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

June 6, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Jun-06 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 6 June 2001 Mercredi 6 juin 2001

ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LANGUAGE PROGRAMS

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

ST JOSEPH'S LIFE CARE CENTRE

LISA-MARIE COULTER

PREMIER'S COMMENT

MINISTRY OF

THE ENVIRONMENT STAFF

LONG-TERM CARE

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

PHILLIP BIRNBAUM

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

NOTICE OF MEETING

MEMBER'S COMMENT

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FARM IMPLEMENTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES APPAREILS AGRICOLES

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE

QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE

RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY OF

THE ENVIRONMENT STAFF

EMERGENCY SERVICES

MINISTRY OF

THE ENVIRONMENT STAFF

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

STEEL INDUSTRY

EDUCATION FUNDING

VICTIMS' RIGHTS

WORKPLACE FATALITY

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

DRINKING AND DRIVING

HOME CARE

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PETITIONS

NURSES

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION

NURSES

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

NURSES

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SERVICE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT

À LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE

RESPONSIBLE CHOICES FOR GROWTH

AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

(2001 BUDGET), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR DES CHOIX RÉFLÉCHIS

FAVORISANT LA CROISSANCE

ET LA RESPONSABILISATION

(BUDGET DE 2001)

AMBULANCE SERVICES COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE

DANS LES SERVICES D'AMBULANCE

Wednesday 6 June 2001 Mercredi 6 juin 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin members' statements, the Chair of Management Board.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed

by her own hand.

The Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March

2002 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LANGUAGE PROGRAMS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Today I'd like to thank the Toronto District School Board, especially its trustees, for voting against cutting

adult education and international language programs.

All of us in this House know how important these international language programs are, not only in getting a job, but also in getting Canadians ready for

international competitiveness, because the more languages a person knows the more competitive he or she becomes.

At the same time, I'd like to point out, especially to the Minister of Citizenship, that he should stop blaming his favourite whipping boy, the federal

government, for cuts. Instead, what he should be doing is making a phone call to the Toronto District School Board and offering what he can do in order to help a very desperate situation so that

the Toronto District School Board does not have to cut these international language programs.

We know what these programs will do. The provincial government has done cuts and cuts and cuts, to the bone; not only that, the provincial government has cut

into the bone. I ask today that the Minister of Citizenship make the phone call to the chair of the Toronto District School Board and simply say, "In what way can I help? In what way can I ensure

that these programs will stay so that all new immigrants and everyone else is going to be helped?"

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): This week all of Cambridge is proud to celebrate Portuguese Week. Cambridge has a rich history of Portuguese

heritage. Over 10,000 residents are of Portuguese origin, predominately from the Azores islands: São Miguel, Santa Maria, Terceira, Graciosa, São Jorge, Pico, Faial, Flores and Corvo.

Portuguese Week is a wonderful celebration of food, music, sports and culture. Many volunteers have worked tirelessly on this event. I would like to thank

Armando Cabral, Nazario Teixeira and Tony Camacho in particular for their role in organizing and coordinating this celebration. My congratulations to all the volunteers, in particular those of the

Cambridge Portuguese Club and the Oriental Sports Club, for their hard work.

A parade will be held in downtown Cambridge on June 9, and there will be an open air Mass at our Lady of Fatima church on June 10, conducted by Father Antonio

Cunha.

We are justifiably proud of the contribution our Portuguese residents have made to our municipality. I would urge everyone to join us for Portuguese Week in

Cambridge.

ST JOSEPH'S LIFE CARE CENTRE

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On Sunday, June 2, 2001, I was honoured and privileged to attend the day of tribute for St Joseph's Hospital, where our

community recognized the past contributors of the decommissioned St Joe's and celebrated the exciting future for the new St Joseph's. You see, the riding of Brant has made lemonade out of

lemons so that at this bittersweet moment we will see a new and exciting project rise from the imposed central dictate.

This dynamic new facility, appropriately named St Joseph's Life Care Centre, Brantford, calls for 205 long-term-care beds transferred from the John Noble Home in

Brantford, a hospice for terminal patients and their families, a research and academic centre that will focus on senior health issues, and a family practice unit that will have on-site physicians.

A number of new community partnerships will also be formed, including a daycare centre that will include intergenerational programming that will mingle seniors with children.

The board of governors of John Noble Home, St Joseph's Hospital, the St Joe's Foundation, the Brantford city council, the county of Brant council and the Sisters

of St Joseph all support this project and want it to happen. The citizens of Brant want this to happen.

All I want now is to make sure that the Minister of Health realizes that all we're waiting for is your final approval, your signature on a piece of paper. Please

help us realize our riding's wishes for better health care.

LISA-MARIE COULTER

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): Earlier this week I had the pleasure of hosting for lunch the page from the Vaughan-King-Aurora riding,

Lisa-Marie Coulter.

My friend and colleague the late Al Palladini would have been proud to meet Lisa-Marie and hear about all her aspirations. Lisa-Marie's interest in pursuing a

political life or a law degree has been enriched during her time here in the Legislature. She has told me that she has thoroughly enjoyed her duty as a page.

Lisa-Marie Coulter is a grade 7 student at St Gregory the Great Catholic Academy in Woodbridge and enjoys dancing, reading, swimming and music.

I am pleased to recognize here today, in the east gallery, Marie and Maurice Coulter, Lisa-Marie's parents, her brother Mathew, and her aunt and cousin Bruno. It

is evident they are all very proud of her.

As I recognize Lisa-Marie, whose family are constituents of the Vaughan-King-Aurora riding represented by the late Al Palladini, I take this opportunity to also

highlight how well respected a member of the community he was. This Saturday there will be a community centre dedication ceremony to honour the late Al Palladini. The West Vaughan Community Centre

will be dedicated as the Al Palladini Community Centre. This dedication is important as we remember the significant contribution Al Palladini made to the community.

PREMIER'S COMMENT

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand that a few members opposite have raised concerns about a comment

attributed to me yesterday. I indicated outside the House this morning, and I would like to repeat it inside the House, that if any comment I made, which was off the record to a colleague of mine,

offended anybody, I apologize.

MINISTRY OF

THE ENVIRONMENT STAFF

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): With each passing day, new and damning testimony comes out of the Walkerton inquiry that clearly indicates

the Harris government knew it was putting lives at risk when it chopped 45% of the budget and one third of the staff of the Ministry of the Environment soon after taking office in 1995.

A review of the testimony of Daniel Cayen provides further chilling details of how the Harris government understood the potential adverse impact of their cuts,

but attempted to portray them as benign and without dangerous repercussions. Mr Cayen, who at the time of the Harris cuts was the acting director of public affairs and communications at the

Ministry of the Environment, wrote a letter to cabinet on July 8, 1995. He writes: "Environment groups may react, and some might remind the government that it declared during the campaign that it

would not cut the environmental area. Our reduction should be positioned in such a way as to allow us to advance the argument that we have not done so."

So there you have it. The Harris game plan was quite clear all along: cut without appearing to cut and then deny the health risk created by those cuts.

In light of the damning testimony that has come out of the inquiry, from the likes of former MOE assistant deputy minister, Sheila Willis, and drinking water

expert, Goff Jenkins, how else can the Premier explain his direct contradiction of their testimony when he stood in this House and told the people, "At no time has this government ever taken an

action that we felt would ever jeopardize water, water quality, safety of people in the province. I think common sense would tell you we would not do that"? I believe it is quite apparent that it

is now time for Mike Harris and his twisted definition of "common sense" to stand accountable to the people of Walkerton.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): This government talks a good line about accountability but demonstrates none when it comes to the critical

issue of funding for community-based long-term-care services. In 1998, the Conservatives promised $550 million in new dollars to CCACs and other community-based long-term-care agencies over the

next eight years. This money would be allocated using the government's equity formula.

This government refused to allocate equity funding to the Manitoulin-Sudbury CCAC in the first two years. I objected to that decision and I wrote to the

minister, Cam Jackson, to urge him to fund us too, given the difficulties in delivering home care in the north. He would not, but made a specific commitment to provide equity funding to our

community beginning in the year 2000. In a letter to me dated August 27, 1998, he wrote, "Starting in 2000-01 and in each of the next five years, the Manitoulin-Sudbury CCAC will receive additional

funding based on our equity formula."

In 2000-01, the Sudbury-Manitoulin CCAC did not receive one penny of equity funding, despite the specific promise made by this government. We will not receive

equity funding again this year, again despite the government's specific promise to provide the same. Our CCAC, like every other CCAC across Ontario, has already been told not to expect equity

funding this year.

So much for the 1998 commitment made by the Harris government to all communities to add money to the base budgets of CCACs over the next eight years. This

government had $2 billion for its corporate friends in the recent budget; it should fund CCACs.

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I'm pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of half a million people of Portuguese heritage living in

Ontario. Canadians of Portuguese heritage celebrate June as Portuguese History and Heritage Month and celebrate June 10 as Portugal Day in Canada. I urge all the members and all the people who are

watching us, if they see their neighbour who is of Portuguese background on Sunday, not to forget to wish them a happy Portugal Day.

This year's celebration has a very special historical significance for Portugal and for Canada. This year marks the 500th anniversary of the arrival of

Portuguese navigators led by Gaspar Cortereal to Terra Nova, which is Newfoundland.

Canadians of Portuguese background were proud that the president of Portugal chose Canada to visit on this important occasion. The message that the president of

Portugal left for the community was that Canadians of Portuguese background should be good Canadians, because that's so important, that being good Canadians would make them into very proud people

of Portuguese background here in Canada.

PHILLIP BIRNBAUM

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): As Liberal children's critic, I would like to tell you about a very special

young person who has moved many hearts in his quest to raise money for the Canadian Cancer Society and his commitment to volunteerism. His name is Phillip Birnbaum.

In 1996, Phillip lost his father, Perry, to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. In the summer of 1998, at the age of 10, Phillip decided he wanted to raise money for cancer.

He did not ask any adults for help, but he took it upon himself to ride his bicycle throughout Richmond Hill collecting prizes for a cash-for-cancer raffle. Phil has raised over $4,000 in the past

two years and this year he hopes to raise over $3,000 to fight cancer. You can find out more about Phillip's work on his Web site at www.philscancerraffle.bigstep.com.

Phillip also volunteers for the Multiple Sclerosis Society and fundraises for other organizations, including the Hill House Hospice. He was presented with the

2000 Ontario Junior Citizen of the Year Award.

I believe that Phillip is an exceptional example, not only for young people in Ontario but also for all Canadians, young and old alike. The commitment and

courage of this young man have contributed significantly to the causes he supports. I am especially pleased that I am able to personally present this young man today, as he has been assisting us in

the role as a legislative page. Congratulations, Phillip.

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I'm honoured to rise today to mark D-Day. This is the 57th anniversary of that day when the

3rd Canadian Division and the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion landed in Normandy and began the liberation of France.

I saw in the Toronto Sun that a Hamilton regiment has just laid to rest another one of Canada's heroes, Denis Whitaker. Mr Whitaker won the Distinguished Service

Order medal twice and was made a brigadier general.

Today, with the menace of the Afghani Taliban, I don't doubt that there is such a thing as evil and that free people must band together to stop it anywhere in

the world where necessary.

I look at the massacres in the former Yugoslavia, when the world waited too long to act. I look at the genocide in Rwanda, when the world did nothing at all. I

wonder if the free people of the world still have the moral strength to stand up against oppression, like Denis Whitaker and his generation did.

One thing I know: in 1944, Canada and the free world had the necessary strength and courage. I'm proud to remember those brave soldiers on this 57th anniversary

of D-Day.

NOTICE OF MEETING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Mr Speaker, I'd like bring up a point of privilege, and I gave you notice of this earlier today as

required under the act.

First of all I'd like to refer to standing order 21(a), which states: "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the

House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes," and it's the other statutes I'm referring to today. It's specifically the Audit Act, subsection 29(1), if I could

just read the section: "The auditor shall present annually to the board estimates" -- namely, the Board of Internal Economy -- "of the sums of money that will be required for the purposes of this

act."

Subsection 29(3) states, "Notice of meetings of the board to review or alter the estimates presented by the auditor shall be given to the Chair and the

Vice-Chair of the standing public accounts committee of the assembly and the Chair and Vice-Chair may attend at the review of the estimates by the board."

On May 30, the Vice-Chair and I were given notice of the estimates that were going to be discussed by the Board of Internal Economy that day. However, later on

that evening of May 30, I understand that a motion was passed by the Board of Internal Economy flatlining the budgets of all the offices of the assembly. Of that particular meeting, neither the

Vice-Chair nor I was given notice of our right to attend. Again, our rights are set out in subsection 29(3) of the act.

My reasons for bringing this forward are twofold. First of all, the committee, during its deliberations this past year, passed two motions: (1) to cause the

Provincial Auditor to do a review of the Bruce nuclear-Ontario Power Generation contract. This was after some debate by the committee last fall, and the motion that was passed at that time was that

he do this, even though he indicated to us that there would be an additional cost of $85,000 involved.

There was also another motion passed to the effect that he do a review of Cancer Care Ontario, and although there weren't any specific financial terms attached

to that particular review, the committee did pass, again, a motion to the effect that the auditor do a review of Cancer Care Ontario.

The reason for my bringing this forward at this stage is that I am well aware of Speaker Stockwell's ruling back on December 7, 1998, when he ruled that in this

House there could not be specific questions raised of anyone who is on the Board of Internal Economy about matters that come before the Board of Internal Economy. You may recall that at that time

the question was raised with respect to the rather large settlement that was paid to Allan McLean to deal with that particular issue.

My reason for pointing that out is that the ruling specifically stated that there were no questions that could be raised of anyone in this House relating to

matters that came before the Board of Internal Economy. If matters can't be raised in the House relating to that, it is all the more imperative that the

section of the Audit Act dealing

specifically with the auditor's estimates be followed scrupulously. It wasn't followed in this particular case. I know that we were given notice of an earlier meeting that day, but we were not

given notice of the meeting that took place in the evening of May 30.

Speaker, I would ask you to take these matters into consideration. The point that I am simply trying to make is this: if we want the officers of this assembly --

and we have four of those officers, of which the Provincial Auditor happens to be one -- to exercise their independence, then we want to make sure they are properly resourced. With the Board of

Internal Economy's action as it relates to not only the Provincial Auditor but the other three officers as well, the real question is, can a decision of the Board of Internal Economy in effect

frustrate the will and direction of a committee?

The committee in my particular case, the public accounts committee, specifically authorized the auditor to do two additional reviews which would cost additional

monies and which now in effect have been frustrated by the decision of the Board of Internal Economy.

The question I have is, the Audit Act specifically authorizes, under subsection 29(3), that the Vice-Chair and the Chair be notified of any meetings so that they

can be in attendance at these meetings. We did not receive notice of the meeting that took place in the evening of May 30, and therefore my rights and privileges as a member under that specific act

and as Chair of the public accounts committee were violated or not adhered to.

Speaker, I await your ruling in that regard.

The Speaker: I thank the member. What he does point out deals with notice and provisions of the Audit Act for the Board of Internal Economy

meetings at which the estimates of the Provincial Auditor are considered. The issue the member raises is one of legal

interpretation and is not a matter of privilege. I would be happy to speak to

the member privately about it.

Just for some clarification, what 29(3) says is that the Chair and the Vice-Chair "shall be" notified. I have a letter here of May 17 to both you and the

Vice-Chair advising you from the auditor, cc'd to me. It goes on to say, " ... and the Vice-Chair may attend at the review of the estimates" committee, the operative word being "may."

In fact, it was not a separate meeting that was held that night; it was the same Board of Internal Economy meeting, and we just adjourned for a vote in the

House and then came back and finished up. So there was not a new meeting. It was a continuation interrupted by a vote in the House of the same meeting, and all the members of the Board of Internal

Economy who were there will know that.

He does raise some valid points and I would certainly be pleased to meet with him and the member of the board to discuss the issue further. But I do thank him

for bringing it to my attention.

Mr Gerretsen: If I might just add to that, Speaker --

The Speaker: Very quickly, because we're not going to debate this issue.

Mr Gerretsen: No, but I specifically requested that night that we be advised, the Vice-Chair and I, of any further meetings. At no time was it

indicated, when the meeting broke up for a vote in the House, that in effect the committee, the Board of Internal Economy, would be meeting on that issue later on that evening. I think we could at

least have been given --

The Speaker: Thank you. Again the operative word is "may" be advised.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have spoken to you about a similar issue before. I have not given

notice of privilege; I'm not raising it as a point of privilege. But I am the mover of one of the motions my colleague referred to, specifically the motion calling for a value-for-money audit of

the private cancer care centre. It was supported by a majority of people at committee.

As you'll know, Mr Speaker, that is the only recourse we have, as individual members of the House, to direct the auditor to carry out business that the House

has determined is of value. I would ask whether you would determine what the status is of a special audit order placed and supported by a majority of the members of a committee, and whether in fact

that must be done because it is a direction of the assembly.

The Speaker: I thank the member. We had some brief discussion. I have asked the members of the table to contact you and deal with that issue,

hopefully to your satisfaction, and anything we can do to clarify that, because I do appreciate you raised that matter with me. We will try to clarify and give you all that information from the

members of the table.

MEMBER'S COMMENT

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I see the Minister of Education in the back. Last week in this House, I

used the term "hissy fit" in the heat of debate, and at the time the member for Beaches-East York rose in her place and expressed the concern that that was a sexist comment. I took the member's

concerns to heart and I went out and looked into the history of the term and what it means. I can tell you, sir, that it is in fact a term that originated somewhere in the United States. It is a

shortening of the term "hysterical fit," and of course the Latin base of the word "hysterical" is "hustera," which refers to the womb.

I earlier this week apologized privately to the Minister of Education and to the member for Beaches-East York for the use of that term. It is a term, sir, that

I must confess I have used quite commonly, not fully appreciating the magnitude of it or its history. I want to apologize to you and to this House and to the minister. Although we differ

politically, I have a very high regard for her ability. That term was completely out of order. It was very insensitive and I'm embarrassed that I used it in this House.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member sincerely for the gracious gesture.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move

its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr4,

An Act respecting the City of Elliot Lake.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

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

agencies.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FARM IMPLEMENTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES APPAREILS AGRICOLES

Mr Barrett moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 76,

An Act to ensure fairness, to foster competition and consumer choice and to encourage innovation in the farm implement sector / Projet de loi 76, Loi

visant à assurer l'équité, à favoriser la concurrence et le choix des consommateurs et à encourager l'innovation en matière d'appareils agricoles.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): This bill, if passed, amends the Farm Implements Act and will remove dealer exclusivity as an

irritant in dealer/distributor agreements by allowing dealers to sell farm machinery from any distributor or manufacturer. Dealers will be protected from termination by distributors without cause,

as specified. It will discourage distributors from imposing discriminatory contracts on individual dealers, and small distributors would be enabled to share warranty costs, parts supply and

inventory responsibilities with their manufacturers.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE

QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE

RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

Ms Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 77,

An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of Adoption Disclosure / Projet de loi 77, Loi

modifiant la

Loi sur les statistiques de l'état civil et la

Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille en ce qui concerne la divulgation de renseignements sur les

adoptions.

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

The member for a short statement?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): The Adoption Disclosure Statute Law Amendment Act, 2001, would provide access to birth registration and

adoption records for adult adoptees, provide access to birth registration and adoption records for birth parents, implement a no-contact notice and amend the Child and Family Services Act to

provide, upon request, counselling for adopted persons, birth parents and others who may be affected by disclosure of adoption information.

This is not the first time I have introduced a similar bill in this Legislature. Many of the people present here today will know that I introduced Bill 88 in

1999 and Bill 108 in 2000. Bill 88 passed second reading with almost unanimous consent from all parties in this House. I just hope that this bill won't have an "8" in the number, because in both

cases those bills died on the order paper.

This is an opportunity for all of us in this House to work in a non-partisan way to, this time, not let the adoption community down, many of whom are here

today for this first reading, and, in good faith, to get this bill passed and out to committee and finally pass progressive adoption disclosure in this province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY OF

THE ENVIRONMENT STAFF

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. This morning, Justice O'Connor took the rather extraordinary

step of asking you, a sitting Premier, to appear before his commission of inquiry into the Walkerton tragedy.

In the past, Premier, we took some heart in knowing that you pledged your government's full co-operation with the inquiry and with any request to come from the

commissioner. Will you accept Justice O'Connor's invitation?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think we made it very clear when we appointed Mr Justice O'Connor to the inquiry that we wish to co-operate

in every way. I think all of us across the province want to get to the bottom not only of Walkerton but of post-Walkerton, things that we need to do to protect water quality in the province.

We want the answers to these tragic events. We've said from the beginning that we will fully co-operate, and I look forward of course to fully co-operating in

testifying at the inquiry and assisting Mr Justice O'Connor in any way that I can. I think I've made that very clear.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, in the past you categorically denied that your cuts had anything to do with the Walkerton tragedy. You said that you did

not cut the number of inspectors. You have denied the existence of cabinet documents calling for more staff to be hired because of public health risks and when one of those very documents was

produced, you said it was a phony-baloney cabinet document.

We're wondering, Mr Premier, if asked, will you repeat the same answer, under oath, before the Walkerton inquiry?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I will certainly -- I assume I'm under oath, I'm not sure how these inquiries work, but I'm looking forward

to it. I said I'll fully co-operate. Whether I'm under oath or not, I always tell the truth, and I will do so with full co-operation at this inquiry.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you were warned countless times that your cuts to the environment would put people at risk. The Provincial Auditor

warned you, the Environment Commissioner warned you, Ministry of the Environment staff had warned you and we on this side of the House had warned you on several occasions, as well.

I'm sure the commission will want to know, and perhaps you can tell us today, why did you ignore these warnings and why did you make cuts at the Ministry of

the Environment that you were told would put people at risk?

Hon Mr Harris: I think it's very important that having called the inquiry and empowered Justice O'Connor -- and everybody that he is

requesting is testifying -- we not prejudge the investigation that Mr Justice O'Connor has undertaken. So we'll await the findings of the commission.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is also to the Premier. The crisis in our emergency rooms has not gone away. You

may have made it somewhat more difficult for us to obtain information in terms of what's happening with redirects and bypasses and the like, but the crisis itself has not gone away. People in

Toronto, in particular, are still being turned away. People are still having to wait for care.

Do you know why our emergency rooms are in crisis, especially here in Toronto? Because you closed six separate emergency rooms: you closed them at Wellesley,

Women's College, Northwestern, Branson, Queensway and Doctors. We're also experiencing an emergency room crisis because you closed 2,200 beds right here in the greater Toronto area.

Premier, will you now admit that the reason we continue to experience these crises in our emergency rooms is not because of the absence of some protocol, or

because somehow ambulance attendants and people in emergency rooms can't work together, that it's because of the fact that there is a desperate shortage of beds in our hospitals and that's the

result of your desperate cuts?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): First of all, let me say that our sympathies go out to the families of any member who is having difficulty

accessing our emergency rooms, or indeed any of our medical facilities. Certainly I understand, the coroner is looking into the three cases that I assume you are referencing that occurred between

January and May 2000. Obviously we regret any circumstance where anybody dies, any circumstance where anybody does not received appropriate or what they feel is appropriate care.

With regard to bed closures, I think the record is very clear. No government closed more beds than your government, unless it was the NDP government.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, this is fundamentally an issue about hospital beds. We are short hospital beds in the province of Ontario. You closed

8,000 province-wide. You closed 2,200 in the GTA. You closed six emergency rooms in the GTA. We now understand you've got plans to shut down two more.

GTA hospitals have an occupancy rate of 96%. International evidence tells us that we should have no more than a 90% occupancy rate in our hospitals or

otherwise we're going to have, as we're experiencing here in Ontario, a regular emergency room crisis.

Last September, we put forward a plan to help resolve some of the crisis. Two things in particular we asked you to do then, and I ask you to do the same things

again today. Will you, first of all, place an immediate moratorium on emergency room closures?

Secondly, will you reopen 1,600 acute care beds immediately so that we can begin to address the concerns that our working families are having in knowing there

is a tremendous doubt when it comes to whether or not they're going to find room at the hospital in the case of a dire emergency?

Hon Mr Harris: As I indicated, most of the beds that have been closed across the province were closed under your administration and then again

under the NDP administration. Since then, we've had consultations. We've brought the experts together. We brought in a restructuring commission, headed up by Duncan Sinclair, and these matters were

all dealt with.

Since 1998, we've invested more than $705 million in the most comprehensive emergency room strategy in Canada. We've opened beds, we've provided more dollars

and we've worked at better coordination. The system, while it may work very well in 99.9% of the cases, obviously is not perfect. This concerns us, and we'll work with our partners to try and

improve the situation. It's tough when your party in Ottawa slashes funding for us, but we'll do the best that we can.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, if you're dedicated to anything, it's to reducing corporate taxes by a further $2.2 billion. It's perfectly obvious that

you're not on the side of working families, whether it comes to protecting and improving their health care or protecting and improving their public education. That's what you are all about: cutting

corporate taxes.

The coroner's office is now investigating the death of a critically sick man who had a second heart attack while paramedics struggled desperately to find a

hospital that had space for him. You should know that his case is not isolated, and it comes down to the fact that here in Ontario we are short of hospital beds. People inside ambulances can't be

admitted to hospital emergency rooms because there are no beds available to accommodate them, should they require admission. That's the fundamental problem. You shut down 8,000 beds Ontario-wide,

you shut down 2,200 right here in the GTA, you shut down six emergency rooms in the GTA, and now you've got plans to shut down two more.

Premier, why won't you adopt our plan? Impose an immediate moratorium on emergency room closures and open up 1,600 acute care beds. That is something that is

in the interests of our working families.

Hon Mr Harris: Let me first of all correct the record. The tax cuts we brought in were so we could have working families. Your policies led to

unemployed families. Tax cuts were to have working families; Liberal policies are for unemployed families. We understand your strategy. You're happy to have unemployed families, but that's a

separate issue.

It is because we have working families that we've been able to make up the additional $5 billion costs in health care, that we've been able to make up the cuts

from the Liberals in Ottawa. Only because we've had working families have we been able to do this. We were able to have 371 new acute beds and 38 new ICU beds. It's part of the strategy that we

worked out with hospitals, ambulance attendants and front-line workers. Only because we have working families are we able to make up the shortfalls of the beds that you closed and that the NDP

closed and the shortfall of Liberal money from Ottawa.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is to the Premier. The Minister of Health said today that the situation in our hospital

emergency rooms is not getting worse. Meanwhile, just down the street a tragic death occurred because Glenn Garden could not get the treatment he needed in a timely way at the emergency room. The

ambulance paramedics were told, "The emergency room is too crowded. Find another hospital."

In January another man, deemed extremely critical due to a heart attack and resuscitation, was turned away by an ambulance from Toronto General when again the

emergency room was too overcrowded. He died before he could get to another hospital.

Premier, the Fleuelling inquest recommended that there be no more closures of emergency rooms in Toronto, but you're ignoring that coroner's inquest. How many

more people have to die, Premier, while your government goes about closing more emergency rooms?

Hon Mr Harris: As I've already indicated, we're putting more and more money into emergency rooms, into more beds, particularly ICU beds and

acute care beds, to support emergency rooms. We've come forward with a comprehensive strategy, working with doctors and with nurses and administrators. It has taken some time to undo the damage

your party inflicted on not only the economy, leading to record unemployment and deficits, but on the health care system as well. Your savage attack on cutbacks really has taken some time for us

all to try and overcome in a rational and comprehensive way, but we are getting there.

Is everything perfect? No. I'd love to tell you that it's perfect. Did we get any money from the Liberals in Ottawa? No; we got $100 million less than we did

six years ago, which is really one of the greatest tragedies facing this country, all across the country.

Yes, there is a coroner's inquest into the very unfortunate event that you raise, and again, our sympathy to the families.

Mr Hampton: Premier, every day in Toronto, ambulances are lined up for sometimes four hours at emergency wards because the nurses and the

doctors are overworked and understaffed. In case you've forgotten, Premier, it was your government that closed the emergency rooms. It was your government that laid off over 10,000 nurses. It was

you, Premier, who referred to nurses as out-of-date Hula Hoop workers.

Hospitals cannot hire and keep the nurses they need to operate the emergency rooms. They don't have the funding to pay nurses adequately and to work them on a

full-time basis. That's the root of the problem.

Premier, the question is this: instead of another $2.5 billion of bloated corporate tax cuts, why not provide the hospitals with enough funding so they can

hire the nurses?

Hon Mr Harris: As you know, we'd like to do both. That's why we are heavily involved in nursing in this province: $375 million annually of

brand new funding as part of the nursing strategy, worked out with the nurses themselves.

I think you probably have seen the statistics, that for the first time in a long time there are now more nurses in Ontario. We've reversed the trend that we

inherited and that quite frankly did continue in a modest way, not the massive layoffs that occurred under your administration but in a modest way, under our administration. We have reversed that,

and now we're starting to get more nurses, and more nurses per capita, for the first time in a long time here in the province of Ontario.

Related to that, we had another problem we inherited from you, and that was, like the Liberals, you supported unworking families, unemployed families. It has

been our tax cuts that have turned unemployed, unworking families into working families.

Mr Hampton: As much as you try to avoid it, the problem is not enough nurses working, not enough nurses in our hospitals and in our emergency

wards to be able to provide the medical care that people need. Your government talks a lot about accountability, but just in the last year you did away with the ambulance redirect system and the

ambulance critical care bypass system. That was the system that actually kept figures so that people would know what's happening in the hospital emergency wards and how long the wait is. You did

away with that measure of accountability so that people can't be aware of what's going on. What's happening now is that people are dying in the lineups and people are dying in the emergency

wards.

I ask you again, Premier, how do you justify further bloated $2.5-billion tax cuts for corporations when you don't have enough money to hire the nurses to

properly operate our emergency wards in our hospitals?

Hon Mr Harris: As I indicated, I don't know where you get your figures from, but we are a party that favours working families, unlike the

Liberals and the NDP which favour unworking families. We believe it's important for the health and the safety, if you like, and the security of families that they have a job and be working. To do

that, what we found out from your disastrous policies, piled on top of the disastrous Liberal policies, was that you have to be tax competitive. So that's the first issue that deals with working

families.

The term "working families" really only applies under our administration. Surely you wouldn't talk about working families and the Liberals wouldn't talk about

working families with the abysmal record of driving people out of jobs and driving investment out of the province. Only when we have working families are we able to provide the dollars for hiring

nurses.

Regrettably, there is a nursing shortage across Canada. There's not a shortage of dollars to pay nurses. We've had a shortage, quite frankly, in being able to

recruit. We've been very aggressive in that. This is a challenge we are all working on and we're working with --

The Speaker: New question.

MINISTRY OF

THE ENVIRONMENT STAFF

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Premier again: the Walkerton inquiry has discovered that your cabinet and the policy and

priorities committee of cabinet, which you chair, were warned in writing in 1996, a full four years before the Walkerton tragedy, that your cuts to the Ministry of the Environment would increase

"the risk to human health and the environment" -- in black and white a warning from your own Ministry of the Environment. Is it true that you knew in 1996 that something like Walkerton could

happen?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No.

Mr Hampton: Premier, it's your government and your Ministry of the Environment that are responsible for drinking water safety. Seven people in

Walkerton died and more than 2,000 became seriously ill. They didn't get a warning. The documents at the Walkerton inquiry say that you did get a warning. We've learned today that you have to

appear before the Walkerton inquiry and present evidence. What will you say when the commission of inquiry asks, "Did you know that your cuts would increase the risk to human health and

safety?"

Hon Mr Harris: No.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): This has to do with Ipperwash. The Attorney General, Premier, acting on your behalf, gave reasons

yesterday why you will not call an inquiry. He was incorrect in the

interpretation of what the George family have committed to. He misrepresented what the George family said they were prepared to

do.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the member for Scarborough-Agincourt can't use --

Mr Phillips: -- what the George family said they were prepared to do. He said that --

The Speaker: Sorry to be picky. You need to withdraw that.

Mr Phillips: Withdraw. He said they were not prepared to drop their civil litigation. What the George family said, Premier, in their letter is

that they "are willing to fully and finally drop their wrongful death lawsuit if your government commits to and holds a full public judicial inquiry into the death of Dudley George." They said it

"would be formally and finally terminated" the day "the inquiry final report is presented." Now that you're aware of what the George family said in their letter, are you prepared now to call for a

public inquiry?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think you heard the comments from the Attorney General yesterday and that's our response.

Mr Phillips: The comments from the Attorney General yesterday were that the George family was not prepared to drop the case. I've just quoted

to you from their letter. It couldn't be clearer. So we have two

interpretations of their letter, with the government saying the George family is not prepared to drop it. The George family in the

letter they sent to you is very clear and unequivocal that they "are willing to fully and finally drop their wrongful death lawsuit" if you will commit to hold "a full public judicial inquiry into

the death of Dudley George." It "would be formally and finally terminated.

The reason I raise this is that yesterday, in answer to the question, on behalf of the government, one of the reasons you decided not to hold a public inquiry

is because you had not had assurances from the George family that they're prepared to drop it. I am telling you today that they gave you those assurances completely, totally, unequivocally. Knowing

that now, will you agree to hold a full public inquiry?

Hon Mr Harris: I read the Hansard from yesterday. The Attorney General outlined a number of reasons. That's the government's position and

that's it.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to seek unanimous consent to allow the Premier an

opportunity to apologize directly to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for the --

The Speaker: Order. The Premier did come in and make a statement.

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Over the past --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Sorry to interrupt the member. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt, come to order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: OK, folks, last warning. I start naming people.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Simcoe North is now named. I would ask him to withdraw from the chamber.

Mr Dunlop was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Anybody else that starts is going to be named. We're not going to carry on like yesterday with the shouting back and forth. The

Premier has made a statement today, and we're now going to proceed with the question from the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Mr Miller: I'll start over. My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Over the past few months I've been reading in

the papers about how foreign countries have been dumping steel in Ontario and grossly undercutting the cost of steel here. Ontario's steel producers are suffering because other international

jurisdictions aren't playing by the rules.

Algoma Steel in Sault Ste Marie has been forced into CCAA protection because they just can't compete with price of steel being dumped here by other countries.

Minister, could you please update us on the state of Algoma Steel?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The member is right. The steel industry in Ontario has been suffering as

a result of unfairly priced imports. Algoma Steel is in the process of restructuring their debt that they acquired while trying to compete in a market flooded with underpriced product. The purpose

of the CCAA protection is to give the company time to reorganize its financial situation to find a way to better manage itself. Both myself and my colleague the Minister of Northern Development and

Mines have spoken with company president, Sandy Adam, about the filing, and he remains confident that they will be able to resolve their difficulties.

I know these types of announcements are very stressful on everyone in the community of Sault Ste Marie and I encourage them to remain optimistic while Algoma

undergoes this restructuring.

Mr Miller: I thank the minister for his answer. Minister, this is not a local phenomenon. Steel producers across Canada and North America are

all having trouble surviving because of the games being played by other countries. I understand that the federal government has initiated some trade cases against offending countries. What are they

doing? Is it going to protect Ontario's interests?

Hon Mr Runciman: The answer is yes. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency investigates these complaints and can take action against offenders.

A complaint about hot-rolled steel was initiated by Algoma in January, but it took the federal government three months to process the case. This is one of the reasons our steel companies are having

trouble. They're getting lost in the federal bureaucracy.

I met with Minister Pettigrew last month. I encouraged him to fight for our steelmakers on the international stage. However, I think they could and should go

further. Just yesterday the Bush administration announced that they would be putting the steel dumping issue on their national agenda. If George Bush can find the time to talk about steel dumping,

where is Jean Chrétien? Where is the Liberal government? It's time to act.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. Yesterday I pointed out that while you tell us

you're spending $13.8 billion annually now on education, your party documents also told us that back in 1994, this ministry was spending $14 billion annually on education. That tells us that even

though we have had 62,000 new students enrol in public education since 1994, there hasn't been a single new penny made available for them.

I want to tell you what this means to working families across the province in their local school boards. In Niagara, the board there is short $5.6 million and

the board is saying they have no choice, that they're going to have to make some cuts. So the amount of time that educational assistants are allowed to spend with special-needs kids will be reduced

by half an hour each day, there will be new user fees for parents, and 25 teaching positions are going to be lost. There is a myriad of examples throughout the province in virtually every single

school board.

My question to you is, why is it, when there is such a crying need for funding for basic matters in public education, that you are able to come up with $500

million for private schools?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): As I said in the House yesterday, and obviously the honourable member wasn't

listening, in 1995-96, funding for school boards was $12.9 billion; today it is $13.8 billion, and that is a clear, clean number of what goes to school boards for classrooms. Now, if the honourable

member would like to do our books the way the Liberals did their books and the NDP did their books, we can add in ministry costs; we can add in the teachers' pension plan. But with all due respect,

while those are very important investments, they are not money out there for school boards to deliver education.

Secondly, if you check your figures on some of the boards that you like to mention, you will find that their increase in money this year was above their

enrolment increase. That is the way we have continued to fund education. That's over $360 million in new dollars that are out there for this coming school year. It is money that is more than the

growth in enrolment. It's an important investment. We will continue to support the public education system because we believe it is a very important priority.

Mr McGuinty: To listen to you, Madam Minister, our public boards are just swimming in money, times have never been better, and they have never

been more empowered to deliver a quality education on the front lines to the two and a quarter million children who are attending public schools.

Let me tell you that there is a very different reality out there. At the Thames Valley board, they are short $17 million, and they are telling us what that is

going to mean for their students. First of all, there will be larger classes; secondly, the waiting list for psychological help will increase by 14 weeks; thirdly, they are cutting computer

spending by $500,000, which means it will now take 13 years to replace a classroom computer; and finally, they're going to lose 75 full-time jobs, including education assistants, literacy teachers,

psychologists and speech-language pathologists.

I ask you again: given the crying need for support from you for our public schools, why is it you found $500 million for private schools but you can't find any

money for our public education?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member keeps trying to play politics with this issue, but the Thames Valley District School Board last year

received over a 5% increase while their enrolment growth was zero. So they got 5% more and their enrolment growth was zero. This year they have over 1.5% and their enrolment growth was less than

zero. They actually had a decline in enrolment, and yet we gave them more money because we know the needs in our classrooms are very high.

The needs in our classrooms are a very major priority for this government. That's why we have continued to increase dollars to our public education system. We

understand that the pressures and the decisions that our school boards have to make to live within their budgets are extremely difficult. They are just as difficult for a school board as they may

well be for an Ontario working family trying to live within their budget. That is a challenge. That's why we ask boards to set clear priorities for the classroom so that we can make sure that every

year, step by step, we are improving quality and accountability in our public education system -- an extremely important priority for this government.

VICTIMS' RIGHTS

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Attorney General. Minister, in November 1999 I introduced a petition in the

Legislature that condemned the Dalton McGuinty cousins in Ottawa, the federal Liberals, on their soft treatment of Paul Bernardo and other serious offenders. Over 4,000 Scarborough area residents

signed that petition.

But in December of last year my constituents were shocked to learn that a movie script had surfaced about convicted sex killers Paul Bernardo and his wife

Karla Homolka. I was appalled. These monsters committed many unspeakable crimes in my riding of Scarborough Centre which culminated in the deaths of two beautiful, innocent young women in

southwestern Ontario. My constituents were outraged that something so recent, so hurtful and so close to home could be exploited for profit.

Minister, could you please clarify what the new proposed victims' bill entails and what it does for victims?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank my colleague for the question. Let me be very clear. The

legislation we introduced yesterday is the very first of its kind in Canada. It was introduced because victims and victims' groups from across this country came forward and said that this

legislation was necessary. I'm told, by the way, that other provinces, including Alberta, are currently working on similar legislation.

If this Legislature passes the bill that we introduced, it will relieve the burden on victims. It will allow for the Attorney General to go to court to take

any proceeds that might exist, any profits, any money, whether it's a penny, whether it's a nickel or a dime, from individuals serving time or who have been convicted of serious crimes. We will not

allow them to benefit. We will not allow them to profit from the crimes that they committed. We will not allow victims to be revictimized.

Ms Mushinski: Yesterday, the member for St Paul's spoke in response to the minister's bill entitled Prohibiting Profiting from Recounting

Crimes Act. He claims, Minister, that your bill was nothing more than reusing, recycling and restating an idea that stems back to 1995. Also, the member for Niagara Centre said in reference to your

proposed bill, "You're confiscating those proceeds and putting them into your little slush fund so that you decide as government how they're going to be divvied up. You'll decide which victims are

worthy of receiving the proceeds derived from their particular perpetrator by his or her crime against them."

Minister, can you please explain the facts of this bill to the members opposite. Obviously, they don't understand.

Hon Mr Young: I was frankly disappointed with both the Liberal and NDP comments relating to this bill, this bill that comes forward to assist

victims.

This bill would relieve the burden that currently exists upon victims to go to court. Under the current law, they would have to go to court, they would have to

retain a lawyer, they would have to incur all the costs and the time that is associated with that. If this bill passes, we will then be in a position as a government to go to court for victims. The

money that is collected would be provided directly to the victims through an application process -- much simpler, much more direct, to individuals who are certainly deserving of that.

Any excess funds that we get as a government would then go back into the communities. It would go back to support victims' services, not back to the criminals.

The bill that they stood in this House to support yesterday, the current law, which was a good first step, would see the money returned to criminals, and we will not allow that to happen. That's

why we've come forward with this initiative.

WORKPLACE FATALITY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): My question is to the Premier, Speaker.

Premier, why are you and your government so soft on crime, this time corporate health and safety crime? You see, this is Robyn Lafleur, and I'm sending her

photo to you because her life was stolen from her in an explosion and fire at the capgun ammunition factory where she worked in Thorold in 1999. Investigators looking into her death -- to the

Premier, please, Danielle -- found sufficient evidence to lay charge after charge, under both federal and provincial statute, against the company as well as three individuals.

Her mother, Joanne Stubbins, is here in this chamber today. She's been in court every time the case has been called. She gets no information from prosecutors

or government officials. She was shocked to read, as was I, that your prosecutors have cut a deal, they've plea bargained the charges away, so that the individuals charged, notwithstanding the

evidence collected, will walk away scot-free.

Premier, please tell Robyn's mother, Joanne Stubbins, here today, how you can justify denying Robyn Lafleur, her family, her friends and her co-workers their

day in court.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Attorney General can respond.

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): My friend opposite, who I believe to be a lawyer, has raised this

issue, and it may well be an issue that is deserving of attention in an appropriate forum. It is an issue that I believe in the premise to his question he confirmed was a matter in front of the

courts at this time. Of course, that being the case, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time about that. In fact, if we did, I have absolutely no doubt that the member

opposite would be the first to be suggesting that the government was doing something most inappropriate.

Mr Kormos: You bet your boots it's before the courts, and on June 27, this government's plea bargain is going to cut loose all of the

perpetrators of what amounts to the life of a young woman worker who was crushed to death under a burning beam, whose body was burned so badly that the hospital pulled the plug on her near-lifeless

body.

This Attorney General is responsible for the conduct of his prosecutors. It is his prosecutors who are cutting the deal, who are cutting loose accused people,

individuals who are responsible for Robyn Lafleur's death.

You talk about being tough on crime; you talk about standing up for victims. Where are you when it comes to Robyn Lafleur and other workers? Where are you when

it comes to standing up for Joanne Stubbins? Robyn isn't left to speak for herself; her mother has to speak for her. Join in demanding that your prosecutors and their federal counterparts engage in

a tough and full prosecution of these charges against the perpetrators of that crime against Robyn Lafleur, her family and that working community.

Hon Mr Young: Let me say that we have great sympathy for the family. If there is some way, at this time or in the future, that we can assist

the family, I'm prepared to do so.

But one of the things that we cannot do, one of the fundamental principles of our justice system and of this government, one that dates back over centuries, is

that we can't stand in this Legislature and comment upon pending court cases. So if my friend opposite wishes to bring forward information, wishes to facilitate meetings between victims and crowns,

which is something that we always make time for, then I am prepared to co-operate in that regard. But public statements at this time are something that we simply cannot do.

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question? The member for London-Middlesex. Elgin-London-Middlesex.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): You got the Elgin in. That's the important part, Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. Your government continues to force persons with disabilities and older adults to live in institutions, rather than coming up

with a method of direct funding to them and their families so that they can hire their own attendants. Direct funding is considered appropriate under an independent living model. It is preferred by

most members and their families, and it was promised by your party since you were first elected.

Dani Harder, who is sitting in the Speaker's gallery today, is a 26-year-old woman whom your government is forcing to live in a children's hospital, in

complete violation of her rights, simply because there is no mechanism in place to help her move to her own apartment in the community with 24-hour attendant care.

Premier, will you stop warehousing people in institutions instead of helping them to live a more independent and dignified life in their own homes and their

own communities? When will you finally act to help this vibrant young woman get out of an institution?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Community and Social Services can respond.

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

affairs): Let me indicate at the outset that I'm certainly happy to work with the honourable member and to talk to this family and see what more we can do for this family.

I can tell the member opposite that providing supports to people with developmental disabilities has been an incredible priority for me and for this

government. We've brought in a record investment to help people with developmental disabilities, the biggest investment in Canadian history.

I look at the situation in southwestern Ontario, where the executive director of the Wallaceburg and Sydenham District Association for Community Living said,

"The minister listened well." He called our announcement, "It's really everything we asked for."

We acknowledge that we can do more. We acknowledge that the plight of people with a developmental disability and their families needs to improved. That's why

we've made an unprecedented five-year commitment to do more to help community living, to do more to provide supports to people and their families right across the province of Ontario.

Mr Peters: I am the critic for agriculture, and there's one thing in agriculture: a lot of silos. What we've just seen today is the problem

within this government: silos. Do you know who should have answered this question? Not the Minister of Community and Social Services; it's the Minister of Health. It's the Minister of Health whom

Dani Harder has been dealing with, and that's part of the problem we've got in this province right now. We've got government ministries working in silos and not working in the best interests of

individuals.

Premier, I am appealing to you for your direct intervention. The difference between what Dani's family requires to care for her and what the Ministry of Health

is offering is $50,000. Money seems more important than the quality of Dani's life.

Why would you be willing to spend $120,000 to place her in a congregate living situation like New Visions, but you are not willing to fund the same amount so

that she can live with dignity in her own home? Why are bureaucrats comparing the cost of her care to what it costs in a seniors' facility, rather than what it would cost in a facility for young

people with disabilities who require 24-hour care? Is it your intention to force young people like Dani into seniors' facilities because of your government's failure to act? I implore you, Premier,

for the sake of Dani Harder's dignity and for the other individuals in this province like Dani Harder, will you please intervene and help this family?

Hon Mr Baird: I have indicated to the member opposite that I'm more than prepared to work with my colleagues, whether it's my colleagues at

the Ministry of Health or it's our colleagues through our regional offices of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

We've made an unprecedented commitment to community living in this province with more budgets. That commitment is shared by many folks right across the

province of Ontario. I support expanding opportunities for community living. We have had a consultation.

One of the members in your own caucus just got up and presented a petition the other day calling on us to keep the institutions open, saying that institutions

had a place in Ontario. That hasn't been the policy of successive provincial governments, be they Liberal, New Democrat or Conservative.

We're moving forward, with an unprecedented commitment. We're moving forward to expand the number of services. One individual said, "One of the good things

that the budget did is that they did do some good things to help people with a developmental disability and the developmentally handicapped, and they ought to be congratulated, because it was long

overdue." That was Greg Sorbara who said that last month.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Transportation. Unnecessary carnage still occurs on our highways due

to drinking and driving. In fact, statistics suggest that approximately 25% of all --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Hamilton East, this is his last warning. I'll have to throw him out. Sorry --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. I'll make the decisions in here, I say to the ministers. You worry about your own ministries and I'll worry about in

here.

Member for Northumberland.

Mr Galt: In fact, Minister, statistics suggest that approximately 25% of all fatal collisions involve a drinking driver. This indeed is

unacceptable, as each and every one of these accidents could have been prevented. Many organizations, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving, and the

Ontario Provincial Police are in fact doing their part.

Minister, what are you doing to reduce and preferably eliminate drinking and driving in the province of Ontario?

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank my colleague for the question. I want to assure him that this government has

taken tough action to reduce the incidence of drinking and driving in Ontario. Since 1996, we have introduced a number of initiatives, one of them being administrative driver licence suspensions.

It might surprise people in this House: there have actually been 89,000 people who have lost their licences for 90 days since the program was implemented in 1996.

We've also introduced remedial measure programs as a precondition for licence reinstatement. We've also increased the suspension period for repeat

offenders.

Vehicle impoundment is another program which we have put in place for those who were driving while suspended due to Criminal Code convictions. Over 2,800

vehicles have been impounded by this government.

The Solicitor General has also developed a dedicated, multi-year RIDE program, which we have funded to the tune of $1.2 million annually.

Mr Galt: Thank you very much, Minister, for that answer. Indeed, with every action associated with drinking and driving there is injury and

often death and families destroyed. It is reassuring to know that our government is addressing the dangers that drinking and driving continues to pose in the province of Ontario.

Action is only one part of the equation. The other part of the equation -- of course, the most important part -- is the result obtained. Minister, can you

describe to my constituents in Northumberland what effect these measures are having in reducing the problem of drinking and driving and the number of associated accidents, injuries and

fatalities?

Hon Mr Clark: Once again I thank my honourable friend for the question. I want to emphasize that the Ministry of Transportation's commitment

to road safety and our efforts to reduce drinking and driving are an integral part of this commitment. Let there be no mistake: drinking and driving continues to be a serious issue in the province

of Ontario.

But I also want to make it clear that our tough action against drinking and driving is working. Since 1995, drinking and driving fatalities in Ontario have

decreased by over 36%, more than one third. We will continue to make every effort to crack down on drinking and driving in Ontario in the years to come. That includes making use of new

technologies. For example, my ministry is working with other ministries to develop a coordinated approach to implementing an effective ignition interlock program. Ignition interlock is a device

that will prevent drunk drivers from being able to start their vehicles. It was the basis of a private member's bill that was passed in this House last December, and I'd like to credit the member

for Simcoe North, Mr Dunlop, if he were here right now, for his work on that bill to help combat drinking and driving in Ontario.

HOME CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Premier. Premier, I wanted to read to you from your own document that you went to

the electorate with and in which you agreed to the people of Ontario to take care of their health needs. What you said to them was that you were going to look at patient-based budgeting. That's

what you were going to do. You said that you were going to put the priority on people who need health care. You said that "for many who need this care, this is going to mean an end to rationing and

waiting lists." That's what you said.

I want to talk to you about all of the home care agencies now across Ontario that are rationing service and who have longer waiting lists than ever before

because your government will not fund these people according to the people that they need to serve.

Premier, what do you have to say about the promises you made before you embarked on all of this massive change to health delivery and what we have now in home

care -- rationing of service, service cuts, and waiting lists?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think it's important to put a few things into context. First of all, funding for community health services

has increased by $658 million since we took office -- $658 million from the province of Ontario. The federal share: zero dollars. That's the first thing that you need to understand. This represents

an increase of some 57%.

We have increased in-home services by 72%. Is it enough? Obviously a number of CCACs are saying it is not enough. In spite of the federal Liberal cutbacks and

the slashing of $100 million out of our budgets from 1994, over the last six or seven years, in spite of putting 72% more in, in spite of all these funding pressures, there are still some CCACs who

say it is not enough. That's why the minister is in consultations with the CCACs: to review the budgets to see if there are other areas where money can be found. We can't count on --

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: All three of us are up. We look like the Three Stooges here. The member for Windsor West.

Mrs Pupatello: It's not about "in spite of." It's in spite of your promise to the people of Ontario. You promised that you were going to bring

in budgets that were patient-based. You said you would end rationing and you would end waiting lists. What you did was you cut hospitals and sent people home sicker and quicker than ever before.

You said you were going to spend money in the community before you did that. The community was not ready for that, and that means that home care takes care of 70% of their patients from the

hospitals, never mind the elderly women who rely on the most basic of services to keep them in their homes. Let's talk about York region, one of the largest community care access centres, that is

facing a $12-million shortfall in the 905 region. I want to tell you that this affects mostly women; it affects mostly elderly women. What these people are saying is that those who have a personal

worker for the basics -- housekeeping, shopping, meal preparation, banking -- are going to have the service discontinued. Premier, what do you say to the elderly women of the 905 --

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

Hon Mr Harris: I say to them that we have increased funding 72%. I say to them that it is a tremendous challenge for the province of Ontario.

I say to the Liberals in Ottawa, who contribute not a cent -- in fact, they've cut their funding levels to us -- that in spite of the fact that they campaigned on a pharmacare program and on a home

care program, not one cent has flowed from that, and that has put extra pressure on every Premier and on every government all across the country. I say to them in spite of that, thanks to our tax

cuts and our miraculous recovery in the economy, that we fund home care more than any other province does all across the country -- more per capita, the most generous program that's there. And I

say to them we're working with the CCACs, and in spite of the Liberals' slashing and lack of honouring their commitments, we're going to do our very best to do more.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Ontario has seen unprecedented

growth in the past number of years and, as we continue to grow as a province, I'm concerned that with the broad base of industry that we have in this province, we don't have enough qualified and

well-trained apprentices in place to help continue to build the province's future.

Apprentices are an integral part of our economy, Minister, and we need these skills and these experiences that apprenticeship training can offer. Without the

continued supply of young people in training, I'm worried about our ability to foster further economic growth. Minister, can you tell us what the government and your ministry are doing to build

participation in apprenticeship training in this province.

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

colleague from Brampton Centre for his question. Apprenticeship training is something that this province has known for a very long time needed some serious attention.

A few years ago we introduced the Ontario youth apprenticeship program in our schools, which is aiming to get young people opportunities, sometimes credit, for

their apprenticeship training so that they will be interested in moving into the trades, which are well-paid jobs, where we actually need them.

In the last budget in May we also had an increase of some $33 million, and that is to assist us in helping to double the number of people right now in

apprenticeship training in the skilled trades.

We take this issue very seriously. We are getting great co-operation from the trades and from people who are interested in assisting government. I know that

parents will be looking with their students to make different decisions for their future.

Mr Spina: Thank you Minister. I'm pleased that you're taking this seriously. We know that a lot of Ontario's young people are excited about

job possibilities that can result from good apprenticeship training, and there are a number of rewarding careers that are available to these young people with the proper training.

Minister, it's not only critical to invest in students in terms of the place in the operations, but we also have to make sure they are given every opportunity

to learn with the most current technology and the most current equipment possible. Minister, what is the government doing to give these young people access to the latest equipment and technologies

so that they can pursue their careers in these most needed skilled trades?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In response, we are committed to doubling the number of people in apprenticeship training in the skilled trades. I have

already mentioned the $33 million in the budget right now to help with this goal to double the number. There's another number in that budget of $50 million over five years and that's to help our

colleges, which are tremendous partners with the trades in different communities across this great province, to provide better equipment so that we can assist these young people in their goals.

But one thing is missing, and I wonder why the Liberals across the House don't speak to the federal members so that we can get the training agreement signed.

Therefore, I will be very serious: they would rather spend money on kiosks than on apprenticeship training.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Premier: the law says that when a worker believes they're in danger, but the boss disagrees, that

worker --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. Order, please. The member for Niagara Centre now has the floor. Sorry for the interruption. The

member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Kormos: Thank you. Premier, the law says that when a worker believes that a job puts them in danger and their boss disagrees, they can

refuse to do that job, and if she does, an inspector has to come and inspect that work site, take a first-hand look, be there and meet face to face with those involved and make a decision. That law

saves lives every day in workplaces across this province and, quite frankly, every one of those lives saved is worth every penny of what those on-site inspections cost. Bill 57 says those

inspections are no longer necessary. Premier, how many lives and injuries are you prepared to risk in return for your so-called efficiencies that you seek, that you're going to obtain, by

eliminating mandatory on-site inspections?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister gave a full explanation of that very same question in the Legislature this week.

Mr Kormos: Premier, your hubris, I tell you, should be alarming to everyone here. We're talking about workers' health, about workers' safety.

We're talking about working women's and men's lives.

Look, a decision to refuse dangerous work is one of the most difficult decisions any worker makes in this province. It doesn't happen very often. The worker

acts alone and the worker risks antagonizing his or her employer. It's a standoff and the stakes are as high as they get. A much wiser Conservative government and labour minister recognized this

historically. They created that law, a solution, and that was a mandatory inspection by a third party who must come to the work site and determine whether or not it is safe to proceed. You see,

that saves workers' lives. That protects workers' health and it protects workers' safety. The law works, but you want to undo it.

Premier, we know you can't guarantee that these changes to Bill 57 won't mean another death or injury. Why are you taking that risk with working Ontarians'

lives?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the Minister of Labour can respond.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I want to go on the record very clearly. This will not be responsible for any death or injury in the

workplace. Let me give you an example --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Hold on. Let me give you an example of a situation where the inspector would decide that a site visit isn't necessary. This

is an actual example. An employee phoned up the Ministry of Labour and said, "I don't think my boss is qualified to be my boss." The inspector then --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That was you, talking about the Premier.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Hold on, member for St Catharines, just listen. The inspector said --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The minister has the floor. Sorry, Minister of Labour.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I agree with the member opposite. This is an important issue and I think we need to discuss it rather than -- the comments

you made need to be challenged.

The ministry inspector would then have the power to say, "Why don't you fax me the accreditation that this individual, the boss, has. I'll review it and

determine whether or not he should be or is capable of being your boss." They went out to the site, reviewed the accreditation and said, "This stop-work order isn't necessary. You can go back to

work." Saving that transit for the two- or three-hour trip, shutting down the operation because one employee said, "You're not qualified to be my boss," is asinine. That's why we instituted a

provision that said you can fax it to the inspector and They can review this and make a decision. It's simple common sense. Quit going over the top and quit fearmongering.

PETITIONS

NURSES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have 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 submit more of the over 12,000 names that have been added to this petition and add my own name in full agreement with their concerns.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that reads as follows, and it is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas the government's plan is to give 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 of narrowly focused interests;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will steal money from an already cash-starved public system and deliver public money to special interests who do not

have to account for its use;

"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."

I agree with the petitioners and I've affixed my signature to this petition.

ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I am presenting this petition on behalf of the residents of Mississauga South and the residents of

the riding of Oakville, where the MPP is Gary Carr, the Honourable Speaker of this House. This is in a series of now thousands of names. The petition reads as follows, and it is a petition to the

Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas Sithe Energies Canadian Development Ltd is actively pursuing the development of an 800 MW electricity generating facility;

"Whereas the 14-hectare parcel of land on which the station is proposed is located on the east side of Winston Churchill Boulevard in the Southdown industrial

district of Mississauga;

"Whereas Sithe has stated its commitment to an open dialogue with communities where it has a presence and to being responsive to the concerns of the same;

"Whereas the government of Ontario has a responsibility to ensure the safety of Ontario citizens and to determine how this facility will impact those who live

in its immediate, surrounding area,

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

"That the government of Ontario direct the Ministry of the Environment to undertake a formal environmental assessment of the Sithe project."

I add my name to this petition.

NURSES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is 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 affix my signature. I'm in complete agreement with the petition.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to rise in the House today and present a petition to the Legislative Assembly

of Ontario which reads:

"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.

BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have some more petitions to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, stating:

"Whereas the existing Highway 519 bridge over the Magpie River south of Dubreuilville is a single-lane, 45.7 metre span Bailey bridge; and

"Whereas the safety of the residents, workers and visitors driving into and out of Dubreuilville is constantly jeopardized because of the single-lane capacity;

and

"Whereas the minister has been made aware that there is an immediate need to replace this single-lane bridge with a two-lane bridge; and

"Whereas the ministry has agreed to prepare a design for a future double-lane replacement bridge, however, they have not yet approved the project;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and the Ontario government once again to immediately approve the replacement of the

single-lane Bailey bridge by a two-lane bridge."

Mr Speaker, I agree with my many constituents in Dubreuilville who have signed this petition.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): We have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from a number of constituents of mine and

Minister Clement, who is not in a position, obviously, to present for his constituents, and I am pleased to do so also on his behalf. It reads:

"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 have a number of people here from my riding, Sharon Mulder, Carlene Moakler, Ted Van Lingen, Sharon Anderson and a number of others, and I'm pleased to

present this on their behalf.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Petitions?

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I've got a petition a large number of people sent in against the tax credit for private

education.

"To the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the announced tax credit for private school tuition will lead to government funds being directed to private education rather than the underfunded

public school system that is mandated to educate all children regardless of cultural, religious or socio-economic status;

"Whereas the education tuition tax credit of up to $3,500 per child when fully implemented will lead to an increase of students being enrolled in private

schools to the detriment of the public schools;

"Whereas there will be no accountability for the use of public funds allocated through the education tuition tax credit; and

"Whereas the advocates for religious schools have indicated they will continue to seek full funding for religious education with the potential result of more

public funding being diverted to private schools;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Ontario Legislature to vote to remove the education tuition tax credit from Bill 45, the Ontario 2001 budget

legislation."

Many people have signed the petition. I am happy to add my name to that list.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): The page from Kitchener Centre, Sabrina Wirz, will come up and take this down.

I have a petition signed by a couple of hundred members of my riding of Kitchener.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"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.

NURSES

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I have 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;

"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, regular and 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 sign my name to this petition.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

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

"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 of narrowly focused interests;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will steal money from an already cash-starved public system and deliver public money to special interests who do not

have to account for its use;

"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."

I agree with the petitioners, and I've affixed my signature to this petition.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Petitions?

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I have a petition signed by 177 people.

"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."

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): "To the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the announced tax credit for private school tuition will lead to government funds being directed to private education rather than the underfunded

public school system that is mandated to educate all children, regardless of cultural, religious or socio-economic status;

"Whereas the education tuition tax credit of up to $3,500 per child, when fully implemented, will lead to an increase of students being enrolled in private

schools to the detriment of the public schools;

"Whereas there will be no accountability for the use of public funds allocated through the education tuition tax credit; and

"Whereas the advocates for religious schools have indicated they will continue to seek full funding for religious education with the potential result of more

public funding being diverted to private schools;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Ontario Legislature to vote to remove the education tuition tax credit from Bill 45, the Ontario 2001 budget

legislation."

I am pleased to add my signature to this.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SERVICE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT

À LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 16, 2001, on the motion for s econd r eading of Bill 25,

An Act to amend the Public Service Act and the

Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993 / Projet de loi 25, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la fonction publique et la Loi de 1993 sur la négociation collective des employés de la

Couronne.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Pursuant to the order of the House dated May 30, 2001, I'm now required to put the question.

Mr Wettlaufer moved second reading of Bill 25,

An Act to amend the Public Service Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993. Is it the

pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjections.

The Speaker: We can always hear the member for Niagara Centre.

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1522 to 1527.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Beaubien, Marcel

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 48; the nays are 36.

Pursuant to the same order, the bill is referred to the standing committee on general government.

RESPONSIBLE CHOICES FOR GROWTH

AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

(2001 BUDGET), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR DES CHOIX RÉFLÉCHIS

FAVORISANT LA CROISSANCE

ET LA RESPONSABILISATION

(BUDGET DE 2001)

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 30, 2001, on the motion for second reading of Bill 45,

An Act to implement measures contained in the 2001

Budget and to amend various statutes / Projet de loi 45, Loi mettant en oeuvre des mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 2001 et modifiant diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 4, 2001, I'm now required to put the question.

Mr Hardeman moved second reading of Bill 45,

An Act to implement measures contained in the 2001 Budget and to amend various statutes. Is it the pleasure of the

House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1531 to 1536.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Beaubien, Marcel

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 48; the nays are 37.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the same order, the bill is referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

AMBULANCE SERVICES COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE

DANS LES SERVICES D'AMBULANCE

Hon Mr Stockwell moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 58,

An Act to ensure the provision of essential ambulance services in the event of a strike or lock-out of ambulance workers / Projet de loi 58, Loi

visant à assurer la fourniture des services d'ambulance essentiels dans l'éventualité d'une grève ou d'un lock-out de préposés aux services d'ambulance.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I appreciate the fact that some of the members have stayed. You know you've got a bad bill when the

member for St Catharines leaves.

I want first of all to talk about the purpose of the bill and why we did what we did. Let me deal with a general overview of the bill in the first place and

tell you how it is we reached what I believe is a consensus by taking into consideration all the parties that were involved in this particular approach.

I think everybody in this House would agree that it is an important and noble purpose to ensure continuous ambulance services during a strike or lockout. If we

all agree with that -- and I don't think anyone would disagree with that -- then we have to move on with a bill that would ensure continuous service. To put it into layman's vernacular, paramedics

go to work if their unions are on strike, so people who need a paramedic or an ambulance during a strike period can get one. I don't think anyone in this chamber would disagree with that approach.

Obviously it's a public safety issue and it's paramount for us as legislators to ensure that that kind of public safety issue is not disrupted.

We need the legislation because services were transferred from the province to the municipalities in January. The transfer means that the majority of workers

now fall under the Labour Relations Act, and under the Labour Relations Act it gives paramedics an unfettered right to strike. We are now faced with a situation, with the passing of ambulance

services from the provincial level to the municipal level, that they now fall under the Labour Relations Act, which then gives them full and unfettered access to strike.

I personally don't believe that your average, typical paramedic would strike, even if there were a vote for a strike. I believe that they are professionals and

they probably wouldn't strike. Be that as it may, I think we all agree that, by law, we should implement legislation that says no, you can't strike. So this bill requires negotiation of an

essential service agreement prior to a legal strike or lockout.

Having come from the municipal world, I'll tell you that we used to have these in Toronto. They're called essential services agreements. What it basically says

is that paramedics are part of a broader union, and in the case of Metropolitan Toronto, they were part of a union that included outside workers. The paramedics would say, before any negotiations

took place and long before any potential opportunity for a strike occurred, "We will sign an essential services agreement with Metropolitan Toronto and agree that, should there be a strike,

paramedics and those people who provide the services for paramedics -- mechanics, people who answer the phone, operators etc -- also could not go on strike," so that service itself wouldn't be

disrupted.

It came to us, particularly from the union side, that they needed to retain some right to strike but allowing critical services to continue. Let me say that

the right to strike is something I think most, probably all, unions hold very dearly to their heart. I've got to tell that normally in a year we have very few strikes or lockouts. There is a 96%,

97% success rate in negotiating collective agreements. But sometimes you get to a point where there could be a strike, so we needed to try and strike a bill -- and this is a difficult thing to do

-- that could balance the right to strike with public safety of paramedics.

Our idea was this: since most paramedics belong to a broader union, in essence, a larger collective agreement, they have what we deem to be a meaningful right

to strike. In essence, if they can't reach a collective agreement, and they can't get together and there is going to be a lockout or strike, we believe that if there are enough members of the

union, a meaningful right to strike would give those people who are not paramedics the right to strike and withdraw services but allow the paramedics to go to work. At the completion of that

collective agreement, after the strike or lockout period, whatever collective agreement was negotiated by those workers with the right to strike would then be given to the paramedics automatically

upon ending that particular situation.

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): OK, you've sold us.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I hope it would be sold and I would hope this would only take a couple of days of debate. But I tend to think there's always

a bit of a fly in the ointment. And I say to my friends in the NDP, I've tried my best to continue the unfettered right to strike, because that's what you tell me is the important part of these

things.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Obviously, I've struck a funny bone with the member for Don Valley East. They say, "Ridiculous," but frankly, there are only

two ways to go about this, to the member for Thunder Bay. Either you determine that flat out they can't strike and they have to go to arbitration, period, end of discussion, or you can maintain

their right to strike.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): But you haven't done this.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Sure we have, because they're part of a broader collective. That right to strike is retained by those people who go out on

strike, and whatever they collectively negotiate with their employer is automatically given to those paramedics who went to work because of an essential services agreement.

So, on the one hand, we've maintained the integrity and the importance of providing an essential service to the public so nobody dies during a strike period,

but if a withdrawal of services is the only way to reach a collective agreement, whatever they've negotiated in that collective agreement will be automatically given to those paramedics. That does

both: that protects the public from a disruption of paramedics and provides the union with an ability to get a better collective agreement through a strike process. That is as reasoned an approach

as you can take.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Well, it may be very complicated for you, Mr Caplan. I appreciate that and I understand it may be difficult for you to

understand, but if you read it slowly, you might get it.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): You have to read slower.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Very slowly, OK.

If we have that, that protection is put in place. The argument from the other side is, "Oh, no, we don't want that right to strike." That's what I guess the

NDP may be saying. And the Liberals, well, I'm not sure, but they'll come up with something. The NDP will probably say, "No, we don't want the right to strike," yet in every other collective

agreement, every other piece of legislation, every other thing we bring before this House, it's sacrosanct. They insist there must be a provision to strike. So we've protected that provision in

this act. We gave them the benefits of a strike and what you can lever from your employer during a strike period, and they will get those levers.

To me, the only other option is to go to straightforward binding arbitration, which in my opinion serves no purpose. It doesn't reflect a couple of things. It

doesn't reflect the economic realities of what collective agreements can lever from employers, and you have one person making a decision, simply because, by going on strike, the economic realities

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: If you're going to ask the questions, you've got to listen to the answers. You can lever that from your employer. Simply

sending it off to an arbitrator provides none of those levers. It's an arbitrated, single-person decision based on submissions from lawyers, which I've heard all the time from the unions they don't

like. They don't like that; they want the right to strike. So I said to them, "If you want the right to strike, I think I can build a piece of legislation which balances both competing aspects: (

a) the public's expectation that ambulances will work during a strike, and (

b) your ability to lever a good contractual agreement through a strike that's automatically given to you once the strike and

collective agreement is done."

That was the approach that we took. I'm very, very disappointed that the opposition parties would think, if this is what they're going to argue, that rather

than giving people the right to strike, it's better that we send them off to binding arbitration. That, to me, doesn't make any sense.

For years and years in this province the municipalities that provided ambulance services -- I speak of Toronto, for example -- worked under exactly this

provision. Identical. Exactly this. In instituting Metropolitan Toronto in 1953 and amalgamating the ambulance services from the early 1970s, that's exactly how they did business. The largest

municipality in the country of Canada would work out an essential services agreement with their paramedics. The paramedics would give up their right to strike based on the fact that if there was a

strike, any collective agreement that was signed would unilaterally be given to them as a pay increase, a benefits increase, holidays, all those benefits that go with the right to strike. That's

how the system has worked since the early 1970s in Toronto and in certain other municipalities that provided their own ambulance services.

That was the thought behind this bill. If you're telling me now that it's no longer important -- is the NDP saying or will the Liberals be saying that it's no

longer important to have the right to strike? Is that not important in this bill? We just want to take these and send them off to arbitrated settlements by one person -- who knows who --

determining what the pay levels for paramedics are right around the province? Don't let the economy set it. Don't let the strikes and lockouts and negotiating collective agreements settle it. No,

don't do that. Just send it off to one person and let them arbitrate it, like that is some kind of panacea, some kind of example of how government should be instituting provisions in legislation to

provide people with the opportunity to reach collective agreements.

I don't believe that, personally. I don't think this government believes that. This government also believes in the collective bargaining process. They may

have a lot of hoos and haws over there about how we've run the Ministry of Labour, but I'll tell you we haven't stripped one agreement since we've come to office.

Mrs McLeod: You've sure tried -- only because we wouldn't let you.

Hon Mr Stockwell: We have not stripped one agreement. I say to the member for Thunder Bay we obviously didn't try hard enough if you suggest

we have. My friends in the NDP stripped a number of agreements under the social contract. They stripped collective agreements. We haven't stripped a single collective agreement. We haven't

unilaterally overruled a collective agreement. We have said that when the anniversary of that collective agreement is up, we may make some changes to the legislation.

Another good example is this bill: we're not stripping collective agreements. We're saying in this bill that by passing these ambulance workers and paramedics

down, we're going to deem them to be essential. If you have a meaningful right to strike, with literally hundreds or thousands of employees who can go out on strike and they go out on strike, you

stay at work. Whatever they collectively bargain, you get.

Now, there are going to be places where we admit there isn't a reason, where there isn't a meaningful right to strike. I'm sure up north I can give you

examples -- include Toronto. They've got thousands of employees.

Mrs McLeod: Thousands of what?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Thousands of employees.

Mrs McLeod: Thousands of paramedics?

Hon Mr Stockwell: No, thousands of employees. They've got hundreds of paramedics, but they've got thousands of employees. That's the

meaningful right-to-strike approach.

Up north, which I was driving at, as an example, say an employee group represents 25 employees or paramedics or an association to the paramedics and they only

have half a dozen or a dozen or 20 employees outside of those paramedics. You know what we said? They don't have a meaningful right to strike. There's no point in taking 20 people out and having

just as many people go to work, because that's not a meaningful right to strike. We accept that and that's why it was a reasonable approach we took. We said, "Look, even if you went on strike, you

haven't got enough people to withdraw enough services that you're going to impact whoever you're trying to impact." Therefore, the paramedics would have to go out on strike. We don't want the

paramedics to go out on strike, so we've said that they would be deemed essential and would go directly to arbitration because they don't have a meaningful right to strike.

We've understood that in certain circumstances there are situations where paramedics wouldn't have a meaningful right to strike and the bill reflects that.

Speaking as a government member, when we saw the problem with respect to the meaningful right to strike, we dealt with it in the legislation. We said that those ambulance workers, those paramedics

will go directly to arbitration. If you have a meaningful right to strike, like Toronto where there are hundreds of paramedics and literally thousands and thousands of union members, so that the

thousands and thousands of garbage collectors, water works people, all those people, could go on strike and you could stay at work. That's considered a meaningful right to strike.

I'm slightly aghast that the opposition would suggest -- I guess this is what they're going to say. I don't want to portend to read their minds, but I g