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

December 6, 1999

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 1999-Dec-06 vol. A (PDF)

L023A - Mon 6 Dec 1999 / Lun 6 déc 1999

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TORONTO COUNCIL

PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH

WINE INDUSTRY

RAMADAN

SARAH THOMPSON

CANCER PREVENTION

RIDE PROGRAM

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

PAUL AND ANNE BURNHAM

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FEWER MUNICIPAL POLITICIANS ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE CONSEILLERS MUNICIPAUX

SPEAKER'S RULING

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA VÉRIFICATION DES COMPTES PUBLICS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

ORAL QUESTIONS

FIREARMS CONTROL

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FAMILY VIOLENCE

MUNICIPAL REFERENDA

FIREARMS CONTROL

ACADEMIC TESTING

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

TEXTBOOKS

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

KARLA HOMOLKA

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG-TERM CARE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DE LA SANTÉ ET DES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TORONTO COUNCIL

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): You will be glad to know that we have a new lottery in Ontario. Apart from all the casinos and all the slot machines, this new game is played at the government's will. The new game joins Lottario, Wintario, 649, 749 and all the other games, and it's called 22/44. The game started back some two years ago with the number of 44. Then, in a bizarre move by the government, it went to 56, then it went to 57, then it went to 58, just when they were thinking they were getting it right, and this without consulting the players.

Now two years later the government is still messing around with the numbers game, realizing that they didn't get it right. Now, totally frustrated, the government is telling the players to choose 22 or 44. The government, of course, may still make changes to the game without notification or participation, surprising everybody, and it may call it 66. The problem is that in this new game there won't be a winner. From 44 to 56 to 57 and 58, 22 or 44 or 66, millions of dollars were wasted, with no end in sight.

In the television debate of 1995, Mike Harris said that he was having problems with figures. Now we know why, and I wonder when he's going to get it right.

PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I am pleased to rise in the House today to recognize the pharmaceutical sector, which has contributed significantly to research and development in Ontario. In October, along with a number of my colleagues from the Legislature, I had the pleasure of visiting the research and development facilities of some of Ontario's leading pharmaceutical companies.

The pharmaceutical sector accounts for 27 of Canada's top 100 companies investing in research and development. Among this group, Merck Frosst leads the way. In 1998, Merck Frosst spent $308 million on research and development in Canada. When pharmaceutical companies choose to invest in Ontario, all Ontarians benefit. As our government strives to create a climate for greater job creation in an increasingly globalized marketplace, we need to work to ensure that our R and D sector continues to expand. Such expansion will enable many of our best and brightest students and researchers to find meaningful jobs right here in Ontario.

With us in the members' gallery today is Jean-Michel Halfon, CEO of Pfizer Canada. This year, Pfizer is expected to spend $10 million on research and development in Ontario, in addition to a $10-million expansion to its facilities in Arnprior, where it plans to manufacture Aricept and Viagra.

Companies such as Merck Frosst, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Wellcome, AstraZeneca and Pfizer are contributing to make Ontario one of the best places in the world to live, work and raise our families, and they should be commended.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): It's no longer a secret: Ontario produces some of the best wine in the world, and standing above the pack are the wines of Essex county. With a climate and growing conditions comparable to that of Bordeaux, France, the warm Lake Erie air and excellent soil combine to create a unique, high-quality wine. Essex county is also home to Pelee Island, considered a wine region of its own, with a growing season up to a month longer than mainland Canada's most southerly regions and is the birth place of some of the finest wines in the world.

National and international competitions have shown and proven that Essex county wines can compete with any region for quality and value. With the holiday season upon us, why not take the opportunity to give an Essex county wine when visiting or as a gift, or introduce a friend to the sweet taste of the burgeoning icewine industry. Every day, more people discover the unique, award-winning flavour of ice wine.

I'm proud in my riding to have the wineries of Colio, Pelee Island, D'Angelo, home of the wine king in Ontario, and LeBlanc winery. Today I am particularly proud to have Zak LeBlanc, a page, and his parents Pierre and Lise LeBlanc, along with his sisters and brothers Martin, Marc and Sophie.

RAMADAN

Mr Bob Wood (London West): As many members of this house will know, one billion Muslims throughout the world will be observing a month of fasting during Ramadan, starting around December 8 this year. It is a time for inner reflection, devotion to God and self-control. Muslims think of it as kind of tune-up for their spiritual lives. The third pillar or religious obligation of Islam, fasting, has many benefits, the most important of which is that it teaches self-control. Ramadan is also a time of intensive worship, reading of the Koran, giving charity, purifying one's behaviour and doing good deeds.

Ramadan will end with the celebration of the feast of Eid Al-Fitr in about one month's time. At that time, Muslims will gather for prayers and then exchange presents and share alms with the needy so that all members of the community may be able to celebrate together.

I know I speak on behalf of all members of this House in extending greetings to the Muslim community of Ontario and in wishing them Ramadan Kareem and Eid Mubarak. These greetings, which in Arabic mean "May you have a month of giving and a blessed feast," speak to the central meaning of Ramadan.

SARAH THOMPSON

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I'm delighted to stand in my place today and pay special recognition to Mrs Sarah Thompson of Belleville. Sarah will be one of the four Ontario seniors selected to receive the International Year of Older Persons legacy award this afternoon.

Mrs Thompson, a lifelong athlete and record-breaking competitor, is an inspiration to us all. After a serious retina problem robbed her of much of her vision, Mrs Thompson registered with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and was determined to make the best of her life. When a stroke left her partially paralyzed, she exercised every day until she regained all feeling in her affected areas.

With encouragement from her family and friends, Mrs Thompson began to train and enter competitions and games for the physically disabled. From regional meets Sarah quickly moved on to provincial and national levels, setting records at virtually every meet she attended. Sarah Thompson holds every Canadian record in the blind masters division in the 3,000-metre, the 100-metre dash, the long jump, discus, javelin and shot put. She has been a 10-time Canadian champion and has won gold medals in international powerlifting when she competed in Perth, Australia.

It's important to point out that Sarah achieved the gold medal while competing against able-bodied female athletes of all ages. "I don't do it for praise or glory," Mrs Thompson recently stated. "I do it for myself."

I'm honoured to join with Sarah's husband and former Quinte MPP Doug Rollins this afternoon as Sarah is honoured with this special award. She's indeed an inspiration to us all.

CANCER PREVENTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): Four years ago, the Ontario Task Force on the Primary Prevention of Cancer tabled a report which highlighted the need for an action-based plan for the primary prevention of cancer.

Three and a half years ago, this House passed my resolution calling for the creation of a working committee which would establish realistic and measurable timetables for sunsetting persistent toxic chemicals that are known or suspected carcinogens. Yet, since that day, the Conservative government has done nothing.

A minister of this government once remarked that you need to create a crisis before this government will take action. Make no mistake: Environmentally caused cancer is a crisis facing this province. Since 1950, the number of people afflicted with cancer has increased by 55%. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma are up by 200%; testicular cancer is up by over 100%; breast cancer and colon cancer are up by 60%.

Dioxin is one of the more widely known and proven carcinogens we also carry, but still nothing has been done. This has been the result: A breast-fed infant receives its so-called "safe" lifetime level of dioxin within the first six months of his or her life.

I say again, environmentally caused cancer has become a crisis facing this province. I call on the government once again today to honour the passing of that resolution.

RIDE PROGRAM

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I rise today to let everyone know that the RIDE program is swinging into full gear in Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford. In fact, the South Simcoe Police Service has already kicked off their holiday RIDE blitz, and the Barrie Police Service manned the RIDE in full force on Friday night.

I'm proud that our government is a strong supporter of RIDE and that Ontario now has the toughest drinking and driving laws in Canada. Police at RIDE checks in Barrie will pass out coupons, a Bell QuickChange card and a replica of the winning poster from the Don't Drink and Drive Contest created by six-year-old Mikhaela Gray. Businesses and our media are standing shoulder to shoulder with our government in support of RIDE in Barrie, and they include Roberts Collision, Rock 95, Barrie Advance, the Kozlov Centre and Kwik Copy Printing.

Drinking and driving is a violent criminal act. Mothers Against Drunk Driving say that 46% of drivers killed in car accidents have been drinking, and every day 311 people are injured because of impaired driving. That kind of carnage must stop, and the RIDE program will help bring those numbers down.

The Barrie Police Service will check 10,000 cars during the festive season and show zero tolerance for anyone caught driving while impaired. So a word to the wise on behalf of RIDE: If you want to drive and arrive, don't drink and drive.

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Outrage across the province continues to grow regarding the Mike Harris Millennium Memento project. Sudbury student body president Ruwan Amaratunga summarized this outrage best when he said, "That this Harris government would spend money on these things after years of cutbacks in education and health care just doesn't make sense."

Ruwan is correct. That's why I launched the "return to sender" program in Sudbury on Friday. This anger at Mike Harris's misplaced priorities is not only confined to Sudbury. For example, parents and students from Ottawa-Carleton, Chatham-Kent, Windsor, London and Peterborough share in the frustration of this government's skewed priorities. For that reason, today my Liberal colleagues are launching the "return to sender" program across Ontario.

If, as a parent or student, you're upset at this government's misplaced priorities, bring your book back to your MPP and tell him you want that person to bring it to Mike Harris. As Ms Blondeau, a parent with six children in our school system, said, "It's ridiculous that my kids will have six copies of this book, but they don't have atlases, dictionaries or spellers."

Here is an example of the anger that is out there: In five hours, 500 books came back to my office with the message, "Return to sender."

Interruption.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I want to remind those of you who are visiting us in the galleries that we have very strict rules for you. We are ever so pleased you are here, but we will not tolerate any kind of clapping or demonstration of any sort.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable member for donating these books back. We have schools that have asked for extra copies and this will be of great assistance.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, and I believe this is a point of order: It's my understanding that there will be abundant copies of this sent back from the people of Ontario with the sign, "Return to sender."

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

PAUL AND ANNE BURNHAM

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to recognize the outstanding volunteerism of two constituents, Paul and Anne Burnham.

The Burnhams have won the 1999 YMCA Peace Medal for their community involvement both locally and worldwide. While maintaining a family business, they have found time to volunteer at their children's schools, sports and church activities while organizing such Northumberland United Way events as a bike-a-thon and the celebrity baking contest.

While serving as president of the Northumberland Federation of Agriculture, Paul Burnham, with his wife, has helped raise funds for the victims of the Manitoba flood, for the eastern Ontario ice storm and for Hurricane Mitch in Central America. They have supported the food grains bank and helped to educate students through the Field to Food program, and this past summer they gave their time to the Rural Ramble educational farm tour.

Last year Mr Burnham took his agricultural experience to Central America, where he and four other federation members assisted indigenous farmers in their agricultural practices. Further to this, Mr Burnham is past president and an active member of the Northumberland Soil and Crop Improvement Association. Mrs Burnham also has been instrumental by organizing the Northumberland Agricultural Awareness Committee.

I extend my best wishes to the Burnham family and commend them for their outstanding volunteer efforts in their community and beyond.

VISITORS

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There's a special group of retired seniors in the gallery. They are people who have helped to build this country and this city. They are retired members of Local 183 of the Laborers' International Union of Ontario. I'd like to welcome them here today.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member will know that is not a point of order, but we are indeed glad they are visiting us today.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd also like to recognize a group of students who travelled here this morning from Sarnia-Lambton, the OAC group from Sarnia.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The order of the House dated November 18, 1999, provides that "The standing committee on estimates shall present one report with respect to all of the estimates and supplementary estimates considered pursuant to standing orders 59 and 61 no later than December 2, 1999."

The House not having received a report from the standing committee on estimates for certain ministries on Thursday, December 2, 1999, as required by the order of this House, pursuant to standing order 62(

b) the estimates before the committee of the Office of the Premier, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs are deemed to be passed by the committee and are deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FEWER MUNICIPAL POLITICIANS ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE CONSEILLERS MUNICIPAUX

Mr Clement moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 25,

An Act to provide for the restructuring of four regional municipalities and to amend the Municipal Act and various other Acts in connection with municipal restructuring and with municipal electricity services / Projet de loi 25, Loi prévoyant la restructuration de quatre municipalités régionales et modifiant la

Loi sur les municipalités et diverses autres lois en ce qui a trait aux restructurations municipales et aux services municipaux d'électricité.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour say "aye."

All those opposed say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1358 to 1403.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Deputy Speaker: Those opposed will please rise and be recognized by the clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Clark, Brad

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Sergio, Mario

Skarica, Toni

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 52; the nays are 33.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I may have understood the government House leader to indicate that he's prepared to split the bill. I wonder if that's the case.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. Do you have another point of order?

SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Last week, my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan raised a point of order with respect to the omnibus nature of Bill 23, currently printed and before this House. The Speaker, in his ruling, cited concern but ruled that point of order out of order. The Speaker at that time indicated that the opportunity for members in this place to give due and sufficient consideration to legislation should be respected. Evolving practice over the last several years has tended certainly to work against that.

The rights and privileges of all members of this House are undermined by the government's obvious desire to prevent meaningful debate either in the Legislature or among the general public. The government's time frame for dealing with this bill, and there must be several hundred pages of it, is before Christmas. In the minister's statement today that he'll be giving later, he'll be saying it has to be done with by the end of the year. By our count, there is not enough time to do it.

Various Speakers over time have referenced these types of bills and whether sufficient debate is allowed with regard to important public issues whether a bill is split or not.

Allow me to refer you to a ruling by the Honourable Lucien Lamoureux, Speaker of the federal House of Commons, as recorded in the Commons journals for January 26, 1971, page 284, which reads as follows: "There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint" ... even though "the government has followed these practices that have been accepted in the past, rightly or wrongly, but that we may have reached the point where we are going too far and that omnibus bills of this type seek ... too much," too quickly.

James Jerome, on May 11, 1977, further indicated "some very deep concern about whether our practices in respect of bills do in fact provide a remedy to the very legitimate complaint of the honourable member that a bill of this kind gives the government under our practices the right to demand one decision on a number of quite different, although related, subjects."

While the Speaker last week expressed concern about the government's practices, he proposed no solution, nor in fact did the Speaker direct the House leaders of the three recognized parties to come up with a solution. In order to protect the rights and privileges of all members of the House, the official opposition respectfully requests more guidance from the Chair. We require a more definitive ruling, either with respect to the Chair's own ruling or directing that the House leaders of the three parties find a solution to this problem.

The government consistently uses its parliamentary majority to thwart any opportunity by the official opposition to meaningfully negotiate the way legislation is dispensed with in this House. This, coupled with changes to the standing orders over the past eight years that have been done by this government and the previous government, has undermined meaningful debate on questions of broad public importance. This is yet another example that in a few short House days, we're supposed to change the way the province is governed. That's wrong.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Speaker has no knowledge of the proposed timetable of this bill. In addition to its orderliness, I have not seen or read the bill and, since it has just been introduced, I don't believe you have either. I am not in a position to overrule the rule of the Speaker from last week.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the minister's statement today, he proposed that this legislation will be passed by the end of this year. It's a very clear time reference which effectively limits our ability to debate. In the absence of any other declaration, I would invite you to read this statement instead of reading notes from the table.

The Deputy Speaker: I'd like to remind the member for Windsor-St Clair that in the passion of the moment, I may be a little bit forgiving. I may be even too forgiving. Whether you realize it or not, I am under a certain amount of duress today. I should be home in bed, but I'm not. But I think that your comments are not well received by this Chair.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask, sir, that you then defer the ruling to the Speaker who made the ruling on the original point of order that was placed before this House last Thursday.

The Deputy Speaker: I'll have to leave that to him.

I want to make it abundantly clear that there will be time, as the debate unfolds, for the types of arguments that you're making to be considered by the Speaker.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, may I speak on that point of order? Let's be clear about this. We all know that this bill is going to take some period of time to print, won't be called for second reading until that printing is done, and therefore we can make those arguments with regard to whether or not the bill falls within the standing orders of this House.

Let me make it perfectly clear to you, Mr Speaker, that we offered the opposition the opportunity to split this bill, and they made the offer to me to do it before Christmas with five different bills. I was ready to accept that offer, but they turned it down.

Mr Duncan: On a point of information: Prior to today there were four bills and now, at last count, there is a number more than that. That being said, Mr Speaker, I would also like to bring to your attention a ruling by Speaker Jerome of the federal House, who found that on points of this nature the appropriate time for this type of decision is at first reading, when there's still an opportunity for the government to take back a bill and split it out if that's what the government wants to do.

The Deputy Speaker: This bill has been introduced; it has been distributed. It has not been printed yet, so that's why we will be entertaining those kinds of arguments in the future.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: First of all on the substantive matter at hand, I take your advice with regard to waiting until the bill is printed, and then I understand that it will be your recommendation to Speaker Carr that he hear submissions from all of us on the point of the appropriateness of this kind of omnibus bill to be tabled. I take your advice and suggestion seriously and will prepare for that. Perhaps if Speaker Carr could indicate to us prior to the day on which he deems it correct for us to deal with that, that would be most helpful.

Second, I just want to go on the record as stating that at the House leaders' meeting on Thursday there was not any kind of deal offered. There were discussions, there were offers of how we on the opposition benches might accommodate five different bills being introduced, but let's be clear that there was no offer that was made and therefore no offer rejected. The fact is that the government is doing exactly what they said they would do in the negation of any kind of agreement even though we offered to entertain those discussions.

The Deputy Speaker: I want to make it abundantly clear to the member that I'm not holding out a commitment on behalf of the Speaker. I just know that he's a fair and reasonable man, and that's probably the route he will take. I wanted to make that clear.

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA VÉRIFICATION DES COMPTES PUBLICS

Mr Sterling moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 26,

An Act to amend the Audit Act / Projet de loi 26, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la vérification des comptes publics.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? It is carried.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing 9(c)(2) the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 12 am on December 6, 1999, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on December 7 and 9, 1999, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to introduce a bill that, if passed, will ensure more efficient government and better accountability in municipal government in Ontario.

First and foremost, the Fewer Municipal Politicians Act will put an end to the continuous rounds of debate and discussion on governance in the regions of Haldimand-Norfolk, Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Sudbury.

As you know, over the past few months a special adviser has been tasked with determining how best to achieve lower taxes and fewer politicians, that will result in simpler, more efficient and more accountable local government in each of these areas. These four special advisers, Milt Farrow, David O'Brien, Glen Shortliffe and Hugh Thomas, have submitted their recommendations and I would like to thank them again publicly for all of their commitment and hard work.

Our government promised to review these recommendations as a priority. We promised we would move forward quickly. We had promised the people of these four regions that change would be in place in time for the November 2000 elections.

Today, as promised, we are moving forward. Today I've introduced legislation that, if passed, will lead to lower taxes and fewer politicians in these four areas.

The regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk and its six local municipalities will be replaced by two new municipalities: the town of Haldimand and the town of Norfolk.

The regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth and its six local municipalities will be replaced by one city.

The regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and its eleven local municipalities will be replaced by one city.

The regional municipality of Sudbury and its seven local municipalities will be replaced by one city, including nine geographic townships to the north and to the southeast.

These changes mean the number of municipalities in these four areas will be reduced from 34 to 5. The number of politicians will be cut from 254 down to 64. And the taxpayers could and will benefit substantially by saving more than $95 million per year. That's on top of the $25 million of administrative savings already achieved in Hamilton-Wentworth.

The new municipalities will be built on the best practices of progressive municipalities across North America. They will retain their strong, local identities and communities. Each will develop a new, solid economic base from which to work together to attract investment and create new jobs. They will be municipalities to help Ontario move forward in strength and competitiveness into the 21st century.

We know it is important that any change be seamless. So, should this legislation be passed, our government will establish transition boards to ensure service is not interrupted and that savings to taxpayers are found as soon as possible, while ensuring the transition to the new city is a smooth one.

We would also like to assure employees that if their municipality is dissolved, they would automatically become an employee of the new municipality if they are an employee on the day the municipality is dissolved.

This legislation also addresses further matters of reform. Since the new city of Toronto came into being two years ago, it has become apparent that at 58 members the council is too large and unwieldy. Despite the clear benefit for taxpayers of a smaller council, Toronto has not been able to exercise its power to bring council to a more efficient and more manageable level. The legislation we are introducing today will, if passed by the Legislature, allow the government to reduce the size of Toronto's council to 44 members and to create 44 wards.

It has always been our goal to bring about less government. As you know, when we were first elected we took the initiative to reduce our own numbers, realigning the boundaries and reducing the number of MPPs from 130 down to 103. This is saving taxpayers at least an estimated $6 million a year.

Many municipalities have followed our lead. There are now 586 municipalities in Ontario, down from 815, and there are 1,059 fewer politicians. This means a savings of more than $220 million per year.

Taxpayers have already seen the benefits of more efficient services, less overlap, less duplication and red tape and more accountability. We want to extend these same benefits to even more Ontarians. Therefore, this legislation, subject to the approval of the Legislature, would extend and improve existing provisions that allow for local government reform in counties and separate and northern municipalities.

The changes we are introducing today and hope to see enshrined in law by the end of the year would mean lower taxes, fewer politicians, and simpler, more efficient and more accountable local government. This is what Ontarians want, it is what they expect, and it's what they deserve. Our government will continue to work hard to make this happen.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Responses.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I think it's important to take some time now to shed the light of day on exactly what this government is proposing to do. This government is proposing that we decide on the restructuring fate of five separate and distinct Ontario communities and that we do that by means of one bill. They are proposing that we deal with Sudbury, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton and Haldimand-Norfolk, that we deal with five separate and distinct plans for restructuring, and that we do that by means of one bill.

This government suggests that we deal with five separate communities, each with its own history, its own demographics, its own economy, its own culture, its own character and its own future, and that we do that by means of one bill. To confuse matters even more, this minister has decided to throw into the bill something about the regional chair being elected in Halton and something about transit in the city of Waterloo.

This government may think it's perfectly acceptable to decide on the fate of five separate Ontario communities at once and to throw in a few other things but the kitchen sink, but we on this side of the House happen to disagree. We think it's more important that we take the time, that we take the care and that we give the warranted attention and consideration to each of the communities affected by your bill. That means we need five separate bills.

We oppose this mega-bill. We oppose this mega-bill because it does an injustice to those people living in those communities that are affected by this bill. We're talking about the people living in Sudbury, the people living in Ottawa, the people living in Hamilton, the people living in Haldimand-Norfolk and the people living in Toronto, each of whom feel they are worthy of the due consideration that would come with a distinct and separate bill addressing their restructuring needs. We believe they should have their own debate, their own hearings, their own amendments, and we should be entitled to vote on each and every one of those bills as a separate and important matter.

It's important to understand that we oppose this megabill because it is robbing us on this side of the House of our democratic right to vote on each and every one of those bills, in keeping with the wishes and concerns expressed by the people living in the affected communities. It would seem to me that, after this government commissioned four separate reports, containing four separate sets of recommendations, the natural outgrowth from that should be four separate bills, one for each of those communities.

The government says that time is of the essence in this matter. Let's remind the government that it chose to wait five long months after the election before appointing its special advisers. This government should also be reminded that it sat only nine days during the first nine months of this year. And when it did decide to move forward on any particular piece of legislation, it decided to make as its own peculiar, idiosyncratic and distinct priority a squeegee bill-not municipal restructuring, but a squeegee bill.

This omnibus, megabill approach to legislation makes for bad legislation. The next thing you know, this government is going to introduce omnibus education legislation that puts a little bit of money into the classroom at the same time that it offers a voucher system. We will not buy into that sort of approach by supporting this bill. We will not set a precedent that gives the government the green light to continue to ram omnibus bills down our throats. We want the bill split to allow separate votes on each piece of legislation.

In addition to demanding that this government split this bill, I have an additional outrageous request. We want just a few hours of public hearings. We know that involves a couple of things that you on the government side of the House don't understand, and that's the need to involve our public, that's the need to listen to the public. I want you all to say it with me slowly now: public hearings. "Public hearings"; those two words go together nicely if you believe in true democracy, if you recognize that public input is one of the tools that make for good legislation and if you really believe in tools, instead of the same old-fashioned, Tory sledgehammer approach to legislation in Ontario.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I was told that the minister likes to call himself Mr Referendum, that he likes to believe that local people should make decisions, that there should be local democracy. Isn't it interesting that when this minister becomes the Minister for Municipal Affairs, he believes that referenda are irrelevant, that you simply slam it down people's throats, that they should have no say in their local government, no say in how their services are provided or, in this case, how their services are going to be cut.

It would appear that this minister is only in favour of local democracy, only in favour of referenda when it suits his neo-conservative agenda, when it's in line with something the Reform Party or the Ontario Conservative Party wants to push; otherwise, people shouldn't have a say. Because that's what's happening here. This minister, who claims to be all-seeing and all-knowing, is going to decide how more than a million and a half people are going to be governed, and they are going to have no say in this whatsoever.

If you include the provisions with respect to the city of Toronto, it means over three million people are being told how they're going to be governed, how their services are going to be cut, in some cases how their property taxes are going to be increased, and they're going to have no say in it whatsoever.

Let's get to what this is really all about: This government wants to continue to download onto municipalities. They want to continue to put off the costs of ambulances, the costs of child care, the costs of housing for senior citizens, the costs of urban transportation, the costs of public health onto municipalities, with no additional revenue for those municipalities. They want to do that, but they want to create enough confusion, enough instability so that people can't see clearly what is happening. That's what this is all about.

Just as we saw two weeks ago, when the government said they were going to save $300 million in administration. What it turned out to be is another $56-million download onto municipalities-no new money for municipalities, but lots of new responsibilities.

What are those municipalities going to have to do? They've got two choices. They can either raise property taxes and user fees to provide those necessary services, or they can cut. But we read in the fine print of this that you're even going to limit that choice for municipalities. You're simply going to force them to cut the services that ordinary people across this province need.

Where is the proof of this? Look at what is already happening in the city of Toronto. The Toronto Transit Commission is in big trouble. They don't have the money they need to operate and to provide the good services. Social housing and affordable housing is in trouble. Public health is in trouble. The services that ordinary people need in our communities are being cut.

This strategy that we see here today, this nonsense where all this legislation has to be passed before Christmas, is all part of that strategy. This is a government that gives the wealthiest people in the province a tax break, but then it takes away the services that the average family needs. They think this is justice. They think this is the way of the future. Shame on them. Shame on them for paying so little attention to the needs of our cities, the needs of communities and the needs of our families.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I want to comment on the latest farce from the minister in terms of the Toronto restructuring. I want to remind the people of Ontario that this province passed Bill 103, giving the city power over how many wards it would have. Remember, they spent literally a year and a half deciding this, including going to the OMB and the whole bit. Remember too, mon ami M. Gilchrist last year said, "This is up to the city to decide, not us." That was mon ami M. Gilchrist, but I suppose that was then.

Then, all of a sudden, my good friend the Minister of Municipal Affairs comes in, out of the blue, blundering forth and saying to the city council, "You've got 48 hours to decide on how you're going to downsize yourself again." I tell you what: He wants another consultation, but he doesn't say for how long. If I were a city councillor, I'd be worried because I'd wake up one day and find that the minister has decided for them.

This is the farce played on the city of Toronto that we've got to deal with.

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): Speaker, I believe I have unanimous consent for each party to speak about the Montreal massacre.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is there consent? Is it agreed? It is agreed.

Hon Mrs Johns: It is indeed with a heavy heart that I rise today to remember 14 women who were killed at L'École polytechnique in Montreal on December 6, 1989, 10 years ago today. Today is the 10th annual National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

We know that the massacre in Montreal was not a random act of violence. We know that the assassin was lashing out at a changing world where women were assuming full and equal partnership with men. And we know that when he entered the classroom where Maud Haviernick and Michèle Richard were delivering their end-of-term presentation, he separated the women students from the men students and then he opened fire only on the women. The feminists, he claimed, had ruined his life. We know this and today we remember.

In the 10 years since that day that changed us forever, the killer has become a household name. His name is better known than many of our most accomplished scientists, athletes and artistic figures, yet most Canadians would be at a loss to name even one of those women. Today we honour the lives and the memories of 14 women who died on December 6, 1989.

Geneviève Bergeron was a second-year scholarship student in civil engineering and an accomplished musician. Had she lived, she would be 31 years old today.

Hélène Colgan was in her final year of mechanical engineering studies and she had received three job offers. Had she lived, she would be 33 years old today.

Nathalie Croteau was due to graduate in mechanical engineering and she was planning to take a two-week vacation in Cancun, Mexico, with friends at the end of the month. Had she lived, today she would be 33 years old.

Barbara Daigneault worked as a teaching assistant for her father, a mechanical engineering professor, and was to have graduated at the end of 1989. Had she lived, she would be 32 years old.

Anne-Marie Edward spoke four languages, loved outdoor sports and was always surrounded by friends. Had she lived, she would be 31.

Maud Haviernick was a second-year student in engineering materials and a graduate in environmental design from the University of Quebec in Montreal. Had she lived, she would be 39 years old.

Barbara Maria Klucznik was in second-year engineering and specializing in engineering materials. Had she lived, she would be 41.

Maryse Laganière worked in the budget department at l'École polytechnique and had just recently married. Had she lived, she would be 35 years old.

Maryse Leclair was a fourth-year metallurgy student and was one of l'École polytechnique's top students. Had she lived, she would be 33 years old.

Anne-Marie Lemay was in her fourth year of mechanical engineering. Had she lived, she'd be 37.

Sonia Pelletier, the head of her class, died the day before she was to graduate with a degree in mechanical engineering and had a job interview lined up for the following week. Had she lived, she'd be 38.

Michèle Richard was in her second year of studying engineering materials. She had delivered an end-of-term paper with Maud Haviernick when the gunman burst into the room. Had she lived, she'd be 31 years old.

Annie St-Arneault, a mechanical engineering student, was killed as she sat listening to a presentation in her last class before graduation. She had a job interview scheduled for the next day. Had she lived, she'd be 33.

Annie Turcotte was in her first year of studies and shared a small apartment with her brother. Had she lived, she would be 31 years old.

Had they lived, Mr Speaker.

So 10 years later, if there is any comfort to be found as we reflect on the tragedy and the lives that were lost, it is that the gunman may have achieved the exact opposite of what he had intended. Where he hoped to frighten and intimidate, he merely strengthened resolve. The absolute number of women in the engineering faculties of this country has more than doubled in the 10 years since that tragedy. The engineering profession and university faculties have worked diligently to create a climate which is more hospitable to women.

All of us have become more aware of the threat that violence against women and resistance to women's accomplishments presents in each of our daily lives, and we resolve to do all we can to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again.

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier) : Comme la ministre a dit, il y a déjà 10 ans depuis que Marc Lépine est entré à l'École polytechnique de Montréal où il a semé la terreur et la mort. Il avait décidé que le 6 décembre 1989 serait le jour qu'il se débarrasserait de ses ennemies : des femmes qui lui gâchaient la vie.

Dix ans plus tard, sous le thème de se souvenir pour agir, « remembering in order to take action, » nous commémorons le massacre des 14 femmes tuées par Marc Lépine, tuées parce qu'elles étaient des femmes. Nous nous souvenons qu'une mort violente a mis terme aux vies de 14 femmes et a mis terme à leurs espoirs, leurs rêves, leurs ambitions. Nous nous souvenons que ces femmes étaient des étudiantes douées, qu'elles allaient devenir des ingénieures ; mais avant tout, nous nous souvenons qu'elles étaient des filles, des soeurs, nièces, petites-filles et amies.

Elles sont mortes subitement, dans la violence, par la main d'un homme qui croyait que des femmes indépendantes et ambitieuses étaient dangereuses et menaçantes.

Il m'est toujours inconcevable que 14 jeunes femmes aient perdu leur vie à cause de leur sexe féminin et de l'étiquette apposée par le meurtrier, l'étiquette de « féministes ».

In the months following the massacre there was a great public debate. Violence against women was the topic of the hour. The debate took the place of a profound dialogue on the issue of violence in society, in particular violence against women. Instead of provoking discussion, raising awareness of the real issues and generating solutions, the debate centred on whether the Montreal massacre was an isolated incident, a violent aberration, or whether it was another symptom of a sick society.

In my mind, there is no future in such a debate. Despite public debate and outcry, we have not succeeded in eliminating violence against women-not globally, not in North America, not in Canada, not even in Ontario. Despite the increase in demand, funding for shelters, second-stage housing and rape crisis centres has been drastically cut. Despite countless recommendations made by women's groups regarding the need for essential community-based programs, funding to these programs has been cut.

Despite recommendations made by coroners following inquests into the violent deaths of Ontarian women at the hands of their partners, the system is still failing to protect women from men with a well-known history of violent behaviour. Despite public support and demand for stronger gun control legislation, this government still intends to fight the federal gun control law in the Supreme Court.

Lors de l'inauguration à Montréal hier du monument commémoratif qui porte le nom de Nef pour 14 reines, les familles des victimes se sont rassemblées sous un ciel sombre et une pluie triste. Dix ans plus tard, chaque membre de ces familles vivait encore une douleur vive. Néanmoins, c'est un message d'espoir qu'elles ont lancé. Les familles espèrent que la nef devienne une place de réflexion sur la violence faite aux femmes. « Il ne faut pas oublier, » a dit la mère d'une des victimes, « mais il faut regarder vers l'avenir. »

In Ontario, like in Quebec, we will remember. Now let's act.

First of all, let's listen to the women. Only they can tell us their needs. They have solutions to propose to the government and to legislators.

Ensuite, travaillons ensemble pour bâtir la société dont nous parlons depuis toujours; une société juste où tous, femmes, enfants et hommes, demeurent équitablement dans la justice et la paix.

In closing, I encourage every one of you to light a candle tonight in memory of the 14 women who lost their lives on December 6, 1989, at l'École polytechnique de Montréal. As you light the candles, reflect on their futures, futures that due to

an act of senseless violence were snuffed out like the flames of the candles you hold.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): Ten years ago today, 14 young women were murdered at École polytechnique in Montreal; 14 bright lights were extinguished. It was the tragic event in the history of this nation. Those 14 women were executed because the gunman saw them as a threat, the object of his rage.

I remember that day well. I imagine there is not one of us in this Legislature who does not remember that day and the days that followed: the shock, the vigil, the tears. I think that for many people that day marked the beginning of some kind of awakening, some recognition that we all have a responsibility in this.

But there were those then and still today who dismiss this crime as a horrible, random act by a deranged man and therefore should not be talked about in the same breath as violence against women. In many ways, that's understandable. Because it's safer for us to think that way and because it absolves men from taking any ownership or responsibility.

The outcome of this act was a horrible massacre of 14 women. But such threats to women are, indeed, very common. Let me tell you something that happened to me as a female Toronto city councillor shortly after the Montreal massacre 10 years ago. I don't think I've ever told anybody this story, because after these women died, it wasn't about me, it was about them. But I'm going to tell the story today, because I've heard from so many other women who are now telling stories of what happened to them.

I was the chair of the Toronto cycling committee as a cyclist and I brought forward a motion to city council to allow equal prize money-that was all-for women racers, to be phased in over a number of years.

The motion passed at city council and then the harassment began. I started to get death threats on my telephone at home, words like: "Marilyn Churley, you are going to die. You're a feminist and I hate you." Then the ultimate shock was when I started to get threatening graphic notes through my door, which was unlisted, telling me what that person, had it been the same person, would like to do to me. I can tell you, because I suppose it was so soon after the Montreal massacre and similar words were used, I spent a number of days being absolutely terrified. I was a member of city council. Security was called, and for a number of days, I was under protection.

I tell that story simply to let those people who dismiss this as a random act of violence-seldom is it taken that far, thank God-know that those threats do happen to women frequently.

We have a responsibility to the women who were murdered and to all the women who remain. We have a responsibility to our daughters, our friends, our mothers, our sisters, our aunts and our neighbours. We need to teach our children. We need to ensure that events like the one in Montreal on December 6, 1989, are never forgotten-which is partly what this is all about today-and never repeated.

I want my grandson, and other grandchildren to follow, to learn at school the names of these women, the same way they would learn the names of the prime ministers of this country. We must never forget. We need to root out both violence and the attitudes that allow women to be second-class citizens, attitudes that sometimes cause women to be victims in society rather than equal participants. We need to ensure that children who are the survivors of violence and who witness violence in the home are provided with the counselling and support that will ensure they do not grow up to repeat those acts of violence as Marc Lépine did.

Today, once again, I participated in a heartbreaking ceremony where I joined with my colleagues from both parties, and others, to remember the 14 young women who were shot that terrible day 10 years ago. Once again I held a red rose, representing the life of one of the women who died. Her name was called and I walked to a vase and put that rose in, along with 13 other red roses, each rose representing a life. This year I held in my hand the memory of Maud Haviernick. I thought of that young woman then, the one represented by my rose.

I imagined her before that day, and just before the horrible incident, full of energy and promise, bright-eyed and full of life as she prepared to become an engineer. I thought of her parents and her family, and the unimaginable anguish and agony they must have experienced and the grief and pain and horror they must feel to this day.

I think of all of the women who have been murdered and terrorized by their spouses, partners and ex-partners and how very much I want, as we all want, our own daughters to be free of sexual harassment and free of the fear of violence from men. Government has a role of paramount importance. As I said, if nothing else, we must learn from this tragic event.

Today we are remembering the women who were shot, but it is necessary to point out that violence against women has not decreased in those 10 years, as some crimes indeed have. Since Arlene May died on March 8, 1996, at least 77 women in Ontario have died under similar circumstances, and at least 33 women have died since the inquest jury released its 213 recommendations. This weekend, we know that at least one other woman's name was added to that list. Countless others are severely injured and harassed.

In closing, I would like to read a portion of the mission statement of the White Ribbon Campaign that describes violence against women:

"If it were between countries, we'd call it a war. If it were a disease, we'd call it an epidemic. If it were an oil spill, we'd call it a disaster. Violence against women in our society is all of those things."

In the days following the murder in Montreal, women across this country adopted a motto. When we stand in silence to remember, we should remember those words: "First mourn, then work for change."

Mr Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent for us all to stand for a moment of silence to remember the 14 women who died 10 years ago.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? It is agreed.

The House observed a moment's silence.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier.

Just a few moments ago, your minister stood up in this House and spoke in a very moving and compelling way about the importance of drawing whatever lessons we might concerning the Montreal massacre that occurred 10 years ago. She concluded her statement, and I jotted this down because I thought it was very significant, by saying we must "resolve to do all that we can to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again."

Premier, why is it that you continue to fight gun control legislation in the courts? Why is it that you continue to thwart the will of the overwhelming majority of Ontarians who favour gun control, including our police?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the question and I'm sure it's brought forward with the best of intentions in a very serious matter.

We stand firmly in support of gun control, as the member knows and as this Legislature knows, and we have continued to proffer that position. We have consistently over our tenure as government offered suggestions on stronger gun controls for illegal guns, on stronger penalties for those who use guns illegally, on more enforcement to deal with this very serious situation.

As the member knows, there is a growing plethora, I would say, of people-law enforcement officers and others-very concerned about the terrible waste of money and the tragic way the federal government has gone about gun control. We think those dollars could be far better spent, with far more effective gun control both for illegal guns and for legal guns used illegally.

Mr McGuinty: You will know that close to half a dozen coroners' inquests have concluded with recommendations being put forward by their juries that we adopt gun control legislation in Ontario.

In March 1996, Randy Iles went into an Ontario gun shop and bought a gun. At that time he was in a relationship with Arlene May. There were outstanding warrants for his arrest and he was in possession of an invalid firearms acquisition certificate. Later that day, this man murdered Arlene May before turning the gun on himself. If the federal gun law, the one that is before the courts today had been in place, Randy Iles would have been prohibited from making the purchase of that gun that he used that day to kill Arlene May.

Premier, once more, why do you stand against gun control legislation, which is endorsed by our police, which is endorsed by our victims' rights groups right here in Ontario, including CAVEAT? Why do you stand in the way of the will of Ontario people to pass a law in our province called the federal gun control law?

Hon Mr Harris: As I said in my opening response, we are four-square behind meaningful gun control. I know many, including police chiefs and police officers, are disappointed by the disgrace that has been brought forward by the government in Ottawa. We continue to want to make it meaningful gun control. Many of the groups that were in support of the principle have been so disappointed with the waste of money, with the boondoggle, I would say, under the guise of gun control.

If the honourable member is absolutely serious, as opposed to playing petty politics, which is what the leader does with most issues, I'd be happy to work with him. We'll go to Ottawa together and get meaningful gun control in this country.

Mr McGuinty: The Premier's true colours are finally shining through. He loves to make wonderful and eloquent speeches written by his overpaid staff about victims' rights, but he refuses to listen to victims' rights groups. He claims he's an advocate for victims but he refuses to listen to the groups. Those groups have made a number of statements, on an ongoing basis, asking this Premier to endorse and support the federal gun control legislation. But this Premier, in a very consistent way, refuses to do that, notwithstanding support offered for this very same legislation by the police and victims' rights groups.

So far, this law in Canada has kept 1,000 guns out of the hands of people who should never have had them; 1,000 applicants have been turned down so far under existing gun control legislation.

Premier, when are you going to finally and effectively stand up for victims in Ontario by supporting a bill they're asking that you adopt and support 100%?

Hon Mr Harris: I suppose I would have to say that on this day when we are dealing with the tragedy of enormous proportions, all three parties in a non-partisan sense, not only the Liberal leader but Liberal MPP Michael Bryant, who issued a press release, would try and politicize this tragic situation.

Clearly our government recognizes the need to be vigilant about violence against women. We have taken concrete action such as increasing the violence against women prevention budget by over 13%. We've opened six new domestic violence courts, which gives Ontario the largest domestic violence court program in the country.

As for opposition to the federal gun control law, it is worth noting that we have never been against the licensing of guns. If the federal government took the money they're wasting, which is now being acknowledged even by some victims' groups as being a terrible waste, if they would seriously look at effective gun control-and if you're serious, not just cheap partisan politics, I'd welcome to go with you-

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Thank you. New question.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Premier. Premier, Mr Shortliffe put forward a number of recommendations dealing with the area of Ottawa-Carleton. One of those specific recommendations was that that new city be designated bilingual, with the eminently reasonable proviso that bilingualism be available where numbers warrant. There is no mention of that recommendation in your legislation. Can you tell us, Premier, why is it that you have decided that you are not going to proceed with Mr Shortliffe's recommendation to make the new city of Ottawa bilingual where numbers warrant?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): As you know, we are providing bilingual services in the Ottawa-Carleton area, and this bill proposes we continue to do so and then allow the new city something called local autonomy, which you people do not agree with, to resolve in the future how best to do that.

I find it passing strange that a leader of a political party that campaigned on this legislation, said he would do it, said he's in favour of it, when the time comes to show leadership, is actually opposed to the whole principle of the legislation, voted against the introduction of the legislation, exactly as he campaigned to do. All this bluster and all this nonsense can't cover up the fact that you are a weak leader who does not have the courage to follow through on commitments.

Mr McGuinty: Just so the record is perfectly clear, I made a commitment during the campaign to move forward with an Ottawa bill, and I made a campaign commitment to move forward with a Hamilton bill. You have not introduced an Ottawa bill today, and you have not introduced a Hamilton bill today; you've introduced an Ottawa-Hamilton-Toronto-Haldimand-Norfolk-and-Sudbury bill today. That's what you've introduced here today. There is no Ottawa bill and there is no Hamilton bill before this Legislature.

I want to return to the question at hand, Premier, because we believe that we are unveiling a pattern in this House which means there's nobody on that side who's standing up for the rights of francophones in Ontario, including your minister. I'm going to give you another opportunity, Premier. Why is it that you have not proceeded with Mr Shortliffe's recommendation to recognize the unique characteristics of Ottawa-Carleton by ensuring that there is, as part of your legislation, a provision that says that the new city of Ottawa will be deemed to be bilingual where numbers warrant? Why have you not adopted that recommendation?

Hon Mr Harris: No thanks to your vote, a flip-flop from what you campaigned on, we'll have an opportunity to debate this legislation. We will have an opportunity, even after 25 years of discussion, for yet more public hearings, because we on this side of the House are committed to having public hearings on this legislation as well.

Finally, I just want to reiterate that all of this nonsensical blustering cannot cover up the fact that in the Legislature today, the members on this side of the House voted as they told their constituents they would vote, except for the Liberal party, except for those from Hamilton, and except-shame of all shames-the leader of the Liberal Party, who proved what the voters sensed: that he's not up to the job.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Final supplementary.

Interjections.

Mr McGuinty: I see, Speaker, that the seals are in fine form today.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. You may wonder why-

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm probably going to tell you, whether you're wondering or not.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. You may wonder why I don't stop the clock when there's a lot of noise, and I'm going to tell you why. Because I would rather reward good behaviour.

Last supplementary from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr McGuinty: To help jog the Premier's very short memory, I will remind him that the position taken by Mr Skarica, Mr Clark, Mr Baird, Mr Guzzo, Mr Sterling and Mr Coburn had nothing to do with the bill that you have introduced in this House today. We had the guts and we had the decency to put a position on the record prior to and during the course of the election. You deliberately chose to hide your intentions from the Ontario public.

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr McGuinty: You deliberately decided not to reveal to Ontarians, and in particular the four communities affected-you deliberately chose to hide from them exactly what your intentions were. We had the guts to put on the record exactly what we planned to do, when we were going to do it and how we were going to do it.

Interjections.

Mr McGuinty: Just settle down; I'm not done.

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Clearly, what we have today is following, on August 23, the announcement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs that we would support restructuring for Ottawa-Carleton, Hamilton-Wentworth, Haldimand-Norfolk and Sudbury. On August 24, there was a press release that said, "Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty supports the one-city concept for Ottawa." In this press release, "McGuinty pledges the Ontario Liberal Party will facilitate the introduction of single-city legislation as soon as possible."

Clearly, all this bluster today is due to the fact that the leader of the Liberal Party now voted against what he campaigned on and voted against what he said on August 24, which is why the public of this province really did sense you're not up to the job.

FAMILY VIOLENCE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Today we remember the 14 young women who were murdered at the University of Montreal by Marc Lépine. Since that date we've learned something about the background of Marc Lépine. We've learned that he grew up in a very violent home, that he himself was frequently beaten by his father, that he witnessed his mother being beaten by his father. Premier, here in Ontario your government has totally eliminated the funding for counselling services that used to be provided to children who come from violent homes.

My question to you today is this: Will you, in remembrance of those 14 young women who were murdered, restore that funding so that children in Ontario who grow up in violent homes will receive the kind of counselling they need so that this cycle of violence is not repeated?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the question, and the minister may wish to respond. But let me, by way of initial response, indicate that we have increased funding to deal with violence against women; we've increased it in all categories. Since the release of the government's Agenda for Action, more than 40 new initiatives in the area of safety, justice and prevention have helped meet the needs of abused and assaulted women in Ontario, and our initiatives were based on the recommendations that were made by a panel on violence against women in Canada.

You may disagree with specific details of how we spend more money on this challenge. Clearly, nobody has the definitive answer, but we would welcome any meaningful input into assisting our government in what I think is a non-partisan, three-party, unanimous commitment to the province and the citizens of Ontario that we must do more.

Mr Hampton: I'm aware that your government has made some announcements on the law enforcement side. I'm aware that you've made some announcements with respect to crown attorneys. But we're talking here about children, and we're talking about something that everyone knows. It has been found in study after study in western Europe, the United States and Canada that children who grow up in violent homes, children who experience violence themselves or experience violence against their mother, in an overwhelming number of cases, repeat that. It is called the cycle of violence.

I'm talking here about a very specific thing. When you became the government, you cut $2.6 million from second-stage housing, women's crisis centres. That $2.6 million used to provide for counselling services for those children so we could break the cycle of violence.

I'm saying to you, remember those 14 young women who were murdered. Restore the funding so the cycle of violence is not repeated by young children who grow up in violent homes in Fort Frances, or in Ontario. Will you do that, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: We want to do far more than that. I don't think anybody would think $2.5 million would have prevented the tragedy that took place in Montreal, and I think we are recognizing that today. It is not just $2.5 million; we're spending many, many more millions of dollars than that. If you wish specifics, I have three ministers who all want to respond that in all the areas they are investing far more dollars to deal exactly with this challenge that we are faced with.

I would welcome that input. Perhaps if you would like, we'd be happy to chat on areas where we can have an even greater impact in the future.

Mr Hampton: There are organizations which have been trying to give your government this advice. For example, the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses made that information available to your government.

I don't deny that your government has issued a lot of press releases talking about the law enforcement side of this. What we're talking about is breaking the cycle-of-violence side, ensuring that children who grow up in those kinds of homes, who witness their mother being beaten, who are beaten themselves, receive the counselling they need.

The reality is that your government cut the funding for second-stage housing, which is where that counselling happened. That's where those children received that intensive counselling over a period of time.

It's a very simple request, Premier: Will you restore the $2.5 million that you cut and that took away those counselling services? I think that is how we ensure that we break the cycle of violence in Ontario communities, that we put an end to this. Will you do that, Premier? It's a very simple request: $2.5 million in annualized funding to restore second-stage housing and the counselling services that go along with it.

Hon Mr Harris: It's amazing how you think $2.5 million is going to solve this problem. We have increased by 13% this very specific budget to deal with prevention of violence against women, so we are putting more money there. We've dealt with crisis intervention support. We've dealt with justice services. We've dealt with education, prevention.

In 1997 we announced the Agenda for Action, a framework. We've put 27 million new dollars over four years, allocated to support implementation of the strategy. We have put 170 million new dollars into child welfare. We have brought in a new risk assessment system. So you're several hundred million dollars too late to ask for $2.5 million.

But I would say this: We welcome your concern and your input, and if it's more than just politics, I'm sure we can work together to do even more in the future.

MUNICIPAL REFERENDA

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My second question is also to the Premier. Premier, it's about children and it's about counselling for children. I would hope you would sit down with your ministers and look at that.

But I want to ask you now about your government's position with respect to referenda. You have said and several of your ministers have said that you believe in local decision-making, that you believe that citizens should be consulted, that citizens should have a say. But here today, Premier, you intend to dramatically change the government which touches citizens the most, the local government, for over three million people, and we can't find anywhere in this legislation where you're prepared to let them have a say.

Premier, since you say that you philosophically believe in referenda, that you believe in letting people have a say, why won't you let the people of Sudbury, of Hamilton, of Ottawa-Carleton, Haldimand-Norfolk and the city of Toronto have a say about your legislation? Will you do that, Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): As you know, the people have been having their say for the last 25 or 30 years in most of these communities. The process we put in place was 100% local.

We consulted with local people, politicians and citizens alike. The legislation introduced today actually does deal with referenda, something that you very much opposed. I'm surprised you're asking for it today.

Mr Hampton: No, Premier, I'm the one who said you should have a referendum on the restructuring of urban government in the city of Toronto and I very much supported it. I would support allowing people to have a say here before you, in one fell swoop, reorganized the government of three million people. Yes, Premier, there's some language in here about referenda, but it's not a language about letting people have a say; it's language that is going to restrict those municipal governments in the future if they try to deal with your downloading of costs and services on them.

Premier, why is it OK, why do you want to have a referendum, when municipalities have to change taxes or increase taxes to deal with your downloading-

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Question?

Mr Hampton: -but when you cut their services, they can't have a referendum, and when you totally take over their government they can't have a referendum? Why is a referendum OK when it suits your agenda, but when it really involves letting local people have a say in what you're doing, you're opposed to local democracy?

Hon Mr Harris: The question is based upon a premise that we have cut services. We have cut not one single municipal service. In fact, we've facilitated the enhancement of municipal services. I think the record speaks for itself that in two years, non-election years in municipalities, if you look at the pattern, it's generally significant tax increases in non-election years and then in an election year maybe holding the line.

If you look at the municipal tax levy for the past two years, non-election years, you'll find it's the lowest in recent history, certainly in Ontario and probably since the war, and far less than when your government and the Liberal government downloaded on municipalities, causing all those tax increases in the first place. So the premise of the question really does not stand the scrutiny of any objective measures.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is for the Premier. I'm glad to see that you're reading my comments to the media and I don't mind you impugning my intention in the House, but let me also say this, Mr Premier: I'm not going to be afraid to honour the victims of the Montreal massacre, I am not going to be afraid to stand up for victims who support the Firearms Act and I'm certainly not going to be afraid to stand up against the gun lobbyists who are positively in bed with this government today.

Mr Premier, you should talk to the Attorney General, who is taking a very different position in court than you are taking in this House. The Attorney General says nothing about the costs and says everything about the provincial government having responsibility and jurisdiction over this area, so let me give you the opportunity: Are you willing to honour the victims of the Montreal massacre by establishing a provincial gun registry in the event that you are successful in having judges overturn the will of parliament and destroy a national gun control registry that is saving lives as we speak?

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

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I was unaware that the Premier of Saskatchewan was a gun lobbyist, according to the member from St Paul's.

I will say to the member from St Paul's that to say in a press release, as he apparently did today, that the Ontario government is marking the 10th anniversary of the Montreal massacre by challenging the very legislation instigated by the tragic event at Montreal's l'École polytechnique on December 6, is an inappropriate comment, at least, on his part.

I would have thought it beneath the member for St Paul's to relate constitutional litigation that has been on going since 1996 in this country and that is going to be heard next year in the Supreme Court of Canada, with respect to which a number of provinces are involved-to equate that litigation in the Supreme Court of Canada to a tragedy like the Montreal massacre I would think would be beneath the member for St Paul's.

Mr Bryant: Minister, if I had wanted an answer from the Reform Party justice critic, I would have asked him, but I'd like an answer from the Ontario Attorney General on an Ontario question.

You're not going to create a registry because this is a government that puts guns in the hands of 12-year-olds. This is a government that would have 16-year-olds able to purchase a gun without a background check, and that's the way the old regime worked. This is a government that thinks a squeegee is more dangerous than a gun.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the member for Brampton Centre to withdraw that.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I just want it withdrawn or not. I don't want a debate.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I withdraw, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for St Paul's.

Mr Bryant: There have been in this riding in which we sit six murders since the election in June. None of the murders involved a squeegee, I can assure you. All of the murders involved a gun, I can assure you. Yet this government wants to strike down legislation that in fact would take guns out of the hands of spousal abusers and guns out of the hands of criminals. So whose side are you on? Is it the side of the police or is it the side of the gun lobbyists? Just give me an answer, Minister.

My question is this: If you're successful in your constitutional litigation, in place of the national gun registry that you're trying to strike down, will you replace it with a provincial gun registry that will save lives? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Flaherty: It is a shame that the member opposite would use the 10th anniversary of the Montreal massacre as an opportunity to try to convince the people of Ontario into thinking that a bureaucratic response like the federal Firearms Act would actually increase the safety of people in Ontario. Having bureaucrats filling out forms and filing papers does not help to control the illegal use of guns.

Let me make it clear how seriously we take the issue of violence, including domestic violence in Ontario. I don't need lectures from the Liberal benches after listening to the federal justice minister for three days last week refusing to increase sentences in this country, refusing to repeal the discount law, refusing to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit conditional sentences for violent offenders in this country, refusing to repeal

section 745, the faint hope clause in the Criminal Code, and refusing to give us an effective youth justice system so that we can somehow try to combat the serious rise in violent youth crime in this country, which is a serious problem.

ACADEMIC TESTING

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question today is for the Minister of Education. Last week the Toronto District School Board released detailed results of the EQAO testing that was done last year. Every school board across the province participated in these tests, this being the second year that grade 3 tests have been reported and the first year for grade 6 in this province.

This year students were assessed in the areas of reading, writing and mathematics, and I'm proud to say that Manhattan Park Junior Public School in my riding finished second in grade 6 testing among all the schools in Toronto.

Minister, can you tell us why this government has chosen to institute these province-wide standardized tests?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I thank the honourable member from Scarborough Centre for the question, because I know she cares very deeply and has been watching very carefully as the schools in her community have been seeking to produce excellence in their students. As she notes, some of them are doing a very good job.

That is our goal: to have excellence in our education system. One way we do that is by improving the curriculum: what is taught in the schools, what students are expected to learn. This is the first comprehensive change in the curriculum, building grade by grade on what students learn, since Egerton Ryerson set up our public system, and it's a very important improvement. The other day a director of education who has been in the sector for 38 years said it's the most significant quality improvement he had seen in his career.

But that's not the only step. We have the new curriculum, and it's being phased in. We have to make sure we are teaching it well and that the students are learning it, and that's why we have the testing process. The EQAO has been working very hard with teachers to make sure those tests are valid and are measuring what we want to measure. We've been very pleased to see boards like the Toronto board, which have put in place their turnaround plans. We can certainly see the results of that in their tests.

Ms Mushinski: Quite clearly this government is committed to improving the quality of the education system, and the new challenging curriculum, along with the use of standardized testing, will help us reach the goal of excellence in education throughout Ontario, something that Manhattan Park Junior Public School has already achieved. The Toronto District School Board reports that this year's results show there is some improvement over last year.

Minister, what are the next steps for improving the public education system in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Ecker: There's no question that the Toronto board has taken these test results very seriously. An

article in the Toronto Star, for example, talks about new math textbooks, which we helped purchase, lively reading programs and ongoing teacher training appearing to have boosted the grade 3 test scores of Canada's largest, most diverse school board. So it is possible to use the test results to put in turnaround plans to have our children learn better, and that is one board that has certainly taken that to heart. We're going to continue to move forward with the new curriculum, as I mentioned.

We started in grade 9 this year, and it's going to be phased into grade 10 next year and grades 11 and 12 the years after that. We're going to have additional textbook purchases, as we have each year, to make sure we have textbooks that will support the curriculum for teachers. We're going to continue to expand the testing. We did grade 3 and grade 6, and we're going to be expanding to grade 9.

We'll be doing the grade 10 literacy test next year, and we'll also be developing an appropriate teacher testing program that will be evaluating not just knowledge, because we all know that it takes more than simply knowledge to have an excellent teacher, but also skills, training and abilities.

All those steps are designed to improve quality, and we're pleased to see they are working.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question to the Solicitor General has to do with the shooting death of Dudley George at Ipperwash Provincial Park and the destruction of key files in his ministry. The minister will be aware that a senior OPP superintendent was on secondment to his office. He was at all the key meetings involving Ipperwash, the intra-ministerial meetings, and was in constant contact with the police command post. Then he was transferred on April 19, 1996. This was a well-respected officer. He left his files in your office.

Within 24 hours of his leaving, those files were systemically destroyed. The previous Solicitor General said: "...we are concerned about the loss of those files in terms of our ability to retain very important and critical files. I share your concern with respect to that. The current deputy has initiated a review of this situation and a review of the retention policy."

Can you inform the House of the outcome of your investigation, why those files were destroyed, and can you assure the House that no other files were destroyed?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): As the member full well knows, this matter is before the courts. It's extremely inappropriate for any of us to comment on this. This has been consistent throughout and this is the answer today.

Mr Phillips: I go back to the answer the previous Solicitor General gave in the House. He gave an undertaking to the House and to people of Ontario that he would look into the matter. He said at the time that he was very concerned about our ability to retain important and critical files. He said that he would have the deputy minister review this situation and review their retention policy.

You can understand how concerned we are that when the Solicitor General said these were important files, they were systematically destroyed within your ministry within hours of the individual leaving. The government promised to review this.

What I am terribly worried about is that while the government stonewalls on proceeding to commit to an inquiry, files are being systematically destroyed. I want your assurance that you have reviewed this matter personally and can assure the people of Ontario that no other Ipperwash files are being destroyed and that when we finally get an inquiry, these files will not have been destroyed. Can you give us your personal assurance on that?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I've answered the question before. The question asked was about a matter before the courts, and the member knows it's clearly inappropriate to comment before this matter because it is before the courts.

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. We continually hear concerns right across the province and the country about keeping our economy competitive. Despite the federal Liberals' own statistics, the Prime Minister continues to claim that Canada is not suffering from a brain drain to the United States.

My riding of London-Fanshawe has a very well educated workforce whose skills are in high demand in a competitive, global economy. These people want to stay in London, and they need to stay in Ontario so that our economy can prosper and we can therefore have the health care and education we need.

I know that other provinces are calling on the Prime Minister to initiate training programs and cut taxes. But time is passing, and we can't afford to wait any longer. Minister, if the federal Liberals will not do anything, what will you do to keep Ontario's economy prosperous?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I thank the member for London-Fanshawe for the question. There is no question that cutting taxes is essential to creating a competitive, positive economic environment. Our government has recognized that fact, and we have cut taxes 69 times, with 30 proposed tax cuts. But equally important to creating a competitive business climate is being able to supply a skilled workforce, which is why we announced the strategic skills investment in our 1999 budget, a multi-year, $100-million program.

The strategic skills investment has created a partnership opportunity with the public sector to help increase the responsiveness of Ontario's training institutions to business needs. Investors want a qualified workforce, and these programs will enable us to supply highly trained people who can do the job and help Ontario open for business.

While we are doing our part to keep our economy strong, I would like to encourage my colleagues across the way to talk to their federal cousins in Ottawa to stop talking about tax cuts and start implementing tax cuts.

Mr Mazzilli: Minister, I know you were in southwestern Ontario recently, at the St Thomas campus of Fanshawe College, to officially announce the strategic skills investment for millwrights and tool-and-die makers. The funding from this program will assist Fanshawe in acquiring new equipment to expand and renovate facilities and provide computer training aids. The total value of the project is $1.6 million, a truly worthwhile investment in the future of Ontario.

I have recently heard that there is a call for another proposal of the strategic skills investment. Could you advise us of that proposal, Minister?

Hon Mr Palladini: We're very proud of this program. The latest call for proposals invites industry and its education and community partners to join with the government of Ontario in creating new ways and new opportunities for people to learn the skills that businesses need to keep Ontario competitive.

While project selection will continue to be on a competitive basis, the proposal must come from a partnership among industry stakeholders, public and private educators and trainers or community organizations. The eligibility criteria include increasing the supply of people with strategic skills so as to meet the demands of new technologies, ensuring benefits go beyond one firm and develop a wide range of skills, and demonstrating the capacity to make Ontario's businesses more effective and more competitive.

The program at Fanshawe College is a terrific example of what can be achieved when the private and public sectors get together. I encourage all individuals from across Ontario to apply by the deadline of Tuesday, February 1, 2000.

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology.

As of December 2, the US Department of Energy has permission to transport a shipment of weapons-grade plutonium in the form of MOX fuel from Los Alamos, New Mexico, to Ontario. We learned today that the material will probably travel in special trucks called SSTs, which are designed to carry nuclear bombs. The special couriers who drive these trucks call themselves "road warriors," and they travel in convoys of up to 23 special agents, all armed with M-16 rifles and 12-gauge shotguns.

The road warriors, we know, have the authority in the United States to use deadly force to deal with any potential risk with respect to this shipment. We also know that as of this morning, a spokesperson for the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd is quoted as saying that discussions are underway that may allow these road warriors to accompany the test shipment as it travels from the Soo to Chalk River.

I think this is outrageous and I think it's unacceptable to the majority of Ontarians. Will your Premier contact the Prime Minister today and say that no test shipment of weapons-grade plutonium will ever cross the province of Ontario?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): Mr Speaker, I refer that question to the Minister of Transportation.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): This is an issue that is of extreme concern to the people of Ontario. My ministry has contacted the federal government, who are responsible for the transportation of all dangerous goods in Canada. Regulation under the federal Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and regulations thereof are the ones which we refer to.

In the US, it is quite apparent that very extreme safety precautions are being applied to this shipment, and we expect the federal government in Canada to apply no lesser standard in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Supplementary.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Minister, if this is playing out like a bad movie, trust me, it is. Imagine a community of men and women and children, unarmed, confronting these trucks called SSTs with 23 special agents armed with M-16s and 12-gauge shotguns.

I was at a meeting about two months ago with the band council of Garden River, and a woman at that meeting said to me, "Tony, you go back and tell the mayor of Sault Ste Marie that if he lets this stuff come across the bridge into our community, he'd better have someplace to store it." These people are serious about stopping this stuff.

Will you end the possibility of this terrible confrontation today by phoning the Prime Minister and telling him: "No. This is off. It won't happen. It isn't going to happen"?

Hon Mr Turnbull: I would suggest that we're extremely concerned about it, but this is a federal matter. The federal government is the body which has agreed to accept this shipment, and indeed they are the regulators of all dangerous goods travelling on the highways.

We have communicated our concerns and we expect the federal government to adhere to this, and indeed I think it is appropriate that we have proper security as this passes through Ontario.

TEXTBOOKS

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My question is for the Minister of Education. Recently I attended a parent-teacher interview for my daughter who attends elementary school. During this interview, my daughter's teacher indicated that he has only one math textbook for the 25 students in his class.

You can imagine the difficulties this causes? Homework assignments must be photocopied, and students who need extra assistance and students who may be able to work ahead only have access to work that has been copied. It is very difficult for teachers to balance the individual needs of all their students when they don't have textbooks.

Minister, you have stated that the government has spent $323 million on textbooks, and so you should have. You have introduced new curriculum in every grade from kindergarten to grade 9 in every subject area. Students are being tested on this new curriculum and the results will be published in the newspaper. Yet these students still do not have all the textbooks they need to succeed. What are you prepared to do to guarantee that students in Ontario will have the textbooks they need to meet the expectations of the new curriculum?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): One of the reasons we put more money into textbooks is because what we've seen over the previous many years was that while education property taxes had gone through the roof, some 120% in terms of increases, front-line teachers were certainly not seeing that in their classrooms. They didn't even have one textbook to photocopy in many schools. It was an absolutely abysmal picture. That's why, in changing the way we financially support education, we have specific allocations for textbooks.

Actually $323 million was just a specific textbook grant on top of $163 million for textbooks that's in the basic funding for the boards, plus another $30 million that was put out there for special funding for textbooks. There's been something like $516 million put out just for learning materials in the classroom. I'm very pleased to say that there are literally thousands, if not millions, of new textbooks out in this province that were not there when they were in government.

Do we need to do more? Do we need to have more textbooks? Absolutely. We are committed to continuing our funding to make sure that those new supports are there for teachers.

Mrs Dombrowsky: Your government has provided every student in the province, 2.2 million students in Ontario, with a copy of My Ontario Millennium Memento. This book is lovely. This question does not discredit the students who submitted work. In fact I commend every student who participated in the project. My issue is that this government can find the resources to print and distribute 2.2 million books that just happen to have the Premier's photograph on the front page, but it does not provide the students of this province with the textbooks they need to succeed in the classroom.

My local school board has spent its allocation for textbooks. So have many others in the province. Still there are classrooms without textbooks in core subject areas: in mathematics, in science, in language arts. Minister, will you tell me when students in Ontario will have the textbooks they need to meet the expectations of your new curriculum?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, actually I have noticed many of the materials that her party leader and caucus have sent out over the last couple of years have had pictures of her leader on them. I've never criticized her for that. I certainly haven't criticized him for doing that.

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I've obviously hit a nerve over there.

Secondly, one of the things that teachers said we needed to do was to showcase the good things that are happening in our education system. This particular book, which has the work of students, which was juried, if you will, by parents and teachers, is a selection of excellence in our education system. I think it's worth sending that out.

I would also like to remind the honourable member that we gave $516 million to textbooks in this province. It is the most that has ever gone in a single grant out there for textbooks in this province. Unfortunately, not all the boards spent it on textbooks. That's their choice. They're elected trustees. But some of them spent it on other things, not on textbooks.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was just hoping that the Hansard could reflect the withdrawal of the comment by the Minister of Energy in regard to the staff person at the school board in the question that was just asked by our member.

The Deputy Speaker: As you know, the rules don't allow either the Speaker or someone else to correct any records.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Solicitor General. Minister, as you are aware, today marks the 10th anniversary of the Montreal massacre, when 14 young women were gunned down. This indeed was devastating to family, friends and also to classmates. I was pleased to hear this morning on the news that a memorial has been erected in recognition of those 14 women.

Minister, Cathy and I have three daughters, Darcy, Laurel and Alana, three young women who are approximately the same age as the women who were gunned down. They were in university at that time, and I can tell you, Cathy and I are very concerned about their safety.

Minister, could you tell the House about some of the initiatives your ministry has taken to combat violence against women, particularly my daughters?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): Today, as the 10th anniversary of the Montreal massacre, it's very important for all of us to express ourselves very firmly against violence against women. We are committed to making sure we are all safe in our communities, but if I might speak for a minute about domestic violence, domestic assault is a very serious crime. It seems to insinuate itself into the areas where we should feel the safest, and that's our homes. We've taken a lot of leadership in many areas, including a partnership with Crime Stoppers and adequacy standards and integrated justice.

I might speak just quickly about a situation, the May-Iles inquest, that took place about year ago, another tragic situation. Out of that there were about 213 recommendations. I must say that almost all of them have been implemented now. I just point out a couple of them that were relevant, such as pilot testing of SupportLink, which is a pre-programmed 911 cellular phone program for victims of domestic violence; also, the development of a draft model on police response to domestic violence based on the best practices from jurisdictions across North America.

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a rather lengthy petition. I'll read it in part.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the effluent coming from the Commercial Alcohol ethanol plant is creating a noxious smell in the former city of Chatham in the municipality of Chatham-Kent Essex, which has a nauseating impact on citizens who breathe it in; and

"Whereas the citizens of Chatham have repeatedly brought this problem to the attention of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the former MPP for Chatham-Kent; and

"Whereas the former MPP for Chatham-Kent and the Ministry of the Environment indicated that Commercial Alcohols was given an eight-month period to correct the problem, which time elapsed on July 1999, and the problem has not been remedied;

"Therefore

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

"That the measures contained in regulation 346 of the Environmental Protection Act be immediately enforced on Commercial Alcohols Inc to ensure that the citizens of Chatham and surrounding area have fresh air to breathe, free from the noxious odours that are spewed by the ethanol plant located on Bloomfield Road, in the westerly outskirts of the former city of Chatham in the municipality of Chatham-Kent."

KARLA HOMOLKA

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I am pleased to continue the petition presented to this House on behalf of people in my community of Scarborough Centre.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

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

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

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

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

I add my signature to this petition.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): It being 4 o'clock, pursuant to standing order 30(d), it is now time for orders of the day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG-TERM CARE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DE LA SANTÉ ET DES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 2, 1999, on the motion for second reading of Bill 23,

An Act to amend certain statutes administered by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care in relation to supporting and managing the health care system / Projet de loi 23, Loi modifiant certaines lois dont l'application relève du ministère de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée en ce qui concerne le soutien et la gestion du système de soins de santé.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I am pleased to continue with the debate. Mr Speaker, as you leave the chair, may I clarify with the Clerk's table whether in fact I have 23 minutes left on the clock in the leadoff hour speech? I'm getting a nod which suggests I do have 23 minutes, which comes as a pleasure to me because I had been informed I only had 12 minutes left to speak.

I do appreciate the opportunity to continue the debate which I began last Thursday afternoon on Bill 23 and to look again at the primary purpose of this bill, which is to basically extend the powers to carry out the directives of the hospital restructuring commission, powers which at one point were vested in the hospital restructuring commission through regulation but were taken back by the Minister of Health in April 1999.

So although the hospital restructuring commission was given powers that essentially had the force of law to direct hospital boards to close, to amalgamate and to carry out other directives that the hospital commission saw as being appropriate, those powers of the hospital restructuring commission were subsequently taken back by the Minister of Health. So what we have now is a situation in which the Minister of Health holds the powers that were given to her under Bill 26, the infamous bully bill that I spent some time discussing last Thursday afternoon.

The bill that's before us essentially effects directives that in turn affect 119 hospitals in some 22 communities. I want to make it quite clear that that's the focus of the bill, to extend the powers to the year 2005; not to give the minister the power to go in and close and amalgamate hospitals that have not yet been affected by the directives of the hospital restructuring commission, but to complete the work of the hospital restructuring commission.

I have some very real concerns about the intent of this government, should at some point in the future it decide that it wants to extend that power to close or amalgamate hospitals beyond the year 2005 or in fact to extend it to an ability to carry out a sweeping further restructuring of Ontario's hospital system. We've seen with how little notice, how little public debate and how little public consultation this government can bring about the kind of sweeping change which the hospital restructuring commission's work has attempted to bring into effect.

I addressed last Thursday some of the confusion that now exists in the delivery of hospital services, confusion that has been created by the sweeping nature of the changes that were proposed by the hospital restructuring commission and indeed by the sheer mistakes-there is no other term for it-that were made by the hospital restructuring commission.

One of the mistakes was made quite clear by the auditor in his last report, in which he identifies-actually, I should correct that, because it's the Ministry of Health, which to this point has identified the fact that carrying out the recommendations of the hospital restructuring commission, for capital costs alone, will be some $3.9 billion. The hospital restructuring commission said that those costs would actually be $1.8 billion, a fairly significant mistake on the capital costs alone.

My colleague the member for Renfrew I know will want to speak about the local portion of the capital cost of carrying out the directives of the hospital restructuring commission, because of course one of the ironic things about these directives that are being given to hospital boards is that they are to close down their operations, to amalgamate their operations, to make changes that they may not feel are in the best interests of the delivery of health care in their communities, and for the privilege of carrying out those orders from the hospital restructuring commission or, as the case is now, from the Minister of Health herself, their local community has to raise 30% of the cost.

Since the hospital restructuring commission seriously underestimated the capital costs of carrying out their orders, not only does the government's share go up significantly, but the local cost expected from local communities also goes up significantly. That's a $2.1-billion mistake on capital costs alone, and that's just the mistakes the Ministry of Health has found to this point in time.

They were details that you'd think a commission that had been given time, if they had been given time, to carry out a massive restructuring of our hospital system would not have made. They were details like the actual renovation costs when they recommended closure of one hospital and renovations in the hospital that was to accept the services. They simply failed to understand what the actual cost of renovation would be. They failed to understand that if you're going to close down programs in one space and relocate them to another space, you've got to provide space for the programs to be relocated. They missed that fairly obvious fact.

They missed things like the importance of upgrading heating and air-conditioning systems in the hospitals that are to be renovated in order to take over the services of the hospitals that are being closed. These kinds of mistakes perhaps would not have been made if a commission had actually been given the time and, maybe I would add, the mandate to look at a reasonable restructuring of Ontario's hospital system.

There are significant concerns, and I touched on these last Thursday, about the kind of hospital system that will be left if the directives of the hospital restructuring commission are carried out, whether there are going to be enough acute care beds left in the hospitals across the province to meet patients' needs.

We already know that the auditor has said that the funding formula for hospitals does not respond to demand, so how could it be that the hospital commission would somehow have some magic formula-and we know it was an arbitrary application of formula that brought about its recommendations-that would determine how many beds would be necessary in order to meet needs? We know that they simply looked at the most efficient hospitals in terms of patient-days per thousand population and didn't look at community needs.

I would suggest that the concerns about whether or not our system is going to have enough beds to meet needs in the future if the hospital commission's directives are carried out are very legitimate concerns. We know that our emergency rooms are still clogged up. We know stories of 35 people lying on stretchers in emergency room hallways. Why? Because our hospitals don't have enough beds to admit the people who are in the emergency department and need to be admitted.

We know that the answer of the commission was to say, "Well, that's because there are chronic care patients in acute care beds, and that's not very efficient, so let's get the chronic care patients out." That's what I was raising last Thursday.

The confusion that I have is with a commission that says we're going to free up acute care beds by moving chronic care patients out and then goes and shuts down 3,500 chronic care beds. So there are significant questions about what our long-term-care system is going to look like if the hospital restructuring commission's directions are carried out.

The questions I'm hearing are concerns about whether or not chronic care hospitals are actually going to be able to accommodate the acute care patients coming out of our acute care hospitals; questions about whether or not there's going to be room for the chronic care patients who are going to be displaced from the chronic care hospitals that are to be closed, because remember, we not only have 3,500 chronic care beds closing, but we have these chronic care patients in acute care hospitals who are going to be displaced and put into chronic care hospitals.

So the question is, is there going to be enough room in our long-term-care facilities to take the chronic care patients who are going to be dislocated from the chronic care hospitals that are to be closed and are to take patients now in acute care hospitals?

There are questions about whether waiting lists for long-term-care facility beds are going to be even longer, and there are very serious questions about whether our community care access centres, our community care services, are going to be able to meet the demands placed on them as more and more patients are discharged earlier and earlier from our acute care hospitals and as more and more of our long-term-care patients, individual seniors needing long-term care, are expected to be cared for in a home care setting.

There is also very real concern about whether chronic care patients who are now to be redefined as long-term-care patients are going to be funded at a level adequate to respond to their needs. I think of just one example, Riverdale Hospital here in Toronto, one of the chronic care hospitals ordered to be closed. They did what the hospital restructuring commission refused to do: They had an assessment done of the needs of the individuals who are now being cared for in Riverdale Hospital.

They had the assessment done by the community care access centre that would indeed be responsible for providing for these patients in either a long-term-care facility or in the community, and that community care access assessment said that 92% of the people now resident in the chronic care facility of Riverdale Hospital needed chronic care support, not long-term-care support.

There are some huge questions that I trust the Minister of Health is dealing with about whether or not there are going to be enough funding resources to adequately care for the chronic care patients now being redefined because of the approach and the recommendations of the hospital restructuring commission as long-term-care patients.

I want to make it very clear, as I conclude my contribution to this debate, that there's no question in my mind that the mess of hospital restructuring is going to have to be sorted out and that the Ministry of Health has had a great deal of work to do and will have a great deal of work to do in the future to deal with the mistakes that were made by the hospital restructuring commission. It's a fact that very little of the work that was recommended to be done by the hospital restructuring commission has actually been completed.

My understanding is that only some four of the 29 hospitals that are actually to be closed have indeed been closed. If I just look at the auditor's report, he tells us that only 30 of 81 projects had actually received approval to go ahead as of April 1999.

I want to be absolutely clear that I respect the fact that the reason those recommendations have not gone forward more quickly is because they are not necessarily the right recommendations, and they certainly have not been costed adequately. So I think it is important that the Ministry of Health take time to revisit the recommendations and the directives of the hospital restructuring commission.

That brings me specifically to whether Bill 23 provides the Ministry of Health and is necessary to provide the Ministry of Health with that kind of time. I thought it was amazingly-I guess "disingenuous" would be the word to describe the Ministry of Health's press release in announcing Bill 23 and the support that has been offered by various hospital administrators. The thing that I find quite amazing-not surprising, but disingenuous-is the fact that the hospital administrators who are quoted as supportive of this bill are administering hospitals that are the beneficiaries of the work of the hospital restructuring commission.

I don't see any listing here of the hospitals that are to be closed as a result of this. I certainly don't think anybody went out to communities like Port Hope, for example, and asked either the citizens or the hospital board in Port Hope whether they believe that the Minister of Health should have her powers to go in and close their hospital extended until the year 2005 so that she could carry out the very arbitrary directives of the hospital restructuring commission.

I don't see any recommendations here from the Sudbury Memorial Hospital supporting the legislation or from Pembroke Civic or Wellesley or Women's College. I don't see Humber River Regional; Riverdale; Runnymede; Riverside; Salvation Army Grace in Essex; St Joseph's Chatham and Kent, because we certainly know that St Joseph's Chatham and Kent has some very real concerns about the recommendations; Whitby General; Peterborough's St Joseph's, none of these were asked whether or not they believe the Minister of Health's power to close their hospitals should be extended until the year 2005.

Let me acknowledge that there is support from the Ontario Hospital Association for Bill 23. The support that the OHA offered was conditional. It was conditional first of all on an assurance that this legislation would only affect the 22 communities that had received orders from the hospital restructuring commission. Again, I think this is somewhat disingenuous on the part of the Ontario Hospital Association, because they also said they wanted an assurance that there would be a full public review before the year 2005 of the impact of these recommendations and before any further extension of power would be granted.

I hope the OHA was fully aware of the fact that literally with a stroke of a legislative pen, this minister and this government can not only extend their powers to unilaterally close or amalgamate hospitals, or to micromanage hospitals, but they can extend it to as many communities as have not yet felt the effect of the closure recommendations.

The Ontario Hospital Association is supportive of the legislation, they say, because it gives the minister the flexibility to change the recommendations of the hospital restructuring commission. I don't believe this legislation provides any flexi