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

May 8, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-May-08 vol. A (PDF)

L054A - Mon 8 May 2000 / Lun 8 mai 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION WEEK

VE DAY

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

JOB CREATION

LIBERATION OF THE NETHERLANDS

NURSING WEEK

THORNHILL COMMUNITY CENTRE

ONTARIO POLICE MEMORIAL

PALLIATIVE CARE

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

YOUNG OFFENDERS

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

YOUNG OFFENDERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

SCHOOLTEACHERS

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

SPECIAL EDUCATION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY

ST PETER'S HOSPITAL

PROVINCIAL SALES TAX

RURAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS

WATER EXTRACTION

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

HIGHWAY 407

ROAD MAINTENANCE

PROTECTION OF MINORS

HIGHWAY 407

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

ABORTION

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2000 ONTARIO BUDGET

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION WEEK

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Today marks the beginning of Education Week across the province. For over 20 years I have had the pleasure and honour of participating in the many activities that highlight what is offered on a daily basis, every week in the classrooms in every school in the province. I stand today to proclaim what I've always known: The teachers of our province provide a lifeline to the future.

To the teachers of our province I say thank you. Thank you for the professional way in which you do your job. Thank you for always challenging yourselves to improve and innovate. Thank you for sharing your gifts and the art of teaching with us for the sake of our children. Thank you for sharing something that all too often does not get mentioned, that is, a thank you for sharing your love. Your love of learning and your love of the children are most appreciated.

From the first time a child learns to zip up a coat, to tie shoelaces, to identify colours and letters and to count to 100, you were there. The mystery of reading and writing was solved with help from you. You taught us to play fair, to share, think critically, problem-solve and much more. You bring light to dark areas.

Let us celebrate Education Week by expressing our appreciation to the teachers of Ontario. Let us celebrate Education Week by dedicating to be the best partners we can be. As parents, students, educators, legislators and communities we must commit to creating a climate of trust, respect and dignity for all partners within our education system.

Education Week represents what happens every week in the schools. Again to the teachers of Ontario, thank you, and you are appreciated.

VE DAY

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): This is the 55th anniversary of victory in Europe. On VE Day, May 7, 1945, Nazi Germany surrendered to Allied forces. Today we remember the lessons of the bloodiest war in human history, the Second World War.

I especially want to recognize a dear friend and constituent of mine, Mr Frank Russell, who is just recovering from an illness. Frank Russell took up arms against the forces of Fascism twice, first as a volunteer fighting Franco in Spain, and then again with the Canadian army against Hitler. In two separate wars, Frank left Ontario to cross the seas. He saw dozens of close friends and comrades fall far away from home. In World War II, 1,100,000 Canadians served in uniform. Of them, 42,000 were killed and 55,000 were wounded.

Last week Nellie Templeman, a young Dutch girl living in Rotterdam at the time, wrote a letter in the Brampton Guardian thanking Canadians for their sacrifices. She said, "You paid the highest price for freedom-and you paid it in full."

Canadians like Frank Russell have never shied away from fighting for freedom. He is an example of those Tom Brokaw called the "greatest generation."

I congratulate Frank on his speedy recovery, and I urge all members here to join me in recognizing the sacrifices made by Mr Russell and his comrades in achieving victory in Europe 55 years ago today.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): It's with great concern that I report to the Legislature today that the doctor shortage in Thunder Bay continues to get worse. To say that the impact of this crisis is hurting my constituents is a gross understatement, and I want to use my time today to make a plea to the Premier to take some definitive action to deal with this urgent matter.

Last Thursday it was announced that the hours of access to the emergency department at the General Hospital of Port Arthur would be further reduced, largely as a result of the loss of more emergency room physicians.

This decline in services has to stop. It is becoming increasingly clear that this government needs to treat this as an urgent priority. Just 10 days ago Premier Harris, after some prodding, met with several area physicians in Thunder Bay to discuss this crisis. He indicated after the meeting that he had a better understanding of the situation, and for that we are grateful. But the fact is that we need to move beyond talk and into action in order to turn this horrible situation around.

Premier, you have to ease the restrictions on foreign-trained physicians who are keen to practise in the north. These doctors are ready to practise now, and now is certainly when we need them. Let's make the special incentives to practise in the north flexible enough so that they truly attract doctors who will stay. You need to stay on top of this, Premier, as there are decisions you can make that will help us once again provide the care that people used to take for granted.

It breaks my heart to talk to so many constituents who are no longer receiving the care they deserve, especially when I know and you know that the power to improve the situation is within this government's grasp.

JOB CREATION

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today because I am proud to say that since this government introduced its first phase of income tax cuts in July 1996, Ontario has gained more than 667,000 net new jobs. In April alone, Ontario gained more than 2,300 net new jobs.

Tax cuts create jobs, and I am pleased to learn that the leader of the official opposition agrees. In the Legislature on Wednesday, May 3, the Leader of the Opposition stated that his party believes "it is essential that we deliver lower taxes." He must have finally been introduced to Economics 101. He therefore must like the added 67 tax cuts contained in last week's budget. The budget last week contained a brighter future for all Ontarians.

Speaking of our future, it is definitely looking better for our young people. Youth employment rose by a reported 4,800 new jobs. That's 4,800 young people calling home to say, "Hey, I got the job." Overall, the unemployment rate for our youth fell last month from 11.9% to 11.4%, and this is the best it has been since 1990.

It was Edmund Burke who said: "Government is a device of human wisdom to provide for human wants. Men have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom." The people of Ontario have wanted jobs and this government has responded to this want. Ontarians can rest assured that we will continue working hard to create jobs, because people want to work and pursue a better life for themselves and for their families.

LIBERATION OF THE NETHERLANDS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Once again this weekend our television screens and newspapers were filled with stories of huge parades and joyous celebrations as the Dutch rekindled their special and unique bond with their Canadian wartime liberators on the occasion of the 55th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands by our Canadian forces. As a proud Canadian of Dutch birth, I stand here in full realization that the opportunities and dreams of my own and my parents' generation could not have been fulfilled without the tremendous personal sacrifices of so many Canadians both at home and abroad.

Over 7,600 Canadians died in the liberation of the Netherlands; the supreme sacrifice the Dutch, both young and old, continue to honour and remember. Many others were permanently maimed and injured, offering up their own hopes and aspirations so individuals like myself and others could benefit from the tremendous opportunities available in this country for a better way of life.

At least two members in this House besides myself were born in the Netherlands, Minister Hardeman and Minister Witmer, and we owe our reason for living here directly to these Canadian war heroes.

As one banner in the parade so aptly stated, "Dying for freedom is not the worst thing that could happen, being forgotten is."

On the 55th commemoration of the liberation of the Netherlands, let us also pay honour and tribute here in Canada to all those heroic men and women who so freely gave of themselves in that struggle to overcome tyranny. Let us never forget so that future generations, too, will always say of these Canadian heroes, "We shall remember them."

NURSING WEEK

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): I rise today to acknowledge the beginning of Nursing Week in the province of Ontario. Nursing Week is celebrated across Canada during the week of Florence Nightingale's May 12 birthday. In short, Nursing Week is a celebration of the achievements of the nursing profession, the commitment of nurses to their patients and the dedication of nurses to delivering quality health care. Moreover, this is a week to increase awareness among the public, policy-makers and the government of the significant and continued contribution of nursing to the overall well-being of Canadians.

The theme that will be celebrated this year by the 100,000 nurses in the province is "Ontario Nurses-Leaders in Health Care." Regretfully, it is due to the lack of leadership in health care that these are extremely difficult times for front-line care providers and their patients.

The cumulative effect of underfunding by this government and this government's general negative attitude toward nurses over the past five years has created many challenges for this dedicated, honourable and hard-working profession. Government mismanagement has left the nursing profession struggling with staffing shortages and poor working conditions. In fact, many nurses remain fearful that they won't be able to provide needed care as demands on the health care system escalate.

As Nursing Week unfolds, it is essential that we recognize nurses for the quality care they continue to deliver despite mounting pressure. Let us also acknowledge, however, the urgent, critical need of ensuring that this profession receives the support it requires. I encourage the government to seize this opportunity, take a look at this week and provide the necessary supports to the nursing profession.

THORNHILL COMMUNITY CENTRE

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): On April 29 I had the pleasure of attending the 25th anniversary of the Thornhill Community Centre. The Thornhill Community Centre was the first multi-purpose recreational facility to be built in Markham, and consists of a twin-pad arena, library, daycare centre, fitness centre, community hall, lounge and meeting rooms. The centre, located at Bayview and John streets in Thornhill, also hosts trade shows, corporate meetings and seminars.

It is the home of numerous Thornhill sports teams, including the Rattlers Junior A Hockey Club, the Thornhill Community Hockey League, the Thornhill Islanders Hockey Club, the Thornhill Figure Skating Club and their many, many collective hockey tournaments and figure-skating competitions. The Thornhill Golden Fifties Senior Club also enjoys the centre's fine facilities.

Like the other residents of Thornhill, I have often taken advantage of the multiple facilities of the Thornhill Community Centre. The mayor at the time, Tony Roman, was very instrumental in making sure a multi-purpose recreational facility be built in the town of Markham. In those early days the Thornhill Lions Club, a non-profit organization, spearheaded a fundraising campaign that raised $250,000 toward the community centre.

I would also like to acknowledge the vision and the leadership of Robert Adams, the former Lions Club president, for his incredible contribution in the fundraising campaign. The success of this community centre is proof that substantial benefits can be derived when all levels of government work together.

ONTARIO POLICE MEMORIAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I was privileged to join with colleagues from the Legislative Assembly, police officers from across the province and the United States, the families and friends of police officers who had lost their lives in the line of duty, and members of the general public in attending the dedication ceremony of the Ontario Police Memorial on Sunday, May 7, 2000.

With the national memorial in Ottawa and now a provincial memorial in Toronto, the families and friends of police officers killed while carrying out their duties will be assured that the people of Canada and the people of our province will remember their loved ones who made the ultimate sacrifice while dedicating their lives to helping their fellow citizens feel safe and secure.

As the MPP for St Catharines, I was particularly proud of the representatives of the Niagara Regional Police Service and OPP officers from Niagara who were in attendance and on parade, and the Niagara Regional Police Male Chorus, which joined with police choruses across Ontario to provide the musical voices that added so much to the ceremony.

Those of us who were present in person and those who were present in spirit were deeply moved by the solemnity and emotion of the occasion, and will never forget the sacrifice made by our brave police officers.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London West): As many members of the House know, May 8 to 14 is National Palliative Care Week. Hospice palliative care is aimed at relief of suffering and improving the quality of life for persons who are living with or dying from advanced illness. Hospice palliative care offers social, emotional and spiritual support to the person as well as their family by members of a diverse team which includes physician, nurse, social worker, home care planner, volunteers and other therapists.

The Canadian Palliative Care Association is a national association which provides leadership in hospice palliative care in Canada through collaboration and representation, development of national standards of practice, support in research, advocacy for improved policy, research allocation and support for caregivers.

In 1998, this House showed its commitment to hospice palliative care by passing my resolution on the subject. I am confident that significant progress is going to be made in Ontario over the next few years.

I ask all members of the House to join me in commending the dedicated professionals, caregivers and volunteers who provide palliative care to the Canadian Palliative Care Association and its Ontario affiliates, the Hospice Association of Ontario and the Ontario Palliative Care Association, all of whom are working to ensure the comfort and dignity of the dying.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, May 8, Tuesday, May 9, and Wednesday, May 10, 2000, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I believe we have unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding the sitting times of the general government committee.

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

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that the standing committee on general government be authorized to meet on the evening of May 15 at Queen's Park and May 12 and two days during constituency week for travel for the consideration of Bill 68,

An Act, in Memory of Brian Smith, to amend the Mental Health Act and the Health Care Consent Act, 1996.

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

VISITORS

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd just like to recognize today the students and staff from Niagara District Secondary School who are here today to see the proceedings, from Niagara-on-the-Lake in my riding.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It's not a point of order, but we welcome the students.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): Today marks the start of Education Week in Ontario, an annual event that has schools across this province celebrating the value of education. The theme of this year's Education Week is "Reaching for Tomorrow." In many ways, this theme captures the essence of what the driving force should be for a strong public education system in Ontario, a system that helps our young people prepare for their tomorrows, that helps them reach their own personal goals.

This theme also encompasses the goal of the work that this government has undertaken since 1995 to reform Ontario's education system. We are building the foundation for quality education in this province by ensuring we have a public education system that strives for excellence.

Last week's budget talked about Ontario's growing prosperity and laid out more tax cuts and key investments to keep it that way. Making sure this prosperity continues means having an excellent public education system to give our students the knowledge and skills they need to be successful in their chosen careers and as individuals.

I know there are many good things about our public education system. There are many excellent, committed teachers, staff, parents and volunteers whose dedication contributes greatly to the quality of our education system. But that dedication and commitment alone cannot do the job without a system that sets higher standards of quality, that helps our students meet those standards and is prepared to be more accountable to the parents who depend on that system to educate their children and to the taxpayers who pay for it.

Those are the goals of our government's education reform: quality and accountability. The education system we inherited in 1995 was in serious need of repair and revitalization. It was outdated. It lacked focus. It needed a new direction.

The electorate recognized the problem. The electorate told us that Ontario could not reach for tomorrow with yesterday's education system, so we developed a comprehensive plan for our education system, a plan that emphasizes quality and excellence through higher standards and through more accountability. It is this plan that outlines the commitments we made to parents, to students and to taxpayers in 1995, and again in 1999. It is these commitments that we are moving forward with.

In our first mandate we accomplished a number of significant things:

We established a fair and equitable way to fund our education system; funding based on enrolment and student needs, rather than on the tax base of local communities.

We defined, protected and increased classroom spending.

We renewed the focus on learning by bringing in a more rigorous and challenging curriculum backed by standards and regular assessments of basic skills.

We established school councils to increase parental involvement in education.

We standardized and simplified report cards so that parents can clearly understand how their children are doing.

But we knew going into last year's election that the job was not done, so we laid out in the Blueprint, very clearly, the things that we would undertake in this mandate. We said we would continue to find savings in administration, where possible, and reinvest those in the classroom. We said we would continue to make new investments in key priorities identified by parents and teachers. To this end, in early March I announced increased investments totalling $190 million in new dollars for our classrooms this September.

Again, in last week's budget we committed more important new funding: $171 million to create new reading support programs and to shrink class sizes for students in junior kindergarten through to grade 3; an additional $70 million for special education programs-a very important increase. This, coupled with the increase I announced earlier in the year, means a 12% increase in funding for special education for this coming school year, an important investment.

We are also moving forward on another commitment we made to the voters by putting in place a code of conduct for our schools. We recognize that teachers can't teach and students can't learn if they are in fear for their safety. In too many classrooms in the province this is the case, so during this session we will be introducing the legislation required to give force to the new code of conduct I released last month. It will be another key step to make our schools safer and to create a more respectful learning environment.

To ensure that we keep our commitment on accountability to both the students of this province and their parents, we are moving forward with some other changes to make sure that school boards implement these necessary reforms. Parents have told us we need to provide more direction to the school system to ensure that students come first. The reports of the Education Improvement Commission have reiterated the need for greater accountability in our system.

It is our intent to act to close the loopholes that some boards and teacher unions have used to avoid meeting the government's requirements on teaching time for secondary school teachers. We want to ensure that the instructional time standard of four hours and 10 minutes a day, a standard that the government set two years ago and saw strikes over, is actually met.

We also intend to propose to give the province the authority to intervene in the interests of students if a school board is not meeting its legal and educational responsibilities in a number of key priority areas.

As the importance of education grows, so too does the importance of other activities in schools. Some teacher unions may view these things as extra, but parents, students and those many teachers who do participate believe they are an integral part of a student's educational experience. This government agrees.

In response to parents, students and communities where such activities have been threatened or withdrawn, it is our intent to ensure the government has the necessary legislative authority to ensure that these activities are not used as bargaining tools.

One of the foundations of quality education is quality teaching. This government and I recognize very clearly that Ontario has many excellent teachers. But as many other professions have recognized, in today's technological and competitive world, a top-quality public education system is not an option; it's a necessity. As a result, the need to ensure quality in the teaching profession has never been greater.

Students, parents and taxpayers must be assured that our teachers' knowledge and skills are as up-to-date as possible and that they are doing the best job possible. I will soon release the details of our government's teacher testing program. Let me be clear: What this government has always said it would do is put in place a comprehensive teacher testing program, not a test for teachers.

Our government has consistently laid out for the voters our agenda for comprehensive and long overdue changes in our education system. We promised students, parents and taxpayers that we would undertake the reforms necessary to ensure quality and accountability so that our public education system would better prepare our students for their tomorrows. Much has been accomplished, but much more needs to be done.

Today is the start of Education Week. I and my caucus colleagues are once again pledging our commitment to ensure that our students can indeed reach for their tomorrows through a strong public education system. Our students deserve no less.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Making our communities safer is one of this government's top priorities. People are justifiably concerned about crime. Violent youth crime increased 77% between 1988 and 1998, which is the most recent year for which we have statistics. Parents are fearful for the safety of their families, especially their children.

Ottawa's response to this situation has been woefully inadequate. The federal Liberal government is not listening to the concerns of the people of Ontario. I say that because Ottawa has ignored Ontario in their deliberations on the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the so-called replacement for the Young Offenders Act. Unfortunately, what the Liberals are proposing is the same book, but with a new cover.

Earlier this year I, along with my colleagues the Solicitor General and the Minister of Correctional Services, asked to appear before the federal standing committee on justice and human rights, which is considering this new bill. We were refused. The co-chairs of the Ontario Crime Commission also asked to appear before the standing committee. They too were refused.

It wasn't just the government of Ontario that was denied the opportunity to speak to the federal government; it was the people of Ontario who were denied a voice, denied the opportunity to deliver their serious concerns about an important piece of legislation.

I understand that a number of amendments are being proposed to the Youth Criminal Justice Act in response to Quebec's concerns. Our government is concerned that these changes do not even come close to improving this legislation. In fact, these changes could weaken the act by softening the language.

We are concerned that this federal bill will not increase jail sentences; will not automatically try 16- and 17-year-olds as adults when they commit adult crimes; will not require mandatory jail time for youth convicted of offences involving weapons; will not guarantee that youth convicted of serious crimes such as murder will serve adult sentences; and will still force prosecutors to prove that an adult sentence is necessary for most serious violent offences.

The proposed Youth Criminal Justice Act fails to hold young offenders accountable for their actions. Consequently, the federal government is failing to protect Canadians from violent young offenders. They have not opened their eyes to the problem, and they won't listen to the public's concerns or to the people's elected representatives.

If this federal bill is passed, Ontario will be required to enforce the legislation even though they ignored all of our major suggestions for making it more effective. Clearly this is unfair and unjust. The issue is too important to the people of Ontario for us to give up on. That's why today I am tabling the following resolution:

Resolved that the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario,

(

a) Condemns the weakness of the current federal Young Offenders Act and urges that it be scrapped and replaced with a tough new law that holds young offenders accountable for their actions;

(

b) Rejects the changes proposed by federal Bill C-3 because they do not go far enough to address the concerns of law-abiding citizens but merely repackage the flawed, weak Young Offenders Act under a new name;

(

c) Further rejects any proposed amendments to Bill C-3 that would weaken and soften legislation that is already inadequate;

(

d) Particularly condemns the federal government's attempt, through its legislation, to shorten some jail sentences for crimes committed by young offenders;

(

e) Believes the 16- and 17-year-old persons charged with serious, adult-type offences should automatically be tried as adults; and

(

f) Believes that young people convicted of violent, adult-type crimes should be subject to adult-length sentences.

I call on all members to speak up and speak loudly so that Ottawa will hear that the people of Ontario want youth crime legislation with teeth.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): The Attorney General asks all members to speak up and speak loudly. If only the pen were mightier than the sword when it comes to crime, if only fighting justice were about speaking up and speaking loudly, then we wouldn't have a problem with the safety of our streets here in Ontario. If only our job here was to blame everybody else for crime but ourselves, then in fact maybe there wouldn't be any problems with the safety of our streets here in Ontario.

But I've got some news for the government. Fighting justice is not just about the grandstanding and the speeches and the resolution. Fighting justice is about doing something, and I can tell you, notwithstanding all the noise and deflection and blame that this government would like to pass on to Ottawa, I can assure you that there is some business to be done in this House when it comes to crime.

If this government was serious about justice, they wouldn't be before the Supreme Court of Canada trying to shoot down gun control legislation alongside the gun lobby. If this government was serious about justice, they wouldn't have put guns in the hands of 12-year-olds, against the advice of victims. If this government was serious about justice, they would take seriously those constructive proposals such as the private member's bill to get phony guns off our streets that was so arrogantly dismissed by this minister.

There's more that this House can do. This House could pass legislation mandating trigger locks, going after the gun manufacturers for what they've done in terms of the economic and health costs. Instead, this government is in the holster of the gun lobby and is trying to distract Ontarians by pointing up to Ottawa, but nobody is going to be fooled in this House, I can assure the Ontario Attorney General.

If this government was serious about justice, they would be making investments in enforcement. Do you know how many young offenders were tried in Ontario as adults in 1997-98? In Manitoba, it was 23; in Quebec, it was 23; in Ontario, it was nine. So if the Attorney General has a problem with the number of youth being tried as adults, I suggest he stop talking about it and start doing something about it.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The Minister of Education's statement today is clearly about a government that doesn't trust or respect the school boards or teachers across Ontario. Clearly, their idea of a fair and equitable way of funding is to underfund everybody-every board at every level. Class sizes in Ontario have grown. Without a doubt, special education children have been forgotten because of this government. Clearly and without a doubt, schools have closed in unprecedented proportions across the province over the course of the last three years.

It is evident that this government has not listened to its own experts, because junior kindergarten and early childhood education programs have been decimated because this government doesn't believe an investment in early childhood education is an investment in the future.

Let's not get sucked in by our theme about building for tomorrow. This government has tried to wreak havoc on tomorrow at the expense of the education system in the province of Ontario. Do you know what has kept this system together? It has been the teachers in Ontario who, over the course of the last five years, have been railed against by this government. But the teachers haven't listened to the government.

They've decided to be dedicated, they've decided to be committed and they've decided that love of students, love of their children and love of their profession are certainly a lot better than buying into this government's agenda to wreak havoc and to Americanize our public education system. You know what? This will not happen, because the teachers in Ontario are committed. They're dedicated, they love the system, they love their students.

Trustees-those same trustees who you over the course of the last five years have said have not done their job-have fought at the local level to save the local identity of schools so that truly the schools across the province are schools with a difference and reflect the local flavour of the community. You people do not understand it yet. You haven't got the idea. One size does not fit all. You people are guilty of destroying the public education system in Ontario.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I couldn't help observing how this minister was very smug and smooth and sugary. To the unsuspecting electorate, she'd almost be convincing if it weren't for a number of different facts that I'm going to try to lay out in the few minutes I've got.

Bill 160 was designed to squeeze money out of the education system. It was designed to suck money out of our schools into the coffers of the provincial government to give the tax cuts they've been giving for years. That's what it's all about.

Some of you fine Tories who go to your schools, if you do enter them from time to time, will have noticed that you've made cuts in adult education, you've made cuts in education assistants, you have now more extra user fees in our elementary and secondary system than ever before. We now have fewer library teachers than ever before. We now have fewer custodians in our schools than ever before. Art programs have been cut; teachers of art have been cut. The list is exhausting, but there is a lot more that could be said about it.

This minister says, "We established a fair and equitable way to fund our education system." Yes, you have whacked everybody fairly, and in fact you have whacked the teaching system equitably in the public and the Catholic systems. That you have done.

You say, "We defined, protected and increased classroom spending." Listen to this study. A study issued this month by the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario demonstrates that since 1997, class sizes in elementary schools have increased significantly, from 20.2 to 23.1 in kindergarten alone; from 22.1 to 24 in grade 2. In other words, there are more students and fewer teachers in our classrooms, and that's why you're making this pitiful attempt to put back a couple of teachers before people notice.

In special ed you added $40 million a couple of months ago and you added $100 million just recently. Why? Because you knew there was money to be put in special ed, but you, Minister, denied it all along. Every time we raised that question, you denied there was a problem in special ed, until you were caught, and now you have to put in a few dollars. But you don't say, "We acknowledge it was a problem." You have to deny it. I have to tell you that teachers are demoralized; parents are fundraising now more than ever before. We have a system in crisis, and unless the parents fix this, you're going to bring us into further crisis.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Attorney General: Forgive me for being somewhat skeptical about the sincerity of this government when it comes to issues of crime and prevention of crime and indeed the interests of victims. Has this government not lived with their zero Victims' Bill of Rights, the Victims' Bill of Rights that the courts in this province told us a year ago had no impact whatsoever on the rights of victims, wasn't worth the paper it was written on?

My skepticism is fuelled by a government that wants to talk a big game about law and order and crime control yet, when it has the capacity to do something, passes legislation that will go out busting squeegee kids trying to earn a couple of bucks on the streets of Toronto because of their poverty and destitution; a government that, rather than addressing the needs of families who are crippled and troubled and torn apart by a delinquent child, rather than providing them with the community supports, mental health programs for youngsters and for adolescents, rather than providing their schools and high schools and other parts of the educational system with those supports that could help get delinquent kids back on track, wants to hold parents responsible, even though they've expended, in most cases, tens of thousands of dollars and even though their families have been impacted in the most serious way by a delinquent kid; this government that chooses to privatize not only its adult but now all of its young offender facilities.

This government doesn't have the power to write criminal legislation; we understand that. But in those areas where they do have jurisdiction, they have failed the community in terms of public safety, they've failed victims, and they've failed those young people who find themselves in trouble with the law.

I'm looking forward to the debate on this resolution. I quite frankly can tell you that we share some of the concerns that the vast majority of Ontarians have about how young people are being dealt with in our criminal justice system. But this government abandons its role in the treatment and rehabilitation of young offenders, turns them over to for-profit American corporate boot camps, which have no impact other than to lock them up and throw the key away, not understanding that sooner or later they're going to get out. Let's debate this resolution and let's talk about this government's failure to enact any programs regarding community safety.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Chair of Management Board. I want to return to the sorry saga of the Tory land scam. I want to have a page bring to you a copy of a mortgage given back to a buyer in connection with a particular deal. You sold some land on April 30, 1999, for $13.27 million. When it came to this deal, you decided you were going to play banker. So you gave a mortgage back; you loaned $10.77 million to the buyer.

The interesting thing is that when it came to interest to be charged on this loan for the first 18 months, do you know what you charged this buyer? Given that prime at the time was 6.5%, do you know what this minister charged this buyer in connection with a loan for $10.77 million? Zero. Not a penny in interest. That works out to a cost of $1 million for Ontario taxpayers.

Minister, tell us, why was this $1-million expense in the interests of Ontario taxpayers?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): As the Leader of the Opposition knows, there is an investigation underway into the past transactions at the Ontario Realty Corp. I would caution him that some of these deals, although they might not have closed till 1999, might have been entered into years ago.

I don't know the details on this particular one, but I can tell you there's a board of directors of the Ontario Realty Corp which is accountable for their actions and, second, we have done the right thing by trying to get to the bottom of all past transactions by having an investigation take place. It's being conducted by people who are knowledgeable and competent and capable of carrying out this full investigation.

Mr McGuinty: Oh, we know; you've told us several times before, Minister, that you are nothing less than a saint when it comes to these matters.

I want to remind you: It says here that the person who loaned this money-you'll find it in

section 14 of this mortgage-"Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet." This is your deal. That's you. You can't now pretend that you know nothing about this and that you take no responsibility for this matter.

Let me tell you something else about this deal. The buyer in this matter was Mavis Valley Developments and the president there is Nick Cortellucci. It turns out that since 1995, Mr Cortellucci and his business partners have made 342 donations to the Mike Harris party here in Ontario. That works out to $463,000 in contributions to this minister's party. This is another special deal for another special friend. This is a case of this government looking after those that brung ya to the dance. We've got a $1-million discount given to one of your largest contributors.

Again I ask, Minister, how is this deal in the interests of Ontario taxpayers?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As the Leader of the Opposition preaches in his sanctimonious tone to this House, he should be aware that we are doing the proper thing. We don't share the luxury you have in opposition to slander and carry on with all your mudslinging, but we can tell you this: We are doing the proper thing to get to the bottom of these important questions. We've asked for the auditors. They have asked for forensic auditors, people who are qualified to look at past transactions, and they have called in the police who, you are well aware, are investigating past transactions.

Mr McGuinty: Our concern on this side of the House is that this minister failed to do the proper thing before entering into these deals. It's not a matter now of closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. Why didn't you do the right thing before you entered into this deal?

Although it's hard to imagine, this deal gets worse. There is a special provision in this loan that gives the buyer a 7% discount on the cost of the loan. That provision in and of itself will save this buyer $753,900. If you add up all the special deals, all the special clauses, something the likes of which nobody could possibly imagine being part of a usual arm's-length commercial transaction, Minister, this buyer gets a total discount of $2,251,000.

We have searched the Common Sense Revolution, we have looked at all the party documents, and there is no reference anywhere to a political rewards program where you reward those friends who make contributions to you and your government. Why don't you just stand up and tell us now why you didn't put it before the Ontario public at the time of the last election? Why didn't you tell us you intended to-

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

Hon Mr Hodgson: To the Leader of the Opposition, maybe you could answer this for the House and for those watching on TV: Do you think you're more qualified than the police to investigate these past transactions or do you just not trust the police?

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, this deal was made on April 30, 1999. That's when it closed. It involves a loan from you, in your capacity as Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, for $10.77 million, and it provides for 18 months interest-free.

Tell me, Minister, have you ever heard of such a deal in your life: $11 million, 18 months interest-free? Do you support this deal? Do you think this is a good thing? Do you think this in the interests of Ontario taxpayers? Just answer those questions.

Hon Mr Hodgson: As the people of Ontario know, real estate deals sometimes are complicated. He mentions the deal. I don't have the particulars of when it was entered into or when it wasn't. I know the closing date because he has handed me this piece of paper.

I can tell you that this government is being open. We've asked for the auditors and the forensic auditors, people who are qualified, to look at these things, and they've asked for the police to investigate all past transactions. We want to get to the bottom of these issues, and that's the proper process to be undertaking. I hope he is not suggesting that they are not qualified, because they are, and they are conducting an investigation that he is well aware of.

Mr McGuinty: This is one of the largest ORC deals struck in the last three years. This buyer is one of the largest two donors to your party: 342 donations made to your party during the last five years. The total donations again are $463,000. The total loss to the taxpayers here in connection with this deal is $2,251,000.

This all happened on your watch. You tell us that you're trying to get to the bottom of this. Our concern over here is that you're at the bottom of this. So tell us one more time: Why is it in the interests of Ontario taxpayers that somebody who contributed $463,000 to your party should obtain a loan discount of $2,251,000?

Hon Mr Hodgson: We are going to get to the bottom of all these questions through the proper process, and the police are involved in investigating it. He asked if this was a deal that served the taxpayers well. We don't know, but we will find out in terms of the proper process through the police.

I can tell you that your record on land deals and what is proven fact for all to see-a proven fact, not an allegation-is the Ataratiri lands, where the Liberals, when they were in power, cost Ontario taxpayers $340 million. That's a proven fact of your mismanagement when it comes to lands.

Mr McGuinty: This minister just utters words which tell us more than anything else about his connection with this matter. I asked him whether this is in the interests of Ontario taxpayers. This minister, whose office appears on this document in connection with one of the largest deals in the last two years, tells us he doesn't know whether this is in the interests of Ontario taxpayers. That says more than anything else about the state of this government and their refusal to assume responsibility for the people who sent them here in the first place, Ontario taxpayers.

One more time, Minister: How could it possibly be, a deal this large, a sale to a contributor that large involving this many millions of taxpayer dollars? How could this happen on your watch? Why will you not stand up now and take responsibility for this and finally do the right thing, which is step aside?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Everyone in this House should know or ought to know that this government, the Mike Harris government, is taking the proper steps. You want to blame the whistle-blowers. We have put in place a process to get to the bottom of all these past transactions to make sure they served the interests of the taxpayers. If there has been wrongdoing, that will be accounted for through due process. That's the responsible thing to do. That's a responsibility we have to the taxpayers. We don't have the luxury that you have in opposition to act irresponsibly and throw around accusations.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. I want to return to your government's discrimination against cancer patients from northern Ontario.

Today in the gallery is a cancer survivor, Anna Watson. Last year, Anna Watson made 11 trips to the cancer treatment centre in Thunder Bay. Because your government doesn't provide assistance in terms of air travel, she had to drive four hours to the cancer treatment centre, receive treatment and drive four hours home. She estimates that she and her husband have had to pay $1,000 a month out of their own pocket to access cancer treatment.

If Anna Watson were from southern Ontario, you'd pay the full air fare, the taxis, the hotel room, the food, everything, to take a cancer patient from southern Ontario to the same treatment centre in Thunder Bay.

Minister, can you tell Anna Watson and the hundreds of other cancer survivors in northern Ontario why you treat them like second-class citizens in their own province?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I might ask the leader of the third party the same question, why you didn't make any changes to the northern health travel grant. In fact, it was your party that actually tightened the criteria and it was your party that decided patients were required to access the specialist nearest to them. It was the Liberals who introduced the initiative; it was you who tightened the criteria.

In 1999 we did review the entire issue of the northern health travel grant, and I'm very pleased to tell you today that we are prepared to review it again this year.

Mr Hampton: Minister, this isn't about the northern health travel grant. You, your ministry, gave Cancer Care Ontario a special allocation of money, a special allocation above and beyond their budget, to pay for the costs of southern Ontario cancer patients to get cancer treatment in Thunder Bay, in Sudbury, in Detroit, in Buffalo. That's what you did for southern Ontario cancer patients.

All we're asking is that you do the same thing for northern Ontario cancer patients. Why should one cancer patient have the air fare, hotel accommodation, taxis and food paid for, and another one is told, "If you want to get to cancer treatment, you drive four, five, six, seven hours"-sometimes over an ice-covered highway-"and you pay $1,000 out of your own pocket, find your own hotel room and go out and pay for your own meals"?

This has nothing to do with the northern health travel grant. If you can provide a special allocation of money for southern Ontario cancer patients to access cancer treatment, why can't you do the same thing for cancer patients from the north? We're all in the same province.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As the leader of the third party knows, our government has responded to the needs of people in this province more generously than any other government. We have added to our budget. We've gone from $17.4 billion to $22 billion this year. We have continued to do everything we can to take the services closer to home, to the people in all parts of the province.

I just repeat again, for the member here today, that we are quite prepared to review the information that we have regarding the needs of people in the north. I know you didn't hear me the first time, but we do understand and we will be responding.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Final supplementary, the member for Nickel Belt.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Minister, there is no need for a review. For 13 full months now your government has been discriminating against northern cancer patients, because 13 months ago your government saw fit to provide additional special funding to Cancer Care Ontario to cover 100% of the costs of travel, accommodation and food for southern Ontario cancer patients who have to travel from their communities for cancer care.

Here we are 13 months later, and northern cancer patients, who regularly have to travel far from home for cancer treatment, can only get a small portion of their travel covered-nothing for accommodation, nothing for food.

Minister, isn't it about time you ended this discrimination? All it requires is some political will to ensure that northern cancer patients are treated the same as southern cancer patients. Will you today establish a special fund in northern Ontario to be administered by Cancer Care officials in the northeast and the northwest so that cancer patients in northern Ontario will be treated the same as you treat southern cancer patients now?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Our government has added $155 million to the cancer budget. Cancer Care Ontario, the agency that coordinates standards and guidelines, is the group that recommended that costs be covered. However, I indicated in my very first response that we would review the issue.

SCHOOLTEACHERS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Education, but I would say to the Minister of Health that at a time when your government is giving away $1 billion in corporate tax cuts-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): If it's a question for the Minister of Education, please place it to the Minister of Education.

Mr Hampton: Minister, I heard your statement today and I want to ask you a specific question. The Rainy River board of education reached an agreement last week with the secondary school teachers which will actually see some money taken out of administration and out of the budget for board governance and put into the classroom. That money will provide that teachers will be available on a regular basis, through the day, to provide for students who have special needs, or students who need to catch up on a subject, or students who are in danger of falling behind. It's an agreement that provides the very best for students. They're being told that your government doesn't like that agreement.

Minister, can you tell the students, the parents and the teachers there and across Ontario why an agreement that takes money out of administration and money out of board governance and puts it toward teachers providing help to students isn't going to be allowed by your government?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): Thank you for the question. First of all, I certainly haven't seen this agreement. I have no idea if it is in compliance with the regulations and the legislative amendments we'll be introducing shortly. If it is in compliance, this board has nothing to worry about.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): We think they have a lot to worry about, because we have an inkling about where this minister's thinking is at and we'll get it shortly, obviously, in terms of some presentation, of some statement they'll be making very soon. The fact of the matter is this: Rainy River District School Board has come to an agreement; Thames Valley, Metro Toronto, Metro Separate, York and Peel have shown similar agreements. These agreements fall within the regulations that you have established, but we get from you or your staffers that this is unacceptable to you people.

The reality check is this, Minister: The government's cuts to education and the new funding formula mean there are not as many teachers as before. Since 1995, there has been a 13% reduction in the number of teachers per 1,000 students in Ontario. It was 63.1 teachers per 1,000 in 1995; it's projected to be 52.4 teachers per 1,000 in 2000-01. That's the reality. You don't like this. You don't want people to know that.

I would have some, if not more, respect for you if you admitted your true intentions-if you admitted, for example, that your politics is to do more with less, meaning more students being taught by fewer teachers. That's part of your agenda. If you could admit this, I might have some respect for you, if not more. Can you do that and make me feel better?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'm not prepared to admit anything that is not true. First of all, as the honourable member may know, we just increased the number of elementary teachers by 1,000 by bringing down the class size for kindergarten to grade 3. We think that's a very important improvement.

Second, for the first time, we actually recognize that remedial programs, remediation for students who need extra help, and teacher-adviser time are two very important quality initiatives. Not only did we recognize that specifically in our regulations, and that continues to be there, but we've actually backed it up with almost 90 million new dollars for those school boards to help deliver both of those programs.

What we're not prepared to do is to allow certain boards and certain unions to engage in creative non-compliance to get around provincial standards.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. During the course of the weekend we got some news about your apparent movement in connection with the Oak Ridges moraine. You will know that in our party we've been very concerned about the future of that unique bioregion, very concerned about the fact that it acts as the greater Toronto area's rain barrel, bringing cool, clean water. What we want to ask you then is, given your new-found commitment to the moraine, when exactly will you introduce a bill providing comprehensive protection to the Oak Ridges moraine?

And when exactly will you put into place a freeze on all development pending passage of that same legislation?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I think the position of this government is that in a province of prosperity and in a province where growth and opportunity are happening, we should always seek to balance properly the interests of present and future generations, when it comes to biodiversity and ecological protection, with the growth, including housing growth and development that occurs in the greater Toronto area and indeed throughout all of Ontario.

Our position has been clear. We have a Planning Act. We also have a provincial policy statement pursuant to the Planning Act that we instituted in 1996. We also have the 1991 guidelines that are specific to the moraine that were instituted by the previous NDP government. All of that is on the table. We had a requirement from the board to respond in scientific language as to how to flesh out the definition of that protection. We responded, and that is now a matter of public record before the board.

Mr McGuinty: The Minister talks about trying to strike a balance. You tell me, Minister: This new directive or opinion you've offered to the OMB is going to provide some minimal protection, if it's successful, to a full 1% of the moraine; 99% will be unaffected by this opinion that you've offered. Let's put this in some real perspective. This wasn't legislation that's going to be introduced by the minister, it wasn't a ministerial order and it wasn't a policy directive. It was a recommendation. It was an opinion. It was a passing thought.

You have seen the latest polls when it comes to this issue and how your government is perceived in its refusal to take responsibility to save the Oak Ridges moraine. If you were serious, if you were genuinely committed to saving the Oak Ridges moraine for future generations, then you would pass and make into law this bill that has been put forward by Mike Colle of my party. That's what you'd do. It's ready to go right now.

Why don't you just stand up and admit that you are not interested in saving the Oak Ridges moraine? You're interested in doing nothing more than saving your political hide.

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member seems to have a fixation with polls, which is understandable, but the only polls that I saw indicated that if a vote were held tomorrow in that catchment area of the community, 60% would vote Progressive Conservative under a Mike Harris government and only 30% would vote for the honourable member. I think those polls speak louder than his rhetoric.

I hope the honourable member is not suggesting that this honourable member or this government should interfere with the quasi-judicial process that is before the board. I hope the honourable member is not suggesting that.

This government had a requirement to respond to the board. We consulted with the Ministry of Natural Resources; we consulted with hydrogeologists; we consulted with the conservation authorities. We had an obligation to render an opinion. We rendered an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. The honourable member can infuse all he wants into this, but we are responding to a board request, and now it is up to the board, as it is their right and responsibility, to render a decision.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): My question is for the Minister of Education. School boards throughout the province are trying to serve the growing number of students within their communities and are realizing that there are numerous challenges with serving these exceptional students. I am aware that the ministry is working closely with boards to determine the pressure points and to identify some of the areas that need to be addressed in order to better serve those students who require special education. School boards that offer excellent special education programming are realizing increasing enrolment due to the excellent reputation in the special education services they provide.

Minister, my constituents want to know what is being done to address the pressure points that our school boards in York region are experiencing with respect to special education.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I thank the member for Thornhill for the question. I think every member in this House has heard stories from parents who were told that their child would never learn, and yet they have seen and we have seen that these children, with the right support, are able to do exceedingly well in their educational career and in their future career. That's why we've taken the steps we've taken to improve delivery and to increase resources.

One of the first priorities to address that I heard from all groups in my consultations last year, whether it was teachers or boards or whatever, was to improve special-needs funding, so we have indeed done that. We increased funding by another 12% this coming school year, the $40 million I announced earlier this year, the money that the finance minister so kindly put in the budget-another 12% increase in special-needs funding. For the York Region District School Board that will mean another $2 million specifically for special ed, and for York Catholic there will be another $1 million to help these students.

Mrs Molinari: I thank the minister for the answer, and I'm pleased to hear about the funds that are being put toward both boards. My question again is, how is the government going to ensure that students are getting the special education supports they require?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The member is quite correct; simply pumping more money into the system is not going to solve the problem if the special-needs programs are not being delivered appropriately. So the new money is there, more money than has ever been available to school boards for special needs in the history of special-needs funding, quite frankly.

With that new money, we are working with boards and those organizations that represent special-needs students to ensure that there are appropriate program standards, not only for the way boards allocate the money and set their programs for special-needs children but also for those very important individual education plans that help the school specifically design the supports that special-needs student requires.

With the new money for the third year in a row, plus better standards, plus better design for delivery of the programs, we are beginning to make this system the way parents and students want and need it to be.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): To the Minister of Health, I'd like to return to the cancer travel question. Minister, I brought this question up previously to you in the House. I want to return to it and say to you that just reviewing the northern health travel grant is not going to rectify the situation that northern cancer patients find themselves in when they find out that they have this catastrophic illness called cancer.

The reason that you gave such an enriched travel grant program to southern Ontario cancer patients is, of course, because of the frequency of travel that is required to the treatment centres. When a southern Ontario person has to go to Thunder Bay and Sudbury, all of a sudden you realize, "Gee, they have to travel a long distance for this treatment."

But we in the north have had to do this for years. Over the years we've been able to go to Thunder Bay and Sudbury, but many still have to go to Toronto. Yet you pay us in a very different fashion than you do people from southern Ontario. When are you going to rectify this inequity and treat northerners fairly?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the member knows, it was Cancer Care Ontario that actually recommended to the Ministry of Health that they should cover all the costs in association with patients who were receiving radiation treatment. I will tell you that this government has undertaken a tremendous number of initiatives to bring services closer to the people in northern Ontario. In fact, we have been able to see the recruitment of 138 specialists since 1995. We're also updating the cancer care centre in Thunder Bay.

As you know, we have announced that we will be building a cancer facility in Sault Ste Marie, and we are also providing $10 million toward the expansion of the centre in Sudbury. So we are moving forward in order that the people in northern Ontario will have those services closer to home than ever before.

Mr Ramsay: Today you allow an inequitable position to exist. You know there are patients in Thunder Bay who still have to travel to Toronto for specialized cancer treatments and they get the maximum of the northern health travel grant, $415. At the same time, they cross paths in the Thunder Bay airport with couples from southern Ontario who get their airfare, hotel and meals completely paid for. It is unfair. This was brought up to the Treasurer on a CBC call-in show this week, and he said, "I think Lori has a point, it is somewhat inequitable."

I think it needs to be fixed. I think it's unfair. Northerners feel it's unfair. The Deputy Premier of the province believes it's unfair. When are you going to fix the situation and treat northerners the way you do southerners?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I indicated in my response to the leader of the third party that we would be reviewing the situation. Obviously the member didn't hear it then, but I'll repeat it for the fourth time.

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Solicitor General. Constituents in my riding have consistently told me that they take the issue of community safety very seriously. While attending local events, being on radio open-line shows and going door to door, people I've talked to in Peterborough all believe we should be able to live in our communities free from the fear of crime.

Public safety is one of our government's top priorities, but it appears it is not the top priority of the federal government. Could you tell my constituents in Peterborough and the people of Ontario some of the initiatives you have participated in to fight crime, especially our proposal for a sex offender registry?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): I believe, as does everyone in this House, that one of the most important things we have done was to pass Christopher's Law, which is the sex offender registry. This is the first time in all of Canada that there is a sex offender registry, which covers pedophiles, rapists and other sex offenders. Unfortunately, when this originally occurred, this was the result of a jury trial after young Christopher Stephenson was sexually abused and murdered. The recommendation clearly asked for a national sex offender registry.

This did not occur, and because that didn't occur, we brought forward this measure. I'm proud to say that all members of this House supported this measure. It was very important. Members of the policing community, members of the communities, victims' groups all supported this, I think, very important bill.

Mr Stewart: Like you, I believe everyone in Ontario has the right to be safe from crime. We should be able to walk in our neighbourhoods, use public transit, live in our homes and send our children to school free from the fear of criminals.

Minister, you mentioned that the jury in the Christopher Stephenson inquest recommended that the federal government establish a nation-wide sex offender registry, but the federal government has refused to do so. As well, I understand you recently wrote to the federal Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Anne McLellan, urging the minister to take action to create a national registry, to allow persons throughout the country to be better protected from the most vile of offenders. What is your opinion on the lack of action by the federal government?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: As we all know-and it's not rocket science-sex offenders do not respect borders between provinces. That's one of the reasons why the jury recommended a national sex offender registry. I was greatly disappointed, if I could understate my position, when we approached the federal government with this request to do a national sex offender registry. It says here in an article:

"Ms McLellan's office would not comment on the Ontario request, turning the matter over to Lawrence MacAulay, the federal Solicitor General.

"Dan Brien, a spokesman for Mr MacAulay, said Ottawa was not interested in creating a national registry because it believes the Canadian Police Information Centre ... already does the job."

Can this be the same system that the federal Auditor General criticized because the technology was outdated and not responsive? Clearly, we need to take these steps. Clearly, the federal government has to do something to protect the rest of the country. We are doing our best in Ontario, but I think we should do something across the country.

ST PETER'S HOSPITAL

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Health. Your health care decisions and policies continue to create a health care crisis in Hamilton, one after another after another. Today it's St Peter's Hospital. In May 1998, your Health Services Restructuring Commission made a decision, which was soundly criticized in our community, that St Peter's Hospital was to shut down effectively April 30 of this year as a chronic care hospital. Under your rule, they should have taken no other patients after April 30.

However, much to their credit, this hospital has decided to defy your order that hurts Hamilton seniors, and they are now accepting new patients. They've taken in 11 new patients since April 30, and I can tell you that number is going to continue to grow.

My question to you is, will you extend the deadline for St Peter's Hospital to close as a chronic care facility to allow these new patients to receive the service they need and the hospital to receive the funding that they need to do the job?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I have been in conversation with St Peter's Hospital-in fact, I was a couple of weeks ago-and I'm very pleased to indicate to you that we have granted an extension of the date of closure for the hospital in Hamilton.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, you didn't tell me how long you've extended it for. If it's merely a matter of six months or a year, that's not going to solve the problem. St Peter's is responsible for managing all the chronic care beds in our community. They also happen to have, at $238.55, the lowest patient day rate in Ontario. Right now, if you shut down St Peter's as a chronic care hospital, before the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp has a chance to build the new chronic care beds, that means six Hamilton elderly will be turned away at the door of their hospital.

Minister, I need to hear you say that the extension will continue, regardless of the time line, until such time as there are other chronic care beds built, up and operational, in the city of Hamilton. Anything less is unacceptable.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have been meeting, and we're going to be continuing to meet, with the facility and the people at St Peter's as to the conversion. We have indicated to them that we will continue to ensure that the time line takes into consideration the needs of the residents and the surrounding community. The terms of the extension are presently being finalized by the ministry. In fact, they might even be meeting with people from St Peter's at the present time. But I can assure you there will be no closing of the facility until all of the patients can be accommodated safely elsewhere.

PROVINCIAL SALES TAX

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In your budget documents you state that the government will introduce legislation exempting educational CD-ROMs purchased by schools, community colleges, universities and public libraries-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member is trying to place his question. Sorry for the interruption.

Mr Kwinter: Minister, your budget documents say you're going to exempt schools, community colleges, universities and public libraries from retail sales tax. There's a small business in my riding that has been there since 1992 and employs 24 people. This company sells instructional computer books which are exempt from provincial sales tax. Your provincial sales tax auditors have done an audit of this firm and maintain that any of these books that contain a demonstration CD-ROM as part of the training component must pay provincial sales tax on the value of the CD-ROM.

To give you an example, here's a typical book that they sell. This is a book that addresses the system we have at Queen's Park. In the back it has a CD-ROM. Without that CD-ROM, this book is virtually useless. It's like trying to teach someone to drive a car with a manual and saying, "If you want to get into the car, you're going to have to pay extra."

What is happening is this: To add insult to injury, the auditors are going back four years in sales, and the resultant PST liability could be in excess of $150,000, enough to potentially put this company out of business, since they have no way of going back to the individual purchasers to collect the tax.

Minister, could you tell us why a computer training book that has as an integral part of the book an instructional CD-ROM shouldn't be PST-exempt in its entirety?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Obviously, we believe that the CD-ROM component of education should be exempt from provincial retail sales tax, which is why we made the changes we did in the budget. If the member would kindly send the information over to me, I would be happy to look into it on behalf of his constituents.

Mr Kwinter: On Friday I went to the University of Toronto bookstore and purchased this book, and it also has a CD-ROM in it. When I went to pay for it, they didn't charge me PST; they just charged me GST. After that I went to Chapters, where I saw a book that really attracted my attention. It was called McAfee Anti-Virus for Beginners, and I thought it would be a good choice. This book also has a CD-ROM, and they also didn't charge me any provincial sales tax.

I'm not advocating that these bookstores should be paying the PST. On the contrary, I think that your officials have got to be brought into the cyber-age and realize that instructional material printed on paper and instructional material in a CD-ROM should be treated exactly the same way as far as the PST is concerned.

Mr Minister, could you give me your assurance that you will instruct your officials to maintain a level playing field and not treat one seller differently from the other, and would you call off your tax hounds that could potentially put this business out of business and get rid of 24 jobs?

Hon Mr Eves: It is quite possible, I suppose, that there were officials in the Ministry of Finance in the retail sales tax collection division and the auditing division who weren't up to date on what was going on. The member notes that his experience on Friday was different than it was prior to the budget, perhaps.

I have told him that I would be glad to look into the entire matter and take it back to the ministry and get him an answer.

RURAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. It's hard to believe that we're now in the new millennium. Time is moving quickly and so is the development of new technologies. With all the advancement in the world of telecommunications, one can be on holidays overseas and still check if one has e-mail back at home.

This leads me to the issue of the increasing number of people coming to Toronto to work. The city's growing population means an increase in the number of people commuting to work each day, and we've all had the experience of being stuck in traffic. We don't need to have everything in Toronto, so by expanding telecommunication services into rural Ontario, more businesses could then relocate outside the greater Toronto area and still have the ability to stay in close touch with their daily contacts.

Minister, what are you doing to make sure rural Ontario areas such as Northumberland have the same level of telecommunication services as those in large urban centres?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I thank the honourable member for Northumberland for his question. I think it follows quite well on Mr Kwinter's question about bringing people into the cyberworld, which, by the way, I thought was an excellent exchange between the finance minister and the honourable member across the way.

The same is true with this question. Honourable members should know it wasn't many years ago that those of us in rural Ontario and small-town Ontario were on telephone party lines. Throughout my lifetime, the telephone system has never been upgraded in rural or small-town Ontario.

Last year we undertook-through the data services improvement program we spent $11.5 million-along with private sector partners like Bell Canada and many of the public and private sector phone companies, to upgrade the rural and small-town telephone and telecommunications infrastructure so that people in those areas can have the same level of telecommunications, telephone and Internet services that people in large urban centres like Toronto and Barrie and Kingston and Ottawa have enjoyed for many years. So I'm happy to report to the honourable member that we're well on our way. It's a very positive investment.

And yes, no longer will Internet service providers or those who do digital media or those who work on a computer at home have to be located just in the city.

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

Mr Galt: Thank you very much for helping establish high-tech assistance for rural Ontario. Back in March, when the Task Force on Rural Economic Renewal, which I chair, was travelling Ontario, we heard about the importance of infrastructure in general in rural Ontario, but particularly the high-tech infrastructure. It's greatly needed and we certainly look forward to more initiatives.

I'm concerned about communities particularly in my riding. Communities such as Colborne, Brighton and Campbellford need this support if they're to flourish in the 21st century. Minister, when can we expect to see them up and running in areas east of Toronto, like in my riding of Northumberland?

Hon Mr Wilson: I'm pleased to report to the honourable member that 193 of the 310 telephone exchanges have now been upgraded since we started this initiative in the middle of last year. By June 30 of this year, we expect the rest of the 310 exchanges to all be completed. That includes Colborne, Brighton, Campbellford and the rest of Ontario. As I said, this is the most extensive upgrade of the telephone switching system in this province that we've seen in the last 40 years, and it will bring Internet services to the same level that we see in our large urban centres.

If you're like me in Wasaga Beach, it takes almost five minutes for an Internet Web page to load up on my computer. It is so slow it isn't worth it. It's that way in about 75% of the land mass of Ontario. This government recognized that through reports from the economic development people. Economic development officers and commissions around this province have been telling successive governments to upgrade the telephone system. The business case wasn't there in the past. With a little help from the taxpayers, the business case is there. I'm pleased to report that this major initiative is moving ahead on

schedule and for the benefit of the people of rural and small-town Ontario.

WATER EXTRACTION

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): In the absence of the Minister of the Environment, I will direct my question to the Minister of Natural Resources. Waterlief Management Inc is a company with its management offices in Tweed, Ontario. According to its Web site, its goal is to obtain as many spring water permits as possible and develop these sources into water-bottling facilities. Waterlief has been granted a permit by the Ministry of the Environment to take 1.3 million litres of water per day for 10 years from Rawdon Creek, an aquifer that supplies drinking water to thousands of homes downstream.

As part of the application process, a site evaluation must be done by an independent expert. The assessment accompanying this application has been completed by Ian D. Wilson Ltd, consulting geologists. However, Ian D. Wilson Associates is also listed as part of the management team of Waterlief Management Inc, the applicant for the permit.

The preservation of our water in Ontario is very serious business. Surely the government sees a conflict of interest in this situation, when a member of the company applying to the ministry for a water-taking permit is also completing the required review for the application. Will the government assure me that absolutely no non-farm water-taking permits will be granted or allowed to continue unless a neutral third party has assessed the impact of the water withdrawal?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): As the member knows, various ministries in this government have been concerned about the situation regarding water quantities and qualities in Ontario. We've answered questions in the House prior to this date. Speaking about water quality and water quantity in the province, we have Ontario Water Response 2000, which we have been working on with municipalities and others, and that includes water-taking. I'm sure the member opposite understands that the Ministry of the Environment is responsible for water-taking permits. I'd be more than happy to advise my colleague of the concerns of the member opposite.

Mr Parsons: We're no longer hewers of wood and drawers of water in Ontario. We need to recognize the value of our water. The reality of math is that 10% of an unknown number is an unknown number. The Ministry of the Environment grants permits with a condition that the water withdrawal not exceed 10% of the flow, yet no one-not the ministry, not the conservation authorities, no one-knows what the current flows are in our rivers and streams right now, let alone over the next 10 years.

I ask again whether this government has the fortitude to stop issuing water permits for non-farm use until the current water situation is evaluated.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm pleased to inform the member opposite of a couple of issues. One, for a water-taking permit to be issued in the province, not only does a hydrogeological study have to be submitted to the ministry, but the ministry then reviews that with their expert opinions and makes sure it's accurate.

I can also assure the member opposite that for the first time in the province, the ministries co-operatively-the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of the Environment and other ministries concerned with water-taking and the use of water in the province-have got together and put together their databases. We have put a budget together for that purpose. So we'll be informed not only in our decisions this year but in future years. I can assure the member opposite that we are taking those steps. We're taking them now in response to the needs of the province.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Brian Coburn (Carleton-Gloucester): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, I was surprised-in fact, shocked-last week to read a press release from the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture indicating that he felt there was no support in last week's budget for Ontario's hard-working farmers. Minister, would you please explain to us the opportunities and the programs that were in the budget for the benefit of Ontario's farmers?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Thank you very much to the member from Carleton-Gloucester for the question. Indeed, the 2000 budget was good news for all Ontario farmers. With all the other good things that were in the budget that affect all the people of Ontario-not just farmers but people who live in rural Ontario, people who live in urban Ontario-all the people will have great benefits from the budget.

Specifically for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, I just would like to point out to the member's constituents and to the farmers and the people across the province that the budget was increased by 50%. One of the things that we will be doing for the farmers with that money is, we will increase the safety net money by $40 million a year to help those farmers most in need. On top of that, we will be making the retail sales tax on farm building material exempt at source. This will mean that farmers will be able to reduce the red tape involved.

When they go and purchase products to build farm buildings, they will get their tax exemption. They will no longer have to apply and wait for months to get a return of their own money. That will be a great benefit to rural and farming Ontario.

Mr Coburn: Last week's budget touched many and varied programs right across the province, not the least small-town and rural Ontario. Minister, would you explain to us some of the initiatives that have been taken through the small-town and rural Ontario strategy?

Hon Mr Hardeman: I'd like to indicate that I was delighted that the Ontario government and Finance Minister Eves are putting in $600 million over the next five years to help Ontario's small-town and rural development through a fund that will be set up to build rural infrastructure. Two thirds of the fund, some $80 million a year, will be invested in rural infrastructure, and an additional $40 million will go into rural economic development. The infrastructure component of the program will focus on strategic infrastructure critical to the future economic growth of the quality of life in small-town and rural Ontario. It will encourage them to work together to address those challenges.

I have been in contact with the president of the federation of agriculture. He's looking forward to working with the government on the criteria to make sure that all of rural Ontario and the farming community benefit from that program. He believes it is a good program that can be tapped into by all of rural Ontario, including our farming community. I thank the member very much for the question. We look forward to working with our farmers to the benefit of all of agriculture.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): To the Minister of Municipal Affairs: Minister, you're taking the right position at the OMB when it comes to the Oak Ridges moraine, but there's a big problem. If you win at the board, it won't cost the province anything beyond the legal costs, because the developers don't currently have the right to build there. But you've left taxpayers wide open to huge costs if you lose. If the OMB gives the developers the right to build on the moraine, it will cost big bucks to take those rights away if you legislate later.

Richmond Hill's planning commissioner, Janet Babcock, has estimated that it would cost $1 billion to expropriate all the land on the moraine, and that's just in Richmond Hill, Minister. So I'm asking, will you save the province $1 billion and legislate now?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I would love to engage in a public policy debate with the honourable member. I think she knows that I would engage in that debate fully. However, we are before the board. I'm not in a position to speculate on what would happen after the board renders its decision.

It is not my place to do so at this time because that would perhaps be seen as influencing the board's position, so I cannot do that. All I can tell the honourable member is that the board requested from my ministry that we articulate how best to protect the ecological, the environmental, the biodiversity, the water interests of the moraine. We have rendered our opinion after consulting with conservation authorities, after consulting with MNR, after consulting with scientists. We have done so. I support my ministry and that's as far as I can go.

Ms Churley: Minister, let's engage in a little public policy here. You know as well as I do that you have the power right now, despite what's happening at the OMB, to legislate. That is something your government can do, and you know it. You've chosen not to.

I want to believe that you sincerely want to protect the Oak Ridges moraine, but your action to date is not compelling. Your government, which by the way has no trouble legislating people's rights away in other situations, is suddenly getting all timid when it comes to the Oak Ridges moraine. What's going on here?

You know that the developers do not have the right to build now, but you seem too keen to wait and see what the board determines. You're acting like a stakeholder, Minister, rather than a government with the power to legislate. Do you hear what I'm saying here? If you lose at the OMB, in order to save the Oak Ridges moraine, which you say you want to do, it's going to cost the taxpayers, the people of Ontario, at least $1 billion. That's just in Richmond Hill, and as you know, the Oak Ridges moraine is a lot bigger than that. Are you taking the position today that you are going to take that risk and, in order to save the Oak Ridges moraine, cost the taxpayers over $1 billion?

Hon Mr Clement: We are before the board. We have identified a public interest-a public interest, incidentally, which is contingent upon and respectful of the 1991 guidelines which her government instituted, announced and supported. We're simply before the board pursuant to the Planning Act, pursuant to the 1996 provincial policy statement, pursuant to the 1991 NDP guidelines. We're pursuing the public interest before the board; I can say nothing more than that.

JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is for the Attorney General. Minister, today the Globe and Mail stated that what is "astonishing" about the transformation of the judiciary into a kangaroo court under Bill 66 is that "Attorney General Jim Flaherty would leap on to the back of this sick donkey of a bill and whip it toward passage." The president of the Advocates' Society said, "In close to 30 years of practising law in this province, I have yet to see such a blatant attempt to undermine the independence of our judiciary."

Attorney General, you're a civil litigator. You are vested with special responsibilities to check judicial independence. Victims of crimes do not want a kangaroo court; they want an independent, impartial judiciary. How could you of all people support this bill?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I assume that the member opposite has read the bill. It is a private member's bill and it attempts to do two things. The first is to require some statistical reporting of information that is already available through the court system. The second thing it does is give this Legislative Assembly the opportunity to pass a resolution with respect to appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada. Those are not revolutionary ideas, except perhaps the second one about the province having some role in appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The independence of the judiciary relates to the ability of someone to enter a courtroom and be satisfied that they will have an impartial hearing by an impartial judge, which is what we have and safeguard in Ontario.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): We're pleased to hear that there will finally be a review of the northern health travel grant, which we know is inadequate, terribly unfairly funded and discriminatory. I have more petitions, which we continue to read every day.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am pleased to sign this petition. I would also like you to know that Brian Frost from Thunder Bay is one of our new pages here.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have petitions forwarded to me by Wayne Marston, president of the Hamilton and District Labour Council, signed by citizens from all across the region of Hamilton-Wentworth.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the community of Sarnia is witnessing many women developing mesothelioma and asbestosis as a result of the asbestos brought home on their husbands' work clothing; and

"Whereas similar cases are occurring in other areas of the province;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act to allow compensation for family members who develop occupational illness as a result of workplace toxins inadvertently brought home."

I'm in agreement with these petitioners and add my name accordingly.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have a petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again I have the signatures of many constituents who share our concern and our frustration that there's no change in this program.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have a petition here from the people of the township of Nakina who are very concerned and upset about the forced amalgamation of their community into a massive community called Greenstone. Basically stretching from Barrie to North Bay would describe the size of this municipality in northern Ontario. Let me read the petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the corporation of the township of Nakina is an incorporated municipality; and

"Whereas the corporation of the township of Nakina has continued to operate as a community in its own right since 1923; and

"Whereas amalgamation with other distant communities could prove to be detrimental to the individualistic lifestyle associated with living in the township of Nakina; and

"Whereas the economic justification for the creation of Greenstone no longer exists, and its creation may result in a loss of local services and an increased tax burden on the residents of Nakina; and

"Whereas the residents of the township of Nakina would like to continue to be the municipality known as the corporation of the township of Nakina;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that the corporation of the township of Nakina continues to be a separate municipality in the province of Ontario."

I'm pleased to sign this. This is a remarkable community in my riding.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I am opposed to any form of health care apartheid, I sign this petition as I am in complete agreement with it.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of the riding of Durham to the Legislature of the province of Ontario.

"Whereas the province of Ontario exempted Highway 407 east from a public hearing and then passed the Highway 407 Act to further exempt the proposed highway extension from important provincial environmental laws, such as the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and the fill regulations of the Conservation Authorities Act; and

"Whereas heavy equipment is now being used to clear the eastern path of the highway, without any environmental guidelines, controls or monitoring;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislature of Ontario, as a matter of extreme urgency, to put in place such environmental monitoring procedures and controls as are necessary to prevent extreme degradation such as bulldozers working in stream beds, and numerous other environmentally destructive acts that have been witnessed since the 407 east extension was permitted to go ahead."

I'm pleased to submit this petition.

ROAD MAINTENANCE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and I have read many of these related to the Black Sturgeon Road and the fact that the Ministry of Natural Resources is not doing the work they should.

"Whereas the Black Sturgeon Road in the district of Thunder Bay is an important access road for fishing and hunting to area lakes and forests;

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources is attempting to block access to this road by refusing to implement upgrades;

"Whereas a vast area will be rendered inaccessible unless the government maintains responsibility for this road;

"Whereas the government has recently increased fees for hunting and fishing yet still has considerable funds left in its special purpose account;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to use funds from the Ministry of Natural Resources special purpose account to maintain the Black Sturgeon Road as an important access road to protect the rights and freedoms of fishers and hunters in the district of Thunder Bay."

I'm very pleased to sign my name to this petition.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas children are exposed to sexually explicit material in variety stores and video rental outlets;

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials;

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

"To enact legislation which will:

"Create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to sexually explicit material in retail establishments;

"Make it illegal to sell, rent, or loan sexually explicit materials to minors."

I am in a complete agreement with this petition. I therefore affix my signature to it and give it to Amber Beattie from London to give it to the table.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to present a petition. I'm just looking at some of the names of people from Durham who have signed this and I'm not sure if some of these people have read this. There's a name here, Troy Young, and Steve Cooke, and John Mutton. All of those people are running in the next municipal election. I thought I'd mention that here as they're signing a petition to the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario.

"Whereas the province of Ontario exempted Highway 407 east from a public hearing and then passed the Highway 407 Act to further exempt the proposed highway extension from important provincial environmental laws, such as the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and the fill regulations of the Conservation Authorities Act; and

"Whereas heavy equipment is now being used to clear the eastern path of the highway, without any environmental guidelines, control or monitoring;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, as a matter of extreme urgency, to put in place such environmental monitoring procedures and controls as are necessary to prevent extreme degradation such as bulldozers working in stream beds, and numerous other environmentally destructive acts that have been witnessed since the 407 east extension was permitted to go ahead."

I'm pleased to present this petition on their behalf.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a large number of petitions from my constituents all the way from Manitouwadge straight through to Killarney:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously, I agree with these petitions and have signed them.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It doesn't appear that many people are making presentation of petitions today, Mr Speaker, so I thank you for allowing me to present as many as I am. From my riding of Durham I have one here from the Mother Teresa parish CWL, located in Courtice, which of course is in Durham. It's from a number of people. I know most of them personally.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas we strongly object to the use of our tax dollars for this purpose;

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

I'm pleased to sign my name to this petition.

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): "Whereas it's the government's plan to remove G467 therapeutic physiotherapy services from the OHIP formulary; and

"Whereas the only recourse for patients will then be to go through hospital outpatient services that already face waiting lists of three to four months; and

"Whereas these same services are provided in the other areas of the province through

schedule 5 clinics, which are funded through a $39-million allocation by the Ministry of Health; and

"Whereas of that $39 million none has been allocated for northwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas if the delisting of G-code physiotherapy services goes forward, because there are no

schedule 5 clinics in northwestern Ontario, there is a real fear that a two-tier system for physiotherapy services will be the norm in that one system would accommodate those who have private insurance or enough money to pay out of pocket, while the other tier will be one where those in need wait for months on waiting lists while continuing to suffer; and

"Whereas as our population ages, those requiring physiotherapy will increase and without these services the strain on our medical system will only increase as people aggravate old injuries that were not properly treated through modern physiotherapy treatments; and

"Whereas the delisting of G-code physiotherapy services is further indication that there is a real erosion by this government of sound medical services in northwestern Ontario;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the planned fee

schedule delisting of G467 therapeutic physiotherapy services and provide northwestern Ontario with a portion of the $39-million Ministry of Health allocation for physiotherapy services."

I'm pleased to sign this. I'm pleased, once again, that Brian Frost from Thunder Bay is here to take my petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2000 ONTARIO BUDGET

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 4, 2000, on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I believe when we left off the member for Sarnia-Lambton had finished her debate, so the format will now be that we will have questions and comments. We will then return once more to the member for Sarnia-Lambton for two minutes to respond. Going in rotation, questions and comments.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Having had a chance to review as well as watch some of the comments of the member from Sarnia-Lambton, I want to echo much of the concern that she has raised. I think she did an excellent job of articulating some of the concerns that those of us who are looking past the headlines have about this budget.

Certainly, one of the key topics of discussion that I found over the weekend-the beautiful weather we had gave people an opportunity to be outside and to talk. I was around my community a lot over the weekend, and virtually everywhere I went people were talking about this $200 charade. I didn't have to prompt the discussion. I didn't have to lead anybody anywhere. People were saying to me: "This $200, I don't get it. Is this supposed to really help my family in some way?" What surprised me the most was that the next statement was always, "Wouldn't all that money together have done something more?"

They didn't know the figure, and when I reminded them that the individual $200 cheques in total are worth $1 billion, without exception-and I'm talking about people who are in poverty, all the way to people who are doing very, very well in our society-all said that the $200 concept was the wrong way to go and that it made a lot more sense for the government of Ontario to take $1 billion and put it-certainly in Hamilton we were talking about Hamilton's health care system.

Put our share of that in Hamilton-Wentworth toward the funding we need for Henderson hospital, the funding we need for St Peter's Hospital, the funding we need for home care; put it into the education system. Put it somewhere where it will do some good, but get off this public relations exercise and get on with governing.

Mr David Young (Willowdale): I heard and was somewhat surprised by the comments of the member from Sarnia-Lambton, undoubtedly well intentioned and perhaps a reflection of the fact that she hadn't had an opportunity to reflect upon the budget in its totality but did have an opportunity to speak to it, and I appreciate that she took that opportunity. Nevertheless, as I considered her comments over the weekend, I also considered some of the policy statements the party she represents has made over the years.

So you'll understand my surprise at the following quote, which was made by the Liberal Party in the 1995 election: "A Liberal government will repeal the 5% tax on auto insurance premiums and work to make auto insurance more affordable."

Obviously I was somewhat surprised by the omission in her comments of the praise that one would have thought would be forthcoming from that member, from that party, for what is an initiative that very much echoes what the Liberals said they wanted to see happen, because in fact it is now going to happen. It didn't happen when the Liberals were in power, but fortunately it will happen now. Undoubtedly when the member has an opportunity to speak again she may well wish to address that point, and I would be very pleased to hear from her in that regard.

Similarly, I'd like to remind her of the policy commitment made in the 1995 provincial Ontario Liberal policy document that said: "A Liberal government will reduce the corporate tax rate for small businesses"-just what we did. "A Liberal government will ... reduce the number of small businesses required to file for the corporate minimum tax"-just what we did.

Undoubtedly when the member has an opportunity to reflect upon what stand or stands her party has taken over the years, and the details of this budget that has by and large been accepted with great applause from the people of Ontario, I'm sure she will add her applause to the cheering that has been coming from various parts of this province.

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I'd like to comment on the speeches by both the member from Sarnia-Lambton and the member from Toronto Centre-Rosedale, whose comments were very much in line with those of the mayor of Toronto, Mr Lastman, who said that this budget which we're debating today did nothing for the city of Toronto. In fact, the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale talked about public transportation, talked about the homeless and the affordable housing crisis that we have in Ontario today.

I'm surprised that the member from Willowdale wouldn't acknowledge that the mayor of Toronto has made these comments about this budget, not about something that happened 15 years ago, 10 years ago, five years ago but that happened in this House just this very last week.

In fact, the member for Sarnia-Lambton quite rightly pointed out that we now enjoy for the very first time in Ontario a triple-digit debt. Now, for my friends opposite and for the viewers at home, I know that they would want to know what it means to the operating budget that we are now paying more in interest costs, monies that go not toward programs, not toward any of the much-needed areas of health care or of education in this province, but are going strictly to pay the interest on the debt because the Harris government has added $24 billion to the debt.

I know that my colleague from Sarnia-Lambton mentioned this fact and I'm surprised that the member for Willowdale and none of the government members wish to talk about this aspect of the budget which we're being asked to approve.

The facts and the figures that members of the government wish to draw out and the quotations that they wish to extol about the budget seem very selective, yet they refuse to address this very serious problem. In fact, the crisis is not only in public transit but affordable housing, the cuts to the environment and the cuts to the Ministry of Natural Resources were also mentioned by the member for Sarnia-Lambton. They were very astute comments and I think she said it very well.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I was here on Thursday when the member for Sarnia-Lambton, Ms Di Cocco, stayed at length and at much inconvenience I'm sure, on a Thursday, when you'd like to get home, to make her comments toward the budget, and I respect that. Where we

part company is in what I'm about to say. Technically, she's really not paying much attention. She has a job, and I understand that, which is to criticize our government. But really, broadly speaking, this is good news and I'll be waiting for her two-minute response to take issue with my observations.

But I think she should listen. She did ask, "How does the budget deal with this?" talking about post-secondary education, and that primary, secondary and post-secondary systems have been under siege.

I'll just respond to some of the comments that have been said to my constituency office. This is from Brock University, where my son is a student. President David Atkinson said: "We are obviously very pleased. We are waiting to hear more details, but it is the message we wanted to hear. We're pretty excited...." and it goes on.

I know that our own Durham College president is very excited by the amount of investment.

Fanshawe president Howard Rundle chairs a committee of presidents of Ontario's community colleges. He welcomed the plan to pop more money, 286 million, into capital funds for post-secondary, calling it "a significant and much-needed investment." These are very strong, ringing endorsements for a budget that has been widely accepted as a landmark opportunity.

I'm looking at what the municipal response has been to this budget. I'm looking here at the comments of the regional chair of Ottawa, Bob Chiarelli, a former Liberal member in this House. What did he say about the budget? He said, "The budget gives local taxpayers an average of $69 savings on the provincial portion of their tax bill." That, combined with the average $45 property tax cut the region delivered in its budget, is $114 per family. Clearly, there's one Liberal who's got the message. There are more, I'm sure.

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for Sarnia-Lambton has two minutes to respond.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I must say that I premised my discussion on the quote that this budget is a deliberate instrument of social and economic guidance. In that context, I talk about sustainable economic prosperity and sustainable development, which, as all the members in this House know, is more than just tax cuts. It's more than just taking care of business interests, because good government is also about taking care of people development. The fact is that the environment is at the bottom of the list.

Because the environment directly jeopardizes the future of sustainable development, if we don't put the environment at the top of the our priorities, we're going to jeopardize our future.

The member from Willowdale suggested that I didn't have a chance to truly view the document. Again, I find that sometimes there's a patronizing tone from across the way to the members on this side of the House.

I would like to suggest that competitiveness through a well-educated population is what this is all about. Yes, education has been under siege; the attacks continue. That suggests to me that you are saying, "We do care about a well-educated population, but we continue the attacks on the educators." That undermines sustainable development.

Frankly, the fact that you only talk about the deficit and not the debt suggests that even fiscal responsibility is not balanced.

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate.

Mr Christopherson: I appreciate this opportunity to have my 20 minutes, which I would remind everyone is all the government's new House rules will allow-20 minutes to debate a budget that has the kinds of implications that this one and in fact all have. It's definitely a real curtailment of democracy.

At the outset, I want to point out that the government continues to take all the credit in the world for the booming economy,