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

June 18, 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 Transcripts 2001-Jun-18 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 18 June 2001 Lundi 18 juin 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

AMBULANCE SERVICES

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

AUREL BISSON

ALLAN LAWRENCE

GAY PRIDE WEEK

VOLUNTEERS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ECOPARK

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONRAD GREBEL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE ACT, 2001

MASTER'S COLLEGE AND SEMINARY ACT, 2001

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITORS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOME CARE

EDUCATION FUNDING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

AMBULANCE SERVICES

HAZARDOUS WASTE

ONTARIO TRILLIUM FOUNDATION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

RED TAPE COMMISSION

FARM DEER AND ELK

NORTHERN CANCER TREATMENT

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

SHELTER ALLOWANCES

PETITIONS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

FOREST INDUSTRY

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

PERSONAL NEEDS ALLOWANCE

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

WATER EXTRACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AMBULANCE SERVICES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, 2001 / LOI DE 2001 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION

COLLECTIVE DANS LES SERVICES D'AMBULANCE

MPP COMPENSATION REFORM ACT (ARM'S LENGTH PROCESS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA RÉTRIBUTION DES DÉPUTÉS (PROCESSUS SANS LIEN DE DÉPENDANCE)

Monday 18 June 2001 Lundi 18 juin 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Welcome back, Speaker. We missed you last week.

My remarks today are for the Premier and for the Minister of Health. I want to speak again about a subject that has been on the lips of many of us in this

Legislature in the last week or so, and that is the community care access centres and the plight that this government has put them in.

There's a bit of smoke and mirrors going on with this in that the Premier will get up and say, "Well, we haven't reduced the budgets of the CCACs one cent."

That's right, their budgets are the same as last year, but we know that many of the CCACs across this province had to run deficits in order to provide minimum service to our frail, our elderly and

our sick. In fact, if those budgets are frozen this year and not considered to be increased because of the increased need, there will be a $175-million shortfall. We can't tolerate that. People --

frail, elderly -- are being released earlier and earlier, sicker and sicker from hospitals, and they need this community care. The need is out there. This is not just a shoddy ploy; this is serious

business. Our citizens, our frail and our elderly, need the assistance of community care access centres, and I implore the government to provide them with that funding.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): I rise in the House today to talk about a situation that came about in the city of London over the past

weekend. The issue is a serious one and ought not to be taken lightly.

On Saturday afternoon, June 16, there were two serious accidents and numerous other medical emergencies that overwhelmed our ambulance system. Other ambulances

which were in London from Strathroy, St Thomas and Lambton county doing patient transfers accommodated the need for more ambulances. The ambulance system in this region is set up to respond and

dispatch vehicles from neighbouring communities for unforeseen medical emergencies that may overwhelm the system. In this case, the emergency plan worked and it worked well, as more ambulances were

dispatched from the surrounding communities.

I have been speaking to paramedics and ambulance attendants from Thames Valley Emergency Medical Services for some time, and they have suggested that the problem

lies with patient transfers. The ambulances used for patient transfers cause an artificial decrease in the number of ambulances available for medical emergencies. I want to bring this situation to

the members of this House so that we can focus our attention on this problem. Patient transfers are important, but they are likely a constant, and those patient transfers take away from ambulance

time in dealing with real emergencies.

I urge the Minister of Health and the county of Middlesex to work out this arrangement and have new resources for the city of London for ambulance services.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): It seems that the Mike Harris government has very little regard for the people who built

the foundation of the province. Mike Harris says seniors should "thank God" they live in Ontario. Should they thank God because they are in a province that has the dubious distinction of having

nursing homes where residents receive the least nursing, bathing and general care among those areas studied from around the world? Is that what Mike Harris was talking about when he said they

should thank God because they have access to the best services anywhere in the world?

The Harris government's latest threat to put a means test on the drug benefit program for seniors is now another example of the Harris government's insensitivity

toward the most vulnerable in our society. Senior citizens paid into the health care system and they deserve to collect on it.

The crisis the government has created in home care is also something they should be deeply ashamed of. Essentially, they are forcing seniors out of their homes

and into institutions because there isn't sufficient home care available. At the same time, they are giving their corporate friends massive tax breaks. This is a bitter pill for seniors to

swallow.

In my constituency office I hear from seniors day by day about the health care system. They have watched as emergency rooms overflow and hospitals close their

doors, and now they have to sit by and watch the government threaten their drug plan.

Ontario's seniors deserve our gratitude for all they have done for us. They have fought in the wars, they have defended our freedom, they have witnessed history,

and they continue to pass on their knowledge and wisdom. They almost single-handedly power the volunteer sector of our society and work tirelessly to make things better for us and those around the

world. They deserve better than they are getting from this government.

AUREL BISSON

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Mr Speaker, you know that the last week or so I haven't been here due to the passing of my father. I want

to acknowledge to the members in the House how touching it was -- the comments, the letters, the phone calls, the faxes, the e-mails from all members of this assembly, and people across the

communities.

I didn't think I was going to do this, but you would know my dad was a bit of an institution around the Legislature. He often was here in the galleries watching

the House. He loved this place probably more than most people realized. He understood what our role here is: to serve not only our parties but also our constituents and our constituencies. He sat

in those bleachers, as he called them, on both sides, on the government side from 1990 to 1995 and from 1995 to lately on the opposition side, watching what we did, always with a good sense of

humour.

A lot of the members of the assembly knew my dad because they would go over to talk to him from all sides of the House. It's ironic that he died in a week that

he was supposed to be here. We were supposed to fly together on the Monday, but unfortunately, because of weather and fog that day, ended up having to take a commercial flight. It cleared up the

next day. He went out fishing, cranked on the motor probably harder than he should have, and died of a heart attack while fishing.

I want to just acknowledge all the members of the assembly, the legislative staff, the caucus staff, people across the constituencies and across northern Ontario

who called our family, came to visit, did everything they could in support. On behalf of myself, my mother, my brother and my sister, I really want to thank you for what you have done. It's been

quite touching.

To dad, God, I'm going to miss you. Thanks, dad.

ALLAN LAWRENCE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to recognize an outstanding individual from Cobourg, the Honourable Allan Lawrence.

On June 6, Mr Lawrence received recognition from the legal profession for his extraordinary contributions. He was one of five recipients of the law society medal

given by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

Mr Lawrence has had a long legal and political career, which includes a law practice with a Toronto firm for some 15 years and recent retirement as a senior

mediator and arbitrator with Arbitration Associates, a firm he founded in 1988.

Mr Lawrence has also served on many committees during his career, such as vice-chairman of the ADR committee and membership on the legal aid, research and

planning, legal education and equity committees. Currently he is the vice-chairman of the paralegal task force and a member of the national WTO committee for the law society.

His political career is also extremely impressive. A member of Parliament from 1972 to 1988, he was the Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs during the Joe Clark administration and Canadian chairman of the Canada-US Permanent Joint Board on Defence from 1984 to 1989.

With personal regards, I congratulate the Honourable Allan Lawrence for his achievements and for receiving the law society medal.

GAY PRIDE WEEK

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I want to rise today and remind all members that this is the official kick-off of Gay Pride Week

here in the city of Toronto. Earlier today I had the opportunity to join hundreds of members of Toronto's gay community and Toronto Mayor Mel Lastman, former mayor Barbara Hall and other

distinguished guests in the raising of the pride flag, the rainbow flag, which is flying over city hall as we speak.

The theme of Gay Pride Week this year is love. It is, I think, a fitting theme. A community like ours is broad and diverse and has gained many achievements in

our province, and yet there is one thing that we lack, and that is the right to marry. Many gays and lesbians will be pushing for this, because it is the ultimate symbol of love between two loving

adults. That's what we'll be pushing for.

But it isn't just Toronto that celebrates pride this week. All across the province of Ontario, Ontario-wide pride is occurring. In communities like Chatham and

Sarnia, Ottawa, Kingston, Halton, Hamilton, London, in York region, in Sudbury and in Windsor gays and lesbians and their friends and supporters will be joining together in an embrace and

celebration of cultural and sexual orientation diversity.

I invite all members who have not experienced 750,000 people coming together in the city of Toronto, with an economic impact of more than $40 million, to join

with me this Sunday at 2 o'clock in a parade, an experience that I guarantee them they will enjoy and remember forever.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Recently a volunteer summit was held in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant as part of the

International Year of the Volunteer. This summit was designed to recognize outstanding commitments made in our communities, as well as to attract new volunteers. I am proud to say that this summit

was very well attended. In Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant we have many dedicated individuals who give so selflessly of their time and their efforts.

Today, I'd like to highlight the achievements of Ohsweken resident Glenda Porter. On April 26, Glenda was presented with one of 20 outstanding achievement awards

for volunteerism in Ontario for her dedication to the Six Nations Skating Club.

Glenda helped to develop the Six Nations Skating Club in 1976. Over the past 26 years, she has been president for 14 years, she has been carnival director,

treasurer, test chairman and membership director. One year, Glenda sewed close to 60 carnival costumes by herself to ensure every single skater would be wearing something unique.

Aside from all the meetings she has had to attend for the skating club, Glenda has found time to join a host of other clubs and organizations within her

community.

It is people like Glenda who make our communities and the province of Ontario a richer place to live, raise a family and work. I congratulate Glenda and I

commend her on her many years of hard and often unnoticed work.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Today I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Health an example of the cuts

to our health care system that is similar to many others across the province.

Jean Scott, an 87-year-old lady from Lancaster, previously had knee surgery. The pain has reoccurred, and she is hardly able to walk. She now requires further

surgery, and her physician has referred her to a specialist.

Guess what? The specialist is unable to see her for six months. This story gets even worse. The waiting period for surgery is another 12 months. This is

ridiculous. As my leader, Dalton McGuinty, has said many times, people cannot wait months or years for medical treatment when they are ill and suffering.

Since 1999 the federal government has transferred more than $2 billion for health care in Ontario. Where is that money? People have seen serious cuts to health

care services, doctor shortages, clinic closures, cancer care cuts, MRIs not available, and the list goes on. Your government must ensure that health care services are available. Minister, Mrs

Scott needs this operation and she needs it now, not 18 months from now.

I ask the minister today: guarantee to the people of Ontario that you will reinstate funding to our health care system to help people like Mrs Scott and not

divert money from our health care system to pay tax credits.

ECOPARK

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): It is an honour to rise today to pay tribute to those dedicated to EcoPark in the city of Vaughan in my riding

of Thornhill. EcoPark, which runs along the West Don River, was ignored by almost everyone nine years ago. That was when two local environmentalists, Kevin McLaughlin and Michael White, launched a

bid to revitalize it.

Since then, students from seven schools planted 10,000 trees and shrubs. Nearby companies helped create a marsh. EcoPark has become one of the largest

restoration projects in the entire Don watershed.

It is far more than just a trail and a few trees. It provides a car-free pass for cycling to work, it provides a nice lunching spot and it provides an area for

people to just take a nice walk and enjoy nature.

At least one local environmentalist sees great things for the park. He sees it as one day being an important part of an interregional trail system. EcoPark will

be a gateway to the Oak Ridges moraine, and from there to other trail systems. It will allow people to walk south from Concord to Toronto and Lake Ontario. EcoPark will be a destination itself, a

place to enjoy nature, relax and birdwatch.

It is my pleasure today to acknowledge all of those dedicated to our environment and to our community who have worked to make EcoPark a reality. With vision and

hard work, nothing is impossible.

VISITOR

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to inform the House and welcome my daughter, Joanna

Tsanis, who's in the members' gallery today from grade 4, Rousseau school, Hamilton.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONRAD GREBEL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE ACT, 2001

Mr Arnott moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr18,

An Act respecting Conrad Grebel University College.

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Mr Speaker, as you well know, the standing orders preclude that ministers of the crown introduce private

bills. On behalf of the member for Kitchener-Waterloo, I move that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled

An Act respecting Conrad Grebel University College, and that it be now be read for the

first time.

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

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

MASTER'S COLLEGE AND SEMINARY ACT, 2001

Mr Stewart moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr12,

An Act respecting Master's College and Seminary (formerly Eastern Pentecostal Bible College).

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

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): This is a motion dealing with evening sittings. I move that pursuant to

standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, June 18, Tuesday, June 19, and Wednesday, June 20, 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, please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Clark, Brad

Cleary, John C.

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Hastings, John

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Snobelen, John

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Young, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 63; the nays are 5.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

VISITORS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the west gallery today we have the very original and new group from Brantford who

call themselves the Breakfast Club, comprised of Al Cooper, an award-winning stylist; Mike Swanson, an international award-winning illustrator; John Szasz, an award-winning designer, developer and

builder; Brian Heap, a long-time community volunteer; and Russ Faber, our retired postmaster of Brantford.

They've joined us today to watch the workings of democracy.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We welcome our guests.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I'll be asking for unanimous consent for two separate motions.

Just to be clear what we're talking about here, it's been worked out among the House leaders to swap private members' business this Thursday among three members here in the House. I will obviously

need unanimous consent for that motion and to waive the notice for one of the members.

I'll start by seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion regarding private members' public business.

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

Hon Mrs Ecker: I move, notwithstanding standing order 96(d), that the following changes be made to the ballot lists for private members'

public business:

Mr Kwinter and Mr Lalonde exchange places in order of precedence, such that Mr Kwinter assumes ballot item number 51 and Mr Lalonde assumes ballot item number

28; and

Mr Lalonde and Mr Guzzo exchange places in order of precedence, such that Mr Lalonde assumes ballot item number 15 and Mr Guzzo assumes ballot item number

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

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion regarding the notice requirements of one of those bills.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I move, re standing order 96(

g) with respect to ballot item number 28, that the usual notice be waived.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, first you accused hospital board members of

intellectual dishonesty in trying to tell you what would happen if you continue to force cuts on hospital budgets. Then you accused them of putting forward budgets that contained everything but the

kitchen sink. You weren't prepared to believe hospitals, so they went out and bought not one but two independent studies. Those studies make it absolutely clear that hospitals are underfunded by

some $700 million. Those studies also said clearly that if hospitals don't get the $700 million, there will be more beds closed, longer waits for surgery, more ambulances waiting in driveways to

deliver their patients, more people being sent home sick because there is no room for them in hospital.

In last month's budget, you cut hospital funds instead of increasing them. Now you say you're prepared to find them some more money. I ask you today, how much

are you prepared to put into hospital budgets, and when will you tell hospitals what their budgets will actually be?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The honourable member mentions a study that was commissioned by the hospital

association. A simple question was asked, and that question was, "If the hospital budgets were diminished by 8.3%, what would be the impact on the hospitals?" The impacts are as the honourable

member has listed. I can tell the honourable member and this House that we have absolutely no intention of decreasing hospital budgets by 8.3%. We have absolutely no intention of decreasing

hospital budgets. So the premise of the report, fortunately for this province, for the patients of this province and for the hospitals of this province is incorrect.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, in last month's budget you said you were going to cut hospital budgets by $100 million, not increase them. Now you say

you're going to increase them. They need to know now what their budgets are going to be. The crisis is now.

Last week, a man came into Queensway walk-in centre -- it used to be a hospital, now it's a walk-in centre; you closed it as a hospital -- with a heart attack.

He was initially treated there but had to be transferred to a hospital where his heart attack could be cared for. He was being transferred to a hospital, Markham-Stouffville hospital, an hour and a

half away because there was not a single bed in any Toronto hospital for that critically ill patient.

If the hospitals don't get the $700 million they need, there will be 2,000 more acute care beds closed on top of the 8,000 beds you've already closed. There

will be 73,000 fewer hospital admissions. I suggest to you we can't wait till the next inquest to get the hospital funding.

If you are planning to find more money for hospitals, you should be able to tell them now, today, what their funding will be. Will you tell hospitals

immediately what the least they will get is so some of those layoffs and bed closures can be prevented?

Hon Mr Clement: I find myself in a problematic situation. You've only given me a minute to respond, and there are at least five minutes' worth

of inaccuracies in the question, but I will endeavour to say this to comfort the people of Ontario who might be alarmed by the alarmist comments of the member opposite.

We have no intention of giving hospitals less money -- never had; never will. Indeed, we have increased hospital funding -- operating funding -- by over 25%

since the 1998-99 fiscal year. So this is a level of support that's unprecedented in Ontario.

The fundamental premise of the question is wrong. The predictions she has for the system are wrong. This ministry, this government, stands on the side of

better patient care, more accountable patient care and better outcomes. Maybe the honourable member can be on that side as well, but she hasn't been so far.

Mrs McLeod: Perhaps the minister is now putting me into the same category that he's put hospital board members, and two independent consulting

firms who did independent studies suggesting that we're all guilty of intellectual dishonesty. Perhaps he'll say it is simply inaccurate that if hospitals don't get the $700 million, they're going

to have to lay off some 6,000 nurses and that that would cost this government $200 million in severance costs. Perhaps he thinks it's common sense to put $200 million into severing 6,000 nurses

rather than deal with the reality of hospital budgets.

Minister, instead of talking about inaccuracies, let's talk about promises made and whether they're going to be kept. Last week you made promises to hospitals.

You promised them that you were going to give them some more money, and you haven't told them how much or when it's coming. You also promised them that you were going to exempt them from

legislation that would require hospitals to have balanced budgets.

Minister, you are right back to the old games. You're going to force the hospitals to cut as far as they can cut, and then, at the end of the year, you'll come

in and provide some money to cover the gap and say you've increased the budget.

If you're not planning to let hospitals run deficits because you're not giving them the funding they need, if that's not what you're planning, then tell us

exactly what you've promised to hospitals.

Hon Mr Clement: Again I have to correct the record. The fact of the matter is, first of all, we are reviewing the operating plans to

hospitals. She knows this happens every year. We will not finish the review until we are satisfied that patient care is maximized and accountability is maximized.

Here's what one leader has said in the past on these issues. The leader has said, and this is a quote from CBC radio news: "People told him over the summer

that money isn't the answer. He says they know the health care system needs to be fundamentally reformed if the problems are going to be fixed."

That leader is Dalton McGuinty. That's what Dalton McGuinty said on September 13, 2000.

I just ask the question, what has changed? On this side of the House we're for accountability, we're for better patient care and we're for better results. I

thought they were on the same side. Evidently they're not.

HOME CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Health. You've already created an absolute mess in dealing with our

hospitals. You are getting exactly the opposite of what you say you expect out of the system, and it's due to your own mismanagement of this system. What you have caused in hospital chaos has now

leapt over into the home care field, and now we have an absolute mess in home care. You have gone to the community care access centres and you've said, "You're going to be flatlined. You're not

getting any more money to deal with very sick people that the hospitals are throwing into the home care system." You knew, it was predictable, that home care cases would increase because you're

throwing them out of the hospitals.

I want to talk to you about those who are facing long waiting lists and reduced home care services as a result of your funding. I want to talk to you about Mr

Dwyer in Cambridge, who came home last week after undergoing brain tumour surgery. He's got to wait nine months for help, and his wife, Kay, said, "We're looking after him the best we can, but

we're not trained to do this."

Minister, what do you have to say to Kay and her husband?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I would say to any citizen in Ontario that we are committed to a home care system

that does prioritize the things they care about, particularly nursing care. I would say to the honourable member and to people in Ontario that we have been there for home care services. We've

increased CCAC funding, home care funding, by 72%, including an extra $64 million this year, as a result of a $550-million multi-year commitment for increased home care services. That's what I

would say to any persons who have concerns as a result of alarmist views or the opposition's

interpretation of facts that something else is happening, because it isn't happening the way the

honourable member describes it.

We are in fact having the reinvestments that are necessary, and that is in the home care sector as well.

Mrs Pupatello: Finally, the community care access centres are telling exactly what is happening to the people in Ontario thanks to your

funding, Minister. Don't talk to me about being alarmist. Don't suggest that we are exaggerating, because we are getting the facts from the front lines, from people who care for patients. Tell

these patients who are doing without care about the wonderful job you've done in home care.

I want to talk to you about what the Premier said last week. He said, "Thank God our seniors live in Ontario." What kind of foolish statement was that to

make?

I want to tell you about Mrs Muldoon. She's 88 years old, a paraplegic with a catheter. She's bedridden and suffers from severe bed sores and possible

dementia. Her son has been providing around-the-clock care. He used to get 14 hours of respite care. Thanks to your cuts, that respite care is now reduced to four hours. Can you please tell the

Muldoons why they should thank God they live in Ontario?

Hon Mr Clement: I think we're all proud to be living in Ontario. That's why we live here and we work here to raise our families. I would not

exclude seniors from that category, as the honourable member is seeking to do.

The facts are clear. When one looks at services for seniors in home care, long-term-care services, in comparison with other provinces, we are second to none,

and that's 100% provincial dollars. Not a dime, not a nickel, not a pfennig of federal money goes into these programs, and that is fact. The fact is, this is 100% provincial money. When you compare

it to other provincial jurisdictions, we are the leaders of the pack in terms of investing for our seniors' safety and comfort in the future. That is something of which, on this side of the House,

we are quite proud.

Mrs Pupatello: If you're so busy investing -- you just come up and make up any number at all and say, "That's what we're giving to home care."

You just make up anything at all and think we're going to believe you.

Minister, the reality is that these individuals in their homes are getting less service today than they used to, and some of these seniors need this money to

stay in their homes. That was the whole point of home care in the first place. Home care is about prevention and it's about staying in their own homes. You take away the people's in-home supports,

and guess where they're going to end up. They're going to end up back in hospital. As my colleague mentioned, you're cutting the hospital budgets, so what are these people to do? They're not

getting the service they need at home. They go back to the hospital. You're cutting the money to hospitals. Where do you think the people are going to go?

Minister, you have a responsibility. Don't talk about these macro numbers. You have got to get back and manage this system. These individuals requiring home

care need service to stay in their homes, and under your government, under your watch, these services are being cut.

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member is sinking very close to the person who said, "Don't confuse the issue with facts."

If the honourable member doesn't like the facts and figures, I can talk about local cases. Here are two local cases. Let's take Oxford, for example, where in

the Oxford Sentinel Review the chair of the CCAC said, "At this point there is no concern about decreasing services," given the budget numbers they have to work with this year. But I don't leave it

at that. Here's another case: in York region -- I don't know why that region particularly came to mind, but it did -- here's a comment from The Liberal, which is a publication in York region. The

Liberal says, "Since 1994, funding in York has risen 193%.... It's time for the centres to examine the efficiency of their operations." I finally found a Liberal I can agree with.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Education and it concerns her tax credit for private schools.

Minister, New Democrats want to know why you are going to use public money to fund discrimination.

In a survey of Ontario private schools conducted over the last two weeks, 60 private schools across Ontario were asked, "What percentage of your students are

disabled?" The answer is shocking: 76% do not have one disabled student. Minister, how can you use public money to fund such a pattern of discrimination?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): We are not using public money to discriminate in any way, shape or form in

any sector. As the honourable member knows, that would be against the law.

Mr Hampton: As the minister knows, private schools are exempt from the Ontario Human Rights Code. We settled that with the Premier a few weeks

ago.

What is more disturbing, when you ask these private schools, is that 71% do not have any kind of human rights code of their own. They do not prohibit

discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, disability, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Your tax credit is about using public money to fund that kind of systemic behaviour.

Tell us again, Minister: justify using public money to fund that kind of discrimination.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member can keep repeating it if he wants to, as long as he wants to. That doesn't make it true.

Quite frankly, for him to stand in this place and accuse independent schools -- for example, from the Jewish community, from the Muslim community, from the

Christian community -- that somehow or other they are bastions of intolerance and racial hatred, I find quite offensive, and I think most Ontarians would agree with me.

Mr Hampton: Minister, in case you missed it, what Ontario citizens agree with is a Human Rights Code that says you cannot, as an institution,

choose on the basis of ability or disability, on the basis of ethnicity, on the basis of age or sex or any of those things. You know that under the Human Rights Code and under your government's

policy with respect to your tax credit, you're going to allow all those things to happen. You know there are no standards being brought down by your government. You know they're exempted from the

Human Rights Code, and you know that many of these schools do not have their own human rights code.

So I ask you again, Minister: justify taking money out of the public education system and putting it into a private system that clearly discriminates. How do

you justify that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We are not in the habit of justifying things that are not true.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My next question is to the Minister of Health, but I would say to the Minister of Education, read your

own Human Rights Code.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): You can't say anything to the Minister of Education. It's to the Minister of Health. You need to go to the

Minister of Health for the next question, please.

Mr Hampton: Well, Speaker, I can use my time any way I wish, I think.

The Speaker: You said to whom you were asking the question, and you can ask the question. That person has to be the one who answers the

question.

You may proceed, and your time has started, so you've got less than a minute now.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you have received over four reports in the last six months from KPMG, from Deloitte and Touche, and from

PricewaterhouseCoopers that tell you that you are underfunding the health care system from one end to the other, whether it's long-term care, community care or hospitals.

I note that these companies, like PricewaterhouseCoopers and KPMG, are some of your favourite companies when they happen to agree with you. Now that they are

issuing reports that say you are underfunding the system, can you tell us why you're not so quick to agree with them, when you are so quick to agree with them all the other times?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Some of my best friends are accountants. I can say to the honourable member that I

do agree with the conclusion. The problem is a difference of premise when it comes to the KPMG report. I said in this House, and I'll say again, that if this government were planning or were

implementing an 8.3% decrease in hospital funding, I suppose all the terrible things KPMG mentioned as a logical result of that would come to pass. But fortunately for everyone who is involved in

the provision of quality health services to the people of Ontario, that is not occurring. There is no 8.3% decline in funding. Indeed, funding has gone up year after year as long as Mike Harris has

been Premier. Funding has gone up year after year; indeed, over 25% since 1998. That is the most accurate thing I can say about that.

In terms of the PWC report, I can tell the honourable member that, again, the report was commissioned by us, and it recognized some managerial problems that

had to be solved with the CCACs. We agree with the report on that as well.

Mr Hampton: Minister, all I can say is that when these companies happen to agree with your government, you're so quick to cite their studies.

KPMG has said to you that because of your underfunding of the hospital sector, you're looking at 6,000 lost jobs, 73,000 fewer admissions to hospital, 2,200 fewer hospital beds and 900,000 fewer

outpatient visits.

In terms of the CCACs, the PricewaterhouseCoopers study and other studies point out to you that if you were to take their advice, you can actually in the

longer term save some money for the health care system. That is what they are really telling you, that your direction of underfunding CCACs this year, forcing more patients into hospitals, into

long-term-care facilities, into emergency rooms is going to cost you more money, which then creates the need in the hospitals. Four studies. Your government otherwise is only too happy to agree

with these companies. What's wrong with them now? Why don't you follow their advice now, Minister?

Hon Mr Clement: Again, let's make sure we all agree on what we're talking about here. The KPMG report said that without adequate funding --

and their definition of "without adequate funding" was an 8.3% decline in funding levels. Then you would get fewer patient services, up to 73,000 in patient admissions, 2,200 fewer staff beds etc.

Fortunately, despite the Cassandras on the other side, that isn't happening. When it comes to the PWC report, it's very clear that there are managerial issues that have to be solved; there are

standards issues that have to be solved with our CCACs. If those issues are solved, we can be assured that more money goes to the front lines, goes to the nurses, goes to the home care providers

that are contracted for by our CCACs to help our seniors, help our elderly, help those who are handicapped and reliant upon the system. We agree with that report.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Deputy Premier. We heard the news late last week that the RCMP conducted --

some people would call it a raid -- let's call it a sweep, of the Premier's office to try to obtain, apparently, evidence and documents that are being hidden by the government, because why else

would they be there?

On at least two occasions the RCMP have been forced to go into the Premier's office to look for documents and evidence that apparently were not forthcoming,

despite the assurance in this House of the Premier that he would be fully co-operative with the inquiry and with the commission. Can the Deputy Premier tell us today why it is that the RCMP would

then have to sweep into the Premier's office to obtain documents and evidence, if indeed the Premier had said that all evidence was available to anyone in the commission who wanted it?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I thank the member opposite for the question. In response, in fact the Office of the

Premier has co-operated fully with the commission, with the O'Connor inquiry looking into the events in Walkerton. All of us want to get to the bottom of what happened in Walkerton. That indeed is

why the government appointed Mr Justice O'Connor to conduct the inquiry.

There has been no forced transfer of documents. There has been no situation in which documents have not been forthcoming. In fact, every deadline for document

production has been met, every deadline set by the commission has been met by the Premier's office, even extremely tight deadlines have been met by the Premier's office, and thousands and thousands

of documents have been provided. As the Premier said initially when Mr Justice O'Connor was appointed, we will co-operate fully with the inquiry, which is exactly what the government has been

doing.

Mr Bradley: The Deputy Premier can look as solemn and serious as he wants about this and look into the camera and tell everyone that somehow

everything has been produced. We get back to the question, however. If there was so much co-operation with the commission, if all the documentation was provided, I have to ask the Deputy Premier

why it is, then, the RCMP on at least two occasions would have to conduct a raid on the Premier's office to be able to obtain that information.

Everybody recognizes that all the major decisions in this government are made in the Premier's office. We recognize that a lot of documents have been filtered

through the Premier's office, documents that start out one way and end up another way when they appear before the policy and priorities board of cabinet. So I go back to the Deputy Premier to ask

him, if all those documents were voluntarily provided to the commission, why would they on two occasions have to have the RCMP come in to investigate?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I appreciate the fact that the member opposite feels my assurances are insufficient, so perhaps the assurances of the counsel

to the commission will be sufficient for the member opposite.

Paul Cavalluzzo, as reported in the Toronto Star last week, said, "The Premier's staff co-operated fully with the RCMP's Wednesday search.

"`The purpose of the visit was that we have an RCMP member who is an expert in computers who we had do imaging from computers in the Premier's office,'

Cavalluzzo said. `It should be noted that this visit was done with the full co-operation of the Premier's office. It wasn't a raid in any sense.

"`It's just that in the natural course of the inquiry, that's how we obtain documents.'"

All documents requested have been produced. The visit was at the request of the commission and was a matter of full co-operation by the Premier's office. It's

important that we get to the bottom of what happened at Walkerton, and I'm sure the honourable member opposite agrees.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): My question is to the Minister of Health. This past weekend, we had a serious situation in London: a

couple of serious motor vehicle accidents. One scene consumed five ambulances, and certainly my hopes are that those people are OK. The emergency plan in London did work well; surrounding

communities' ambulances responded to take on some of the other emergency calls.

Just a few months ago I had to call for an ambulance myself when my son fell and cut himself and started bleeding profusely. I can tell all members of this

Legislature, no matter what kind of training you've had, and I've had some, when it's your own child you do not do well under those circumstances.

The people in London want, certainly need, more ambulance service, and this has been an issue that's been going on now for some time: the 50-50 funding

arrangement. Will the province of Ontario commit more funds for Middlesex county for ambulance services?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for London-Fanshawe for his question and for

describing some of the personal ways in which ambulance services can be of assistance to citizens.

In the year-end 2000-01, the government of Ontario provided approximately $410 million for emergency health services, and about 75% of that was allocated to

the provision of land ambulance services. In Middlesex county they did submit a request for 50% funding, which is the norm, and that request for provincial funding was approved as is. As part of

that 50%, we provided 50% funding for two additional ambulances for Middlesex, one of which went into service in December of last year and the other in January of this year.

Certainly, the provision of excellent ambulance services in Middlesex is on our minds.

Mr Mazzilli: I've been speaking to paramedics and so on about these two extra ambulances, and I'm not sure where the problem is, whether the

county is not committed, but certainly we need these two ambulances on the road.

I will be following up on this issue, because I believe one of the big problems here is patient transfer. Although we have a complement of eight ambulances,

when you look at it, two or three ambulances are, on a constant basis, conducting patient transfers from other areas or to other areas. In the case of Saturday, we actually benefited from patient

transfers because two ambulances were in town from other jurisdictions and helped with emergency calls.

Minister, I will be following this up with your office, and I certainly believe that London needs more than the current eight ambulances that we have on the

road.

Hon Mr Clement: Again, I thank the honourable member for putting his perspective on the table, and clearly there is work afoot that he is

leading in his community to see what impediments are in the way that can be removed, and I commend him for that. A lot of the municipalities, now that they are seized of this issue with the land

ambulance transfer, are looking at new and innovative ways to reduce some of the pressure. In Toronto, in London and in Peel region, my own region, there are a number of medical transportation

initiatives looking at ways to transport patients in non-emergency situations in different and creative ways.

I want the honourable member to know and this House to know that this ministry and myself have publicly indicated our willingness to discuss these issues with

the municipalities to come to mutually agreeable solutions that work for people in Ontario.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Safety-Kleen, Minister, is the largest toxic

hazardous landfill and incinerator in Canada and it's located in St Clair township in my riding. Do you know, 70% of that waste comes from outside Ontario.

You and I understand that it's within provincial jurisdiction to refuse or accept toxic hazardous waste being dumped in this province. There was one leak on

the site in 1999, and now it's come to my attention that there is yet another leak. I am asking you, Minister, if because of the landfill toxic hazardous waste -- we've been called the garbage can

for toxic waste. I'd like to know if you will make rules, Minister, or legislation for toxic landfills as tough as those in the United States.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): I am truly pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the member opposite, because it

appears the member opposite is not aware of the amendments that this province undertook on March 31 of this year to strengthen our hazardous waste framework.

I am pleased to say that we now have the toughest standards and framework in Ontario's history. At that time we introduced stringent new testing requirements

and we expanded the list of known toxic chemicals from 31 to 88 chemicals. I'm very pleased to say that we are well ahead of the 40 that are identified in the United States regulation. We also

brought "derived from" standards in line with the US EPA. Again, we have moved forward to very, very much ensure that the hazardous waste policy in this province is as strong as it should be.

Ms Di Cocco: Minister, "as strong as it should be" is not as strong as that of the United States or stronger. You understand -- I know you do

-- the danger to public health by the increase in the dumping of hazardous waste.

We have an incinerator there as well, and the future environmental impact of that incinerator and the increased use of that incinerator. I have written and

have requested that we make sure we have a full public environmental assessment before we increase the incinerator. You have responded that there doesn't need to be a full public environmental

assessment on the incinerator. Therefore, you are telling me that it's the greatest in Ontario's history, but compared to the United States, it isn't, and the incinerator doesn't need a full

environmental assessment. Minister, are you going to accept responsibility for groundwater contamination and for people's health when it comes to the effects of the incinerator?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I recognize that the member was not aware of the new hazardous waste framework that came into effect in March of this year,

but I'm pleased now that she is informed. So I guess subsequently she has asked another question regarding Safety-Kleen. As she knows full well, she did bring this issue to my attention. We have

responded. In response to the request to deal with the Safety-Kleen site, an on-site inspector has been hired. That action was taken to provide an immediate and enhanced level of monitoring at that

facility.

Again, if she has any new concerns whatsoever, I would encourage her, as I've encouraged her in the past, to bring them forward to the ministry in order that

we can determine any further steps that need to be taken to ensure that the environment and the health of people in that community can be protected.

ONTARIO TRILLIUM FOUNDATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Minister, I recently had the

privilege of presenting an Ontario Trillium Foundation cheque in the amount of $203,300 over three years to the Peel lunch and after-school program. This funding will help this excellent program to

recruit more high school volunteers and to develop volunteer programs with local community-based organizations.

Our government has a strong record of assisting social service agencies through the Ontario Trillium Foundation, but in the past couple of years there has been

new competition for Trillium funding from arts, culture, recreation and environmental organizations. Minister, can you explain why Trillium funding is now being allocated to a wider variety of

sectors?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation): I appreciate the question from the member for Mississauga South, and I want to

congratulate all people involved with the Peel lunch and after-school program. I know the member herself is a very strong supporter of the good work they're doing in the community of Mississauga.

The member is right: we have expanded those who are eligible for the Trillium program under the Mike Harris government; for example, the arts and culture community, recreation, as well as

environmental projects.

Interjection: Bocce ball.

Hon Mr Hudak: Bocce would be included as well. A very strong bocce club in Port Colborne,as a matter of fact, received a grant from Trillium

under the previous minister, Helen Johns. That was done to reflect a need in the community to reflect some of the funding that was going to charities before. Not only, though, I would say to the

member, have we expanded those eligible projects, but we have increased the funding to the Trillium Foundation by more than 10 times the value under previous governments, now $100 million from our

charitable gaming initiatives to support good projects in communities like Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: Over the past 20 years PLASP -- Peel lunch and after-school program -- under the dynamic leadership of Sylvia Leal has been an

exemplary role model for many organizations in Peel and across Ontario. In my riding of Mississauga South and across Ontario, there are a number of other fine organizations looking for support from

Trillium to help them continue with their work and expand their involvement.

As you mentioned, with the new eligibility of the arts, culture and recreation sectors, there are even more priorities to be balanced. How does the Trillium

Foundation balance priorities when making their decisions among the many groups seeking support?

Hon Mr Hudak: I thank the member for a very insightful question; hopefully my response will be instructive. The member is right. There are

over 300 community volunteers involved in the Trillium Foundation on 16 regional grant review teams. The reason we're doing that is just as the member had expected: we want to make sure that local

priorities are reflected among the local grant review teams so they can come forth with important priorities in their particular communities, whether it's arts and culture, recreation, the

environment or social services.

Most important of all, the goal of the Trillium Foundation is to bring a very strong community spirit and pride, to build strong and vibrant communities for

investment in job creation. I want to commend all the Trillium volunteers and the 16 grant review teams for their hard work and the number of hours they put in evaluating projects and bringing

forward good projects like the Peel lunch and after-school program, and to tell them on behalf of the Mike Harris government to continue to do their good work.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Minister of Community and Social Services: Minister, how can you be content to let adults with severe

disabilities languish in institutions, under questionable circumstances, when their own parents say these people would be better off at home with them? In today's Globe and Mail we read about a

woman with cerebral palsy who wants to live at home, but your government won't give her the money to get the round-the-clock care she needs to do it.

In my own riding, you're well aware of 31-year-old Hasit Khagram, who has been confined like a laboratory rat to an institutional room where he can't even have

human contact with his own distraught mother. Hasit has autism, and the longer he's holed up in a room alone, the quicker he regresses. His mother's in a panic. She needs proper funding to be able

to get the round-the-clock care Hasit would need to be able to live with his family again. How can you ignore that plea?

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

affairs): Expanding opportunities for community living is a priority for the government. I can't talk about particular cases because I don't have permission to talk about their personal

health information in public.

I can say we've brought in record investment. Two years ago, we increased funding for developmental disabilities by $35 million, and last year by $50 million.

Earlier this month the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the government, announced an unprecedented investment to expand community living, to expand supports to people in their own home, or

building more group home beds, putting more money into community-based services like respite care, behaviour management and a range of other supports to help people live with the dignity they

deserve.

Mr Kormos: In dignity, Minister? I know Hasit; I know his mother. Hasit Khagram's future lies very much in your hands. Hasit's mother lost

custody of her son last summer because you sought custody and a judge ruled she didn't get enough money from your ministry to get the help she needs to keep Hasit at home.

Since then, he has been thrown into an institution. Things have gone downhill. He walks around in soiled underwear. He urinates on the floor. He pounds his

face with his own clenched fist. He rips out his own fingernails. He's locked up in solitary confinement with one single piece of furniture bolted to the floor, as he's viewed through

Plexiglas.

He has no human contact. He hasn't been outdoors for over six months. His mother is denied human contact with her own son. She has to speak to him through

small holes drilled in the Plexiglas, where Hasit whimpers, "Mommy, home. Mommy, home."

Tell me, Minister, is it worth saving a few bucks to watch a young man, a human being, languish like Hasit in the hell you've created for him?

Hon Mr Baird: The situation the member describes is obviously an incredibly disturbing one. This government has made this area a tremendous

priority. I cannot, and I do not think it would be appropriate if I were to, discuss people's personal health information here on the floor of the Legislature. You mentioned a circumstance where an

issue of custody arose. I'm obviously not going to get involved and discuss that.

I can say we have provided an unprecedented commitment, by more than a $250 million, to expand community living. We're providing substantial supports to

associations for community living right across the province. We're providing substantial supports to build up capacity, to have stronger communities and stronger families.

As the member opposite will know, I am always available to discuss cases on a case-by-case basis, and if there are ways we can look to to provide additional

support, I would be more than pleased to sit down and talk to you about them.

RED TAPE COMMISSION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Chair of Management Board, and it concerns the Red Tape Commission. You

will know, Minister, as do more and more members of this Legislature, that the Red Tape Commission is apparently a very influential body that was created by the Harris government some five or six

years ago.

My question today is a very simple one: given the extraordinary mandate of the Red Tape Commission, can you tell the Legislature this afternoon what specific

confidentiality rules and oaths of secrecy apply to the members of the Red Tape Commission, given the very sensitive information with which they apparently deal?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): First of all, with respect to the Red Tape Commission, over the past

several years they have created a very positive initiative for this government. Because of that, thousands and thousands of needless red tape measures in government, particularly from previous

governments, have been gotten rid of. This has made a better climate for business. These are things the people, the electorate, have been asking for. They were key parts of our platform.

The Red Tape Commission deals with process questions. This is what we're dealing with, by and large. These are things with needless red tape; for example,

we're talking about things like not being able to stock bars in hotels on Sundays. The Red Tape Commission deals with processes; they don't deal with confidential information. This is what we have

enabled them to do.

Mr Conway: Let me tell you what the cabinet office is telling us the Red Tape Commission does. "According to Ontario's cabinet office, the Red

Tape Commission is inextricably" linked "to the cabinet decision-making process. The Red Tape Commission reviews policy proposals, draft legislation, cabinet submissions" etc. It is quite clear

that the Red Tape Commission has unprecedented access to a wide range of very sensitive government and cabinet information.

Currently the co-chairs of this Red Tape Commission are Frank Sheehan, a private citizen, and Steve Gilchrist, the member of the Legislature who, after a very

few weeks in cabinet, was kicked out because apparently he could not meet the cabinet's ethics standard. That is whom we've got heading this commission.

I repeat: it's very clear that this Red Tape Commission has extraordinary access to a wide range of exceptionally sensitive and important cabinet information.

The question remains. What, Minister, are the specific confidentiality and secrecy obligations that you and your government apply to the membership of this Red Tape Commission, and how specifically

do you enforce --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The Chair of Management Board.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I can only reiterate that this whole process is about getting rid of needless red tape. Red tape is a process; it's

process-oriented. That's one of the reasons they're consulted, to make sure we don't in fact add additional red tape and provide stumbling blocks to economic development in this province.

I also beg to differ with the characterization of the member for Scarborough East, who certainly is a fine member who represents his area quite well. That's

really an unfair characterization.

Red tape been something that was talked about prior to 1995. In the Common Sense Revolution, we committed to cutting red tape out of government. If I recall,

back in 1995 in your particular political book, your member -- when I went in to debate in 1995, he committed to get rid of half the red tape in this province. What the heck is that about? You

either commit to getting rid of red tape or you don't. Another halfway Liberal measure: again, you can't commit one way or the other.

FARM DEER AND ELK

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. From my understanding,

you've recently announced the healthy futures partnership program for deer and elk farmers. This will benefit monitoring the transfer of deer and elk between provinces. Constituents in my riding

and members of this industry in Ontario are very interested in this project. Could you please explain to the members of this Legislature and my constituents what this project's all about?

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Our government and the Canadian Cervid Council will share in the cost of

putting in place an inventory for Ontario's farm deer and elk. This project also has a velvet tagging component to it, which would allow the industry to thoroughly address the issues around product

quality. Healthy futures for Ontario agriculture will provide about 70% of the funding for this, in the amount of about $128,000.

One of the reasons for doing this is that this will allow the deer and elk farmers to meet the demands of the market this year in the industry and to reap the

dividends for tomorrow. It also means that Ontario's deer and elk farmers are on a more equal footing with producers elsewhere in Canada and this industry becomes more self-reliant. This project

will help the deer and elk farmers provide new guarantees of quality and safety through a trace-back system.

Mr Barrett: Being from a rural riding, Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, I do get inquiries regarding the lack of a provincial animal health act.

Constituents have told me that other provinces have legislation that regulates the transfer of animals between provinces. I have a constituent who is very concerned about this issue. Could you

please tell us what your ministry has done to address some of these concerns?

Hon Mr Coburn: We have put strong controls in place with regard to regulating the transfer of animals between provinces. For example, we have

an active health surveillance program and an extensive technology transfer program. My ministry also works with the deer and elk industry and other levels of government, and with university

partners and veterinary inspectors, to help ensure high standards of animal health. This helps in disease detection and effective disease control.

I can assure the member and our constituents that our current legislation, such as the Meat Inspection Act, the Milk Act and the Livestock Community Sales Act,

is a key element in maintaining the highest level of quality and safety when it comes to transferring animals between provinces.

NORTHERN CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. For months, in fact years, we have been bringing you the

stories of residents of northern Ontario who have no choice but to travel to get the health care they need. We have asked you to treat northerners fairly. We have asked you to end the

discrimination that condones two different standards for the treatment of cancer patients in this province.

Last week, the auditor agreed that your policy is, and I quote, "inappropriately discriminatory," but when you were asked why you've delayed so long in

changing this, you said it hadn't been an issue that long. Minister, you may not have been aware of this issue for long, but your government has known about it for years. Will you finally act to

end the discrimination against northern cancer patients?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): There's some confusion on this side of the House whether the honourable member said

"auditor" or "Ombudsman." It was the Ombudsman who did report on Thursday, and the honourable member is aware of that.

I can tell the honourable member that I have directed the ministry of course to take the Ombudsman's conclusions very seriously. I have also directed the

ministry to look at all travel grants throughout Ontario, northern Ontario, southern Ontario, cancer care travel grants for breast and prostate cancer, as well as travel grants for other health

issues. Certainly the Ombudsman's conclusions and findings will be taken into consideration.

Mrs McLeod: I believe the review you've just described sounds exactly like the review that your government undertook of the northern health

travel grant under your predecessor a year ago. I know the other thing you said last week was that you would not end your discrimination against northern cancer patients until you had a viable

option. I would suggest to you that the only viable option to discrimination is to end the discrimination.

When the Ombudsman tried to get a copy of the review your predecessor initiated a full year ago, you embargoed it. It is only the second time in history that

the Ombudsman has been refused access to a report in the course of an investigation. I suspect the reason that report was embargoed and not made available to the Ombudsman is that you have a viable

option in front of you right now in that report that you want to bury. Will you release that report today so that we can all see what alternatives you're going to propose to end these years of

discrimination?

Hon Mr Clement: I can assure the honourable member that the reason the documents she references are being embargoed is because they are

cabinet documents, and in our system of parliamentary government, as she well knows, they are embargoed to the extent that cabinet is seized of the issues. Maybe that will change some day soon.

I can tell the honourable member that my position is the same as my predecessor's position. We want a fair travel grant scheme, a just travel grant scheme that

is fair to everyone in the same degree in northern Ontario and southern Ontario. We will not rest until we have a viable plan that is fair and just to every citizen here in Ontario. The work on

that continues. I wish I had a magic wand that could wave the situation away. In this case, it does take a little bit of time, and we're applying ourselves to it.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Minister, there has been a lot of

discussion about the growing health care costs here in Ontario and the future sustainability of the health care system. Although our government has increased health care spending from some $17.4

billion in 1995 to $23.5 billion this year, and that's far higher than our commitment back in the campaign of 1999, there are still critics who are concerned about the future of health care. With

an aging and growing population, creating an increased demand on the health care system, there are sure to be problems in the future. Minister, what is Ontario's current position on health care

financing?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Ontario is very concerned that we have top-quality, first-class health care for

all of our citizens across the province. We have always considered health care to be a number one priority. Our Premier has been a leader in securing health care funding for Ontario. At the first

ministers' meeting last September, working with other provincial and territorial leaders, pressure was put on the federal government to increase their spending on health care. It was a welcome

first step but not enough.

In fact, Ontario's share right now of the total health care spending has only been traditionally about 12%. It will go up to 13%, and that is a very far cry

from its original agreement, to be part of a 50-50 arrangement. Right now, health care consumes 45% of Ontario's budget. That's $745 per second on health care. We have been a leader in urging the

federal government to be a health care partner and will continue to do --

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

Mr Galt: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I understand the federal Liberals have created a commission to address the future of the health

care system on a national level. As Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I'm sure you're encouraging Ottawa to assume a fair share of health care, something they certainly haven't been doing in

the past. You would think, with the comments from the Liberals across the House, that maybe they'd speak to their federal cousins about doing something about fairness in health care.

However, given the pressing need to address increasing health care costs, how does Ontario intend to advance its concern about financing at a provincial level,

in spite of the lack of support from the federal Liberals and the provincial Liberals?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I do hope my colleagues from across the way in the Liberal Party will begin to talk to their federal Liberal cousins about

how to be equal partners here in Ontario. It's long overdue, not only in Ontario but across the country. In fact, the projections for health care spending are indicating that it will grow from $56

billion to $100 billion in 10 years, and that is clearly a tremendous pressure. My colleagues in the provincial-territorial council are going to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, take a seat. The member for Windsor West, come to order, please.

Minister?

Hon Mrs Elliott: A lot of noise but no action.

My colleagues on the provincial-territorial council are going to be making a presentation to the Premiers' conference this August. I know Premier Harris is

going to continue to talk about health care, and I suspect, having spoken to my colleagues across the country, that health care will still continue to be a number one issue.

Mr Romanow has been appointed by Prime Minister Chrétien to discuss health care --

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

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. For some months I have been pointing out to you that your

policy of deregulation of electricity, privatization of electricity and higher electricity rates is going to lead to a loss of jobs in this province. This past weekend it struck home in the

community of Kenora, where Abitibi-Consolidated has closed their paper mill. The company is very clear that it is the higher electricity rates that your government has presided over which are

forcing them to close the mill.

This is only the beginning, Minister, because, as you know, you are receiving warning letters from companies in the mining industry, other companies in the

pulp and paper industry, all of them pointing out to you that as you raise electricity rates, it creates incredible costs for them -- costs which they can't sustain.

My question to you is this: how many jobs losses are you prepared to sustain as you go down the road of California and Alberta and privatize our electricity

system and move into an American style of deregulated electricity prices? How many jobs are you prepared to sacrifice?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): As I've pointed out on countless occasions in this House, Abitibi-Consolidated is

in favour of introducing competition in our electricity sector. They see it as a way of curing the sins of the past, sins that were not looked at by the honourable member in the past when he

allowed, along with the Liberals, $38 billion worth of debt to accumulate in the old Ontario Hydro. This government has a plan to control that debt, to eventually pay down that debt and to lead to

the lowest possible prices for companies like Abitibi.

The honourable member is dubious in his facts when he fails to mention the labour unrest that they've had at Abitibi and numerous other problems, the least of

which is the cost of power at this point.

Mr Hampton: The minister should talk to the manager of the Kenora mill who said the company has met with Ontario Power Generation seeking a

way to restructure how the mill purchases electricity: "We are trying to find a solution to our power costs" -- power costs that have gone up by 14% as a result of your government's move to sell

off our electricity system.

I just want to remind you that yesterday the California independent market operator -- you know, the independent market operator that you're copying here in

Ontario -- warned people across the state to expect at least two, possibly three days of blackouts and to be ready to deal with much higher electricity prices. As you move toward selling our

publicly owned electricity system to international energy companies who are more interested in selling the power in the United States where they can get a much higher price, what's your answer to

all those Ontario manufacturers, all those Ontario small businesses? How are you going to help them deal with electricity prices that are going to double, if not triple, once you integrate us into

the American market?

Hon Mr Wilson: First of all, I don't know what he's talking about. California does not have an independent electricity market operator.

Secondly, we are not California; we have an abundant supply in Ontario. What we have to do is deal with the sins of the past and deal with the debt and provide consumers with choice and provide

them with the lowest possible costs in the electricity sector.

I wonder what the honourable member is going to say to the mills in his riding and to those up north that have been pounding on my door to, first of all, as

quickly as possible open our market to competition so they can buy for themselves new generating plants, so they can generate their own electricity for the first time and not be subject to the

rules of the monopoly of Ontario Hydro, which were very unfair to independent electricity producers in this province. What does he honestly say to the people in his riding who have been in my

office here in Toronto, who have been begging me to open the market, including Abitibi-Consolidated, so they can get on and make their own energy arrangements and not have to pay these excessive

prices that were brought to us by the monopoly?

SHELTER ALLOWANCES

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a question for the Deputy Premier. Back in the 1995 election, your party promised to introduce a

prospective applicants that they need not bother to apply -- actually, that it will be a 10-year wait for them to be able to get into a housing unit once they have applied.

In your election document, you said that you would eliminate the two-year waiting lists. So my question is, when did you implement your shelter allowance

program, and how well is it working in light of the fact that the Housing Connections office in the city of Toronto has now told prospective applicants that their wait will be a minimum of 10

years?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I am pleased to remind the member opposite that in the budget this year, a month ago,

there was an important initiative that had been sought by those in the industry in the business of building affordable housing, and that was to provide a greater incentive for the development of

new affordable rental housing. It was proposed in the budget, and the government intends to extend the time horizon of the new multi-residential property class from eight years to 35 years. It is

an important initiative.

The honourable member opposite looks perplexed. If he's unfamiliar with it, it's important to understand what that means in terms of the ability to finance

affordable housing over the long term. Eight years was the rule; the rule now should be 35 years, which will open up that market, particularly in a financing way, to increase affordable

housing.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the government's plan is to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society of narrowly focused interests;

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

have to account for its use;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario;

"Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure,

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

"We call on the government of Ontario to withdraw its plan for two-tiered education and properly fund public education in Ontario."

I sign my name to this petition and give it to Meera.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I've got thousands of names here of citizens opposed to the tax credit for private schools.

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

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

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

the detriment of the public schools;

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

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

public funding being diverted to private schools;

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

I support this petition fully.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition from the community of Wawa, supported by hundreds of letters from Wawa youth, to

the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources called for proposals with respect to surplus northeastern Ontario hardwood;

"Whereas Wawa Forest Products submitted a proposal for this surplus northeastern Ontario hardwood which included the building of a manufacturing facility in

Wawa within the township of Michipicoten;

"Whereas on April 6, 2001, the Ministry of Natural Resources announced allocations of a portion of the surplus northeastern Ontario hardwood to Grant Forest

Products in Timmins and Englehart, and Algoma Mill Works in Blind River;

"Whereas the residents of the township of Michipicoten believe that the proposal submitted by Wawa Forest Products is viable and will result in a desperately

needed economic boost to the community and provide the industrial assessment needed for the continued viability of the community;

"Therefore

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

"That the Minister of Natural Resources arrange a meeting between officials of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Wawa Forest Products and the township of

Michipicoten. The reason for such a meeting is to coordinate a consensus on minor differences that may exist in the plan submitted by Wawa Forest Products. It is the hope of the township of

Michipicoten and its residents that such a meeting would result in the construction of the Wawa Forest Products mill in Wawa."

I agree with this petition, and I affix my signature.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I've got a standing-up-for-public-education petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and

it reads:

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

"Whereas the government's plan is to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society of narrowly focused interests;

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

have to account for its use;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario;

"Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure,

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

"We call on the government of Ontario to withdraw its plan for two-tiered education and properly fund public education."

It's signed by thousands of signatories and by myself.

ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm very happy to present this petition on behalf of my constituents in Mississauga South and the

constituents of the member for Oakville, Garry Carr, who, as Speaker, is not able to present petitions in the House. It's to the Parliament of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"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 am very happy to add my name to this petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

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

"Whereas the northern health travel grant was introduced in 1987 in recognition of the fact that northern Ontario residents are often forced to receive

treatment outside their own communities because of the lack of available services; and

"Whereas the Ontario government acknowledged that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents and, therefore, that

financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; and

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

"Whereas the Ontario government has provided funds so that southern Ontario patients needing care at the northwestern and northeastern Ontario Cancer Care

centres have all their expenses paid while receiving treatment in the north which creates a double standard for health care delivery in the province; and

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

locations;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel

grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their own communities until such time as that care

is available in our communities."

PERSONAL NEEDS ALLOWANCE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have further petitions from the Hamilton second level lodging home tenants committee, and I would

point out that these petitions are signed not just by Hamiltonians but by people from Fort Erie, Ottawa, Cobourg and other areas. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas individuals who are tenants and residents in facilities such as care homes, nursing homes or domiciliary hostels under certain acts are provided with

a personal needs allowance to meet incidental costs other than those provided by the facility; and

"Whereas the personal needs allowance has been fixed by the Ontario government at a rate of $112 for nearly a decade and has not kept pace with cost-of-living

increases, and furthermore is inadequate to meet incidental costs such as clothing, hygiene products and essentials;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately review and amend provincial legislation to increase the personal

needs allowance from $112 a month to $160 a month for individuals living in care homes, nursing homes or other domiciliary hostels."

I add my name to this petition as I am in support of it.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I have a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

"Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or another religion, is best for their

children; and

"Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children;

and

"Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

"Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

"Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of the tuition fees paid for that

education;

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

"To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible."

Mrs Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas the government plans to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society of narrowly focused interests;

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

have to account for its use;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario;

"Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure,

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

"We call on the government of Ontario to withdraw its plan for two-tiered education and properly fund public education in Ontario."

It's a pleasure for me to assign my signature.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I have a petition here signed by a number of people. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the government's plan is to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society of narrowly focused interests;

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

have to account for its use;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario;

"Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure,

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

"We call on the government of Ontario to withdraw its plan for two-tiered education and properly fund public education in Ontario."

I sign that petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas in 1998 the Mike Harris government forced hospitals in Bancroft, Belleville, Picton and Trenton, Ontario, to amalgamate into the Quinte Healthcare

Corp;

"Whereas the fiscal management of each of the aforementioned hospitals prior to amalgamation was prudent, efficient and accountable to their communities;

"Whereas amalgamation and provincial government cutbacks have created a $5-million deficit for the Quinte Healthcare Corp;

"Whereas any reduction in hospital and health care services in each of the aforementioned communities is completely unacceptable;

"Whereas this provincial government promised to ensure that the effect of amalgamation would not result in any reduction of health care or hospital

services;

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

"Instruct Premier Mike Harris and Health Minister Tony Clement to provide enough funding to the Quinte Healthcare Corp that will cover the projected $5-million

deficit and ensure that quality health care and hospital services in the long term will continue in Bancroft, Belleville, Picton, and Quinte West, Ontario."

I'm pleased to add my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I've got another petition from many citizens from Barrie, Cobourg, Halton, Hamilton, Kenora, Kitchener,

Waterloo, London, Mississauga, Oshawa, Owen Sound, Peterborough, all over Ontario, citizens who are opposed to the tax credit for private schools.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the government's plan is to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society of narrowly focused interests;

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

have to account for its use;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario;

"Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure,

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

"We call on the government of Ontario to withdraw its plan for two-tiered education and properly fund public education in Ontario."

I support this petition very strongly, Speaker. I'll sign my name to it.

WATER EXTRACTION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we, the residents and cottagers of Bob's Lake, strenuously object to the permit issued by the Ministry of the Environment to OMYA Inc to remove 1.5

million litres of water per day from the Tay River without adequate assessment of the consequences and without adequate consultation with the public and those people and groups who have expertise

and interest; and

"Whereas it is our belief that this water taking will drastically impact the environment and seriously affect the water levels in Bob's and Christie lakes.

This in turn would affect fish spawning beds as well as habitat. It would also affect the wildlife in and around the lakes;

"Whereas Bob's Lake and the Tay River watershed are already highly stressed by the historic responsibility of Parks Canada to use Bob's Lake as a reservoir for

the Rideau Canal; and

"Whereas the movement of water from the lake through the watershed for navigation purposes in the canal provides sufficient stress and problems for the lake.

This water taking permit will only compound the stresses on the waterway;

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

"We request that this permit be rescinded until a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of water taking by OMYA Inc on the environment, the water levels and

the water needs of these communities is complete. An independent non-partisan body should undertake this evaluation."

This is signed by a number of residents, and I have added my signature to it as well.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AMBULANCE SERVICES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, 2001 / LOI DE 2001 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION

COLLECTIVE DANS LES SERVICES D'AMBULANCE

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 12, 2001, on the motion for second reading of Bill 58,

An Act to ensure the provision of essential ambulance

services in the event of a strike or lock-out of ambulance workers / Projet de loi 58, Loi visant à assurer la fourniture des services d'ambulance essentiels dans l'éventualité d'une

grève ou d'un lock-out de préposés aux services d'ambulance.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 13, 2001, I am now required to put the question.

Mr Stockwell has moved second reading of Bill 58,

An Act to ensure the provision of essential ambulance services in the event of a strike or lock-out

of ambulance workers. 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 1521 to 1526.

The Speaker: Would the members kindly take their seats.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bisson, Gilles

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 39; the nays are 30.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House, the bill is referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy.

MPP COMPENSATION REFORM ACT (ARM'S LENGTH PROCESS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA RÉTRIBUTION DES DÉPUTÉS (PROCESSUS SANS LIEN DE DÉPENDANCE)

Mr Tsubouchi moved second r eading of the following bill:

Bill 82,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act to provide an arm's length process to determine members' compensation / Projet de loi 82, Loi modifiant

la

Loi sur l'Assemblée législative pour établir un processus sans lien de dépendance permettant de fixer la rétribution des députés.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'm rising today to begin second reading debate on Bill 82,

An Act to amend

the Legislative Assembly Act to provide an arm's length process to determine members' compensation.

The proposed legislation would ensure that future compensation given to members of provincial Parliament would be determined by Ontario's Integrity

Commissioner. This law, if passed, would ensure that the salaries for members of provincial Parliament would be set by an impartial third party, not by elected politicians.

This legislation proposes that the Integrity Commissioner review compensation paid to members at intervals he or she deems appropriate. Any review or proposed

change to members' compensation would be public and transparent. If the Integrity Commissioner determines that a review should be done, then he or she would prepare a report outlining compensation

changes. The report would be submitted to the Speaker of the Ontario Legislature, who would then table it in the Assembly and publish it in the Gazette. This process is fair to members of

provincial Parliament. More importantly, this process is fair to Ontario taxpayers.

I would like to remind the House that in 1996 our government reformed MPPs' compensation, eliminated tax-free allowances, got rid of the gold-plated pension

plan, at the same time cutting the average pay of politicians by 5%. Furthermore, as promised in the Common Sense Revolution, our government cut the number of politicians at Queen's Park from 130

to 103, the first cut of its kind since 1933. Our government also cut the cost of government administration by 35%, saving taxpayers $300 million a year.

Legislating members' compensation to an impartial third party is another example of how our government will continue to maintain our accountability to

Ontario's taxpayers.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Questions and comments?

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I just want to point out a few things that perhaps the minister responsible for Management Board could

allude to. We've done a calculation of MPPs' salaries in 1995 and maybe the minister responsible can confirm or deny this. In 1995, MPPs were paid $42,000 a year and had a $14,000-a-year tax-free

expense allowance. If you gross up the tax-free expense allowance, it grosses up to approximately $21,000 a year, so $42,000 plus the $21,000 grossed up equal $63,000. I just heard the minister

responsible for Management Board say that you cut salaries, but by any calculation, when you gross up the tax-free allowance, they went from $63,000 a year to $78,000 a year. I wonder how you can

call going from $63,000 a year to $78,000 a year in 1996 a reduction in pay.

The cabinet minister also referred to the fact that you reduced the number of MPPs. I want to point out that soon after that the government House leader had to

acknowledge that, yes, having reduced the number of MPPs, you then had to increase the constituency allotment for each MPP because fewer MPPs would be handling more constituency work, more case

work. In fact, I remember the government House leader saying there were no net savings in that. So I wonder if the minister responsible for Management Board can explain those anomalies, the

differences in what he just said and what appear to be the figures.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I want to thank the Chair of Management Board for his comments.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I want to comment and remind the House and the minister who just spoke about the plight of minimum wage

earners in this province. I want to remind them that more than half of them are aged 15 to 24 years old; six out of 10 minimum wage earners work part-time; and they make only $6.85 an hour, right

here in Ontario. We've enjoyed really good economic times and the government takes all the credit for that. We know, of course, that the good economy is a result of the good economy in the United

States, and we are watching right now, as the economy is going in the dumps there, the impact that's starting to have here.

Leaving that aside, whoever is responsible for the dips and dives in the economy, the reality is that we've been in a very good economy here in Ontario for the

past several years, and the government has not seen fit during that time to raise the wages of the lowest-paid workers in Ontario. Everywhere I go -- it happened just recently on the weekend. I was

visiting co-op housing for recovering alcoholics and people who abuse drugs, who were talking to me about the minimum wage and how people cannot get by on that any longer.

I have a real problem when we're here talking about the fact that we are going to raise our wages, when here we are living in good economic times and the

government after all these years, coming to power in 1995, has not seen fit to raise the wage of minimum wage earners. I would very much like to use this opportunity for the government to make an

announcement that it will raise the amount the minimum wage worker makes in this province.

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): I want to thank my colleague. I think this is a step in the right direction. It always has been in my

mind an obscenity that politicians set their own pay. It is appropriate that it be handled by an outside authority and that we should not have a hand in this. So I think this is certainly a step

forward that all fair-minded people in Ontario would agree would be appropriate.

The Speaker: Response?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: To the member for Kenora-Rainy River, just a simple calculation answer: when the salaries were then chosen to become

transparent, that took into account the abolition of the gold-plated pension plan, which we no longer have.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I rise today to speak to Bill 82,

an act that will provide a process for determining MPPs' salaries.

Since I came to this Legislature in 1987, I have been struck by the absurdity, and frankly the great conflict of interest, of setting our own salaries. This is the issue that I think defines

conflict of interest. Nothing could be a greater conflict of interest than determining --

The Speaker: Order. If you want to take your debate outside, you can do that. The member for Algoma-Manitoulin has the floor. Sorry for the

interruption.

Mr Brown: There could be no greater conflict of interest than trying to set or actually setting one's own salary and spending public money in

order that we are paid. That is the conflict of interest.

I recall that back in 1987 there was a salary increase in this province for members of the Legislature, of what was then cost of living. I remember in 1988

that also happened, and in 1989 it happened again, supported by all three parties, supported by all members of the Legislature insofar as I can recall. As a matter of fact, I think they all passed

on voice votes. I then recall that in 1993, the next time the issue was addressed, our salaries were rolled back 5% by the social contract, and then in 1996 the new grossed up pay system was put in

place.

All those were awkward events. They are very difficult for us to deal with credibly. I think all of us understand that. That means that in over 14 years this

issue has been addressed in this Legislature five times. I think by any stretch of the imagination that is an inadequate system.

I like what the government is saying on this occasion, the occasion that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner -- because that's what he was formerly known as

-- but the Integrity Commissioner started out in this Legislature in about the same time frame, 1987 or 1988. I can't quite recall the exact year. He was the one we, as members of this Legislature,

trusted to declare all our assets to, all our sources of income, all our spouses' or partners' sources of income, all our minor children's sources of income. Everything we owned or any income we

might obtain was declared to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, now the Integrity Commissioner.

This is the person we trust to look after the integrity of the province of Ontario. That seems to me to be the appropriate place for decisions on our salary to

be made. It seems to me that the Integrity Commissioner has the moral authority in this province to deal with this issue as he does with every other issue regarding members' assets and liabilities

and even their spouses' and minor children's assets and liabilities. He is here to protect us. While I'm uncomfortable with discussing this at all, let this be the last time we need to do that in

this place.

I just want to bring to members' attention a quote I would like to read from the debate of January 1988. This is the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable

Robert K. Rae. He said:

"We are subject to an extraordinary degree of public scrutiny as members of a profession that deals with the public and for whom publicity is a way of life for

us. The question is raised on many occasions, whenever salaries are raised, that it is not the right time. People say this is not the right year. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, there is never a right

year to deal with this question. It is always going to be one which will raise eyebrows and obviously one which will raise concerns from a public which in many cases does not have the highest

opinion of those of us who are in elected office.

"I want to make it very clear that I do not have any figure in my head that is an ideal figure for what a member should be paid, or for what a cabinet minister

should be paid, or for what the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the third party should be paid.

"What I want to say to this House is ... I do not think it is right that we should be put in the position every year of having to determine our own salaries.

It is inappropriate," Mr Rae said. "It puts us in an invidious position, and I think it is wrong."

Further in the Hansard he goes on to say, "Let the commission determine what the rate should be and let that be the end of it. I hope we never have to have

another debate in this place or in any other place in terms of what our salaries should be." That is the position I take.

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I want to add just a couple of things to the record. I guess the problem I as a New Democrat am having

with this whole debate is that it's not a question of, "Are members valued for what they do? Should members make more money? Should we have an independent process?" I understand all those

arguments. The difficulty I'm having is simply this: we've lived in an economy where over the last number of years we've seen, as my good friend from Toronto-Danforth pointed out, minimum wage

workers who have not had an increase since the time we gave an increase in 1994 under the Bob Rae government. We've been calling on this provincial government to give minimum wage workers an

increase to at least the level that American workers got at the time we introduced our legislation some couple of years ago under the leadership of Howard Hampton.

For the last 10 years, as a government member and as an opposition member of this assembly, I have had to watch what governments, both mine and others, have

done when it came to going into the public sector and saying, "You should tighten your belt." We need to make sure we aren't excessive in our demands, so we're able to properly manage the affairs

of the province of Ontario when it comes to the ability to pay.

I have difficulty trying to say to minimum wage workers by way of the provincial government that they are not going to be getting an increase. Those workers

who have worked in the public sector for the last 10 years have had minimal increases of 1% or 2% per year, and on top of that we have workers in the private sector who are being hammered every day

when they try to bargain their collective agreements and are told they are greedy if they're asking for more than 1%, 2% or 3%. How could it be that we as members of this assembly can allow

ourselves to be judged a different way?

I say, do members deserve what they get? Yes. Should there be an independent process? Yes. To me, the question is simply this: is it fair as compared to what

happened to other workers out there? I think the answer is clearly no. For that reason, I don't support this legislation at this time, because of what's happening out there in the reality of the

world.

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): In response to the member from Algoma-Manitoulin, who I think set out very clearly what the

purpose of this legislation is, those of us on this side of the House will be supporting the bill simply because it does take out of the hands of members of this Legislature the decision about what

we should be paid. I think it's unfair to place us in that position to make that decision. So for an independent individual, highly regarded, highly respected in this province, to have the

responsibility to set that is appropriate.

I would also for the record point out the reference that was made to minimum wage in this province. During the 1990s, according to the Ministry of Labour, the

minimum wage increased some 34%. That's not to say that it necessarily is where it should be, and that may well be an issue for debate. But let me clarify that during the 1990s, the minimum wage

increased by 34% in this province. I think people should know that.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I agree with many of the comments that have been made by my colleagues within the New Democratic

Party, except for one thing. The question that I have of them is, are they going to take the raise or not, if there is to be a raise? That's the issue, because certainly their colleagues in the

federal House took the position, they voted against it, and then they took the raise.

Let me just very quickly talk about this bill. I like the process, but I hope the commissioner at least will take into account -- and I realize that there

should be as little instruction to him as possible -- the possibility that whatever increase he's going to implement, we will implement it after the next election. This is the way a lot of councils

do it, a lot of the local governments -- not every government -- so that if people have something to say about it, if they feel it is an election issue, they can do so in the next election. That's

the fairest way to do it.

Yes, there are many other arguments that can be made as to why other people aren't making more money and why the minimum wage shouldn't be increased, and I

agree with all those arguments. I don't think we're hard done by in this place. I still think that even with what we're getting right now, we're in the top 2% or 3% of the wage earners of this

province. I quite frankly don't care what the federal people make. If they make twice as much as we do, or half of what we do, who cares? I ran for this job; they ran for that job.

On the other hand, the average person out on the street already thinks we've got a raise and that we still have a gold-plated pension plan. That's the

perception the average person has. So I say let's get on with it, let's not play politics with it, and let's hope that whatever the Integrity Commissioner comes back with will be implemented after

the next election.

The Speaker: Further questions or comments?

Ms Churley: The words quoted from --

Mr Gerretsen: Are you going to take it?

Ms Churley: Absolutely. Do you think I'm going to take any less money than you or you across the floor?

Let me tell you something. I have a copy of the Common Sense Revolution -- remember that? -- when Mike Harris, who was then running as the leader of the Tory

caucus, undervalued and demeaned politicians every step of the way, even bragged in his Common Sense Revolution about taking away the sweet deals that politicians have for themselves etc.

Then they attempted to give a raise to all politicians when they realized they had made all their own politicians angry. They attempted to do it, and then the

fallout came and they backed off. They didn't have the guts or the courage to do it themselves, and so they let it sit for a while. They begged and pleaded and tried to find an agreement with all

parties in this House and couldn't find it. Then what did they do? Let me tell you, I support the notion, under other circumstances, of having an independent body make this decision. But we know

very well what the circumstances are here. Let's not pretend: we're human beings, and every human being would like a pay raise, for heaven's sake, if it's offered. Let's get real. We're human

beings; we're people. That's the reality. But what they did, and what you're agreeing to here, is to go along with a backdoor process. If they had the guts to give the raise, which is what they

tried to do last year and backed down, they would just do it.

You Liberals know as well as I do what is really going on here. It's crass and underhanded, and that's why I don't support it.

The Speaker: Response?

Mr Brown: I want to thank the members for their comments. I understand there are other major issues before this province. This is perhaps not

a priority, and this is a good reason to have it out of this place. It is a good reason to depoliticize this place so we can get on with the important work of the people of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, you will understand, and I think all members on all sides of the House understand, that this is an important, significant work/job/position we

have. This work we do on behalf of the people of Ontario is taken very sincerely by members of all three political parties. We work hard. None of us -- at least I can't think of a member who sought

this job because of the salary or perks it might have. As a matter of fact, when I ran, I had no idea what the salary might be. I just presumed the people of Ontario would want us to be treated

fairly. The problem, of course, is how you decide your own salary. How is that fair in any way?

I have the utmost confidence in the Integrity Commissioner. Whether he proposes an increase or a decrease, I'm sure it will be acceptable to all members of the

Legislature. I ask members not to use this debate to demean our position here. Remember, whether we're on the government side or the opposition side, we're here to do the people's work.

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There are times when 10 seconds can make a lot of difference. It just happens

that on the vote on Bill 58 we were cut 10 seconds short. The doors were closed, and me and a couple of other members couldn't access the chamber to vote. I think we should be allowed the full

time, so we can run from our offices down here and vote. Unfortunately, there were still 10 seconds left and the doors were closed. I think we should be allowed the full time.

The Speaker: I was here, and the clock counts down. We have our own clock here that we see. I know some members cut it very close. In fact,

I've seen people dive through the door and barely make it. It's a wonder we haven't lost some parts. But on this one, the clock counted down. We will check and make sure, but as far as the clock in

here, we waited, and I make very clear when we get down to zero -- the clock should be correct, unless there's something wrong with it, which I don't think there is. We will check that, though.

Further debate?

Mr Hampton: I look forward to taking

part in this debate, because there is a historical element to this, a constitutional element to this and,

I must say, I think there is a fairness element to this. I want to use the time allotted to me to outline all those aspects. Let me say that I think people across Ontario would probably appreciate

all those aspects of this debate.

Let's be very clear about what's going on here. The government wants to enact legislation which, if you read the legislation and you read the boundaries of the

legislation, will entitle MPPs to a considerable pay raise. That's what's going on here. The government, over the last two years, has tried on three occasions to bring forward substantial increases

in MPPs' pay. Each time, they have backed away from it because they simply didn't have the political courage to do it. They recognized that they had some problems, some historical problems. I want

to first speak about those historical problems.

I remember the period 1993, 1994, 1995, when Mike Harris was the leader of the third party, leader of the Conservative caucus, and I remember him going across

the province and saying that members of the Legislature had gold-plated pension plans, so gold-plated that MPPs were grossly overpaid. That was the position of the then leader of the Conservative

Party -- now Premier of Ontario -- that MPPs were grossly overpaid. I think I'm probably understating it, probably understating it by