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

December 4, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Dec-04 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 4 December 2001 Mardi 4 décembre 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WASTE DISPOSAL

LOYALIST COLLEGE

INCINERATION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

BAY OF QUINTE WALLEYE FISHERY

FEDERAL ECONOMIC POLICY

DANIELLE CAMPO

JOAN FLOOD

VISITOR

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE

AND SOCIAL POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NIPISSING UNIVERSITY ACT, 2001

AJAX PICKERING TRANSIT AUTHORITY ACT, 2001

ONTARIO COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS

AND TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LES COLLÈGES D'ARTS APPLIQUÉS

ET DE TECHNOLOGIE DE L'ONTARIO

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

HOME CARE

SPECIAL EDUCATION

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION

EDUCATION FUNDING

INTEGRATED JUSTICE PROJECT

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

EMERGENCY SERVICES

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

OHIP SERVICES

LORD'S PRAYER

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CHILD CARE

LORD'S PRAYER

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES /

CENTRES D'ACCÈS AUX SOINS COMMUNAUTAIRES

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

LORD'S PRAYER

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

CONSERVATION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA CONSERVATION

DE LA MORAINE D'OAK RIDGES

RESPONSIBLE CHOICES FOR GROWTH

AND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR DES CHOIX RÉFLÉCHIS

FAVORISANT LA CROISSANCE

ET LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

RESPONSIBLE CHOICES FOR GROWTH

AND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR DES CHOIX RÉFLÉCHIS

FAVORISANT LA CROISSANCE

ET LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

Tuesday 4 December 2001 Mardi 4 décembre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My statement today is to the Minister of the Environment. As you're very well aware, Canadian Waste

Services is proposing to take a small local dump and convert it into a huge megadump. This is a company with unlimited financial resources, and they are being held accountable by a group of

citizens who have to have yard sales to get any funding to put forward their perspective. This is simply not fair or equal. From the get-go, your ministry has taken in and very clearly supported

and favoured Canadian Waste Services.

You are the Minister of the Environment for the people of Ontario. This dump has the potential to leak toxic leachate and destroy the water supplies of eastern

Ontario for generations to come. I call upon you to fulfill your role as minister of the people. Intervene. Provide the people of the community with the resources and support they need. You have

scoped the entire process so much that it has become meaningless and provides no protection for the people. You don't even require that Canadian Waste Services prove there is a need for the

dump.

There is something fundamentally flawed when the citizens of Ontario have to fundraise to fight their government. Show some interest. Show some leadership. Our

legacy to future generations must be an ample supply of clean water, not a huge mountain of garbage that will destroy the landscape and, even worse, leak into the ground. Minister, do the right

thing: fight for clean water; fight for your citizens.

LOYALIST COLLEGE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to recognize a partnership among Loyalist College of Belleville, Frontstep Inc,

Progress Software and Dell Computer Corp.

In the rapidly changing world of business, it is important that Ontario students receive the most up-to-date training available. This strategic partnership will

allow business school students at Loyalist College to have access to a curriculum based on advanced technology and applied business processes. These skills are necessary for students to excel at

roles in materials management, human resource management, financial management and professional sales.

The partnership will also allow students to gain hands-on experience with leading-edge enterprise management software. Knowledge such as this will be extremely

useful when these students graduate and enter the working world.

Ontario's colleges and universities are constantly updating their curricula to provide our students with the best education possible. Through endeavours such as

this, we are opening doors for our young people and allowing them to better understand what the business world has to offer.

As always, Loyalist College is demonstrating leadership and innovation by co-operating with the private sector to provide this new educational opportunity. I

wish Loyalist and their new partners all the best in this new initiative.

INCINERATION

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I'd like to bring to the attention of this House that the extreme policies of the provincial

Conservatives are continuing to put people's health at risk and are causing long-term damage to the environment. According to the Environmental Commissioner, air emissions from the burning of toxic

liquid waste at the Safety-Kleen incinerator in St Clair township, the largest hazardous incinerator in Canada, are at lower standards than the 1995 provincial standards for non-hazardous

incinerators.

So-called improved amendments to the incinerator in 1998 have actually allowed an increase in contaminant emissions. This is dangerous and alarming because this

incinerator emits the largest amount of mercury in this province as well as dioxins and other toxic substances into the air.

This extreme neo-conservative government's lack of comprehension, lack of action to raise the standards in this very serious situation, once again shows this

government's disregard toward environmental issues as well as a disregard for the impact on people's health and safety in St Clair township.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Last week the housing ministers from across Canada met in Quebec City, and this government sent along, of

course, its housing minister, the Honourable Chris Hodgson. At the end of the session, there was much hullabaloo and a whole bunch of announcements were made, and a new plan came forward.

The bottom line on that new plan says that there is going to be a bilateral agreement with all of the provinces and territories; therefore, it's unnecessary for

the provinces to come on board.

Right off the mark Quebec was there with dollars and programs and commitment, and so were Nunavut, British Columbia and most of the other provinces.

Unfortunately, that was not the case for Ontario.

The province is going to have to match funds with the federal government or have matching funds available for a third party. This province has given only a

paltry $20-million commitment, and the rest, I suppose, is going to come from third party funding, from cities and from people who can't afford it.

Where are the cities supposed to get these funds? That's what I think the minister has never come clear on. Where are they to get the funds? We see from this

province's own auditor's report that the cities have been ripped off, especially the city of Toronto, by hundreds of millions of dollars in downloading, and it's not revenue-neutral. Where are they

to get the funds? If we are to build it, this province must come forward with the funds for housing and must come clean with the city of Toronto.

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to tell fellow members of this House about the 50th season of the Stratford Festival, to be

celebrated this coming season.

To help the festival celebrate its 50th season, artistic director Richard Monette will return to the stage to play Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady, opposite

Cynthia Dale's Eliza.

Other stars who will grace the stage in 2002 include Christopher Plummer, who will play King Lear; and William Hutt, a member of Stratford's inaugural company of

actors since 1953, who will play the King of France in All's Well that Ends Well.

The festival has something else to celebrate this season. On July 13, the festival's fourth venue, the Studio Theatre, will open in downtown Stratford.

In 1952, Stratford resident Tom Patterson envisaged a theatre festival in his hometown. In 1953, his vision came to life and has since grown from a six-week

event held on one tented stage into a six-month extravaganza held in four permanent theatres. The festival now generates about $340 million in economic activity every year. It supports more than

6,000 jobs and accounts for 12% of the tourism in southwestern Ontario. Last year, 600,000 tickets were sold.

I urge all members of this House to mark April 24 of the year 2002, this season's opening night, on their calendars, and I would be pleased to welcome members

from both sides of this House to my riding to enjoy this summer's festival.

BAY OF QUINTE WALLEYE FISHERY

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I want to commend the good work done by many concerned stakeholders of the Bay

of Quinte walleye fishery. For many weeks now, local commercial fishers, anglers, aquaculturists, hospitality and service sector groups have worked very hard to voice their objections to the

ministry's plan to hold invitation-only meetings in Dorset on this fishery issue.

This issue, of course, is the fact that the future of the walleye fishery in the Bay of Quinte was to be considered at workshops with ministry-chosen

participants in Dorset, some 300 kilometres from the fishery.

Yesterday, the Ministry of Natural Resources announced that the invitation-only workshops scheduled for December in Dorset have been postponed until the new year

and will be relocated. Details of when and where the rescheduled meetings will be have yet to be determined.

It is absolutely essential that the Ministry of Natural Resources provide a format for consultation that will be open and accessible for all stakeholders. It

must provide an opportunity for participants to be heard by the entire community; hence, an open house format will not be acceptable. The consultations must take place in the Bay of Quinte area,

preferably in more than one location. That is what the people involved in the pickerel fishery want, and Ontario Liberals believe that is what they deserve.

FEDERAL ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I call your attention to the extreme pressure on the health budget. This pressure is

building and building because of the indifference and neglect of Ontario's 101 dalmations -- I mean Liberal MPs. I know these MPs were elected by default, with no national opposition to stop them.

We know they take their Ontario seats for granted and that they feel they can go on forever, unopposed. One of my constituents told me unemployment was rising. I asked her how she knew. She said,

"Look at the Ontario federal Liberal caucus: another 101 Ontarians not working."

Because the arrogant federal government feels safe neglecting Ontario, we now have a situation where the federal government has a $17-billion surplus but they

can't be bothered to pay their fair share of the health costs for the Ontario voters who elected them. Even Brian Mulroney was a better contributor to health spending than Chrétien is, and

Mulroney had to deal with a $40-billion deficit. Jean Chrétien has no such excuse.

I want to congratulate Premier Harris for bringing all these issues out into the open for honest debate. Liberals in Ottawa and Liberals here at Queen's Park

would rather we didn't talk about awkward situations like these, but then Liberals everywhere have always been better at spending the money than they are at paying the bills.

DANIELLE CAMPO

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Later today I will be joining with Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor in paying honour to a constituent of

mine named Danielle Campo. Danielle is a 16-year-old woman who last summer won three golds and a silver in the 2000 Paralympics in swimming.

Applause.

Mr Duncan: Yes. This young woman is in grade 11 at St Anne high school in Tecumseh and she works out -- I know, like the Chair of Management

Board and myself -- about four hours a day: two hours in the pool, two hours dry. She has brought great honour not only to the town of Tecumseh and to the riding of Windsor-St Clair, but indeed to

the people of Ontario. I know all members join me when I pay tribute to her and tell her what an inspiration she is, not only to us here in this House but to all of her fellow citizens.

I just want to read briefly something that's been said about her. She is "an exceptional athlete who happens to have muscular dystrophy, and she has worked hard

to make sure that people see her first as an athlete and not as someone held back by a disorder. She has overcome the irony of having to work at this by maintaining the proviso that people will

notice what you can do, not what you can't do."

And this is what Danielle said: "My attitude is that people should see me as `Danielle the accomplished athlete on the Canadian swim team,' and not as `Danielle

with muscular dystrophy.'"

Danielle, all of us in this province see you as a remarkable young woman and we are all really proud of your enormous achievements.

JOAN FLOOD

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I rise today to pay tribute to Her Worship Joan Flood, mayor of Essex, who died last Wednesday. I have

two feelings in my heart today: one of extreme sadness in Mayor Flood's premature passing, and one of joy and gratitude for her life's accomplishments.

Joan was always a role model for all of us as people committed to serving the public in our communities. She was first elected to the Essex county school board

in 1981 and served there for 17 years, and then was elected as the first mayor of the newly amalgamated town of Essex in 1998.

She was a very close friend of our Minister of Colleges and Universities, the Honourable Dianne Cunningham, and I want to read Dianne's description in a letter

she wrote to Mayor Flood's husband, Chuck.

Dianne said she was always outstanding in her leadership, in "her good advice and honour, her integrity, her enthusiasm and wonderful sense of humour, her

vision! Our country cries out for leadership like Joan's -- Essex has been the recipient of her common sense and working in partnership with others."

I wish to extend on behalf of our caucus our deepest sympathy to her family, her beloved husband, Charles, her four children and her grandchildren, and the

balance of her family who supported her throughout her political career.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin, we have in the public west gallery a former colleague of ours, Mr Richard Johnston, who was

the member for Scarborough West for the 32nd, 33rd and 34th Parliaments. Please join with me in welcoming our former colleague.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE

AND SOCIAL POLICY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice and social policy and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee recommends that the following bill be not reported:

Bill 51,

An Act to help save the lives of Ontarians who suffer from cardiac arrest by promoting the widespread availability and use of portable heart

defibrillators in public places / Projet de loi 51, Loi visant à contribuer à sauver la vie des Ontariens qui souffrent d'un arrêt cardiaque en promouvant la disponibilité et

l'usage généralisés de défibrillateurs cardiaques portatifs dans les lieux publics.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1348 to 1353.

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

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Cleary, John C.

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martin, Tony

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Snobelen, John

Sorbara, Greg

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Young, David

The Speaker: While the Clerk is tabulating the votes, if members could please remember to stay in their seats during the vote. It is confusing

for the people counting. If people are moving, they don't know if they voted and inadvertently you could vote twice. I would ask for all members' co-operation, please.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 0; the nays are 86.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek your guidance with respect to this bill. It's a serious matter.

This particular piece of legislation was passed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and referred to committee. My understanding is that the government used its majority in committee, first of

all, to defeat the title of the bill, defeat all the amendments that were put to the bill and then vote to not report the bill back to the House. A government member presented that motion, which

had been endorsed by all members, as I understand it, of the government sitting on that particular committee. My question is, sir, what happens to this bill now? It's in some sort of --

Interjection.

Mr Duncan: I say to the Minister of Labour, it's a very significant issue. It's about heart defibrillators.

The point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: Order. Thank you very much. Acting Premier, please. The member is just about finished.

Mr Duncan: I hate to use a grammatically incorrect double negative, but the government voted against receiving a report that said not to

receive the bill. I guess the clarification we need from you is, Mr Speaker, what becomes of that bill at this point?

The Speaker: Just very quickly, I have stopped trying to figure out what may happen. The government House leader may give us some

clarification on what could potentially happen with the government's -- government House leader.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I appreciate that the honourable member across the way is asking

you an information question about what happens to this bill. I would suggest that these matters are usually discussed at the House leaders' table. I'd be quite happy to raise it with the House

leader and we can talk about what would happen with that bill. I think that's the appropriate --

The Speaker: Thank you. I'll clarify it.

Please, the member for Niagara Centre, very short, if you could.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is that the faint hope clause?

The Speaker: The report will go back to the committee. Those who are members of that committee can then redecide what to do. It is now in the

committee's hands, what they would like to do. I'm sure that with goodwill and co-operation -- I understand that this may be one bill that is non-controversial and may have support. If that is the

case, then the House leaders hopefully will be able to get together, and for whatever happens, this is a step --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, if we could, please.

We'll just try to be very short and then we can move on to the partisan wrangling.

With goodwill and co-operation, hopefully the committee can then make the decision to proceed. Whatever has gone on has gone on, and hopefully we can move

forward and do what's in the best interests of the people of Ontario, which I'm sure everyone would like to do.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As the whip for the committee on justice and social policy, as you

will know, government business at any committee takes precedence over any private member's legislation. The only reason there was an opportunity for the justice and social committee to deal, first,

with Mr Colle's bill on portable defibrillators and, second, with Mr Dunlop's bill, a government member's bill, this afternoon is because the government's business on a previous bill ended

early.

The committee's

schedule is now full with government business, and I would ask how this measure can now be referred back to committee.

The Speaker: -- the committee needs to be able to decide. My hands unfortunately are tied in this instance. I am not capable of producing any

more time, and I'm not sure if anything can be worked out. Hopefully, they can. I understand the circumstances, but unfortunately it's back in the committee's hands and it is their

responsibility.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NIPISSING UNIVERSITY ACT, 2001

Mr Miller moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr25,

An Act respecting Nipissing University.

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

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

AJAX PICKERING TRANSIT AUTHORITY ACT, 2001

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

Bill Pr26,

An Act respecting the Ajax Pickering Transit Authority.

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

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

ONTARIO COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS

AND TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LES COLLÈGES D'ARTS APPLIQUÉS

ET DE TECHNOLOGIE DE L'ONTARIO

Mrs Cunningham moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 147,

An Act respecting the establishment and governance of colleges of applied arts and technology / Projet de loi 147, Loi concernant l'ouverture et la

régie de collèges d'arts appliqués et de technologie.

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

The member for a short statement. Oh, she's doing a ministerial statement? Thank you.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): The rapid pace of change in

our society in the latter half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century has placed significant demands on our post-secondary education and training systems. The rapid transition to

a knowledge-based economy means that an ever-increasing level of educational attainment for our students will be critical to ensuring the economic and social success of Ontario and its citizens.

Our government is committed to providing access to the lifelong learning opportunities necessary to maintain that success.

I am proud to mention the following milestones:

The capacity at our colleges and universities is being increased to address the expected student enrolment growth over the next 10 years.

Through SuperBuild, we have launched the largest expansion of Ontario's colleges and universities in more than 30 years. The government is spending over $1

billion to create new spaces for future generations. With our private sector partners, that is about $1.8 billion.

In addition, to ensure that there will be faculty and resources to support these new students, we are increasing operating grants by up to $293 million over

2000-01 levels.

We are also working to ensure that our post-secondary programs are meeting the needs of today's students and employers. That is why we provided $228 million to

launch the access to opportunities program to create an additional 23,000 spaces in high-demand programs such as computer science -- programs that students want.

To help students and parents plan, we also froze tuition increases at 2% per year for most programs. This means that students will know the cost of their

chosen program's tuition for the next four years.

Today, happily, long overdue, we are introducing the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2001, another element in our comprehensive plan to

better serve the changing needs of students and our workplaces.

In 1965, then-Education Minister Bill Davis introduced a bill that established a college system for Ontario. It was a revolutionary concept, a new level and

type of education. He envisioned a network of colleges across the province offering occupation-oriented programs designed to meet the needs of the local community.

In his statement to the Legislature Mr Davis explained, "In this new age of technological change and invention, it is essential to the continued growth and

expansion of the economy of our province, and of our nation, that adequate facilities be made generally available for the education and training of craftsmen, technicians and technologists."

In 1967, 19 colleges opened. Over the years, that number grew to 25 in order to meet community needs. Colleges of applied arts and technology are now present

in 200 communities across this great province.

At the introduction of the legislation founding the college system, Mr Davis noted that the new colleges were designed to meet the economic and social demands

not only of 1965 but into the future.

Over the years, our colleges have done an excellent job of providing students with skills that lead to employment. Approximately 45,000 full-time students

graduated from the system in 1999-2000. Last year, 91% of graduates were employed six months after graduation, and 91% of their employers were satisfied with the training graduates had

received.

However, the tomorrow of which Mr Davis spoke is now here. Technological and economic change has far exceeded anything that could have been imagined in the

1960s. It is time to match the original vision of the college system with a vision for the 21st century. Today our colleges need to be more flexible and market-driven. They need to be able to

respond quickly to market demand, to give students and employers programs that will provide the skills needed in today's, and tomorrow's, economy.

The Ontario Jobs and Investment Board recommended a new charter for colleges to support their very important role in providing a well-trained workforce to

maintain Ontario's economic strength. Colleges have asked for a new charter as a way to provide some enhancements in the role of colleges as well as enabling colleges to better meet the needs of

students and the workforce.

The legislation this government has introduced will, if passed, build on the success of our great college system. It would respond to today's needs by allowing

colleges to continue to develop and respond more effectively to the needs of their students and their communities. It is important to note, however, that when we speak of communities today, we are

speaking both of geographic communities and of knowledge communities.

The current legislation treats all colleges the same. However, the characteristics of Ontario's 25 colleges vary considerably in size and in the nature of

local communities they serve. They vary in the range of programs they offer; they vary in the partnerships they have with local businesses, industry and other education institutions; and they vary

in the way in which they deliver programs and courses, whether in classrooms, through apprenticeship, over the Internet, in remote communities by day or by evening.

We want to enable colleges to be better able to respond to the different circumstances of their communities, their student bodies, their local economies or

their unique areas of specialization.

One of the strengths of the college system has been its ability to anticipate and adapt to change. New legislation and regulations would modernize the

framework for colleges and would support the colleges in adapting to the needs of the 21st century.

Colleges need to have the ability to concentrate on specific areas of learning that meet the needs of the communities they serve. We have many examples of

areas of specialization that have developed at colleges throughout Ontario, such as Centennial's expertise in transportation or Sir Sandford Fleming's renowned School of Environmental and Natural

Resource Sciences.

We have examples of strong partnerships with industry, such as Georgian's Canadian Automotive Institute, which serves Canada's automotive marketing industry.

Colleges need to be able to continue to grow and develop in emerging areas of need, such as Algonquin and Niagara colleges' development in partnership with Photonics Research Ontario, of new,

leading-edge programs in photonics technology, and through our $2-million transportation technology strategic skills initiative as Fanshawe College partners with John Deere in maintaining Ontario's

gateway to global markets.

All of our colleges in their own ways are providing significant leadership and are playing increasingly diverse roles in economic development. For example, the

Northern Centre for Advanced Technology -- NORCAT -- at Cambrian college is involved in developing new technological applications and prototypes for mining and related industries. A number of our

colleges are beginning to become involved in applied research in areas of unique expertise.

Clearly, in a province as dynamic and diverse as Ontario, there is no one size that fits all our colleges. What is appropriate and necessary in one part of the

province may be inappropriate in another.

It is our intention to give colleges more autonomy, while still holding them accountable for public dollars. If passed, this legislation would modernize the

accountability relationship between college boards of governors and students, the public they serve and the government.

Modern accountability relationships focus on public reporting against projected outcomes. College activity would be more focused on outcomes if this

legislation is passed, meeting student and employer needs. The role of the government in day-to-day operations of institutions should be limited.

Our goal is to enhance existing opportunities for boards of governors to define the unique role each college will play in its local, regional, national and/or

international communities. We want to give college boards increased responsibility for managing autonomously some functions, such as real estate transactions.

We consulted extensively with members of the college system in adopting this present direction. Working together, we will provide opportunities for a new

generation to take their place in strengthening our economy and our communities.

Ontario has one of the highest post-secondary participation rates in the world. Our provincial government is working with students to ensure they continue to

have access to a high-quality post-secondary education that will prepare them to lead successful, productive lives.

If passed by the Legislature, the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2001, will enable colleges to better provide students with more

opportunities and a full range of choices to acquire the skills they need to succeed.

This provides us with an opportunity to thank ACAATO, the colleges themselves, their staff, their students, their boards, OCCSPA, student representatives, the

TCU -- training, colleges and universities -- staff, and everyone who partnered in a very long process to come to today.

We have agreement among all of us, not only for legislation but for regulations, and I think this is a milestone in the working relationship between the

government and our colleges. Of course, I give thanks also to my critics. They've worked along with us over a long period of time.

Today I'd like to recognize Harold Rundle, president of Fanshawe College, who is with us; Tim McTiernan, the chair of the committee of presidents and president

of Canadore College; Dan Patterson, vice-chair, COP and president, Niagara College; Robert Gordon -- that's a new name for Squee, isn't it? -- president of Humber College; Brian Desbiens,

president, Sir Sandford Fleming College; Gisèle Chrétien, president, Collège Boréal; Susan Bloomfield, the chair of ACAATO; Jim Drennan, chair of the Georgian College board;

Pierre Richard, chair of the La Cité collégiale board; Beverly Townsend, chair of the Loyalist College board; Dianne Miller, chair of Confederation College's board; Tracy Boyer, executive

director of OCCSPA; and last but not least, Joan Homer, the executive director of ACAATO; Pam Derks, the research and policy director of ACAATO; and Stuart Watson, communications director of

ACAATO.

It is the working relationship of everyone who advises this government in the best interests of students that makes this kind of legislation and regulation

possible.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I'd be pleased to speak to the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act introduced

today by the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

First, I would like to relay to our guests from the college sector, on behalf of the Liberal caucus, our condolences for the passing of your colleague Dr Frank

Marsh, president of Cambrian College. His commitment to the students in his community and therefore to the rest of the province is an inspiration to all of us and his untimely death a reminder to

all of us to keep perspective, to take care of ourselves and to take care of our health. That is the only way we, in turn, can contribute to the students.

The Liberal Party supports any move that contributes to the education of our young people. We have a fine-looking group of young people right above us there.

We understand the vital importance of post-secondary education and its direct effect on our economy, our lifestyle, our health and that of our families. Possibly, after we have had the opportunity

to review the charter, which I have to say I just received 10 minutes ago, we could have a more substantive discussion. As we are all aware with this government, the devil is in the details. I

would have liked to see the first draft of the charter so that I could prepare a more complete response. But that isn't the style of this government -- even more evidence that we need to very

quickly pass my colleague Caroline Di Cocco's Bill 95, the ethics and transparency act, where public meetings are open to the public.

Openness certainly makes the role of government more difficult. I understand that. I understand that if I ever have the privilege of serving in government, my

job would then be more difficult. That is what the public expects of us. It is the right way to govern.

But there are a few facts that are well known. In order for Ontario's colleges of applied arts and technology to continue to provide accessible, quality career

education and training to the one million learners who enrol each year, the government of Ontario needs to put the vision of quality, accessible and affordable education for every student into

action. At this rate, there's a long way to go.

Over the past 10 years, Ontario colleges have seen a 35% increase in enrolment with a 40% decrease in funding. There is no relief in sight. Without the

necessary investment in our post-secondary system, we will not be able to accommodate the projected increase in enrolment of more than 32,000 additional college students by 2006. The

Pricewaterhouse study, which has yet to be made public, showed that you have underestimated enrolment and therefore, given that your funding formula is based on enrolment, you have underestimated

and underfunded the needs of the system and will continue to do so.

Ontario's colleges and universities are also experiencing a faculty shortage. In 1995 the student-faculty ratio was 19 students per faculty member; in 2000 it

is 25. Minister, what will it be in 2006? The government's own report, Portals and Pathways, identified $300 million in deferred maintenance costs for colleges alone. This capital funding is to

keep the buildings from falling apart. They talk about SuperBuild, but this government has spent less than any other Ontario government in the last 25 years on infrastructure in this province.

Student debt has never been higher. You have not increased OSAP levels since 1990. This fall, Ontario had the largest tuition increase in Canada. Since 1995,

tuition at Ontario colleges went up 67%.

Minister, there are two issues I will be carefully reviewing. In your remarks, you stated that, "The role of government in day-to-day operations of

institutions should be limited." It should also be limited in other areas. Will you give yourself more power to make decisions without bringing these decisions forward to the Legislature first?

What are the dire circumstances that would require you to step in and take control over a college board? Will we have a repeat of the CCAC takeover, where this government punished those who put

patients first and finances second?

Minister, given this government's record on labour relations, we will be scrutinizing any changes that would create a two-tier bargaining system.

My last request of you is to try and influence the future Premier to do away with the $2.2-billion corporate tax cut and give it to education, give it to

health care, give it to the environment. Those areas are in desperate need.

In closing, if our honourable guests support this charter, if the charter contributes to the education of our young people, we on this side of the House will

be happy to support it.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Minister, I was almost going to apologize to the presidents because of what I'm about to say, but I

want to tell you, you should be the one apologizing to these presidents, all two rows of them here today, because you have the fortitude to bring this bill on December 4, when there's only one week

left of debates and you've got 21 bills in the hopper to debate in this Legislature -- 21 bills, and with this bill it's 22 bills.

When will you find the time to debate the other 21 bills, including this one that she presented today? What kind of games are you playing with the opposition

and with these presidents who are here today? You tell me and you tell them that you are happy with the fact that the opposition has been working with you. I'm sorry, but you haven't been working

with me. You never called me once to say, "Rosario Marchese, I want to debate this issue with you. How can we best do it together?" Not once did you call my office to say, "I want to do it with

you" -- not once.

And then you bring this bill on December 4, giving them the impression that somehow we may be the problem if this bill doesn't pass? It's not us. It is you who

is the culprit on this matter. We want debate on these bills. They cannot pass simply because you bring them at the last moment -- urging the presidents to tell us this bill must pass before

December 11 or 12. It will not happen.

The minister says that with SuperBuild, they have spent more money than in the history of who knows what. New Democrats spent twice as much as this government,

in a recessionary period, on our college and universities, and they come proudly saying, "We spend so much money on colleges and universities." We tell you, the government has cut $2 billion

cumulatively in our colleges and universities system, yet this minister congratulates herself by saying they have returned a mere 15% of that $2 billion they've already cut.

This government says they have frozen tuition fees and put on a cap of 2%. Since 1995, tuition fees have gone up 60%. So they proudly come today to you, to us

and to these students and say, "We've capped it at 2%." Madame, you've increased tuition fees by 60% since 1995. The debt and the burden is on the shoulders of these students, and they can't afford

it.

This minister has deregulated professional programs to the extent that they're now inaccessible to so many working men and women out there in Ontario society.

Professional programs like medicine cost about 15,000 bucks. I've got to tell you, Minister, your hyperbole connected to the platitudes you've introduced today is only exceeded by your arrogance,

and nothing more.

The minister says proudly, "The role of government in day-to-day operations of institutions -- "

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: Calm down, calm down. The minister says, "The role of government in day-to-day operations of institutions should be limited." Oh?

Similar to what the Minister of Education, elementary and secondary, has done? We have never seen a much more interventionist government than the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance

as it relates to elementary and secondary schools. We couldn't have a more centralist government than ever in the history of this assembly. Yet today she says, "Oh, we want to get out of the

business. We don't want to be so tightly in control of colleges and universities." Please, talk to Flaherty and talk to the minister right beside you, who's not here at the moment, and talk to me

about you wanting to get out of the way.

I've got to tell you, Minister, you have a very sad and sorry history. Tuition fees have gone up. Colleges and universities are starving for funds and

buildings are crumbling. Privately, colleges are telling us they are going to go into a deficit this year, next year, and you come proudly saying, "We need to do something novel and

interesting."

The two suggestions you make in your statement -- very vaguely, I might say -- which will give the colleges greater control over the lands may be good for the

colleges, but I say you are abdicating your responsibility as a government to fund colleges properly. That's why they're excited for you to give them this bill, but we are not going to give it to

you as fast as you want to get it into this place.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Solicitor General. Minister, you have now been -- let me take a quick

look at the recent record -- caught putting public safety at risk. You allowed 400 drunk drivers to get back on the road before they were entitled to do so. You kept 30,000 dangerous drivers on the

road. You've been caught refusing to co-operate with the Provincial Auditor, something he said was the first time it's happened to him in nine years, and you've been caught wasting taxpayers'

money. On that last count alone, you said this to the NDP housing minister on June 1, 1992, and I quote, "You're wasting the taxpayers' money. You don't know what you're doing. You should resign

now because this is money that is inappropriately spent." That was just one strike. You're guilty on three separate counts. Minister, will you do the right thing and the honourable thing and resign

here and now?

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): No.

Mr McGuinty: It gets worse, Minister. Here's what the auditor said on page 252 of his report, "We could not determine the propriety of the

ministry payments to consultants. For instance, the ministry had altered a consultant's invoice totalling $234,000 by recording the amount as paid against another contract with the same consultant

and indicating the work was done during a different time period."

Let's look at the total so far. First of all, you have threatened public safety. Second, you refused to co-operate with the Provincial Auditor. Third, you have

been found guilty of wasting taxpayers' money and now, fourth, the Provincial Auditor tells us that on your watch documents were altered in the ministry, documents that were being presented to the

Provincial Auditor. As I count it, that's not just three strikes, it's four strikes. You're out of the game. Will you do the right thing and resign?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Before the Solicitor General gets up, on the first question dealing with drunk driving, I thought it had some

relevance to the Solicitor General. As the leader of the official opposition knows, the Solicitor General is not the Minister of Transportation. That question could be out of order or the Minister

of Transportation could decide to answer the question. I will leave it up to the Minister of Transportation, whom I see rising.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): We've already accepted as a government the findings of the auditor and we've already met 70% of

the issues the auditor has brought to our attention. We've already achieved compliance with 70% of them.

I should also point out to the House that the previous minister had already hired 10 medical review officers to help us lower the backlog, so we had already

accomplished that too. So we've already proceeded down the road.

In reference to some of the other questions the leader of the loyal opposition raised, we have implemented a number of measures in dealing with contracts and

consultants within my ministry, mandatory training for staff on best practices for retaining and managing consultants, a monitoring system to ensure guidelines are strictly adhered to, monitoring

of consultant performance during the contract period, critical evaluation of the consultant's performance. So 70% of the recommendations that the auditor has, we've already met.

Mr McGuinty: I can sympathize with you. You had one heck of a mess to clean up, and I wish you the very best in terms of cleaning up after

your predecessor. But this is not about you. It's not about your activities, it's not about the leadership you're lending to your ministry; it's about your predecessor. I come back to him because

all of these matters rest plainly on his shoulders.

The public is entitled to know whether or not you are going to step down in light of the facts that have come to the surface. You have threatened the public

safety. You have refused to co-operate with the public auditor. Those, in and of themselves, are very serious issues.

Minister, I ask you again, will you do the right thing, will you do the honourable thing, will you do what you asked of a minister when you stood on this side

of the House? Will you resign for all the right reasons?

Hon Mr Clark: Once again, I thank the member opposite for the question. The bottom line for our ministry is that we have acted in a very

appropriate way in dealing with the auditor's office. The members opposite who were in government before would know that when the Provincial Auditor is conducting an audit, it is the deputy

minister and the ministry staff who deal directly with the auditor.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Clark: It's difficult to hear because of the heckling.

When I came into the ministry, the same thing was happening. The deputy minister was dealing with the Provincial Auditor. It was only after the deputy minister

came to me and said, "Here is the draft audit," and raised the concerns of the Provincial Auditor that I requested a meeting with the Provincial Auditor. I met with him on June 27. On June 27 we

met with him, he raised the concerns, and I put in place a plan to satisfy his concerns.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. I understand that he may not be here. If that is the

case, I will put it to the Acting Premier.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I don't see him. The Acting Premier, then, would probably be best.

Mr McGuinty: Apparently, Minister, you over there are at it again. You're using taxpayer dollars on partisan ads. This is the latest, running

throughout the province today in newspapers at a cost of $1 million. Apparently, a quarter-billion dollars invested in partisan political advertising was insufficient to satisfy your appetite, so

you are at it again.

Your message in this particular ad is very clear. This has got to be the most widely distributed blackmail note known to mankind. It says, effectively, that

you're going to kill medicare if the feds don't give you more money. Can you tell us, Minister, why it is that you have $2.2 billion for corporate tax cuts, you have half a billion dollars for

private school tax credits, you have a quarter-billion dollars for partisan political ads, you have $1 million for this ad, but apparently you don't have enough money to make health care a priority

in Ontario at this time?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): Let me say at the start that the only member of this Legislature, the only person in this province,

I can imagine who would suggest that demanding that the federal government pay their fair share for health care is blackmail is the leader of the official opposition. That's the only member of this

Legislature who would say that.

They started at 18 cents; they're now down to 14 cents. We on this side of the House think that's scandalous. Only you would be defending the federal

government and their abdication of the health care system to protect the citizens of this province and give them good health care service.

We don't see it as blackmail. We see it simply as advertising asking the public for their opinion with respect to the health care system, asking them to direct

their thoughts to their federal MPs. I would suggest to the member opposite, if you suggest this is blackmail, sir, you are sadly out of touch.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you may be interested in the Speaker's ruling at one particular time in this House. I'll read it as follows:

"Personally, I would find it offensive if taxpayer dollars were being used to convey a political or partisan message. There is nothing wrong with members

debating an issue and influencing public opinion; in fact, it is part of our parliamentary tradition to do so. But I feel that it's wrong for a government to attempt to influence public opinion

through advertising that is paid for with public funds."

Guess who said that, Minister? It was said on January 22, 1997, by one Honourable Chris Stockwell, Speaker of the Ontario Legislative Assembly.

Interjections.

Mr McGuinty: So what I'm wondering is, Speaker -- or Minister, whichever it is today -- do you believe in what you said back then or do you

believe in what you're telling us today, and how can you possibly reconcile the two?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Of course I do. I did not realize in this House that the suggestion would be made that asking the federal government to pay

their fair share of health care is somehow partisan --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It's getting too noisy now. I apologize, Acting Premier.

Hon Mr Stockwell: -- would somehow be partisan. I would have thought all the members of this Legislature would have expected the federal

government to pay --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Windsor West and the member for Hamilton East, come to order, please. Sorry again, Acting Premier.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I would have thought everyone in this Legislature would have expected the federal government to pay their fair share for

health care. What is the debate? What is the advertisement about? It is about the provincial government demanding the federal government live up to their commitment. That's not partisan. That's

just fair ball. I can't understand why you don't support that.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, it is painful to see you over there hoisted on your own petard. What we're asking over here today is, whatever happened

to the man, the Speaker, an individual of integrity who then said, "I feel that it's wrong for a government to attempt to influence public opinion through advertising that is paid for with public

funds"?

If you intend to seek the leadership of your party, if you intend to become Premier, it would seem to me that you're going to have to stand by principles that

you set out in the past, Mr Minister. I ask you again, how is it that you can reconcile the position you're taking today as a matter of convenience with the position of principle that you took in

the past in your capacity of Speaker?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Since we're talking about petards, Mr Speaker, I think Mr McGuinty has one he can hoist himself on. McGuinty on the federal

budget: "I was personally disappointed with the budget because it did not assign the priority to health care that ordinary Ontarians have been telling me they assign to it. The silence from the

federal government on medicare has been deafening."

Speaking of principles, speaking of positions, it would seem the leader of the official opposition would say one thing one day; when we request the federal

government through advertisements to pay their fair share, he has a completely different opinion. May I suggest, no lectures from the member opposite on principles, because you have some on some

days and, according to you, on others they are completely different.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. I want to quote from a November 30 front page

article from

the Wall Street Journal. It's entitled "Enron Swoon Leaves A Grand Experiment In Disarray," and the disarray it's referring to is the whole scheme of electricity privatization and deregulation in

the United States.

The

article says that private sector energy investors are pulling out of new electricity projects because of the financial uncertainty created by Enron's

bankruptcy, the largest corporate bankruptcy ever in the world. It also says that this will lead to less predictable supplies of electricity and electricity blackouts in the United States.

My question, Minister, for you is, why is your government intent on privatizing our electricity system and repeating the Enron disaster in Ontario?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): The honourable member asked this same question some weeks ago in the estimates

committee and the answer remains the same, that much of Enron's problems in terms of its financial woes stem from investments outside the electricity sector. He only has to read the daily Wall

Street Journal or the Financial Times to understand what's going on with that company. You will see that Enron Canada is a fully functioning company, that it is involved in the electricity sector

in many provinces and doing quite well. The fact that Enron in the United States has made investments outside of the electricity sector, outside of its traditional energy sector, has caused great

problems and a bankruptcy for that company. The company itself admits it was not the electricity sector that forced them into bankruptcy, but some bad investments they made outside that sector.

Mr Hampton: I invite the minister to read the same article, because the

article is very clear. It points out that Enron was the spiritual guru

and corporate driver of electricity deregulation and privatization across the United States. Now it's gone, bankrupt; a $50-billion bankruptcy. It's led to all kinds of uncertainty in the

electricity markets.

My question is, won't you learn a lesson from this? Won't you learn a lesson from the corporation that said it was going to lead North America into electricity

privatization and deregulation? A $50-billion bankruptcy. The report is it's cost California $100 billion from the failure of privatization of electricity there. Why, when 22 states in the United

States are turning away from electricity privatization, do you want to repeat the same disaster in Ontario?

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member is an island unto himself with respect to the theory he puts forward. It's very difficult to chase

ghosts, which I'm required to do every time he gets on his feet, so go back to your haunted house and scare yourself, but stop scaring the customers in Ontario, because our deregulation and

introduction of competition is going very well. It's on track. It's on time. Investor confidence is at an all-time high in terms of over $3 billion worth of proposed new plant, including the

$400-million plant that is currently being built in Sarnia, Ontario.

Enron's overextension in the United States in sectors outside of the energy sector is not something I'm staying up at night worrying about, and it's something

he should stop chasing in terms of shadows, ghosts and haunted houses.

Mr Hampton: It would only be a Conservative government that would be so wedded to privatization of public services that it would say a

$100-billion disaster in California is a haunted house, that a $50-billion disaster, bankruptcy, in the middle of electricity deregulation in the United States is nothing to worry about. The people

like British Energy and TransAlta are telling you, are being very clear: what they want is complete electricity deregulation to be able to take Ontario-produced electricity and sell it in the

United States, into that chaotic market at a higher price. You owe it to the people of Ontario to tell people what that means: that it means joining that market chaos in the United States, that it

means much higher prices, that it means unpredictable supply.

Minister, yesterday I attended the opening meeting of the Ontario Electricity Coalition, a coalition that has watched what has happened in the United States

and doesn't want to see it repeated here. Won't you listen to them, or are you so wedded to what the corporate sector wants that you're willing to repeat the disasters of California and Enron in

Ontario?

Hon Mr Wilson: If the honourable member does an honest assessment of California, one of the reasons California is not in the news these days

is that finally the politicians in California, after 13 years of mucking around, introduced competition just in the last few months. Four new plants have been built, and prices have gone down

significantly as competition is finally taking hold in California, exactly what should happen when the politicians leave it up to the market to decide demand, supply and price. So finally

California is starting to remedy itself by allowing the market to do that.

The Ontario Electricity Coalition that the honourable member speaks about yesterday had a sign up in front of poor Adam Beck down on University Avenue, a

statue of Sir Adam Beck, who by the way saw electricity being delivered by the private sector and never by a company called Ontario Hydro, if someone wants to read the history books. But having

said that, they're calling for power at cost. Do you know what power at cost brought us with the old Ontario Hydro monopoly? Bad management, bad maintenance at our nuclear plants so we had to close

10 of them, and $38 billion worth of debt.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Acting Premier. Your government is hoping everyone will forget that the

Provincial Auditor has found that the former transportation minister, now Solicitor General, is in fact a lawbreaker. It must be a very stinging report from the auditor to point out the level of

mismanagement and the fact that your boasting about law and order doesn't apply to one of your own cabinet colleagues. The auditor's report tells us: $27 million of mismanaged consulting contracts,

30,000 unfit drivers on the highway, 400 convicted drunk drivers still driving because you didn't take their licence away, and then that the minister actually presided over the altering of

documents to frustrate the Provincial Auditor.

You know we've asked the OPP to investigate. You must also know that the Deputy Attorney General is now investigating this matter. The only decent thing to do

when there is such a clear breach of the law is for the minister to step aside. Will you do that?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): Let me respond. Firstly, I think --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, are you accepting his saying "lawbreaker"?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The question has been asked. Thank you very much. I've talked to somebody privately. Don't shout out,

please, member for Mississauga South, during the answer coming up.

Hon Mr Stockwell: The government obviously takes the auditor's report very seriously. We consider the issues and the recommendations that the

auditor gives and we respond to them very quickly. I think earlier today, the Minister of Transportation noted how quickly they have responded to some of the concerns that were brought forward.

Do we share the opinion the member has stated with respect to the assumptions you've made or gathered from the auditor's report? No, we don't. We think it's

important that we review the auditor's report, make the recommendations and clearly respond to them. I think what you're suggesting is far beyond what the auditor has said in his report. It goes

well beyond the analogies that I've read in the report. I think the arguments you're making go much, much further than I read into the auditor's report.

Mr Hampton: I spoke to the Provincial Auditor about this very matter and he reports that he was stonewalled, just as you're trying to do here,

for almost a full year. He said that if he had not pointed out the conduct of the Minister of Transportation, it would have amounted to allowing your government to simply thumb your nose at the

Provincial Auditor.

Either your statement is that the Provincial Auditor is factually wrong or you condone a minister who presided over a breach of the law continuing to be in

your cabinet. It's as simple as that. Either you're saying the auditor is wrong or you're saying you condone a minister who presided over a breach of the law continuing to be in the cabinet. Are

you saying the auditor is wrong or are you going to ask the minister to step down? If the audit fits, you can't acquit. That's the reality.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Let's deal with the issue at hand. The issue at hand was that when the first request came through, it came from people who

worked in the audit department. They made their request to ministry staff. There was some concern with respect to the kind of information they were asking for. Therefore, the information was moved

up to the auditor and the secretary of cabinet. The secretary of cabinet and the auditor met and came to a protocol on a process that would allow this information to be given.

If you continue to read the auditor's report, he outlined his concerns. He also suggested, in the very next paragraph, that the secretary of cabinet met with

the auditor and did provide a protocol to allow this information to be released to the auditor.

We do not want to have a discussion or a fight with the auditor. We agree with the auditor and how he goes about doing his business. But I will say to the

members opposite that we met the requirements. We asked for a meeting, we facilitated the meeting, and the secretary of cabinet met with the auditor. If you read through the audit report, he says

in the very next paragraph that yes, they did meet with them and he was reasonably satisfied with the outcome.

HOME CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the assistant minister of health. It's about the hostile takeover of home care with

Bill 130. My simple question to the assistant minister is this: I want to know whose advice was sought to bring forward Bill 130. It wasn't the seniors of Ontario, because you refused to meet those

groups. It wasn't the local boards of the home care organizations, because they say this isn't the right way to go. It wasn't the provincial association; they agree that it's not the right way to

go. It wasn't the nurses of Ontario; they're against the bill. It wasn't Tony Clement; he said he would never do this last August. It wasn't Jim Flaherty; he said he's for more local control. It

certainly wasn't Pricewaterhouse, which you often have quoted as your source, because the recommendations in the Pricewaterhouse report specifically say that the number one request and

recommendation is around funding, because the funding has changed and the required funding has increased. Minister, my question is this: whose advice did you seek to bring in this hostile takeover

of home care?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): Let me say first off that the government of Ontario and the

taxpayers of Ontario have been paying the full cost of community care access centres for some three years since their inception. So I fundamentally disagree with the point of the question. Let me

say that the people in Ontario were concerned with the quality of care they were getting. They were concerned about the amount of care they were getting.

We went in and did an operational review in Hamilton. We had PricewaterhouseCoopers go in and review the CCACs across the province and made recommendations

about changes. We met with a large number of people with respect to CCACs. My colleagues also met with people in their offices about CCACs. There has been a lot of work done on this. The people on

this side of the House believe that we need to provide a quality service in the community, and we're moving forward to doing that.

Mrs Pupatello: The assistant minister is out there blaming volunteer boards for the mess this government created, like the board in Waterloo.

This is the board in Waterloo, in home care, that received an award just two weeks before the bill was dropped. The award was for their effectiveness and accountability. The vice-chair of that

board says that this bill is a slap in the face. The truth is that the assistant minister is hearing from everyone that no one told you to do this -- no one but your own caucus. Even members of

your cabinet said not to do this, and here you are taking over home care and doing this in a reckless manner that is, frankly, bad public policy.

Minister, the truth is that you have a million dollars to spend on partisan advertising, a million dollars, when our seniors desperately need home care. We

have increases in client caseloads that you have never acknowledged, and in your statements on the telephone with the directors of CCACs, the moment one of them asked about funding, the telephone

line was suddenly disconnected. This is a gag order by the minister. We ask you today to withdraw this bill from this House.

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me be very clear that the government of Ontario has moved from funding these community care access centres at about $600

million to $1.17 billion. Nobody has more of a commitment to community care than this government. Let me say that we've increased that funding even though there's not one red cent from the federal

government going to home care. Let me say that the federal government promised that they would have a national home care proposal out before the public, and where is it? Where is it? The same

happened, as a matter of fact, with respect to a drug program. Where is it? This government has made a commitment to community services. We're going to ensure that community services work for the

people of Ontario, and we're moving forward with Bill 130.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): My question is for the Minister of Education. During constituency week I visited nine schools in my riding

attached to Holy Family school, which is in my riding.

I discussed with board members, administrators and teachers some of the concerns surrounding special-needs education. I was happy to learn that great strides

are being taken for students with special needs in Ontario's system. It was expressed to me, however, that with a 50% increase in the York Catholic board's special-needs enrolment, this board is

facing increased pressures in meeting the needs of these very special students. Their biggest concern expressed to me was that the ISA funding is effectively being stretched further each year

because of increased student enrolment. Minister, what measures have been taken to address these concerns?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Thank you very much, the member for Thornhill, for the question. Special

education funding is indeed a very important support for school boards in offering education services to those children with special needs. That's one of the reasons why we've passed legislation in

this House that protects it, that says that it can only be spent for special-needs purposes to help those students.

What we do for school boards is give them special-needs funding that does recognize the increase in enrolment growth, because obviously as the number of

students increase, the needs increase. The money that goes to school boards through, for example, what's called the SEPPA grant does indeed clearly recognize the fact that, as enrolment grows, so

do the needs. For example, the York Catholic board had 5.5% of overall funding, much higher than enrolment growth, and again had an increase of about 3% in overall special education allocation to

support the growing needs.

Mrs Molinari: I was also informed that one of the biggest problems regarding students with special needs is the criteria that must be met to

qualify for funding. Students must meet all the criteria of the assessment to be given funding. Even meeting nine out of the 10 requirements disqualifies the student. Both teachers and parents have

expressed to me their concern regarding the formula used to assess special-needs students. The paperwork involved in these assessments is taking teachers' time away from the classroom. Minister,

what is being done with regard to the criteria assessments?

Hon Mrs Ecker: One of the things that has concerned me greatly is the misunderstanding that the accounting process that goes on to estimate

the number of high-needs students a school board has is somehow being interpreted to drive the services the student gets. What determines the student's needs, what determines whether a student

should get various services, is the individual education plan. Where particular students are falling in terms of the accounting processes to calculate funding should not be used to drive service

decisions. So, yes, there is a formula via which we make estimates and projections about the needs for boards, but where it is important on the ground, with the individual education plan, to drive

the actual services and supports that a student gets.

Reducing the paperwork and administration is extremely important. That's one of the reasons we actually grandparented about a third of all of the students this

year, so no additional process was required. We will continue to make improvements in that area.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the associate minister of health. Minister, in November last year, the previous

Minister of Health announced an increase of $4.8 million for community mental health agencies. This was welcome and desperately needed funding. The money went to 443 community agencies to fund

supportive housing for those with mental illness, children's mental health, sexual assault programs and suicide prevention programs. There was no indication last November that this was one-time

funding, but your government has now taken that $4.8 million back and those agencies are faced with having to make cuts to these vital community mental health programs. The same thing happened to

drug and alcohol addiction programs: a $5.2-million increase last November, now stripped away a year later.

Minister, can you explain why the decision was made to cut this $10 million from community mental health programs and can you tell us what you believe should

be cut? Do you sacrifice children's mental health, suicide counselling or do you cut back on sexual assault programs?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): Let me say that this government has a large commitment to mental

health in Ontario. Although we made one-time funding last year to mental health, in this calendar year we have implemented a number of mental health task forces across the province to ensure that

we have a strong mental health network fibre across the province. We have brought together many, many people into nine task forces who will give recommendations to the government about things we

should do to improve the mental health system in Ontario.

On top of that, we've been moving to move people out of institutions and take them into the community, and that funding has been flowing with people as we have

done that. We have made that commitment in Kingston. We're looking at making that commitment in other areas across the province. This government has a strong mental health commitment, and that of

course was shepherded through the House last session by Dan Newman as the PA to health as he made recommendations to mental health and, of course, by Christopher's Law.

Mrs McLeod: The fact that this government brought through Brian's Law makes it even more reprehensible that they are cutting funding for

community mental health agencies and programs.

Minister, I have the announcements from last year. There is not one word in these announcements or in the previous minister's speech that speaks of one-time

funding. You cut $10 million from community mental health agencies this year. It was a cut and nothing less. Since your government made the cuts, I suggest you should have some responsibility for

the consequences. The agencies took the funding because they needed it. They set up the programs and now you expect them to shut the programs down. I say to you, you can't shut down a sexual

assault program because you've decided you need money for a tax cut. Suicides don't disappear because you've decided you're going to cut the funding. Children's waiting lists for mental health

services don't disappear because you've got other priorities this year.

The Minister of Health appeared to share some concern for this, and I want to quote in asking you my question. He said to the mental health agencies: "You have

shared your disappointment that this spending announced last year was one-time only. I want you to know that I too was distressed by this situation, and I pledge to work with you to obtain other

ongoing funding resources."

Can you tell us whether or not the Minister of Health has found some way to relieve his distress and the distress of community mental health agencies? What

funding is coming for community mental health agencies this year?

Hon Mrs Johns: As you can hear from the question, the Minister of Health is working with agencies across the province. But let me say that

since 1995 this government has invested an additional $370 million into mental health in Ontario. It's unprecedented. In the past, the population who suffered from mental illness had been forgotten

as report after report stacked up in previous ministers' libraries. This government has taken an unprecedented step to moving forward with mental health reform in the province. We have nine task

forces, we have a regional task force, and we're working to ensure that people with mental illness get the help they need so they can move toward mental wellness. We have every intention of working

with stakeholders to ensure that mental health continues to be invested in, to ensure that mental health is a strong component --

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

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is for the Attorney General. Minister, I understand last week you attended a

federal-provincial-territorial justice ministers' meeting in Ottawa. I understand this important meeting was a continuation of the previous federal-provincial-territorial justice ministers' meeting

which was adjourned because of the tragic events surrounding September 11. The events of September 11 created new challenges for governments at every level, particularly how to ensure the security

of citizens of this province but indeed the country of Canada while maintaining their fundamental rights and liberties. Could you please share with the House what important security measures were

discussed with the justice minister and other provincial leaders?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I appreciate the question from the member. I will say to you

this: September 11 has a special meaning for justice ministers across this country for a number of reasons, one of which is that we were all together in Nova Scotia in the midst of a

federal-provincial-territorial justice ministers' conference when the tragic events occurred south of the border on September 11. All of us witnessed our free and open society challenged. We

witnessed the vulnerability of our society, and we all agreed that action had to be taken.

At last week's federal-provincial meeting, justice ministers from across the country came together and discussed a number of urgent and important matters,

including the need for a North American security perimeter, which was an issue, by the way, that we from Ontario raised, put on the table and, I'm pleased to say, was welcomed by most of the

members around the table. We also talked about who was going to pay for many of the measures that are contained in the anti-terrorist bills that Ottawa has tabled, and we have committed to

continuing those very important discussions.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you for that very thorough response, Minister. I know you take public security and border security, as well as

anti-terrorism measures, as very important, and I thank you for your advocacy and leadership in that area.

But there are also issues, such as expanding the scope of the sex offender registry and the toughening the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which continue to

concern not just me and the people of Durham but of course our constituents in Ontario. My constituents don't want to lose sight or lose contact with these issues while the government is developing

other plans to deal with the immediate security issues. What's going to happen with the sex offender registry, as well as the Youth Criminal Justice Act?

Minister, can you tell us how you will ensure that these issues and priorities remain at the federal-level table, and how are you going to make sure the people

of Ontario are well served?

Hon Mr Young: It is going to be a difficult time for justice ministers across the country to balance what is an immediate and relatively

recent set of needs that have come out of September 11 and at the same time remember some other issues, ongoing issues, issues that have been there for a considerable period of time, issues like

the ones referenced by the member for Durham, issues that include the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which both before and after September 11 we in Ontario have spoken out against. We made some

constructive suggestions, amendments that we thought should be brought forward.

We also have said time and time again, and continue to say, that the DNA data bank legislation must be amended, and it must be amended soon. It makes no sense

to have the loopholes that currently exist. It makes no sense to continue to have legislation, federal Liberal legislation, that does not allow us to obtain DNA samples from individuals who have

committed multiple murders on the same day. We can only obtain samples from individuals who have committed multiple murders on different days. It makes no sense, and it's dangerous to have left in

place.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Minister of Education. She's talking at the back.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock for a quick moment, please.

Mr Marchese: Thank you, Speaker.

Ma chère amie, why are you wasting $1 million on partisan ads instead of providing a decent education for the students of Ontario? Across this province,

111 schools are at risk of closing. In my riding, it's Senhor Santo Cristo, St Francis. In the riding of my friend from Beaches-East York, it's St Bernadette, St Aloysius and St John at the high

school level. The reason for that has nothing to do with school boards. The real reason is your funding formula, which is designed to wipe out schools that have fewer than 350 students. That's the

reason.

So I say to you, what are you going to do about that? Do you have the backbone to protect the 36,000 students and their communities who are about to lose their

schools?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): We are not wasting any money on partisan ads. But we on this side of the

House do believe that in a $13.8-billion public education budget, the highest the budget for public education has ever been, we should be investing some monies in keeping parents, who are a key

part of the team in terms of improving student achievement, informed about what is happening in our education system, about what initiatives are going forward, and making sure we're asking parents

for their views. That's indeed what we're doing.

Vis-à-vis school closures, as the honourable member will well understand, because there were many school closures when his government was in power, school

closures are always a very difficult decision for school boards, school board trustees. I believe that duly elected trustees should have the responsibility to deal with that. The legislation, the

funding, does indeed provide flexibility for them to make those school allocation decisions that they must make.

Mr Marchese: The funding formula, mon amie, is the problem, not the trustees and not the boards of education. I'm telling you that elementary

school closings will become an epidemic in this province unless you start putting the future of kids ahead of the partisan ads that you're putting forth. I'm suggesting to you that you've got to

look differently at how we protect our schools.

The NDP proposes several things. You may want to pay attention to this. First, immediately institute a moratorium on school closings. Second, change your

funding formula so that it finally covers the majority of elementary schools. Third, let communities propose alternatives to closing elementary schools. All I'm asking of you, Minister, is, will

you listen to that message?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Let's be very clear: not one penny of funding that goes to school boards to run schools is being used for any information

campaigns to deal with parents, to give parents information. Let's be very clear about that: not one penny is being taken away from our schools to provide information to parents.

Secondly, what the honourable member is saying is that if we have a school that has no students, we should leave it sitting there and boards have to pay for

it. That's what a moratorium means, and that's not an appropriate response.

Thirdly, letting communities come forward with alternatives is indeed the policy of this government. That's why, by law, we say that school boards must consult

the community, must look at proposals and alternatives. I know of many, many instances across this province where, based on that consultation, school boards have altered their decisions. That's why

duly elected officials have that obligation, and I believe we should leave it with the trustees to make those difficult, but in some cases necessary, decisions.

INTEGRATED JUSTICE PROJECT

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is for the Attorney General. I listened to the minister's tough talk on crime just a moment ago,

but you should maybe check out the auditor's report. Laws have been broken because of the Keystone Kops security system in place that's supposed to be protecting the records of victims and

witnesses and suspects, data in the hands of police and prosecutors.

The Provincial Auditor found that in fact these data have resulted in unauthorized access and manipulation. We know that privacy rights have been broken. We

know that the victims' rights bill, as toothless as that law may be, has been broken. My question is, how many young offender disclosure prohibitions have been broken? How many cases are going to

be thrown out because the defence counsel is going to argue that the data have been manipulated? The question is not, have laws been broken? It is, how many have been broken, and how many

times?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): It's difficult to tell exactly what motivated my friend opposite

to ask the question. It certainly isn't facts. He seems to think that he has absolutely no responsibility and that he is somehow or other empowered to engage in fearmongering, based on absolutely

no grounds.

Let's be clear. The integrated justice program is a program that everyone, but everyone, involved in the justice system believes is necessary. It is better to

get information to the parties involved, all the parties involved, faster and in a more efficient and integrated manner. That's what we're working toward.

What we have seen out of the integrated justice program is a groundbreaking area. We're moving into new areas. In fact, even the auditor suggested that the way

to do this is with the assistance of the private sector, and that's what we're doing.

Mr Bryant: Nice try. The auditor's report says, "We had serious concerns that security measures were inadequate over the systems already in

use by the police." Fearmongering? Tell that to the auditor. The auditor says, "Confidential information contained in these systems ... is vulnerable to unauthorized access and manipulation."

Fearmongering? Tell the auditor.

There's a password system in place, if you can believe this, that's one letter. You have to hit one letter to break into the password. You get 26 cracks at it,

so a three -- year-old who knows the alphabet can break into this system. It would be laughable if it wasn't that laws have been broken.

So my question to you is, what investigations have you undertaken to either disprove what the auditor has found or to confirm that laws have been broken

because a security system that's supposed to be Fort Knox in fact is letting a three-year-old in to access data of the most confidential and serious nature?

Hon Mr Young: Let's remember what we're talking about. We're talking about a program that is being developed. It is being developed, and as a

result of that development process we have determined certain things -- some of which, by the way, came from the auditor, and we appreciated getting it. But somehow or other, the member opposite

expects it all to be right the first time. If that was the case, we would have brought it in initially. They would have brought it in when they were in power. What we are doing is developing a

program, making sure we have it right before it is out there.

I would challenge the member opposite, who made some very serious allegations, to name one case that has been thrown out of court in this province as a result

of the allegations he has made -- one case.

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question today is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I know that many of the

municipal leaders in my region and indeed across the north are concerned about the need to make investments in their local infrastructure. Mayors like Ted Knight of Parry Sound want to make

improvements in the quality of life for the residents of their communities. However, the cost of these projects is quite onerous. What can I tell the municipal leaders in Parry Sound-Muskoka to do

about the costs of infrastructure projects and upgrades in northern communities?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I thank the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka for his question. Yesterday in

Sudbury, I was pleased to announce that the Mike Harris government is building a stronger future for northern communities with a new $82-million infrastructure program from the northern Ontario

heritage fund. The new northern communities capital assistance program will provide funding to help northern communities build, renew and enhance their basic infrastructure. Funding will be based

on a community's population, ranging from $100,000 for small communities to $5 million for the largest cities in the north.

The Mike Harris government recognizes that a strong local infrastructure is critical to a community's ability to attract new investment and to improve the

quality of life for its residents. We listened to the northern municipal leaders and responded with a program that will not only target important capital needs but will also leverage a significant

investment from our partners in return.

Mr Miller: Mr Minister, that is absolutely fantastic news for the north. I'm very happy to hear about that. Did I hear you right? I think I

heard that $83 million was to be spent on projects around the north, and that is certainly great news for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I am very happy to hear that and I am hopeful that municipalities will

be able to leverage even more money for new projects in the north, like fire halls and community centres. I certainly hope the small municipality of Kearney, which is desperately after a new fire

truck, will qualify for this program as well. For the benefit of all members of this House, could you tell us more about this new capital assistance program, which is such great news for the

north?

Hon Mr Newman: Indeed this is great news for northern Ontario, because the northern communities capital assistance program is the newest

flagship program from the northern Ontario heritage fund. It joins five other flagship programs designed to support job creation, economic growth and strong, vibrant communities throughout the

north.

Under the new program, communities may apply for funding for projects that are identified as local priorities. These projects include water and sewer services,

fire services and equipment, community centres, recreational facilities, existing airports and roads, to name but some of the projects that are eligible. Like other heritage fund programs, the

northern communities capital assistance program encourages municipalities, First Nations, local services boards, the private sector, non-profit organizations and government agencies to develop

strategic partnerships to meet shared goals.

The Mike Harris government is proud of our commitment to northern Ontario. Since October 1996, the heritage fund has contributed nearly $290 million to some

840 projects, generating an additional --

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

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question, in the absence of the Minister of Health, is to the associate Minister of Health. Yesterday,

we learned in Ottawa the intention of the government to sell off the Ottawa ambulance dispatch service. The city of Ottawa actually put aside some funds, some money to invest in a high-tech

dispatch system. Yet for some reason, the ministry or the minister wants to instead call for an RFP. The mayor and the city council have said that this is totally unacceptable. Because of your

government's downloading, the municipality already operates more than 50% of the total cost for the ambulance service.

In Hamilton, the city was enabled to take back the dispatch service so they could have an integrated system. They've done extremely well. They took it back

from the private sector. Their time responses are favourable and excellent. Will you provide the same option for the city of Ottawa?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): Let me say that the Premier last week said to everyone in Ottawa

that he was happy to open up the request for proposals to anyone who wanted to bid on that proposal.

If the member opposite is correct that the program has incredible merit -- and as I say, I haven't seen the proposal to be able to know that yet -- I'm sure

that it will be considered appropriately. When we don't go out for a request for proposal or we don't get a lot of bids, they say we haven't done the taxpayer right. Now they want us to say, "Sure,

just give it to the first person." They can't have it both ways. We've been very clear. We want a request for proposal. We want lots of people involved in the proposal. We want to get the best

services for the people of Ottawa. If we have the same common value here, I'm sure we will be very successful, all of us.

Mr Patten: You know that this is an opportunity to have the private sector break into this business. You know that they'll be tempted to

lowball a bid, and so you'll make a decision on a cheap response rather than the best response.

All throughout North America, the best response is an integrated system with a dispatch and the operators of the ambulance service. You have a bill called Bill

11, the new Municipal Act, which dwells on working co-operatively. This is your partner. They're paying better than 50% for the hospital service now, and you're not even talking with them. They've

offered to take this at the present cost. If the costs are increased from that, they will even pay for it out of municipal funds. You can't lose. Why are you going to the private sector on this

when the models of effectiveness show that you integrate your dispatch system with the operations of the ambulance?

Hon Mrs Johns: This is a very important question. Really what we want in dispatch is the best services for the people of Ottawa. We are going

to make sure that happens. As you know, the new Municipal Act allows municipalities to start a business and compete. We also could have non-profit organizations coming forward to be able to work on

this project. I think about hospitals. I think about other organizations in the community that may well want to provide the dispatch because of the expertise they have within their

organizations.

The government of Ontario pays 100% of the dispatch costs across the province. It is important for us to be the guardian of the public trust and to ensure that

the people of Ontario -- and especially, in this case, the people of Ottawa -- get the best services in Ottawa.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Last week, I was particularly

pleased to read about the 2001 Lieutenant Governor's Awards for the Arts, which were presented here at Queen's Park. It is my understanding that 18 arts organizations from across Ontario received a

total of $300,000 in recognition of their achievements. It is interesting to see that the former minister of culture across the way is really interested in this particular question.

Minister, could you please tell this House a little more about these awards and how the winners were chosen?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation): I appreciate the member for Scarborough Centre's question. Hal Jackman has always

been a champion of the opportunity for the private sector to give to non-profit arts organizations. Mr Jackman is not only a proponent of that, but is putting his money where his mouth is through

the Jackman Bickell Awards, also known as the Lieutenant Governor's Awards for the Arts. In fact, since 1995, when the awards were born, over $2 million has gone to 80 different arts organizations,

rewarding those that bring in more attendees, more through the gates, more donations from the private sector, those that increase their own revenue.

This year's top prize award winner was the Soulpepper Theatre Company of Toronto. The Guelph Jazz Festival was also recognized. The Burlington Arts Centre and,

of course, the haunt of the member for Nepean-Carleton, the Ottawa International Jazz Festival, were also award winners here. There are many great success stories of accessing new funds and their

own funds from the private sector and from attendance at the gate.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you for that response, Minister. I'm particularly glad to hear that so many arts organizations are able to garner so much

support from their communities. I think that's an extremely important point. I was particularly pleased to note that several of the winning arts organizations are based right here in the cultural

capital of Canada, right here in Toronto.

I wonder if you could provide this House with details on how those organizations are able to meet their goals of greater self-sufficiency, which is something

that our government has been trying to achieve for some time. Are they using better sales techniques through their ticket sales? How are they able to garner greater support from the private

sector?

Hon Mr Hudak: I appreciate the member's question and her interest as a former minister of culture, in fact, beginning this process of asking

for more private sector contributions to the arts.

The member for Etobicoke asks, "Well, how do you do it?" You do it through a lot of hard work, creativity and a lot of energy. It's more than just

serendipity.

Some of the award winners I mentioned: Soulpepper has increased revenue by more than double, over $1 million. The Buddies in Bad Times Theatre's private sector

contributions more than doubled. The Gardiner Museum of Ceramic Art in Toronto more than doubled their revenue.

We want to make sure that the arts community in Toronto and the province of Ontario is strong, vibrant, growing and full of potential.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition which reads as follows.

"To the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas Health Canada approved Visudyne on June 1, 2000, as therapy for the treatment of wet form age-related macular degeneration. However OHIP does not yet

pay for the procedure and it has not been added to the Ontario drug plan formulary;

"Whereas the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have already added Visudyne to their provincial drug

plans;

"Whereas clinical trials have demonstrated that this treatment safely and effectively stabilizes vision loss in 67% of patients and improves visual acuity in

13% of patients;

"Whereas patients requiring therapy using Visudyne face a cost of $1,750 for the drug and $750 for the clinician procedural fees each time therapy is

administered and to complete a full therapy cycle, a patient would be required to pay $15,000 to preserve his or her sight; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health was to make a decision on Visudyne treatment at the end of February 2001;

"Let it be resolved that the Ministry of Health immediately approve and add Visudyne treatments to the Ontario drug plan formulary to assist those suffering

with macular degeneration."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement.

OHIP SERVICES

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

"Petition to the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the Harris government's decision to delist hearing aid evaluation and re-evaluation from OHIP coverage will lead to untreated hearing loss; and

"Whereas these restrictions will cut off access to diagnostic hearing tests, especially in geographic regions of the province already experiencing difficulties

due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

"Whereas OHIP will no longer cover the cost of miscellaneous therapeutic procedures, including physical therapy and therapeutic exercise; and

"Whereas services no longer covered by OHIP may include thermal therapy, ultrasound therapy, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, electrotherapy, magnetotherapy,

transcutaneous nerve therapy stimulation and biofeedback; and

"Whereas one of the few publicly covered alternatives includes hospital outpatient clinics where waiting lists for such services are up to six months long;

and

"Whereas delisting these services will have a detrimental effect on the health of all Ontarians, especially seniors, children, hearing-impaired people and

industrial workers; and

"Whereas the government has already delisted $100 million worth of OHIP services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately restore OHIP coverage for these delisted services."

On behalf of myself and my NDP colleagues, I add my name in support to this petition.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer, also called Our Father, has been used to open the proceedings of municipal chambers and the Ontario Legislative Assembly since the

beginning of Upper Canada in the 18th century;

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

Ontario life;

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

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings, in accordance with its long-standing established custom, and do all

in its power to maintain use of this prayer in municipal chambers in Ontario."

I affix my signature.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I've got a petition here which is supported by Scarborough-Rouge River too.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

reduced costs; and

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

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

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario immediately rescind this forced amalgamation order and return our

local municipal government back to the local citizens and their democratically elected officials in Victoria county and remove the bureaucratic, dictatorial, single-tier governance it has coerced

on all local residents."

I'm going to affix my signature to this, in full agreement with this petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I have a petition here, signed by a number of people up in the Timmins-James Bay area, that reads as

follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas an internal government document indicates the Conservative government is also considering completely cutting all funding for regulated child care and

family resource programs in Ontario;

"Whereas the Conservative government has already cut funding for regulated child care by 15% between 1995 and 1998 and downloaded 20% of the child care and

family resource program budget on to municipalities;

"Whereas further cuts would run counter to the support identified for regulated child care and family resource centres by Fraser Mustard and Margaret

McCain;

"Whereas the Conservative government received $114 million this year for early childhood development and will receive $844 million from the federal government

over the next five years for the same;

"Whereas Ontario is the only province which didn't spend a cent of this year's federal money on regulated child care;

"Whereas other provinces are implementing innovative, affordable, and accessible child care programs such as Quebec's $5-a-day child care program; and

"Whereas the need for affordable, accessible, regulated child care and family resources continues to grow in Ontario;

"Therefore,

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

"We demand the Conservative government guarantee the current child care and family resource budget is secure and will not be cut under this government's

mandate. We demand future federal Early Years funding be invested in an expansion of affordable, regulated child care."

I sign that petition in full agreement.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr Tascona: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer, also called Our Father, has been used to open the proceedings of municipal chambers and the Ontario Legislative Assembly since the

beginning of Upper Canada in the 18th century;

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

Ontario life;

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

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings, in accordance with its long-standing established custom, and do all

in its power to maintain use of this prayer in municipal chambers in Ontario."

I affix my signature.

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

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

"Whereas the London Health Sciences Centre is a world-class academic health sciences centre serving people throughout southwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has forced the London Health Sciences Centre to find $17 million in annual savings by 2005; and

"Whereas the London Health Sciences Centre has agreed to cut 18 programs in order to satisfy directions from the provincial Ministry of Health; and

"Whereas these cuts will put the health of the people of southwestern Ontario, and particularly the children ... at risk; and

"Whereas these cuts will diminish the London Health Sciences Centre's standing as a regional health care resource; and

"Whereas these cuts will worsen the continuing physician shortages in the region;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government take immediate action to ensure

that these important health services are maintained so that the health and safety of people throughout southwestern Ontario are not put at risk."

I too have signed this petition.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES /

CENTRES D'ACCÈS AUX SOINS COMMUNAUTAIRES

Mrs Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier): I have a petition from the constituents of Ottawa-Vanier which reads:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government promised to institute patient-based budgeting for health care services in the 1995 Common Sense Revolution; and

"Whereas community care access centres now face a collective shortfall of $175 million due to a funding freeze by the provincial government;

« Attendu qu'en raison de ce manque à gagner dans leur financement, les CASC ont dû réduire les services de soins à domicile, ce

qui a répercussions sur bon nombre d'Ontariens et d'Ontariennes malades et âgés ;

« Attendu que ces réductions dans les services ont principalement été effectuées dans les services d'auxiliaires familiales, ce

qui oblige » encore une fois « les Ontariens et Ontariennes à recourir à des établissements de soins de longue durée plus coûteux ou à retourner

à l'hôpital,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately institute real patient-based budgeting for health care services, including

home care, so as to ensure that working families in Ontario can access the health care services they need."

It is with pleasure that I write on this petition.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Again I have a petition here from the people in the Timmins-James Bay riding, this time on a different

issue, which reads:

"Whereas in Ontario, adopted adults are denied a right available to all non-adoptees, that is, the unrestricted right to identifying information concerning

their family of origin;

"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN

Convention on the Rights of the Child;

"Whereas these rights are denied to persons affected by the secrecy provisions in the adoption sections of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts of

the province of Ontario;

"Whereas research in other jurisdictions has demonstrated that disclosure does not cause harm, that access to such information is beneficial to adult adoptees,

adoptive parents and birth parents, and that birth parents rarely requested or were promised anonymity;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revision of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to:

"(1) permit adult adoptees unrestricted access to full personal identifying birth information;

"(2) permit birth parents, grandparents and siblings access to the adopted person's amended birth certificate when the adopted person reaches age 18;

"(3) permit adoptive parents unrestricted access to identifying birth information of their minor children;

"(4) allow adopted persons and birth relatives to file a contact veto restricting contact by the searching party; and

"(5) replace mandatory reunion counselling with optional counselling."

I sign that petition and agree fully with it.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer, also called Our Father, has been used to open the proceedings of municipal chambers and the Ontario Legislative Assembly since the

beginning of Upper Canada in the 18th century; and

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

Ontario life; and

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

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings, in accordance with its long-standing established custom, and do all

in its power to maintain use of this prayer in municipal chambers in Ontario."

I affix my signature.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): This is a petition addressed to the provincial Legislature of Ontario, and it's to shut down

puppy mills and stop cruel animal breeding activities by passing MPP Mike Colle's private member's bill, which will be up for debate this Thursday morning. It states as follows:

"Whereas puppy mills and other cruel animal breeding activities are unregulated and unlicensed in the province of Ontario;

"Whereas the Ontario SPCA needs more power to inspect and control animal kennels or breeders;

"Whereas Ontario consumers have no way of knowing if the animals they purchase as pets have been abused;

"Whereas there are no provincial penalties to punish people guilty of abusing animals that are bred and sold to unsuspecting consumers;

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

"That the province of Ontario pass legislation that outlaws puppy mills and other cruel animal breeding activities, and that strengthens the powers of the

Ontario SPCA to establish a provincial registry of kennels and breeders subject to SPCA inspection, and to allow the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to impose fines and jail terms

on those found guilty of perpetrating cruelty to animals for the purpose of selling these animals to an unsuspecting public."

I agree with the petition, I've signed it and I'm now handing it to Andrew, one of our pages.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

CONSERVATION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA CONSERVATION

DE LA MORAINE D'OAK RIDGES

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 7, 2001, on the motion for second reading of Bill 122,

An Act to conserve the Oak Ridges Moraine by providing for the

Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan / Projet de loi 122, Loi visant à conserver la moraine d'Oak Ridges en prévoyant l'établissement du Plan de conservation de la moraine d'Oak

Ridges.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to the order of the House dated December 3, 2001, I am now required to put the question.

Mr Kells has moved second reading of Bill 122.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: You may have some comments and they would be quite welcome outside the chamber at any time. The member for Timmins-James

Bay will bring himself to order.

Mr Kells has moved second reading of Bill 122,

An Act to conserve the Oak Ridges Moraine by providing for the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1543 to 1548.

The Acting Speaker: First let me apologize that the order of the House has to interrupt your conversations.

On November 5, 2001, Mr Kells moved second reading of Bill 122. All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Clark, Brad

Cleary, John C.

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Snobelen, John

Sorbara, Greg

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 94; the nays are 0.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the same order of December 3, 2001, this bill is referred to the standing committee on general government.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I was out of line a few minutes ago. I made a smart-aleck remark, and I shouldn't have. What I should have said was that I

expect proper decorum during votes and so on. I don't know that anybody has ever been ejected during a vote, but if you'd like, make it today.

RESPONSIBLE CHOICES FOR GROWTH

AND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR DES CHOIX RÉFLÉCHIS

FAVORISANT LA CROISSANCE

ET LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 27, 2001, on the motion for second reading of Bill 127,

An Act to implement measures contained in the Budget and to

implement other initiatives of the Government / Projet de loi 127, Loi mettant en oeuvre certaines mesures énoncées dans le budget de 2001 ainsi que d'autres initiatives du

gouvernement.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 28, 2001, I am now required to put the question.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Call in the members; this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1554 to 1559.

The Acting Speaker: On November 21, Mrs Elliott moved second reading of Bill 127. All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be

recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer,