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

May 16, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2001-May-16 vol. A (PDF)

L017A - Wed 16 May 2001 / Mer 16 mai 2001

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 16 May 2001 Mercredi 16 mai 2001

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

YOUTH AWARDS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

NORTHUMBERLAND APPLE ROUTE

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

TOWN OF ST MARYS

PREMIER’S ATTENDANCE

VOLUNTEERS

HÔPITAL MONTFORT

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

REPORT, OFFICE OF THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

IMPROVED SAFETY ON 400 SERIES HIGHWAYS ACT, 2001 LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ACCRUE DES ROUTES DE LA SÉRIE 400

PORTABLE HEART DEFIBRILLATOR ACT, 2001 LOI DE 2001 SUR LES DÉFIBRILLATEURS CARDIAQUES PORTATIFS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L’ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEE’S SEVERANCE PAY DISCLOSURE ACT, 2001 LOI DE 2001 SUR LA DIVULGATION DES INDEMNITÉS DE CESSATION D’EMPLOI DES EMPLOYÉS DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION REFORM

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

EDUCATION FUNDING

IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE SERVICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT STAFF

EDUCATION FUNDING

ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

LAKE RESTORATION

HEALTH CARE CONTRACT

CORRECTION OF RECORD

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

DIABETES TREATMENT

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PROTECTION OF MINORS

ROAD SAFETY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2001 ONTARIO BUDGET

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The Minister of Health will be in Sudbury tomorrow to make an announcement. Would it BE terribly wrong for us northerners to hope he will finally do the right thing? The northern health crisis has been ignored and trivialized by this government for far too long. Northern health inequities are not something to be used as political ploys, for which this government is now famous.

So today Dalton McGuinty, my fellow Liberal colleagues and I, on behalf of the working families in northern Ontario, call upon the minister to do the right thing tomorrow: release the George report, show us the recommendations; inject immediate funding into physician recruitment and retention strategies in order to address the crisis-proportion doctor shortage problem we have; increase the northern health travel grant to treat northerners as equals; increase the funding to cover the capital construction and equipment costs for the Sudbury Regional Hospital; and finally, show us the money, and show us the site of the northern medical school, with co-campuses in Sudbury and Thunder Bay, along with the assurance that the already beleaguered working families of northern Ontario will not be left footing the bill.

Northerners want to hope that the minister will finally do the right thing. With 40,000 people in Thunder Bay without a doctor, and over 40,000 people in Sudbury without a doctor, we know it is time the government implemented the George report recommendations that they should be injecting $10 million this year to address that problem.

YOUTH AWARDS

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): In today’s society, our youth are sometimes labelled as mischief-makers and rabble-rousers, just some kids looking to cause trouble. Well, they’re a small minority of youth, and I can be as critical as anybody of that small minority. But that is a stereotype, and it’s a stereotype that was challenged on the evening of Friday, May 11 in my riding of Kitchener Centre at city hall.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate six very honourable youths from my community, who were presented with awards that night for their contribution to society: Anthony Simon, youth of the year; Lillian Machado, outstanding involvement in organized and recreational athletics; Yvonne Jarsch, outstanding achievement in the performing and visual arts; Austin Howes, outstanding service to local charities, organizations and community-based groups; Dan Desrosiers, outstanding initiative in a business or project that resembles coordination of a business; Candace Perry, outstanding involvement in an organization for the purpose of running activities beneficial to others.

I am proud of these individuals and their achievements in the community. I congratulate them and wish them the best in their future endeavours. I anticipate that they will continue to do more and that other youths from the community will follow suit. Many of Ontario’s youth do a lot for Ontario.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I am very happy to welcome a group of very brave and courageous citizens who have come here from Victoria county. They have come here to this Legislature because their member refuses to listen to them and refuses to meet them.

They are from the wonderful towns, cities and villages of Lindsay, Bobcaygeon, Fenelon Falls, Omemee, Sturgeon Point, Woodville, and from Fenelon township and all those wonderful parts of central Ontario that this government has forced amalgamation upon against their will, a dictatorial act that took away the rights of these citizens in Victoria county. In fact this government even took away their name and had a consultant force a phony name on this beautiful, historic treasure in central Ontario.

These brave people have come here today because their member will not hear them and this government refuses to listen to them, but they will not forget. They will not give up the fight to keep their names and their heritage, which their forefathers fought for in two world wars. They will not let go of their democratic rights easily. They will fight for Victoria county and they will fight for their heritage because they are taxpayers, they are citizens, and no matter what their member says or Mike Harris says, their rights are inalienable and they will fight for them to the death. They will not forget. Victoria county forever.

NORTHUMBERLAND APPLE ROUTE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to make the announcement of the extension of the apple route in Northumberland. The apple route is provincially recognized by many and has now been in existence for some seven years. Currently the route runs from Lock One in Trenton to Wicklow Beach Road just east of Grafton. This year the route will extend through Cobourg and Port Hope to the Welcome exit at Highway 401.

It has been a magnificent attraction for Northumberland county, encouraging rural touring by combining agritourism with heritage and ecotourism. This event consists of a ribbon-cutting ceremony, a tour of the Welcome Produce Market and apple orchard, followed by refreshments and appetizers at the Welcome Inn. There will also be a display of local businesses as part of the business networking evening.

I welcome all to join me in the celebration and official ribbon-cutting ceremony that will be held on Thursday, May 24, at 4 pm at the Welcome Inn near the Welcome Produce Market, located just north of the Welcome exit, Highway 401.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): In 1998 this House unanimously supported a resolution by the member from Windsor-St Clair to establish 11 principles for an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. June, which is approaching, next month, will mark the sixth anniversary since the Premier committed to passing an ODA act. In that time the citizens of Ontario have continued to suffer.

There is an obligation, as we have been reminded through the media in the past several weeks, for an MPP to meet with each and every constituent and to advocate for each and every constituent. The Premier has on 27 occasions refused in writing to meet with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. When they were just down the hallway here, the Premier refused to go down the hallway and meet with them. But now he is in Switzerland committing to provide accessible accommodation and accessible services for the participants in the Paralympics that will happen here in 2008, hopefully.

Excellent idea. Great idea. It’s long overdue that we commit to that. But if the Premier can commit to support the removal of barriers for visitors to the Olympics in 2008, surely he can take and remove the barriers for the citizens of Ontario. He has an obligation as Premier, whether he believes in a group or not or whether he supports a group or not, to meet with each and every citizen. I demand that the Premier find five minutes of time while he’s in town to meet with the ODA committee.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I want to welcome the citizens of Victoria county who are here in the galleries with us today. When they came in they were wearing buttons that they had to take off—I had to take mine off too—that say, No Debate, De-amalgamate—a quick flash here. They’re here today in a just cause, and I welcome them. I want them to know the NDP supports their cause.

They are citizens from Victoria county who had no direct say in the creation of the new city of Kawartha Lakes, and they have been trying to get through to their member, the member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, to no avail. As I understand it, he refuses to call them back, refuses to talk to them about this issue.

They say the government has not delivered the promised streamlined, more efficient and accountable local government they were told, nor the provision of better services at reduced cost. Does that sound familiar to us here in Toronto who are going through the same thing?

The tax decreases they had been promised have not been met, and the expected transition costs to area taxpayers of this fourth amalgamation have already exceeded the promised amount by over three times. It is clear that this forced amalgamation has not worked, and furthermore the citizens overwhelmingly said they didn’t want this amalgamation. My party, the NDP, stands with them today and says to the government, “Shame on you.” We will be working with them de-amalgamate.

TOWN OF ST MARYS

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to recognize the efforts of the town of St Marys in my riding of Perth-Middlesex. The town of St Marys, home of the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame museum, recently announced that they are not raising municipal taxes for the ninth year in a row. Let me repeat: nine years in a row. This tax freeze is a tribute to St Marys council and municipal staff, who have shown leadership and determination through the municipal restructuring process. They’ve also been able to maintain a healthy reserve account in excess of $2 million.

Rather than blame someone else, raise taxes or shirk responsibility, the town of St Marys accepted the challenge and are proud to have one of the most efficient and cost-effective municipal governments in the province. More importantly, the town of St Marys continues to offer and provide first-rate services and programs to its residents.

I want to take this opportunity to commend St Marys mayor, Jamie Hahn, for showing exemplary leadership and vision. I also want to applaud St Marys council and the municipal staff, especially the soon-to-be-retired clerk, Ken Storey, for their hard work and commitment on behalf of local ratepayers.

Please join me in recognizing the town of St Marys for leading by example and for holding the line on municipal taxes for nine years in a row.

PREMIER’S ATTENDANCE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): The government of Ontario is pursuing global positioning technology to keep tabs on parolees, and the corrections minister is going to have a request for proposals. This may be a fine idea. We think we should expand that request for proposals to include some kind of homing device for the Premier of Ontario. That way, we would know all the time where the Premier of Ontario is.

As a matter of fact, if we could get his attendance up over 38%, maybe we wouldn’t need a homing device to figure out why he doesn’t want to come to the House and, when he gets here, why he doesn’t want to address any questions. He’s famous for passing off from golfer to caddy, because he refuses to be accountable to the people of Ontario.

Imagine: anywhere he might be on the golf course, right before he takes that swing, we could beep him and tell him it’s almost question period and he ought to make tracks back to the House and be accountable to the people of Ontario. We think we could even include some kind of zapper device, and as the time approaches 1:30 of the clock, we could zap him and say, “It’s question period time, time to answer to the public of Ontario all the accountability questions the Ontario Liberal Party has for the Premier of Ontario.” Let’s get that global tracking device, because we may actually find the Premier of Ontario.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): On April 27, I had the pleasure of attending a community volunteer summit, hosted by the Cambridge Volunteer Bureau, to launch Ontario’s Promise in my riding of Cambridge.

Carol Arris and her team at the bureau did a great job. The summit brought together approximately 100 community and business representatives for breakfast at 7:30 am. Represented were the Waterloo Regional Police, the OPP, the United Way, Babcock and Wilcox, the Royal Bank, Clarica, Rier Industries and Patentia Inc, to name a few. Agencies of promise were identified and successful partnerships shared.

Pat Singleton of the Cambridge Self Help Food Bank and their corporate partner, McArthur Express, presented an example of their partnership that provides a delivery truck and storage for the food bank.

Keith Taylor from Big Brothers told of many companies and staff who supported them in their travelling barbecue fundraiser and others who participated in their bowl-a-thon.

This summit brought together members of local agencies with business to forge partnerships and celebrate success.

Through Ontario’s Promise, we all have the opportunity to tap into resources and facilitate partnerships, all to the benefit of the young people of this province. I would urge every community in Ontario to become involved.

HÔPITAL MONTFORT

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier) : Répondant à une question adressée au premier ministre, à savoir s’il allait se désister de la cause Montfort afin de permettre aux francophones de cette province de conserver le seul hôpital universitaire francophone de l’Ontario, le procureur général a dit qu’il ne pouvait commenter puisque la cause était devant les tribunaux.

Par contre, le premier ministre Harris, à sa sortie de la Chambre, a eu le culot de commenter la cause Montfort devant les journalistes. C’est un manque de respect flagrant envers cette Chambre. Le premier ministre s’abstient de répondre aux parlementaires mais se permet de répondre des énormités aux médias.

Maintenant la vérité est sortie. Nous voyons les vraies couleurs de Mike Harris. Les francophones et francophiles de cette province et du pays entier ont toujours soupçonné que Mike Harris penchait dans cette direction. Maintenant ses propres paroles hors de cette Chambre sont très claires. Son gouvernement s’aligne sur le côté des extrémistes antifrancophones dans ce débat. Quelle insulte aux Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes et à tous les Canadiens et Canadiennes.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday in my statement to the Legislature I referred to the allocation of this government’s investment for people with developmental disabilities. I’d like to take just a brief moment to correct the record and clarify my previous remarks.

This government has committed $55 million this year, growing to nearly $200 million by 2006-07, to enhance services for people with developmental disabilities and to attract more quality caregivers. This money has not been directly allocated to any one organization.

Again, I would like to thank the Ontario Association for Community Living for their important contribution to community living in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member for correcting the record.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery the Honourable Greg Deighan, Minister of Tourism with the Prince Edward Island Legislature, who is joined by his wife. Would you please join me in welcoming our special guests.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table copies of the order in council appointing the Honourable Janet Lynne Ecker and the Honourable Chris Stockwell as commissioners of the Board of Internal Economy, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, among the members of the executive council, in place of the Honourable Norman W.

Sterling and the Honourable Chris Hodgson; appointing James Stevenson Gilchrist, MPP, as a commissioner to the Board of Internal Economy, appointed by the caucus of the government, in place of Doug Galt, MPP; and appointing Gilles Bisson, MPP, as a commissioner to the Board of Internal Economy, appointed by the caucus of the New Democratic Party in place of David Christopherson, MPP.

REPORT, OFFICE OF THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the report of the Acting Integrity Commissioner, the Honourable Gregory T. Evans, responding to the request by the member for Timiskaming concerning the Honourable Michael D. Harris, Premier of Ontario, and the Rail Cycle North waste proposal.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr7,

An Act to revive Premium Auto Collision Inc.

Bill Pr9,

An Act respecting the Town of Newmarket.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

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

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

IMPROVED SAFETY ON 400 SERIES HIGHWAYS ACT, 2001 LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ACCRUE DES ROUTES DE LA SÉRIE 400

Mr Mazzilli moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 50,

An Act to improve safety on 400 series highways / Projet de loi 50, Loi visant à accroître la sécurité des routes de la série 400.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): This bill amends the Highway Traffic Act. A person driving a class A motor vehicle in a direction on a controlled access highway where there is more than one lane must not do so in the extreme left lane unless the lane is obstructed or closed. Regulations under the act can provide for those exemptions.

PORTABLE HEART DEFIBRILLATOR ACT, 2001 LOI DE 2001 SUR LES DÉFIBRILLATEURS CARDIAQUES PORTATIFS

Mr Colle moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 51,

An Act to help save the lives of Ontarians who suffer from cardiac arrest by promoting the widespread availability and use of portable heart defibrillators in public places / Projet de loi 51, Loi visant à contribuer à sauver la vie des Ontariens qui souffrent d’un arrêt cardiaque en promouvant la disponibilité et l’usage généralisés de défibrillateurs cardiaques portatifs dans les lieux publics.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): It’s my honour to be here, and in the gallery to have Garrie Wright from Toronto emergency services, who is doing a great job spearheading this defibrillator program across the province.

This bill would require that portable heart defibrillators be made available and installed in significant public buildings, including privately owned buildings such as shopping centres, arenas and stadiums that have significant public access. The widespread installations would be completed within three years after the bill is enacted. The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care in consultation with emergency health stakeholders is required to develop and issue training and education guidelines for the use of portable defibrillators within six months after the bill is enacted.

The bill provides for protection from civil liability for users of defibrillators and owners of premises on which the defibrillators are installed.

This portable device, the cost of a laptop computer, will save thousands of lives and save millions of dollars in health care costs. I hope this bill becomes a reality in the near future.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L’ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Mr O’Toole moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 52,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act / Projet de loi 52, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l’Assemblée législative.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr John O’Toole (Durham): The bill amends the Legislative Assembly Act to provide that a member of the assembly shall not receive any salary as a member for a period during which the member is suspended from the service of the Legislative Assembly.

I must recognize before the Legislature that this bill was first introduced in 1996 by the current Minister of Finance, the Honourable James Flaherty.

I introduce this bill in an attempt to promote the highest level of decorum and civility and respect in this Legislature. Several incidents, such as those now, specifically involve the leader of the official opposition, the member from Sault Ste Marie and the member from Timiskaming-Cochrane and are cause for concern with regard to declining respect and civility in the Legislature.

The VIP visitors, the visiting schoolchildren and the pages who come to Queen’s Park are not impressed by the lack of civility and decorum demonstrated in this Legislature.

Last week the Minister of Citizenship proudly hosted several veterans of the Second World War on the 56th anniversary of VE Day, including George Lacey, Frank Russell, Harold Penn and many others.

The bill is consistent with the government’s 21st step into the 21st century: support for parliamentary reform.

In summation, we all recall the famous statement, “I may disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it.”

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEE’S SEVERANCE PAY DISCLOSURE ACT, 2001 LOI DE 2001 SUR LA DIVULGATION DES INDEMNITÉS DE CESSATION D’EMPLOI DES EMPLOYÉS DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

Mrs Bountrogianni moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 53,

An Act requiring the disclosure of payments to former public sector employees arising from the termination of their employment / Projet de loi 53, Loi exigeant la divulgation des versements effectués aux anciens employés du secteur public par suite de la cessation de leur emploi.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): This bill requires that if a former public sector employee who is not subject to a collective agreement receives $100,000 or more as severance pay, the former employer shall make available for public inspection a written record of the amount of the severance paid to the former public sector employee.

On June 21, 2000, I introduced a bill called the Public Sector Employees’ Severance Pay Act. It passed unanimously in October 2000, but it died on the order paper.

Over the past years, taxpayers in Hamilton and Ontario have been outraged by the number and the secrecy of the severance payments which have been paid. Today I am introducing a bill which requires that all public sector severance payments over $100,000 will be made public. No more secrecy. This is about accountability. This is about transparency. This is about our right as taxpayers to know how much we are paying to terminate employment.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Mr Parsons moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 54,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act to provide an exemption for fire education equipment / Projet de loi 54, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail pour prévoir une exemption à l’égard du matériel d’enseignement des mesures anti-incendie.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): In much of Ontario, fire protection is provided by volunteers. In far too many cases they have to fundraise to purchase their equipment, and the province permits them to have the sales tax returned to them.

In addition to the commitment to fighting fires, they are committed to preventing fires. Unfortunately the province taxes any equipment which volunteers purchase with money raised from the community. This bill would provide an exemption for fire education equipment specifically designed at the time of purchase for educational purposes.

The media on a regular basis carry stories of children who have saved lives within their own households because of skills taught to them via the fire education vehicle. I believe it is imperative that we not cause volunteers to spend additional time taking money from their communities to go to Toronto that would be better used for fire protection in their own areas.

I would like to acknowledge with thanks Bob Pearce and the fire safety committee of Hastings and Prince Edward for bringing this to my attention. I apologize that the rules don’t allow this bill to be made retroactive. However, I challenge the Minister of Finance to make it retroactive by regulation and return to my community the $4,000 that was taken out of it by this government in retail sales tax on fire safety equipment.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, 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 Wednesday, May 16, 2001, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1402 to 1407.

The Speaker: Would all the members kindly take their seats.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Cleary, John C.

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O’Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Smitherman, George

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Churley, Marilyn

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 71; the nays are 7.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have a group from Victoria county who have travelled long and far to come to this Legislature, and they would like to meet with their member, the member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock.

The Speaker: Get to your point of order quickly, please.

Mr Colle: It would mean having a meeting set up with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the constituents after question period today.

Interjection: You could ask for unanimous consent.

The Speaker: You can’t ask for unanimous consent. Members can do that on their own.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION REFORM

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Over the past six years, this government has built a solid record of investment and innovation in Ontario’s publicly funded education system. In developing the key elements of our reform agenda, of our plan, we have listened to what parents and taxpayers told us needed to be done.

To improve quality and accountability, we established a more rigorous curriculum with higher standards and brought in standardized testing to measure students’ progress.

This fall, standards for mandatory professional development with recertification every five years, performance appraisal, evaluation, and decertification will be phased in as well. This will ensure that all of our teachers are evaluated, consistently and regularly, with input from parents. Next spring, we will begin a new qualifying test for all new teacher graduates, as well as for all teachers trained outside the province.

This government believes that the involvement of parents in education is critical to achieving higher standards and raising student performance. For parents to be able to make the necessary decisions and choices about their children’s education, they need information and they need effective avenues for participation. Parents also want to see evidence that student achievement is improving.

To strengthen and support parental involvement, we created understandable report cards, and we have been working to strengthen the role of parents in their children’s education through school councils.

I recently released new regulations that increase the accountability of the education system to parents and strengthen the voice of parents in the public education system. Effective this fall, school councils will have the right to make recommendations to their principal or school board on any matter. Principals and boards will be required to seek the views of school councils in a number of very important program and policy areas, and to report back on actions taken in response to school council recommendations.

In addition, to provide parents with the stronger voice they have been seeking at the provincial level, we recently expanded the Ontario Parent Council to include six regional representatives chosen by school councils across the province.

Parents want to see steady improvement in their schools, and to help make sure this happens, this past January we announced the creation of the Task Force on Effective Schools. The task force will make recommendations on ways to improve board management practices, planning systems, school improvement plans and teacher excellence. We are all looking forward to the completion of their report later this spring.

We have made improvements in our important special-education services as well. Last year we increased spending by 12% over the previous year, and that’s the third year in a row that resources in this important area have been increased.

In addition, as part of our ongoing plan to improve quality and accountability in special education, we created new standards for individual education plans for exceptional students. To ensure boards are accountable for delivering high-quality programs and services throughout Ontario, we’ve provided standards for school boards’ special education plans so that parents will know what to expect and what programs should be in place for their children. We’re now working on the development of special education program standards for each exceptionality.

I should also point out that these standards and the programs have been improved immensely because of the consultation and input of parents themselves.

As well, in the recent budget we announced an additional $3 million this year, and $4 million annually in future years, to expand the education supports for those children and youth who are confined in institutions and other facilities.

We have also continued to increase our investment in public education overall. For the 2001-02 school year alone, we have increased funding by more than $360 million. This new money is also being provided in a way that will allow boards greater flexibility in determining how to meet their own local priorities.

Education funding for the coming school year is projected to be 2.8% higher than funding for this year. That means that education funding in this province will have increased from $12.9 billion to $13.8 billion since this government took office in 1995, an increase of almost $1 billion.

On May 7 I announced a package of initiatives, a significant package to enable school boards to continue to make improvements for the coming school year.

Subject to the approval of the Legislature where required, this package will include flexibility for school boards to vary the average class size in high schools by up to one student so there will be improved access to teachers and resources to help students; flexibility for boards to provide greater access to remedial help by expanding what is included in the definition of instructional time; and broadening the definition of instructional time to give school boards greater flexibility in recognizing co-instructional activities when assigning teachers’ workloads.

Part of that announcement was an additional $50 million that schools and school boards could use to address such important local priorities as these.

Furthermore, and as part of the 21 steps into the 21st century outlined in last month’s throne speech, we are taking several additional measures to support increased accountability and choice in education.

These measures include the expansion of standardized student testing to all grades; the elimination of the institutional bias against home schooling; requiring schools to provide extra support for students who are falling behind; requiring boards to set targets for improving student achievement and to establish plans to help low-performing schools and school boards; the launch this fall of an annual survey to measure parents’ satisfaction with their schools; and the proposal for legislation to allow parents to enrol their children in any available school within their system.

These are the actions of a government that wants to strengthen public education. They represent our ongoing commitment to ensure that Ontario’s public education system can achieve excellence.

We have accomplished much in the reform of Ontario’s public education system, but we also recognize that more needs to be done. I remain committed to finish what we started, to complete our plan for better quality, more accountability, improved student achievement, and to simply do what we said we would do.

But just as we are supporting and encouraging parental involvement and choice within the public system, the government also respects the choice made by those parents who choose to educate their children in an independent school. Last week’s budget announced another important step in supporting parental choice. The equity-in-education tax credit, which begins in the 2002 taxation year, subject to approval by the Legislature, will give parents a tax credit of up to $3,500, phased in over five years, for fees they have paid to send their children to independent schools in Ontario. The government will work to identify the appropriate framework for establishing eligibility for this credit.

Every student in Ontario deserves the best education possible. I will continue to deliver on this government’s commitment to develop a quality public education system, to improve student achievement and to prepare all of our students for success in a highly competitive global economy.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Before we proceed with today’s proceedings, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to take a 10-minute recess so that the member from Haliburton, Chris Hodgson, can meet with his constituents who came down here today—

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We’ve been through this. Member, take your seat. We’ve been through this. Anyone can meet at any time.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With respect to standing order 35(d), “After any policy statement the minister shall table a compendium of background information,” we have not yet been provided with that background information.

The Speaker: The Minister of Education, maybe for some clarification?

Hon Mrs Ecker: There is a compendium. It should have been tabled. I’d be quite happy to send the copy of what I have here to the honourable member.

The Speaker: Statements by ministries? Responses?

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): It is a pleasure to finally see the Minister of Education—formerly the minister of public education, now the minister of private education—stand up in this House and put herself forward in some form or fashion in respect of her measure to create private school option preferences in this province. Instead we had less, on the clock, than 20 seconds’ worth of justification from this minister, who is patently unable to disguise what none of the caucus across can hide from either: that this is a lazy, ideological, sloppy initiative that has nothing to do with enhancing the well-being of the students of this province.

The parents watching this today are alert to this. They are alert to the fact that we have a minister of private education who wants, at the expense of the needs of the existing system, to promote the needs of people we’ll find are not even the ones they put forward as being in need.

This is nothing less than an attack on public education. This is the culmination of five and now almost six years of deliberate efforts to destabilize the education system. We know from the last election that there are people out there who would like to give this government the benefit of the doubt. Instead, this verifies for everyone that what the government wants to do is create a back door to the public education system, having squeezed it every single way possible.

So these members opposite, these members on the other side, may agree that it’s all right to take away $918 from every single student in the province, because that’s what they’re doing, and in each of their ridings they know that less than 8% of that money has come out of administration savings. You stood in your place six years ago and said you could get away with taking money and resources out of the system. You stand here today and say, not only will you not live up to your responsibilities to give us a high-quality, excellent public education, not only do you shirk from that, but instead you’re diverting those resources into the hands of people who don’t need them, by and large.

We’ve had a new curriculum brought up that has been mismanaged by this government. We have had the most vulnerable students in this province, those vulnerable students in need of special education, who instead have been subject to a cut. The Provincial Auditor has acknowledged and the committee on special education has acknowledged that this government has actually taken money away from special education to fund its tax cut over the last few years. In fact, we have members opposite, the majority of whom I’m sad to report are headed to their constituencies next week—

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat. The Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transportation, we’re not allowed to use props. Quit waving them around. Sorry, the member for Parkdale-High Park.

Mr Kennedy: This minister and her predecessors have spent six years taking choices away from parents and children in the public system, reducing and defining, giving them higher class sizes, because that’s what has happened. They have made the school experience less meaningful by creating problems not only in special education but in each and every of the classrooms.

We now have in this province a full-blown teacher shortage courtesy of the actions of this government, directly motivated by the attacks they’ve done, the public dollars they’ve misspent on advertising campaigns, and this minister still won’t tell us how many thousands of teachers she has letters of permission for who aren’t qualified to teach in the classroom because in Ontario teachers don’t want to teach.

This minister of private education does not have the fulsome grace to divulge to us today who is really benefiting here. In fact, over the days and weeks to come we will learn that this is primarily a benefit, almost exclusively a benefit, for people who attend private, elite schools, that in fact there is no improvement for those people who may be objectors of conscience and in religious schools. It is a narrow, defined benefit to encourage people.

Each of these members will go back to their constituencies next week. I challenge them to go to a public school and explain how you’ve set up a system that for every child you get to leave a public school, your government now saves $3,300. This is the opposite of public education, and Ontario will be able to tell the difference.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a copy of a newspaper. In response to the minister, I just want to read a part of it, because it quotes the Liberal education critic, who says, “Private schools do have to be funded.” After all that, I guess the Liberal position is that they agree with public funding for private schools, but they wish they’d done it first.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Order. The Minister of Labour, come to order, as well as the member for Windsor West. We’ve had our fun. It was a little noisy. I know it’s good-natured and there was some laughing, but unfortunately I can’t hear the leader of the third party’s statement. I would appreciate some quiet. We’ve had our fun.

The leader of the third party. Sorry for the interruption.

Mr Hampton: I want to be very clear with the government that New Democrats oppose your scheme to extend public funding to private schools not just some of the time, not just in here and then we tell a different story out there. We oppose it in principle, unlike Liberals, who want to have it both ways. But I want you to know why we oppose it, because with all of your grandiose statement today, you ignored the reality.

Minister, in Canada today, in North America today, Ontario ranks 55th—

Interjections.

The Speaker: Sorry for the interruption. The members for Windsor-St Clair and Toronto Centre-Rosedale, come to order, please. I cannot hear him when you’re shouting at him. We’re not going to continue like that.

Again, sorry for the interruption, to the leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: I’ve just been handed another excerpt from a newspaper. This one is from Mr McGuinty, who says, “I have said in the past that there is a fairness issue here, and that’s something we must recognize in stressing that the issue of private school funding is a ‘how and when’ matter.”

I want to be very clear again: the problem with this government’s scheme is that you have a terribly underfunded public school system. You have a public school system that the Ontario alternative budget calculates would require an addition $1,000 per student in order to bring funding up to the necessary level. Instead, what is your strategy? Your strategy is to give parents a $3,500-per-student voucher to take their kids to a private school. You are not interested in funding our public schools to the level they need; you’re interested in giving parents a voucher to take their kids to a private school.

You’re doing exactly the opposite of what needs to be done, and that’s why we’re so opposed to this in principle.

Over 138 public schools in this province are either closed or are closing as a result of this government’s budget cuts. We know that only 85% of elementary schools have full-time principals—the leader in the school, and only 85% of the schools now have a principal. We know that class sizes are growing. We know that in grade 2, where it’s important to have small classes, the class size has increased by 10% under your government.

We know there are 24% fewer elementary schools with ESL programs as a result of your budget cuts. We know there are now 34,000 students in this province who need access to special education, but the money isn’t in the funding formula to give them access to special education. I gather your answer is to give their parents a $3,500 voucher so they can take their kids out of public school and send them to a private school.

The hypocrisy of this is worse every day. When you go out there—

The Speaker: You’ll have to withdraw that word. You can’t use “hypocrisy.” I’m afraid you’ll have to withdraw it.

Mr Hampton: Well, Speaker, the doublespeak about this is worse every day.

The Speaker: It’s wrong and I want it withdrawn right now. You’re not going to carry on like that. I’ve asked you to withdraw it, now withdraw.

Mr Hampton: I withdraw, Speaker.

George Orwell would be proud of this government. George Orwell would be proud of the way you stand here every day and say the public school system is being funded adequately, but every day the evidence grows. Children can’t get special education. Children can’t get access to ESL. Children don’t have busing to get to school. Children don’t have extracurricular activities. Children are in schools where they know the teacher they had last year is not going to be there, because the teacher has already told them, “I’m leaving. I’ve had enough. I don’t want to be in a system where the government of the day doesn’t respect public education and is not willing to fund public education.”

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My questions are for the Minister of Education. You will recall that yesterday I produced a one-page form, the single and only requirement for private school operators. The only thing you ask of them is to complete that one-page form, and then they become eligible for part of your $500 million in private school vouchers.

After question period, you told working families through reporters that they need not worry about pulling kids out of public schools because the ministry was inspecting private schools. Of the 734 private schools operating in the province, I would like to ask, how many have you inspected during the course of the past year? Of 734 private schools, how many did you inspect?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Obviously, his scribe was not taking good notes in my scrum yesterday. What we do is inspect those schools that wish to offer the Ontario diploma, to say that students in their schools are meeting the curriculum standards. That is what we inspect, and that has always been the case.

What I’d like to say to the honourable member is that this government believes that parental choice, the views of parents, the voices of parents are very, very important, not only in the public education system but also in those—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister, take a seat.

The member for Hamilton West, come to order. You keep shouting. Please come to order.

Sorry for the interruption. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We believe that parents have a voice and that parents understand the needs for their children and their families more and better than the government. But when the honourable member was asked, “What about parents? Aren’t they the ones responsible?” the honourable member said no. That is not a mark of respect for the parents in his riding and the parents in the ridings of his members who choose—

The Speaker: Order. The minister’s time is up.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, just a few moments ago, during the course of your statement you said, “For parents to be able to make the necessary decisions and choices about their children’s education, they need information.” I’m just wondering why you’re not prepared to provide that particular information. If you won’t, then I’ll help you out with it right now.

Of the 734 private schools in Ontario, last year your ministry only inspected 90. That’s close to a 10% inspection rate. On top of that, you have in your ministry a practice of not inspecting any private schools. When it comes to three-year-olds and four-year-olds in private schools, those children are none of your concern, apparently.

I want to know, on behalf of Ontario’s working families, why you are taking $500 million out of the public system, which is starved for funding, a system of which you demand tremendous accountability, and instead you’re giving it away as a private school voucher to elite private schools and you are conducting only 10% of inspections out of a total of 734 private schools?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, no one is handing out $500 million in vouchers. Again, the honourable member keeps trying to repeat it to make it true. Secondly, the honourable member believes that the parents in his riding, the parents in the ridings of his other caucus colleagues, are going to somehow put their children in situations that are not appropriate for them or not safe. If the parents of any school don’t want their children there, they won’t put their children there. If those independent schools, the ones in his riding, the ones in the ridings of his members, are so bad, then parents won’t have their children in them.

We think parents both in the public system and outside the public system have a voice, and we are prepared to respect that voice; we are prepared to respect that parental choice. The honourable member is certainly quite prepared to say to those parents, “Maybe we will; maybe we won’t. We’re not sure how. We’re not opposed to it but maybe we will”—

The Speaker: The minister’s time is up.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, less than 15 minutes ago in that very seat you said, “For parents to be able to make the necessary decisions and choices about their children’s education, they need information.” Why are you so afraid to put out the facts when it comes to the accountability measures or lack thereof connected with your $500-million private school voucher program?

All you need to do is complete a single-page form to start up a private school in Ontario. You’re only conducting an inspection of 90 schools out of 734. Those are the facts. Why not make them readily available to Ontario parents?

Here’s another fact, something I dug up in a Ministry of Education guideline. It says, “The ministry does not inspect health equipment, nor practices related to safety and staffing issues.” Given that you’re handing out a $500-million incentive to parents to send their kids to private elite schools, don’t you think you have some responsibility to make sure you inspect each and every one of those schools, that you make sure they are safe and that you make sure there are qualified teachers in those schools?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member is again showing the reasons as evidence for why we needed to change the curriculum in this province. His math simply is not adding up. No one is handing out $500 million. What he likes to forget about is the over $360 million we put into public education this year alone on top of the new money we put in last year. He likes to forget that. Here he goes again, showing no respect for the parents who want to make that choice, no respect for the groups or organizations. The Jewish community, the Muslim community, the Montessori schools, all of those schools out there, he has no respect for them, what they do or the parents who make that choice.

We believe that parents are to be respected. We believe that they have a voice in their children’s education, in the public system, outside the public system, and that’s why we are moving forward with the reforms to the public education system that we are doing.

The Speaker: Order. The minister’s time is up, I’m afraid.

New question, leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: This question is for the Minister of Education. I want to talk to you about your continuing lack of commitment to public education in Ontario. You will know that the new curriculum requires new textbooks. This year, in September, it’s going to be the grade 11 textbooks that have to be replaced. Two years ago we replaced the grade 9 textbooks at a cost of $30 million. This year we replaced the grade 10 textbooks at a cost of $30 million. But this year when it comes to replacing the grade 11 textbooks—it is the same students who will require the same number of new textbooks—you have cut the funding in half. You’re only allotting $15 million for new textbooks.

I’m just wondering now, again on behalf of Ontario’s working families, why it is that you have $500 million for private school vouchers but you’ve decided to cut the funding in half for our grade 11 students in our public schools when it comes to their textbooks.

Hon Mrs Ecker: This is the honourable member across the way who said that school boards needed more flexibility, that there were too many rules around how school boards get their money.

We listened to what schools and school boards said. We gave them over $360 million more this year. Do you know what we also said to them? They could make those decisions according to what the parents and the local community wanted.

Here we go again: if it’s his party that’s dictating how to do it, it’s OK, but if the parents want to make the choice, he doesn’t respect that. This government does respect those parents and their choices. He may not have respect for parents who want to make that choice, but his caucus colleague Michael Bryant does, his caucus colleague Monte Kwinter does, and obviously his caucus colleague Gerard Kennedy. They have more respect for parents in their ridings than you do in yours, sir.

Mr McGuinty: I want Ontario parents to learn something of your real priorities when it comes to education. You have $500 million for a new private school voucher program, but you don’t have enough money for textbooks for grade 11 students.

Let’s take a look at some of your other priorities. This year school boards will be getting $39.7 million less from you to heat our public schools. I’m sure you will have noticed that the cost of gas and the cost of electricity are skyrocketing. Given that you have $500 million for private school vouchers, why have you decided to cut $40 million that is needed by our school boards in the public system to heat our schools for our children?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With respect, the honourable member is clearly not paying attention. He is not paying attention to the new money that we gave them at the end of this year above and beyond the $360 million, the $43 million that we gave schools and school boards just for heating costs.

Mr McGuinty: These are the facts. You may find them difficult to grapple with, but they are the facts. You want to keep parents informed, then let’s keep them informed. You have $500 million for a private school voucher program, but you don’t have enough money for textbooks and you don’t have enough money for heating.

Here’s another fact. I’m sure you have become aware that the price of gasoline is going up and it’s going up dramatically. Despite this, you are cutting $19 million from busing for our school boards in Ontario. It seems odd to me that you don’t have money to drive the kids to public schools but you’ve got the money to drive them away from public schools.

Again, Madam Minister, on behalf of Ontario’s working families and the parents, why is it that you have $500 million for a private school voucher program but you don’t have enough money for textbooks, you don’t have enough money for heating and you don’t have enough money for busing for kids in the public system?

Hon Mrs Ecker: This government has $13.8 billion—billion, not million; again, I know the honourable member obviously missed that math class—$13.8 billion for the public education system, because the public education system is an important priority for the hard-working Ontario families this government represents.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, take a seat.

This is the last warning for the member for Hamilton East. We can’t continue. I’m going to start picking out people on both sides.

Sorry, Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

He likes to say he’s for standards in public education. Well, what about all the standards we brought in for the curriculum, the testing, the teacher testing, the safe schools—

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, take a seat.

The member for Kingston and the Islands, this is the last warning as well, and I don’t believe he’s in his seat. You can’t yell, and it’s your last warning.

Sorry again for the interruption, Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Every one of those standards that he now trumpets, that he now says are so important, were standards this government told voters we would bring in, standards we are indeed putting in and standards the honourable member voted against every time. Now he says he’s for standards.

This government believes in the public education system. That is why we have put more money in. That’s why we have raised standards. We also respect parental choice, obviously something he does not.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Education. The opposition to your scheme to use public funds to fund private schools is growing across this province. Part of the reason it’s growing is because people remember you saying six months ago, “We’ve been very clear that our goal is a good public education system. The $300 million needed to fund religious schools would be $300 million that would come out of the public school system.” That’s what you said.

Minister, since you’ve completely changed your story, and the Premier has completely changed his story, before you ram this legislation through, will you hold public hearings across the province so you can explain yourself to the people you flip-flopped on?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I do respect that at least we know where the honourable member and his party stand, unlike the Liberal Party, which has been on at least six sides of this issue in the last couple of weeks.

No one is taking $300 million—at least he gets the figures right; again, the Liberals can’t seem to tell the difference between the numbers. No one is taking $300 million out of the public education system. As a matter of fact, we have put more money in. We are spending more on public education today than was being spent when this government came into office. Why? Because we believe the public education system is extremely important.

I believe that putting that money into the public education system is an investment in our future in this province, both economically and in the quality of life of this province. That’s why the budget was also very clear that we are going to continue to make new investments in the public education system, because it is so important to those hard-working Ontario families this government represents.

Mr Hampton: The question was: since this government has totally flip-flopped, will they hold public hearings so the people of Ontario can hear from you what your reasons are? You have no mandate to do this. Six months ago you said this would never happen. In the last election campaign the Premier said this would never happen.

Minister, the last time there was an educational change of this magnitude in the province was in 1985, when the decision was made to extend public funds to public Catholic schools. The Conservative Party at the time demanded unlimited public hearings, and 80 days of public hearings were held.

If that was the test for the Conservative Party then, let it be the test for the Conservative party now. Will you hold public hearings across the province?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, this government does not support vouchers, and it is not implementing vouchers.

Secondly, the decision to fund Catholic education in this province, as I recall, because I was there also—and the NDP lined up right there with the Liberal Party, lined up right there with the Conservative government to support that decision.

Mr Hampton: It was a very simple question. It was a Conservative member in 1985 who demanded unlimited public hearings on the decision to extend public funding to public Catholic schools. Now, after your saying it would never happen that public funding would be extended to private schools, after the Premier’s saying it would never happen when he was Premier, you’ve made that decision.

So the test for Conservatives in 1985 was public hearings, Minister—public hearings. We’re having an educational summit here tomorrow tonight to talk about this issue. Come to that summit and explain to people that you will grant public hearings across the province, just as you demanded in 1985. Will you do that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, this government and this Premier were very clear. He ruled out a voucher program. He didn’t think that was appropriate for a parent in this province. What we have put in place and what we’re proposing to put in place is a tax credit.

But I must also say that our commitment to the public education system by steps to make sure that we have more accountability, better quality, bringing in higher standards in the public education system, is my priority. It continues to be my priority. That’s the business we’re in, those are the commitments we made to parents, and we are indeed meeting those commitments.

I would challenge the honourable member that, rather than criticizing every one of the standards we brought into the public education system and voting against them and not saying they were important, perhaps he might want to support some of those standards for the public education system to make sure our students are getting the education they deserve in the public education system.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: I would say to the Minister of Education that public hearings were good enough then; they ought to be good enough now.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Energy. The situation in California with respect to hydroelectricity gets worse. Yesterday, the residential electricity rates were forced up by 34 cents a kilowatt hour. The residential electricity rates are now three times what they are in Ontario.

When you sold your dirty deal to sell off Ontario’s hydroelectricity system two years ago, you said that California was an excellent example to follow. Minister, why are you risking California-style price increases here in Ontario?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I’ve said time and time again that we are not California, nor are we Alberta. We have the opposite problem of California and Alberta. We have plenty of supply. We simply have that supply in a monopoly situation with unchecked costs, no choice for consumers, and frankly it’s illegal to sell green power in this province, something that we’re undoing as a government and making sure that people in this province have choice to buy clean power, to buy more environmentally friendly green power, all of the benefits of opening the market to competition.

The honourable member keeps misquoting, I suppose; I don’t know. The fact of the matter is, I’ve been very clear. If he does his homework he’ll find out from our independent market operator that the rules that are being written in Ontario are unique to Ontario to address our monopoly situation. They have nothing to do with California or Alberta.

Mr Hampton: This would be the only person I know in Ontario who would call the Premier’s idea of 10 new nuclear plants “green power.”

You keep saying there’s lots of supply. California said there’s lots of supply, but the reality in California was, the supply dissipated very quickly. Minister, the question is this: would you confirm that since 1999, on at least two occasions in this province, the demand for electricity has spiked up such that there was in fact a shortage of supply, and that on two occasions since 1999 they’ve had to reduce the voltage because of that problem of supply? Even your friend Tom Adams acknowledges that. Will you finally acknowledge that there’s a problem with supply and that this is a lot more like California that you care to admit?

Hon Mr Wilson: With his green power comments the member is completely misinformed. I call taking the methane gas off of Waterloo’s landfill site, the plant that we opened last year that now supplies power—green power, using methane gas, to 80,000 homes in the Cambridge and Waterloo area—I call that green power. I call green power the power that we’re taking off the sewage treatment plant down on the lakeshore and burning that methane gas. Today, Toronto Works uses that electricity. That methane would have gone to hurt the atmosphere. Today it’s being burned and it’s used as green power.

There’s a huge windmill project being built on the Bruce Peninsula, as we speak, by OPG and British Energy. I call that green power. I call the windmill on top of Blue Mountain, today providing power to the Collingwood grid, green power. You did nothing for green power in this province. It was illegal under your government. It was illegal under the Liberal government. We’re breaking that monopoly and we’re giving consumers choice.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question for the Minister of Education. I want to ask you very bluntly about the contradictions you’re serving up to the parents of this province. Less than a week ago, you introduced a private—

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Kitchener Centre, this is his last warning.

Sorry for the interruption.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, less than a week ago you introduced a private school voucher, and in it you committed $300 million, which in actuality is easily 500 million scarce dollars. You used figures in this House that don’t give a true illustration of how much money is missing from that system, and we’ll deal with that outside this House.

But I want to ask you very specifically: a week before that in this House you finally brought resolution to the extracurricular problem, or tried to, attempted to—we’ve been trying to get you to do that for months and months—and you said to the high school students of this province, “Your class sizes are going to get bigger, because we’re not prepared to put money into quality education.” The only way we’re going to get peace in our schools in the turmoil you introduced is for those kids to suffer less access to their teachers and have more kids in their classes.

Minister, will you admit today that you’re not interested in quality public education, or will you—

The Speaker: Order. The member’s time is up.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I thank the honourable member for his contribution to this debate—the honourable member who said it’s a question of fairness that we fund private education, private schools in this province. I welcome him to this debate. At least he can get some of the numbers right.

How many days did we in this House hear the honourable member and his colleagues say, “The government has this task force on extracurricular activities. They put out good recommendations. Why won’t the government accept the task force on extracurricular activities?” Mr Speaker, we did. When we did, did they support the task force recommendations? Oh, no. Now the Liberals say, “You shouldn’t have accepted this one, you shouldn’t have accepted that one.” Yet again, we hear them on both sides of the issue on a regular basis.

Mr Kennedy: When we used to have a minister of public education in this House, not one for private education, here’s what that minister said: “I disagree with the task force. We shouldn’t be increasing class sizes,” and today we’ve heard again that there is an ideological, politically opportunistic bent on the part of this government that makes the students of this province come second.

Minister, I want to give you a chance: we in this party have a plan for improving public education, and we have said the investment has to be made to decrease class sizes. There are schools not far from here, like Fern Avenue public school, where grades 1 and 2 mixed classes are 31, 29 and 27. Minister, in your term you have increased class sizes. I want to know today if you will commit to implementing our plan to see class sizes go down, or will you stand exposed to what is readily apparent, that you’re not prepared to invest in the well-being of students in this province?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member brings up ideological and philosophical differences, etc. His own leader has no ideological or philosophical objection to funding independent schools. His own leader said that, so I don’t know who he’s talking about being ideological or philosophical.

We needed a solution for the extracurricular problem in some of our public high schools. Our students told us they wanted a long-term, sustainable solution. We sent out a task force of esteemed individuals who did an excellent job of bringing in recommendations. We consulted with our education partners. They said, “Adopt the task force recommendations.” So we set aside our original position, because we were prepared to compromise to get those activities back for our students, and I have challenged all our other education partners: are they prepared to set aside their original positions?

I have to tell you that they have said they are. Obviously the Liberal Party is not prepared to compromise. They said, “Let’s let the students work longer and—”

The Speaker: I’m afraid the minister’s time is up.

IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE SERVICES

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): My question is directed to the citizenship minister and it concerns the whole issue of immigration and the financing of newcomer settlement programs in the Toronto area and Ontario.

This morning I had the privilege of attending another citizenship swearing-in ceremony, which shows that Canada has welcomed thousands of newcomers to this country. Also, I had a discussion with some of the new people who have come to the riding of Etobicoke North in the Toronto area. They are concerned as well about the financial inadequacy and the role that Ottawa does not seem to be playing in this whole issue. What we would like to know, Minister, is, how does the Ontario government’s financial participation play up to and contrast with Ottawa’s pretty Scrooge-like financial aid to newcomer programs in this province?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): I’d like to thank the member for Etobicoke North for his question. Clearly, this government and all past governments of this province have acknowledged that cultural diversity is one of our province’s great strengths. But the member raises some very serious questions about the level of federal support. Although the federal government sets the exact numbers of new immigrants to this country, they’re not doing their fair share equally in terms of supporting these new Canadians.

Ontario welcomes almost 60% of all of Canada’s new immigrants, and yet we’re only getting 41% of the funding back from the federal government. These are tax dollars we pay to Ottawa, but they don’t come to us. In fact, if you go to our neighbour in Quebec, they receive only 14% of all new immigrants, but they’re getting 33% of all the funding. So we are asking the federal government that they be more equitable in their treatment of immigration in this country and that Ontario taxpayers get the money that they—

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The minister’s time is up.

Mr Hastings: Thank you, Minister. It seems to me this sounds like

chapter 2 of ongoing discrimination by Ottawa against Ontario. We have it in job training upgrades; we have it in newcomer settlement programs.

What kind of a strategy are you planning to put in place to rectify this Scrooge-like treatment newcomers in Ontario are getting and restore some basic, elementary fairness and decency to the whole issue of financial aid for newcomers to this province so they can make their rightful and appropriate contribution as citizens, workers, investors, participants in this province, instead of being discriminated against?

Hon Mr Jackson: Clearly, the federal minister responsible for immigration is hearing from Canadians and Ontarians on this issue about equity in funding. In the meantime, the province of Ontario continues to improve and strengthen its commitment to new Canadians who settle in Ontario. My own Ministry of Citizenship allocates almost $4 million to over 90 community agencies that provide newcomer settlement programs across the province. My colleague the Attorney General has to find on an annual basis anywhere from $13 million to $15 million for legal aid for refugee appeals and claimants.

The Ministry of the Attorney General also offers programs for immigrant women who are the victims of violence and cultural discrimination. The Minister of Education provides $42 million per year for adult ESL training and provides ESL programming for more than 70,000 school-aged children.

The Speaker: Order. I’m afraid the minister’s time is up. Stop the clock.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: For your information, the federal minister is ready to—

The Speaker: No, don’t waste our time. Your member was going to ask a question. Let’s not do points of order and waste time in here back and forth; otherwise, I’ll let the clock run and we won’t get any questions. We’re not going to start with that. Please don’t do that.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Minister, St Timothy school in Don Valley East has 11 portables on-site. The school was opened in 1964 to 200 students. Today, of 600 children at St Timothy, half are cramped in portables that are poorly lit.

Given the conditions at St Timothy’s school, how can you justify providing half a billion dollars for private school vouchers while—and I want to quote your 2001 budget on page 67—you provide $16 million in capital for the entire province of Ontario. So your priorities seem to be half a billion in private school vouchers, yet the public system received $16 million in capital expenditures. Can you justify that, Minister?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): First of all, if the honourable member has the budget in front of him, he will know that the amount of money for the tax credit is $300 million, not the figure they keep trying to put on the public record, because it’s not an accurate figure. Secondly, if he’s reading the budget, he will also know that school boards get, and will be getting this coming school year, $13.8 billion in resources. We have in Ontario the biggest school-building boom we have seen in years.

Under this government, not under the honourable member’s government, we have actually for the first time seen a reduction in the number of portable classrooms in those schools, in those communities, in the province that were in desperate need of a new school. The way we fund education, the way we provide funding to school boards, allows them to build faster than the way your government funded those school boards, sir.

Mr Caplan: Obviously that’s not going to help the students in St Timothy’s school. I’d like to relate to you another school in Don Valley East, Lescon public school. Lescon needs its roof replaced, but the Toronto District School Board can’t afford to do it because of the way you fund capital in Ontario. They require $80 million annually, but they also have a backlog of over $300 million. The way you fund capital in the province of Ontario, the students at Lescon and the students at St Timothy’s are going to be waiting a very, very long time.

Once again, I want you to justify your priorities. You provide $500 million for private school vouchers, yet you only provide $16 million for capital expenditures for public education in Ontario. Minister, stand in your place and try to justify that.

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, the honourable member may wish to justify his position on independent schools. I think that would be more important for the voters in his riding. But secondly, he deliberately keeps misreading the numbers. We are putting $13.8 billion into the public education system. We are putting money into the system for capital for new schools in a way that has had a 9% decrease in the number of portable classrooms in this province, the first time any government has helped support that kind of school construction that we needed in those communities with growing populations.

If the honourable member is now asking the government—because he doesn’t agree with the decisions that the Toronto school board has made in terms of the allocation of their resources—to take over from the Toronto school board, he should be clear because they have the responsibility, as they always have and—

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The minister’s time is up.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. We’ve often heard that the agri-food industry in Ontario is a major contributor to the province’s economy. Farmers and rural people in my riding don’t mind, and I would even say relish, the opportunity to support the rest of the province—even Toronto—when called on to do so and when they are able. Given that the past year has been one of challenges for our farmers, can you provide me with an update on the status of the agri-food industry in Ontario?

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I thank the member from Perth-Middlesex. Despite a year of depressed commodity prices, poor weather and unfair international subsidies, our agricultural sector continues to show its competitive spirit. In fact, in 2000, Ontario led the country in agricultural production, with total farm cash receipts of over $7.5 billion. That translates into more than 23% of Canada’s total production. Furthermore, Ontario accounted for 26% of the national total for investments in agricultural operations.

We continue to work with them. We have such a competitive agricultural sector that they’re taking advantage of some new opportunities, value added into their product, and continue to be leaders now and on into the future in terms of the marketplace.

Mr Johnson: My riding of Perth-Middlesex is made up of the city of Stratford, a lot of good farmland, and small towns, communities such as Komoka, Listowel, St Marys, Milverton, Mitchell, Ailsa Craig and Thorndale. I note that there are more than 1,200 food processing establishments in Ontario. Has this segment of the agri-food industry fared as well?

Hon Mr Coburn: I’m pleased to tell you that in addition, in agri-food exports Ontario leads all other provinces as well, in the year 2000 shipping almost $6.8 billion worth of products. This is a $200-million increase over 1999.

Ontario’s industry leaders are well on their way to reaching the 2005 target of 25% of Canada’s exports, which translates into 1% of world trade. As the member knows, Ontario is a good place to invest. The recent budget announcements by the Minister of Finance only make it an even better place to invest. In fact, Ontario accounted for about 41% of the national total of new investment in the food and beverage sector.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT STAFF

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. As we approach the anniversary of the Walkerton tragedy, your own ministry staff, in a report to the inquiry, says there is not enough staff to do the work, that the piles of work on their desks keep coming in faster than they can do it. They say, “We can only pick our battles to the detriment of other violations we find.” They say that when your government closed the labs in London, Kingston and Thunder Bay and privatized municipal water tests, it cut the heart out of the MOE.

They say staff are being asked to write briefing notes which don’t just give facts, but also have to put the correct political spin on it. Your staff tell you, Minister, “We fight fires instead of taking a preventive approach.”

This is pretty serious stuff. I’m asking you, why are you ignoring your own experts and continuing to put Ontario’s drinking water at risk?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): The member knows full well that any information that is presented to the commission is information that cannot be discussed. Certainly we are looking forward to receiving the recommendations from the commission at the end of the day.

But let me say that in response to the information that certainly is of utmost interest and concern to all of us, and that is the protection of our water system and the provision of safe water, this government has done what you never did. We have put in place a drinking water protection regulation. It is the toughest water standard in all of Canada, and as a result we have hired additional staff. We have ensured that people are testing water, they are sampling water, and they—

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

Ms Churley: Minister, that was an amazing answer. Your ministry tried to stop us from getting FOI requests. The Walkerton inquiry lawyer said that there is nothing stopping those requests coming to us. Furthermore, nothing’s stopping you from discussing anything that’s been discussed there.

Minister, under your watch seven people died, and you got applause for that answer. What you’re being told today is to hire more staff, improve the training, give them legislation they need to do the job, like the Safe Drinking Water Act, not just regulations. Be proactive instead of moving from crisis to crisis. Put the money back into solid infrastructure for Ontario’s drinking water, and stop making them put your spin on their reports. That is what the staff is asking you today.

I’m going to ask you, when will you give your experts the support they need to protect Ontario’s drinking water?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member opposite obviously has absolutely no idea of what is going on or what is happening. We have a very strong enforcement presence. We are ensuring that we are moving forward. We have hired 130 new enforcement and investigative-related staff to ensure that we can protect the health of people in this province and also the environment. I’m very pleased to say that the number of charges that were laid in 2000 increased by 25% from 1999. I am also very pleased to say that the fines issued in 2000 cost the polluting industry more than $2.6 million, which was a 74% increase from the years prior to 1999. The number of orders issued from 1999 to 2000 increased by—

The Speaker: Order. I’m afraid the minister’s time is up.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I have a question for the Minister of Education. You have cut $1.2 billion from the education budget. We pointed out earlier today that you have cut it out of things like heating for schools and textbooks. In communities right across this province, from Windsor north to James Bay and from the Lakehead to Kingston, you’re closing schools. Boards are being forced to close schools because of a lack of funding from your government. You are ripping the heart out of public education.

How can you stand here and deny you have cut $1.2 billion when you have? The record is clear: you’ve cut $1.2 billion. What do you say to those school boards that cannot provide adequate heating, that cannot provide enough textbooks and cannot provide an adequate ratio of teachers to students in elementary schools across the province? How do you defend your intransigence on that issue of your $1.2-billion cut to public education in this province?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I’m not in the habit of denying things that are not true.

When this government assumed office in 1995 the expenditures for public education in this province were $12.8 billion. Today they are $13.9 billion. Even in the old math, even in the new math, that is an increase. We have been funding far and beyond enrolment growth. That is an investment I support. That is an investment I think is necessary for a public education system. That is an investment we are going to continue to make each and every year for the public education system.

I understand the position of the honourable member’s party on this. He thinks we should let school boards go out and raise property taxes in order to put money into the public education system. We do not agree with that position. We are continuing to fund public education. We are continuing to put in legislation that ensures classroom dollars stay in the classroom, legislation that the honourable member and his party opposed, quite frankly, but we thought it was an important accountability measure for the public—

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The minister’s time is up.

Mr Duncan: Minister, you have said repeatedly that your government this year is going to spend $13.8 billion on education and that you have not cut $1.2 billion from education. In this House on May 4, 1999, then Education Minister David Johnson said, “I assure the member opposite that over $15 billion will be spent this year for all school and education programming in this province.” Who is right, Minister? Are you right today when you say you haven’t cut $1.2 billion? Are you right, or was Dave Johnson right two years ago when he said you spent $15 billion? What number is right, his number or your number?

Or was John Snobelen right on September 11, 1997, when he said your government spent $14 billion?

You’re contradicting your own predecessors in your own government. Who’s right? Were Dave Johnson and John Snobelen right or are you right? Which one of you is right?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The facts are very clear. If you compare apples to apples, instead of the Liberals’ favourite trick of comparing apples to oranges, the investment in the public education system is very clear: $12.9 billion to $13.8 billion in this coming school year, an investment of over 360 million new dollars in this new school year because we agree that is needed. Secondly, the Liberals like to discount the other money that school boards had, specifically for teacher compensation, for heating and fuel costs, for special education, which they received on top of the 360 million new dollars they got for this coming school year.

Our investment in public education is important, it’s continuing and it’s increasing, because we know that those hard-working teachers, those students, those parents, deserve that investment in the public education system.

ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Mr John O’Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. The news of the creation of the OIT, Ontario Institute of Technology, was very well received in Durham riding, and indeed all across Durham region. I should mention that over the past decade, Durham College president Gary Polonsky, the board and the entire community have worked tirelessly to make this dream a reality for our young people.

Durham College has earned a solid reputation for delivering high-quality education. I think that the large number of students who have found employment after completing their education speaks volumes for the success of Durham College’s teachers and administrators as well as students.

Minister, what relationship do you see between Durham College and the new Ontario Institute of Technology?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women’s issues): The member rightly points out that Durham College has an excellent track record, and we hope to build on that through the launch of an Ontario Institute of Technology.

A major feature of this new degree-granting institution will be the strong collaboration between a university education and a college education for our students. In many fields the job market is asking for a combination of theory and practice. It’s the best way to make sure, to ascertain that our students acquire both the knowledge and skills that the employers in our province are increasingly looking for.

It will be a polytech education that is provided at this new institution of technology. I will say that I see a very close relationship between Durham College and the Ontario Institute of Technology in the years ahead.

Mr O’Toole: Thank you, Minister, for that. I want to publicly thank you for making a dream come true.

Durham region is one of the fastest-growing areas of North America and demand is certainly there for post-secondary institutions. Last spring, many of my constituents let me know of their support for a university in the east part of the GTA, people like Diana Williamson, Gerry Taylor, Helen Smith, John Phillips, Leanne Donnelly, Stephanie Walker, Paul Scott, the Erwin family, Diane Milonas and Brett Puckrin, just to name a few.

This new institution will clearly offer a unique and integrated educational experience that will no doubt appeal to students across Ontario; in fact, it’s one-stop education. What role do you see for the Ontario Institute of Technology in our greater post-secondary education system?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Our vision supports a leading-edge institution that will focus on providing our students with a seamless transition between our college and university system.

This institution will also link education and skills training with the needs of the marketplace, which is so important, to ensure responsive and up-to-date education for our students.

Much of the skilled labour shortage problem or challenge in our province is faced in the eastern greater Toronto area. We have every expectation that this new institute of technology will help address the problem.

It will also serve the community and our students in ways that use our resources wisely to accommodate—and I underline—the schedules that our students and the employers’ needs. That’s very important. This is a wonderful opportunity to combine employer demand and skills training with existing resources to maximize this opportunity for our students.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As you no doubt are aware, Professor Robert Bish, in an urban paper commissioned for the C.D. Howe Institute, referred to your government’s “tendency towards amalgamation as using discredited 19th century ideals in the 21st century.” Specifically, he noted that “amalgamation tends to eliminate the very characteristics of local government that are critical to the most successful and least costly governance systems.” He also noted that small local governments generally provide better local government at less cost than monolithic amalgamations.

Minister, do you agree with the Bish analysis that amalgamated municipalities are more costly, and is that why your government has now gone on record as saying there will be no further amalgamations without the consent of municipalities and the citizens they represent?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I would like to thank the member for the question, and I’d also like to thank a busload of residents from the city of Kawartha Lakes who travelled to Toronto to be part of question period. I look forward to meeting with them after question period.

I do want to just make a few comments. One is that there have been a number of restructurings and amalgamations in this province, particularly since 1995-96. Till now we’ve gone from over 800 municipalities to about 447. I find it passing strange, the Liberal position on amalgamation now. Let me quote some of the positions that I’ve heard in the past from your party.

“A single city will save tax dollars, reduce bureaucracy and streamline services. It will put Ottawa on a more even footing with other cities around the world when it comes to competing in today’s global economy for investment and jobs.” That was from Dalton McGuinty, Liberal Party.

We’ve also got two other quotes from an area of the province that you’re quite familiar with. “It’s time this government took some action toward municipal restructuring in Hamilton-Wentworth. They have been sitting on the issue for too long. We”—

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

Mr McMeekin: Mr Minister, I appreciate your acknowledgement of the over 100 people who are here from Victoria county and your reference to meeting with them after question period. I think they would appreciate that.

They understand, as Professor Bish has highlighted in his paper, that, “Single governing councils and large organizations are simply incapable of dealing with the diverse range of issues that governments must deal with.” Frankly, they’re here today to express their annoyance with the very process that has led to the forced amalgamation of Victoria county.

I’m very familiar with forced amalgamation without consent, unfortunately. People in my riding are still livid with how your government failed to listen to us. The process, frankly, was a disgrace.

Minister, we’ve now got some recent evidence that it hasn’t worked. Are you serious about your commitment to meet with these good people after? Because if you are, I’d love to be there and hear the conversation.

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I mentioned, the municipal amalgamation referred to in your area was encouraged by the local Hamilton members. They criticized us for not acting quickly enough. In Victoria county they’ve been studying restructuring since 1974. And for the members of the House who aren’t familiar with my area, they came very close to a local solution. Under Bill 26, for the first time in the province’s history, Queen’s Park could not dictate what took place in the local rural areas. It had to be asked for by a democratically elected council. Two councils—the township of Emily and the town of Lindsay—requested a commissioner.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Hodgson: The facts are the facts. I met with the clerks, I met with all the local councils of the 17 municipalities and told them to find a local solution. Two thirds wanted change. If they had wanted no change, that was fine with this government. But of the two thirds that wanted change, they couldn’t agree on what the new structure should be, and two townships requested a commissioner. We encouraged them to find a local solution. They came within two votes of doing that and—

The Speaker: Order. The minister’s time is up. New question.

LAKE RESTORATION

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, two weeks ago I had the pleasure of visiting your district office in Sudbury where I was treated to a demonstration of the canine unit and shown the reintroduction of elk in the Burwash area and also shown the shelterwood forestry program. I was also given a package with respect to a presentation called the northeastern lake trout enhancement project.

Minister, lake trout are one of the premier sport fish in northern Ontario, and this project is of great interest to me and of great interest to the people of northern Ontario. Where is the funding coming from for this project, and why would we be doing this project now?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to thank the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka for the excellent question today and for taking the time and the effort to visit the district office in Sudbury and to find out about the things that are happening in that part of Ontario.

Ontario has some 25% of the world’s lake trout areas. Almost half of those are located in northeastern Ontario. Lake trout populations are subject to a variety of stresses, including the acidification of lakes, overharvesting and the introduction of exotic species.

I’m proud to say that our government is launching, under Ontario’s Living Legacy, a five-year project to protect and restore northeastern Ontario’s lakes and to enhance this globally significant lake trout resource. We’re doing that in partnership with Laurentian University, the northern Ontario—

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

Mr Miller: In follow-up to some of the points you made, lake trout were not successfully reproduced in acid-damaged lakes. Are you saying to the House today that those lakes have recovered from the acid damage that reached record levels in the 1980s and that those lakes which had virtually died as a result of acid rain can now sustain a healthy lake trout population?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I’m pleased to inform the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka that after hard work by many, many people in northeastern Ontario, some of the acidification damage to those lakes has in fact been reversed and those lakes now hold and harvest lake trout once again. Reversing acid rain damage in these lakes is a significant achievement, and it shows how well we can protect and preserve the environment. That’s what Ontario’s Living Legacy is all about, and I’m proud to make that statement in the House today.

HEALTH CARE CONTRACT

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Acting Premier. Why does the Harris government believe the public of Ontario does not have a right to see the contract with the private, for-profit operators of the cancer care clinic at Sunnybrook?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): As the honourable member knows, there are many rules around the tendering process. I’d be very happy to take up her concerns with the minister.

Ms Lankin: Minister, your backroom deal with the operators of this private, for-profit clinic is proving to be very costly to the taxpayers. We know, from what we’ve been able to learn, that we are getting less for paying more money than we would in the publicly accountable, not-for-profit system. Despite your government’s repeated rhetoric about openness, transparency and accountability, you refuse to make the contract public. Despite repeated requests from the New Democratic Party for the right of the public to see how taxpayers’ dollars are being spent, you have refused to make that contract public.

The question is very clear: why does the Harris government believe the public does not have a right to see that contract?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I refer this to the associate Minister of Health.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): I know that the Ministry of Health and the Minister of Health have informed the member opposite that she has the ability to go to one of the parties to the contract and see the contract. That has happened. We know that in the province of Ontario we’ve had a backlog in cancer treatment, and now that backlog is being taken away. The people of Ontario are getting quality care. They’re getting it at home, as they need it and as quickly as they need it, and that’s good news for all Ontarians.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women’s issues): Yesterday I rose to highlight several of our government’s new initiatives to support and improve post-secondary education in our province. In the course of my remarks, I informed members that we will be supporting the Premier’s Platinum Awards for research excellence by spending $10 million over three years. I would like to advise the House that in fact this sum is to be spent over six years.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas cancer patients in Ontario requiring radiation treatment face unacceptable delays and are often forced to travel to the United States to receive medical attention;

“Whereas many prescription drugs which would help patients with a variety of medical conditions such as macular degeneration, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, diabetes and heart failure are not covered by OHIP;

“Whereas many residents of St Catharines and other communities in Ontario are unable to find a family doctor as a result of the growing doctor shortage we’ve experienced during the tenure of the Harris government;

“Whereas many assistive devices that could aid patients in Ontario are not eligible for funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health;

“Whereas community care access centres have inadequate funding to carry out their responsibilities for long-term and home care;

“Whereas the Harris government has now spent over $235 million on blatantly partisan government advertising in the form of glossy brochures and television and radio ads;

“We, the undersigned, call upon the Conservative government of Mike Harris to immediately end their abuse of public office and terminate any further expenditure on political advertising and instead to invest this money in health care in the province of Ontario.”

I affix my signature. I am in complete agreement.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have petitions from the people who came to Toronto from Victoria county today, who are still with us in the galleries. The petition I’m reading today has 457 signatures, but there are thousands more. I shall read it now.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

“Whereas the promise of tax decreases has not been met, based on current assessments; and

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

Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario immediately rescind this forced amalgamation order and return our local municipal government back to the local citizens and their democratically elected officials in Victoria county and remove the bureaucratic, dictatorial, single-tier governance it has coerced on all local residents.”

For shame. I will affix my signature to this petition.

ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Again, I rise with this very important petition that affects the riding of Oakville, of the member Gary Carr, and myself in Mississauga South and, as a matter of fact, wherever the wind blows with emissions.

It’s a petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

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

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

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

“Whereas the government of Ontario has a responsibility to ensure the safety of Ontario citizens and to determine how this facility will impact those who live in its immediate, surrounding area,

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

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

I happily add my signature to this petition, and I’m going to give it to Thomas, our page, to take to the table.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

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

“Whereas this government is planning a complete overhaul of the developmental services system, which could result in the closure of the three remaining developmentally handicapped regional centres;

“Whereas suitable quality medical, behavioural, social, emotional and spiritual services are readily available in the three remaining centres;

“Whereas there is a distinct deficiency of services available in the private sector, including dentists, kinesiologists, psychiatrists, physicians, and emergency services;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ask that you recognize that the three remaining centres for developmentally handicapped individuals are providing a community for the residents that live there, and acknowledge that these centres deliver quality care and services by keeping them open and by directing private/public agencies with limited resources and services to access the resources at the centres and to work in partnership with them.”

It is signed by a number of residents from Charing Cross, Chatham, Wheatley and Blenheim and I affix my signature to this petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I’ve got a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

“Whereas the government by regulation and legislation forced the recent amalgamation against the will of the obvious majority of the people; and

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

“Whereas the promise of tax decreases have not been met based on current assessment; and

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

“Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario immediately rescind this forced amalgamation order and return our local and municipal government back to the local citizens and their democratically elected officials in Victoria county and remove the bureaucratic, dictatorial, single-tier governance it has coerced on all local residents.”

That’s signed by Warren Grant and Peter White, both of Kirkfield, and by hundreds of thousands of others as well as by myself. I serve it upon the Clerk now.

DIABETES TREATMENT

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

“Whereas over 500,000 people in Ontario have diabetes; and

“Whereas to the expense of treating diabetes, many people cannot afford the ongoing expense of treating diabetes, and if left untreated or improperly managed, diabetes can lead to blindness, vascular disease, kidney disease, neuropathy and other problems; and

“Whereas today, more than ever before, people with diabetes can expect to live active, independent and vital lives if they make a lifelong commitment to careful management of the disease; and

“Whereas by providing the resources to successfully manage this disease, the government can ensure more efficient health care for people with diabetes at a reduced cost to the health care system;

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

“That all diabetic supplies as prescribed by an endocrinologist be covered under the Ontario health insurance plan.”

I’m pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I’m proud to stand here with the fabulous people of Fenelon Falls and Bobcaygeon to read this wonderful petition about Victoria county.

“Whereas the citizens of Victoria county had no direct say”—can you believe it?—“in the creation of the new city of Kawartha Lakes; and

“Whereas the government by regulation and legislation forced the recent amalgamation against the will of the obvious majority of the people; and

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

“Whereas the promise of tax decreases have not been met based on current assessment; and

“Whereas the expected transition costs to area taxpayers of this forced amalgamation have already exceeded”—shameful—“the promised amount by over three times;

“Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario immediately rescind this forced amalgamation order and return our local and municipal government back to the local citizens and their democratically elected officials in Victoria county and remove the bureaucratic, dictatorial, single-tier governance it has coerced on all local residents.”

I am proud to affix my name to this petition and stand proud with the citizens of Victoria county—

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is the word “shameful” in that petition?

Mr Colle: No, “pride” in Victoria county—

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Colle: They have nothing to be ashamed of, Mr Speaker. They are proud taxpayers—

The Acting Speaker: Order. I wish I could say the same for you.

I want to direct to the member that petitions can be presented, and there are certain expectations, and they do not include adding words in the verbatim thing, if that’s the way you choose to present it.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member from Eglinton-Lawrence will bring himself to order.

Further petitions.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I side with the people of Victoria county, many of whom are here to make their point and to listen to the petitions as we read them.

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

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

“Whereas the government has not delivered the promised streamlined, more efficient and accountable local government nor the provision of better services that reduces costs; and

“Whereas the promise of tax decreases have not been met based on current assessments; and

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

“Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario immediately rescind this forced amalgamation order and return our local municipal government back to the local citizens and their democratically elected officials in Victoria county and remove the bureaucratic, dictatorial, single-tier governance it has coerced on all local residents.”

I attach my signature in support.

The Acting Speaker: Further petitions. The Chair recognizes the member for Durham.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I have no intention of standing up all afternoon warning people to do things that they already know aren’t allowed in here. If you decide that you would like to shout across, please consider that this is your last warning, the very last.

I apologize for interrupting the member for Durham.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

Mr John O’Toole (Durham): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It may explain why I introduced the bill on decorum earlier today.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas many municipalities do not have bylaws in place to protect minors and those that do vary from place to place and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials;

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

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

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

ROAD SAFETY

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas the safety of our communities is of the utmost importance; and

“Whereas in February of 2000 an automobile left the exit ramp after losing control at Highway 401 and Victoria Park Avenue in Toronto and struck a residential building located at Farm Greenway; and

“Whereas many families who live in the Farm Greenway community have children who play in the backyards next to the Highway 401 and Victoria Park Avenue exit ramp; and

“Whereas the provincial government has taken corrective action in a similar circumstance in the Song Meadoway community, namely Highway 404 and Steeles Ave, after a fatal accident at that location; and

“Whereas the safety, well-being and peace of mind of the residents can only be restored by the presence of a proper safety barrier;

“Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Minister of Transportation to take corrective action immediately by erecting a safety berm or proper barrier to protect the families of Farm Greenway from potential catastrophe.”

I wholeheartedly endorse this petition and have affixed my signature to it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2001 ONTARIO BUDGET

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 15, 2001, on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I want to take the opportunity to comment on the budget the government has brought in. I want to say a couple of things to the members across the way that need to be said from people who live in a part of the province that is quite far from here: northern Ontario. This government could have chosen, in its budget, to make statements about principles that would have been important for the people of northeastern and northwestern Ontario, that could have gone a long way to addressing a number of the issues that we, in our special part of the province, think should have been raised.

The government, for whatever reason, decided not to say anything in this budget for northern Ontario. There’s nothing in this budget that says, “We, the province of Ontario, are going to make some major investments when it comes to programs or services in northeastern or northwestern Ontario.” The government made no mention whatsoever in the budget about anything that could have helped.

I want to suggest, by way of this debate, some of the things the government could have done when it comes to the budget that was read in the House last week. For example, many members of the Legislature would know that right now the government is undergoing a massive process to privatize the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, which was set up by the provincial Legislature almost 100 years ago to be one of the most important things to northeastern Ontario when it comes to the development of our economy and of northeastern Ontario.

Many people would know that if it had not been for the creation of the TNO railway some years ago, much of the economic spinoff we’ve seen in northeastern Ontario would never have happened. We wouldn’t have seen Cobalt developed; we wouldn’t have seen what happened in the communities of Kirkland Lake or Timmins or Kapuskasing or Hearst or many other places across northeastern Ontario if it hadn’t been for that.

This government has decided, all of a sudden, that it’s going to move unilaterally, against the express wishes of the people of northeastern Ontario, to privatize the ONTC. I say to this government that you could have used your budget as a way of saying, “Yes, we will make the proper investments in northern Ontario to make sure we help that special part of the province to develop its economy and provide services to the people of northeastern and northwestern Ontario.” But no, you decided to be silent. Now we look at what’s happening in the economy across the north and this government says they wonder why the economy in northern Ontario is slowing down. I’ll tell you, it’s frightening.

This morning, we met with the community of Elliot Lake, which has basically seen over 4,500 jobs leave over the past 10 years because of what’s happened with uranium prices. This government could have made investments in places like Elliot Lake. They could have made investments in places like Timmins or Hearst or Kapuskasing. But no, they made none of that, no mention of that whatsoever.

I would say that one of the investments this government could have made by way of this budget was to say, “We are prepared to assist the ONTC. We are prepared to put the type of money that’s necessary in the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission to make sure we upgrade the infrastructure so it becomes a train that is conducive to providing good service and speed to move people a little quicker from northern Ontario to the south and back again.” They could have made those investments so we could have looked at the Ontario Northland train as a train that could have been there in order to help develop and promote tourism in n