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

May 1, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-May-01 vol. A (PDF)

L050A - Mon 1 May 2000 / Lun 1er mai 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO BUDGET

ORGAN DONATION

ONTARIO BUDGET

NICHOLLS/CIVIC NURSES ALUMNAE ASSOCIATION

GO TRANSIT

FRESH START CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE

DAVE FERGUSON

SEXUAL ASSAULT

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SEXUAL ASSAULT

ORAL QUESTIONS

PRIMARY CARE REFORM

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

PRIMARY CARE REFORM

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

SPECIAL EDUCATION

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

HEALTH SERVICES

SKILLS TRAINING

LITHOTRIPSY

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

LORD'S PRAYER

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

ABORTION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

LORD'S PRAYER

HUNTING IN WILDERNESS PARKS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ILLEGAL TIMBER CUTTING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Tomorrow the government will probably proclaim that they balanced the budget. They will take the platitudes from across the province that their efforts at balancing the budget, their decisions to do all these cuts, were in the best interests of Ontario.

Let me tell you, nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is, northeastern and northwestern Ontario continue to suffer under the Mike Harris government. In a recent study it was pointed out that 17.3% of Sudburians live below the poverty level. I don't think any government, whether it be a Progressive Conservative government, a Reform government or an Alliance government, should be proud of the fact that 17.3% of Sudburians live below the poverty level.

On top of that, this government is asking Sudbury for $45 million so that they can achieve the health care goals of the Mike Harris government. The reality is, there will be a balanced budget tomorrow, but there is a huge human deficit. There is a huge deficit in northeastern Ontario, in northwestern Ontario. It may be balanced for the first time in 10 years, but 10 years ago there were not the human disasters that there are today.

ORGAN DONATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Last Thursday some of my constituents from my riding of Durham helped organize a conference presented by the Organ Donation Ontario volunteer committee of Durham region.

I want to congratulate a number of my constituents who worked hard on the committee that organized this important conference. Audrey Gregg, John Willoughby and Pat Corlett each played an important role in this event.

One of the highlights of the conference came near the end of the day when Linda Rumble and Sandra Holdsworth shared their stories with the conference delegates. Linda, who is a family member of a donor, spoke about the excellent care she and her family received from the medical staff as a whole that helped the family through this challenging time. Sandra is a transplant recipient who is living proof of the importance of increased awareness about organ donation.

I must also recognize the outstanding contribution of another constituent, Hilda Gatchell. Ms Gatchell was the chair of the committee that organized the event. Her tireless work ensured that the event was such a great success.

Organ donation, put simply, saves lives. It is important that we raise awareness of the issue and that we encourage people to sit down with their families and discuss this important issue. Events such as Organ Donor Awareness 2000 encourages public debate on the issue.

I am also pleased that our Premier has made an increased number of organ donors a personal goal. In fact, he has set an inspirational goal of doubling Ontario's donation rate. Everyone should give this thought and consider organ donation.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): Tomorrow is budget day. If we are to believe some of the news reports, the Minister of Finance will continue this Common Sense Revolution, a revolution that has seen the most disadvantaged in our society become even more desperate. In today's Globe and Mail, the minister stated that he "agonized" over the cuts and that he's "a compassionate Conservative."

To portray this government as being compassionate rings very hollow. The minister said, "I think most societies are judged by how well they treat the less fortunate, and, at the end of the day, I think that's what the role of government is."

One of the first roles of this government was to cut welfare rates by 21% for the most vulnerable in our society. Is that what a compassionate Conservative is? If this government really believes in helping the less fortunate, it has failed miserably: more homeless people, more hungry children, less affordable housing, higher tuition fees, a health care system in chaos, and the list goes on.

However, I will be generous in my hopes for tomorrow. I will give this government the benefit of the doubt. I look forward to a budget where, as the minister states, "Really you just take money from people who are better off in society and you redistribute it in benefits for all." I expect a commitment to helping the most disadvantaged, housing our homeless, feeding our hungry children, caring for our sick, disabled and elderly, building afford able housing, creating greater access to education, and giving tax cuts to the poorest of our society. I will then proclaim this budget day a great day.

I will then stand up and applaud them for having seen the error of their ways, which they of course admitted to.

NICHOLLS/CIVIC NURSES ALUMNAE ASSOCIATION

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Today marks the 100-year celebration of the Nicholls/Civic Nurses Alumnae Association in Peterborough. The alumnae association has continued to exist for the nurses who graduated from the local hospital between the years of 1891 and 1974, the year of the last graduating class. My late mother was one of those graduates.

The dedication and loyalty of the former graduates to continue as active members of their alumnae association deserves recognition. Today a dinner will be held to celebrate this special occasion. More than 300 nurses from both across Canada and internationally will gather in Peterborough for this event.

The alumnae association has continued to support the Civic Hospital, now Peterborough Regional Hospital, through donations to purchase furnishings and decorations for patients' and family rooms. The alumnae association also coordinates the collection and documentation of hospital and nursing memorabilia for the museum and archives located in the hospital.

As the representative for Peterborough, I would like to commend the Nicholls/Civic Nurses Alumnae Association for the work they do on behalf of our hospital and community. Many patients and family members are more comfortable, thanks to their work.

Congratulations as you celebrate 100 years of service.

GO TRANSIT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): When the Robarts administration established Government of Ontario or GO Transit in 1967, it was seen as a significant and progressive step towards a public transit system which would connect various communities in the Golden Horseshoe to the provincial capital of Toronto, and provide commuters and travellers with an alternative to the often clogged and crowded highway system. Substantial capital investment in tracks and trains and generous operating funding made GO Transit an early success and prompted subsequent governments to expand its services and modernize its operation.

The abandonment of GO Transit, and indeed of all public transit, by the Harris government has contributed to gridlock, forced a widening of highways and contributed immensely to air pollution and fuel consumption in our province.

Tomorrow's budget is a golden opportunity for the Ontario government to reinvest in public transportation and to reinvigorate GO Transit. It is time, for instance, to extend GO Transit to St Catharines and Niagara Falls to provide commuters with an alternative to crammed, increasingly expensive and often unsafe highways, and to make it easier for tourists from the greater Toronto area to visit Niagara.

Finance Minister Ernie Eves has a chance to vastly improve the movement of people and the quality of air in Ontario. He should seize that chance tomorrow in his budget.

FRESH START CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): Today I rise to give congratulations to a company by the name of Fresh Start. Fresh Start Cleaning and Maintenance is a small company that has had tremendous economic success. In fact, over the last three years their growth in business has been over 500%. They have half a million dollars in revenue and 100 employees. But the business success is not the whole story here.

This is a company that began as a community economic development project 10 years ago. It's a company run by and for psychiatric survivors. It's a place where people who have had a struggle in their life are overcoming that struggle and, with the support of a supportive workplace, are making changes in their lives that are real.

This company happens to provide cleaning services to my constituency office in Beaches-East York, as well as to the member from Toronto Centre-Rosedale. They provide these services to corporations, to not-for-profit companies. It's a regular business, but the story behind it is quite incredible.

The over 100 people who are currently working there are people who are no longer using the services of our psychiatric hospitals, for example. They estimate that's a saving to the province of $2.7 million a year. There's another $150,000 saving in social assistance costs as these people are working. But the biggest story is how they've achieved self-esteem, a sense of dignity and a sense of control over their lives. At the beginning of Mental Health Week, it's an appropriate tribute.

DAVE FERGUSON

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I rise today to make all members aware of the outstanding leadership of a Canadian entrepreneur who has exemplified outstanding achievement within both the corporate and community sectors. The Retail Council of Canada selected Dave Ferguson as Distinguished Canadian Retailer of the Year for 2000.

His distinguished career has spanned more than 30 years in North America's retail industry. As president and CEO of Wal-Mart Canada since 1995, Wal-Mart Canada's growth has accelerated and has witnessed the opening of 35 new stores and the creation of more than 14,000 quality retail and construction jobs nationwide. It is expected that 14 new stores will open in 2000. Wal-Mart Canada is based in Mississauga.

In addition to his corporate achievements, Mr Ferguson has demonstrated strong community spirit. Under his leadership, Wal-Mart Canada has built one of the country's strongest, ongoing community involvement programs. Over the past few years, the company has raised and donated more than $6 million to local charities and causes, some of them in my riding.

Mr Ferguson will receive his honourable recognition at the Excellence in Retailing Awards taking place June 19 at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): May is Sexual Assault Prevention Month. It is incumbent upon us as legislators to recommit ourselves to preventing sexual assault, educating the public and considering whether we, as the Legislative Assembly, are doing everything within our power to deal with this cancer in our society.

We know, or we should know, that sexual assault is any unwanted sexual advance or contact achieved by force, threats, manipulation or violence. It may be physical or non-physical. It may be committed by strangers, but more often than not sexual assault is committed by friends, acquaintances and relatives. Research indicates that one out of every three women, one out of every nine men and one out of every four children are victims of sexual assault. It is a crime of violence, not of sex. It is a crime of violence, anger and control that hurts both victims and those who love them.

Because most sexual assaults are not reported to the police, it is one of those crimes that cannot be visited upon through crackdowns and more investment in prosecutors and enforcement-because most people aren't reporting these crimes. It makes prevention all the more important, and it's necessary for us to consider what we should be doing, in addition to educating the public to prevent crime.

Those Ontarians who have been victims of sexual assault can pick up a phone and call a sexual assault counsellor in their community. I visited one such sexual centre in Quinte and district, ably represented by MPP Ernie Parsons. I can tell you that they're not getting the stable funding they need in order to run their sexual assault crisis line. We need an appropriate investment in this and all sexual assault crisis centres, and I look forward in the ensuing days to seeing what the government's going to do about this matter.

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): On April 27, I had the honour and privilege of attending the eighth annual Police Appreciation Night held at Le Parc in Markham. One of the beneficiaries of this year's dinner is the Ontario Special Olympics Spring Games.

The Special Olympics will commence with a torch run, followed by opening ceremonies on May 11. Competitions will be held in a variety of different venues throughout York region and will conclude at Canada's Wonderland on May 14. Competitions will be held in swimming, bowling, hockey and powerlifting.

In addition to the Special Olympics, several officers from the York Region Police Force were honoured for excellence in policing. Three constables, Peter Cepelak, Christine Irvine-Leitch and Philip Mapley were honoured for bravery in the line of duty for diving into frigid waters in a Newmarket golf course pond after a van crashed through a concrete fence and ended up under water. Constable Carolyn Matthews was recognized for bravery for saving the life of a woman whose house was on fire. Staff Sergeant Rodney Sine was recognized for outstanding service to the community.

He was instrumental in developing the values, influences and peers program that now runs in elementary schools across York region. Sergeant Will Janes was honoured for excellence in expanding the RIDE program.

More than $100,000 was raised at the dinner, which was attended by York region mayors, councillors and business leaders. On behalf of the constituents of Thornhill, I congratulate the York region police for their outstanding work and ongoing generosity to the Special Olympics athletes, and we wish our Special Olympians all the best.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Stewart: Pursuant to standing order 109(b), the report sets out the assignment of ministries and offices of the government to the standing committees on general government, and justice and social policy.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 109(b), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, 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, May 1, 2000, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

Hon Mr Sterling: Pursuant to the request of the member for St Catharines, I move that pursuant to standing order (9)(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker: 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. Carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): I am pleased to announce today that the Ontario government is providing more than $500,000 in grants to 38 Ontario organizations involved in addressing violence against women. These local, community-based organizations are involved in delivering prevention, treatment and education on violence against women.

The Ontario government is committed to ending violence against women, providing safe streets, safe communities and preventing crime. Violence against women will not be tolerated. Across Ontario, our government is investing more than $110 million annually through 10 ministries to address and to prevent violence against women and their children.

Two government initiatives that specifically address the needs of women who have been sexually assaulted include, first of all, funding for 33 community-based sexual assault centres across the province. They offer crisis counselling to women who are victims of sexual assault and they provide training for the board members of these agencies. Secondly, we provide funding for 28 hospital-based sexual assault treatment centres across the province. They provide 24-hour emergency medical care, forensic documentation, crisis intervention, medical follow-up and referrals to community agencies for long-term support services.

Through our violence against women prevention initiatives, the Ontario Women's Directorate supports more than 40 programs and initiatives which provide safety, support victims and hold perpetrators accountable.

Other initiatives include the hiring of 1,000 new police officers and provision of modern law enforcement equipment, and the establishment of a Victims' Bill of Rights.

Our government will continue on its safe streets, safe communities commitment. This commitment has already led to a number of breakthroughs in community safety in our province.

May is Sexual Assault Prevention Month. It bears repeating that this government will not tolerate violence against women and their children.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I am pleased to respond to this, given that May is Sexual Assault Prevention Month in our province and our country.

We welcome the infusion of the half million dollars, but it does little to replace the $2.56 million for counselling programs and second-stage housing that your government took away in 1996. This is significant, because prevention is very important here. As my colleague alluded to earlier, most sexual assaults happen in domestic situations. It is not strangers who are doing this; it's family and so-called friends.

In order to address prevention, however, you have to address attitudinal changes, and that's a longer-term investment, I understand, and a longer-term goal. However, the sooner we start investing in the longer term and stop worrying about future elections, the better we'll be.

There is a low reportage of sexual assault in domestic situations, and it cuts across all socio-economic backgrounds. In fact I can tell you that middle-class and upper middle-class women are less likely to report sexual assault if it occurs from a partner or a friend. It's too embarrassing, it's a stigma and it's something that's just not acceptable in their social status. They feel embarrassed, helpless and betrayed. Equally important, Minister, is the stay-at-home mother who doesn't have the kind of professional support outside the home, and I hope you look at that as well.

Mothers on social assistance or mothers of families that are the working poor in our province also have a hard time reporting sexual assault if it's in a domestic state.

I want to talk about what I know a little about and that is children and how this affects them. When I was in private practice and did a lot of work for the courts, the things that came out of children's mouths who had either observed or heard about their mothers being sexually assaulted were unbearable. We have to get to those children, because there is a high probability that they will do the same. Even though they are hurt and angry, they will do the same when they grow up-statements like: "My mother deserved it. She must have deserved it, because my dad's my dad.

He's a good man." or "Maybe it's something I did." Regardless of their thoughts, their feelings or their illness, they will grow up to do the same unless we stop them at the education and counselling level.

A couple of months ago I visited a second-stage house in Woodstock. This place had five full-time people and was cut down to one in the previous mandate. When I approached the second-stage housing, the director was actually shovelling snow; she was doing everything. The counselling program was cut. I thank the Minister of Community and Social Services for giving this lady a meeting, and I hope that that has implications for restoring the counselling program to the children in that place. For some of these women it's almost too late; they've been too hurt to trust again. But it's not too late for the children.

The other area I'd like to concentrate on in the short time I have is education. Minister, with all due respect, I would have preferred to see the money that you spent on the millennium book spent on materials on sexual assault prevention in the schools. Date rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment is high in our high schools. I'm amazed, as the mother of a young girl, how high it is, and it's scary.

When I interviewed these young ladies in my previous role at the Board of Education, again, some of the statements were unheard of and really rang some bells to me as a mother-and I'm teaching my kid right away on how to respond-things like: "Well, he only does it when he's angry. He only does it when he's frustrated. I know he really loves me." We have a lot of work to do. At the very least, commit to investing a similar amount of money to what you did in the millennium book to materials for this.

I'd like to read from a statement of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which stated in number 28 of its principal subjects of concern:

"The committee is concerned that the significant reduction in provincial social assistance programs, the unavailability of affordable and appropriate housing and widespread discrimination with respect to housing creates obstacles to women escaping domestic violence. Many women are forced, as a result of these obstacles, to choose between returning to violence or staying in a violent situation on the one hand, or homelessness and inadequate food and clothing for themselves and their children on the other."

Minister, a couple of generations ago there was a stigma in saying that you had a learning disability. Through education, we taught students that it's okay to stand up and say: "I have a learning disability. I need help." Let's teach them to stand up and say: "There's domestic violence in my home. My mother needs help. My father needs help. I need help."

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to join in placing my comments on behalf of our caucus on the record for Sexual Assault Prevention Month.

While it is always welcome news when the government makes announcements that they are going to make an investment in this important area, I do have to say that I lack a lot of information. The minister was not very specific in terms of the kinds of programs this particular infusion of $500,000 will support.

In fact, in the statement the only two specifics that are talked about are the community-based sexual assault centres and the hospital-based sexual assault treatment centres, both of which are programs that have been in place in this province for many, many years, long preceding this particular government, where we know that, for example, in terms of the community-based sexual assault centres, there is a desperate need for more stable funding. It's unclear to me whether the money announced today will go towards supporting that or whether it will go somewhere else.

I'm particularly concerned when I see the minister mix in a number of issues. She goes on to speak in the rest of the entire statement about general violence-against-women prevention initiatives, in particular, looking at issues dealing with spousal assault and assault on children. All of these issues are critically important, and we must all be dedicated to an eradication of violence of any kind in our society, particularly the kind of violence that stems from power over those who have none in the situation of sexual assault, in the situation spousal assault and in the situation of child abuse.

It also clear that it's important, when we have something as specific as a period of time to bring in education around sexual assault, that we spend our time talking about that and not mixing various sorts of initiatives together here. For example, the minister goes on to talk about domestic violence courts. Part of the initiatives there came out of the May-Iles recommendation. I could spend the rest of my time talking about those recommendations from the coroner's inquest that haven't been met, in particular, the need for community-based services.

People in the community will tell you, over and over again, that there are women who choose not to follow the court route because of all the problems inherent in that. The community-based supports there are very necessary for them, yet that's where we have seen cuts to shelters in second-stage housing programs. Again, that doesn't deal specifically with the topic that we're here to talk about today.

The minister goes on to talk about the hiring of 1,000 new police officers. The government has yet to admit that, as of today, we are still 1,200 officers short of the number of officers we had on the street in 1994. This is not a record to be proud of: hiring back fewer than you caused to be laid off with the various cuts in funding that you've made.

The minister goes on to talk about the Victims' Bill of Rights, a bill which has been, in court, denounced-it's as empty as the rhetoric from the other side of the House-as something that provides no rights at all. It's a statement of sentiment. It's nice to have sentiment; it's much better to have rights that are enforceable and to have the ability through our community agencies to prevent these things in the first place.

I remain pleased that we are standing and again, as we do every year, uniting our voices together to say that it is of utmost importance to see the eradication of this kind of violence, of sexual assault, and all that it means in terms of the trauma in people's lives.

It is a pleasure to hear the minister make an announcement that $500,000 in grants are going to be made. I would like to know the details. Are they one-time grants? Is any of that stable funding? Is any of that going specifically to the sexual assault help lines that have been established that people can't staff? The women's assault help line in 1997 was turning away 50,000 calls a year, and it has gotten worse since then.

There are specifics out there that need to be addressed. Without the details, I don't know how far these announcements go. I hope they meet some of these needs. I hope we can continue to work together to improve the record of all of us with respect to our society and eradication of violence. I hope the next time the statement is more fulsome in dealing with the topic at hand, Sexual Assault Awareness Month, not mixing in all of your justice initiatives and attempting to take credit and saying it's having an impact in this area.

I hope that we can see some real progress, measurable progress, and come back with results that show that the $500,000 in grants that you invest this year protect women, real women, and make a difference in their lives by the time we come back to this event next year.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PRIMARY CARE REFORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question today is for the Premier. Last week we learned that you have, for all intents and purposes, given up on primary care reform in Ontario. You have abdicated your responsibility to modernize health care, to restructure it in such a way that it will restore public confidence.

Let us end this charade. Why don't you just stand up now, own up, fess up, and admit that you never really were interested in moving forward on primary care reform in Ontario and that as far as you are concerned it's never ever going to happen under a Harris government?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Last week what we learned, and tomorrow in the budget what we will learn, is the biggest advance in the history of North America in primary care reform, in rostering, in quality, 24-hour, seven-day-a-week health care. What we will also see is that it's done co-operatively with the OMA.

The leader of the flip-flop party at one point said, "It should be mandatory." Then we heard him give a speech to the fundraisers-these are the wealthy doctors who for some reason or other still attend a Liberal fundraising event-and what he said there was, "No, it should be voluntary."

Now we have an agreement arrived at on a voluntary basis, an historic agreement with the biggest advance certainly in Canada, and I believe in North America, to primary care reform and rostering, the likes of which has never been seen anywhere in Canada. Yet still nobody knows: Are you for rostering? Are you against it? Are you mandatory? Are you voluntary? Are you-

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock, please. Let's wait for the people to settle down.

The leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Mike, I've got to tell you, arrogance looks really good on you. And in passing, let me extend a very warm welcome to the Premier, who has deigned to honour us with his presence here today.

Premier, your record speaks for itself. You have done nothing to move the cause of 24-7 health care forward in Ontario. In fact, what we've learned about this deal is that you're working more to hike up costs for individual patients and families in Ontario than anybody else in the history of this province. Not only have you not moved forward on primary care reform, Premier, but you have agreed to delist and ensure that Ontarians begin to pay $50 million more in health care costs in Ontario. That's what this deal is all about.

It has nothing to do with improving health care for Ontarians, but it has everything to do with jacking up the prices they pay for health care as residents of this province.

Premier, again I ask you to stand up and end the charade; admit you intend to do nothing when it comes to putting in place 24-7 health care for Ontarians.

Hon Mr Harris: Arrogance is when you argue with reporters about whether you ever had a balanced budget or not, and the Provincial Auditor says this: "The Liberal practice of pre-flowing money via regular pre-flows, both budget and non-budget, can be viewed as an attempt to manage operating results." That's arrogance. You told us to check with the auditor. We checked with the auditor, and that's what the auditor said.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat. We'll just let the clock wind down. It's fine by me.

The Premier had a little time left, if he wanted to continue.

Hon Mr Harris: Since the first half of your question dealt with arrogance, you are the epitome of arrogance in everything you do.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock for a minute. For the benefit of all members, it would be helpful if we did address things through the Chair. As you know, there's a long-standing parliamentary tradition to do it through the Chair. That way we don't get into personal attacks across at each other. If members could remember to try to direct it through the Speaker, that would be helpful. I believe we're at the final supplementary; the Premier's time was up.

Mr McGuinty: This response speaks volumes about the state of this government and its real priorities in Ontario. I asked a question, Speaker, and you heard it very clearly, as did the viewers. I asked a question specifically about primary care reform. I asked a question that has everything to do with modernizing health care in Ontario. I asked a question that has everything to do with the most important value that we share as Ontarians, which is protecting our sick and our most vulnerable. This Premier talked to me about a balanced budget when I was talking about health care.

That tells us everything, that at the end of the day he's prepared to put dollars and cents ahead of health care for Ontarians. That's what the Premier is telling us.

The Premier stands to respond.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. The Premier knows I will call on him when it's his turn to answer. I think we had a few more seconds left in the final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Mike, the good news is that shortly your time will be up; that's the good news.

Premier, one more time, if I could have you-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. Stop the clock. We'll wait for the government benches to come to order.

Start the clock.

Mr McGuinty: Painful though it may be for you, Premier, I'm going to ask you to turn your mind to the issue of health care in Ontario and I'm going to ask you one more time to admit before all Ontarians that you have never had and do not have at this time any plans to put into place 24-7 health care for Ontario.

Hon Mr Harris: To the arrogant leader of the Liberal Party, let me say this: To stand in your place today and attack the very integrity of the OMA, of every doctor in this province who came to the table with our negotiating team and our Minister of Health, who came to the table-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat. Let the clock run down, then. We're not going to continue when you shout back and forth. Both sides are doing it today, so we'll just let the clock wind down, because I'm not going to sit here while people are shouting across at each other. There will be no question period, then. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: The Liberal benches may not want to hear this, but the fact of the matter is that you are attacking the integrity of every doctor in the province of Ontario, who made a major commitment through this negotiated agreement towards primary care reform, unlike anything seen in this country, certainly in living memory while I have been around. It is a firm commitment and it is a proposal to proceed forward.

Now, it is not ordered, it is not compulsory, it is not the government dictating, because that is the only thing we haven't done. We did it co-operatively, which I know bothers the Liberal Party. They don't like to see things done co-operatively. If you think we should have ordered it, say so, because one day you say one thing and the next day another.

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): We've got a new Premier here today. He's the guy who wants to work together with everybody. This is news.

My second question is for the Premier as well. Last week we had an announcement telling us that you have for all intents and purposes given up on ensuring that there are places in our public, affordable universities in Ontario for all of those students who are marching through primary and secondary school today. You have said you have given up on making places for them and instead you have extended an open arm to private American universities, which will be charging the likes of $40,000 in tuition for our young people.

Premier, why have you given up on the right of Ontario families and their children to attend affordable public universities in Ontario, something that is absolutely essential to our future economic prosperity?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think, quite frankly, even the members of the opposition know, certainly the university and college community knows and the students and parents know that this government has put more dollars into the largest expansion of colleges and universities ever in the history of the province. We've already announced close to $1 billion of expansions, of growth for our colleges and universities. We've already announced the operating funding commitments to go with those new spaces. We have, through SuperBuild-and the only reason we were able to do it-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Premier take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier, continue, please.

The Speaker: The Premier's time is up. Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, check the facts. In the last five years in North America, if you take a look at the 60 different jurisdictions, all of the states and all of the provinces, we rank 59th here in Ontario. That is your personal claim to fame. We were ranked 59 out of 60 in terms of increasing investments in our public universities. The question is, what do they get, the leaders of all those other jurisdictions in North America, that you don't get? They get that it's absolutely essential in a knowledge-based global market economy that we continue to invest in our young people and our publicly funded universities. That's what they get.

The question for you, Premier, is: Why is it that you have given up on Ontario's young people? Why is it that you've given up on our public universities? Why is it that instead you've extended an open arm to private American universities which our children are not going to be able to afford to attend? Do you not understand how important it is to maintain in place a modernized public university system which Ontario youth can afford?

Hon Mr Harris: The record is very clear: We've put in more money, more expansion, new spaces, more capital dollars certainly than ever in the history of Ontario. We have shown tremendous confidence in and strength into our universities and our colleges. Once again, I'm a little shocked when we hear the president of university after university say: "You know what? We are now so well-financed and funded and have such excellence that we can compete with the world. We can be the best in the world."

Interruption.

The Speaker: The Premier take his seat. Stop the clock. I would just remind our guests in the gallery that demonstrations and yelling at the members are not allowed. We love to have you here-I know all the members do-but we can't have a situation where people in the gallery are shouting. If that happens, unfortunately you will be asked to leave. I would appreciate your co-operation in this regard. I know sometimes the issues are very heated and people tend to get away, but that even includes clapping and so on. So I would appreciate your indulgence, for those of you in the gallery.

I believe we're at final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you may have decided that it's your job to look out for the interests of university presidents, but just so it's perfectly clear, I think my job is to look out for the interests of Ontario families and their young people.

Premier, just so you understand how bad things are getting and how little you are doing, universities are telling us that in 2003, as a result of the double-cohort mess that you have created, there are going to be 33,000 students knocking at the doors. We're also learning that over the course of the next decade there is going to be a net increase in enrolment of over 90,000 Ontario young people. You are doing absolutely nothing and your minister is doing absolutely nothing to prepare for this.

In fact, let the record speak for itself. When this minister was confronted by a student last week who said, "Where am I going to get $40,000 a year?" she effectively said, "Let your parents come up with the money," which means, as far as she's concerned, "Let them eat cake."

I believe that we have a responsibility, Premier. We in this province and in this Legislature have a responsibility to keep the door open to the generations that have yet to come behind us. We've got a responsibility to make sure we have in place a modern, effective, efficient, publicly supported university system that is affordable for our young people.

So I ask you one more time, why are you giving up on our young people, and why are you giving up on our future?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the member raises some issues of double cohort and a growing number of students, which is why we have provided for close to 90,000 new spaces here in our colleges and here in our universities-our public colleges, our publicly funded colleges. If you want to talk about students, your government hiked tuition 30% and never gave one nickel in increase in student assistance. We're the party that has put over $1 billion into bursaries. We're the party that has put record numbers of dollars into OSAP and student aid and bursaries and assistance.

I know what Liberals say. It's why you're irrelevant. Here's what thinking people say. They said this in the editorial in the Globe and Mail.

"Following New Brunswick's lead, Ontario will allow the formation of private universities, a decision oddly late in coming and sadly opposed by some." You, sir, are the sad one.

PRIMARY CARE REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. This is your agreement with the Ontario Medical Association, which your cabinet colleagues said didn't exist last week, until we exposed it.

As we predicted, despite all your rhetoric about primary care, there is absolutely nothing in this document that will promote primary care. You did the same thing you did three years ago: When push came to shove, you sold out. The fee increases in this alone will cost Ontario's citizens over $217 million. But what do the patients get? No effective strategy for dealing with the shortage of doctors, no insurance that the doctor is going to be in for the families that don't have one, nothing that will move forward on nurse practitioners or nurses being put into primary care. Premier, why did you cave in?

Why didn't you insist on a plan which would ensure that physicians and nurse practitioners and nurses would be in for all the patients of Ontario, not just some? Will you go back to the table and get the kind of agreement that you spent so much time talking about?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): You're right; the agreement does cost in the $200-million range. That's a little under 8% over four years, which is within the guidelines we set, not only for our own negotiations but for money we transfer to our partners in the broader public sector.

With regard to primary care reform, this agreement is all about primary care reform, it's all about rostering, it's all about encouraging, with the co-operation of the OMA, our family doctors to roster patients. You will hear more about this perhaps in later days.

The agreement is yet to be ratified, as you know, but let me at least acknowledge this: At least you, sir, and the New Democratic Party have been consistent in saying we should just order doctors to do it. You wouldn't do it, but you have been consistent in telling us we should order people to do things, unlike the Liberal Party, who say one day, "You should order," and the next day "voluntary," depending on whom they're talking to. I think you're wrong, but I at least give you credit for consistency.

Mr Hampton: Premier, we are talking here about literally thousands of families across Ontario that do not have access to a family doctor. We are talking about patients who have small children who wait eight weeks for a doctor's appointment-a little boy who loses so much weight that he weighs less than his two-year-old brother. That's what we're talking about here, and your agreement does nothing about that.

Your expert, Dr McKendry, who went out there and surveyed this problem for you, said in Thunder Bay three weeks ago that there are now 100 communities that are short 415 physicians, the worst record ever. He said that unless you're ready to move forward on primary care, this situation is going to get worse. Premier, what do you have to say to your own expert, Dr Robert McKendry, who said you must move forward or the problem is going to get worse? What do you have to say to him?

Hon Mr Harris: What we are talking about here is a Minister of Health who has done more to correct the damage that your party left and that the Liberals left than any other Minister of Health has done. Back when you cut enrolment in the medical schools in 1992, an NDP decision, probably supported by the Liberals-I can't remember at the moment-we have had challenges. We understand that.

With the Liberals slashing $1.7 billion out of our health care funding at the same time as we're trying to deal with an aging population, trying to deal with new drugs, new techniques, and trying to deal with primary care reform, it has been a challenge. We accept that and we acknowledge that. But I can tell you that no minister has done more to implement the McKendry recommendations or the recommendations of primary care reform or to help everybody have access to a family doctor than has this Minister of Health or this Minister of Finance, as you will hear tomorrow in the budget.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Final supplementary.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): Premier, I feel like I should send the agreement over to you and ask you to read it, because it does nothing to move primary care forward; it does nothing on recruitment and retention of physicians. In fact, it moves in the wrong direction.

The other thing it does is that it sets up a process of delisting another $50 million of OHIP services. Since you've come to office, now with this agreement, that's $100 million of OHIP services to be delisted. Compare that to the $10 million of delisting before you became Premier. That's money that is coming out of the public's pocket; that is privatization of the services.

Here we are about to have a budget tomorrow, where you're going to say it's a balanced budget, there's a surplus and you're going to pay down the debt. You're going to say you're going to spend more on health, that you've got all these investments to make. Tell me, why was it necessary, then, to take away $50 million of services from the public and make them pay for it from their own pocket? Why is it necessary? Why are you privatizing this system?

Hon Mr Harris: I am surprised that the New Democratic Party has moved off primary care reform, because they have been advocates for that, and they have a track record of credibility that the Liberals would envy on that issue. I am surprised you moved off that into an area of delisting, which you started. You started delisting. Our minister has talked about modernizing the system, not delisting. You, the party that delisted all these drugs-whereas this Minister of Health has added net to the drug formulary 50 times more drugs than you cut out-all you did was cut, delist, and you don't have a good record on that.

I am surprised you would shift from where you do have some credibility of interest in primary care reform, unlike the Liberals, to an area where you were just as disastrous as the Liberals, and that is in delisting and taking away services.

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. It seems that your answer to all the health care crises and education crises you create is always the same: privatize. Here you've privatized $100 million in health care services over two agreements.

But I want to talk just about universities, because we've pointed out example after example over the last five years of how your short funding of colleges and universities is creating all kinds of problems for our students, and last week we got your answer. What is your answer? You are going to invite scandal-plagued institutions, scandal-plagued private, for-profit universities like the University of Phoenix to come into Ontario; the same University of Phoenix that has been fined $6 million by the federal Department of Education in the United States for misusing student aid funds.

Premier, can you tell us how something like the University of Phoenix, which has been convicted of misusing student aid funds, is going to help the secondary students of Ontario?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I really am surprised at this party. Here is a leader who went to university in the United States-

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): And graduated.

Hon Mr Harris: And graduated, I might add. Mr Speaker, every once in a while an intervention is appropriate.

Now, when we have, through SuperBuild, had the largest investment and expansion of our college and university system, taking care of over 90,000 new student placements through the SuperBuild announcements that we've made to date, I'm surprised that you wouldn't understand that, in addition to that, it disappoints us, with the quality and the excellence that we have in our institutions here in Ontario, that we still have students who go to, say, Dartmouth or Harvard or to universities in England. Our goal is to make sure that we get students from around the world coming to Ontario, where we know our publicly funded universities and colleges-

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

Mr Hampton: Premier, the question was this: You're opening the door to the University of Phoenix, an institution that regularly is hauled before the federal Department of Education in the United States for misusing student aid funds. You respond by saying, "Well, you, Mr Hampton, went to a university in the States." Yes, I did. I went to a university where the tuition fees today in Canadian dollars would be $40,000 a year. Most students can't afford that-I couldn't afford it-and that's the gist of the question, Premier.

You're inviting scandal-driven institutions like the University of Phoenix. You're saying that institutions that will charge $40,000 a year in tuition fees are the answer. Explain to us, Premier, how that's an answer. How are students going to be able to afford $40,000 a year? How is a scandal-plagued institution like the University of Phoenix going to help our students? That's the answer we want to hear.

Hon Mr Harris: As you know, many Ontario students are now leaving and going to other universities. Some now, with the Internet and the changes that are taking place, can stay right here in Ontario and get degrees from universities all around the world.

What we have put in place is a recognition of this reality. We've said we need now to investigate and set up a process where we can look at those universities that we think can add value, can work in partnership perhaps with our universities or colleges here and use this new technology. I don't know why, because you think one university is bad-why that university would get through a screening process, and why you would want to eliminate Dartmouth and Harvard from coming to Ontario.

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. You know, it's strange that you can't find money to modernize health care in Ontario and you can't find money to modernize our university system and ensure that it remains affordable and accessible, but when it comes to the matter-

Interruption.

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

Interruption.

The Speaker: This House stands in recess for 15 minutes.

The House recessed from 1432 to 1447.

The Speaker: I believe it was the leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: To the Premier: I want to return to the issue of the Harris land flips and the Harris land scandal, the details of which have been revealed to a shocked Ontario public over the course of the past few weeks.

I want to return to one specific deal in particular. That's the one that converted a cemetery into a gold mine for a close friend of the Conservative Party here in Ontario. That deal involved a piece of land, an otherwise insignificant 25-foot strip of land, that was turned over to Mr Damiani, a close friend of your cabinet. The issue that we're trying to figure out over here on this side of the House is whether he paid anything at all for that strip of land that converted an otherwise inexpensive cemetery into $25-million gold mine. We know that the land was never put out to public tender.

We know that your minister was involved in the deal. What we're trying to get from you is whether any money at all was charged for this 25-foot strip of land. Was this a freebie for a friend of the government?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Actually, it is embarrassing for any MPP to ask that kind of question, in that kind of tone, with that kind of language, with that kind of rhetoric, with that kind of misinformation.

What we do know is that there were a number of deals. I have no knowledge of any individual deals; neither does the minister, of this deal or any other. What we know is that there are some deals for which the chairman and the CEO have come to the minister and said: "We should be doing an audit of some of these deals, these practices over the last 15 years. Could we do that?"

The minister said yes, and if there is anything untoward, they'll take a look at it. So if you would send any information you have to the forensic audit team or to the Deputy Attorney General or to the OPP, we'll be looking into all these matters.

But I can tell you that your question, your attitude, your tone is a disgrace to the profession of politician.

The Speaker: Time is up. Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, what is truly disgraceful is your refusal and the refusal of your minister to bring forward all the facts so that we can get to the bottom of this matter right now.

I have a memo put out by the ORC dated June 17, and it is in relation to this 25-foot strip of land. In it, a representative of Mr Damiani says he believed that the 25-foot strip was included in the purchase price of the first piece of land. The person who wrote this asked, "How do I go for market value for one abutting owner and not the other?" because it turns out that Sun Life owned the land on the other side and they were using this same 25-foot strip of land.

What we've got here is the conversion of a cemetery into a $25-million gold mine. We've got the fact that this has not been put out for public tender. We've got the fact that this was not offered for sale to the abutting neighbour. We've got the fact that, because you haven't answered the question yet, there is a distinct possibility that Mr Damiani got this land for free. We've got all of those facts combined, and that makes for a continuing stink emanating from the ORC and the leadership you have failed to provide on this issue.

Premier, once more, why is that you have given up protecting the interests of taxpayers of Ontario when it comes to your land flip?

Hon Mr Harris: I believe what we have-and I'm not privy to any of the deals-is a deal that hasn't closed, that's under investigation, and all the facts are being made available to all those who should have them. The only thing that stinks here is you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm going to ask the Premier to withdraw that. You cannot say that to another member.

Hon Mr Harris: I would be happy to withdraw, Mr Speaker. But let me say this: You are an embarrassment to this House.

The Speaker: The Premier take his seat. The member take his seat.

Let me say this: Personal accusations going back and forth can't continue in here. I say this to the Premier: This is the third time I've seen him do it-to the member for Parkdale-High Park on one occasion and to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt-and I will not tolerate it again. If there are any more personal comments that get thrown across-and I don't know whether a Premier has ever been thrown out, but I will name the Premier. If he yells across one more personal insult to any member, I will have to name the Premier.

Applause.

The Speaker: I thank the members, but as I've said in the past, it's not very helpful when members clap for the Speaker's ruling.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, and it's a very important question I have.

Just before I get to my question, I attended a volunteer awards ceremony last Friday evening on behalf of the minister and the government of Ontario. The volunteers in our community are doing wonderful work in our hospitals and are disgusted at the federal Liberals' transfer payments to the province of Ontario only providing 11% for health care.

Today I read with some surprise a report saying that the funding for the Ontario Human Rights Commission may or may not have decreased or increased. Can you put some clarity into that issue, Minister?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): I'd like to thank the member for London-Fanshawe for his question. I'd like also to offer to the opposition that when they're going to put some information out in the public, if they want to check with the ministry first, I'd be happy to answer, because some of the comments just weren't true.

I think it's important for us all to recognize that the Ontario Human Rights Commission is doing a better job than they've ever done before in the province. In 1999-2000, 60% of all complaints filed were resolved within a six-month period. Half of the new cases were dealt with through voluntary mediation, and of those, over 70% were resolved within a six-month period or less. The average time it takes for a case to be resolved through the Ontario Human Rights Commission right now is down from 22 months in 1997 to 18 months. They are making moves all the time to reduce-

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

Mr Mazzilli: Minister, I guess we can't believe everything we hear from the opposition. Certainly in this case it's not any different from other things that we hear. They are continually saying that the federal government has increased federal transfers for health care. In fact, what do we find? They've decreased since 1994.

But back to this issue, which is very important: How many cases is the Ontario Human Rights Commission hearing at this point in time?

Hon Mrs Johns: I'd like to thank the member for the question, because it's really important to correct the record. I don't like to blame other parties, but let me say that I think it's the pot calling the kettle black. The NDP had a dismal record in office when it came to success in resolving Human Rights Commission cases. The number of cases either not dealt with or dismissed was less in 1998-99 than it was in 1994-95, so we're doing a better job of going through the cases and resolving the cases.

We're also going through twice as many cases-and they are receiving a hearing-than happened when the NDP were in power in 1994. So we're hearing twice as many cases. In 1998-99, 867 cases were settled, compared to just 293 cases in 1994-95.

I think you'll hear from the chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission that things are going well at the Human Rights Commission, that they're far exceeding the expectations that they have in the budget. I can tell you that we're pleased with the way the program is working.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question for the Premier. Liberals believe that children with Down's syndrome, children who have learning disabilities, should get extra priority in school, should be looked after. I want to ask you about the failure of your minister to do that.

Tomorrow you're going to present a budget and you're going to pretend everything is fine in this province, but part of the cost of your tax cuts and your other things has been taking money away from disadvantaged kids. In the Durham Board of Education alone, $11 million was being spent by that board because you wouldn't provide for these disabled kids to get their special attention in school. They tried that for a year; then they cut $3 million. Now they are cutting another $1.4 million. You're abandoning these kids. In the Durham board and boards all around the province, it's the price you're making the most vulnerable kids in school today pay for your twisted priorities.

Premier, the day before the budget, will you stand up and assure us that your standards don't stoop that low, that you will include these kids, that you will fix the problems that your minister has been unwilling to fix with special-needs kids in this province?

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

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I guess I would ask the honourable member where he has been since I've been minister, because one of the first issues that I identified-

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Ecker: They don't want to hear the answer now that they've asked me the question.

One of the first issues that I identified as needing to be fixed was to further improve the services for special-needs children in our province. That's why we have increased again, for the third year in a row, more money for special needs, another $40 million, as well as providing additional flexibility to boards, which boards and parents asked for, as well as working on standards so that we make sure those students are getting the support they need, something else we were asked to do that we are working on. All of these steps we are taking because we do recognize the special needs of those children.

We do recognize that with the right support they too can have an education and deserve an education.

Mr Kennedy: Maybe the Premier was too embarrassed to give that answer, but the minister is referring to the students in her own area, in the Durham board, where the superintendent in charge of special education has seen none of the $40 million of ghost money that you've announced sometime next year-not one penny-and says that some 50% to 60% of their special-needs kids won't be eligible for that cruel slide rule that you've set up to take kids out so you can save money in this program.

Wendy Shulte has a son, Justin, who has a childhood illness that interfered with his ability to learn languages. He no longer qualifies for assistance. He's headed for a grade 4 class without assistance unless the board cannibalizes some other program to make it happen. Minister, they've laid off 120 teachers. They've cut $8 million in assistance to special-needs kids on your watch, in your riding, to the students whose parents elected you to look after them.

Minister, I want to ask you today, will you guarantee a standard of care, the same standard of care that existed before you came in with your cut-and-slash agenda, will be there for special-needs kids? Will you review the formula? Will you put more money in, and will you make sure that Justin Shulte and all the thousands of special-needs kids don't have to pay the cost for your twisted priorities in the budget tomorrow?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Again, with all due respect to the honourable member, where has he been? For the third year in a row, we are increasing special-needs funding. We have just started a massive reform of how that money goes to boards so that there are better standards and better guarantees out there for parents and their children so that they get those services. Perhaps the reason the Durham board hasn't yet seen any money from the $40 million is because the boards are only now submitting ISA claims and the paperwork for the eligibility that has to be done to make sure that this money is indeed going for special-needs children.

The other thing I would like to say is that if the honourable member had taken the briefing that my staff offered, and unfortunately he didn't, he would understand that the eligibility criteria for funding are not the same as the services and supports that students should be getting. So, regardless of where a student falls in some wonderful financial criteria, the individual education-

Interjections.

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

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): My question today is for the minister responsible for children. Our government has made children's initiatives a priority, particularly for children below the age of four. In the Blueprint, we promised, "We'll give every Ontario child the opportunity for a good start in life, with early childhood learning, and with better protection and support for them and their families." Indeed, it was our government that established the first ever position of minister responsible for children.

Minister, I understand that recently you attended the World Bank Global Conference 2000 on investing in our children's future. I'm wondering if you could share with the members of this House, based on what you observed at the conference, how Ontario is comparing with other jurisdictions around the world in terms of investing in our children's future.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): I'd like to thank Brenda Elliott, the member for Guelph-Wellington, for this question. It was indeed a great privilege for me to attend the World Bank global conference in Washington and to host the opening session on investing in children with Dr Fraser Mustard. I learned a great deal from meeting with individuals from around the world who are also committed to improving the future outcomes of our children.

World-renowned Dr William Foege, an epidemiologist who worked on the successful eradication of small pox in the 1970s and recipient of many international awards, including the World Health Organization Health for All medal, spoke at the conference. In his closing remarks, Dr Foege singled out Ontario as one of the only two jurisdictions in the world that he knew of that are leading the way for the rest of the world-

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

Mrs Elliott: That's marvellous news. You mentioned Dr Fraser Mustard, also Margaret McCain, who of course we called upon to assist us with the Early Years studies. I understand that early childhood development programs are most effective when they are community-based. How is our Early Years study implementation ongoing with this emphasis on community-based services?

Hon Mrs Marland: I just want to finish what I was saying and then answer the second question. The important thing to know is that Dr Foege stood at the World Bank conference and acknowledged and praised Ontario for being one of two that had ministers responsible solely for children.

I'm proud of Premier Harris's vision and his commitment to the children of this province. There was a strong consensus among the countries represented at this conference, poor nations and rich nations alike, that there is a need for local community-based early childhood development programs, rather than the traditional top-down, cookie-cutter approach that governments have used in the past.

The worldwide consensus supports the recommendations made by the Early Years study and provides us with further-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm afraid the minister's time is up. I'm sorry. Time passes quickly, I know.

The leader of the third party.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Dr Kin Yip Chun has waited eight years to receive justice from the Ontario Human Rights Commission. An investigator who looked at his complaint has concluded that his complaint indeed has merit, but he has waited eight years for a hearing, eight years for justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Sadly, he is one of hundreds of cases that have waited four years, six years, eight years. In fact, over the last two years, in 1998 and 1999, the Ombudsman has singled out your government's sad record at the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Now, you say things are improving at the Human Rights Commission, so I'm going to take you up on your statements. If things are improving, will you guarantee that Dr Chun will get the hearing he deserves after waiting eight years?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): As the member opposite knows, I am not allowed to speak about cases before the Human Rights Commission. But let me say that it's very clear that the people who have caused the backlog at the Ontario Human Rights Commission were the NDP. In 1994-95, they cut $2 million from the budget of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and since that time we have been working to expedite complaints, to move cases forward within the commission-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the minister take her seat. I apologize to the minister for the interruption. Minister, continue.

Hon Mrs Johns: It's important for everybody to be able to get their hearing at the Human Rights Commission. As I said earlier, in 1999-2000, 60% of all complaints filed were resolved within a six-month period or less. Half of the new cases were dealt with through voluntary mediation and, of those, 70% of the cases were resolved in six months or less. The Ontario Human Rights Commission is doing a terrific job at going through the cases more quickly, making sure that people have hearings as quickly as possible and that people's rights are protected.

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Minister, I've just got to tell you, I find your response unsavoury, malodorous and offensive. You're only devoting a couple of dollars and a couple of services to the Human Rights Commission.

We saw what happened when your government shut down regional offices for the family support plan: It created chaos and misery for thousands of people. What you're now doing is ignoring what the Ombudsman said, the advice of the Ombudsman. You cut $1.2 million from the Human Rights Commission. You're shutting down eight regional offices. Staff have been laid off. In 1999, the backlog increased to 485 cases from 325. Madame la ministre, you're shutting down the shop. How can you say things are getting better? You're shutting down everything.

Hon Mrs Johns: To the member opposite and the previous minister of this ministry, let me say that it's time you checked the facts. I don't know where you're getting those kinds of cuts. The people in every regional office are still there. We moved them into other buildings so that we didn't have bricks and mortar just for the Ontario Human Rights Commission, but we have people in all of those communities to be able to work with people who need it.

Let me say once more that cuts were made in 1994-95 of $2 million. We did not cut $1.2 million from the budget this year. I don't know where they're getting their information, but it's incorrect. We continue to work to be able to get more cases through, more people heard. In fact, we have moved the number of cases that are being heard every year to 800 from 293 in the year the person opposite was minister.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. Your new agreement with the Ontario Medical Association says that $50 million will be found through tightening and modernization. You know, as we all do, that tightening means delisting and that delisting means people paying for more of their health care privately.

The first thing you're going to delist is rehabilitation services; $17 million worth of rehabilitation services comes from OHIP billings right now. It's not enough to meet the need, and that's why more and more rehabilitation is being paid for privately-by those who can afford to pay for it.

If you stop paying for rehabilitation out of OHIP, Minister, you must put those dollars into the same services in other settings. If you don't, seniors and others who can't pay $1,000 or more out of their own pocket to get needed rehabilitation will just be left out. I ask you today, will you guarantee that the $17 million worth of rehabilitation services you are going to delist will be put back into publicly funded rehabilitation care? Will you assure us that you will not use this money to pay for physicians' salary increases?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm not quite sure what the member is speaking about, but I can certainly share with the member the fact that if you take a look at this agreement, this agreement actually does respond to the specific needs of people in the province of Ontario. In fact, she will see in here that this agreement actually allows for increased access to emergency services. It also allows for increased access to specialists.

It also takes into consideration the fact that as our population is aging, they have a need for more complex care, and so it recognizes that additional benefits are to be provided for seniors over the age of 75. It also recognizes that home care is a fact of life, and we need to ensure that the appropriate system of home care services is provided and that the physician has the key role.

This agreement does more to ensure that more services are available to people in this province than ever before, plus the fact that they're going to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Mrs McLeod: You know exactly what I'm talking about, and I will take your refusal to answer the last question and my supplementary as an affirmation of the fact that you are going to be shifting services from public funds to the private payer. The physician services committee has been given the task of telling you where you will find your $50 million. The physician services committee has already recommended to you delisting rehabilitation and audiology. They recommended it last year; you delayed it. They will recommend it again this year. So you are going to delist rehabilitation services and you are going to delist audiology services.

Delisting audiology might be all right, provided you will guarantee that hearing tests are not going to be something else that people, again particularly seniors, will have to pay for out of their own pocket. You were supposed to come up with an alternate plan for audiology services last April. There is still no plan and there is no place else right now that people can get the hearing tests they need.

Minister, I will ask you again, will you assure us that seniors and others will not have to pay for hearing tests, that they will not have to pay more to get rehabilitation so that you can find the money you need to pay doctors' salaries through your agreement with the OMA?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's unfortunate that the member opposite would speculate about events that have not occurred. It's very important to take into consideration that the tentative agreement-and I stress tentative agreement-that is in place actually specifically responds to the needs of people in this province, very particularly the needs of people who need the emergency room service. It speaks to retaining physicians in the province of Ontario. It speaks to recruitment. It speaks to ensuring that people can work together in the primary care reform network.

We look forward to seeing more health providers providing the appropriate level of services. It is a fair agreement that will provide more services than ever before for people in this province, and it doesn't speak to the issues that the member is bringing up today.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): My question is directed to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. I am sure that you and all of us are aware of the skills shortages in Ontario. The shortages are especially acute in Cambridge, with its booming economy. This is a troubling problem we need to address in order to compete in the global economy. What is your ministry doing to prevent this problem from stalling our province's economic growth?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): It is true that the number of skilled workers needed has surpassed the number of skilled workers trained in our province on a yearly basis. Because of the positive economic environment that the Harris government has created, we have a contribution in that. That's why we have developed a program called the strategic skills investment program. Our government has invested $45 million in 28 programs, which has triggered a $135-million investment by the private sector over the last two years.

Its success has encouraged 300 companies and 85 business associations and organizations to financially support this program. It's also why our government will continue to commit an additional $85 million over the next five years. We understand that our highly skilled, well-educated workforce is one of our key competitive advantages, and Ontario is going to maintain that strategy.

Mr Martiniuk: Conestoga College is in Cambridge riding, and it's a college we are all proud of. Conestoga has been awarded some money for their information technology training centre proposal that will address some of the shortages in the information technology sector. Can you please tell me more about the strategic skills investment program, Minister, and how others can participate in this program that addresses skill shortages in our province?

Hon Mr Palladini: I want to mention to colleagues in the House that we want to make sure that when businesses look to invest in our communities, we're going to be ready. The strategic skills investment program will make sure we have the workforce to compete.

As the member for Cambridge said, on April 20, 2000, along with announcing Conestoga College's proposal that will be funded $2.6 million, I also announced six other winning proposals to help us accomplish a great deal more. Contrary to what the Liberal leader has to say, our young people are going to get the tools they need to compete globally. I'm sure the members of this House will want to share with their constituents that the fourth call for proposals through the strategic skills investment program has begun and is now accessible on our Web site, www.ontario-canada.com. Our government recognizes the importance of developing skills today for jobs tomorrow.

LITHOTRIPSY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of Health and it concerns lithotripsy in eastern Ontario. Minister, I was really struck and quite frankly very concerned by your response to me on April 20 of this year on this question, so my follow-up question to you today is simply this: What has changed about your commitment to fund lithotripsy at the Ottawa Hospital from that time in December 1997, when you, as Minister of Health, wrote to an individual in Vanier, eastern Ontario?

Let me quote part of your December 18, 1997, letter to that individual: "The Ontario Ministry of Health has recently reviewed a proposal for lithotripsy services in Ottawa. We have advised both the Ottawa General Hospital and the Ottawa Civic Hospital that we would support the development of a lithotripsy program as one of the services to be offered at the new Ottawa Hospital."

You were much less supportive in your response to me on April 20, 2000, than you were in that letter two and a half years ago. Minister, what has changed?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the member knows, we continue to monitor the need for services in the province of Ontario, and when there is an additional need for services, as there may well be at some point in the future, then we will ensure that those services are provided. But at the present time, all of the information that we have and all of the review that we have done indicates that there is sufficient capacity within the province. There has been no increase.

Mr Conway: Minister, you know, because your colleagues from places like Nepean and Ottawa and Carleton have told you, that over the last number of years, not just in Ottawa-Carleton but throughout eastern Ontario, hundreds of volunteers have gone out and raised nearly $1 million to buy this lithotripter, which is sitting in a crate at the Ottawa Hospital, while hundreds of people not just from Ottawa-Carleton but from places like Pembroke and Perth and Prescott either go under the knife in Ottawa or go down the road with this very painful condition to Montreal, Toronto or London.

My question in supplementary is this: What advice, Minister, do you have to all of those volunteers who raised all of that money so a very important piece of high-tech health technology could be purchased only to sit unopened in a crate at the Ottawa Hospital while constituents of mine are forced to either go under the knife in Ottawa or, worse still, in this terribly painful condition go down the road 600 kilometres to London?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We presently fund two lithotripters in the province, one in London and one in Toronto. These two centres currently provide about 5,000 procedures annually for patients across the province. We did review again in the summer of 1999 the need for additional services, and I can assure the member that the need has remained constant. In fact, the Ottawa Hospital agrees that the programs in London and Toronto today have access capacity and that they can accommodate emergency referrals in a 48- to 72-hour period.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 13 people died during the first seven months of 1999 on Highway 401 between London and Windsor; and

"Whereas traffic levels on all sections of Highway 401 continue to increase; and

"Whereas Canada's number one trade and travel route was designed in the 1950s for fewer vehicles and lighter trucks; and

"Whereas road funding is almost completely paid through vehicle permit and driving licence fees; and

"Whereas Ontario road users pay 28 cents per litre of tax on gasoline, adding up to $2.7 billion in provincial gas taxes and over $2.3 billion in federal gas taxes;

"We, the undersigned members of the Canadian Automobile Association and other residents of Ontario, respectfully request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately upgrade Highway 401 to at least a six-lane highway with full paved shoulders and rumble strips; and

"We respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario place firm pressure on the federal government to invest its gasoline tax revenue in road safety improvements in Ontario."

I affix my name to this petition.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I have thousands of signed petitions here.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontarians with a developmental disability are in growing danger of inadequate support because compensation to staff of not-for-profit agencies is, based on a recent survey, on average, 20% to 25% less than compensation for others doing the same work in provincial institutions or similar work in other settings; and

"Whereas there are hundreds of senior parents in Ontario who saved the Ontario government millions of dollars by keeping their child with a developmental disability at home, and who are still caring for their adult child; and

"Whereas there is no place for most of these adults with a developmental disability to go when the parents are no longer able to provide care; and

"Whereas these parents live with constant anxiety and despair; and

"Whereas these adult children will end up in Ontario nursing homes and hospitals if there is no appropriate place to provide care;

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

"To significantly increase compensation for workers in not-for-profit agencies so that it is comparable to the compensation of government-funded workers in identical or similar occupations; and

"To provide the resources necessary to give appropriate support to Ontarians with a developmental disability who at present have no place to go when their parents are no longer able to care for them."

I affix my signature. Thousands of people have signed this.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I have a petition signed by a number of people from the Chatham-Merlin area. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

I'll affix my signature.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further petitions.

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Welcome back, Speaker.

I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas charities such as the Goodfellows, the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, firefighters and many others participate in fundraisers on streets, sidewalks and parking lots;

"Whereas Bill 8 effectively bans these types of activities, putting police forces in the position of ignoring the law or hindering legitimate charities; and

"Whereas charitable organizations are dependent on these fundraisers to raise much-needed money and awareness;

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

"We ask the government of Ontario to amend provincial legislation to allow charitable organizations to conduct fundraising campaigns on roadways, sidewalks and parking lots."

In support I affix my signature.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Mr Speaker, it's a pleasure to see you back in the chair after your short, brief absence.

One more bit of news, if I may, while I'm on my feet here. You would probably like to know that the provincial Legiskaters played the federal MPs and we defeated them 12-2 last Thursday.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): That would more properly be done in members' statements or something, but maybe we could just continue with petitions.

Mr O'Toole: "To the Parliament of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

This is submitted by Maria Speciale, as well as other people from my riding of Durham.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Certainly we're hoping that in tomorrow's budget we will hear some news about the northern health travel grant and the inadequacy of the funding for that program, which is sending many people to sign petitions. I will read it now, sir.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have hundreds of people's names, with over 10,000 signatures overall. I hope the government will listen.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): "Whereas the prayer, Our Father, also called the Lord's Prayer, has always been used to open the proceedings of municipal chambers and the Ontario Legislative Assembly since the beginning of Upper Canada under Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe in the 18th century;

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

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

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

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

I'll affix my name to this too.

HUNTING IN WILDERNESS PARKS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas wilderness class parks are quoted on the Ontario Parks Web site as `substantial areas where the forces of nature are permitted to function freely and where visitors travel by non-mechanized means and experience expansive solitude, challenge and personal integration';

"Whereas sport hunting should not be permitted in wilderness class parks, which are intended to preserve and protect biodiversity in its natural state. Hunting in wilderness parks will disrupt and damage ecosystems, introduce mechanized transportation and intrude upon the use of other visitors;

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

To withdraw the policy change in the Living Legacy report that will allow sport hunting in wilderness class parks.

This is signed by, it looks like, a couple of hundred people in the Bracebridge and Huntsville area.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government's plan to force the sale of subsidized housing in Hamilton-Wentworth will create a crisis for 700 local families; and

"Whereas in addition to these 700 families there are 3,700 other families on waiting lists who will be left without affordable accommodation; and

"Whereas the Harris government's housing sell-off is mean-spirited and targets the poorest families, who are now threatened with possible eviction;

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

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario direct the Harris government to save these affordable housing units for low-income families, and support new affordable housing to help the 3,700 families on waiting lists throughout Hamilton-Wentworth."

I add my name to the those of these petitioners.

ILLEGAL TIMBER CUTTING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

"

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

"

(2) The cost of the survey;

"

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

"

(4) The cost of cleanup and reforestation; and

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

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

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

"We advocate:

"

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

"

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

"

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

"

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

This is a major issue in the Thunder Bay district and I'm sure it is one across the province. I am pleased to support this, as does my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I continue to receive petitions from Buzz Hargrove on behalf of his members in Ontario. I would like to point out that these petitions were circulated by Cecil Mackasey and Rick Roberts of CAW Local 222. Many congratulations to them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On behalf of my NDP colleagues, I proudly add my name to those of these petitioners.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 62,

An Act to enact, amend and repeal various Acts in order to encourage direct democracy through municipal referendums, to provide additional tools to assist restructuring municipalities and to deal with other municipal matters, when Bill 62 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be ordered referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy; and

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

h) shall be permitted; and

That the standing committee on justice and social policy shall be authorized to meet for one day, and that the committee be authorized to meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment on that day until completion of clause-by-clause consideration; and

That, at 4:30 pm on that day, those amendments which have not been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following completion of clause-by-clause consideration, and not later than May 17, 2000. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on or before May 17, 2000, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and to be reported to and received by the House;

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on justice and social policy, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That when the order for third reading is called, one hour shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of such time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

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

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for Essex.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): When I first came here this afternoon, I was prepared to speak on second reading of Bill 62, but as you now know, there has been a motion introduced to close debate on this, to censure any further debate. Now we're left with yet another motion that to me is rather ironic, particularly when it comes to this bill. We just heard the minister, in introducing the motion on Bill 62, using the words "encourage direct democracy," and yet what this closure motion is doing this afternoon is absolutely stomping on democracy.

In other words, there are colleagues of mine, and there are colleagues I suppose on the back bench of the government, who were prepared to speak to this bill. We all had recommendations to make towards this bill, and now, because debate is going to be limited, we won't have that opportunity.

I don't know how many times since 1995 this government has used closure; in fact, I've lost count. Back in 1993, when I first came to this place, I thought I came here as a representative of my riding to speak out on all sorts of legislation; to, yes, in some cases bring forward amendments to that legislation; and, on those occasions when we can-and we have-to support government legislation. But it's difficult to do when the opportunity to speak on behalf of your constituents is taken away from you.

I remind the backbenchers that not only are you limiting our democracy in this place, but the cabinet, the Premier's office, those around the Premier who decide that these debates should be limited are taking away your democracy as well. I think you should well heed that.

At first I thought, well, with my 10 minutes I should simply stand in my place and say nothing, because essentially that's what the government is telling us: "We don't want to hear from you. We've heard enough. We don't want to hear any more. We don't care about the democracy that's mentioned in Bill 62. We just want to get on with it and get out of here, and by May 17," or whatever date was given, "we'll get through this thing."

To those who read about these debates or read about these bills, make no mistake: This particular motion for closure this afternoon will pass because, after all, the government has the majority and they will see that it's done. And make no mistake that this bill in fact will pass, because again they have the majority and they will see that it is done.

What I can't quite understand, though, is that when this government comes forward and wants to speak about direct democracy, I have yet to know-and I could be corrected-that there was ever a referendum in this province that reduced the number of municipalities. I don't recall a referendum in the Chatham-Kent-Essex riding or in the Chatham-Kent area that asked the residents of that municipality whether they want to be amalgamated or not. I recall that when the city of Toronto in fact did hold a referendum, the government chose to ignore it. I don't know why then we would assume that this government would listen to anything Bill 62 may have to offer to us.

But when it passes and when it becomes law, let's suppose that in the area of Essex county and Windsor we hold a referendum. There isn't anything that affects the residents of my riding more than the attempt by the city of Windsor to take over an inordinate, significant part of Essex county. If this bill passes, I would suggest that what we would do in Essex county and in those seven municipalities is in fact have a referendum.

You'll get a resounding no, that we don't want to be part of the city of Windsor, that a fair offer has been made by the county to the city, and that we think the minister, having had that offer in his possession and having had the position of the city of Windsor in his possession, will say, "I think that's a fair offer." In fact, he could help us by avoiding the cost to the taxpayer of a referendum if the minister would make up his mind.

I also point out to those who may be interested that this referendum legislation limits referenda in municipalities to those issues that only affect the municipality, to the interests of the municipality. I've heard the Chair of Management Board suggest that now that they have, behind closed doors and unannounced, allowed casinos to be placed at racetracks, that will be, as the Chair of Management Board has said, put to a referendum. But the interesting thing there is that that is not just in the interests of the municipality; it's also in the interests of the province.

I point this out not to argue whether casinos should or should not be extended into the venue of racetracks. I don't argue that point. I only point out that a referendum held in a municipality in which a racetrack exists isn't only of interest to that municipality. The province has a huge stake in it because they take a whole bunch of money. It isn't all left in the municipality. In fact, if the government would come along and say, "Yes, we will leave all that money in the municipality. We will give all that money to charity. We don't want any of it," that might change the whole argument that surrounds some of those casinos in some of those municipalities.

I can recall a few years ago when the Premier said, when he was the leader of the third party, that the government of the day didn't have a revenue problem; they had a spending problem. Yet what do they do? They are now going to take in about $2 billion a year in revenue from casinos across this province. To me it would indicate that there certainly is a revenue problem and that the government is solving that problem by taking a great deal of money through gambling in this province.

But to sum up in the limited time I have because of this closure motion, I only say that this bill speaks to democracy, but certainly the motion that we're dealing with this afternoon does not speak to democracy. In fact, it takes away from the democracy of this Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I had looked forward to participating in what I thought was going to be a full debate on Bill 62, which is really a follow-up from Bill 25, although the changes that have to be fixed from Bill 25 in this act are veiled behind a central piece which the government puts forward as referendum legislation. But here we are today and the government has decided again that it will use its majority to force a closure motion, to shut down debate, to in fact stop the opposition from its ability to expose this government's legislation and how shallow and how silly it really is.

So I'll have to use this time in terms of condemning the closure motion as also the single ability I will have to speak to the bill itself.

If you look at the bill, there are three important points that have to be made. First of all, the government uses the centrepiece, the referendum, as the reason behind bringing the bill forward in the first place. If you look at the referendum process, which my colleague from Trinity-Spadina will do in more detail than I, you really see that it is (

a) undemocratic and (

b) completely unworkable. It offers to municipalities an ability to talk to their citizens about important issues. But really, if you look at the face of it in the details in the bill, it provides nothing of the sort.

Second, it really is about the mess that has been left from Bill 25. You will know that Bill 25 was legislation that this government introduced in this House on December 6, which they rammed through this House before we rose last Christmas, to force restructuring in four areas: in Ottawa, Hamilton, Haldimand-Norfolk and in my own community of Sudbury. As this government is wont to do when it insists on rushing things, a whole bunch of mistakes were made; a whole bunch of things were left out. Really what Bill 62 is all about is using a good portion of the bill to fix the mistakes that have been made and that people have now picked up on.

Third, and most important for me as the representative of a community that is now undergoing a forced restructuring courtesy of this government, is the silence on issues of transition that flow from this bill. This bill is silent on two of the most significant issues that have flowed from Bill 25, and that's where I want to begin my remarks today.

The first has to do with who will pay for the cost of the transition not only in Sudbury, but in Hamilton, in Ottawa and in Haldimand-Norfolk. It's interesting that just after this bill was introduced on December 2, the minister did a telephone conference with a number of reporters in Sudbury, and he was asked that very question. We have a concern that taxpayers in our municipality are going to get handed the bill for a restructuring process that this government has forced on us. Tony Clement said to the Sudbury Star on December 7 that "the province won't say yet if it is prepared to pay the millions of dollars needed to create the new city.

"`That is not part of the bill,' municipal affairs minister Tony Clement said" as he unveiled this legislation.

He was asked for a timeline on when a decision would be made with respect to who pays for the transition costs in Sudbury and he could not provide a timeline for Sudbury or the other affected regions. "`The government is still deliberating on the best way to approach those (costs),' the minister said.

"`That will not form part of the legislation, but we will be dealing with that separately.'"

We are four months after the fact, we have a transition team that is underway, we have a restructuring process that has been forced on us that is underway and we still don't know who is going to pay the $12-million costs that are associated with that forced restructuring. I point out that the $12-million cost was estimated by the special adviser, Mr Hugh Thomas. That was his estimate: $12 million of transition costs over three years. But the city of Sudbury, for example, which has been a proponent of one tier, has put that cost closer to $18 million.

And the regional chair, Frank Mazzuca, has put that cost closer to $18 million, based on work that staff of the region and of the city have done.

So we have somewhere between $12 million and $18 million of costs that no one wants to talk about, that this government doesn't want to deal with, that this legislation, which comes four months after this restructuring was forced on us, is silent on. Who will pay the costs of the transition that the Harris government has forced on Sudbury?

It's interesting because another proponent of restructuring was the chamber of commerce in Sudbury, but even the chamber of commerce said the following, and I quote the same

article of December 7:

"It would be `unconscionable' to expect local taxpayers to bear the burden of those costs, said Victor Skot, chairman of the Greater Sudbury Chamber of Commerce.

"Since the province provided transition funds for restructuring in other communities, not paying the bill in Sudbury would be `unfair and biased' and would demonstrate `partiality and inequity' by the government, Skot said."

I don't agree all the time with what the Sudbury Chamber of Commerce has to say, but I agree with them in this case. It would be a clear case of inequity if the government didn't fund the costs related to the transition, between $12 million and $18 million, whatever that final cost ends up being.

What's interesting is I don't think this government has any intention whatsoever of funding the transition costs in Sudbury. I say that for two reasons: First, because the delay in making a decision has gone so long. If the government were interested in providing those costs to us and somehow softening the blow of the forced restructuring that we now have to go through, then at the time the legislation was put forward the government would have also made an announcement that it intended to pay the costs, as in fairness it should do, since it's this government forcing the restructuring on us. That hasn't happened. That leads me to think the government has no intention of paying those costs.

The second reason that I believe the government has no intention of paying these costs comes from Bill 25 itself, and when I spoke on Bill 25 last fall, I pointed this out as well. There is a provision that this government specifically put in Bill 25 that would force the city to pick up these costs. If you look at clause 36(3)(a), it says:

"A regulation under clause (2)(

c) may provide, for example,

"(

a) that the city may undertake long-term borrowing to pay for operational expenditures on transitional costs, as defined in the regulation, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed."

You see, I think it's already in the bill and what the government's going to do-I'm just not sure when they're going to do it-is say to the city of Sudbury, "Thank you very much, but your taxpayers are going to have to pick up the between $12 million and $18 million of transition costs that we're foisting upon you."

I think that is horribly unfair and discriminates horribly against my community and the three others that were affected by Bill 25. I say that because I contrast what the government has done in my community with what the government did in the city of Toronto when it forced the amalgamation in Toronto through Bill 103. What's interesting is that the government picked up a good portion of the transition costs that were associated with the megacity through Bill 103. I've got a press release dated January 5, 1998, that was put out by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It says:

"Province Confirms Toronto Transition Support

"The province confirmed that it will provide the city of Toronto with a $100-million interest-free loan this year. Additional financing of up to $100 million, also interest-free, could be available next year if it is needed. ... The city must commit to repay the loan over three years beginning in the fiscal year 2000-01. Final payment will be due by March 31, 2003."

It also says, "The province will provide up to $50 million in additional, non-refundable financial assistance"-code word for a grant-"for transportation and communications projects to be undertaken by the new amalgamated city of Toronto." It seems to me that if this government was prepared to force amalgamation in Toronto and was prepared to pay a significant portion of that in the form of a grant and then was prepared to deal with it by providing a loan, then the Harris government should do the same thing in the other communities where it's forcing restructuring.

I say that particularly because just last week the task forces that are dealing with the restructuring in Sudbury came forward with respect to the cost of policing and the cost of firefighting. Isn't it interesting that they are noting that it's going to cost an additional $2.2 million for the city of greater Sudbury to have police in all of the areas that now have to be covered in the new city.

It says this was largely an unforeseen expense, as no one expected Hugh Thomas, the provincial adviser on municipal restructuring, to expand the boundaries of the city of greater Sudbury to include six unorganized townships with about 1,200 people. As a result of the boundary changes that affect the unorganized area, we now have a serious expenditure in policing costs that no one seemed to know about, that wasn't anticipated in the $12-million transition costs that Mr Thomas talked about.

In fact, in order to provide the communications services, the city of greater Sudbury is now going to have to build three radio towers, at a cost of about $1.2 million, to bring radio coverage to those unorganized areas so that police can communicate effectively in those areas. The committee said the following:

"Establishing communications capacity would be a significant cost of restructuring. Communications is an officer safety issue. The first criteria for police communi cation is the capacity to securely receive and send information and to receive and ask for detail or clarity. This requires the communication system be capable of broadcast and reception throughout the whole area policed."

Not only are we affected with respect to police; the same report pointed out that communications is now emerging as a costly issue with the fire department. There are currently seven local fire departments in the region, and all use different radio frequencies and equipment. They can't even talk with one another on their radios.

So then the

article lists all of the new additional costs to pay for portable radios, truck radios, on and on. We now have a new $2.2-million additional cost just for communications for police and for fire departments that Hugh Thomas never thought about and that this government hasn't dealt with. Surely if the government could give the city of Toronto $50 million for transportation and communications, then this same government should start to deal with the communications problem that we're starting to identify.

There is nothing fair about the city of Sudbury paying all of the transition costs associated with the restructuring that has been forced on us by this government, especially if you look at what this government did in Chatham-Kent and what this government did in the city of Toronto.

It's also horribly unfair that the taxpayers in our region have to pick up the costs of the transition team. This was also forced on us when Bill 25 was passed last Christmas. If you compare that to what happened in Bill 103, you will see that this government, the Harris government, picked up the costs of the transition team, the expert advice that had to be hired and any of the facilities that had to be rented. But in Bill 25, the citizens of the regional municipality of Sudbury have to pick up that cost, and we ask, why? Why that discrepancy? Why that discrimination?

Clearly, in Bill 103, you just have to look through the legislation and you will see that these costs were picked up by this government, not only for the transition team but for the financial advisory board as well.

The legislation states in Bill 103,

section 13, that there will be a financial advisory committee, it will be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and that the remuneration shall be fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and all "reasonable expenses incurred in the course of their duties" picked up. It says the same thing in the legislation with respect to the transition team, and it goes further and says that both the financial advisory board and the transition team, if they needed to hire staff, arrange for facilities, obtain expert advice, would have all of those costs covered too.

Those costs were covered in a memorandum of understanding that was written on April 23, 1997, and finally signed in August 1997, an agreement between the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the transition team. In that memorandum of understanding, which I have a copy of, under the

section of financial arrangements, it says, "Funding requirements of the team"-that's the transition team-"will be recorded in the annual appropriations for the ministry." In

section 3.2: "A budget of $3.5 million has b