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

October 7, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Oct-07 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 7 October 2002 Lundi 7 octobre 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES

ONTARIO AGRICULTURE WEEK

ROCKTON WORLD'S FAIR

DIAMOND MINE

ST VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY

HYDRO RATES

KYOTO PROTOCOL

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

GREATER NIAGARA GENERAL HOSPITAL LADIES' AUXILIARY

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COLLISION REPAIR

STANDARDS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES NORMES DE RÉPARATION

EN CAS DE COLLISION

AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES EMPLOYÉS AGRICOLES

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (SIMCOE DAY), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

(FÊTE DE SIMCOE)

VISITORS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

ORAL QUESTIONS

SLOT MACHINES

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

HYDRO RATES

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

HIGHWAY 6

SCHOOL SAFETY

FEDERAL TAXATION

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES

WORKPLACE SAFETY

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

CHILD CARE CENTRE

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

SERVICES DE SANTÉ POUR ENFANTS

CHILD CARE

NATURAL GAS RATES

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

NATURAL GAS RATES

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUSTAINABLE WATER AND

SEWAGE SYSTEMS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA DURABILITÉ

DES RÉSEAUX D'EAU ET D'ÉGOUTS

Monday 7 October 2002 Lundi 7 octobre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): How ironic it is that today we celebrate Fire Prevention Week and on Friday a coroner's jury recommended that the

city of greater Sudbury hire more full-time firefighters. So today, on behalf of the people I represent, on behalf of the constituents of the city of greater Sudbury, I ask the province to make a

funding commitment earmarked to improve fire services in my great city.

There is absolutely no question that the inevitable consequence of downloading on to municipalities is the reduction of services. Tragically, in Sudbury there

wasn't only a reduction of services because of amalgamation, there was also a loss of life. Clearly, three people lost their lives because this government didn't live up to its responsibilities.

You shortchanged our municipality to the tune of $10 million in amalgamation.

To hire the 18 firefighters we need to provide for safe communities is going to cost us $1 million. We want you to live up to your responsibility, as the people

who didn't provide sufficient resources for amalgamation, to come forward and give my municipality $1 million so that we can hire the 18 firefighters that are so badly needed in my community.

There is only one response from you, and that is, "Yes, we'll do it today."

ONTARIO AGRICULTURE WEEK

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to remind my fellow members that this is the fifth annual Ontario Agriculture Week and to invite

them to join with me in celebrating Ontario's farmers.

I introduced the Ontario Agriculture Week Act as a private member's bill in 1998 to raise awareness of this industry upon which we all rely. Not only do we rely

on Ontario farmers for safe, high-quality food, but as the second-largest industry in Ontario, our economy also relies heavily on agriculture. There are 67,000 farms in Ontario, which employ

650,000 Ontarians and contribute more than $30 billion to Ontario's economy.

At this time, I'd like to draw the attention of this House to a number of visitors in the galleries. These visitors represent many agricultural commodity groups

in our province and together form the Labour Issues Coordinating Committee, known as LICC for short. LICC came together 10 years ago to represent agriculture on labour-related issues.

Tomorrow I will be hosting an agriculture week breakfast, to which I have invited all MPPs and many agricultural leaders. Whether my fellow members can make the

breakfast or not, I hope they will think of Ontario's hard-working farmers as they sit down to their meals this week, and I hope all members of this House will take the time to thank a farmer for

the hard work they do.

ROCKTON WORLD'S FAIR

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): As the elected representative of the wonderful riding of

Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, I rise with a great sense of pride to acknowledge and celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Rockton World's Fair. Conceived in 1852 by the Beverley

Agricultural Society as a one-day fair, the Rockton World's Fair now welcomes, over a four-day period, some 75,000 visitors each Thanksgiving weekend.

A very special event, the Rockton World's Fair combines agriculture, education and entertainment in a number of delightful ways. This year's theme, "Rooted in

Agriculture ... Growing with the Community," speaks well to the dedication of the Rockton Agricultural Society and the hundreds of volunteers who each year help to ensure its success.

The Rockton fair brings a considerable boost to the local economy. This Thanksgiving weekend, even as we celebrate our fertile history of rural living and

abundant farming, visitors to the fair will have the opportunity to feast on homemade pies, purchase handmade crafts and enjoy the many livestock competitions.

I call on all members of this assembly to join with me today in giving thanks for 150 wonderful years of caring and sharing; 150 years that mark with distinction

and forever the Rockton World's Fair.

DIAMOND MINE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Members would know that a couple of weeks ago I rose and asked a question of the Deputy Premier in regard

to the negotiations between De Beers and Atawapiskat. Members would know, as the public does, that De Beers has pulled away from the table to negotiate an agreement that would see a winter

exploration project go ahead in the community of Atawapiskat, in what would be the first diamond mine in the province of Ontario.

I asked the minister at that time to assist by making sure the province gets involved in this particular issue and to work with the community in order to assist

the community to better prepare themselves for negotiations with De Beers.

Up to that point the government, quite frankly, had been nowhere to be seen when it came to dealing with the De Beers issue. In fact the community was quite

frustrated that the province, which is responsible for natural resources issues in Ontario, was nowhere to be seen when it came to the difficulties they were having trying to negotiate an agreement

with De Beers.

I am pleased to report to the House that indeed the government did listen to my suggestion, and for that I thank them. I note in conversations this morning with

ministry staff in Timmins that they were on their way up to Atawapiskat this morning to work with the community to assist them in those negotiations, to advise them about the regulatory process --

the permitting process -- and to assist the community in whatever ways possible.

This is an important project, not only for Atawapiskat and the people there, but also for the mining community of Ontario. Let's hope these efforts will see

renewed negotiations between De Beers and Atawapiskat.

ST VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to congratulate the St Vincent de Paul Society on the launching of an innovative new project

to serve Ontario's rural and remote communities. Through its mobile store program, the St Vincent de Paul Society will be able to better help those in need.

I am pleased to say the project was launched last month in my riding of Durham. The Bowmanville conference unveiled the first large commercial truck trailer that

will be retrofitted with a range of storage for food, clothing and household items. The objective is to eventually have a fleet of 25 mobile stores on the road.

I'd like to personally congratulate Nick Volk, provincial president of the St Vincent de Paul Society, and Mr Bob Burke, president of the St Joseph's Council of

the society, on their new initiatives announced in Bowmanville. I would also like to recognize Norm Mackie of Mackie Van Lines for donating the trailer.

Fifteen students from St Stephen's Secondary School did an excellent job of repainting the trailer with St Vincent de Paul's new logo and colours. In fact a new

St. Vincent de Paul Society conference is being organized at St Stephen's high school with the support of two teachers, Lou Pouwels and Deacon Gilbert Doddatto.

The Most Reverend Bishop James Doyle was present for the launching and blessing of the rural mobile store. On September 28, St Vincent de Paul also opened its

new value store in Bowmanville. This bright and clean shop will be and important addition to the services the local conference provides in Clarington.

This is one more way local volunteers are committed to helping their neighbours both locally and provincially. I express my support and thanks to all the

volunteers in my riding who give of their time and faith to improve the lives others.

HYDRO RATES

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): National Family Week begins today, and on behalf of Ontario families and the families on Hamilton

Mountain I have been asked to tell you that they are struggling. Families are shocked as they open unbelievable hydro charges. These are hard-working men and women, seniors and individuals trying

to make it on fixed incomes. One constituent writes:

"My hydro bill is double my highest-ever hydro bill. My youngest child has asthma. His doctor has told us to keep the air conditioning on during smog and humidex

alerts; otherwise he will need to be admitted to the hospital."

Antonietta and Richard are currently living on sick benefits. Their hydro bill went from $321 to $644. They likened it to buying an appliance every other month.

This is impossible, they say.

Paul suffers from emphysema, congestive heart failure and pulmonary fibrosis. He too requires air conditioning for health reasons. Paul receives ODSP. He

believes he can no longer afford his home. He actually wonders if he can afford to rent.

Norma is an epileptic. She lives with her adult daughter who is physically and mentally challenged. Both need air conditioning for their epilepsy. Their bill has

doubled.

Don's hydro increased by 67%. As a middle-income earner, he feels he's being strangled by the government.

Tanya, her husband and three children have lived in their home for five years. Their bill jumped from $200 to $900. "It's way too much," Tanya writes. She will

be forced to go back to renting.

There are many more. I demand that the Premier intervene on behalf of Ontario families and protect them from these unjustified increases. I ask him at the very

least to immediately issue the consumer rebates.

KYOTO PROTOCOL

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I rise today to respond to Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal plan to support the

implementation of the Kyoto accord.

The Liberals stated that they wished to debate Kyoto. First of all, the Liberals and Dalton McGuinty claim that the Kyoto accord will reduce smog in Ontario.

Like most Liberal facts, this is completely wrong. Kyoto will do nothing to reduce the number of smog days in Ontario. To say it will is simply inaccurate.

Kyoto is concerned primarily with climate change, not smog. The accord deals with carbon dioxide and is not part of the conventional provincial air quality

regulations. To presume Kyoto will reduce smog in Ontario is incorrect.

To truly reduce smog in Ontario, the federal Liberal government must force the Americans to significantly reduce their smog outputs, which account for 90% of the

pollutants in our air. Without a doubt, America is the prime polluter of Ontario's air. The Liberals know it and still refuse to act.

Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals claim that Kyoto will serve our province well. The facts speak for themselves. Many people agree that Kyoto will kill jobs in

Ontario and Canada. Some estimate that it will send over 100,000 Ontario jobs to Mexico and the USA. Kyoto will also cause our hydro bills to dramatically increase, and it will force our gasoline

prices to over $1 per litre.

On Kyoto, on reducing smog, on killing jobs, Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals are quite simply wrong, wrong, wrong.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Ontario Liberals are saddened and ashamed of this government and its ministers' abuse of power and

privilege. They talk a good line about accountability, yet their actions speak to an arrogance and misuse of taxpayers' dollars that show a blatant disregard for accountability and ethical

conduct.

First, there is the fact that under the Harris-Eves cabinet office expenses have increased by 119%. Then we have the incidents with ministers, their staffs' bar

tabs and inappropriate expenses adding up to tens of thousands of dollars. The Harris-Eves government knowingly accepted this type of conduct until they were caught.

What makes this even more reprehensible is the fact that in my riding adult disabled children who can no longer be taken care of by aging parents have literally

been abandoned at the steps of Community Living. Community Living has told me that they do not have the funds to take care of these most vulnerable people.

The scandal of abuse of ministerial expenses discredits all of us as members in this House, and the huge 119% increase in costs of cabinet office is proof that

the Harris-Eves government has no limits when it comes to the public purse. The actions of cabinet members show that there is a terrible double standard in fiscal accountability in this

government.

GREATER NIAGARA GENERAL HOSPITAL LADIES' AUXILIARY

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It is a great pleasure today to rise in the House to congratulate the Greater Niagara General Hospital ladies'

auxiliary, for this year they are celebrating their 75th anniversary of service to our community.

The Ladies in Pink, as they are affectionately known, recently had a dinner to celebrate their anniversary. Thirty-nine-year member Peggy Johnston gave a brief

history of the organization. Starting in 1927, they originally worked out of the Jepson Street Hospital. In those early years, they raised about $400 annually, with which they bought hospital

equipment such as baby bassinets, stretchers and wheelchairs.

These ladies have become the hospital foundation's best friends, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for a mammography unit, a gamma camera and an

ultrasound sector scanner. Later, they contributed $250,000 to the CAT scan campaign, much to the delight of then chairman, Peter Maves -- around the same time that my mom, Paula Maves, who had a

25-year career with the auxiliary, was president of the auxiliary.

But to me and the thousands of Niagara citizens who have spent time in the hospital over the years, I believe their

greatest contributions have been and continue to be the comfort they have offered to patients. I remember being a lonely, scared kid in the hospital. It was very comforting to look up and see the

warm, friendly face of one of the ladies coming into my room, pushing the library cart, stopping to offer a book and some friendly conversation; seeing the ladies in the hall working with

candystripers, a program they ran for many years, or being greeted at the hospital gift shop always gave one a warm feeling.

Thanks to all the ladies for their many contributions to the hospital over the years, but mostly thanks for all the comfort they have provided to all the

patients of GNGH over 75 years. This is their greatest legacy.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin, we have with us today in the Speaker's gallery His Excellency Daniel Leroy, the Belgian

ambassador to Canada, and his wife; and Mr Frank Carruet, the Belgian Consul General in Toronto.

Please join me in welcoming our honoured guests.

Also in the Speaker's gallery today we have a delegation from Portugal led by Mr Laurentino Esteves, who is a member of the Portuguese Parliament.

Please join me in welcoming those honoured guests as well.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Given the two different positions from the government we've heard on

Kyoto, I seek unanimous consent to have an emergency debate on the Kyoto accord this evening.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COLLISION REPAIR

STANDARDS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES NORMES DE RÉPARATION

EN CAS DE COLLISION

Mr Sampson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 186,

An Act to further highway safety and establish consumer protection through the regulation of the collision repair industry, and to make a complementary

amendment to the Insurance Act / Projet de loi 186, Loi visant à améliorer la sécurité sur les voies publiques et à protéger les consommateurs en réglementant le

secteur de la réparation en cas de collision et à apporter une modification complémentaire à la

Loi sur les assurances.

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

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): The House has actually seen this bill before, sponsored by another member of this House who has now been

elevated to cabinet. He and I actually worked very aggressively on the beginning of this bill and right through to this introduction now. It empowers the minister to establish a regulatory

framework for the collision repair industry, including the certification and decertification of repair shops. It establishes a collision repair advisory board to perform an advisory function

concerning the insurance industry to provide better protection for consumers. I know the member opposite will support that when the time comes this Thursday.

AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES EMPLOYÉS AGRICOLES

Mrs Johns moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 187,

An Act to protect the rights of agricultural employees / Projet de loi 187, Loi visant à protéger les droits des employés

agricoles.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

The Speaker: Would the members kindly take their seats.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Churley, Marilyn

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 42; the nays are 8.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The government is writing legislation now with respect to privacy

information which we have been briefed on by consumer groups that stakeholders outside have not been privy to.

With respect to this bill, it was received on our desks literally as the minister rose, which is normally the process. We voted against the NDP's original

legislation in 1994. We voted with the government and we likely will in this case, but the fact is that we've discussed this issue about having legislation we have not been made privy to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member will know it's the standard practice for first reading. Members can vote for it and then I guess the most

important one, how they vote is the final, third reading. We don't need any play-by-play.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think that's probably why, by

tradition in this House, first readings are always voted in favour of by all parties, just to avoid that kind of conflict.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to express this party's gratitude to the minister who sponsored this

bill for ensuring that I got a copy of the bill and the compendium at the same time that the other opposition party did, in time to read the compendium and enough sections of the bill, including

the clear references to mere association, to enable us to vote against it. I appreciate it.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture just introduced a bill on employment protection. I'm

wondering: you recorded the number of yeas and nays, but did you record that no Liberal voted for this bill? They abstained. I think that should be recorded.

The Speaker: I think the member knows full well how we record votes, ayes and nays.

The minister for a short statement.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'm going to defer until ministers' statements because I'm so shocked that the Liberals

voted against this. I can't believe it.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (SIMCOE DAY), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

(FÊTE DE SIMCOE)

Mr Gilchrist moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 188,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act, 2001 to name Civic Holiday as Simcoe Day / Projet de loi 188, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur les

municipalités en vue de désigner le Congé civique sous le nom de fête de Simcoe.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): This bill is an exact copy of the bill I introduced in the 36th Parliament. It seeks to add some

British history flavour to the recognition of civic holiday, a name that's fairly innocuous. Many of us in this chamber believed in the 36th Parliament that it was appropriate in those

municipalities that recognized a civic holiday in August that they refer to it by the name Simcoe Day in recognition of John Graves Simcoe, the first Lieutenant Governor of what is now the province

of Ontario.

VISITORS

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to point out to the House that today we are joined by a group of parents

and their sons and daughters. They will be paying close attention to the proceedings of the House. They are here in the west gallery.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall

meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, October 7, Tuesday, October 8 and Thursday, October 10, 2002, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1403 to 1408.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Cleary, John C.

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Sorbara, Greg

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 75; the nays are 7.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Agriculture and Food): A few minutes ago, I introduced for first reading the proposed Agricultural Employees

Protection Act, 2002. I was surprised that the Liberals abstained from this vote. This bill represents a commitment to agricultural employees all across the province of Ontario. It represents a

commitment to family farms in the province, and it represents a commitment to the rural way of life in Ontario.

This important piece of legislation has been supported by my colleagues at the Ministries of Labour and of the Attorney General, and I would like to take this

opportunity to thank them for their co-operation and guidance on this critical issue.

I want to assure the agricultural sector that we remain committed to ensuring that our labour relations response takes into account agriculture's special

concerns. This government will work to protect farmers and their livelihoods in what have proven to be challenging times. Ontario's farm families must not be vulnerable to the risks of potentially

devastating labour disruptions. At the same time, we do, and we will, respect individual and constitutional rights. We believe we have struck an appropriate balance with the bill we have introduced

today. We have advanced the meaningful association rights of employees while protecting Ontario's agricultural sector from the risk of potentially devastating labour disruptions.

The legislation complies with the Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the rights of agricultural workers to associate. That decision requires Ontario to

provide legislative protection of the rights of agricultural workers to form and maintain associations as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada clearly

defines this issue, and it's about freedom of association.

The proposed legislation takes a balanced approach. It will recognize the rights of agricultural workers to associate, while having regard to the unique

characteristics of farming. The proposed Agricultural Employees Protection Act is a significant advance in facilitating employee-employer relationships.

This bill would meet the requirements of the Supreme Court decision by providing legislative protection for the rights of all agricultural workers who wish to

form and join an employees' association, to participate in lawful activities of an employees' association, to assemble, and to make representations to the employer through the association regarding

The proposed legislation also requires the employer to acknowledge such representation, and it protects agricultural employees against interference, coercion

and discrimination in the exercise of their rights.

In August and September of this year, Ministry of Agriculture and Food staff consulted with those parties who may be affected by this new legislation. These

included members of the agricultural community, employers, and representatives of organized labour.

Ontario's agricultural employers told us that they believed they already have a good relationship with their employees, a relationship that they value and wish

to maintain. We heard that it was important to treat all agricultural employees in a consistent manner. But we also heard that Ontario's crop planting and harvesting must not be vulnerable to the

risk of potentially devastating labour disruptions. We heard that Ontario's farm operations must be protected.

We promised to do that in this spring's throne speech, and we're doing it here today. The government will work with the farm industry and other stakeholders,

including labour, to put in place this legislation. I repeat: this legislation not only protects all agricultural employees, but it also recognizes the unique characteristics of the agricultural

sector and Ontario's farming operations.

The government has worked hard to enhance the competitiveness and viability of the province's agricultural sector since 1995, and we will continue to take

action to strengthen this critical sector of our economy.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): With the change that occurred in the minister's speech, I'm going to have to change my speech a

little bit.

I think it is important to reinforce -- and I'd like to know what school of politics the minister went to. Since when is an abstention a "no" vote? That is not

the case. I think you should go back to school, Minister, and learn a little more about politics.

We didn't vote against this bill. We voted against the bill in 1994, and we supported the repeal of this legislation in 1995. But this is too important an

issue; this is an issue that is supposed to be there to protect Ontario farmers. This party treats farmers with respect, not like this government. It's not proper to just give a bill the once-over

and say yea or nay to it. I think the minister should be extremely disappointed to do that.

You talk about protecting farmers. Well, boy oh boy, has this government lost their --

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): Touch with reality.

Mr Peters: You have not protected farmers in this province. You talk here, Minister, about strengthening "the competitiveness and viability of

the province's agricultural sector since 1995." What a joke. We've seen cuts to the agricultural budget, closure of the extension offices. We've seen massive budget cuts. We've seen cuts to the

University of Guelph and the OMAFRA agreement. We've seen service providers being privatized. We've seen constant knee-jerk reactions from this government.

Did we see this government being proactive when it came to nutrient management? No, it took a tragedy. They were reactive.

When dealing with food safety issues, did you see this government being proactive? No, they were reactive again.

Here we are again -- reactive. You're not being proactive.

Interjections.

Mr Peters: Well, if you'd shut your -- keep your tone down a little bit, that would be very helpful.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Member, take his seat. Members, come to order. I'd appreciate if you wouldn't use that -- and the members on this

side, please come to order. I don't need to stand up.

The member for Elgin-Middlesex-London may continue.

Mr Peters: I think what we're seeing here is the good old, typical Tory platform: stand up on that manure spreader and let `er rip. That's

what you guys are doing.

We do support this bill going to committee, because this is too important to the farmers who are sitting here, the farmers who are sitting at home right now,

for those farmers who are out on their combines right now. This is important to them. It's irresponsible to drop a piece of legislation down and say to vote for it.

This is a piece of legislation that needs to go to committee. We need to go through a full clause-by-clause to make sure you haven't put something through on

this bill, because we've seen that track record. This is a government that stands up and loves to say, "Promises made, promises kept," but I'll tell you, you have abandoned the agricultural

community. You've abandoned the rural communities. But all of a sudden you've seen the light. Look at what has happened in the year 2002 alone. All of a sudden there's the minister handing out

Healthy Futures cheques left and right, because you know that you're vulnerable out there.

But you had a Premier stand up at the International Plowing Match in September and talk about what the government is going to do. Where are those cheques?

Those farmers need those cheques. They're still at home.

It goes on and on, how this government has hurt agriculture. We want to make sure that this government is not in any way hurting agriculture. We want to make

sure that this is a piece of legislation that truly does protect the interests of farmers and recognizes the unique characteristics of a farming operation. But this government's track record of

protecting farmers is not worth a damn -- a darn; pardon me. I apologize for that, Mr Speaker.

Look at the issues right now. You've got farmers out there harvesting their soybeans with 25% to 50% of those beans green. Crop insurance won't give those

farmers an answer. You're just going to sit back and sit on your hands and hope everything works out.

This party is not going to sit back and be reactive. We're going to be proactive. We're going to make sure that this is a good piece of legislation. Speaker, I

know they think that I speak a little too loudly, but you know what? You guys have so much manure in your ears that you need to be spoken to loudly. You haven't looked after farmers; you've

abandoned farmers in this province. I think the time has come and the farmers have seen through what you've been doing.

We look forward to this going to committee. I'm confident that we will be supporting this bill at second reading, but we'll pass that judgment when we get it

through committee.

Hon David Turnbull (Associate Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask for unanimous

consent to give the last speaker another five minutes to bury himself.

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

Further responses?

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): An oh, so fundamental quality and characteristic of any true democracy is that that democracy ensure that

its workers, women and men who work in our factories, in our retail sector, underground in our mines and, yes, those working women and men who work hard harvesting crops and in our new

agribusinesses -- a fundamental quality and characteristic of any democracy is that those workers have the right to join trade unions and the right to collectively bargain.

A failure to advance and defend that right is a failure to advance and defend the interests of democracy, and it is an abandonment of principles that make

democracy something more than mere theory but translated, interpreted into something that's meaningful for the lives of women and men in that society.

This isn't a lengthy piece of legislation. It didn't take long for us to digest its content. It will be revealed at the end of the day, should this legislation

pass, that the so-called rights accorded agricultural workers in this bill are no more than the rights that this government gave to victims of crime in its Victims' Bill of Rights.

It is imperative that if we are going to stop the murder and maiming of agricultural workers in that workplace, they have the right to form trade unions and

belong to them, that they have the right to collectively bargain. I call upon people in this Legislature and beyond to please read the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Dunmore

decision. I'll not make frequent references to it, because I don't have time, but the comments by then-Justice L'Heureux-Dubé are most telling. It is clear in her judgment that it cannot be

argued that Ontario agriculture has unique characteristics that are incompatible with legislated collective bargaining.

This has nothing to do with an attack on the family farm. The Supreme Court judgment that was provided made it clear that the nature of farming has changed

dramatically in this province and in this country, that the focus of efforts to organize and collectively bargain are in the arena of the new corporate farm, the agribusinesses.

I want to pay tribute right now to the United Food and Commercial Workers for their leadership in litigating this government's repeal of NDP legislation which

provided for and accommodated and ensured the right of agricultural workers to organize and, yes, achieved a balance between those workers' rights and the acknowledged interests of the agricultural

industry in making sure crops are grown and harvested.

This government today leaves people in shock and outrage, and I tell you that should this government pursue this bill, it will have embarked upon a battle the

likes of which it has not seen in its seven years in office.

I have been visiting trade unionists and their locals across this province in the public sector and in the private sector, and every single one of those trade

unions and their membership are committed to ensuring that their sisters and brothers in the agricultural industry -- working women and men -- have the same rights as they do to join unions and

collectively bargain. And they will be joining with those women and men in the agricultural industry in their pursuit of free collective bargaining rights so that they can enjoy some of the same

rights other workers have won: the right to ensure safer workplaces; the right to protect themselves against unsafe, dangerous, indeed deadly, poisonous and toxic workplaces; the right to refuse

unsafe work. And part and parcel of that is the right to be contained within the scope and ambit of the Employment Standards Act in this province, be they workers in the mushroom factories, be they

chicken catchers in barns across this province, be they women and men who work hard with their backs and with their bodies. I tell you, there will be solidarity and there will be a fight the likes

of which this government has not seen.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SLOT MACHINES

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): My question is to the Attorney General. On Friday night, TVO's Fourth Reading revealed that they have obtained

a copy of a highly confidential cabinet minute. Interestingly, it was the cabinet minute detailing cabinet's decision to move forward with up to 800 slots at Picov Downs, a decision, by the way,

that you have said is yet to be made, but I'll get to that in a minute.

Attorney General, there are a limited number of people who could have had access to that confidential document. Most of them sit around the cabinet table. Some

of those cabinet colleagues are strongly in favour of these slots; others are absolutely opposed. Have you ordered a police investigation to find out which of your cabinet colleagues illegally

leaked this document and, if not, why not?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Indeed, there was a document that was produced on a television

show last week, which the interviewer suggested was from a cabinet meeting. I'm not going to comment one way or another on whether it was or wasn't. Indeed, what happens in cabinet with this

government -- when the Liberals were in power, when the New Democrats were in power -- stays within the cabinet chamber and that's the way it will remain.

Mr Kwinter: The television show showed the document with the cabinet number. There is no question that it was a cabinet document.

While the cabinet was considering a very important decision about Picov Downs, Mr Picov was busy writing cheques. He wrote one for $80,000 to the leadership

campaign of Jim Flaherty. He wrote another for $10,000 to the campaign of Ernie Eves.

Despite the fact that Picov Downs, on their economic record, should be eligible for about one or two slot machines, the cabinet approved up to 800.

Attorney General, apparently we are not the only ones who have been questioning the cabinet's handling of Picov Downs. TVO's Fourth Reading reported that the

Premier himself questioned the link between large donations and this cabinet decision. It was reported that he openly criticized Mr Flaherty's and Mr Hudak's actions and said, "I am not a"

expletive deleted "crook." Despite those words, neither he nor you have reversed the cabinet decision. Why not?

Hon Mr Young: Once again, anything that happens within a cabinet chamber remains in the cabinet chamber, and you know that. That's not going

to change, nor should it change.

What I will tell you, though, because you've raised the issue of Picov Downs again, is that that track has applied for slot machines. Their application is

going through the normal process. It's going through the same process that 16 other tracks have gone through. No decision has been made to date as to how many slot machines will be placed at that

track. Indeed, the use of the term "up to 800" means just that: up to 800. It could be one, two, 200, 400.

Mr Kwinter: Mr Minister, it was reported that neither the deputy minister responsible nor the head of the gaming commission would back your

decision. To make matters even worse, we now know that the only reason Mr Picov gave $10,000 to Mr Eves was because Janet Ecker's bagman asked for it on her behalf -- a tough request to say no to

when you have a multimillion-dollar proposal before the cabinet.

We need a police investigation into the leak. While we're at it, I think they should investigate the actions of Mr Flaherty, Mrs Ecker and Mr Hudak. As

Attorney General, will you now do the right thing and refer these very serious allegations to the assistant Deputy Attorney General for criminal law? Will you do that today?

Hon Mr Young: If you have any allegations that you believe support a criminal investigation, I would encourage you, sir, to put those in

writing and forward them to the police or to me, and they will follow the normal course.

What is not helpful is for you to stand in the Legislature day after day, week after week, and take different stands and try to find different reasons to

support what you said last week or the week before. For instance, the week before last, you said that Picov Downs should get one and a half slot machines. You were quite emphatic about that. Last

week, you stood in the Legislature and said in no uncertain terms that I should make a decision on the spot and give them 100 slot machines. You're inconsistent in your approach to this.

We are consistent. We are saying that what will happen here is what happened at all of the other tracks. It will be an independent, impartial process that

will, at the end of the day, be one that we can all look back on and agree came to the right conclusion.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Last week, the Premier told the Legislature the following: "My

total expenses were -- and this includes members of my staff, I believe -- $104,111.42 over six years, made up of $85,161.98 for travel and $18,949.44 for accommodation and meals over a six-year

period of time." That's strange, because we are still going through the pile, and we've already found $34,478 for food and accommodation, almost double what Ernie Eves told this House. That's the

running total so far.

My question to the Deputy Premier is this: why did the Premier say that he and his staff spent just under $19,000 on food and accommodation when we have proof

that the number is well over $34,000?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I understand that the Chair of Management Board has been involved in this, and

he will respond.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): I haven't been involved with it, but I will answer the

question.

We recognize that the current system, which has been in place under both the Liberal and NDP regimes, is outdated. In June, the Premier asked me to make a

review of the guidelines to ensure that this system would hold up to the scrutiny of the public and bring forward the best and and highest integrity possible.

We are in the process right now of drafting a new code of conduct. I will say this, though, with respect to the Premier, and this is the only

part I am going

to get involved in with his particular expenses: the Premier has provided copies of his receipts, as I understand, today. That goes well beyond what is required under the guidelines. You know the

leader certainly holds himself up to a high standard. I will expect and hope that both leaders over there, of the Liberals and of the NDP, when we look at transparency and accountability, will

promote their own parties being subject to the same rules and the same scrutiny and transparency as everyone.

Mrs Pupatello: Minister, I am having a page take over a series of claims to you. I'd like you to have a look at that and I would like to ask

you this. On page 1 of what I've attached is a bill from a New York hotel for $1,506. Page 2 shows $3,800 for a hotel bill in London, England, and a $599 bill from Frankfurt, Germany. Page 3 shows

$1,500 from a stay in Paris. The next page shows more than $1,000 in meals and hotel bills.

The Premier says that he and his staff spent only $18,000 on meals and hotels. We have already uncovered over $34,000 in meals and hotels. Chair of Management

Board, Ernie Eves understated his food and hotel expenses by at least 82%. The question for the public: can we trust anything this Premier says? Why should we believe what Ernie Eves said in this

House when we find there is actually proof to the contrary? We believe it's important that the Premier --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member's time is up. The Chair of Management Board.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I wish the member would stop mixing both the individual expenses of the Premier and those of his entire staff. Certainly you

are trying to mix things up. Clearly, the truth has been given in terms of the receipts.

Every day I listen to the members over there say, "Dalton McGuinty thinks this and Dalton McGuinty thinks that," but he's not saying that. Let's listen to what

the real Dalton McGuinty says. In a scrum on October 4 the question was to Dalton McGuinty: "Just give us your receipts." He said, "What I have is a

summary of my expenses and I'm ... prepared to

make that public" -- just the

summary. Let's go on. Question: "Would you also release the expenses of your staff members?" Answer: "Why would I do that?" Dalton McGuinty goes on. Question: "Why

won't you make your staff expenses includable?" McGuinty says, "I'm prepared to make my personal expenses public." "Why not your staff?" "Well, it's not up to my staff to ah...." That's his

answer.

Mrs Pupatello: On Friday we showed that the Premier filed more than $8,000 in expense claims without any receipts. One of the claims includes

the note, "The secretary to the minister says that she doesn't attach receipts for the minister." That violates your own ministerial guidelines, which seem fairly clear to everyone else. They state

that claims must be supported with documentation for major items of expenditure such as accommodation, transportation, meals and incidentals. After this was exposed, and after several days, we just

received a host of receipts. We don't know that they total $8,000 and we can see why the Premier did not want this included in the first place.

A couple of questions for you, Chair of Management Board: one, why would these receipts not be included when they should have been, as it's required under the

freedom of information act? Secondly, it's no wonder he didn't want to include them. He's been at Bigliardi's so many times that he gets a statement; he doesn't get the bill.

The Speaker: Member's time is up.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: She said there were two questions, and one is answered already.

Let's go back to visit the real Dalton McGuinty here. In that same scrum of October 4 --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You want to hear this, folks. This is important: "Under the rules we play by today" -- this is McGuinty -- "we get $3.5

million...," it says here, folks. That's your $3.5 million. He says, "Put it all into supper ... if you want, all into salary, if you want, put it all into polls, put it all into expensive

luggage." This is unbelievable. Dalton McGuinty and his Louis Vuitton baggage -- luggage. I guess this brings a whole new meaning to "bagman."

Hon Mrs Witmer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: when I said that Mr Tsubouchi had been involved, I was simply indicating that he has been

asked to do some rigorous accounting in order to improve the rules --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: to the Minister of Education, I was just jesting.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Last week, as people across Ontario got their sky-high

electricity bills, your Premier said he'd make sure hydro consumers get a hydro bill rebate and also make sure the rebate is not reduced. He said he would overrule the application by Ontario Power

Generation that asks the Ontario Energy Board to reduce the --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Sorry to interrupt the member. To the Minister for Transportation, the Minister of the Environment and the member

for Windsor West: I can't hear the questions. If you want to carry on the conversations, please go outside. You've asked your questions.

I apologize to the leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: The Premier said he'd make sure that people get their hydro electricity rebate. Minister, my question to you is: you make the

laws; will you change the law now to ensure all hydro consumers get their rebate and that it's a full rebate?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I think what the Premier said last week was that

consumers in Ontario, be they working families or free enterprises, would receive the rebate from Ontario Power Generation exactly as it was advertised, and I agree.

Mr Hampton: The problem here is that you make the law, and the law you made allows that rebate to be reduced. The law you made says that if

Ontario Power Generation sells off or leases some of their assets, like the Bruce nuclear station, then people's hydro electricity rebate can be reduced. You made that law, not the Ontario Energy

Board, so stop trying to blame someone else. Change the law now so that people can get their full hydro rebate.

Hon Mr Baird: I strongly share the Premier's view that the rebate should be delivered exactly as advertised. The entire purpose of the rebate

is to recognize that one market participant, Ontario Power Generation, having such a huge percentage share of the market, has a tremendous amount of control. The market design committee, in the

recommendations they made to the government a good number of years ago, said that in recognition of that control, they should pay a rebate to customers based on their share of the market. That's

exactly what was said, and that's exactly what will be delivered.

Mr Hampton: Last week it was the Ontario Energy Board's fault and this week it's something called the market design committee that's at fault.

These are your laws. If hydro consumers across this province have their hydro bill rebate reduced, it will be because of the law you made, because you made a law that allows that to happen.

My question to you is, will you do the smart thing and change the law now so that people get their hydro rebate now, and then will you cancel this whole hydro

privatization and deregulation fiasco before it puts the boots to more consumers?

Hon Mr Baird: The rebate obligation on Ontario Power Generation is contained right in their operating licence, so I don't seek to blame or

shuffle responsibility on that to anyone. I will say to the leader of the third party that I may disagree with him on this issue but at least I can respect him.

Someone recently sent me a copy of a letter that was sent out by Richard King and Sean Conway, which reads, "Throughout Ontario's electricity restructuring

process, Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals have been consistent supporters of the move to an open electricity market in Ontario." Further in the letter they say, please send us $350. Most

interesting.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is to the Minister of Health. Ontario needs at least 588 more family doctors. There are

about 3,000 foreign-trained doctors in Ontario who want to work but can't because they don't have Ontario qualifications. Through your so-called fast-track assessment process, with 3,000

foreign-trained doctors to work with, your government only managed to fill three of 10 training spots for family physicians. What an embarrassment.

The problem is your criteria. The measure of a good doctor should not be whether they have been in practice for the last two years or where they were trained;

it should be whether they are competent and good doctors. My question is, what are you doing to ensure that these family doctor training spots in the fast-track assessment process are filled and

continue to be filled so that Ontario communities can get the physicians they desperately need?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The honourable member probably has the right intention at heart, but the fact of the

matter is that the program of which he speaks was directly created to recognize foreign-trained professionals who also have some clinical expertise. We're giving them fast-track certification --

maximum six-month certification -- because they not only have training in a foreign medical institution but have had clinical experience in other countries. That is what we're recognizing. That's

why it's fast-track. Indeed, the program is now fully subscribed, with 40 individuals a year, which was the intention of the program in the first place.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): We can do more to use the skills of international medical graduates here. You see, the NDP government in

Manitoba has an assessment program too. It evaluates the medical knowledge and clinical expertise of international medical graduates in three days. If successful, those graduates immediately

register with the college of physicians and surgeons. They get a conditional licence, and then they practise with a practice adviser who is a licensed physician. The program has the full support of

the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba and the faculty of medicine at the University of Manitoba. In contrast, here in Ontario international medical graduates must wait three to six

months to be assessed and then, if they are successful, can obtain a licence to practise.

The Manitoba model is working for international graduates and patients. When will you introduce a similar program here?

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member knows I have stated publicly that despite the fact we have made tremendous improvements, tripling the

number of international medical graduates who are considered every year, I believe more can be done. and perhaps the honourable member will be pleased in the near future.

I find it passing strange, however, that it is this political party whose former leader, Bob Rae, on one of the few occasions he admitted he actually made a

mistake -- this was one of the occasions. Before a public audience he indicated that one of the things he regrets most about his time in office -- I thought there would be more than one, and

perhaps this is a good place to start -- was the contraction of our medical schools, the reduction of the number of physicians who are trained in this province, which created the problem in the

first place. I take it from the honourable members that perhaps they've had a change of heart.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. On June 27 this year, with this

document, you signed a minister's zoning order, unprecedented in the history of Ontario, ordering the town of Richmond Hill to allow developers to build over 8,000 homes smack dab in the middle of

the Oak Ridges moraine. Despite your empty promises to protect the moraine, this decree forces Richmond Hill to approve 8,000 homes for a few developers in the heart of the moraine without having

to go through the normal process. By signing this ministerial order, you have virtually given, with the stroke of a pen, these same developers a certified cheque. Basically, you gave them a virtual

cheque of $300 million. If that wasn't enough, now you're proceeding with another scheme to give these same developers more compensation with your land swap in Seaton and Pickering.

My question to you is, why should we be further compensating these same developers with public lands in Seaton and north Pickering when you have already given

them the right to build 8,000 homes right in the moraine without any approvals needed? Why do we have to give them more?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): My question to the honourable member is, where have you been? This was all

approved by David Crombie's negotiated settlement, the Crombie accord, to create a robust corridor through the Niagara Escarpment, and Richmond Hill.

The panel that was representative of environmentalists, business leaders, developers and municipal leaders came up with recommendations to protect the Oak

Ridges moraine. They realized you needed this corridor that had been fought about and was presently before the OMB. They suggested that we appoint David Crombie to negotiate a settlement to that.

This was part of that settlement: they would create about a 1,000-acre urban park in Richmond Hill and the remaining lands, which were before the board for settlement, be allowed with certainty to

be settled. That was part of the Crombie accord or settlement. You were aware of that.

Mr Colle: Mr Minister, you know full well that the whole battle over the Oak Ridges moraine was to stop the building of 8,000 homes on Yonge

Street in Richmond Hill and on Leslie. That's what the battle was about.

Everybody thought when we brought in the conservation act that those 8,000 homes were stopped, but what you did in the dead of night is that you -- not Mr

Crombie, by ministerial order, which I have right here, said to these developers, "Forget conserving the moraine. Build 8,000 homes smack dab up Jefferson forest, right by Bond Lake."

How does that protect the moraine when right in the middle you allowed them to build 8,000 homes? Now you're going to give them how many more thousands in

Seaton and north Pickering? How many more are you going to give them when you already allowed them to build in the middle of the moraine? Tell me that, Mr Minister.

Hon Mr Hodgson: If that's the brain trust in the Liberal Party, you're totally confused. This has been the most transparent process. We've

created a 1,000-acre park, a robust corridor --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Hodgson: It is, and you can ask David Crombie. The maps were public. And your numbers are wrong as well. So if you need a full briefing

on this, I can set one up with Mr Crombie. He can go through it with you in detail, with the maps that you approved and voted for in this House.

HIGHWAY 6

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Transportation and it concerns Highway 6. Highway 6 is an essential

corridor in my riding of Waterloo-Wellington. For much of the county of Wellington, it's a key route to the 401, our access to the North American market. It's crucial to our local economy.

In the summer, Wellington county council passed a resolution about Highway 6. They have addressed it to the Minister of Transportation. They say that Highway 6

from Fergus to Mount Forest --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Come to order, please. The member for Waterloo-Wellington has the floor. Sorry for the interruption.

Mr Arnott: I couldn't hear myself think for the opposition.

They say that Highway 6 from Fergus to Mount Forest needs review so that repairs to that

section can be done as soon as possible. As the MPP for Wellington in

the early 1990s, I raised the need for repairs to Highway 6 repeatedly in this Legislature from my place on the opposition benches. I called for the construction of passing lanes, an idea that was

brought forward by my predecessor, Jack Johnson, before he retired in 1990.

Will the minister inform the House whether, in fact, a review of the need to fix Highway 6 is underway?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Transportation): As this member points out -- and he points out very often to me the needs in his

particular area of Waterloo-Wellington -- Highway 6 is very important to that part of our province. We're not only studying this, we are now in the design stages for the repair and repavement of

Highway 6 from Fergus to Kenilworth.

We're not only dealing with this particular piece of highway, we're dealing with some others. When we have completed all the work that is presently under

design for Highway 6, we will have spent some $9 million on Highway 6. The good people of Wellington county can thank the member from their area for putting this issue on the table.

Mr Arnott: I want to thank the minister for his response, his compliments and for any action taken to see that Highway 6 from Fergus to Mount

Forest is a priority.

After I repeatedly raised the need for construction on Highway 6 in the 1990s, the NDP government initiated a study and it concluded that the work needed to be

done. Passing lanes were built from the city of Guelph to Fergus and Highway 6 was four-laned from the northern city limits of Guelph to county road 7.

I want to inform the minister and the House of my firm belief that we need passing lanes from Fergus to Mount Forest. County council has resolved that any

studies required must begin immediately in order to get this needed work going as soon as possible. The work has been done as far as Fergus, and I say the time is now to finish the job right

through to Mount Forest.

Will the minister agree to move forward with reconstruction on Highway 6 so that the work can be done as soon as possible?

Hon Mr Sterling: This government has spent unprecedented amounts of money on our highway improvements across this province: $6.5 billion on

highways since 1995. This not only includes four-lane highways, this includes two-lane highways like Highway 6.

We were glad to respond to the member's request prior to 1999 in putting some passing lanes on Highway 6. We realize that this is a very busy highway. There

are safety concerns, and we're continuing to look for improvements in that area. I hope to discuss this and other matters that are important to this member for the improvement of Highway 6 when we

meet later this week to go over all of the priorities in your riding.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): A question for the Minister of Education. Minister, two weeks ago a man entered Fenside Public School in my

riding of Don Valley East through the child care entrance, approached five young girls in the stairwell, and grabbed two of them by the wrist. Fortunately, the girls broke free and ran for

help.

This is the latest in a growing list of incidents where trespassers are entering schools and coming after our children. I believe we should make video

surveillance cameras available if a school or school board determines the need. However, we all know that school boards don't have the money it would take to have video surveillance systems.

Sergeant Dave Colwell of the Toronto police sex crimes unit said, "In this case and in others, yes, it probably would have been more beneficial to have video cameras in the schools."

So, Minister, my question for you is this: what is it going to take for you to act? Does a child have to be molested, maimed, or even killed before you adopt a

safe school package like the one proposed by Dalton McGuinty?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I'm pleased to see that the opposition has finally recognized what we recognized

a long time ago, and that was the need to provide a safe school environment for all of the students in the province of Ontario.

Perhaps the member wants to recall the fact that in 2000 we did introduce the Safe Schools Act, and it did give teachers, principals and boards authority in

order that they could move forward. I also would like the member to know that on September 1, 2001, the government passed the access-to-school-premises regulation. It does give principals the

authority to determine who is allowed on school property. As well, the pupil accommodation grant presently does allow the schools to pay for health and safety issues such as the surveillance

cameras.

Mr Caplan: Minister, that is frankly a bizarre answer. You can pass all the laws and regulations you want, but our schools are not safe from

intruders in these kinds of incidents. Even Guy Giorno agrees with me. When he wrote in yesterday's Toronto Star, he said, "I happen to like McGuinty's proposal for surveillance cameras in

out-of-the-way places." He continues, "The recent assaults at Fenside Public School highlight the need."

The time for consideration, frankly, is over. It's now time for action. I made a statement in this House back in June; no response from you. I sent you a copy

of a safe school survey with the view of all of the schools in Don Valley East; again, no response. Dalton McGuinty raised this issue with you five months ago and you've done nothing.

So, Minister, on behalf of all residents of Don Valley East, especially the hundreds of parents who attended an emergency meeting last week at Fenside Public

School, I ask you again, what horrible tragedy has to happen before you do something, anything, to protect the students in our schools? Either implement the Dalton McGuinty safe school --

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

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'm pleased to hear that the member opposite has become such a fan of Guy Giorno.

I will just let you know that certainly some of the happenings such as tough new curriculum, new guidelines for testing that have been introduced -- they were

all part of our plan. The Safe Schools Act was part of our plan too. It's interesting to see your party just recently recognizing what we have known for seven years: people in this province want

safe schools, they want a tough curriculum, they want testing for students and they want to make sure that we provide the best learning environment for the students in this province. We're doing

exactly that.

FEDERAL TAXATION

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): My question is for the Minister of Finance. This September, the federal government announced that it will require

Ontario to pay back $1.3 billion for the personal tax error made by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. It seems odd, Minister, that these tax errors were made between 1997 and 1999 and had gone

undetected by the provincial government.

I also note that Ontario is being made to pay for a federal tax error that occurred after the 1996 provincial budget, where it was reported that the Ministry

of Finance was able to obtain additional information from the federal government to improve Ontario's capability in revenue forecasting.

Minister, could you please explain today why this enormous error went unnoticed despite the 1996 claim that the Ontario finance staff had strengthened contacts

with the federal forecasting staff and successfully obtained additional provincial income tax information --

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

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): I thank the honourable member from Nipissing for the question. As former Finance Minister Paul Martin

said, and the current Finance Minister, John Manley, said, this error was the sole responsibility of the federal government, which does collect income tax on behalf of the provinces. It was signed

off in public accounts by their auditor, who said that taxes had been remitted correctly.

Notwithstanding its responsibility for this overpayment, though, they are asking that Ontario taxpayers pay for the federal mistake. We do think that is

unfair. But we also recognize the need to ensure that the system does not do this again to any province. I know the honourable members out there don't seem to think that $1.3 billion out of this

province is a problem. If they would like to say to the schools and hospitals around here, "Live with $1.3 billion less," let them say so, because that is what the Liberal Party's position is

currently.

We have made some changes with Ottawa to improve this but we still need a more accountable tax system --

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

Mr McDonald: Minister, thank you for your answer, but I'm sure that many taxpayers in Ontario would appreciate some assurance that this type

of error not occur again. Could you please describe your efforts to ensure the federal government enhances its accountability with respect to the tax processing system.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Despite the fact that the federal accounts were validated by two finance ministers and by the federal auditor, Ontario

taxpayers are still left with a $1.3-billion mistake that they are being expected to pay back, and we don't think that's fair.

We've insisted and asked for a new accountability mechanism. Officials were speaking with finance officials this week to make sure that all provinces could

depend on the numbers that are coming from Ottawa. They're their numbers; we are not in a position to check them without the information. We want an agreement to make sure that all the provinces

can do this so that taxpayers in this province are not put in this situation ever again.

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Deputy Premier: at the age of 18, Velma Demerson was torn from her Toronto home, hauled before a

judge and, with no charge ever being laid, sentenced to serve a year in the Mercer Reformatory, one of the darkest dungeons in the history of corrections in this province. Her only crime was that

as a white woman, she loved a Chinese man. For that, she was deemed "incorrigible" under the Female Refuges Act.

Sixty years later, still wrestling with those demons born in that five-foot-seven windowless cell, she has had the courage to come forward and seek

acknowledgement of the injustice, to seek an apology, and to seek compensation for what was stolen from her.

You're blocking her action in the court by invoking sections 28 and 29 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act. Why are you forcing her into the courts? Why

won't you sit down with Velma Demerson and negotiate a settlement that includes an apology?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): The Minister of Citizenship is prepared to respond.

Hon Carl DeFaria (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): Certainly there are very difficult and very personal issues

involved in this case. I understand the member bringing it forward. As an immigrant to this country, I consider these issues very seriously. My colleague will understand that this matter is before

the courts and therefore it's very difficult to comment on them because everyone should have their day in court.

What I want to talk about is how far we have come since those days. Our Ontario Human Rights Code plays a vital role in protecting the rights of all Ontarians.

It prohibits discrimination against people because of their race, religion, place of origin and ethnic origin. In addition to enforcing the code, the Ontario Human Rights Commission does important

work in all areas of anti-race --

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

Mr Kormos: Velma Demerson isn't alone. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of women, in state-sanctioned misogyny, and in her case racism as well,

were thrust into jail cells -- Velma had her child stolen from her when she gave birth to it in custody -- and have suffered state-sanctioned abuse for which they seek and deserve acknowledgement,

a formal apology and compensation to help them recover from the wounds that were suffered at the hands of their government.

Minister, please stand up and say that these people will receive what is due them in exchange for the injustice they suffered and the unspeakable things done

to them while they were in custody. Tell them that this government will develop a process now for all of those victims of the women's Female Refuges Act, acknowledging the injustice imposed upon

them, acknowledging their pain, apologizing and compensating them.

Hon Mr DeFaria: Again, I would like to point out that my friend knows very well it's inappropriate for a minister to comment on a case before

the courts. This case comes from the late 1930s.

What I want to tell you is that our government recognizes that cultural diversity is one of the province's greatest strengths. Ontario has welcomed

approximately 120,000 new immigrants each and every year for the past 10 years. Our government is committed to ensuring that newcomers are welcome in Ontario, that their rights are protected.

As I went across this province delivering the newcomer settlement program, I met with immigrant groups from all corners of this province. I can tell you that

we have gone a long way. This province is a welcoming and diverse province. I'm so proud to be in this province today --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): My question today is for the Minister of Public Safety and Security. First, I would like to acknowledge the fact that

this is Fire Prevention Week and ask all members of the Legislature to keep in mind the commitment and dedication of all of our firefighters to keep our communities safe.

My question deals directly with the safety of the firefighters and the security of our communities. During the inquest into a deadly fire in Sudbury last

April, officials from the fire marshal's office made statements that inadequate fire services existed in 15 -- and some said 20 -- Ontario communities. Three people -- two very young children and

their great-grandmother -- died in that fire where there was only one full-time firefighter.

After the inquest, and only after the press conference by the International Association of Fire Fighters last week pressuring the release of the names of those

communities, did you comply. Keeping firefighters in any community in the dark about such basic fire services is unacceptable. Ontario communities that are lacking in fire protection and

firefighters in those communities deserve the right to know. A statement that was made by Mr Wallace from your ministry said, "The goal is to have the best standards possible, but municipalities

can't always afford all the things that they want." Minister, this is absolutely outrageous --

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

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): I do agree with the member that communities certainly have a right to know if

there are any serious concerns related to fire safety in their communities. The indications given to me are that that indeed was the case with respect to this list.

It's a monitoring list of communities that may have a number of concerns identified perhaps by the fire adviser out of the fire marshal's office or, in some

instances, by the communities themselves. In fact, in the city of Kingston, the fire chief asked for assistance, asked to be put on the monitoring list of the fire marshal's office because they've

been going through amalgamation of fire services. He wanted that extra insight and advice in terms of insurance that they were proceeding in an appropriate way.

If at any point in time the fire marshal determines there is a serious safety risk to any community, he has the right and responsibility to intervene and

ensure that changes take place.

Mr Levac: Then you must realize that the fire marshal has never done it. The fact we've got that many communities identified shows there needs

to be more action. As a matter of fact, the NFPA, the National Fire Protection Association, is administering international standard 1710, which is being accepted from state to state and by

provinces. I would like to know whether we are going to stick with the standards that we're going to make. And why would we not have supported my Bill 141, which would have made sure the fire

marshal reviewed all the changes that were proposed by municipalities and got them approved?

What we need to do is make sure that people understand that 89% of Ontarians support the adoption of 1710, 85% of Ontarians believe the provincial government

should provide some funding for those standards for municipalities to be maintained and 86% of Ontarians believe that specific standards are important regarding response time and a number of

personal requirements to respond to those.

Minister, would you make the commitment today that you will investigate 1710 and establish the money that's necessary for those communities to keep our people

safe and secure and avoid another Sudbury?

Hon Mr Runciman: The provision of fire services is a municipal responsibility. The fire marshal's office has oversight and certainly has the

ability, power and authority to intervene, as I indicated earlier, if there is a serious threat to public safety.

But for the member to suggest that things have not gone well in the past number of years -- this government is the government that brought in the first changes

to the fire act in 50 years. We have invested significant monies in upgrades to the fire college. We have put money into the training of CBRN teams, which is underway right now at the fire college.

We are putting money into heavy urban search and rescue teams. If you take a look at the incidence of residential fires in this province, they've dropped dramatically over the life of this

government. If you look at the number of fatalities arising from accidental fires, last year they were the lowest in the history of this province.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour, and it concerns workplace safety. Many people have criticized

various government stands on workplace safety, including, I believe, ours. Some critics have said that trying to target zero accidents in the workplace is totally unrealistic and is an unattainable

goal. I believe you've said that achieving that number can only be done if there's a concerted effort to try to get there, if there's a concerted effort to actually try to make the workplace safe

so there are no incidents in a particular workplace.

I'm just wondering whether you can comment on the achievability, if you will, of that target and enlighten us on whether anybody has actually been able to come

somewhat close to, or perhaps even hit, that target.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): I have stated many times that safe workplaces involve creating a culture of safety where workplace

injuries are not acceptable. If we look back in the past with drinking and driving, we've actually changed the entire attitude in the general public regarding that. We consider it to be

reprehensible and immoral. A change in attitude toward safety in the workplace will achieve the same goal.

This is a realistic goal for workplaces. In fact, on Friday I attended an event in Mississauga where Enersource Corp celebrated six years, or three million

hours, of lost-time and injury-free work -- a remarkable accomplishment. They've done it by implementing their safety philosophy within their own company, with their union, with the board of

directors, right down to the newest employee just starting on the job. They have shown that with commitment, dedication and discipline there need not be a single workplace injury.

Mr Sampson: Again, thank you, Minister. I know the mayor of Mississauga has never said this before, but clearly Mississauga is again leading

the rest of the province in a lot of matters as they relate to the administration of this province. Three million hours is a tremendous achievement and I feel like knocking on wood because I know

that many people are hoping they can continue that record on and on and on.

But clearly there is some management expertise and some understanding of how to achieve those records that are in the bowels of Enersource and their tremendous

management. I'm wondering, Minister, whether you have plans on how you would hope to help that company and help you relate that message to other companies, small and large, across the province so

they can be likewise challenged to try to meet or exceed that particular standard.

Hon Mr Clark: What we're going to be doing is setting up partnerships. That's what this is about. The president of Enersource, Gunars

Ceksters, in getting their philosophy, their approach and their practices into other workplaces, has agreed to come forward and help us do just that: to work with our partners and spread the word

across the province. As a matter of fact, Enersource has already been asked to manage health and safety in another Ontario community. So they're going to spread their good program to other areas

across the province.

There are companies, organizations and individuals who do share the goal. We believe safety is the priority. It can be done. Enersource has proven it.

Let me leave members with Enersource's health and safety objective: "Safety must come first. There is never a task too urgent that it should allow personal

safety to be overlooked." That is what drives Enersource; that's what we should all be driving for.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): My question is for the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services. Minister, you will be aware that

today parents representing the Peel Family Network held a press conference here at Queen's Park to draw attention to your government's, your Premier's and your dismal disregard for their

plight.

These parents are in the gallery now. With them are their sons and daughters with developmental disabilities. For several years now they have been attempting

to reach out to you and your government to listen to their grievances and concerns. These parents have been in a state of crisis. Why have you and your government repeatedly refused to listen to

them? I ask, what are you going to do for these parents and their children?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): I thank my colleague in the Liberal Party across the way for the

question. This gives me an opportunity to clarify our government's position on developmental services. Certainly, we feel it is very important to provide a wide variety of services that are

essential for individuals with developmental disabilities. That's why we offer a variety of different kinds of programs: respite care, both in and out of home; individual and group living

arrangements; community participation support; and specialized community supports as well.

We've made tremendous strides in offering many new services to individuals in Ontario. In our budget in May 2001 we announced multi-year funding, growing to an

additional $197 million a year by 2006-07. At the end of that, it would mean that over $1 billion is being spent on developmental services in Ontario.

Mr Sergio: Minister, these families need your government's urgent help now. They need more than just words about services and support that

might be provided to meet the individual needs of people with developmental disabilities.

These special people have special needs, with individual complaints. With this come changes, and responsible parents deserve options and choices. An integrated

environment does not work in every case. The options program with this individualized support has proven successful in the city of Toronto, but because of your government's lack of funding and long

waiting lists, it's inaccessible for these persons. Again, Minister, this program works. It allows families to integrate into their children's support and services; it is cost-effective; it

provides a flexible approach; it allows for an environment where children and adults can move forward and improve the quality of their lives.

Minister, I ask you again, on behalf of these parents and their sons and daughters, will you commit to meet with them today and give them a promise that indeed

you will come through with help?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I thank my colleague across the way for the question. I am aware of the concerns that have been raised by this particular

organization. I will indicate that as the minister I am examining the issue of individualized funding and independent funding.

We try very hard in our ministry to be responsive to the families that we serve, and we make every effort to do so. I receive hundreds of invitations to meet,

and try to be as responsive as possible to all of those.

Having that in mind, my colleague the Minister of Citizenship has twice met with this organization, but I would be most pleased and will make every effort to

have a meeting with these particular individuals.

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing responsible for rural affairs.

Minister, last summer you visited my riding of Perth-Middlesex as part of your tour of rural Ontario. During your visit you announced OSTAR funding for St Marys in my riding. These funds will

assist St Marys in the revitalization of its downtown. By the way, Mayor Jamie Hahn sends his regards and says to say hello.

I know this was just one of many reasons you were touring rural Ontario. Minister, I'm very interested in what you heard and what our government is doing to

address barriers to economic growth and ensure our small towns and rural communities remain viable, healthy and vibrant places in which to work, live and invest. Can you give us an update?

Hon Brian Coburn (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I want to thank the member from Perth-Middlesex for his question. I

can tell you one thing that became very evident as I went through your community: that your residents have a great deal of respect for you and for the tireless efforts you've made on behalf of your

residents. Certainly the member in one of his efforts was recognized here in 1998.

It's very appropriate that the question be asked today, when the minister introduced a private member's bill to recognize a week in the year to recognize the

contribution the agricultural community provides to us, and that's Ontario Agriculture Week.

This is an opportunity seven days of the year during harvest time when we can acknowledge the contributions of our agricultural producers to our rural and

small-town prosperity. As the minister responsible for rural affairs, over the last couple of months, July and August in particular, I had an opportunity to travel across the province, meeting with

hard-working residents, municipal representatives and business leaders of our small and rural communities and hearing some of the big challenges they've faced, and we're addressing those in a

number of different issues.

Mr Johnson: Minister, I know that rural Ontarians are delighted that you're working so hard on their behalf to develop and implement solutions

that help create good jobs. Clearly, overcoming barriers to rural economic development is a key issue, but not the only one that's on the minds of our rural residents.

Minister, going back to your tour, can you expand on the highlights of your visits that would be of interest to both the members of this House and the good

residents of my riding of Perth-Middlesex?

Hon Mr Coburn: All across rural Ontario we have some real jewels in our communities and small towns. In a recent visit to St Marys, I had the

opportunity to visit the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame. For those members who haven't been there, I suggest that it would be a good place to drop in and find out what a contribution Ontarians have

made to baseball. This is a wonderful museum that brings the history of the great game of baseball alive.

I visited Lambton county as well and toured the Petrolia town hall. That was reconstructed after the original building was destroyed by fire. It has been

rebuilt under the leadership of the former mayor, our member Marcel Beaubien from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex. It's a town hall by day and a lively and vibrant theatre at night. I was impressed by the

planning and the forethought of the members and leaders in that community to turn this into a multi-use facility.

There are many examples of that right across this province, and I just want to tell you that we have invested about $27 million in 30 projects --

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

CHILD CARE CENTRE

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, your cuts to our public schools are shutting

down a unique program that is so important for new Canadians and for our economic well-being. This Friday the child care centre at Shirley Street Public School in Toronto will close its doors for

good. By the way, they only had three weeks' notice. This is the only child care centre for adult ESL learners in the entire Toronto board. I am asking you, Minister, will you personally get

involved so that this child care centre does not shut down for good?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I think it is really important that we get the facts right. I understand that

the facility that you're talking about was originally funded by a federal grant that the Liberals may have decided seven years ago to end. Since then it has been funded by the board, but the

facility is not a child care. It is a child-minding service, and there are two other daycare facilities within two blocks of the Shirley Street school for parents who take the LINC program. So the

children have the opportunity to be accommodated there. It is a child-minding service; it isn't a daycare.

Mr Marchese: The central coordinating principal of continuing education sent this letter three weeks ago saying, "We no longer have the money

to be able to support this program." It is also true that New Democrats believe in levelling the playing field so that every family has a shot at a better life. That means helping parents learn

Shirley Street child care centre does all of these things, but you are contributing, through this terrible funding model that you have, to shutting this care down.

All I am asking you today, Minister, is to reform your funding formula so as to allow the Toronto board to be able to keep this essential service. Can you do

that? Will you do that?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again, let's just cut through some of the ambiguity. The Toronto board offers adult ESL classes and there is child care

provided, but let's get one thing straight: it's not funded by the board; it's funded by various community partners. This particular service that you're talking about is a child-minding service.

There are two daycare facilities within two blocks for parents taking the LINC program. We also understand that the city of Toronto is currently in negotiations with both the Learning Enrichment

Foundation and the YMCA to open a real, full-service daycare. So certainly these children and parents are not going to lose a service. There are other provisions. Just as other parents that access

these programs have an opportunity to access child care funded by community groups, these children and parents will have the same opportunity.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I move that, notwithstanding

standing order 96(g), notice for ballot item 60 be waived. That's notice for Mr Sampson to have his ballot item debated this Thursday. I had agreement with your House leaders.

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

Hon Mr Stockwell: No, I'm done.

The Speaker: Did you want to move the motion? You asked for unanimous consent; now you move it.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Sorry. I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(g), notice for ballot item 60 be waived.

The Speaker: All in favour? Carried.

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines ): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid for by seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities by 15% over the last three

years, $3.02 per diem in the first year and $2 in the second year, $2 in the third year, effective September 1, 2002;

"Whereas this increase will cost seniors and our most vulnerable more than $200 a month after three years;

"Whereas this increase is above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario for 2002;

"Whereas, according to the government's own funded study, Ontario still will rank last among comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a

resident for nursing and personal care;

"Whereas the long-term-care funding partnership has been based on government accepting the responsibility to fund the care and services that residents

need;

"Whereas government needs to increase long-term-care operating funding by $750 million over the next three years to raise the level of service for Ontario

long-term-care residents to those in Saskatchewan back in 1999;

"Whereas this province has been built by seniors, who should be able to live out their lives with dignity, respect and in the comfort of this province;

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

"We demand that Premier Eves reduce the 15% increase over three years in accommodation costs to no more than the cost-of-living increase annually and that the

provincial government provide adequate funding for nursing and personal care to a level that is at least the average standard for nursing and personal care in those 10 jurisdictions included in the

government's own study."

I affix my signature and am in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed in this petition.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that was sent to me by the nursing staff at Thorntonview Nursing Home in Oshawa. It reads

as follows:

"Whereas the Conservative government increased fees paid by Ontario seniors and other vulnerable people living in long-term-care facilities by 15% ... instead

of providing adequate government funding for long-term care; and

"Whereas the Conservative government has therefore shifted the cost of long-term care on to the backs of the frail elderly and their families;

"Whereas this increase is 11.1% above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas in 1996 Ontario abandoned its minimum requirement of 2.25 hours of nursing care per nursing home resident;

"Whereas the government's own contribution to raise the level of long-term-care services this year is less than $2 per resident per day; and

"Whereas, according to the government's own study, government cutbacks have resulted in Ontario seniors receiving just 14 minutes a day of care from a

registered nurse...; and

"Whereas the study also found that Ontario residents receive the least nursing, bathing and general care of nine other comparable locations;

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

We demand "the Conservative government eliminate the 15% fee increase for residents of long-term-care facilities, increase the number of nursing care hours for

each resident to a minimum of 3.5 hours per day, and provide stable, increased funding to ensure quality care is there for Ontario residents of long-term-care facilities."

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

SERVICES DE SANTÉ POUR ENFANTS

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): J'ai une pétition qui provient des communautés d'Alfred, Plantagenet et

Hawkesbury.

« À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

« Attendu que le gouvernement de l'Ontario est en train de fermer le service de chirurgie cardiaque à l'intention des enfants fonctionnant

actuellement à l'Hôpital pour enfants de l'est de l'Ontario;

« Attendu que la fermeture de ce programme restreindrait l'accès des enfants de l'est de l'Ontario à cette chirurgie, qui sauve des

vies;

« Attendu que l'HEEO traite chaque année 140 enfants gravement malades à proximité de leur foyer;

« Attendu que la centralisation des services de chirurgie cardiaque pour les enfants à Toronto obligerait les patients et leurs parents à

s'éloigner de 400 kilomètres à 600 kilomètres de leur foyer à un moment difficile;

« Attendu qu'il y a une liste d'attente pour la chirurgie cardiaque à Toronto mais pas à l'HEEO;

« Attendu que la population de l'est de l'Ontario exige des soins de santé de qualité et accessibles pour ses enfants,

« Nous, soussignés, demandons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario d'annuler immédiatement la décision du

gouvernement d'abolir ce programme, qui sauve des vies, et de veiller à ce que chaque enfant de l'est de l'Ontario continue d'avoir pleinement accès à des soins de santé de

qualité supérieure. »

J'y ajoute ma signature avec fierté.

CHILD CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have two petitions that were sent to me by la Garderie Petit Trésor in Elliot Lake and Andrew Fleck

Child Care Services in Ottawa. It reads as follows:

"Whereas 70% of Ontario women with children under age 12 are in the paid workforce;

"Whereas high-quality, safe, affordable child care is critical to them and their families;

"Whereas the Early Years Study done for the Conservative government by Dr Fraser Mustard and the Honourable Margaret McCain concluded quality child care

enhances early childhood development;

"Whereas this government has cut funding for regulated child care instead of supporting Ontario families by investing in early learning and care;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the Ontario government adopt the NDP's $10-a-day child care plan and begin

implementation by reducing full child care fees to $10 a day for children aged two to five currently enrolled in regulated child care, by providing capital funds to expand existing child care

centres and build new ones, by funding pay equity for staff and by creating new $10-a-day child care spaces in the province."

I agree with the petitioners and have affixed my signature to this.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Energy Board has consented to allow Union Gas to retroactively charge $40 per month for a three-month period to recover additional system

operation costs that occurred during the winter of 2000-01 totalling approximately $150 million; and

"Whereas Union Gas will recover accrued costs over the peak heating season, causing undue hardship; and

"Whereas this retroactive charge will affect all customers who receive Union Gas, including new homeowners and new customers to Union Gas;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive under

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy

Board Act disallowing the retroactive rate hike granted to Union Gas, and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes

that will protect consumers from further retroactive rate increases."

It's signed by a number of petitioners from Paincourt, Charing Cross, Thamesville and Chatham.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

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

"Whereas the Ernie Eves government is putting in place a system where the wealthy will be allowed to bypass waiting lists by paying out of their pockets for

MRI and CT scans;

"Whereas existing public MRI and CT machines are not currently being used to their full capacity;

"Whereas the decision to open private clinics was the result of a private sector health care bias and not evidence proving that these private clinics would be

faster, safer or cheaper than public clinics;

"Whereas a centrally managed waiting list process is needed and has not been put into place to prevent queue jumping simply by visiting private clinics;

"Whereas Ontario is short 150 radiologists and new private clinics would only siphon off those already working in public clinics;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to tell Ernie Eves that he must stop this plan to allow the wealthy to jump to the head of

the line and to put Ontario families first by protecting our universally accessible health care system."

This is signed by a large number of my constituents who share this concern, and I affix my signature in full agreement with them.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Union Gas/Duke Energy has had a retroactive increase in natural gas prices approved with interest by the Ontario Energy Board; and

"Whereas all the appointees have been appointed by the provincial Conservative government; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Energy gave itself the authority in 1998 to review the decisions of the board if they are not in the public interest; and

"Whereas the company applying for these increases is already very profitable and is making more money than ever before; and

"Whereas this retroactive increase is unfair, unbusinesslike and holds consumers hostage;

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

"That the Minister of Energy intervene to overturn this decision and protect the public interest and the consumers of natural gas."

I affix my signature to this petition.

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario Energy Board has consented to allow Union Gas to retroactively charge $40 per month for a three-month period to recover additional system

operation costs that occurred during the winter of 2000-01 totalling approximately $150 million; and

"Whereas Union Gas will recover accrued costs over the peak heating season, causing undue hardship; and

"Whereas this retroactive charge will affect all customers who receive Union Gas, including new homeowners and new customers to Union Gas;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive under

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy

Board Act disallowing the retroactive rate hike granted to Union Gas, and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes

that will protect consumers from further retroactive rate increases."

This petition is signed by a number of residents from Blenheim, Chatham and Dresden.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid for by seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities, by 15% over three years,

or $3.02 per diem in the first year, $2 in the second year and $2 a day in the third year, effective September 1, 2002;

"Whereas this fee increase will cost seniors and our most vulnerable more than $200 a month after three years; and

"Whereas this increase is above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario for 2002; and

"Whereas, according to the government's own funded study, Ontario will still rank last amongst comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a

resident for nursing and personal care; and

"Whereas the long-term-care funding partnership has been based on government accepting the responsibility to fund the care and services that residents need;

and

"Whereas government needs to increase long-term-care operating funds by $750 million over the next three years to raise the level of service for Ontario's

long-term-care residents to those in Saskatchewan in 1999; and

"Whereas this province has been built by seniors who should be able to live out their lives with dignity, respect and in comfort in this province;

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

"Demand that Premier Eves reduce the 15% increase over three years in accommodation costs to no more than the cost-of-living increase annually and that the

provincial government provide adequate funding for nursing and personal care to a level that is at least at the average standard for nursing and personal care in those 10 jurisdictions included in

the government's own study."

This has been signed by thousands of residents in my area of Sarnia-Lambton and I affix my signature to this petition.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have, it looks like, a couple of hundred more names on a petition which reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid for by seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities by 15% or $7.02 per diem

effective August 1, 2002; and

"Whereas this fee increase will cost seniors and our most vulnerable more than $200 a month; and

"Whereas this increase is 11.1% above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the increase in the government's own contribution to raise the level of long-term-care services this year is less than $2 per resident per day;

and

"Whereas according to the government's own funded study, Ontario ranks last amongst comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a resident for

nursing and personal care; and

"Whereas the long-term-care funding partnership has been based on government accepting the responsibility to fund the care and services that residents need;

and

"Whereas government needs to increase long-term-care operating funding by $750 million over the next three years to raise the level of service for Ontario's

long-term-care residents to those in Saskatchewan back in 1999; and

"Whereas this province has been built by seniors who should be able to live out their lives with dignity, respect and in comfort in this province;

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

We demand "that Premier Eves reduce his 15% fee increase on seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care

facilities and increase provincial government support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

I affix my signature. I am in agreement with this petition.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): The time for petitions has expired.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUSTAINABLE WATER AND

SEWAGE SYSTEMS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA DURABILITÉ

DES RÉSEAUX D'EAU ET D'ÉGOUTS

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 3, 2002, on the motion for second reading of Bill 175,

An Act respecting the cost of water and waste water

services / Projet de loi 175, Loi concernant le coût des services d'approvisionnement en eau et des services relatifs aux eaux usées.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): The floor is now open for debate.

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): On behalf of the people of Don Valley East, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about Bill 175. Bill 175

is the Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act. It is perhaps one of the most crucial acts that this House is going to deal with in the five years I've been a member here. It is important that we

attend to it. Of course we saw this bill originally introduced about nine months ago as Bill 155, then under the carriage of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I'm going to be talking

about a few things in the short time I have allotted to me here today.

I have concerns that this bill is just another in a series of "trust me" bills. "Trust me," says the Eves-Harris government, "when it comes to protecting the

drinking water of Ontario residents." I have concerns that in fact Bill 175 is not consistent with Justice O'Connor's report into the events in Walkerton, Ontario, and his recommendations how to

ensure that we have sustainable, safe, clean drinking water. I have concerns about the maintenance of the ownership of water in public hands.

Let me begin by placing my comments here today in context. I want to read to you from an editorial in the Hamilton Spectator, Monday, September 30:

"If the Ernie Eves government expects people to believe that safe drinking water is among its top priorities, it had better start to provide the evidence. More

than two years after the Walkerton tragedy, the Conservatives don't appear close to implementing the safeguards they have promised."

Further, from the St Catharines Standard: "Now that Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller has issued his annual report, the damning evidence indicates there

is no reason to hope the Ontario Tories are doing anything to make our drinking water safe. Indeed, in Miller's words, `I suspect the problem may be worse than ever.'"

Finally, from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record: "If you think the Ontario government learned the bitter lessons of Walkerton, where seven lives were lost due to

contaminated water, think again. If you believe the Conservatives are now doing everything possible to guard the public by making the province's water supply safe, get the report just released by

the province's Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller. Then get mad."

These three editorials say it very well. The Harris-Eves government says, "Trust me." All of the evidence says contrary.

As I mentioned, this is a so-called "trust me" bill from the Harris-Eves government. They want us to trust them on several issues, and I'm going to outline

those here and now.

The definition of "water services provider": there are thousands of small-scale water providers -- trailer camps, summer resorts, communal water systems. Which

of these entities will be exempt from the act? Why couldn't this be spelled out in Bill 175? Will there be real protection of our water systems if too many people are made exempt? All fair and

legitimate questions.

Bill 175 does not explicitly deal with the issue of the privatization of municipal water and sewer infrastructure. But the bill does not refer to

municipalities; it only refers to what they call "regulated entities." The definition of a regulated entity will be determined by regulation. Regulation, as opposed to the bill, which is

legislation, is to be determined later under the cover of darkness with no public oversight -- another one of these "trust me" provisions. I can tell all members of this House, but especially the

members of the public, that Ontario Liberals believe that the definition of "regulated entities" should only be municipalities.

The Harris-Eves government wants us to trust them as they define "full costs," as in full cost accounting and full cost recovery, in regulation. "Full costs"

could mean several things. Does it mean we include total cash expenditures, adding together all direct overhead costs and operating costs of the water and sewer systems? Does it mean that we

include the total debt repayment costs reasonably attributed to the works? Does it mean that this includes a total sustainability allowance that includes allowances for renewal, replacement and

improvements? Again, it is completely undefined.

"Trust me," say Ernie Eves and Mike Harris in their legacy. We know not to trust them. They want us to trust them to set the deadlines and time frames for

compliance. This has been a concern of folks like the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association. It doesn't give municipalities very much to go on. There's no commitment at all in the

bill to a phase-in.

Like Justice O'Connor, Ontario Liberals support the principle of full-cost accounting for our water and sewers. We also believe that after the tragedy in

Walkerton, Ontario, water users are willing to pay their fair share to ensure that drinking water is safe. But it would be helpful for municipalities, particularly smaller municipalities, to know

how much they're going to have to pay to implement these plans. The costs may not be so small in scope.

Let me echo some of the concerns from a recent editorial in the Sault Ste Marie Star:

"Communities the size of Sault Ste Marie and larger can generally look after themselves, because the large population

base yields economies of scale. The Public Utilities Commission can spread the cost of upgrades among its 25,000 customers.

"However, smaller municipalities, including several in Algoma, are hard-pressed to fund upgrades with their limited tax base. Bruce Mines is looking at a

possible $3.5 million filtration project to provide safe water for its 500 residents. Thessalon faces spending $5 million for 1,300 people.

"If the 600 households in Thessalon had to foot the whole bill, that would mean a charge of more than $8,000" per household "for the capital project alone."

Add on top of that the operation and ongoing maintenance.

There are also some questions about what exactly is user pay. Will municipalities be allowed to cover the costs from the municipal tax revenues? Will users --

households and businesses -- be the ones to cover the usage directly? What incentives will there be for municipalities to move to metered water systems? If these incentives and payment procedures

are not defined in the legislation, as they are not, how can municipalities plan for the future? All legitimate questions; no answers at all from the government except, "Trust me. Trust us." As

we've learned to our sorrow and shame and embarrassment, and our tragic deaths, we can't.

The government wants us to believe that the new water rates won't become prohibitive for low-income families and seniors. Maybe this bill needs real

protections that would ensure that municipalities cannot cut off users from their water supply. In fact, many municipalities have emergency service bylaws. I hope the government would take this

issue seriously and entrench it in legislation to ensure that no resident of Ontario can be denied access to water. Presently they could.

Justice O'Connor takes this very seriously. He said in very explicit terms that higher water rates may "constitute a significant burden for low-income families

and individuals.... Suffice it to say that, since water is an essential need, it would be unacceptable for those who are unable to pay for safe water to go without. The provincial and municipal

governments should ensure that this does not occur by whatever means they consider appropriate." You'll find that reference on page 313 of the second volume of his report.

Finally, let's remind the House exactly what Justice O'Connor said in the Walkerton report when he was referring to Bill 155, which is exactly the same as Bill

175, save and except for the change from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to the Ministry of the Environment: "In my opinion, if passed into law, the act," the old Bill 155, "will

address many of the important issues concerning the financing of water systems that I discuss in this section. The requirements for a full cost report and cost-recovery plan, as generally expressed

in the proposed act, are ... appropriate."

So Justice O'Connor says these are reasonable measures but there are a lot of unanswered questions. You see, Justice O'Connor is concerned, as are Ontario

Liberals, and as government backbench members should be, that the most important elements of the bill are going to be laid out later by regulation and that they're not contained within the bill

itself. The regulations, he says on page 299, will be critical. O'Connor says the "trust me" provisions in Bill 155, now found in Bill 175, are critical. Then why wouldn't the government take heed

of Justice O'Connor's wise counsel and put certainty and surety in the legislation itself? I'll be very interested to see in committee and in second and third reading if the minister will provide

those assurances to the House that those crucial elements will in fact be embedded in the legislation. Justice O'Connor believes that we should have concern about the items that will be laid out in

regulation at some later time, without any legislative oversight. Quite frankly, Ontario Liberals agree.

As I said earlier, Ontario Liberals will be opposing this bill because we do not believe it is consistent with the recommendations of Justice O'Connor in the

Walkerton report and in fact fails to address some of its major concerns. While Bill 175 addresses some of the concerns, it does not address all of them. I see it as conceivable that if this bill

were to be amended in such a way, it could have the support of all members of this House, and I hope the government would be willing to work with the official opposition to ensure that this bill

complies with the wise counsel of Justice O'Connor.

I want to give you some examples of how O'Connor said Bill 175 -- or Bill 155 at the time -- could be strengthened, could be acceptable to his vision for water

quality and safety. As I said, I will not be supporting this bill unless the government includes an amendment that reflects a key point -- in fact, there are several key points raised by Justice

O'Connor.

Number one, specifically prohibiting municipalities from selling off water and sewer systems to the private sector. Let me repeat that: there is no provision

in this bill that specifically prohibits a municipality from selling off its water systems, contrary to what Justice O'Connor had to say on page 332 of his report. Ontario Liberals believe that the

private sector has a role