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

November 21, 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-Nov-21 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 21 November 2001 Mercredi 21 novembre 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN

DESIGN AWARD

HEALTH CARE

CHILD CARE

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURTS

SNOWMOBILING

SOUTH ASIAN COMMUNITY

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

GOVERNMENT PROCESS

VISITORS

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ARTHUR WISHART AMENDMENT ACT

(FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

MODIFIANT LA LOI ARTHUR WISHART

SUR LA DIVULGATION RELATIVE

AUX FRANCHISES

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

TEACHER TESTING

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

COMPENSATION FUND

AIR QUALITY

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

COMPENSATION FUND

FRANCHISE BUSINESSES

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

COMPENSATION FUND

EDUCATION FUNDING

SKILLS TRAINING

NORTHERN ONTARIO

NEWS COVERAGE

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

TENANT PROTECTION

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

CHILDREN'S MEDICAL SERVICES

EDUCATION PEACE PLAN

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Wednesday 21 November 2001 Mercredi 21 novembre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): With Bill 130, the Community Care Access Corporations Act, 2001, the immediate impact on Ontario's 43 community care

access centres will be that CCACs will need approval of the minister to: convey or purchase interest in property; enter into or amend any contract longer than one year; incur any financial

liability or obligation longer than one year; make any payment to terminate an employment relationship, except as provided in a contract or collective agreement already in force; appoint any

manager; or amend any bylaw. The approval of the minister may be in advance or retroactive. The minister can attach conditions and restrictions to any approval. The minister can demand documents,

records and/or information on a deadline, and the penalty for not following the above can be a fine of $25,000.

Community care access corporations and the board members and health caregivers who make them work provide vital services to our communities. These individuals

are dedicated to service and work tirelessly to ensure that the ill and frail receive the care they need. They don't deserve to be treated with such disrespect. They don't deserve the implied and

absolutely false accusation that they're not doing their jobs. They don't deserve a government that is more willing to sacrifice quality client care in order to further its political agendas and

reward its friends. Bill 130 should be withdrawn.

ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN

DESIGN AWARD

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I want to congratulate the Harbord Village Residents' Association on winning honourable mention in the

city of Toronto's Architecture and Urban Design Awards in the category "Visions and Master Plans." Their project, College Street Creative Landscape for Making a Living, examines ways to revitalize

the commercial streetscape between Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue by making it more pedestrian-friendly.

I also want to congratulate Brown and Storey Architects, who developed the plan for the residents' association. James Brown and Kim Storey, partners in life as

well as profession, are two extremely talented architects who live in my riding. This is not the first time they've been honoured for their contributions to making Toronto a better city. One of the

jurors, architect Peter Ellis, said of their entry, "Some of the simplest urban designs are often the most effective. The College Street plan would go a long way to restore a pedestrian scale

through properly scaled sidewalks, street furniture and trees, simple ingredients that go a long way to making our cities more livable."

This project illustrates the important role citizens play in making Toronto a better place to live. Once again, my congratulations to everyone involved in this

project.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Last week, I, along with the Minister of Health and more than 250 volunteers, staff and patients of the

Rouge Valley Health System, celebrated the delivery of a new MRI. The addition of a new magnetic resonance imaging device is the latest investment into quality health care in my community and in

fact all of the eastern GTA.

When we were elected in 1995, Scarborough residents did not have local access to an MRI. With this delivery, Scarborough residents have not one, but two MRIs

they can now use.

Successive Liberal and NDP governments failed to provide the residents of my community with this important diagnostic tool. At the same time, the federal

Liberals, with 101 members here in Ontario, continue to slash health care funding to Ontario and the Liberal MPPs opposite do nothing and say nothing.

Last Wednesday, the Minister of Health also rewarded the Rouge Valley Health System with a stand-alone angioplasty service, which will be serving the people of

the eastern GTA by April 2002, the last step before full cardiac services.

This year alone, my community has benefited from the addition of a new breast cancer screening clinic, millions in additional health care funding, funds for

improved medical equipment, the addition of hundreds of new long-term-care beds, the delivery of a new MRI, and a new stand-alone angioplasty clinic.

I want to thank not only the volunteers but also the staff of the Rouge Valley Health System, the nurses, doctors, administrators and all those who helped make

these investments possible by offering a professional, well-managed, first-rate health care experience.

CHILD CARE

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Today I'd like to address the leaked proposal for the Minister of Social Services to cut funding to child

care. The planned cuts of $200 million represents a little less than half the total child care budget. In Ottawa, as in many other locations across the province, the cuts will have a devastating

effect on an already threadbare operation. In the Ottawa area, we currently have thousands of children on waiting lists.

Sonia Smee, a single parent from my riding, put it this way: "I wish the minister's question to his staff was a King Solomon's riddle. If we cut child care

funding by 40%, which portion would you take away?"

Let there be no mistake. This province is already very far behind other jurisdictions in Canada, especially Quebec and British Columbia. This government gladly

took $114 million last year from the federal government as part of the social contract for early childhood development, and not one cent of it has found its way into the system. Yet this government

has room to carry forward a $2.2-billion tax cut.

Monday, the minister stated that this planned cut was "insignificant" and hadn't yet "reached his desk." The truth is, this government has no vision for child

care whatsoever. Child care is desperately underfunded and there is no comprehensive plan in place, nor will there be before the next election.

This government has an embarrassing record of neglect in child care, and we look forward to the opportunity of correcting that after the next election.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURTS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to address the important issue of domestic violence. Every day in Ontario, assault

charges are being filed as a result of domestic disputes. Often, the victim is afraid of reporting the incident and must travel long distances if charges are pursued.

This is why I am pleased to see this government add the town of Cobourg to the list of 55 communities across Ontario which will receive a court specifically

geared toward domestic violence. The new Cobourg court will be part of the domestic violence court program created in 1996 under our government. The program will offer a variety of coordinated

services. Some of these include specialized investigations by the police to obtain evidence, prosecution of repeat offenders by specialized crown attorneys, and support services for victims through

an assistance program for victims and witnesses.

It is indeed extremely important that effective steps are taken to protect these victims, whether it be through the domestic violence court program, the victim

support line, or through legal services. I expect the establishment of local domestic violence courts to further uphold the rights of these victims. My constituents of Northumberland look forward

to the improved court services.

SNOWMOBILING

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): As the first snow falls in many parts of Ontario and many Ontarians and tourists from across the

world are getting ready to enjoy another season of fantastic snowmobiling on Ontario's many varied trails, it is once again time to remind Ontarians of another broken promise by the Harris

government.

During public hearings and debate on Bill 101,

an act dealing with the promotion of snowmobile sustainability and enforcement, the government made a commitment

to Ontario's anglers and hunters that they would receive full exemption under the bill, allowing them to use snowmobiles along traditional use trails without the necessity of licensing.

When it became apparent last month that the government was about to renege on its commitment to the 450,000 licensed hunters and the over two million anglers in

Ontario, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters requested in writing urgent meetings with the ministers of tourism and transportation and the Solicitor General, without success.

The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Tourism stated on a number of occasions that there should be a degree of trust in government and that it would

outline this exemption in regulations. He, on behalf of the government, during various meetings repeated the commitment to provide anglers and hunters across the province with an exemption.

Regulation 185/01 does not include our anglers and hunters.

Tourism and its economic benefits have suffered enough in this province over the past two months. The government must truly do all it can to bolster and boost

tourism and not hurt it any further. We demand that the government rectify the situation immediately. Time is of the essence; winter is on its way.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): So don't tell a lie.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Member for Brampton Centre, I heard that. You're going to have to withdraw that remark.

Mr Spina: I withdraw the statement, Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you very much to the member. Sorry. We are now to members' statements again.

SOUTH ASIAN COMMUNITY

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): It is my pleasure to rise and inform all members and the audience watching at home that

tomorrow morning at 11 am, Bill 98, the South Asian Heritage Act, 2001, will come to the floor of this chamber for debate.

This is no ordinary bill. It is an opportunity for all members of the Ontario Legislature to come together, not as members of political parties but as members of

this great chamber, so steeped in history and pride, to recognize the contributions of Ontario's South Asian community.

This bill is not simply my bill, but is a bill that all members of the Legislature should take pride in as we jointly proclaim May as South Asian Heritage Month

and May 5 as South Asian Arrival Day. As we prepare to debate the bill tomorrow morning, I would like to inform the members of the House that this is the first such bill in Canada. Our actions and

words tomorrow will lay the foundations for annual celebrations across our province for years to come.

From small communities and humble beginnings, Ontario's South Asian community has lived and worked in Ontario since the early part of the 20th century. Tomorrow

morning, as Bill 98 comes to the floor, it would be very fitting for all members of the Legislature to rise and join with me in formally recognizing the contributions of Ontario's South Asian

community.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I rise today to take note, for the public of Ontario, of the utter confusion on the government benches.

We have had pronouncements, starting last spring, with the finance minister talking about private school tax credits as a good idea, and absolute silence from the education minister in doing

anything to defend public education. Latterly, we've had opinions from the health minister, now also running for leader, from the former finance minister and from their various acolytes.

This is an example of how the governing party is tripping over its own ideology and is unfit to govern. As objectionable as it was to see the original position

of putting public money into private schools, it's even more objectionable to see what happens when the ideology starts to unravel.

Would that any of the ministers so named, and the other people involved in this discussion and debate on the other side, would spend one tenth of that time on

public education in the first place, the very job their constituents sent them here to do. They would spend the time on the lack of books that is happening in Wellington and on the large class

sizes that have been made to happen this year in our high schools all around the province because this government couldn't ratchet itself down to do its job. There is the absolute horror of the

special education funding process this government has put in place that has trapped the people in this province away from the services they need. They have put it instead into the requirements of a

centralized government that has no real value on public education and what it accomplishes. There is the variety of useless initiatives this government would impose on schools and teachers and

school boards, none of which are going to help our kids learn.

We wish that this government would put its focus where it belongs, on the needs of our students and not on their ideology, and that it would not put any public

money into private schools.

GOVERNMENT PROCESS

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): Last week, during constituency week, I was given the opportunity to visit close to 10 schools in my riding of

Thornhill. I'm proud to say that I was able to talk with close to 1,000 young Ontario students about the Ontario government and my role as an MPP. I visited with grade 4 and 5 students who were

very excited to learn about the provincial government from someone with hands-on experience, as the subject is introduced in the Ontario curriculum in these grades.

I would like to recognize at this time the great job that the teachers in Thornhill are doing, because I was very impressed with the way they were able to answer

the questions I asked them. I also want to thank the children and teachers of Woodland public school, St Anthony, Toronto Waldorf School, Stornoway public school, Louis-Honoré Fréchette,

Yorkhill public school, St Joseph the Worker, Brownridge public school and Ventura public school for having me as a guest last week.

I look forward to visiting the schools in the future, as I enjoyed speaking with the grades 4 and 5 as they learn about the Ontario curriculum. I certainly hope

to be invited back.

VISITORS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am sure you will want to recognize the 50-plus people from Hamilton East who

have come out, led by Mrs Teresa Agostino, mother of Dominic Agostino.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It's always a pleasure to see Mrs Agostino. I know she watches faithfully, and we're pleased to have her here

today.

It is not a point of order, just like if I announced that my mother- and father-in-law were here it wouldn't be a point of order as well. But we're all, I'm

sure, going to be on our best behaviour with all our families here today.

A point of order, the member for Windsor-St Clair.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I rise today on a point of order pursuant to standing order 13 and want to reference comments made in this

House yesterday by the Solicitor General.

Responding to a question from my colleague from Sudbury, the Solicitor General said, and I quote from Hansard, referencing the police memorial, "This is the

party, the Liberals, that spoke out against the expense -- they didn't want the expense of building a police memorial."

The Solicitor General then went on to say, and again I quote from Hansard, "I believe it was also the Liberal government, when they were in power, that refused

to go to the funeral of a slain" police "officer."

It is my assertion, Mr Speaker, that both statements are factually wrong. The challenge, sir, and this is where I seek your guidance, is how to address a factual

error of this nature. The rules do not allow me to accuse another member of this House of uttering a false or inaccurate statement. The rules do permit a member to rise and correct his or her own

record. But to my knowledge, there is no mechanism available to any member whereby one member can ask that another member be held accountable for statements with respect to either the veracity or

accuracy of statements made in this House.

With respect to the first comments, Mr Speaker, it should be pointed out that not only did the Liberal caucus of the day support the establishment of the police

memorial; we in fact granted unanimous consent to allow the resolution that was presented to this House to be given without notice. We again voted unanimously in favour of that. The two members who

were referenced in the minister's press release were in fact present in the House that day and in fact agreed to the unanimous consent.

It should be further noted that there was an

article in a newspaper two months prior to that that did reference the total amounts to be spent on that memorial

but did not oppose the memorial in any way, shape or form.

With respect to the second comment, Mr Speaker, there is no record that any government in the history of this province has refused, either deliberately or

inadvertently, to attend the funeral of a slain police officer. No one we contacted who has a recollection of those days could recall such a situation.

Further, there is no reference in any media to the refusal of the government of the day to attend such a funeral. In fact, there were a number of funerals for

both slain police officers and others who had died, not necessarily in the line of duty, that were in fact attended not only by members of the government of the day but by members of the opposition

parties of the day.

In your deliberations, Mr Speaker, I would ask you to consider the findings of the public service committee of the British House of Commons resolution of 1995,

that said, and I will keep it brief, "Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister; ministers should be as open as possible with

Parliament, refusing to provide information" -- or accurately disclose such should cause their resignation.

Marleau and Montpetit also referenced the importance of ministers not making comments that are deliberately provocative so as not to upset the order or decorum

of the House.

Interjection.

Mr Duncan: They laugh, but it's a serious matter.

I ask you, sir, to consider these and give us some guidance with how we might be able to, at a minimum, ask the minister if he would retract those comments in

this House today.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member. Standing order 13(

a) does talk about preserving order and decorum. I was not here, but

sometimes when statements like that are made it is difficult for the Speaker of the day to control.

It isn't a point of order. However, having said that, we are all honourable members, and if the Solicitor General would like to withdraw, he certainly has the

opportunity. I see the Solicitor General to comment on that.

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): Mr Speaker, let me say that, with respect to yesterday's answer, it was never my intention to be

partisan. I realize that it has come out as being partisan.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Turnbull: Perhaps you'll want to listen to the answer.

It was certainly my recollection that the police were concerned that the Solicitor General and the Premier of the day did not attend that funeral. I have in

fact contacted, through one of my staff, the person who was the executive director of the OPPA at the time, who expressed his disappointment to the Deputy Solicitor General of the day that the

attendance was not there. Perhaps I inadvertently said that he refused. In that respect I withdraw that, but I know that in fact they did not attend.

With respect to the police memorial, I have in fact the newspaper clipping here in which it says that both MPP Mike Colle and MPP David Caplan were critical of

the amount of expenditures on the police memorial.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): That's not true.

Hon Mr Turnbull: This is in the newspapers. This is reported.

Let me say that I'm pleased that the Liberals are now onside, supportive of the police, but --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Solicitor General.

I thought he was going to do something --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You have the decency to withdraw it today. It's a dirty, cheap shot and you know it.

The Speaker: It makes it very difficult to keep order. I thought the Solicitor General was going to try to help the situation. It does make it

very, very difficult.

I think everybody knows, in circumstances like this with the death of a police officer, there isn't anybody who would not attend. I know there are

circumstances -- that might not be what happened. Regardless of all the parties involved, there isn't anybody who wouldn't have shown respect.

But it does make it difficult to remain and have decorum in here when people make statements like that. I would ask all members to reflect on that and try to

maintain some sort of semblance of order in here.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the 16th report of the standing committee on government

agencies.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ARTHUR WISHART AMENDMENT ACT

(FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

MODIFIANT LA LOI ARTHUR WISHART

SUR LA DIVULGATION RELATIVE

AUX FRANCHISES

Mr Martin moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 138,

An Act to amend the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 / Projet de loi 138, Loi modifiant la Loi Arthur Wishart de 2000 sur la

divulgation relative aux franchises.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): This bill will amend the current legislation to include regulations for fair dealings after the contract is

signed. With the enactment of this bill, a franchisor could no longer refuse renewal of a franchise agreement without six months' written notice, fair compensation and the right of the franchisee

to pursue a similar business in the same location. It would also protect a franchisee from unilateral termination of the contract before the expiry date without cause and proper written notice. The

bill will also set out a fair process for mediation if the two parties cannot come to an agreement on their own.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education, who was here just a moment ago. Here she is.

Minister, you tell us now that you're going to be making further cuts to public education. Representatives of the government are generally now telling us that

we're into an economic downturn, that we're going to have a drop in revenues, and that necessitates further cuts to public education. At the same time, you're telling us that you're going to go

ahead with your private school tax credit. You're going to pour millions of precious public dollars, the few public dollars that we have, into private schools.

Here's what the Toronto Sun had to say about that: "The Tories cannot cut so much as a blackboard eraser in the public system so long as they're paying for

children in private schools." Madam Minister, how can you possibly be planning more cuts to public education at the same time that you're planning to spend millions on private schools?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I'm pleased to see the honourable member is now reading the Toronto Sun.

First of all, our commitments to public education and health care in this province stand, as does our stand to be good fiscal managers of the money the taxpayers give us. We've made a commitment to

balance our budget and we will indeed do that. We've made a commitment to have health and education as our priorities and we will indeed do that.

Mr McGuinty: There has been no evidence over the last six and a half painful years of any commitment on your part supporting a vibrant public

education system. Today you will know that in cabinet you discussed attaching some kinds of strings to the private school tax credit. Strings won't work and you know it. Either you believe in

sending public money to private schools or you don't. Unlike you and Ernie Eves, I don't and I won't. Public money for private schools can't be fixed by way of regulation and it can't be fixed by

attaching some strings. It can only be fixed by repealing the entire mess, as we will.

Madam Minister, will you do what you know is the right thing in your heart of hearts, and repeal the private school tax credit?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'm sorry I missed you sitting at the table at cabinet today, so I'm not quite sure how you would know what did or did not

occur at a cabinet meeting.

First of all, this government has increased funding for public education from $12.9 billion to $13.8 billion above enrolment growth because we know it is a

very important priority. We've also got more of that money in classrooms as opposed to being in administration -- again, a commitment we made, a commitment we delivered on.

On this side of the House, we also respect parental choice. We respect parental choice in the public system, we respect parental choice if they want to

home-school their children and we respect parental choice if they're sending their children to independent schools. That remains the commitment of this government and we will indeed do what we said

we would do.

Mr McGuinty: You can understand if we're finding it difficult to keep track of your commitments. Here's something I'm in full agreement with,

a statement I'll just read back to you: "... extending funding to religious private schools would result in fragmentation of the education system in Ontario and undermine the goal of universal

access to education." That was particularly well said. Do you know who said that? You said that. You were right then and you are wrong today.

Certifying private school teachers won't make this right. Mandating a private school curriculum won't make this right. The only thing that will make this right

is a full, outright and absolute repeal of the private school tax credit.

Madam Minister, why don't you do what you know to be in your heart of hearts and that you committed to earlier on as the right thing to do? Why don't you

repeal the private school tax credit?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We understand that the Liberals say they respect parental choice. We understand that the Liberals say they think parents are

important in the education of their children. But when they actually have to demonstrate it, when they actually have to go out and say, "Yes, parents, we do believe you have some ability to make

decisions in the best interests of your children," they back off, they waffle, they don't support parental choice.

The only thing that is going to undermine public education in this province is the attitude and approach that the honourable members in the Liberal Party take

to reduce standards, to not have higher standards in curriculum, to not have higher standards for teachers, to not have higher standards and help our students meet them. That is what this

government is doing in public education. We will continue to do that, because this is about improved student learning in our public education system. I'm surprised they have so little faith in the

ability of our public education system to meet those goals.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Attorney General, who is just heading to his seat. It is on the Premier's

testimony today, behind closed doors, on the Ipperwash situation. You know that we strongly believe that a public inquiry is the proper approach. The government has refused to agree to that. The

government has said that the civil case will serve many of the same purposes. It's critical that the public have a clear record of what transpires today and in the next few days behind closed

doors. Will you provide, Attorney General, your assurance that the government will agree to make public the transcripts of the Premier's testimony today and the next few days?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): As the member may be aware and should be aware before he poses a

question like this, there is no provision within the rules of civil procedure to allow for those transcripts to be distributed to politicians simply because they have a desire to know certain

information before a trial. In fact, if one considers the rules of civil procedure and considers the freedom of information and privacy legislation in this province, one will very quickly

understand that it wouldn't be possible for the government to distribute that information even if we had the desire to do so, even if we had the desire to interfere with the fair and impartial

judicial system, which we do not.

Mr Phillips: In the debate in the Legislature on May 14th, Attorney General, when we were debating whether or not the Legislature should

approve a public inquiry, you argued strenuously against it. One of the reasons you argued against it was, and I quote here -- you were saying that the transcripts would be made public. You said,

"Although the oral examinations for discovery are conducted behind closed doors, so to speak ... the transcripts from that proceeding from the court file can be and normally are accessible to the

public." That's what you said when you argued against the public inquiry in favour of a civil case.

I say to you again, Minister, will you give your assurance that you will follow through on what you said on May 14th and that the transcripts from the

proceedings today can be and will be made available and accessible to the public?

Hon Mr Young: It's very dangerous for people to dabble at this, as the member opposite is doing. Let's be very clear. Transcripts from

examinations for discovery are generally used, and it is in the normal course that they are used, at trial. Either party can submit to the judge the transcript from an examination for discovery.

They are transcripts of a pre-trial procedure where the parties are being examined. It goes on every day within the province of Ontario. It is good for Ontarians, it's good for all Ontarians,

except when there is a political agenda, as is the case with the member opposite, except when the member opposite is far more interested in advancing his political agenda than he is in getting at

the truth.

I, for one, have great confidence that the courts of this province are a perfect place to get at the truth. I, for one, have great confidence in the judicial

system, and I know the defendants in this lawsuit are looking forward to having their day in court.

Mr Phillips: When we debated in the House whether we should have a public inquiry or not, you very clearly said the transcripts from the

hearings, the discovery, would be made public. The public assumed that those transcripts would be made available as this process went along and we would know what went on behind closed doors. It's

clear to all of us that the appropriate approach must be a public inquiry. Doing this behind closed doors, dragging it out for years, at the expense of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money,

fighting a family of modest means, is totally inappropriate. Attorney General, will you agree today to do the proper thing? Will you agree today to stop proceeding with this civil case and will you

agree to call a full public inquiry into the events around Ipperwash?

Hon Mr Young: The civil trial, the court case that's underway now, which is being overseen by an impartial, independent judge, is the same

court case that is examining the same issues that would be reviewed at any public inquiry. What my friend opposite is suggesting, as best I can understand, is that we suspend that court case. The

trial should never take place, in his opinion. Why? Well, I'm not sure why, but I, for one, look forward to the trial. I know the defendants look forward to the trial. If we were to suspend that

civil proceeding now and call an inquiry, the only thing that would result is that my friends over there would wave a banner and suggest this is a great political victory. But we would be no closer

to the truth; in fact, we'd be further away from it because we would be starting a whole new proceeding afresh, as opposed to simply completing the proceeding that is underway.

ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, your dirty deal to privatize Ontario Power

Generation includes incredible increases in pay for the corporation's executives. You recruited Graham Brown to Ontario Power Generation from the United Kingdom, where he was paid $1.8 million to

leave his job at National Power. At Ontario Power Generation, Mr Brown, as chief operating officer, will receive salaries and bonuses of a million dollars a year. But what is really galling is that

if Ontario Power Generation is not privatized by 2003, he will receive a million dollars just to leave his job, a million dollars to go out the door. Minister, do you approve of these

million-dollar giveaways to the executive officers you've recruited to Ontario Power Generation?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): We've recruited some of the best people from around the world to turn the old

Ontario Hydro around and to put its successor company, Ontario Power Generation, on a firm business foundation. It has done exactly that.

Mr Brown's compensation package and his severance package, if that were to come to be, is consistent with the international community. You will find that

studies were done by Ontario Power Generation before that compensation was set by the board. It was not set by the government. It was set by the board and the board members, and we have great

confidence in that board. They are turning around that corporation. It has produced record profits and dividends for the people of Ontario. It's helping to pay down that massive $38-billion debt

that the NDP and Liberals left us.

Mr Hampton: Maybe you can explain this. When Mr Brown left National Power in the United Kingdom, he was told to get out the door, he was told

to leave, not because he was successful but because the company was not achieving the results that had been set out, that in fact there was a lack of direction in the corporation. Now you recruit

him to Ontario Power Generation, you're going to pay him a million dollars in salaries and bonuses, and if the corporation isn't privatized by 2003, he gets another million dollars for doing

nothing. It's not a severance package. He gets to say, "I want to leave now," and you have to pay him a million dollars. Is this what you call looking after the interests of Ontario taxpayers and

ratepayers?

Hon Mr Wilson: We were very delighted when Mr Brown agreed to accept employment with Ontario Power Generation. His compensation is certainly

in line with anything on a worldwide comparable basis. He is serving the corporation very well, and I, for one, stand behind him and stand behind our board.

I would say that the NDP would have done well to have recruited someone like Mr Brown to help turn around the old Ontario Hydro. They chose not to. They chose

to rack up debts. They chose to destroy our power plants to the point where I had to close 10 nuclear reactors, out of 20, when I came to this office four years ago. They left the corporation in

disgrace. We have nothing to learn from you, Mr Hampton, or your party and the way they dealt with Ontario Hydro in the past.

Mr Hampton: Well, Minister, what we see from reading the Toronto Star and the Toronto Globe and Mail over the last few days is that what you

have been doing at Ontario Power Generation is giving away the assets such that Bay Street advisers are telling people, "Buy shares in British Energy because they've taken the Ontario government

for a ride. They've received assets, paying far-below-value prices."

But I want to get back to Mr Brown. It is a fact, it is recorded in the media in Great Britain, that he was told, "Leave. You are no longer welcome as the

chief executive officer at National Power," and as severance they had to pay him some money. But you've gone out and recruited him for $1 million a year, and he can choose to walk away in 2003 and

you have to pay him $1 million, even if it's by his choice. It's not severance.

So I ask you again, can you tell the ratepayers and the taxpayers of the province how this is a good deal? And are you going to call Ontario Power Generation

on the carpet and ask them why they're giving away $2 million, potentially, to someone who failed at his job in Great Britain?

Hon Mr Wilson: Again the honourable member does not know of what he speaks. The facts that he's presented to this House are not facts at all.

Mr Brown was actively recruited from the National Grid corporation. We're lucky to have him. I stand behind him, and he's turned around this corporation. The NDP's big decision when they were in

office, their multimillion-dollar man that they brought in, was Maurice Strong. His number one priority was to buy rainforest in Central America, not look after the people of Ontario, not turn

Ontario Hydro around but to rack up the debt, rack it up to record levels and buy rainforest in Costa Rica. That's not something Mr Brown's doing and it's not something this government's doing.

There's nothing we can learn from you, Mr Hampton, I assure you. The people of Ontario heard from the NDP, and you left us a disgraceful corporation.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question to the Minister of Health regarding the international medical graduate assessment program.

You've said that this program would recognize the abilities of international graduates who haven't been able to practise --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We've had our fun but the ministers are having difficulty hearing the question. I know it was fun-loving and

everybody was doing it in good humour and that, but we do need to now settle down. Some of the ministers are having trouble hearing the question. If the member could start over, the ministers will

be able to hear. Sorry about that.

Ms Martel: This question is to the Minister of Health and it's regarding the international medical graduate assessment program. You've said

that the program would allow international medical graduates to finally practise in Ontario, and you've also said that underserviced areas would benefit because these physicians would practise on

restricted licenses in our communities.

You've now received a letter from Dr Koka of Sudbury, who himself was an international medical graduate when he came to Sudbury 15 years ago. He says of the

program, "I am totally disappointed to note that:

"

(1) You have chosen only four specialties, and the worst shortage specialty, being psychiatry, is not even included.

"

(2) You've included that physicians need to be in recent active clinical practice, within the last three years.

"

(3) You are excluding people who are trained in the UK, Ireland, South Africa and Australia. These people are very well trained and meet the expectations of

training equivalent to training in Canada.

"

(4) You have added that the LMCC examination,

part 1, be passed as a requirement before physicians can even be considered for the program.

"With all these conditions and with the fact that physicians are required to come and spend a six-month assessment without pay, I have serious doubts that

anyone would be willing to go through this difficult process."

Minister, what do you have to say in response to these serious concerns?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for the question and indeed have discussed these

personally with the physician who has been mentioned. I have indicated to him that he has raised some important issues with respect to the rollout of the foreign medical graduate program.

The fact of the matter is that we want to take this program step by step to make sure it is successful, and so we started with certain specialties and fields,

with the intention of expanding it in the future. When I explained this to the physician in question, based on my understanding of his reaction, he understood my position. He understood that you

had to walk before you could run. We came to an agreement that his aspirations for the program were my aspirations for the program, and we'll get there in due course.

Ms Martel: If I might, I have spoken to Dr Koka within the last 48 hours. He is not reassured by your comments, and only one of your concerns,

of the four that he mentioned, may have been addressed.

The fifth concern, and this is very important to those of us who represent underserviced areas, is the following, and I quote again from his letter, which has

gone to you: "I was under the impression that these physicians would be sponsored by underserviced communities such as Sudbury and other places in Ontario and that, once sponsored, if the selected

physicians went through the training assessment and subsequently were successful, then they would be granted a restricted licence to practise in the communities where they were sponsored. There is

no such requirement under the current program."

Minister, you have a serious problem. Not only do you have a problem that indeed 40 applicants may not apply because of the four restrictions I have already

talked to you about; in fact, even if they do, underserviced areas may not benefit at all because there is no requirement for them to practise on a restricted licence in our communities.

If you want to help underserviced areas, if you want to help international medical graduates practise in Ontario, what will you do to positively respond to the

concerns of Dr Koka?

Hon Mr Clement: I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I can assure this House that indeed underserviced areas and communities can sponsor

physicians under this program. They can make them restricted to those particular communities. That's the whole intention of the program. This is an idea that was recommended by the expert panel

that was struck by my predecessor. The idea is, starting with 40 and hopefully expanding from there, that we can have a maximum six-month expedited process and certification process for those

foreign medical graduates to practise in our underserviced areas. So the honourable member is incorrect when she says that is not a precursor or a precondition of the program. I can assure the

honourable member that that is the case, and that is going to be the great success of the program.

TEACHER TESTING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education again.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. The minister is here. She may have just stepped out for a quick moment.

Mr McGuinty: Thank you, Speaker.

Minister, my question is about the growing rift in your cabinet over your education policies. I'm not talking about your $500-million private school tax credit

-- we know that was very problematic -- and I'm not talking about Elizabeth Witmer's insightful comments about your incessant fighting with teachers. I must say, in passing, we may be getting more

candour and truthfulness from the leadership candidates over the next four or five months regarding Mike Harris's policies than we've had during the past six years.

What I really want to talk about are Tony Clement's latest comments as they appear in the November 16 edition of the Queen's Journal. I want to read from that

article in reference to Minister Clement. It says the following:

"He said teacher testing is an issue he's not completely prepared to support.

"`[Teacher testing] is the most problematic'... said Clement, `if it's a whole lot of effort for a little change, then it may not be worthwhile as an

option.'"

I'm with Tony Clement on this issue. I don't think it's worthwhile. I'm just wondering if you, Madam Minister, are with Tony Clement on this issue.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Actually, Tony Clement and I agree on many, many issues, including teacher

testing, because on this side of the House we believe in accountability in the public education system. We believe in setting standards. We believe in measuring. We believe in student testing to

make sure our students are learning what they need to learn. We believe in a comprehensive teacher testing program to make sure that all of our teachers are as up to date as possible. Good teachers

out there aren't going to notice any change in the rules, because they're already out there doing it. We understand that teachers, just like doctors, nurses, dentists, airline pilots, real estate

agents, insurance agents -- you name the profession or trade --

Interjection: MPPs?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Yes, MPPs. We have recertification every four years, whether we want it or not, and we don't get remediation. So

accountability, performance appraisals, all of those things are not unique to the teaching profession. This government said we would put in place a program that would raise the standards in our

schools. We are indeed delivering on that program. Everyone on this side of the House supports that program.

Mr McGuinty: If the minister is truly interested in government accountability, I would refer her to our democratic charter that we put out

just a couple of weeks ago. That's what government accountability looks like.

In the interim, Madam Minister, I would suggest that you might want to get together with Tony Clement. I would recommend that you leave Ernie Eves out of the

meeting and that you have a discussion about where you're going to go when it comes to teacher recertification. I want to make it clear, I'm with Tony Clement on this. I'm also with Liz Witmer, who

is telling us that what this is really all about is an effort to begin a new fight with teachers.

Madam Minister, why don't you take good advice that's coming from people who are sitting right next to you: Mr Clement and Madam Witmer? Mr Clement says this

is not the right way to go if you want to improve teacher accountability; Madam Witmer is telling us that this is really all about picking another fight with teachers. Why don't you just tell us

that what this is really all about at heart is not improving teaching in Ontario; it's about picking another fight with teachers?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'm glad the honourable member mentioned his democratic charter, which is all about Americanizing our Canadian parliamentary

system. Take a look at the options he put forward.

Anyway, the honourable Liberal leader said that if he were elected, he would require teachers -- require teachers -- to do professional development. He would

require that. That's interesting, because today he says he's against that. Here we go again. His party said they supported the Royal Commission on Learning, which said, "Let's have mandatory

professional development and recertification." Today he is against recertification for teachers.

Why is it OK for our students to be tested, our physicians and nurses and doctors and airline pilots and police and all of those individuals who have to meet

professional development requirements? How come it's OK for them to have to meet those standards and he doesn't think that our teachers are capable of meeting those standards? This side of the

House believes they can, they will, they do that; they go the extra mile for our kids, and our parents would not expect anything less.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

COMPENSATION FUND

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. It relates to the potentially devastating

effect of the recent business failure of Canada 3000 on hundreds of small businesses in this province. I'm referring to the travel agencies and wholesalers registered with the Travel Industry

Council of Ontario who, under

section 13 of the Travel Industry Act, are liable to compensate consumers if end suppliers fail to provide the travel services they contracted for.

In September of last year, TICO pointed out the unfairness of this liability, as these businesses really have no control over the solvency of end suppliers. To

address this concern, TICO proposed that the compensation fund should in fact cover end-supplier failure of airlines and cruise lines.

Minister, could you tell us if you agree with me and many members of this Legislature that that recommendation was in fact fair and reasonable, and can you

tell us whether you're prepared to take their advice and implement this change?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): Many members of the Legislature have asked me this question because there

are many small travel agents across the province who are presently suffering with regard to the failure of Canada 3000. As the member mentioned, last September, and actually during the summer, we

had been talking to TICO about changing the law with regard to how the compensation fund is applied to a claim. Fortunately the Travel Industry Act allows the cabinet of Ontario to make a

regulation to change that relationship so the customer can gain direct access to the compensation fund. I'm happy to report that this morning the cabinet passed a regulation to protect the travel

agents and to allow the consumer direct access to the compensation fund.

Mr Klees: I'm pleased I gave the minister notice that I would be asking this question, which allowed you to take the initiative in

anticipation of the question. In the interest of ensuring a more efficient processing of compensation claims, though, it has been suggested that consumers should be allowed to access the

compensation fund directly in the event of end-supply failure. This change would protect not only consumers; it would also protect the registrants who may otherwise face the threat of bankruptcy or

insolvency associated with the end-supply failure.

Specifically, I'm pleased you've taken the initiative to change the regulation to give access, but will this in fact allow consumers to make direct application

to the fund to streamline that process?

Hon Mr Sterling: There will be a dual responsibility to refund what the consumer has paid for a ticket for Canada 3000 services. The travel

agent will be responsible to pay back to the consumer that portion of the ticket or the tour for which the travel agent received compensation. In other words, if they received $30 on a $300 ticket,

then the travel agent is responsible for that portion. This is the same model as they have in British Columbia. The remaining part, the $270 in my example, would be compensated from the

compensation fund, either directly to the customer or through the travel agent.

AIR QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I had an opportunity earlier this week to hear the

Minister of the Environment denouncing her colleagues for being very unfair to teachers in Ontario and wanting a much more moderate government. But I was reading what the Honourable Tony Clement,

Minister of Health, had to say about coal-fired plants in Ontario. When he launched his campaign in Brampton, your Minister of Health said the following: "Why do we still have smog-producing

coal-fired plants in Ontario and why are raw sewage and chemicals still being dumped into lakes?"

I know you're going to say, "He was Minister of the Environment. Why didn't he fix it up?" But let's put that aside. May I ask you the question the Minister of

Health asked? Why do we still have these dirty coal-fired plants in Ontario and are you going to follow his recommendation and get rid of them?

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): Wait until Friday and find out.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): Maybe the member opposite does have the best response.

In order to address the issue related to the coal-burning plants in Ontario, the member knows that we have taken one very significant step already, and that is

that we will be closing Lakeview as a coal-burning plant in 2005. We have also introduced some very significant standards regarding emissions for the other coal-burning plants as of 2007.

As the member also knows, we presently have an all-party committee taking a look at alternative forms of energy. I understand there was a presentation made to

that committee today, and again that committee has an opportunity to take a look at the feasibility of doing a conversion of those coal-burning plants.

Mr Bradley: I don't think that answer's going to satisfy the Minister of Health of this province; I really don't. I think it was too vague. It

was moving all over the field. I think what he wants to know, I want to know and Jack Gibbons of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance wants to know is -- I know you're converting Lakeview and you're

still not going to put the best possible equipment in there; I know you're still going to allow Atikokan, Thunder Bay, Lambton and Nanticoke to burn coal, Nanticoke being the largest source of

pollution in all of Canada. But I want to ask on behalf of the Honourable Tony Clement, who doesn't have a chance in this House to ask these questions, are you now prepared to convert the

coal-fired plants in Ontario to much cleaner gas and thereby have a major impact on the environment and the health of the people of Ontario? Do you agree with the Minister of Health or do you

disagree with him?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Let me just, in response to the question from the member opposite, respond to Lakeview. As far as Lakeview is concerned,

there's new technology being developed each and every day. I would hope that whoever assumes responsibility for Lakeview will put in the technology that obviously is the best technology and will

improve environmental air emissions the most.

As far as what's being said regarding improving air quality in the province, I would agree that the committee that is presently taking a look at this issue

would carefully examine what can be done in order to ensure that we do have the best air quality in the province.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

COMPENSATION FUND

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Business Services, and it relates as well to the

airline industry and the debacle of Canada 3000. What we'd like to know is, why has the provincial government been able to effect some travel protection for consumers in this whole area while the

federal Grit government has utterly failed to deal with this issue for the last 20 years?

Interjections.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): It may be of some amusement to the members opposite, but some people are

not going to be compensated through our compensation fund because they have paid directly to the airline or have ordered their tickets for Canada 3000 over the Internet.

We have no jurisdiction over airlines. We have written to the Minister of Transport in Ottawa, Mr Collenette. Previous governments have written to Ministers of

Transport --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Sterling: -- in the Mulroney government, in any federal government -- and they have offered no compensation plan for our consumers.

They have jurisdiction in this area. They could provide compensation through a small insurance fund, something similar to what we offer here in Ontario, and I think it's long overdue.

Mr Hastings: For the edification of our Grit friends across the way, they may think this is a pretty funny issue, but I'd like them to answer

why, in the case of one traveller I have, an 80-year-old grandmother who booked on Canada 3000 isn't going to get a penny back under this plan or any other provincial plan, because the federal

Grits have failed utterly to provide significant leadership in this area. What kind of an answer am I going to give her regarding this, Minister?

Furthermore, what kind of significant leadership are you going to provide, working with the provinces, to get the feds to act on this issue, since they seem to

be completely absent-minded with regard to Canada 3000 and the mess they've made of air monopoly?

Hon Mr Sterling: I know the member feels very strongly about this. Unfortunately, I cannot give him a good answer for his constituent. I feel

very sorry for her. I did write to Mr Collenette about this particular problem. I intend to raise it with Mr Collenette at the next opportunity I have. It is time that the federal government took

some action on this particular matter. Some other provinces don't have the kind of protection that we do in the province of Ontario with regard to ordering tickets through Ontario travel agents. In

those other provinces, they could well be served by federal action in this area. They need protection. The federal government should act, and they should act now.

FRANCHISE BUSINESSES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is also for the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. Twenty-three Grand and Toy franchise

owners across Ontario are facing ruin at the hands of a company that just doesn't care. Many of them and their families are here in the House today. They're looking to you for some help. Your

legislation fails to stop Grand and Toy from ripping up contracts and locking the doors on these people. Minister, you have laws to stop big corporations from doing that to their workers. Are you

saying that a Conservative government doesn't want to protect small businesspersons? Minister, you promised to consider changes to the legislation if the facts showed it doesn't protect

franchisees. Well, the facts have spoken: your law doesn't work. I introduced a bill today that will. Will you support it?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): First of all, no one can rip up a contract and avoid the promises and the

conditions of that contract. That's what our laws are about. My understanding is that this matter is before the courts. It is my hope that the Arthur Wishart law will help provide fair dealing as

described in the Arthur Wishart Act. I understand from reading the statement of claim in their lawsuit that in fact they plead the Arthur Wishart Act as part of their statement of claim. It is my

hope that, as a result of this legal case, we could find out how well the Arthur Wishart Act protects franchisees. As I have promised before, if it does not, then we will have to change the

law.

Mr Martin: The courts aren't going to work for these people. How many people are you willing to sacrifice? You said you wanted to protect

franchisees and we took you at your word. I believe that if you really understand what terrible things are happening to these hard-working people and you look at the changes we are calling for in

the act, you will see that you can and should work with the NDP and bring changes in right now, immediately. Minister, the clock is ticking. Will you sit down, at least, and meet with me and the

franchisees from Grand and Toy, hear their case and be open to working with us to bring real protection into our laws?

Hon Mr Sterling: I find it odd that it took a Conservative government after 1995, when there were other franchise laws in this country and on

this continent, to bring in a law to protect franchisees, notwithstanding the fact that of course the NDP government was here from 1990 to 1995.

I feel very sorry for these franchisees. I will do everything in my power to help them. However, if there is a case underway, then as a member of cabinet I

cannot interfere directly in that matter until that particular case has finished and been heard by the courts. That's what our courts are for.

I have not seen the member's bill and therefore I cannot say whether I would support it or not. I will look at it, and I will look at it in a positive sense

and in a constructive way. I am always, and this government is always, looking for ways to have fair dealing between small business and other people who are involved with small business.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. The brand new Consumer Coalition for Access to Audiological

Services came to Queen's Park today. The coalition represents deaf adults, heard-of-hearing seniors and the families of deaf and hard-of-hearing children. They were here to tell you that three

months after you made your cuts to hearing assessments, the results have been disastrous.

Bev Biderman was here. She now has to pay out of her own pocket to maintain the cochlear implant that allows her to hear and speak. She said your government

clearly puts no value on hearing or speech. The parents of two-year-old Harrison Quesnel were here. They have spent $300 on hearing services for their deaf son since the end of August and will have

to spend $500 or $600 per year until their son is 16, just for assessments. That's in addition to what they will spend for hearing aids, ear moulds, batteries and other hearing accessories.

Minister, last night in this place we debated your government's disabilities act. I ask you today, why do you give lip service to a concern for those with

disabilities but deny basic services to the deaf and the hard-of-hearing?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I want to assure this House that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact,

we still have insured services involving audiology, involving hearing tests and involving specialists who have access to OHIP. That has been the case for at least the last 30 years and it will be

the case in the future as well.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I admit you've caught me by surprise. Maybe you're not aware that you made some slight change to your OHIP

schedule for

audiology, today, hot off the presses, in view of the fact you're going to be in court on this matter on Monday. Unfortunately the changes you've made are minimal changes. Of the $7.7 million you

cut in audiology services to children and to seniors, you're maybe restoring $2 million of that. You've done nothing to restore publicly funded hearing evaluations or re-evaluations, nothing for

cochlear implants, nothing for the Bev Bidermans of Ontario.

I suggest to you that the only reason you've made this last-minute change today is because you are going to be in court on Monday. You're being taken to court

by the Ontario Association for the Deaf, the Ontario Cochlear Implant Support Group, the Voice for Hearing Impaired Children, the Canadian Hearing Society, the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association

and a number of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. I think Dr Nedzelski of Sunnybrook hospital sums up the position of all these groups and individuals when he says your cuts are reprehensible

and unfair because people's hearing problems are compounded because of them.

Minister, why would you rather fight the deaf and the hard-of-hearing in court than deal with them fairly now?

Hon Mr Clement: I don't choose to deal with them in that way. I would certainly like to continue whatever dialogue -- it's difficult to have a

dialogue when you are the defendant in a civil lawsuit, so it prevents me from having the discussion I would like to have with them.

The fact of the matter is that in the discussions that have taken place it became clear, as a result of statements by Liberals and by other opposition parties,

that there was some uncertainty. We cleared up the uncertainty and there has been a lot more satisfaction when we did so. I can only reiterate to this House that hearing tests and evaluations and

all of these other aspects of audiology and hearing are still covered under OHIP. They have been covered under OHIP for a number of years and they will continue to be so.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

COMPENSATION FUND

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question is also for the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. This is in regard

to the Canada 3000 airline failure and the potential impact on travel agents in Ontario who in good faith booked passengers on this airline. In answer to the member for Oak Ridges, you told us that

the province is about to change its rules so that passengers are protected by the TICO compensation plan, but without the extreme risk to the agents that is present in the law today. With this

change implemented, agents will want to know if this change will deal with the problems of today. In other words, will the change protect agents who face risks from the Canada 3000 failure or is it

only effective for end-supplier failure in the future?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): The Travel Industry Act allows the cabinet to pass a regulation that is

set six months retrospectively, so basically the regulation will come into effect as of July 1 and therefore will cover the failure of Canada 3000. Also included in the changes was the increase of

a maximum claim by an individual from $3,500 to $5,000. This is more important for those people who had ordered, through their travel agent, a tour package and not just an individual ticket. That

had not been changed for the last 20 years; and it was thought by the cabinet of Ontario that some people would be caught by the maximum of $3,500 being just too low at this time.

Mr Gill: The organization of the TICO fund is still confusing to some. Given our government's opposition to corporate welfare and given our

government's reputation for fiscal responsibility, I know we would not support a bailout of otherwise failing travel agencies. With this in mind, can you explain to this House and my constituents

and a number of concerned travel agents I met last week where the money comes from for the expanded protection in the compensation fund that you've discussed today?

Hon Mr Sterling: I guess we should understand, of course, that this compensation fund actually is funded by the travel agents themselves. For

each $1,000 worth of business, they pay a certain premium on that, as do the wholesalers in the travel industry. There's some $23 million now in the compensation fund. That has been accumulated

over the last 10 years, with some claims on that compensation fund. This is not taxpayers' dollars; this is the travel industry's dollars. It's an insurance fund which was put there to take care of

these kinds of instances.

So that's why the cabinet felt today that it was only fair to those travel agents who had paid into it that when in fact an airline like Canada 3000 went down,

the compensation fund should be up front and paying back. Therefore we are not going to see bankruptcy of a lot of the small travel agencies. I think this is a good day for small business in

Ontario.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, I want to ask you about the conditions of our

schools in the city of Hamilton. The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board has looked at the state of their schools and they've assessed that they need at least $27 million for repairs; $17

million of that is what they classify as urgent, that is, leaky roofs and boiler systems that might not last through the winter. There are many older schools in the older part of the city, inner

city schools, that are affected.

These are the same type of neighbourhoods where your funding formula has forced boards in Hamilton, in St Catharines, in other communities across Ontario, to

shut schools down. And the schools that are remaining open are being punished by the lack of funding that you're giving.

Minister, we have situations in the city of Hamilton today where when it rains, teachers have to move the desks and move the kids because there's raining in

the classroom. That's how bad some of these conditions are. Some of these boilers are not going to last through the winter. Do you believe it is acceptable in Ontario today under your watch for

kids to be sitting in classrooms and when it's raining their desks have to be moved so that they don't get wet?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): As the honourable member knows, one of the reasons we changed how we fund

education is because of the incredible neglect that there had been for school capital, school buildings out there. The funding formula has been in place for about three or four years now. The

problems that we are attempting to address with our partners the school boards have been problems that have been deteriorating for many, many, many years.

That's one of the reasons we did the facilities survey. We went out and asked all of the boards, "What are the problems? What are the concerns that we have in

the capital needs?" We're in the process right now of developing the best way to work with the boards to meet those capital needs across the province. But the responsibility remains, as it always

has, with school boards to make good decisions about how to manage their stock, how to manage those school buildings, how to make the very, very difficult decisions that when populations shift from

one neighbourhood to another neighbourhood, they may well have to build a new school here or close a school there or alter their school buildings. That has always been the responsibility of school

boards and will remain so. But we are working with our partners to try and address the capital needs they have.

Mr Agostino: Just with the Hamilton board, the annual funding for capital projects has declined by $8 million since you took over in 1995. So

when you talk about improving the capital funding of the system itself from the point of view of repairs, their numbers don't show that. Clearly, Minister, your own survey that you made reference

to said, "Through our school facilities survey, we know that there are many schools that are in substandard conditions." That is your own survey; you acknowledged that.

The reality is that strictly in the city of Hamilton, with one board, we need over $10 million immediately to stop the leaky roofs. It is that simple. Some $7

million is needed to hopefully keep the boilers working all winter. You can talk all you want about what you've done and your formula and everything else. The reality is that you have kids today

sitting in classrooms with leaking roofs over their heads. That is not acceptable. How can you justify putting $300 million into private schools in the province of Ontario when you have kids today

in classrooms with leaky roofs and boilers that are not going to work throughout the winter?

Will you commit today to emergency funding for the school board in Hamilton to fix these roofs, fix these boilers, so these kids can at least have decent

conditions and decent standards to learn over the winter months?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, to the honourable member, who I know knows this but likes to put out this information just to confuse people, not

one dollar has gone from the public education system to independent schools. I really think the record should show some accurate facts just once in a while in this House.

Secondly, the funding formula that we brought in, starting in 1998, was brought in to start addressing some of the problems that past governments had

neglected. These problems did not occur overnight. I agree with the honourable member: we have schools in this province that need considerable capital work. Part of that is because they didn't get

the capital work in years past that they should have got, so we're trying to catch up. That is an unfortunate state of affairs. We recognize the problem. We're doing the work to address the

problem, and we will indeed, with our school board partners, address these issues across this province.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, yesterday the Conference Board of

Canada released its 3rd Annual Innovation Report. This study compares Canada with other countries with respect to education, literacy skills, as well as research and development. In many areas, the

report praised our capacity to be innovative. The Conference Board highlighted research and development, as well as the percentage of the population who have engaged in post-secondary education.

However, the study also criticizes Canada's level of skills training, suggesting that in many industries across our country, finding skilled workers is becoming more important and difficult to

industry than securing financing. Minister, what is Ontario doing to ensure that we have the skilled workforce we need to be competitive in a global economy?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): I was at Centennial College

this morning, where they're opening a brand new building, in co-operation with two private sector partners -- $38 million from our government and another $10.5 million from Compaq and others. I

will say that these young people are ready to get the right kind of skills training that we need to have and that the employers want them to have.

As we look at the demographics, the technological changes and attitudes, we have to do our job differently, and we must work with our students. In our high

schools, we have strengthened the career-oriented programs so that the young people who want to go to work directly after graduation will have some experience while they're still in school. Our

private sector partners, the employers who are giving them this opportunity, are extremely important to us.

Ontario Works: so many people who want jobs really do need training, and they are on Ontario Works. We're focusing on giving those opportunities to them. Our

secondary school Job Connect program has a 90% success rate.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you for the answer to the first part of the question, Minister. I'm very confident that with your leadership in that

ministry, you're very much aware of the importance of skills training in our economy. I'm also confident about our partnerships, whether it's Centennial, Durham College or OIT, the recent

commitment you've made there.

But we have to start working together. There has to be a strategy for training programs. This involves working with partnerships, and that includes other

levels of government. As the Conference Board report made very clear, the federal government should and must address this issue. Minister, what can the federal government contribute to

strengthening skills training systems, not just in the province of Ontario but indeed taking the lead in all of Canada?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: One of the most important opportunities we have in Ontario right now is to work with the federal government and the

federal government to work with Ontario to spend over $600 million in training more appropriately. We have been discussing this training agreement with the federal government for more than three

years. Last May, we in fact did accept the offer from the federal government --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Sign the agreement.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The member from Kingston should go to his federal MP and ask him why, when the federal government made the offer to us and

we accepted it, they haven't agreed to sign with us.

This is extremely serious. I'm looking at Mr Sorbara now. Maybe, since he's new, he could take this message: Greg, we have received their offer, we have

accepted it, and they won't sign on with us. It's very important for apprenticeship --

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

New question.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

NEWS COVERAGE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Boy, that one should get an award for not being too brief.

I have a question directly to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. You will know that this Friday marks the last day that MCTV will be producing

local newscasts out of communities like Sault Ste Marie, Timmins and North Bay. All the newscasts now will be put out of Sudbury, which means that all those communities affected are basically going

to get lost in the shuffle. It's yet another example of how services are being drawn out of the larger communities and put into other communities, leaving us high and dry.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Sorry to interrupt. The last question is continuing on. I would point out to all members that the member

for Timmins-James Bay has the floor. Sorry for the interruption. There was some carrying on from the last question. The member may continue.

Mr Bisson: All right. I'll do it again, Speaker, because the minister obviously didn't hear with all the heckling.

I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, as he well knows, that this Friday is the last day that MCTV will be

operating their newsrooms in Sault Ste Marie, Timmins and North Bay. You also know that the CRTC, in the discussions we've had with them, has said that clearly CTV, which runs these stations, is

not living up to the spirit of the law when it comes to shutting down those particular stations. This means we are now going to be in a situation where we're losing again much-needed jobs in those

communities, but more importantly, those communities are going to be losing a great part of their voice when it comes to being able to pull the communities together and being able to

communicate.

Minister, you are our minister at the cabinet table of the province of Ontario. We're asking you a very simple question: are you prepared to go before the CRTC

before Friday and intervene on behalf of northerners, as the representative of Ontario at the Ontario cabinet table?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The member raises the issue of MCTV and the coverage it has across northern

Ontario. He is correct that that decision will affect many people who work for MCTV. But I am told that MCTV will continue with its coverage of the north. There will be reporters in northern

Ontario covering all the events that happen in the north. That will continue.

With respect to the CRTC, that is a federally regulated body. We are there with this MCTV issue.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It's now time for petitions. The member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm glad that your mother-in-law and father-in-law are here today to

watch you in action. You've been doing a very good job.

This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Harris government's rigid education funding formula is forcing neighbourhood school closures and has centralized control for education spending

and decision-making at Queen's Park, and will not allow communities the flexibility to respond to local needs;

"Whereas chronic underfunding and an inflexible funding formula are strangling the system and students are suffering the consequences;

"Whereas there is evidence that large schools do not automatically translate into cost-effectiveness;

"Whereas smaller, neighbourhood schools have lower incidences of negative social behaviour, much greater and more varied student participation and

extracurricular activities, higher attendance rates and lower dropout rates, and foster strong interpersonal relationships; and

"Whereas small neighbourhood schools in local communities, both rural and urban, serve as an important meeting area for neighbourhood organizations which help

bring individuals together and strengthen neighbourhood ties and the current funding formula does not recognize community use of these schools,

"Be it resolved that the Harris government immediately reconfigure their unyielding funding formula to restore flexibility to local school boards and their

communities which will allow neighbourhood schools in our province to remain open."

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

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 also sign this petition.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I have a petition here from several people across Ontario dealing with the Saving for Our Children's

Future Act, 2001, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas post-secondary education is very important to the development of young adults, to the betterment of society and the economic future of our province;

and

"Whereas the continuing challenge and cost of education facing families in Ontario in the 21st century is ever increasing; and

"Whereas the cost of post-secondary education in Ontario requires a combination of government and individual financial support; and

"Whereas the tax credit proposed in Bill 4, Saving for Our Children's Future, 2001, will effectively and beneficially encourage families to save for their

children's education; and

"Whereas the large majority of children and families with a registered education savings plan do not apply for OSAP -- Ontario Student Awards program --

thereby freeing millions of dollars for other OSAP students;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, hereby respectfully petition the Legislature of Ontario to act quickly to pass Bill 4, Saving for Our Children's Future, 2001,

and thereby extend the opportunity of post-secondary education to thousands of Ontario children and students."

I proudly do affix my signature to several of these petitions.

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I petition 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 Ministry of Health; and

"Whereas these cuts will put the health of the people of southwestern Ontario, particularly children and those with transplants, 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, we, the undersigned," over 500 individuals from southwestern Ontario, "petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government take

immediate action to ensure these important health services are maintained so that the health and safety of people" from such places a Ilderton, Sarnia, St Thomas and London "are not put at

risk."

I'm in full support of the petition and have affixed my signature hereto.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm very pleased once again to read a petition on behalf of my constituents in Durham.

"Whereas we, the residents of 145 Liberty Street South in Bowmanville, wish to continue to rent our apartments and are not interested in purchasing condominium

units; and

"Whereas we, the residents of 145 Liberty Street South in Bowmanville, have invested considerable amounts of money in decorating, upgrading their apartments;

and

"Whereas we, the residents of 145 Liberty Street South in Bowmanville, were of the understanding that this was a rental property, not a condominium;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to review this matter and request the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

or any other relevant ministry investigate these concerns to ensure that the residents of 145 Liberty Street South in Bowmanville can continue to rent their apartments."

I'm pleased to support this, as well as constituents like Wilma Paul and Carl Raby.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

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

"Listen: Our Hearing is Important!

"Whereas services delisted by the Harris government now exceed $100 million in total; and

"Whereas Ontarians depend on audiologists for the provision of qualified hearing assessments and hearing aid prescriptions; and

"Whereas the new Harris government policy will virtually eliminate access to publicly funded audiology assessments across vast regions of Ontario; and

"Whereas this new Harris government policy is virtually impossible to implement in underserviced areas across Ontario; and

"Whereas this policy will lengthen waiting lists for patients" and others "and therefore have a detrimental effect on the health of these Ontarians;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to permanently fund

audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

This petition is right on and I agree with it. I have signed my signature to it.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have hundreds of names here on a petition, which reads:

"To the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the Harris government is planning to take funds that our public schools desperately need and funnel them to private schools through tax credits;

and

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

"Whereas this initiative is in effect a voucher system and is the beginning of the end of quality public education in Ontario,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call on all members of the Legislature to fight and defeat this attack on the choice parents most want: stability, co-operation

and respect in clean, safe public schools."

I will affix my signature because I agree with this petition.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

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

"Whereas the Criminal Code of Canada considers animal cruelty to be a property offence; and

"Whereas those who commit crimes against animals currently face light sentences upon conviction; and

"Whereas those who operate puppy mills should, upon conviction, face sentences that are appropriate for the torture and inhumane treatment they have inflicted

on puppies under their so-called care;

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

"That the Ontario provincial government petition the federal government to move forward with amendments to the cruelty of animal provisions in the Criminal

Code as soon as possible."

I am pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas services delisted by the Harris government now exceed $100 million in total; and

"Whereas Ontarians depend on audiologists for the provision of qualified hearing assessments and hearing aid prescriptions; and

"Whereas the new Harris government policy will virtually eliminate access to publicly funded audiology assessments across vast regions of Ontario; and

"Whereas this new Harris government policy is virtually impossible to implement in underserviced areas across Ontario; and

"Whereas this policy will lengthen waiting lists for patients and therefore have a detrimental effect on the health of these Ontarians;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to permanently fund

audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

I also add my signature.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have more signatures on a petition which reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"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 permit adult adoptees

unrestricted access to full personal identifying birth information; permit birth parents, grandparents and siblings access to the adopted person's amended birth certificate when the adopted person

reaches age 18; permit adoptive parents unrestricted access to identifying birth information of their minor children; allow adopted persons and birth relatives to file a contact veto restricting

contact by the searching party; replace mandatory reunion counselling with optional counselling."

I will affix my signature because I support this petition.

CHILDREN'S MEDICAL SERVICES

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

"Whereas the recent events at the London Health Sciences Centre, where 18 programs have been lost due to funding shortages, and in particular, the Children's

Hospital of Western Ontario, cause us to be concerned that we may lose medical and surgical subspeciality pediatric services for ourselves and our children;

"Whereas southwestern Ontario is a vital region of the province of Ontario that requires urgent access to pediatric subspeciality services and to travel to

other children's health facilities in Ontario would result in serious personal hardship and risk to our children; further, that families would not be eligible for travel grants similar to those

provided in northern communities;

"Whereas we have greatly benefited from the expertise in pediatric care provided by Children's Hospital of Western Ontario over the years and we appreciate

that we may not be apprised of all the reasons for these physician losses; however, our children deserve to continue to receive the pediatric subspecialty care from the London Health Sciences

Centre and Children's Hospital of Western Ontario that our region has depended on for decades;

"Whereas the loss of these services will result in great hardship to the families and seriously endanger the health of our children, we look to you as leaders

to address this issue immediately and thoroughly. These times of great uncertainty about children's access to health care is a significant stress to ourselves and our families;

"Therefore, we the undersigned petition the Legislature of Ontario to demand that our government respond immediately to restore these critical services to the

citizens of southwestern Ontario."

This petition is signed by a number of residents of Charing Cross, Stoney Point and Chatham, and I too sign this petition.

EDUCATION PEACE PLAN

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): This is in fact a very old petition, many of which were returned to me recently. It's a petition to the

Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Ontario students are experiencing a disruptive learning environment and currently do not have access to a full range of extracurricular

activities;

"Whereas extracurricular activities are an essential part of a quality, well rounded education for our students;

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty has put forth the Students First Education Peace Plan as a positive, viable option in restoring goodwill and extracurricular

activities for our students;

"Whereas the Ontario Liberal plan is a reasonable compromise creating benefits for all partners in Ontario's education system, particularly students,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario government to immediately adopt Dalton McGuinty's Students First Education Peace Plan to restore goodwill, quality

education and extracurricular activities in our schools."

These residents of Don Valley East certainly know the benefit of a well rounded education. I support this and I have signed this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and

notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 125,

An Act to improve the identification, removal and prevention of barriers faced by persons with

disabilities and to make related amendments to other Acts, when Bill 125 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage

of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be ordered referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs; and

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

h) shall be permitted; and

That, the committee shall be authorized to conduct public hearings in Ottawa on Friday, November 30, in Windsor on Monday, December 3, in Toronto on Tuesday,

December 4, in Toronto on Wednesday, December 5, in Thunder Bay on Thursday, December 6, and in Sudbury on Friday, December 7; and

That, the committee meet on Tuesday, December 11, 2001, for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

That, when meeting in Toronto, the standing committee on finance and economic affairs not meet during routine proceedings;

That, the committee be authorized to meet on December 11, 2001, until completion of clause-by-clause consideration.

That, pursuant to standing order 75(c), the Chair of the standing committee shall establish the deadline for the tabling of amendments or for filing them with

the clerk of the committee;

That, at 4 pm on the day of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, those amendments which have not been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the

Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any

amendments thereto;

Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant

to standing order 127(a); and

That, the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the

completion of clause-by-clause consideration, and not later than December 12, 2001.

In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be

deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report

forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading; and

That, the order for the third reading may immediately be called; and

That, when the order for third reading is called, one hour shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, to be divided equally among all recognized

parties, and at the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

and

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

h) shall be permitted; and

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Jackson has moved government notice of motion 93. Debate.

Hon Mr Jackson: As you know, we are nearing completion of our second reading date for the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, Bill 125. This has

been an historic exchange of views debating proposed legislation which is unique in all of Canada, a bill that would go further than any other in our nation in furthering the cause of persons with

disabilities in our province. It is time to move on. The disability community has asked for this legislation. The 1.6 million persons in this province with disabilities are looking to their

government to back up its words with actions and we are positioned to do just that.

We have an opportunity within our grasp to bring into law one of the most comprehensive steps forward for persons with disabilities that has ever been

implemented in our nation -- an Ontario law, made-in-Ontario legislation designed for Ontarians, produced by Ontarians, that will illustrate once more why we live in one of the greatest

jurisdictions on earth. It is perhaps fitting that this was the province that brought in the first Human Rights Code in North America. It's perhaps why it's fitting that we're the province to bring

in Canada's first disabilities legislation.

It is our government's goal to ensure that all Ontarians, regardless of their birthplace, their gender, their disability, their faith, their race, can

participate and enjoy the rich experience that this province has to offer. We want Ontarians to feel a part of the community, to have a sense of pride and connection and strength, to be able to

fully participate in the life of their community.

Bill 125 has not been produced without careful consideration. It is the result of careful consultation and thoughtful involvement by disabled persons all

across this province. It is their dialogue, it is their suggestions that have found their way into this important legislation. It has been considered very carefully by this government -- it was

pored over and thoroughly examined -- and we are still receiving input from many of the organizations and associations that deliver services directly to persons with disabilities in this province.

This process, right from day one, has included input from persons with disabilities and from those who are charged in our society with looking after their needs and speaking up on their best

interests and their welfare. Bill 125 does not just talk about persons with disabilities; it includes them as active participants like no other legislation that we can find. We want them to be

inclusive in this legislation and not be exclusive of the legislation, which is what has happened in other jurisdictions around the world.

It is my firm belief that any policy or law will work much better when the very people it affects are directly involved and are working with it on a daily

basis. Persons with disabilities understand the barriers that they are struggling with and confront on a daily basis. Their knowledge and their experience is the single most important contribution

to our understanding of these necessary reforms. They become the province of Ontario's disability lens and they become the agents for change, helping to set the guidelines, the mandatory terms of

Sadly, some opposition members would like this government to back off, to put this legislation on the back burner --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Jackson: -- to hold another year of consultations and go well into the next year or even beyond. The Liberals, it must be noted, are

the very ones who introduced a resolution in 1998 through their member for Windsor-St Clair, demanding that the ODA be completed this year. I would say to the people of Ontario, I have yet to see

what the Liberal Party is prepared to do, what they are prepared to commit to, what they are prepared to invest in, what legislation they are prepared to draft. We have received nothing from the

Liberal Party except their constant complaining and their negativity.

But there have been some members of their own party who have been put on the record and made comments. During debate in this House, for example, we heard from

their critic, the member for Prince Edward-Hastings, that this bill should be gutted, that it should be torn down and ripped up. He actually ripped it up in the House. The member for

Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, in making his reference to persons with disabilities, says "I don't care what it costs, we should just spend all the money necessary." Have we heard once from

the Liberal Party how they would finance the reforms? I heard the member for St Catharines reference the other day that this will amount to downloading and therefore the province should pay for all

these costs. If that's the official position of the Liberal Party, that they are prepared to commit significant dollars, then they should come forward and say so. But we have not received a single

commitment.

They say they'd like the Americans with Disabilities Act model, but clearly the members in the Liberal Party have not read the ADA, nor are they familiar with

the fact that all buildings in the United States of three floors or less, or 3,000 square feet per floor, are exempt in this legislation. The amount of litigation that's forced through five

different government agencies has embroiled what started out as good legislation into a litigious nightmare. Perhaps the opposition parties, led by lawyers, find that to be a perfectly sensible

world that the disabilities community would be forced to negotiate through, but frankly, this government sees it entirely differently, and we are responding in the fashion in which the disability

community has guided us.

We would like to see the opposition stop pointing fingers and come up with their concrete alternative and their proposal. Clearly, we have from the leader of

the Liberal Party his commitment to Americanize our democratic process and change the electoral process, but he can't find five minutes to cobble together some recommendations on what his party's

position in support for the disabilities community is. He's spent a lot of time studying the American models on electoral reform, but he has spent precious little time at all that we can see

putting his mind around what he and his party would do for persons with disabilities.

I say to the members opposite, do the right thing. Give persons with disabilities the opportunity for full citizenship that they deserve. Give your support to

Bill 125 and do your part, even at the amending stages in committee and public hearings, to help make Ontario a leader in Canada.

Dalton McGuinty said in October 2000 that his party had "one hell of an interest in making sure Ontarians with disabilities have every opportunity." If that in

fact is the case, I'd like to know what it is. I've asked the critics, his own caucus members who participated in the public hearings the Liberal Party conducted, and we still cannot get from them

what their policy would be in this province.

This government will hold further public hearings and take submissions, but we are asking the House to pass Bill 125 before the end of this year. Let's be very

clear: consultations with the disabilities community and its advocates have been going on for years. On the one hand, this government is criticized for taking too long to introduce an Ontarians

with Disabilities Act and, on the other, for trying to push it through too quickly.

I want to remind the members that if one were to go to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee Web site, it still calls upon the government to complete

this bill immediately. It even suggests that they're counting down the number of days: "Finally, there are now only four days until Friday, November 23, the deadline which the Ontario Legislature

sets for a strong and effective ODA to be passed into law. It seems inevitable that the government will break its commitment to meet that deadline." This government will extend that three weeks and

hold even more consultations, extending that date past November 23 so we will have this completed by mid-December.

Let's examine, for example, the lead-up to Bill 125, when we talked about this consultation process and the work that's been done to date. A discussion paper

was released on July 13, 1998. More than 4,000 copies were circulated to individuals and organizations, with submissions invited by September 4 that year. Those papers were available in large

print, Braille, computer disc and audiotape. In August 1998, the Minister of Culture and Recreation, Isabel Bassett, and her parliamentary assistant, Derwyn Shea, met with representatives of

disabilities organizations: business, the transportation sector, the building industry, education and training, health care, municipalities and employee labour groups. Those meetings took place in

the GTA, Sudbury, Hamilton, London, Peterborough, Ottawa, Windsor and Thunder Bay. Some 249 groups and individuals were consulted and 265 submissions were received.

In March 2000, the Liberals themselves, despite no attempts --

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As the minister has reminded us, this is a very important motion. Would

you check whether or not there is a quorum present to hear the minister's comments in this Legislature?

The Acting Speaker: The second part of your

preamble is a point of order.

The Chair requests that you check to see if there is a quorum present.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): Quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: Quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the minister.

Hon Mr Jackson: In March 2000, the Liberals themselves, despite no attempt to introduce an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during their five

years in office, and copying the New Democrats, held consultations of their own in 15 communities, resulting in a report released on November 23 of that year. In the fall of 1999 and into 2000, the

then minister, Helen Johns, held meetings with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, the Canadian Hearing Society, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the Ontario March of

Dimes, Easter Seals, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Track 3 Ski Association, the YMCA in London, the Peterborough and District Association for Community Living and the Learning

Disabilities Association of Ottawa-Carleton. That's just the short list.

Since my appointment as Minister of Citizenship in February of this year, I have continued the comprehensive efforts of my predecessors and have met with more

than 100 groups and individuals. Among the cities I have visited are Windsor, Mississauga, London, Orillia, Sarnia, Owen Sound, Hamilton, Niagara Falls, Ottawa, Thunder Bay, Peterborough, Sudbury,

Barrie, and the list goes on. This government has consulted and sought input and advice from thousands of persons with disabilities and their advocates across our province. Our record on seeking

input from those persons affected by this legislation has been thorough, detailed, substantial and all-encompassing. Those consultations have, most importantly, shown us that the government

other words, everyone agrees that action is needed, but nowhere in that action is it stated in actual terms. In other words, we can tell the private sector, hospitals and others that they must be

more accessible, but we do not have a standard, code or guidelines which the province has endorsed, approved or made into a law to impose.

It's time to stop talking about what might be done and get down to doing what must be done and, more importantly still, will be done. Bill 125 would give us

the means to begin the journey of achieving full citizenship for persons with disabilities in our province and yet there is concern that the Liberal Party will not support this legislation. Their

critic, the member for Prince Edward-Hastings, told the media yesterday that it is their party's intention to vote against this bill regardless and, incredibly, that everyone should go back to

square one. They want to start all over again.

I'm at a loss as to understand this strategy. The Liberals yell for an Ontarians with Disabilities Act but they don't enact or offer up one of their own. Then,

when the most comprehensive Ontarians with Disabilities Act ever formulated in Canada is tabled, they simply oppose it without participating in the clause-by-clause process. This government, after

years of investigation, is extending the consultation period by a further three weeks and the opposition parties still criticize these efforts.

Bill 125 has the support of persons with disabilities, but we are ready to talk more and consult further about the amendments they are seeking. We are prepared

to work with them. The reality is, though, that we have talked and listened for years and now we are determined to act. What the disabilities community has said very clearly is that they want an

ODA implemented. They want the work begun to stop the creation of any more barriers in our province, and they want the process of a managed plan to remove existing barriers begun. That is what

they've asked for.

What individuals in Ontario are looking for is not some privilege, but the simple right to enjoy the same kind of life that others in our society enjoy in

terms of access to housing and transportation, particularly in terms of access to good jobs that might be available within our society, certainly within our province, and in terms of access to

education and physical access to buildings and to our society as a whole.

It is important that we in this House understand the importance of this legislation and its timeliness, to get on with the business of ensuring Ontario is

fulfilling its promise to ensure full citizenship for persons with disabilities. As minister, I look forward to the input over the course of the next few weeks at our public meetings of the

standing committee on finance and to working on the clause-by-clause, by bringing in this legislation in the year 2001, an important year in the life of Ontarians with disabilities.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I am going to join this debate today and I'm going to say to the honourable member clearly,

upfront, that I'm going to vote against this time allocation measure and that I'm going to vote against this bill in its current form. The reason I'm going to do that is that I believe -- for

anyone who's watching this issue and this debate at home -- this is a really good case study of what this government is all about. This action by this government is as duplicitous as anything I

have yet seen brought forward by this government. If the United States had Slick Willy, we have been subjected, and the disabled community in particular has been subjected, to Cam the Scam, because

that's what this is about. On this --

Hon Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think that was ruled yesterday in debate as unparliamentary and inappropriate.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale to bring his debate within the confines of the bill.

Mr Smitherman: I will withdraw -- perhaps unparliamentary. Whether that was inappropriate, I leave others to judge.

On this issue, the government has attempted to send a message that this is a meaningful and significant bill, but in point of fact --

The Acting Speaker: I just want to be very clear that you can't leave it to others to judge; it's me.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: I'm not interested in debate.

Mr Smitherman: I took no issue with your words, Mr Speaker, only with those of the member opposite.

On this matter, the government has attempted to create an impression that is in fact not true. This party, the Liberal Party, has been very clear on this. I'm

proud of the work of my colleague the member for Elgin-Middlesex-London. I'm proud of the work of my leader. I'm proud of the work of my colleague from Prince Edward county. What I'm not proud of

is the way the government has used words like "consult" to create the artificial impression that the disabled community, in its breadth and depth, is in support of this legislation. I offer no

stronger piece of evidence in support of what I just said than that I would prefer to stand with people of quality like David Lepofsky.

In his remarks, the minister accused the Liberal Party of going back to square one. I think it's kind of noteworthy that Square One is a massive commercial

complex, privately owned and operated, in Mississauga that is not subjected to this bill whatsoever. To the member whose own legislation looked like the $5,000 parking spot enforcement price tag,

Square One doesn't count.

The member opposite used the Human Rights Code as the standard, but he, in his past life, voted against amendments to the Human Rights Code designed to include

people in our society. His record on this matter is very clear, and it is that the words he uses unfortunately are not backed up in terms of the quantity and breadth of this legislation.

I'm happy, in the time I have, to make clear that one of the first experiences I had in this Legislative Assembly, in this very building, this most important,

significant public building of the government of Ontario, was to hire a blind woman to work for me. I had to move her to my community office because I could better support her needs there than I

could in this building.

Do the elevators in this building have Braille? No, they don't. Were there supports available to me as a member of the Legislative Assembly to allow me to

better equip an office so that a blind woman could work for me? No, there were none. That is a shameful set of circumstances here in Ontario. What we have from the government is a minister who

stands in his place and talks a lot and uses the words "consultation," "input" and "dialogue," all these mushy words, which means he may hear the sound but he is not listening to the purpose and

intent behind the sound.

Liberals have stood in their place and been consistent. We want a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and this bill is not it. For all the

savvy presentations of the minister opposite, this bill is neither strong nor effective in terms of setting a place at the table for the 1.5 million Ontarians who find themselves disabled.

The Minister of Health was here earlier, and we know that his unwillingness to fund Visudyne treatments for people with macular degeneration is forcing new

people on to the rolls of the disabled every single day. That's the record of this government.

No more false charades, no more game playing, no more raising of false hopes for those people who have, in their lives, experienced so much discrimination, so

many barriers and so many challenges to opportunity. I stand today to say that I will vote against this time allocation. I urge that minister to find his courage within that government to bring

forward a bill that is both strong and effective, because this one is not.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The Chair recognizes the Minister of --

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

Universities, Mr Speaker. I was kind of expecting my colleague in the NDP to stand up, so I'm caught a little bit by surprise. I was looking for a letter; maybe it will come across my desk as I

begin to speak.

It is my pleasure to speak today to this legislation and to programs for disabled people in Ontario. I speak as a mother of a disabled son, and I also speak on

behalf of my constituents who have come into my office and told me just how they feel about any pending programs and legislation. We in London like to think we work together, and over a very long

period of time in this Legislative Assembly, we have gradually been able to work with our constituents to make things better.

I find one of my letters here.

I've obviously met with the disabled community and worked with them for many years. I've worked in the field myself. I don't think there is a simple solution

to all the challenges, but I do know that what disabled people want is, first of all, the people of Ontario and around the world to understand their needs, to be as helpful and caring