that the road was only travelled by those people who paid their bills.

COURT SYSTEM

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the Attorney General. Every day children in Ontario are called upon to tell their story in a courtroom full of people. We know that this can be a very intimidating experience for children. I wonder if the minister could share with this House what the government is doing to protect children who testify in court.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for Scarborough Centre for the question. Protecting children was a priority for this government when elected in 1995 and it remains a priority today. Regrettably, every day children are called upon to testify in cases in the courts in Ontario, many involving domestic violence or child abuse. This can obviously be an overwhelming experience for children, especially when they are victims.

We are committed to accommodating young victims and witnesses and making their experience in court as easy as possible. For that reason, we've vastly expanded child-friendly courts here. There are facilities and services and court workers who support children when they're obliged to give evidence in court either as victims or as witnesses. There are smaller, less intimidating courtrooms. There's a separate room with closed-circuit audiovisual equipment to allow children to testify from outside-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The Attorney General's time is up. Supplementary.

Ms Mushinski: It's clear that child-friendly courts enhance the justice process. I wonder if you could tell this House what you have done to make child-friendly courts more available in more Ontario communities.

Hon Mr Flaherty: We have created 15 new child-friendly courts in Ontario, so we now have a total of 16 operating in 13 different locations. This is part of the unprecedented building program that we've done, a $266-million court investment around the province. The first facility opened in the old city hall. New facilities have been opened in London, Newmarket, North Bay, Thunder Bay, Ottawa, Simcoe and in the former cities of Etobicoke and Scarborough. In addition, child-friendly courts are part of the major new courthouse improvements in Welland, Windsor, Hamilton and Brampton.

This is all about giving security to little people, to children, when they're obliged to be in court and hopefully lowering their anxiety levels.

WATER EXTRACTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): To the Minister of the Environment: I have here water-taking permit applications from the OMYA company in Perth, Ontario. They want 2.5 million litres of water every day for a series of wells and 4.5 million litres from the Tay River every day for 10 years. The company already has your permission to take close to one million litres of water every day. If these permits are permitted, they will be allowed seven million litres of water every day. That's seven times more water than the entire residential and industrial use of the whole of Perth, a community of 6,000 people.

We all know that we're facing low water levels and drought across Ontario. Tell us that you're not really going to consider granting a permit to allow one company to take over seven million litres of water every day for at least 10 years.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I thank the member opposite for the question. What I want to say to her today is that we are indeed committed to protecting Ontario's water supplies and ensuring that those supplies are sustainable into the 21st century. It was this government, the Mike Harris government, that showed international leadership on the issue of water-taking. We brought into force the water-taking and transfer regulation to prohibit the transfer of water out of Ontario's major basin, and it's something that we take very seriously.

VISITOR

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if you could help me in welcoming the Loyola Community Learning Centre and adult education program from the Kingston area. These people are in the west members' gallery.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): That's not a point of order, but we welcome our friends from your area.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is signed by another 132 concerned residents who add their names to the thousands of others who have signed earlier petitions.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have over 1,200 signatures on a petition entitled "Say No to Hamilton-Wentworth, Say Yes to Haldimand County."

"We, the undersigned, are petitioning against the possible forced amalgamation with Hamilton-Wentworth. The undersigned would like to form the new Haldimand county, which would include Caledonia, Cayuga, Dunnville, Hagersville, Walpole, all surrounding small hamlets and farm country, former boundaries of Haldimand county, and half of the industrial park."

Because I support the new Haldimand county, I add my name to this petition.

ABORTION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I have a petition which I'm pleased to present, signed by several people from the Chalk River area and gathered, I take it, by the parishioners at St Anthony's Roman Catholic Church in Chalk River, which reads in part:

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

I'm happy to present that petition on behalf of my constituents from the Chalk River area.

LORD'S PRAYER

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

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer, also called Our Father, has been used to open the proceedings of municipal chambers and the Ontario Legislative Assembly since the beginning of Upper Canada in the 18th century; and

"Whereas such use of the Lord's Prayer is part of Ontario's long-standing heritage and tradition that continues to play a significant role in contemporary Ontario life;

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is the most meaningful expression of the religious convictions of many Ontario citizens;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings, in accordance with its long-standing established custom and to do all in its power to maintain use of this prayer in municipal chambers in Ontario."

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

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I have a petition to present to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas Mike Harris promised an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the 1995 election and renewed that commitment in 1997 but has yet to make good on that promise; and

"Whereas the Harris government has not committed to holding open consultations with the various stakeholders and individuals on the ODA; and

"Whereas the minister responsible for persons with disabilities will not commit to the 11 principles outlined by the Ontarians With Disabilities Act Committee; and

"Whereas a vast majority of Ontario citizens believe there should be an ODA to remove the barriers facing the 1.5 million persons with disabilities;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To pass a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act that would remove the barriers facing the 1.5 million persons with disabilities" in this province.

I agree with this petition and have affixed my signature hereto.

WETLAND

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): This will probably be the last time I submit this petition from Stan and Libby Racansky, Marshall Vetzal and others from the riding of Durham. The issue is specific to the riding of Durham; in fact, it's a planning issue.

The petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas on July 28, 1999, a decision was made by the Ontario Municipal Board which will allow Courtice Heights development OMB file S960058 in Clarington to be built upon part of Black-Farewell, a provincially significant wetland, the largest wetland complex in the GTA; and

"Whereas a large portion of this land included in the development plan of subdivision for Courtice Heights is not the property of the developer but is in fact owned by the residents of Hancock Road and Nash Road in Courtice; and

"Whereas information from MNR regarding this wetland was not made available to the OMB by the municipal planning department at the hearing, and the existence of this information was denied by the municipal solicitor and the developer at the hearing; and

"Whereas the absence of the MNR information caused the OMB to believe the property in question was woodlot, not provincially significant wetland; and

"Whereas, as a consequence, the OMB allowed this development to be built without the setbacks and buffers recommended by MNR for wetlands; and

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Ontario should reverse the decision of the OMB referred to above and permit the petitioners to present the relevant information at a properly constituted review proceeding that was denied to us by the OMB in January 2000 without considering the consequences;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to protect provincial interests since MNR, per the Honourable John Snobelen, Minister, is committed to protect this wetland."

It's very important. Thank you very much for allowing me to read it.

ABANDONED MINES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): This petition reads:

"Whereas the abandoned Ross mine property at Holtyre poses a potential health hazard from PCB contamination to our town's water supply; and

"Whereas there exists a potential health hazard from soil contamination; and

"Whereas there exists a potential health hazard from blowing tailings material from the said abandoned mine site;

"We the undersigned residents of Holtyre and all of Black River-Matheson demand that the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines undertake the following steps immediately:

"A comprehensive joint program of air, water and soil monitoring to determine the extent of the contamination and the health risks that they pose to the population;

"That joint steps be taken immediately to rectify and clean up the abandoned Ross mine site to rectify and eliminate any health hazards that do exist; and

"That the results of such testing be made public to the affected population."

I affix my name to this.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): The cards and letters keep flowing in. I have another petition here from some of my constituents. Pat Wilson from the Catholic Women's League and the parish in my riding submitted this.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I am pleased to receive and submit this petition.

ILLEGAL TIMBER CUTTING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): Mr Speaker, I have a petition here that will be of great concern to you and to the people of Ontario. It reads like this:

"Whereas timber cutters are trespassing on private and crown land, cutting, removing and selling trees, leaving a financial, environmental, aesthetic and emotional devastation in their wake; and

"Whereas the OPP have no authority to stop a cutter from cutting in the event of a boundary dispute, but may only inform the cutter that a complaint has been lodged; and

"Whereas the mills accept all timber from their contractors whether it is stolen or not; and

"Whereas the practice of the crown attorney's office to relegate these obvious theft issues to civil court places an unreasonable and prohibitive financial burden on the landowner-victim; and

"Whereas the offending cutters are protected by their numbered companies, lease their equipment and declare bankruptcy rather than pay fines and restitution, and immediately register a new numbered company, the landowner-victim must then pay:

"

(1) All court costs and legal fees incurred by the offender as well as their own legal fees;

"

(2) The cost of the survey;

"

(3) The cost of hiring and posting bond for a bailiff, an appraiser, a salesman and bond for each piece of property and for equipment seized from the convicted cutter at the rate of at least $2,000 for each of the above-listed;

"

(4) The cost of cleanup and reforestation; and

"Whereas traditionally settlements to landowners-victims have amounted to the price of stumpage fees for the stripped area, while the cutter profits from the full price of the timber from the mill; and

"Whereas, because the offending cutter must work quickly to avoid detection, he/she leaves the land devastated, with little or no thought to environmental areas of concern, eg, wetlands, reforestation;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness to landowners-victims in the overwhelming support of illegal cutting of private and crown lands.

"We advocate:

"

(1) That the cases be tried as grand theft in a criminal court;

"

(2) That in the event of a boundary dispute the party who is to benefit financially (ie, the cutter) be responsible for the cost of a survey by a registered surveyor and not a forester;

"

(3) Final judgments should not only include fines, all costs incurred for pursuit of justice and stumpage fees, but the full price of the timber, the cost of cleaning up the clear-cut area and the cost of reforestation and maintenance of the cut area, thus making theft of timber from private and crown lands potentially non-profitable;

"

(4) Contracts of convicted cutters should be subject to suspension or termination, just as drunk drivers lose licences."

I fully agree with this, and I sign my name to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Mr Speaker, I'm pleased to bring to your attention that Shannon Tufts from my riding will be taking this petition to the Clerk's table.

Applause.

Mr Christopherson: Please, feel free. She deserves it; she's doing a great job.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I continue to add my name to those of these petitioners.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have petitions entitled "Bring back Haldimand and Norfolk Counties." They've been gathered by good friends and neighbours of mine: John Gordy, Ken Bausfield and Big Red Dedrick.

"Whereas we, the undersigned, do not want a region-wide, single-tier supercity;

"Whereas we support the two county model representing two single-tier cities (one each for Haldimand and Norfolk);

"Whereas we believe this model will give us a government that is closer to the voters, providing the greatest degree of `accountability' by our elected representatives; greatly reduce the number of politicians; greatly reduce taxes through the elimination of multiple administrations, services that are repeated six and seven times; and produce further cost savings through adjusted service delivery methods; and

"Whereas the tax revenue of the Nanticoke Industrial Centre is to be divided equitably (based on population) between each of the two counties;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to bring back Norfolk and Haldimand counties."

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm happy to introduce Legislative Page Alison Brohman, who is representing Kitchener-Waterloo and member Wayne Wettlaufer. She'll be carrying the petition to the table for me.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer, also called Our Father, has been used to open the proceedings of municipal chambers and the Ontario Legislative Assembly since the beginning of Upper Canada in the 18th century; and

"Whereas such use of the Lord's Prayer is part of Ontario's long-standing heritage and a tradition that continues to play a significant role in contemporary Ontario life; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is a most meaningful expression of the religious convictions of many Ontario citizens;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings, in accordance with its long-standing established custom, and do all in its power to maintain use of this prayer in municipal chambers in Ontario."

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 18, 2000, on the motion for second reading of Bill 55,

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

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I want to welcome the people of Ontario to this political forum. We're on live, and I'm happy to have this 20 minutes. It's a rare thing that we New Democrats get to have the time to speak in the debate, but when we do have that opportunity I enjoy it. It's one of the few pleasures we have in this place.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): You do a fine job too.

Mr Marchese: Thank you.

We're speaking to Bill 55, the Parental Responsibility Act. I had an opportunity yesterday to respond to some of the Tories as they spoke on this issue. I had an opportunity as well to listen to several lawyers speak to this. I have to tell you that I was a bit concerned about their legal opinions. I wouldn't hire some of these lawyers if they happen to be expelled from office in the next election. You've got to find out who these lawyers are, and my advice to you is to go to somebody else, because when I heard their legal opinions on this bill I got seriously concerned. Their comments had nothing to do with the substance of this bill. It's just a caution to the good public of Ontario.

This is the law-and-order political party. They proudly say, "We introduced the Safe Streets Act." This is the act that gets squeegee kids off the streets. This is the Safe Streets Act that gets these young men and women off the streets because, the Tories argue, the old ladies were just wailing away with fear, and presumably the old men were just wailing away with fear, because these squeegee kids were coming to clean their windows without permission. Good God, the fright they experienced could conceivably cause some serious health failure, heart failure.

So they introduced this Safe Streets Act and, boy, is this ever a good law-and-order government. They say this and present this argument with pride. They boast about how great they are when it comes to law and order, and they cite that as one of their achievements.

We will get a code of conduct from this government very soon to replace, by the way, a code of behaviour. What we have had in place since 1994, because the New Democrats instituted that, is a code of behaviour that is fairly universal in Ontario. Of course, all boards have a code of behaviour. But what is this government going to propose? A code of conduct. That's going to be really tough. The code of behaviour, as you know, is just not tough enough. So we Tories are going to introduce a code of conduct. Why? Because we are the party of law and order.

We're going to make sure those kiddies in those schools, those tough kids, are going to be disciplined under the code of conduct, unlike the code of behaviour that is just not up to the law-and-order job.

They cite these great examples of how tough this party really is on issues of law and order. I've cited too the Safe Streets Act, the one that protects the wailing old men and women from the squeegee kids, and the new code of conduct that's going to really get tough on the kids, and the other one-Speaker, you would know this because you were there when they introduced this-the Victims' Bill of Rights. Of course, you were a strong supporter of that, I know, and so were these members, strong supporters of victims. So what did they do?

They passed a code that purports to give rights to victims, and what have we discovered as a result of such a bill that has the word "rights" in its title? That it doesn't have many rights. The victims don't have any rights. I will cite some examples, quotations from two victims who sought redress from a bill that purports to give rights and what they say about it.

First of all, I want to say what Justice Gerald Day had to say about this particular right:

"I conclude that the Legislature did not intend for the Victims' Bill of rights to provide rights to the victims of crime. The act is a statement of principle and social policy beguilingly clothed in the language of legislation. It does not establish any statutory rights for the victims of crime."

But the victims of crime believed that they had rights enshrined in that bill. They believed you. They believed them too. Why would you include a word such as "rights" in a bill if it doesn't bring rights to the victims? Why would you do that, except to deceive them?

Why would you, of all people, introduce such a bill that purports to give rights to victims, those who have already suffered much, who will in the course of seeking remedy find they don't have any? Why would you further victimize the victim through a bill that deceives them?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): You'd better watch the word "deceive."

Mr Marchese: No, no. Judge Gerald Day says there are no rights.

So you've got a big problemo on your hands, right? It's a big one. You don't think you have a big problemo on your hands? The public could be led down this amphibian path and you say you've got no problems with that? God bless you, because if you can deceive the public so effectively, you guys are good, you guys are really good.

Here's what some of the victims said.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: John, please, quiet down. Here's what some of the victims said.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): Why?

Mr Marchese: You've got to hear this, because these are the victims that you purport to help.

Mr Hastings: There's no such thing as a victim, except in your mind.

Mr Marchese: No such thing as a victim except in my mind. There's a philosopher here. We're going to hear from him soon.

This is what one of the victims seeking redress had to say about this Victims' Bill of Rights.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: John, please, listen.

"This decision only confirms that this bill of rights has no meaning for me or for other victims of crime," says Karen Vanscoy, one of the crime victims who had launched a case against the Ontario government. Further, "The reality is that we are no better off than had this legislation never been passed."

Mr Hastings: So we shouldn't be here.

Mr Marchese: John, I know that you guys are the party for victims, but please be careful how you speak, because they're not going to be very happy to hear your comments-hopefully on the record.

I continue, "In fact, we are worse off because this legislation"-Speaker, you're the only one listening, because these people don't listen-"sets up an expectation that we are protected from being revictimized by the criminal justice system when the reality is that we are not. It's almost like another whack"-not my word; her word-"in the face."

This was your jewel, remember? This was your "tough on crime." This was your bill that was going to protect the victims. This was your bill that was going to give them rights. Here is one victim who says, "We have no rights." It gives us the illusion of a right and it makes it worse. Again, I read the words spoken by a victim here. I speak to the Ontario public; I don't speak to the 10 or so Tory MPPs on the other side who are not listening, because they don't want to listen to the truth about what Judge Day said and what one of the victims said. They don't want to listen to that.

Interjection: No.

Mr Marchese: They don't.

Interjection: You're right.

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): Speak to the bill.

Mr Marchese: "Speak to the bill," says the former minister. I am, but you've got to listen.

They've now introduced another bill called the Parental Responsibility Act. What does another professor have to say about this particular bill? This is Professor Larry Wilson.

Speaker, you'll notice the former minister is not listening, right? She just asked me to speak to the bill. I was giving the

preamble and now I'm going to speak directly to it.

This is what he said: "Under the current law in Ontario, a negligent parent can be liable for both personal injury and property damage caused by children." Make note of the fact that he says "liable for personal injury," which this bill does not hold people liable for. Liability can include both intentional and unintentional acts of children and there is no cap of $6,000.

Under the existing law, people can go after parents for intentional and unintentional acts and there is no cap. This is under the present law-of course, they don't speak to this-and it provides much greater access to compensation for injured parties than the proposed legislation.

Then he says, "Specifically,

section 68 of the current Family Law Act, the parent is required to show that they have exercised reasonable supervision and control over the child." Then he concludes, "What then does this proposed legislation offer in terms of advancing or even altering the current state the law of Ontario?" He says, "Nothing."

What we have is a law currently in place that is stronger than a proposed law that we're debating. The guise is that this is really going to deal with children, of course, who are doing misdemeanours of sorts, are causing some property damage and they say, "We're going to get to that damage and that violation through this bill." But we already have

section 68 that deals with it, and the current law is stronger than the present one that is being proposed.

What do we have here? What we have is a government that is deliberately very political. They're playing placebo politics with the public. They are repackaging a law that's weaker than the present one and making it appear that it's stronger and that it will solve the problems that the current law is not solving.

This is a problem for me. I have an intense dislike for a government that is intensely political in its messaging, and this is what this government is doing on a regular basis. The worst part of all this is that they know what they're doing. When we argue that this bill does not advance or alter the current state of law and when we New Democrats argue that there's no evidence to suggest that these laws are effective in reducing delinquency, and when we argue that this bill will have no positive impact on anything or anyone, the government members don't give a damn about that-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Kindly watch the language in situations like that. I know it gets heated up, but it's probably better not to use that word.

Mr Marchese: -because it's not about evidence. This has nothing to do with evidence. This has to do with politics. That's the problem I have with this. If they were to be influenced by evidence, this bill would not be introduced today, because it doesn't do anything new. It's presented for the sole purpose of giving the public the impression that they're doing something that's tough, and the current law is already doing that.

They're doing something worse, as well, with this bill. They're making parents accountable for their children's delinquency. We generally say we need to hold young people accountable. This bill puts the onus on the parents, and that takes away the responsibility we thought we needed to put on the child, which says, "You will be responsible for your acts, and there will be punishment to follow as a result." We're shifting attention away from the individual young person's delinquency and transferring that responsibility to a parent. It's wrong, manifestly wrong.

What is wrong, further, about this bill is the cuts that have been sustained by the public in general that would deal with issues of crime and would deal with prevention, and they do nothing about it. I'll read some for the record, because I think it's important for you and the others to hear.

"We have the dire situation of children's mental health services in Ontario that has to addressed. In Windsor-Essex, there are 1,000 children on a waiting list for mental health care. The minister's recent announcement of whatever dollars was announced, does nothing to affect the waiting list. The rate of re-referral is a shocking 37% among these children."

"In Halton, teenagers wait six to 18 months to see a psychiatrist."

"In 1998, the Ontario child advocate estimated that 80% of youth in young offender facilities have mental health problems."

"In 1995, the Harris Conservatives eliminated funding for 64 community youth support programs serving young people between 15 and 20 years of age, all to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy. To help for the tax cuts for the richest Ontarians, the Harris Conservatives eliminated funding for adult and family counselling in 118 programs."

"There were almost 30,000 more poor families in Ontario after one year of the Harris Conservative government. Families are the fastest growing group of homeless in the province. Sometimes an older young person just has to leave to give the rest of the family a break from feeding and housing him or her."

Yesterday, I talked about the fact that we are giving less to special education under this government, with a good economy, than ever before. We have a good economy, you will remember. We're supposed to have more money than ever before. Where is this money going? These are the questions the public are asking. Where is this wealth that we have amassed in the last five years going, when we have sustained such huge cuts that would deal with the issues of delinquency and the issues of crime prevention?

We used to have 1,400 more policemen in 1994 under the New Democrats, in a recession, than we do now in a good economy. Where is this money going? We could use a few bucks to start early education programs for our students, so they could be identified, if there is a problem, at age three, four or five. Yet we're not spending in the early childhood school years, as M. Mustard recommended to this minister and to this Premier. We're not spending the money we presume to have in this great economy. Where is the money going?

Part of it is going to fight the federal government on the health care issue, three million wasted dollars that could be used to support some of the programs I have outlined that have been cut. Yet they want to go and attack the federal government.

And you, Speaker, were the one-I don't have the quote with me today, but I'll quote you some other time, where you say: "Stop the whining, Mr Rae, stop whining. You've got the wheel; you drive this government." Surely you would remember that. Your quote is even better; I've got to bring it back. You used to say to Bob Rae in a recession, "Stop whining." Yet this was the time, under Mulroney and then M.

Chrétien, that serious cutbacks to this province started, in the billions when we needed the support, in a recession, and you used to say to Rae, "Don't whine about the federal government and their cuts to Ontario." Yet your friends are saying this today, whining like little, whimpering children, "Where's our money for our health?" You've cut two billion bucks; you've done that in a good economy.

Speaker, I'd love to see you there, quoting you on that. And I will quote you, because your quote was a good one. Your government is playing politics with this issue. That's what I detest the most. You're doing so very little to deal with delinquency. You're not dealing with the causes, and the things I read to you, in terms of the cuts, are not helping to deal with the causes of potential crime in our streets. It's placebo politics: making people feel good and giving them the sense you are doing something when in reality you are doing absolutely zip for crime prevention. It's the most detestable bill I have seen, in addition to a few others I have mentioned.

The Speaker: Questions and comments? The member for Durham.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's always a pleasure to sit and listen quietly, as we read through our correspondence, to the member from Trinity-Spadina. He's also very entertaining and theatrical, so I pass those comments respectfully. But I'm really more interested in listening to the next speaker, the member from Mississauga South, the Honourable Margaret Marland, who is the minister responsible for children. I assure you that we will hear the commitment and passion she brings to her portfolio.

I think the important thing on Bill 55-by the way, the member for Trinity-Spadina in large part failed to address the significance of this small but important piece of legislation. I think in the purpose clause it's important, if I just put that on the record, that we're confident it is a step in the right direction. To say it fails to do anything obviously speaks to the four years of their government.

The bill permits an action for damage to be brought in Small Claims Court against the parent of a child who does damages or destroys property. The parent is liable in the action unless he or she satisfies the court that he or she was exercising reasonable supervision at the relevant time and made arrangements or efforts to prevent or discourage the child from engaging in the kind of activity that results in loss or damage, or that the child's activity was not intentional. I think the important thing here is intent, and that's always the issue, and also intent on the part of the adult.

But I think far too much of the debate has been focussed on the negative side. I think we should look at it on the positive side. By and large, 98% of the children in my riding, or even 99%, are leaders and models of exemplary behaviour, and this really addresses those children who need the leadership.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the member for Trinity-Spadina, who really missed the whole point of great kids making great communities.

The Speaker: Questions or comments? The member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I'm delighted to make a few comments on this item. I come from a part of the world where there are many responsible parents, and I've had the occasion to speak with some of them about this bill and their thoughts on legislating responsibility in this area. What has come back to me from the very wise people in my riding, who are good parents themselves, is that when a youngster makes a mistake or an error in judgment, it is usually the practice to have the youngster account in some way or make good for the wrong he or she might have committed.

Usually when that happens, it's not to penalize somebody else for what they've done but to hold them accountable for what they've done wrong. A really reasonable suggestion that came to me from a parent, that I thought would be worth considering and I offer it to the government, is that for young people today, one of the most important things is their driver's licence. Why not consider legislation that would say to young offenders, "If you cause damage to another, you will have to make good for that, either you or, if your parents choose to do that or a rich grandparent or whatever.

That would be within your family to decide. But until you have made compensation, you will not get a driver's licence."

We know that drivers' licences are very precious to young people today, and I would suggest that it would be a significant deterrent for young offenders if they knew that by committin}ß_ßrenseless and irresponsible act, they would not be able to get their driver's licence until such time as they had made compensation. A great idea from parents in my riding.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): This is such a waste of time, debating this bill in the House. As the member for Trinity-Spadina pointed out, this is nothing more than hot air from a government that talks tough on crime but really does nothing to tackle the causes of crime or to enhance victims' rights. This has been pointed out before: If the government really wanted to help victims of crime, it would do away with the Small Claims Court fee in cases where there's already been a conviction.

It's been pointed out time and time again that the government is just once again picking up on a hot-button issue and going with it. But when you look at the politics behind it, I find it frankly really disturbing when there are so many issues that we should be debating here. All we're doing is standing in this House and debating something that is even weaker than the existing law. That's what I find so completely disturbing about this.

If the government, for instance, really wanted to help victims of crime, it would pass a meaningful Victims' Bill of Rights, as the Premier promised after the government's so-called Victims' Bill of Rights was found to be nothing more than an empty shell, which is what this bill is all about. Why are we wasting our time on it? The people of Ontario should know and understand that the law exists, and in fact the existing law is stronger than what we're debating here today.

There's not a person in this House who would diminish the impact of crime on families. I'm certainly not meaning to do that. I'm merely pointing out once again that this is a load of hot air in trying to convince the people of Ontario that you're actually doing something for victims of crime when you're not. You do nothing more than take a

section of the Family Law Act and you add a few bells and whistles and give it a new name. That's what's going on here, and I congratulate my colleague from Trinity-Spadina for pointing that out.

I wish the government members would listen. I think we should be debating more important things in this House-not to say that the issue isn't important. It's very important. But we should be debating something that is really going to make a difference to the lives of victims of crime. This is not going to do that. It merely sets people up for a fall, and that's what I find so disturbing about that. It's nothing more than propaganda. It's trying to convince people that the government is actually doing something for victims of crime when it isn't.

This bill should be withdrawn and tomorrow I would ask for the government to bring in a real Victims' Bill of Rights. That is something we could be proud to stand up and debate. But, oh no, we're debating this, which means nothing.

Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): It's a pleasure to respond to the member for Trinity-Spadina. I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman. He speaks with a great deal of passion in the House, and he offers some very clear statements in terms of his own personal principles and beliefs. I don't necessarily agree with everything the member has offered the House.

When he starts to speak about mental health and he drones on about some of the alleged cuts to mental health, I think it would also behoove the member to point out to the community that we have reinvested $150 million in community care for mental health, that we now boast 51 assorted community treatment teams in Ontario. We have crisis response teams. We have teams specifically for teens and children. We are working very hard on all ends of it, as the member knows, to improve the mental health system.

So I think it's a little bit unfair at times to try to deflect attention away from one bill and look at something else. In fairness, we're trying to be very comprehensive. We're doing our best to improve all of the systems.

In terms of this particular bill, the Parental Responsibility Act, in all fairness, what we're proposing to do is put more onus on the perpetrator. The reality is that the victim now has an opportunity-

Interjections.

Mr Clark: Once again the banter starts. Victims have certain rights that they should be able to utilize, and we're trying to make sure that they have and they are afforded every right under the law. I think that's fair. I'm happy to listen to suggestions from the other side, but to just say we should dismiss it and not debate the bill any more and withdraw it doesn't work. We have to fix the system. That's our job. That's what we're here for, and I'm happy to debate it on those points.

The Speaker: Responses?

Mr Marchese: Again, the abuse of power is fascinating, because government members can say all sorts of inanities and get away with it.

The member for Durham dismisses my comments as theatrical, of course. He doesn't speak to the substance of my comments because he wasn't listening. Then he said some stupidity such as, "We should be focusing on the 95% of the children who are really good." What has that got to do with this bill? Then why aren't we talking about those 95% then, if this bill is almost irrelevant? I don't get it.

Then he says that this bill permits action to be taken against those who commit damage. He wasn't listening, nor was the member for Stoney Creek listening, when I said that Professor Larry Wilson says the present law provides much greater access to compensation for injured parties than the proposed legislation. Liability can include intentional and unintentional acts. Under the current law in Ontario, a negligent parent can be liable for personal injury and property damage. It includes onus as well.

What are you talking about, member for Stoney Creek? You've got to read a little bit. You guys have to read. Don't shake your head. You don't know what you're talking about; that's the point I'm making. You guys don't know what you are talking about, including your lawyers on the other side.

So I say to you that if you want to deal with the causes of crime, you've got to get to it in some other way. This bill doesn't do it. This bill is deliberately political. This government is inexhaustibly political. There is nothing in here except placebo politics to make it appear like they're doing something,

whereas in reality they are doing absolutely nothing. That's the fact.

I am urging the people of Ontario to follow us with this and attack this government over this bill. I am expecting them to do that.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Hon Mrs Marland: I am very happy to have this opportunity because there isn't anyone more important in our province than our children. We are talking about the actions of our children and we are talking about the responsibility of their parents.

I think we should lay out right up front that this isn't a debate about who are good parents and who are poor parents, because I think those of us in this House who are blessed with parenthood would be the first to admit there are times when we have been strong, successful parents and there are times when we don't meet that standard. Parenting is something that certainly we all had to learn. It's a truly false assumption that we're automatically parents or that we're automatically good parents.

When we think back to how we were with our first children, I'm the first to admit that in our family, when I had our first daughter, I was 23 and I thought I was a bright, intelligent new mother. But I realize that I didn't know the best things to do with that new baby, and that's where it all begins. That is something, fortunately, that our government has now recognized: That is where parenting begins. It begins the moment that baby is born.

Fortunately for us in our government, we decided that we would seek the best possible advice, so we appointed the Early Years Study group-the Early Years reference group, actually, was co-chaired by the world-renowned Dr Fraser Mustard. In fact, my colleague and friend the member for Trinity-Spadina made a reference to Dr Mustard.

Dr Mustard co-chaired this study with the honourable Margaret McCain. Dr Mustard has made a lifelong study in all aspects of research in how children develop. The Honourable Margaret McCain has been a lifelong dedicated child advocate. In fact, when she was Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, she committed her whole term in office to children and families who were victims of violence. She wanted to make a difference. She and her husband, Wallace, as you will know, Mr Speaker, moved to Ontario and the Honourable Margaret McCain has continued that commitment to children.

Certainly with a great deal of strength, compassion and understanding she, with Dr Fraser Mustard, spent a whole year looking at the subject of how children develop, all without any remuneration. They weren't consultants that the government hired. They were two individuals who believed and knew the priority of the importance of this study.

We also appointed a 10-member reference group to assist them with their work. As we now know from the earlier study-incidentally, it will be one year tomorrow, April 20, that that study was presented to the government. In that report, over and over again it tells us the importance of parenting. If there was ever any doubt about how children learn and what the impact of that exposure in the early years results in, anyone reading the Early Years Study will now appreciate the fact that the young child's mind is almost fully developed at age 3 and certainly is fully developed by age 6.

Those of us who have been parents probably wonder how we ever managed to get through those years with relatively few mistakes. Knowing what we know now and the fact that our government has embraced the recommendations of the Early Years Study, I am very proud that our government hasn't had yet another report or another study done, as many governments have done in the past. Dr Fraser Mustard is the first to say that he has done studies for a lot of governments. This is the first time that one of his studies is being fully implemented by the government.

I would like to share with you that we are unique in Ontario. I discovered from attending a World Bank conference last week in Washington-Investing in our Children was the name of the conference. There were people there from all over the world. In fact, the minority of people were from the North American continent. There were people from the South American continent, Africa, Australia, Asia, Europe, the Scandinavian countries and of course Britain.

I was very thrilled and honoured to have been invited by the Royal Bank to be a part of that conference. I chaired the opening session, at which Dr Fraser Mustard was one of four speakers. By the time we had completed the two days of that meeting, the one thing we all agreed on was that there is nothing more important than the early years and the responsibility of parenting.

Today we are discussing the Parental Responsibility Act. What our government says in this act is that if the parents aren't responsible for our children, then who is? We say in this act that everyone has a right to live in a safe community and not be burdened by expense due to vandalism and other forms of crime against property.

Isn't it interesting, when you can go to a world conference of over 300 delegates and find that around the world they too agree that the early years are the priority? It is also amazing to find out that in some of the poorest countries in the world-which haven't had the opportunities we have in a province like Ontario to have research collected and compiled, to have studies done-with limited funds and limited resources they make children the priority and they make parents responsible for those children and how those children develop because it's the parents with whom the children live.

It's not the neighbour, it's not the business, it's not the corporation; it's the parent or the caregiver, the person who is responsible for that child in their home.

One thing the member for Trinity-Spadina said was, "Where is all the money going?" I wish my friend the member for Trinity-Spadina were in the House, because he and I have been colleagues here for the same length of time. Although in partisan politics, philosophically we often disagree, there are areas where Mr Marchese and I have agreed. I think it's a fair question when he says, "Where is all the money going?" In accepting the recommendations of the Early Years Study, our government has truly made a pioneering commitment to the children of this province.

We have for the first time decided that although resources have always been invested in elementary and secondary school years, and in fact post-secondary school years, we believe it is important to make that upfront investment. What I learned in Washington is that all the other countries of the world agree that if we had it to do over again, the heaviest investment would be in those early years.

Those children who do not experience positive parenting and nurturing and all the motivation that comes from good parenting, when you look ba