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

May 30, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-May-30 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 30 May 2001 Mercredi 30 mai 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO COLLEGE

OF ART AND DESIGN

VOLUNTEERS

SPEEDING OFFENCES

INVESTMENT FRAUD

EDUCATION FUNDING

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

CANADIAN AMPUTEE HOCKEY TEAM

FATHER CHARLES ARMSTRONG

EVENTS IN RIDING

OF NIAGARA FALLS

VISITORS

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

CANCER TREATMENT

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

AUTOPSIES

INVESTIGATION INTO CHILD ABUSE

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

AND TRADES

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

DIABETES TREATMENT

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

EDUCATION

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

PROTECTION OF MINORS

NURSES

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Wednesday 30 May 2001 Mercredi 30 mai 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO COLLEGE

OF ART AND DESIGN

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): The Ontario College of Art and Design is Canada's oldest and largest post-secondary institution dedicated to

advanced education in art and design. In the year 2001, OCAD celebrates 125 years of contributing to growth and change in Canada's visual culture.

The college is going through a period of transition and growth. A new president has been appointed to provide leadership for all academic aspects of the

college's operations, with particular emphasis on the college's proposal for degree-granting status. The college has applied for degree-granting status and has also received a $25-million start-up

investment through the SuperBuild growth fund to create a new centre for design.

This new centre will be named the Sharp Centre for Design, in recognition of the largest personal gift to the college in its 125-year history. OCAD graduate

Rosalie Sharp and her husband, Isadore Sharp, founder of the Four Seasons Hotel chain, are contributing $5 million to the college's capital campaign.

It is obvious that the college has laid the foundation for a stronger curriculum and resource base that will lead to a new future for arts and design education

in Ontario. The college has proposed changes in its governance which will enable this goal to be achieved.

As a graduate of the college and a former vice-president, I urge all members to support the enabling legislation, which I expect and hope will be introduced in

the near future.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to thank and congratulate the volunteers and volunteer organizations in Perth-Middlesex for the

contribution they make to the economic vitality and social well-being of their communities.

Last night in Stratford I took

part in the Ontario Volunteer Service Award ceremony, where 60 volunteers from my riding, representing 15 different groups, were

recognized for up to 50 years of commitment and dedicated service.

The highlight of the evening was the three songs performed by the St Marys Children's Choir, under the direction of their music director and volunteer award

recipient, Eileen Baldwin. For 20 years the St Marys Children's Choir has been performing at venues around the world and has received numerous awards.

Last week I also attended a volunteer recognition reception for the Stratford Area Association for Community Living. I also attended a tree-planting and park

bench dedication ceremony in Listowel to honour and recognize the volunteers of the Perth-Huron Victorian Order of Nurses.

The recent volunteer recognition ceremonies in my riding are timely, as the United Nations has declared 2001 as International Year of the Volunteer. Ontario's

theme is "Everyone counts." This theme accurately describes the volunteers in my riding who dedicate their time and energy to help others in their communities.

Please join me in recognizing and celebrating the achievements of the volunteers in Perth-Middlesex.

SPEEDING OFFENCES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): We've all heard of the term "road rage." I want to speak to the Minister of Transportation about something that I call

"road madness."

Just last Saturday, if you can believe it, three Michigan men riding motorcycles were each fined $1,500 for reaching speeds in excess of 200 kilometres an hour

in a 60-kilometre zone on E.C. Row Expressway in Windsor. The day before, an 18-year-old Michigan man was nailed with $1,500 in fines as he was clocked travelling 100 kilometres an hour over the

speed limit. That was on two occasions on Highway 401 in the Chatham-Kent area.

The problem and the real crime of it is that we probably won't collect those fines. They'll go scot-free because they get a summons, they head off back to

Michigan and they just don't come back. I think we should do what they do in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio: give our officers a credit card device and collect it on the spot, or you lose your licence

until you show up for your summons.

Interjection: Shame.

Mr Crozier: Absolutely. I think it's a crime that this government is letting these criminals get away on our highways. I'm going to speak to the

Minister of Transportation about it.

INVESTMENT FRAUD

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): Over the past few months, my community office in Etobicoke North has received dozens of phone calls about

bogus investment scams. These scamsters are an inventive lot, some netting the fraudster nearly $2 million. Scams include unlicensed individuals selling securities; affinity group fraud targeting

religious, ethnic and professional groups; and business investment scams involving pay telephones and automatic teller machines. In addition, beware Internet fraud in the form of "callable"

certificates of deposit, Ponzi, pyramid schemes, Internet stock price manipulations and insider trading.

What kind of help is available for Ontario investors? If you suspect a securities representative is not registered, contact the Ontario Securities Commission at

1-877-785-1555. Second, check out the Small Investors Protection Association at www.sipa.to.

Finally, trust your instinct when it comes to investment approaches and always remember: if it sounds too good to be true, you can be sure it is. Caveat

emptor.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): It sounds like the member from Etobicoke North has offered good advice for the government's

budget.

Ontario Liberals are opposed to private school vouchers and in favour of a strong system of public education. Earlier today, almost all the members of the

Liberal caucus and our leader, Dalton McGuinty, took to the streets of the greater Toronto area our strong commitment to public education. At 46 subway stops this morning and at 28 GO train

stations tomorrow we're delivering a strong message to the people of Ontario in favour of public education. But we will not stop there. Over the next number of days and weeks and months, we intend

to take this campaign to the heartland of Tory support.

On Saturday morning we're going to take a big group of people to campaign in the riding of Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge, because we know there are strong supporters

of public education in that riding.

Just yesterday morning our education critic was in the riding of Port Perry, where 75 people showed up on one day's notice to express their strong commitment to

public education and their opposition to the views of their government member, who has been supporting this private school voucher system.

So to all those Tory members who hide out here and say they're doing the work on behalf of their constituents, we're going to work hard to represent the views of

the vast majority of people of Ontario who stand in strong support with us in favour of a strong system of public education and against private school vouchers. We urge people who want to come and

bring that campaign to the Minister of Education's riding on Saturday to meet with us at 10 am.

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): New Democrats stood proudly with OPSEU members today in front of this building. We stood there shoulder to

shoulder, arm in arm with Leah Casselman and women and men who work in our public service and who represent thousands of others across this province who have provided the very best of public

service over the course of decades and generations.

We stood there in solidarity and in contempt of this government. I want the Premier to know he hasn't fooled anybody out there. We know, public sector workers

know and people in communities across this province know, Mr Premier, that your attack on the public service is very much about privatization of every facet of the public sector here in Ontario.

It's about handing over all those institutions and services that have been built by working Ontario people -- women and men, parents, grandparents and their kids -- over the course of decades and

generations. It's about turning them over to your corporate friends, inevitably American. It's about converting public tax dollars into private profits, not a penny of which will even remain in

this province or this country. You've sold out the province. You're selling out public sector workers in an attack on unions that is unprecedented but so very much typical of your style, Mr

Premier. Your disdain for working people, your disgust for professional, committed public service workers, I tell you, is generating their contempt for you and the contempt of the public of this

province.

CANADIAN AMPUTEE HOCKEY TEAM

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): As the Stanley Cup final between the New Jersey Devils and the Colorado Avalanche is well underway, many

Canadian hockey fans are searching for a Canadian team to support. A Canadian team that is truly worthy of our support is the Canadian Amputee Hockey Team.

Thornhill became the proud host of the Canadian Amputee Hockey Team and the CANAM event that took place on the weekend of May 25 to 27. Canadian amputee athletes

from across Canada played a similarly physically challenged team from the United States on Saturday at the Thornhill Community Centre. This is the first time such an event has been held in Canada.

Many NHL old-timers were in attendance to sign autographs before the game on Saturday to lend their support. On Sunday, players from each team travelled to the Hockey Hall of Fame to hang the

actual signed jerseys and inaugurate a display from the first-ever amputee hockey game held in Lake Placid at the first CANAM event.

The Canadian Amputee Hockey Committee is a committee of the Canadian Amputee Sports Association organized for the sole purpose of promoting ice hockey for all

amputees. The committee continues to encourage other amputees to rehabilitate and participate as elite athletes and to have amputee hockey become a Paralympic sport.

On behalf of the residents of Thornhill, I would like to wish the Canadian Amputee Hockey Committee and all their athletes the best of luck in the future, and

may the courage they exhibit be an example to all athletes.

FATHER CHARLES ARMSTRONG

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Yesterday my community and indeed Ontario lost a great teacher and friend, Father Charles Armstrong. "Army"

Armstrong, as he was known by his friends and students, began teaching in Ontario with the Basilian Fathers in 1934. Father Armstrong brought high school football to Ontario, coached generations of

young people in our community and was a tribute to the Basilian Order and all it stands for. Indeed, the Basilians' motto of goodness, discipline and knowledge was incorporated well in Father

Armstrong's life. He had a profound impact on thousands upon thousands of young people in our province. He taught me and served as a friend and inspiration and a mentor in so many ways.

All of us in Windsor and Essex county, and indeed across Ontario, are saddened at the loss of Father Armstrong who, in my view, stood for everything that's good

in education in this province and stood for a better way for all of us. He was a remarkable man.

This morning I had the opportunity to speak to Father Ronald Cullen, another legend in the Basilian community and in our community. He said to me that as we

celebrate Father Armstrong's life we're all fortunate today because we have another friend in heaven. He was a great man and a real inspiration to all of us.

EVENTS IN RIDING

OF NIAGARA FALLS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise to present a statement on behalf of the member from Niagara Falls, Bart Maves, who was unable to make

it.

"I'm pleased to announce to this House an award that has been received by a high school in my constituency, St Paul High School. For the second year in a row

they have won a Golden Web award. St Paul's was recognized for its professional and informative Web site. I have visited this site and encourage all members of this House to take the time to take a

look at it as well. This site can be found at www.niagararc.com/spchs/index.htm.

"I extend my congratulations to the designers of this site," and I apologize for any mispronunciations: "Christopher Ainsley, Corrado Coia, Adam Dunn, Mr

Dipersio, Mr Mechelsie, Francis Ambrosia, Janet Leung, Adam Jackson and Dan Costabile, and St Paul High School for their innovative work.

"While speaking of St Paul's Catholic school, I would like to give my condolences to the family, colleagues and former students of Fred Bilanzola. Mr Bilanzola

was an art teacher at St Paul High School. He died in a tragic car accident when he lost control of his car on a curve on a snowy road. Mr Bilanzola was a well-liked teacher, and his passing is

indeed a great loss to the school."

VISITORS

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I hope all members will join me in welcoming students from Brian Public

School who have come to visit us here today.

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

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm sending to you via a page the text I will be referring to as well as the

references. I'm standing on a point of order with respect to Bill 57, the Government Efficiency Act, 2001. It is our respectful position that the bill is out of order, and we're calling upon you to

rule as such. I would like, as briefly as possible, to outline the reasons why.

First, as you know, there's no reference to omnibus bills in our standing orders. We have to refer to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 192, and I

quote, "Although there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the content of a bill" -- and this is very important -- "there should be a theme of relevancy amongst the contents of a

bill. They must be relevant to and subject to the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the

long title of the bill." The theme of relevancy and the terminology of the

long title of the

bill are significant, then, and very operative.

By my count, Bill 57 amends well over 50 different statutes. It repeals several others. It amends acts under the aegis of 15 different ministries. While some of

the proposed amendments are admittedly housekeeping in nature, like the changes in keeping with the proper names of the courts, the bill also, and this is very much the focus of our argument,

contains very controversial amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act that will undermine some of the most basic rights enjoyed by millions of working men and women in Ontario.

Mr Speaker, the cumulative changes proposed in the 100-plus pages of this legislation, I submit to you, lack a theme of relevancy. In fact, upon reading the

bill, one discovers that they are completely different from one another. The minister has given the bill -- it was Minister Sterling, you'll recall, who was the author of the bill -- the broad and

very non-definitive title of

An Act to promote government efficiency and to improve services to taxpayers by amending or repealing certain Acts, in an attempt to encompass vastly different changes

under one umbrella.

Unlike so many of the bills with similar names introduced by this government, Bill 57 is not merely a public relations exercise. That is apparent from reading

it. It represents yet another effort on the part of the Tories to limit the democratic functioning of this Legislature by sweeping many diverse and controversial matters under one rug. Once again

the government is seeking to ram legislation through this House that contains vastly different changes to unrelated statutes, thereby preventing full and focused debate. It's simply not possible to

adequately deal with the myriad of issues included in this bill in its present form. Members of the Legislative Assembly cannot do justice to all the important components of this legislation,

because it is simply far too broad.

There are parts of Bill 57 that I would agree are properly dealt with in an omnibus bill. I refer to

schedule D, which amends 37 different statutes to change the

reference to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to the new title of the Minister of Commercial and Business Services. That's in itself benign and consistent with the theme of what is

an acceptable omnibus bill. It makes sense to accomplish these kinds of benign housekeeping matters by means of omnibus legislation and the New Democrats have no objection to that, of course.

However, there are other elements of Bill 57 that are substantively different from these housekeeping amendments. The previously mentioned changes to the

Occupational Health and Safety Act are the most striking example. These amendments represent, respectfully, substantive changes, Mr Speaker. Frankly, they have nothing to do with the efficient

operation of the government of Ontario, as the bill's

long title would suggest, and it's very relevant to refer to, as a matter of fact it's imperative to refer to, the

long title. These amendments

to the Occupational Health and Safety Act of course are buried deep within the 15 schedules and the 100-plus pages of the bill. They will never be afforded the appropriate scrutiny and debate if

the bill goes forward in its present form.

Mr Speaker, I call upon you to allow the people of Ontario to hear how the changes in this bill will affect their working lives. Members of this Legislature are

entitled, in fact I submit we're obliged, to speak to these important, substantive changes that are inconsistent with the other aspects of Bill 57. Quite frankly, when one reads those amendments to

the Occupational Health and Safety Act, one discovers that workers will be put at risk and lives will be lost.

I ask you to consider as well what committee hearings would look like. I acknowledge that the Speaker doesn't have to necessarily entertain the prospect of

committee hearings because they may not be provided for. But should they be provided, I ask you to look at what committee hearings would look like if the bill were to be referred in its current

form: the number of bureaucrats and presenters needed to address and carry its components would be unwieldy; the cost to the taxpayer of trying to adequately address every aspect included in this

bill would be staggering; there would be the time wasted in juggling dozens of speakers in several venues.

The New Democrats are proposing a solution that would bring true efficiency and accountability to the process. We are asking that Bill 57 be broken into relevant

parts so that we don't have to waste time on what are, again, these mere housekeeping amendments that can be dealt with quickly, and so that we can focus on what are the most dramatic, striking and

contentious parts of the bill.

Moving to the matter of the precedents that I know you are aware of, Mr Speaker, we know there have been precedents at the federal and provincial levels to

suggest that the severance of an omnibus bill is something that ought to happen at the political level. For instance, when the New Democratic Party was the government of this province, it agreed

with the other two parties, after their raising the matter by way of objection, to divide Bill 29, a budget bill that was introduced on June 1, 1993, and Bill 60, introduced on May 18, 1994,

because it was acknowledged there were certain bits of legislation in those two bills that were contentious and that warranted being removed from the broader bill. I would remind the Speaker that

this was at the request of what were then the two opposition parties, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, respectively.

The government of that time listened to the concerns of the opposition parties of the day and accommodated those concerns, but when that can't or won't happen,

and that hasn't happened in the context of Bill 57 -- that is to say, there hasn't been a political solution -- we then rely upon the Speaker. I put it to you that every member of this assembly

relies upon the Speaker. You are the only recourse we have.

I want to pay particular attention to the rulings of Speakers in both the House of Commons in Ottawa and in this Legislature. Previous Speakers have agreed with

points of order that address the absence of a theme of relevancy in various omnibus bills, but have not supported those points of order on procedural grounds, have denied them on procedural

grounds. This scenario, I submit to you, is very different. Indeed, Bill 57 lacks the necessary theme of relevancy among its amendments.

I argue with you that I am raising this point of order at the appropriate stage in the life of the bill. Bill 57 has been given first reading. We haven't

commenced second reading. So this is the appropriate time to consider its orderliness and determine if this Legislature would be better served -- and that, I submit, is one of the tests. Would the

Legislature, would this assembly, be better served by splitting this bill into more manageable pieces?

The ruling made by Honourable Lucien Lamoureux, Speaker of Canada's House of Commons, on January 26, 1971, and this is with respect to a point of order about an

omnibus bill: "Where do we stop? Where is the point of no return? [The honourable members] said that we might reach a point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the start of the session for

the improvement of the quality of life in Canada which would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the session. That would be an omnibus bill with a capital O and a capital B. But

would it be acceptable legislation? There must be a point where we can go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint."

He then continues, "There must be a point where an omnibus bill becomes more than an omnibus bill and is not acceptable from a procedural standpoint.... the

government has followed these practices that have been accepted in the past, rightly or wrongly, but that we may have reached the point where we are going too far and that omnibus bills seek to

take in too much."

I respect and understand the previous rulings made by you, sir, and your predecessors in this Legislature. I also suggest to you very respectfully that we've

reached the point referred to by Speaker Lamoureux. Bill after omnibus bill, time allocation motions, one after the other: I put to you, Mr Speaker, that today is the day where you are being called

upon to bring democracy back to this Legislature.

In that vein, carrying on with Speaker Lamoureux's ruling, because it speaks to the procedural question that prevented previous Speakers from ruling in favour

of splitting or severing an omnibus bill, Speaker Lamoureux stated that in his view, "It should be the responsibility of the Chair, when such a bill is introduced and given first reading, to take

the initiative and raise the matter for the consideration of the House by way of a point of order." He advised that when another omnibus bill was proposed, "It should be scrutinized at first

reading stage, when honourable members will be given the opportunity of expressing their view and the Chair can express its view either that the bill goes too far or that it is acceptable from a

procedural standpoint." Here again, Speaker, I'm submitting to you the phrase "goes too far": does it cross that line?

Clearly, Speaker Lamoureux understood that it was within his power to rule an omnibus bill out of order, and based on this precedent that it must be raised

after first reading but not before the Parliament has commenced second reading, we are raising our point of order at this stage in Bill 57's course through this Legislature after first reading but

before second reading has commenced or before it's been called for second reading.

There's more. I ask you to refer to page 618 in the text House of Commons Procedure and Practice, where it is written, "The Speaker has expressed deep concerns

about the right of members to make themselves heard properly, and so has occasionally felt the need to suggest what remedies members have to deal with the dilemma of having to approve several

legislative provisions at the same time." The issue again is, what remedies do members have to obtain relief from what I put to you is the very issue in Bill 57, several legislative provisions at

the same time?

James Jerome spoke to this concern on May 11, 1977: "[Omnibus legislation] still leaves ... some very deep concern about whether our practices in respect of

bills do in fact provide a remedy for the very legitimate complaint of the honourable member that a bill of this kind gives the government, under our practices, the right to demand one decision on

a number of quite different ... subjects.... I think an honourable member ... ought to have the right to compel the House to vote on each separate question." A very important reference. Speaker

Jerome, 1977, House of Commons, spoke very specifically to the right of members to vote on issues or themes standing independent of each other and not to be compelled to cast one vote when in fact

there should perhaps be many votes. Again, have some regard for what Speaker Jerome said: a member of the House -- with respect, that's us, Speaker -- ought to have the right to compel the House to

vote on each separate question.

Speaker, you yourself registered your concern about omnibus legislation when you, sir, told this House on December 2, 1999, "I have found that omnibus bills

cause me great concern.... The opportunities for members in this place to give due and sufficient consideration to legislation should be respected and evolving practice over the last few years has

tended to work against that." You, sir, as Speaker, recognized this evolving practice, this trend, this tendency. You expressed your concern about omnibus bills. You expressed your concern about

the ability of members of this Legislature, each and every one of us, all 103 of us, to give due and sufficient consideration to legislation.

I ask you to look at Beauchesne's sixth edition, page 3, which defines in a very fundamental way the principles of Canadian parliamentary law: "To protect a

minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every member to express opinions within limits

necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon

sudden impulse."

Finally, Speaker, I refer you to standing order 1(b), again of fundamental consideration in the course, I submit to you, of almost every ruling you might be

called upon to make. Standing order 1(b), which very much ought to set the standard, ought to set the tone, for every ruling by any Speaker, concerns the democratic rights of members and the right

to speak on all matters before the House.

I'm asking you, sir, to consider the cumulative negative effect on the democratic functioning of this House if we allow Bill 57 to be debated and passed in its

current omnibus form.

Since this government was first elected in 1995, it has introduced an unprecedented number of omnibus bills in this Legislature. I refer you back to your own

observation of 1999 when the Speaker referred to a trend, an evolution of practice, and expressed regret and concern about it.

The House spends much less time, sometimes no time at all, examining legislation in committee.

This government -- and the record speaks for itself -- uses time allocation motions more frequently than any of its predecessors and on virtually every bill of

substance that is brought before the House.

Speaker, because I feel it's within your mandate, within your jurisdiction to do this, I ask you to consider the implication of the government's actions with

respect to democracy, very fundamental small-d democracy as people across this province understand it in very much a day-to-day sort of fashion. I ask you to note that we are not elected to simply

rubber-stamp the government's every whim. Every one of us is elected to speak on behalf of our constituents and, hopefully, on behalf of all Ontarians to create a better provincial community. I put

it to you that if our voices aren't heard, then the people's voices have been silenced, and that is not democracy by anyone's definition.

I submit to you that a member's right to speak to a bill and, most importantly, to address all the components within a bill adequately is a matter of great

importance to this House and to the democratic process. I'm asking you to intervene in order to preserve the limited rights of members to fully address bills before this assembly by ruling that

omnibus Bill 57, Government Efficiency Act, 2001, is out of order in its present form.

You see, Speaker, it's not a matter of whether the bill is long enough. Mere volume doesn't determine whether or not a severance ought to occur. A bill could

be a rather short one, but if a bill contains disparate themes where one vote wouldn't adequately represent a given member's support for one significant part of it as compared to their opposition

to another significant part of it, that's what creates an omnibus bill. I submit, with respect, it's not enough to say, "Well, this bill isn't as long as another omnibus bill about which a point of

order was denied on the issue of severance." That's not the test. The test is as has been outlined in the rules and the precedents.

I submit that you, sir, this Speaker in 2001, have an opportunity to do something good, indeed great, for democracy.

You have acknowledged and there is no issue, sir, about the capacity, the jurisdiction, the mandate of a Speaker to sever a bill. Just as you, Speaker, spoke

about the evolution of practice and the regret you had about it and how it has snowballed, I'm concerned about the successions of precedent which acknowledge the Speaker's right to sever but box it

in so that the framework of that right to sever becomes minuscule. When you carry on with precedent that narrows it and narrows it, you maintain the Speaker's right to sever only as a theory but

make it impossible to ever put in practice.

Speaker, I respectfully submit, on behalf of the NDP caucus, that the amendments to acts under the Ministry of Labour, especially the Occupational Health and

Safety Act as included in Bill 57, be exposed to the scrutiny of full debate both in this Legislature and in public hearings. To allow Bill 57 to move forward in its present form would be to allow

the government to carry out what would be a hidden and sneak attack on working people by denying them the opportunity, through their representatives and in their own right at the committee level,

to fully address changes that will have a profound impact on the safety of their workplaces.

I'm asking you to look at the totality of the bill. I submit to you it's critical that one reads the bill in its totality. I'm asking you to consider the

intent of the acknowledged power of a Speaker to sever and the interests of this Parliament as a body. I am asking you to take into account your observation of that evolution of omnibus bills

becoming more omnibus, I suppose, in their nature, and I'm asking you to draw a line and to make it clear that you, sir, will protect the rights of individual members, as indicated by, among other

things, standing order 1(b), and that you will exercise a power that you have to sever.

I ask for, I anticipate and have no doubt that there will be on your part a careful review of the bill, of the standing orders, of precedent and of our

submissions. I ask you to take the time, Speaker, to carefully consider this point of order and I look forward with some enthusiasm and anxiousness to your response.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The government House leader on the same point of order.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I certainly appreciate the honourable member's very lengthy dissertation,

but I would like to respond to what he's saying because, first of all, this piece of legislation, the style of this bill, is neither unusual nor unprecedented and there is a theme of relevancy that

runs through its content. Therefore it would be our submission, respectfully, that the bill is in order.

I turn to Beauchesne at page 192, where it states, "Although there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the content of a bill, there should be a

theme of relevancy amongst the contents of a bill. They must be relevant to and subject to the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the

long title of the bill." The contents of this bill,

Mr Speaker, we submit do meet these criteria:

An Act to promote government efficiency and to improve services to taxpayers by amending or repealing certain Acts.

Omnibus bills -- legislation that has different items but items that are very closely related -- are not new to this House and have regularly been found to be

procedurally acceptable where they've conformed to the theme of relevancy in their

long titles, as laid out in Beauchesne, and rulings by Speakers of this Legislature and precedent in the federal

House of Commons do support the practice of using one bill to demand a decision on a number of different although related subjects. That is certainly our submission.

The scope of the legislation is not as great in this particular bill as in other ones. For example, I would point to Bill 175 under the former NDP government,

of which the member opposite was a member. Points of order raised when that bill was called for second reading expressed doubt about whether the contents of the bill demonstrated a theme of

relevancy, and it was noted that the matters covered by that bill ranged from automating the land registry office to allowing alcoholic beverages to be sold in provincial parks. This was ruled

acceptable.

The bill before us today certainly does have different items but they are related, we believe, under the title of this bill. So it would be our submission,

respectfully, that the precedents are clear. The bill is in order and in this case the umbrella, the

long title, demonstrates the coherence among the bill's components. I would respectfully request

that you rule this bill in order.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): The member for Niagara Centre has raised, I think, an extremely valid point of order. He quoted your own

ruling in December 1999, which was a response to a similar point I had raised. My recollection of the various rulings of Speakers both in the federal House and here is that there has been an

increasing tendency to be concerned about the nature of omnibus bills, the relevance of everything that is contained in them and the linkages between them. It's apparent to me, sir, and I know to

many other members in this House, that increasingly bills have become, to use the member for Niagara Centre's words, more omnibus; that is, the scope and breadth of the legislation contained in

them is less related, except in very loose fashion, than it had been in the past.

Accordingly, I believe it's up to Speakers today to look very closely at how this has evolved -- indeed, going back to Speaker Jermone's rulings in the 1970s,

when he expressed concerns, and your own concerns -- in order to protect the privilege of members here in this House, the ability to debate items that are in their essence deserving of the

attention of the House and ought not to be lumped in.

Accordingly, we in the official opposition support the point of order raised by the member for Niagara Centre. We look to you, sir, to take the rulings in this

area, the whole area of omnibus legislation, which has changed dramatically, indeed in the short time I've been a member of this assembly, and we urge you to take us to the next step and protect

our rights as members.

The Speaker: I thank the member for Niagara Centre for his submission, as well as the government House leader, as well as the House leader for

the official opposition. I will reserve my judgment.

VISITORS

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We often have a chance to honour those pages who serve here,

but today I'd like to honour five who are prospective pages, who haven't been successful in their quest yet, from my riding who joined me for lunch today. They're in the east gallery: Alison

Zimmerman, Jason Yeung, Christopher Henry, Ronald Matey and Danielle Inglis. Perhaps all members would join me in welcoming them.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to introduce to you and other members of this

assembly some constituents of mine from Kingston and the Islands who have joined me here today to see the proceedings at question period at Queen's Park. They're sitting in the west gallery.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): That's not a point of order, but while we're introducing some special guests, today we have with us in the

Speaker's gallery some special guests. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association study group on public accounts committees, comprised of parliamentarians from Commonwealth countries, has been

meeting here to study the role of the public accounts committees. Please join me in welcoming our special guests.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): On a short point of order, Mr Speaker: I too would like to

welcome several special guests to the members' gallery today. We are honoured to have representatives from the Canadian Snowbird Association, with over 70,000 members in Ontario. Bob Jackson, their

president, is a former cabinet minister in the province of New Brunswick; Ellen White is the association's secretary and Ontario director; Mark Simone is policy adviser to the Canadian Snowbird

Association; and Heather Nicolson-Morrison is here. They're in the gallery.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would just like to welcome anyone who has felt left out.

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister of Labour, for that.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the fifth report of the standing committee on government

agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My questions today are for the Minister of Finance. I want to speak to you further about your

private school voucher program found in your budget. You have now provided Ontario's working families with a couple of assurances. First of all, you told us your private school voucher program will

cost no more than $300 million, and secondly, you have told us it will result in no loss of funding to public education.

Yesterday in the Legislature you said the following: "We don't have to rely on theory, on speculation, on might-have-beens.... We know the reality of it.

"For example, in Manitoba, independent school enrolment as a percentage of the total increased only marginally from 5% to 6.6% from 1999 to 2000.... That's

what we anticipate happening in Ontario."

Minister, I shouldn't have to tell you that an increase from 5% to 6.6% in just one year is not marginal. In fact, it results in a 32% increase in enrolments.

Your private school voucher program isn't going to cost $300 million for the existing enrolment; it's also going to cost, according to your 32% projection, another $115 million.

My question to you is, why have you hidden this additional $115-million cost from Ontario's working families?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): If the Leader of the Opposition had looked into the research correctly, he would have

known that the figures with respect to the province of British Columbia and the province of Alberta are over 10 years, not one year.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, in my question, I made no --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the member take his seat. Order.

The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, in my question I made no reference to BC or Alberta. I made reference to the province you referred to yesterday. You

talked about Manitoba. This was information that you provided to this Legislature just yesterday, and I'll repeat it for you. You said that independent school enrolment "in Manitoba, as a

percentage of the total, increased only marginally from 5% to 6.6% from 1999 to 2000.... That's what we anticipate happening in Ontario."

As Minister of Finance, you will know that is not a marginal increase. We're talking about a 32% increase in just one year, based on information you have

provided to this House. What that means is, we're not looking at a $300-million cost; we're looking at an additional 33,000 students enrolling in private schools, at a cost of $115 million.

Minister, why did you hide that information from this House and from Ontario's working families?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I see now how the Liberal government managed to tax and spend its way and increase the public deficit. Quite frankly, the

member can't count. If he wants to know what the increase is over the period of 10 years -- in the 10 years of Manitoba's program, independent school enrolment as a percentage of the total

increased only marginally from 5% to 6.6% from 1990 to 2000. In other words, only one out of every 60 public school students moved to an independent school. Those are the Manitoba figures. If the

Leader of the Opposition can't do the arithmetic over the six-year period from the commencement of our program next year through the five-year maturation, then I'll do the arithmetic for him, but I

thought it was relatively easy to do that to get to the $300-million figure.

Mr McGuinty: Then I guess, to this minister, what's another $100 million? We happen to believe that's a lot of money. We happen to believe

that money should be better spent in public education for smaller classes and lighthouse schools and turnaround teams. Those are the kinds of investments we think we should be making in public

education.

Mr Minister, why don't you just fess up now? Why don't you admit that you have done this on the back of an envelope? That's one of the reasons you have not

been present here to take our questions. You have been unable to defend this policy. Why don't you tell us that you're making this up as you go? Tell us that you have no idea what this is going to

cost Ontarians in terms of losses to public education and additional costs to private schools. Why not just admit that?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The estimate, of course, is based on the anticipated enrolment in Ontario over that period of time. We don't need theoretical

studies. We have the realities of what has happened in the other five provinces in Canada that have already moved forward in this area. We know what the experience is in British Columbia and

Alberta over a 10-year period.

So the cost will be approximately what I have said it would be over the maturation period. It may be a little bit less and it may be a little bit more, but we

have that experience. We don't need the theoretical musings of the Leader of the Opposition. You can look at the reality of what has happened in British Columbia, the reality of what has happened

in Manitoba. The Ontario figures are reliable based on actual Canadian experience.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr McGuinty: My question is again for the Minister of Finance. Minister, what we want to know on behalf of Ontario's working families, and we

feel we're entitled to this information and we have a reasonable expectation that you, sir, as Minister of Finance would have this information, is, can you tell us exactly how much your private

school voucher program is going to cost?

Yesterday you told us it was going to result in a 32% increase. Now you're telling us, "No, that was really over a 10-year frame and not a one-year frame," and

then just a moment ago you said, "Approximately $300 million." We think we're entitled to know in a much more specific way how much your program is going to cost Ontario taxpayers. Can you tell us

exactly now, based on your calculations, how much your private school voucher program is going to cost Ontario taxpayers? What does "approximately" mean?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I'll go over the same ground again to try to assist the Leader of the Opposition in understanding what's going on in Ontario.

If the Leader of the Opposition looks at the budget bill, he will see that the proposal is a 10% tax credit for each year, starting in 2002, building up over the five years to 50%. Let me help him

with respect to what has happened in Manitoba. This is not over five or six years, I say to the Leader of the Opposition --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Flaherty: Take your time and listen and then you'll be able to understand; at least I hope he'll be able to understand: 10 years is not

five years. Ten years is twice as long as five years. That's true in British Columbia and it's true in Ontario. So take your time and follow along: over the course of 10 years, not five years,

independent school enrolment rose from 7.1% to 8.3% -- over 10 years.

Based on the Ontario figures, that would be about $300 million in terms of the tax credit. I hope that's clear. I hope the Leader of the Opposition wants to

understand --

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: I will remind the Minister of Finance what his own ministry officials informed us of on budget day. They told us that your

assessment of the $300 million costs was based on zero growth. The question I now have for you, Minister of Finance, is, do you believe there will in fact be zero growth in enrolment in private

schools after you have introduced your $3,500 private school voucher incentive?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I again can't understand why the Leader of the Opposition has so much difficulty understanding a gradually brought in tax

credit. It's not 50% next year, Leader of the Opposition; it's 10%. It's not 50% in year two; it's 20%. It's not 50% in year three; it's 30%. It's not 50% in year four; it's 40%. In year five, then

it's 50%, which is still less, for example, than in Alberta, where the figure is 60%. When you do the arithmetic, the figure you get to, Leader of the Opposition, is $300 million.

Mr McGuinty: I remind the minister that his own officials told us that the cost of this program when fully implemented would be $300 million

on an annual basis, and they projected zero increase in enrolment in private schools. What I'm asking you, Minister of Finance, is whether you agree with that. Do you agree that your private school

voucher incentive program will result in zero increase in private school enrolment? I need an answer.

Hon Mr Flaherty: Over time, as I've indicated, the figure would be about $300 million. It depends, of course, on the number of students who

transfer from one system to the other. Having said this, I say that if there is any significant transfer from the public school system, if we're talking about the accounts --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Minister of Finance take his seat. Order.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Did he forget to tell you --

The Speaker: Order. The member for Windsor West, come to order, please, or we'll start with the warnings right off the bat. It's getting a

little too loud in here. We can have our fun.

Hon Mr Flaherty: The tax credit costs will be approximately $300 million over that period of time, and we stand by that figure.

I do ask the Leader of the Opposition why, in his latest pamphlet about our school system, he mentions a whole number of items but fails to mention his promise

to repeal the tax credit for independent schools. I wonder if he's serious about the statement he's made publicly and, if so, why isn't it here?

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Your decision to hold public hearings on your private school tax

credit scheme in the greater Toronto area only is simply discrimination against people across Ontario. The greater Toronto area does not define the rest of Ontario.

An author, Jules Verne, travelled around the world in 80 days and wrote a book about it. The people of Ontario want public hearings across Ontario over 80

days. The question is, will you stop discriminating against everyone else in Ontario and hold real public hearings into your private school tax credit scheme so that people can have a say?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the New Democratic Party's concern and interest in making sure the public is heard. I share that

concern. I know the Liberals have never asked me about it, so I guess they don't or perhaps, like when we had the hearings in Sault Ste Marie, they asked for them and never showed up. Maybe they

don't like travelling the province; I don't know.

So I do appreciate the New Democratic Party's --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Premier take his seat. It's getting too loud in here again. I can't hear. If you're going to keep it up, we're going to start

to warn people and name people. Sorry, Premier, for the interruption.

Hon Mr Harris: I do appreciate the New Democratic Party's interest in making sure the public is heard. We too share that concern. There are

lots of vehicles, lots of opportunities. I think House leaders undoubtedly will be discussing this on Thursdays. Committee members themselves, once we've finished second reading and the bill's

referred out, will have an opportunity to discuss ways they can make sure the whole province is consulted.

Mr Hampton: The question is very simple: are you prepared to hold public hearings across the province or not? If you're not, it is clearly

discriminatory.

But that doesn't end this discrimination. I want to take you back to something you said yesterday. You said there would be no discrimination by private schools

in the use of public money. You said the Human Rights Code would not permit that. Well, Premier, you should read

section 18 of the Human Rights Code because private schools are exempt. It means

they can and they do discriminate, and it is permitted. Premier, before you use public dollars to fund private schools that can discriminate, don't you think the people of Ontario deserve real

public hearings across Ontario?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the member might want to be a little cautious in talking about discrimination. There is discrimination, like the

discriminating buyer, that's a positive discrimination. I don't know whether the member is opposed to the Catholic schools' right to discriminate, as it is given a partial exemption under the Human

Rights Code to conform with the Constitution of Canada. They can in fact, as you know, discriminate, and that form of discrimination is deemed to be acceptable by the Constitution of Canada, the

courts of Canada and the Human Rights Commission. But it is clear that no institution, that no group or individual within the province of Ontario, can promote or incite hatred or violence against

any identifiable group or person. The Ontario government does not and will not tolerate that promotion of hatred in any form.

We stated in the budget that there are a number of policy issues concerning implementation, and we welcome the member's input into implementation of this tax

credit for working families, whom it's designed to support. We welcome that kind of input.

Mr Hampton: Premier, this is what

section 18 says: "Special interest organizations," and it allows them to engage in discrimination. We

finally got you to admit that. My point is, before you use public money to fund discrimination by private schools, don't you think the people across Ontario deserve a hearing on this? When public

money was extended to separate schools, your members demanded 80 days of public hearings across Ontario. You said it was absolutely necessary. You said it had to happen before public money could be

used in this way. Well, Premier, it's the same occasion. We're asking for 80 days of public hearings across Ontario before you extend discrimination by private schools using public money. What's

your answer, Premier? It was a good answer then; let's have the same answer now.

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate knowing the NDP's position, and it's very important. This will be something that will be sorted out by the House

leaders and by those committee members, to make sure there is an appropriate opportunity to hear the legitimate views of Ontarians.

I'm not sure I would compare the two. I can tell you, if you want to get into comparisons, that in the 36th session of Parliament, 43% of government bills were

sent to committee. In this session, currently 53% of government bills have been sent to committee. Under the NDP only 38% of government bills went to committee, and under the Liberals 19% of

government bills went to committee. So I say to you that we take absolutely no backseat on public consultation, to sending government bills out for hearings. In fact our record is far more

exemplary than that of your party or the Liberal Party.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Hampton: To the Premier: We met with Ministry of Finance officials yesterday and we asked them about all the standards that apply to our

public schools: standards regarding the Safe Schools Act, teacher testing, teacher credentials etc. We said to them, "Before you extend public funding to private schools, are you going to ensure

these same standards are met?" They said, "No. This isn't educational policy. This is simply a tax credit for private schools. They can go on and continue to do whatever they do."

Premier, before you extend public money to private schools, when your own officials say there are no guidelines, don't you think you should do the same thing

you demanded in 1985: public hearings -- real public hearings -- for people across this province so they can examine what you're doing, can understand what you're doing and can have a say? It was

fair then, Premier. Why isn't it fair now?

Hon Mr Harris: I think we made it very clear yesterday. We think that's a good idea.

Mr Hampton: If the Premier thinks this is a good idea, then stand on your feet and commit that there will be real public hearings, not by

electronic media, not by video camera, but real public hearings across this province, that you'll go to Timmins, to Sault Ste Marie, to Sudbury, to Ottawa, to Kingston, to Peterborough, to Windsor,

to Sarnia, to Thunder Bay, that you'll go across this province and you'll hold real public hearings. That's the issue. I'll tell you there is rally after rally being held across this province by

people who understand what you're doing, but who also understand you won't hold public hearings. We're having a rally here tonight at Queen's Park.

Interjection: Tomorrow night.

Mr Hampton: If you're not prepared to come to that rally tomorrow night, if you're not prepared to defend your policy, then guarantee public

hearings -- real public hearings -- across the province and do it now.

Hon Mr Harris: Let me simply, by way of responding to the final supplementary, congratulate the New Democratic Party on finding an issue they

can get their teeth into, on standing up for public hearings, which we've already committed to doing. That's something the Liberal Party doesn't seem to care too much about. Let me also say that I

appreciate knowing there's going to be a rally tonight and I assume that the leader of the New Democratic Party will be at that rally. I think it's important the media know that. I hope I get a

good accounting. Maybe somebody can attend and let me know what you say and how it goes. I think these rallies are an important part of public democracy, and I'm excited that you're getting

involved and are enthusiastic and excited about the parliamentary process as we've laid this agenda before the people.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Premier. Your government set up Cancer Care Ontario just four years ago to

coordinate cancer care across the province and to set standards of treatment for cancer patients. Over the past four years, Cancer Care Ontario has been an advocate for higher standards of cancer

care. They've told us all clearly what needs to be done. They've told us of unacceptably long waiting lists for radiation treatments. They've told us we don't have enough cancer doctors. They've

told us we're facing a crisis in chemotherapy treatment. They've told us we need to put more money into prevention. They've provided the coordination and they have shown you, the government, where

the gaps are. Cancer Care Ontario has been doing exactly what it was set up to do.

Now, Premier, you have decided that you don't want coordination, that you don't want advocacy, that you want to go back to the piecemeal situation we had

before. Will you tell us today why you have decided to end the independence of cancer care centres across this province?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Health can respond to that.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I can say to the honourable member that nothing could be further from the truth. In

fact, we are working with Cancer Care Ontario and its board, as she may be aware. She probably has read the news release of the Cancer Care Ontario board of directors today indicating they are

perfectly with us when it comes to integrating cancer care services to better service the cancer patients in Ontario. This was an original goal of the Health Services Restructuring Commission that

they signed on to from the very beginning. This has nothing to do with cancer care funding, which will continue to increase. It has nothing to do with not having a unique envelope for cancer care

in our province. It has to do with delivering better cancer services to the people of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: Your government gave them marching orders. Your government called last week and informed Cancer Care Ontario that you were going

to accelerate the integration of cancer centres with hospitals. Minister, I remind you that hospitals in this province are facing $750 million in deficits. How do you expect hospitals to take on

the responsibility of dealing with the waiting lists for cancer care? I can suggest to you that you're not going to solve the problem of the lack of cancer surgery in hospitals, if that's your

goal, by making cancer patients compete with heart patients for hospital dollars.

I wonder what's going to happen to cancer patients when they can't get treatment in a reasonable amount of time because you no longer have a coordinated cancer

treatment system. No one likes the idea of referring people away from home for care, but you can't get rid of the problem by burying it. You may not want to count the number of cancer patients on a

waiting list for treatment, but the cancer patients don't go away.

Minister, Cancer Care Ontario is asking you exactly these same questions. They want you to appoint an independent panel, not one that marches to the directions

of your Premier's office, and they want that independent panel to answer questions about how standards can be maintained, how coordination can be maintained. Will you commit to establishing that

independent panel to look at the future of Cancer Care Ontario and the care of cancer patients today?

Hon Mr Clement: I indicated to you that the board has indicated to us and to the public of Ontario that they want to work with us for a

long-standing goal. I don't know why you're talking about rushing around. This goal has been around for four years, and they have agreed with us that this goal is worthy of moving on at this point

in time.

Then you talk about the cancer care budget. You fail to mention how it has increased year after year, by over 40% over the last four or five years. You didn't

mention that in your question, but that's the reality of the situation. Nothing in this will cut any budget of cancer care for the people of Ontario, nothing in this somehow integrates the budget

with other hospital requirements or spending. We are protecting the budget, we are protecting cancer care in this province and we are doing it so that it is integrated with the other hospital

functions to deliver better cancer services. To suggest anything else would be fearmongering.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. As you know, my riding of Cambridge is home

to one of the most advanced automobile manufacturing facilities in the world. The Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada plant is home to the Toyota Corolla, Toyota Solara and the Solara convertible

models and recently was again awarded J.D. Power recognition for quality.

In recent months there has been speculation that the production of a new Lexus model would be announced for this plant. I understand that this announcement was

made on Friday. This would be the first time a Lexus automobile would be built outside Japan.

Minister, could you share with the House what this announcement included and what it will mean for my community of Cambridge?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Toyota has been, I think it's fair to say, dropping hints for some time

now that the new Lexus SUV model would soon be announced for the Cambridge plant. As the member indicated, last Friday they confirmed that the company will spend more than $200 million over the

next two years to create a new paint shop for this facility. The paint shop is part of a $650-million effort to prepare for the production of the high-end Lexus RX300 sport utility vehicle, which

will begin rolling off the assembly line in 2003. This investment will create up to 800 construction jobs at peak times and another 300 permanent jobs once construction is complete.

Mr Martiniuk: This is more good news for the riding of Cambridge and is contrary to a lot of the pessimistic talk coming out of the automobile

industry in the past few months.

Though this is great news for my riding, I would ask what it means for the rest of the province and what our government is doing to ensure that more

investments of this kind come our way.

Hon Mr Runciman: The Cambridge Toyota facility is recognized as one of the best in the world. This plant is the first one outside Japan to

assemble any of the luxury Lexus models, and Cambridge won the contract because of its outstanding record for quality.

A high-quality workforce and top-of-the-line facilities are what we expect here in Ontario. Our government has committed over $16 million through its strategic

skills investment program to train young people in the design, testing and production of automobiles --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Runciman: The members from Windsor, I would think, should be interested in this, the Liberal members who seem to be heckling at a

question dealing with the auto sector, which should have prime importance to them.

Interjection: Shame, shame.

Hon Mr Runciman: Very much shame.

Maintaining these high standards and reducing the cost of doing business help to create an environment that will help companies interested in investing in our

province.

AUTOPSIES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Solicitor General. Minister, you will know that since mid-April your government has been

transporting bodies for medical-legal autopsies from several points in Ontario, such as Sudbury, Thunder Bay and North Bay, to mention only a few, to Toronto because your government refused to

honour an agreement reached between the chief coroner, who negotiated on your behalf, and the Ontario Association of Pathologists.

By reneging on this agreement, your government has forced a situation whereby bodies must wait in a home community for a number of days, then are sent to

Toronto for an autopsy and finally are returned home for interment. This process is causing undue hardships on bereaved families who have just lost loved ones, people like Nicole Pilotte, whose son

drowned on May 19. His body had to be sent to Toronto and didn't return until May 22. In Nicole's words, "Our son was not recognizable." When will you settle your dispute with the pathologists for

the sake of grieving families?

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): The honourable member raises a tremendously important issue, one which obviously we're dealing with,

but the premise of the question is incorrect. You suggest that in fact there was an agreement made. There was no such agreement; there were some discussions. Progress, I'm pleased to say, has been

made on this issue but it isn't completely solved yet. We're monitoring the situation, and discussions are continuing between the Office of the Chief Coroner and the Ontario Association of

Pathologists. In the meantime, you are correct: alternative arrangements have been made to handle this very serious issue.

Mr Bartolucci: An agreement had been reached between the two bodies and it was nixed at Management Board and then cabinet. Clearly, Minister,

aside from the human perspective, aside from demonstrating a morbid indifference to families, you must recognize the financial implications of this policy. The cost of shipping bodies across

Ontario is far higher than the reasonable fees requested by pathologists and rejected by your government. In my community alone, up until this past Monday, the Sudbury regional police had to

accompany every body to Toronto. The fiscal and human resource costs associated with this cannot be understated. Unlike the northern health travel grant, which only pays 34 cents a kilometre one

way, it is costing your government $1.35 per kilometre for mileage to ship bodies to and from Toronto.

Minister, will you finally honour all of your government's commitments which were part of the original agreement? Will you agree to respond to the

pathologists' concerns over outdated equipment and facilities? Will you agree to go ahead with the regional forensic centre in northeastern Ontario and, above all, will you agree to stop putting

grieving families through hell by making them endure needless delays?

Hon Mr Turnbull: First of all, let me say to the honourable member that clearly it's a very sad situation and one where my heart goes out to

those grieving families.

However, having said that, I want to be very clear with the honourable member that there was no such agreement. You are inaccurate in your statement.

Furthermore, we have made a very generous offer, which is in the process of being negotiated at this moment, and we are very determined to solve the situation.

But I do not believe our government will ever return to the old Liberal way of tax and spend. We live within our budget. That's the difference between you and

me.

INVESTIGATION INTO CHILD ABUSE

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): My question is for the Attorney General. Mr Minister, Klancy Grasman of the Ontario Provincial Police

has announced the end of Project Truth on four different occasions. The first was in February of 1999 and the last in December of last year. At the moment of the last announcement, Project Truth's

office in Cornwall was closed and it was moved to the Long Sault detachment of the OPP.

Mr Grasman, whom I've never met -- I really don't know whether he's a civilian or an officer -- is the individual who was quoted in the press release on

Christmas Eve 1994, saying, "We have left no stone unturned." More important to this government, I suggest, he is the individual who was quoted in the press release and the announcement of the

Walkerton criminal investigation when he said, "We shall leave no stone unturned." But, Mr Minister, I contacted your office or the office of your predecessor of happy memory in January of this

year and also the Solicitor General's office to inquire as to whether or not this was a closed investigation and whether the matter was coming to a close, and I was assured that it was and that

there were no other charges being contemplated. Imagine my surprise yesterday when the Solicitor General told me it wasn't a closed book and that we were contemplating charges, pending the legal

opinion from your office.

Sir, an estimate, if you would, please, of how much longer we should wait -- reasonably wait -- before the final answer comes forward.

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Let me say at the outset that I do understand how difficult the

past few years have been for the people of Cornwall. I'm appreciative of the fact that these questions, these matters, are of great concern. They should be of great concern and they are to me, and

they're being taken very seriously.

We have a responsibility to do everything we can to protect society's most vulnerable members from sexual exploitation. As the member knows, as Attorney

General I cannot and I will not comment on any specific case. When the police are satisfied that they have reasonable and probable grounds, they lay charges. The Attorney General does not; crown

attorneys do not. There are matters that are currently before the court, both civil and criminal matters. In addition, the police and the crowns continue to review various additional and related

matters. It would be inappropriate for me to comment at this time on whether or not there will be any further charges laid. For an Attorney General to do so, I say with respect to my friend, would

be tantamount to interfering with the court process and may well be viewed as a violation of the charter.

Mr Guzzo: I accept that answer and I agree with it totally, but I'm not asking you to interfere; I'm just asking you to give me an estimate of

the amount of time your people will require to give the legal opinions that the OPP apparently are waiting for. Is it a matter of weeks? I tell you, I asked the question, at the time of my last

bill, of your predecessor, Attorney General Flaherty, as he then was. He suggested at that time that it would be a matter of weeks, in his opinion.

Let me also just make it very clear: I find the fact that we learn now that these matters -- we are still dealing with an open door, and they are waiting for

additional opinions. I find that a very positive sign and I want to underline that, but I have to tell you, sir, that the people of Cornwall are becoming frustrated. They're losing confidence in

the justice system and they're losing confidence in this government.

All I'm asking for, and I'll repeat it: I want an estimate of the time. How much time would you reasonably expect? Is it a matter of weeks? Is it a matter of

months, sir? Never mind interfering or suggesting any interference with the investigation of the police. How much more time for your lawyers to give them the advice they've requested?

Hon Mr Young: Let me repeat at the outset that Attorneys General don't lay criminal charges, crown attorneys don't lay criminal charges; the

police do so when they are satisfied that they have reasonable and probable grounds to support a criminal charge.

I appreciate that my friend doesn't have the same encumbrances that I do as Attorney General. However, I am not in a position to offer my personal opinion or

my guesstimate as to how long it should take or will take for a particular charge to be considered or for evidence or information to be considered. I say to you that it is my opinion that for me to

do that at this time would be inappropriate, that it may jeopardize a fair trial for those who may be charged, if anyone is charged. My interest is that no guilty person go free because of

something that is said in this Legislature. By the same token, I certainly don't want to interfere with an innocent person's right to a fair trial. So I say to you, I cannot and I will not comment

further on this matter at this time.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Health. In response to my question yesterday, you said you were still

in communication with community care access centres about additional funding to their base allocations. I've been in contact with CCACs in Sault Ste Marie, East York, Hamilton, Niagara,

Scarborough, Ottawa, Kingston and Kitchener, and their story is very different from yours.

Sault Ste Marie is facing a projected deficit of $3.2 million. Ottawa-Carleton needs an additional $10 million just to maintain the same services they provided

last year. East York is being cut by $2 million. Kitchener-Waterloo has been ordered to reduce expenditures by $4 million. Kingston is running short by $3.3 million. Hamilton-Wentworth, Niagara and

many others are going to have to cut in order to do away with projected deficits to maintain existing service levels.

CCACs tell me they've been told there is no additional funding coming, only their base allocations, no more discussion. Yesterday, you said you're still having

discussions about adding money to their base allocations. Minister, which of those two statements is accurate?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Let me reiterate the history of CCACs since 1996. Of course, the honourable member

will be aware that base funding has increased by over 70%, so there has been a history of funding to the demands of the CCACs in our communities.

I would say to the honourable member that we're in the process of discussion. Of course the CCACs have put forward their proposed budgets, which quite frankly

are part of our discussion. We have an obligation, on behalf of the taxpayers and on behalf of the citizenry, not only to meet the demands that should be met by the CCACs but also to ensure that

those budget allocations and projections are done in a cost-effective, meaningful way and that there is no waste and no duplication. We're going through that process right now, and the process is

ongoing.

Ms Lankin: Minister, what you just told me is that the CCACs still have an opportunity to get additional money to their base funding. They

have not been told that by their regional managers. They have been told, "Bottom line: no more money." On that basis, and planning to do away with the deficit, they have had to start sending out

notices of service reductions. Minister, some of those service reductions begin this coming Monday, June 4. In all the different CCACs there are deadlines for notices going out and the various

levels of service reductions -- home care, nursing, personal care. Minister, it includes cuts to things like IVs, chemo and antibiotics. Do you know where those patients will end up? They'll end up

continuing their stays in hospital. They won't be discharged to the home. You've got hospitals that are facing a $700-million deficit. You're going to cause more people to stay longer in the

hospital because the CCACs are cutting their budgets.

Minister, in order to get rid of their deficits, those cuts have to start Monday. You're saying you're still discussing. When will you report to this House

what the actual budget allocations for CCACs, one by one across the province, will be?

Hon Mr Clement: I know it's not the honourable member's intention to jump to conclusions, but she is repeating the fallacy of yesterday, which

was that the choice before CCACs is to either get more money or cut services. We believe in a third way. Our way is to work with the providers to see whether there is any waste, any duplication,

any overservice in some area that doesn't need it, to pay for underservices in other areas. Those are the choices we make as a government, rather than automatically writing a cheque or

automatically cutting services. When they were in power, maybe they had a different point of view. But our point of view is: work with us, make sure we see all the facts. If we have a particular

problem with a particular CCAC that she knows about, tell us the problem. I challenge them: have a value-for-money audit and we'll live by the results too.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): My question is for the Minister of Labour, and I don't see him around. He was here a few

minutes ago.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock for a moment. The Minister of Labour is here; we'll just wait for him. The member may

continue.

Mr Lalonde: Minister, you often talk about fairness and that fairness is a two-way street, as spelled out in Bill 17. Today, the city of

Ottawa, as well as the electricians and plumbers of Ontario, don't think you are fair. When the city of Ottawa didn't move fast enough for you and your Quebec counterparts, you had your Minister of

Municipal Affairs on May 7 amend the Municipal Act for Ottawa only. That amendment removes the power of the city of Ottawa to regulate master licence certification. This now allows anyone from

Quebec with an RBQ licence to obtain a master licence to work in Ottawa without having to try an exam.

Are you aware that many Quebecers who hold RBQ licences have written no exam at all, not even in Quebec, and are certainly not familiar with the Ontario

building and electrical codes? Ottawa councillors are not nuts, and you are not being fair to Ontario electricians and plumbers who still have to write exams to obtain a master licence to work in

Ottawa.

So I ask: will you direct the Minister of Municipal Affairs to once again amend the Municipal Act to level the playing field for all Ontario electricians and

plumbers working in Ottawa, or are you once again going to cave in to Quebec's demands, which could have an impact on the health and safety of Ottawa people?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I appreciate the question from the member opposite. Let's be clear about the exam process: we met

with the mechanical association and the electrical association with respect to the exam. We were given an undertaking from both those associations that said the exams are fundamentally the same. An

Ontario contractor who goes into Quebec has not been forced to rewrite the exam in Quebec since 1996. By the reciprocal agreement under Fairness is a Two-Way Street, we simply removed that barrier

in Ontario because Quebec removed the barrier in 1996. That was a fair ruling. That's the kind of ruling we made.

For you to stand in this place and suggest this government didn't do anything to represent the workers in Ottawa, and your government somehow did, is beyond

the pale of reasonableness. This government introduced Bill 17, the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act. We got Ontario workers into Quebec to work. You did nothing to facilitate those workers. To

stand here and criticize us on that is absolutely, patently absurd.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I want to follow up on a question about health and safety and a change this minister, this government, is

sort of trying to sneak through under Bill 57. As it now stands, if a worker believes the workplace is unsafe, they can refuse to work. They can call the ministry, and an inspector will visit the

work site in their presence to determine whether there's a safe working condition.

Under Bill 57, this government is now trying to sneak in a change where, if a complaint is laid, an inspector can simply assess whether there is a safe or

unsafe workplace over the phone.

The Speaker: You know that the supplementary has to be related. Could you come to the point about it? It's almost the end of question

anyway.

Mr Agostino: Speaker, both questions are related to health and safety and to a continuous attack on working women and men by this

government.

Interjections.

Mr Agostino: The members across the floor may think it's humorous when you expose people to unsafe working conditions. They may think it's

humorous when men and women get injured on the job. We don't believe that to be the case on this side of the House. When the members and the minister can stop laughing and realize that this

jeopardizes the health and safety of people across --

The Speaker: Order. The member has 10 seconds to ask the question. I'll be up in 10 seconds and he won't even get it out.

Mr Agostino: Can the minister answer why he has changed the legislation under Bill 57 and now requires an inspector to assess by phone rather

than in person why or why not a workplace is unsafe, and will you take responsibility the first time a person is killed or injured on the job --

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

Hon Mr Stockwell: OK, if that's the supplementary to the original question. First off, let's be clear. We weren't laughing at the issue at

all. We were laughing, quite candidly, at the questioner, but we weren't laughing at the issue of health and safety.

What we are saying on the issue of Bill 57 is simply this: the inspector makes a decision. Some of those inspections and stop-works in health and safety can

sometimes take a day or two of travel for the inspector to get to the workplace in order to inspect the site. When it's a very straightforward issue, on consent by the inspector, who works for the

government, he or she may say, "I was there very recently. I know exactly what you're talking about. I can take the request on the phone and I can deal with the health and safety concern." But only

the inspector may be allowed to do that. Only the inspector may determine whether or not that's the appropriate approach. If they decide it's not, they'll say, "Stop work. I'm going to have to head

up there. It may take a day or two and you can't operate."

So let's be clear. No government is saying they won't inspect. Of course they will. But in certain circumstances, in certain situations, the inspector makes a

decision whether or not they need to actually visit the site. That's a reasonable way to do business. That's a reasonable approach to take and it's only a common sense approach that we understand

The Speaker: New question.

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

AND TRADES

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Ontario is home to more

than half of all immigrants who choose to come to Canada. Some 72% of working-age immigrants arrive here with at least some post-secondary educational training and many of them choose to settle in

my riding of Scarborough Centre. Many of them are unable to practise because the education and experience they earned abroad may not correspond with the standards and requirements we have here in

Ontario. This is happening at a time when several employers are concerned about the supply of available, skilled labour. I'm wondering, Minister, what steps you are taking to help foreign-trained

professionals enter the workforce and contribute to Ontario's economy.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): I thank my colleague from

Scarborough Centre. I would just like to say that for too long many foreign-trained specialists have found themselves in this great province with the qualifications and we haven't moved them

quickly into jobs. So in the budget of 2001 we will provide an additional $12 million in new spending to help foreign-trained professionals put their skills to work in Ontario. The funds will

support new bridging programs -- we already have some -- that build on the previous experience of immigrants and focus on preparing them to write the exams to qualify, to take courses in areas

where they may have some gaps and to get these great jobs. This will build on the $3.5 million we announced last year, where we supported bridging programs for foreign-trained pharmacists and

nurses.

Dr Joseph Wong of the Yee Hong Centre for Geriatric Care, the nurses at his centre, in co-operation with the St Michael's Hospital care project, are really

moving to make this happen.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you for that response, Minister, but as you know, skills shortages have a very negative effect on our province's economy

and threaten our economic competitiveness. After several years of exceptional economic growth and job creation, several sectors are concerned that they will have trouble maintaining their rate of

growth without access to more skilled and educated workers. While all foreign-trained professionals who meet Ontario's standards should be able to practise, this seems to be a particularly acute

problem in high-demand fields. Minister, would you not agree that we should be paying special attention to these areas where our province is facing skills shortages, and will these funds be

targeted to address these specific needs?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: My answer is, absolutely. The supply of our skilled and knowledgeable workers is important to our economy. The importance

of our foreign-trained citizens here in Ontario is extremely important to us and we will target these funds to where we have the greatest needs. The $12 million will support the bridging programs

that have already started, some of which I've been able to describe. They will do health care, which is nursing and pharmacists, information technologies, engineering, wherever we can target these

shortages and have the bridge programs that will support them.

I know the members in this House are appreciative of the academic credentials assessment service, which is up and going and helping all immigrants find the

qualifications they need. Our ministry's access to professions and trades unit is focusing on promoting these fair registration practices to get it done faster with speedy access into the

markets.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): My question is to the Minister of Health. I'd like to get back to the critical funding issues

related to community care access centres. You know, Minister, that many frail and elderly people and people who need care are not getting it right now or are going to be denied care because of your

directives and new regulations that have come out.

As you've heard earlier, in Kingston $3.3 million has to be cut from the budget. As the chair of the board says, "This will be extremely difficult in the face

of the community's growing needs and increasing costs of services." Their budget has not been substantially increased in the last five years. The problem is compounded by the fact that Kingston

General Hospital is a tertiary care institution, and therefore people are being released much sicker and needing much more care. People who used to stay in the hospital to recuperate now basically

have to go home to do the same.

What I'm asking you is quite simple. When you closed your hospitals, Duncan Sinclair, the chair of the restructuring commission, was quite adamant that before

you closed hospitals, before you closed beds, there should be enough community care funding in place so that the people in effect could be taken care of in their own homes. That's not happening.

What are you doing about it? When are you going to tell the community care access centres that their funding will be restored so they can --

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

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to correct the record of the opposition

member because, indeed, long-term community care services have increased by 58% in the last few years in this government. When you look at all of the long-term-care financing, that's increased by

73%. In 2001-02, the budget year he is so concerned about, we are spending approximately $1.6 billion on long-term-care community services, a majority of it going to CCACs. Since 1998-99, since he

is so concerned about facts and figures, we've announced $550 million of multi-year expansion in this area. That is our record, a record of which we are proud.

Mr Gerretsen: Minister, people want to stay in their own homes longer. It is more cost-efficient; it is much less costly than if they were in

long-term institutions. The community care access centre in Frontenac-Lennox and Addington has been forced to distribute questionnaires asking people how they want to see the services cut in order

to meet your demand to cut $3.3 million from their services.

Nancy Sears, the CEO, states, "The planning parameters changed suddenly and recently." As a matter of fact, your ministry official said, "Tell us what would

happen if you only have $25 million." That is no way to look after the health care needs of the people out there. If we want to release them from hospitals quicker, then why don't you live up to

the commitment you gave to Duncan Sinclair to fund community care access centres so that people would have the necessary community health care services available because they could no longer stay

in hospital? Why don't you live up to your commitment?

Hon Mr Clement: I say to the honourable member, you show me where Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington have not participated in the 73%

increase in community care access centre money; then I'd be on your side. You show me where they have not had an increase in home care, not had an increase in utilization, not had an increase in

the provincial budget with respect to this issue; then I'd be on your side.

The fact is that they have participated. The fact is that they are part of our expenditure increases in this area. If they still have a problem with

utilization -- if they still have a problem -- I'd like to get a value-for-money audit, he and I can take it out together and then we'll see whether they are utilizing properly, whether they're

delivering the services properly, and we'll all learn together.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My privileges as a member have been abridged. Yesterday, the Minister of

Training, Colleges and Universities went to the Yee Hong Centre for Geriatric Care in Scarborough --

The Speaker: If it's a point of privilege, we do need to have some notice of that in writing unless it arose from today. If you're referring

to yesterday, I would ask the member to put it in writing and give us notice and then we will take a look at it. I thank the member for Davenport for that.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the citizens of Victoria county had no direct say in the creation of the new city of Kawartha Lakes;

"Whereas the government by regulation and legislation forced the recent amalgamation, against the wishes of the obvious majority of the people;

"Whereas the government has not delivered the promised streamlined, more efficient and accountable local government, nor the provision of better services at

reduced costs; and

"Whereas the promises of tax decreases have not been met, based on the current assessment;

"Whereas the expected transition costs to area taxpayers of this forced amalgamation have already exceeded the promised amount by three times;

"It is resolved that the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately rescind the forced amalgamation order and return the local

municipal government back to the local citizens and their democratically elected officials of Victoria county and remove the bureaucratic, dictatorial, single-tier governance it has coerced on all

local residents."

I will also sign the petition.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I've got hundreds of concerned citizens who want to stop the tax credit because it's hurting public

education. Here's what they say:

"Whereas the Harris government is planning to take funds that our public schools desperately need and funnel them to private schools through tax credits;

and

"Whereas the government's plan is to give parents a $3,500 entitlement to pull their kids out of public schools; and

"Whereas this initiative is in effect a voucher system and is the beginning of the end of quality public education in Ontario,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, call on all members of the Legislature to fight and defeat this attack on the choice parents most want: stability,

co-operation and respect in clean, safe public schools."

I attach my signature in support.

DIABETES TREATMENT

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's signed by

over 300 people and it reads as follows:

"We are suggesting that all diabetic supplies as prescribed by an endocrinologist or medical doctor be covered under the Ontario health insurance plan;

"Diabetes costs Canadian taxpayers a bundle. It is the leading cause of hospitalization in Canada. Some people with diabetes simply cannot afford the ongoing

expense of managing diabetes. They cut corners to save money. They rip test strips in half, cut down on the number of times they test their blood and even reuse lancets and needles. These

budget-saving measures can often have disastrous health care consequences;

"Persons with diabetes need and deserve financial assistance to cope with the escalating cost of managing diabetes. We think it is in all Ontarians' and the

government's best interest to support diabetics with the supplies that each individual needs to obtain the best glucose control possible. As you all know, good control reduces or eliminates kidney

failure by 50%, blindness by 76%, nerve damage by 60%, cardiac disease by 35% and even amputations. Just think of how many dollars can be saved by the Ministry of Health if diabetics had a chance

to gain optimum glucose control."

I sign my signature.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Forty thousand people in the city of Thunder Bay and the Thunder Bay district signed a

letter to the Premier, a petition related to the shortage of doctors and specialists in our community. I'd like to read that to the Legislature.

"Dear Premier:

"Our community is facing an immediate, critical situation in accessing physician services and in providing hospital care to the people of northwestern Ontario.

While the recruitment and retention of physicians has been a concern for many years, it is now reaching crisis proportions. Training more physicians in northern Ontario is certainly the best

response to this problem in the longer term. We are, however, in urgent need of support for immediate short-term solutions that will allow our community both to retain our current physicians and

recruit new family doctors and specialists in seriously understaffed areas.

"Therefore, as residents of Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario, we urge you to respond to our community's and our region's critical and immediate needs. For

us, this is truly a matter of life and death."

As I said, 40,000 people signed these petitions. I am pleased to add my name and to present them in the Legislature today.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): This is a petition by tenants asking for a province-wide freeze on rents.

"Whereas the annual rent increase guideline for multi-unit residential dwellings in Ontario increases every year more than the rate of inflation and more than

the cost-of-living increases for most tenants;

"Whereas no new affordable rental housing is being built by the private sector, despite the premise that the implementation of vacancy decontrol in June of

1998 would encourage new construction;

"Whereas one in four tenants pays over 50% of their income on rent, over 100,000 people are on the waiting list for social housing, and homelessness has

increased as a result of unaffordable rents;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to implement an immediate province-wide freeze on rents which will stop all guideline

increases, above-guideline increases and increases to maximum rent for all sitting tenants in Ontario for a period of at least two years."

I support this petition with my signature.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

"Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or another religion, is best for their

children; and

"Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised by the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children;

and

"Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

"Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

"Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of the tuition fees paid for that

education;

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

"To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible."

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): "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 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 and in Sudbury 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

location;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel

grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their communities until such time as that care is

available in their communities."

I'm proud to sign this petition on behalf of the hundreds, if not thousands, of constituents who have signed similar petitions.

EDUCATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): This petition comes mostly from people from Sarnia who are against education funding cuts.

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Ministry of Education, with their new curriculum changes and cuts, have been failing our province's students;

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

"To cease cutting funds from the education system, and put back what was taken out to pay for textbooks for all grades, music, arts and physical education

programs, and to hire more teachers;

"To immediately begin preparing elementary students for the secondary school curriculum (as the current students were not);

"Prepare for the doubling number of students in 2003 by working with colleges and universities now (space, teachers, admissions, marks etc);

"Abolish recent in-class time hike for teachers, which doesn't allow proper time to prepare lessons or volunteer their time to extracurricular activities;

"Eliminate the teacher adviser group and the teacher adviser program;

"Simply, to listen to the students of Ontario and to stop ignoring them. After all, they are the ones these changes are affecting."

I support this petition.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

"Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or another religion, is best for their

children; and

"Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children;

and

"Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

"Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public system through their tax dollars; and

"Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of the tuition fees paid for that

education;

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

"To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible and ensure that the Ontario curriculum is

followed religiously."

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

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will create two-tier education;

"Whereas the government plans to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will steal money from an already cash-starved public system;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario;

"Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure,

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

"We call on the government of Ontario to withdraw its plan for two-tiered education and properly fund public education in Ontario."

PROTECTION OF MINORS

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

"Whereas children are being exposed to sexually explicit materials in many commercial establishments; and

"Whereas many municipalities do not have bylaws in place to protect minors, and those that do vary from place to place and have failed to protect minors from

unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials;

"Whereas uniform standards are needed in Ontario that would make it illegal to sell, rent, loan or display sexually explicit materials to minors;

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

"To pass Bill 95, Protection of Minors from Sexually Explicit Goods and Services Act, 2000, as soon as possible."

I am pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

NURSES

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

injury to nurses; and

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

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

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

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

The Ontario government must:

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

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

decisions."

I'm in full agreement and will affix my signature hereto.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I'm joining the members from Durham, London West, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, Kitchener Centre and so

many other ridings in reading a petition as follows:

"Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

"Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or another religion, is best for their

children; and

"Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children;

and

"Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

"Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

"Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of the tuition fees paid for that

education;

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

"To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible."

I affix my signature to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

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

affairs): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 25,

An Act to amend the Public Service Act

and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993, when Bill 25 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of

the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be ordered referred to the standing committee on general government; and

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

h) shall be permitted; and

That the standing committee on general government shall be authorized to meet for one day of public hearings in Toronto; and

That following one day of public hearings, the standing committee on general government be authorized to meet for one day for clause-by-clause consideration of

the bill; and

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

That, at 4:30 on that day, those amendments which have not been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the

proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any division required shall be

deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the

completion of clause-by-clause consideration and not later than June 19, 2001. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been

passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the standing committee on general government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and

at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading; and

That, when the order for third reading is called, two hours shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill to be divided equally among all recognized

parties, and at the end of that time the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

and

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

and

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

Mr Speaker, at this time I'd like to ask for unanimous consent that the member for Kitchener Centre be the leadoff speaker.

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

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): This government has always been and continues to be a prudent manager of the province's resources.

This was part of our election promise in 1995 and again in 1999 and is a key element that separates us from the opposition. We are obligated, by the trust given to us by the people of Ontario, to

manage the resources of this province in the responsible and effective manner that they deserve and have come to expect.

Part of this promise is to get the most for their money. It involves making wise decisions and taking the tough choices required of real leadership. Ontario

offers some of the best services in the world. They are fair, equitable and deliver what the people of this province need. They help make Ontario the best place to live, work and do business.

But we cannot be content to rest on our laurels. We live in a world that is faster, more dynamic and that demands more flexibility than ever before. My

colleague the member for Thornhill illustrated this perfectly when she spoke on second reading. We no longer live in a world where we exclude one gender from senior management positions, families

seldom get by on one income, and the entire climate of global business and politics has changed.

The policies and practices of this government must meet these challenges or we will all get left behind. To do this, we must modernize the contextual framework

in which we operate. The way we operate must be made the most efficient it can be. We must get more value for our dollar and we can only do this by taking a comprehensive approach to the way we

deliver quality services for the tax dollars of the people of Ontario.

The member for Essex said it best during second reading of Bill 25. He said, "There are too many silos today. What you want to do is get co-operation between

those ministers and those ministries." That's what we are trying to do. We do need more co-operation, we need more collaboration and we need a more coordinated approach. The member for

Elgin-Middlesex-London seemed to agree when he spoke on second reading. He said, "I think taxpayers want value for their money." However, it does seem that they do not fully understand the

limitations on the government in gaining this efficiency.

The member for Davenport tells us we do not need this bill to root out inefficiency. With all due respect, the member is wrong. The members for York North,

Northumberland and I have all stated quite clearly in debate that as it exists right now, the Public Service Act does not allow the civil service the flexibility to take out the waste that exists

in overlap between ministries. My colleague the member for York North may have illustrated it best when she envisioned for us the possibilities of joint ministry programs and offices that are just

not possible under the current act. Some of these savings are already being realized, but there is no logical reason at all why we should not continue to pursue further savings.

Interjection.

Mr Wettlaufer: The member for Essex has pointed to us and said that just because something hasn't been changed in 120 years, that doesn't mean

a reason shouldn't be given for doing it. Well, we agree with that. Governments should always be held to account, and government should be asked to explain why it chooses the path that it does, and

we have done so.

Each member who stood on this side of the House explained at least one important aspect about this bill. Most of us explained many more. The bill improves

efficiency. It maintains accountability. It brings some democracy to the workplace. These are all important aspects of this bill. They have been debated thoroughly, and our points have been

clear.

The current Public Service Act makes it difficult for the public service to attract specialized talent, especially at executive levels and in high-tech areas.

These legislative changes will allow us to make more attractive job offers to new workers with the specialized skills we need, particularly in the high-tech areas.

Updates to the act include increasing initial appointments to the unclassified service to a maximum of three years before they need to renew. It adds

term-classified employees, a category that adds an element of flexibility and adaptability which is needed in today's business environment, in today's fast-paced work world. It allows the

government to take greatest advantage of specialized talent which is needed for special projects but not necessarily on a permanent basis.

We've heard many times across the way that we should be allowing the present civil service or we should be hiring extra public servants to do these jobs. All

that will do is permanently increase the size of the public service when all that is needed are temporary people for temporary projects on a specialized basis.

These employees may have an opportunity to renew their contracts after three years, when appropriate. They will be entitled to many benefits currently

available only to full-time classified employees. This will make the Ontario public service more attractive to today's highly specialized and mobile workforce, a workforce that is looking for new

challenges and stimulating opportunities. Nothing in the bill overrides any existing provisions in any collective agreements, nor does the bill propose to change any of the classified positions in

the public service.

Members opposite would have you believe this bill is all about privatizing the public service. Nothing in this bill will allow the government to further

privatize the public service. There are elements that will allow for more private-public partnerships, but this does not equate to selling public service assets. It allows the public sector to work

in co-operation with the private sector to meet goals of public good for all Ontarians while bringing more involvement from the private sector, embracing their expertise, their experience and their

efficiency, all of which are needed to get the most bang for the taxpayer's buck.

These arguments are disingenuous. They stem from a key component of the bill that allows deputy ministers the ability to delegate some of their authority to

supervisors in other ministries or other organizations. To say this is privatization and degradation of the public service is a great exaggeration. Government members have pointed out very clearly

that this will be done on a case-by-case basis and that it can only be done with the authorization of the Civil Service Commission. Moreover, each delegation is subject to the same scrutiny and

review that comes with all government decisions. There is nothing in this amendment that would allow a deputy minister to simply sell off whole categories or divisions of people. In a worst-case

scenario, a person whose authority is delegated can similarly have that delegation rescinded. There is accountability in this drive for efficiency, and isn't that what the people of Ontario want?

Accountability. The fearmongering by the parties across the way, I have to say, I find irresponsible.

The members opposite have also complained that there was little consultation involved in the development of this bill. Again, this is not true. Management

Board Secretariat consulted formally with each bargaining unit over a year ago, and they all had opportunity to offer input to the bill. It has been more than 14 months since we began this process.

I thought I was very clear in this. I'm sure I was very clear in this. I find it disheartening and unconscionable that the opposition parties would try to expand the grounds of this bill to incite

fear in those listening to the debate. They have suggested that this bill includes personal information, including personal health information, and its distribution to the private sector. That

simply is not so.

They have suggested this is widespread degradation of the public service. That's not true. They have suggested that this extends political patronage. I have no

idea how they can extend this bill to that conclusion. It's a weird

interpretation. It is not true. We have explained all these points in the hours of debate on this bill.

In fairness, some of the debate from the members opposite has been thoughtful and well argued. I respect that there are many members who have debated this bill

on its merits and have voiced their objections on a matter of principle. I respect that; however, I find it irresponsible to try to extrapolate from these points issues that are not included in the

bill. This only helps to bring confusion to the debate and signals to me that they have run out of legitimate points and are grasping at straws to prolong debate and obfuscate the process.

I am convinced that second reading has, in general, been thoughtful and thorough, and that it is now time to move forward on the bill.

The Speaker: Further debate?