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

November 27, 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-27 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 27 November 2001 Mardi 27 novembre 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

NIAGARA HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

DURHAM ACCESS TO CARE

NURSES

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

HOSPITALS IN PEEL

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

PLANT CLOSURES

WEARING OF RIBBONS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

UNIVERSITY OF ONTARIO INSTITUTE

OF TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR L'INSTITUT UNIVERSITAIRE

DE TECHNOLOGIE DE L'ONTARIO

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

UNIVERSITY OF ONTARIO

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

HEALTH CARE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MINOR HOCKEY

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD

OF ONTARIO

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

SCHOOLTEACHERS

SCHOOL BUSES

WATER QUALITY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

SPECIAL EDUCATION

PETITIONS

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

INSURANCE CLAIMS

TENANT PROTECTION

EDUCATION FUNDING

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

LORD'S PRAYER

MEDICAL SCHOOL TUITION

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

CORMORANTS

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

OHIP SERVICES

OPPOSITION DAY

WALKERTON INQUIRY REPORT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STUDENT PROTECTION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA

PROTECTION DES ÉLÈVES

Tuesday 27 November 2001 Mardi 27 novembre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): Last night in Toronto hundreds of tenants crammed into the city council chamber to take

part in a forum that

focused on the city's affordable housing crisis. The forum was told that the rental housing crisis is killing elderly people on fixed incomes. Some seniors are paying 90% or more of their income on

rent, including a 77-year-old woman with a monthly income of $1,178 who pays $1,032 on rent. That leaves her with $146 for all of her other monthly living expenses.

The plight of tenants has never been worse, with some tenants on fixed incomes facing double-digit rent increases. Across the city, 73,000 households are facing

increases above the approved provincial guidelines for rent increases this year. This is effectively resulting in economic eviction for people of low and modest incomes. Evictions in Toronto are on

the rise, averaging 60,000 evictions a year. The current vacancy rate in Toronto is 0.9%, which is far below the 3% vacancy required to have a competitive market.

These numbers come days before the federal and provincial housing ministers meet in Quebec City to try to agree on a national program to help solve the country's

desperate shortage of affordable housing. The housing ministers will meet on Friday to try to come to an agreement on the proposed federal program that offers $680 million over four years to help

create affordable housing. This money is supposed to be matched by an equal amount from the provinces. It is time for both levels of government to come to an agreement to help address the issue of

affordable housing, which is the most serious problem facing tenants today.

NIAGARA HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It was a very exciting day for the St Michael Mustangs on Thursday, November 15, as they defeated the Lakeport

Lakers 21-7 in St Catharines for the division II high school football championship. This was St Michael's first year back in division II football after playing as a division I team in the past.

Celebrations were held on both the Lakeport field and back at home field. A special tribute was held for the late wife of Mustang's coach Tim Rogers, who died

after a long and courageous battle with cancer.

Other proud coaches of the St Mike's Mustangs include Dom Scozzafava and Carl Cook.

Although they didn't win their championship game of the 2001 zone 3 junior championships, the St Michael's Mustangs junior girls' basketball team should be

applauded for their great efforts.

Also, the Westlane Spartans volleyball team tried their best but lost in the SOSSA championship finals. They too should be applauded for their hard work and

efforts.

Finally, I'd also like to make mention of my alma mater, the A.N. Myer Marauders junior boys' volleyball team, coached by Joanne Thomson, whose mom happens to be

my godmother. They recently won the southern Ontario championship. Great job, Myer.

As a part-time basketball coach myself, and a huge Niagara Falls high school sports fan, I'm proud of all of the local school teams who get out there and give it

their all.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Frustration. Frustration in Sault Ste Marie, Rankin, Garden River, Echo Bay, St Joseph Island,

Desbarats and across the north shore of Lake Huron. For decades now, the people east of Sault Ste Marie on Highway 17 have been awaiting the completion of four-laning between the city of Sault Ste

Marie and the four lanes that presently exist at Echo Bay.

Last week, my leader, Dalton McGuinty, and I heard first-hand of the frustration from area residents. A provincial facilitator has been unable to resolve all the

issues surrounding this project. The federal government, in an unprecedented and meaningful fashion, has put $700,000 on the table to make this provincial project work.

In my representations to the Minister of Transportation, he has given me an undertaking for completion of the four-laning by the year 2008. That is clearly

unacceptable. It is clearly too long. People and families continue to be put at risk at this bottleneck. Tragedies continue on this dangerous and unsafe

section of the TransCanada Highway. The

minister must appoint a mutually acceptable arbitrator to resolve all outstanding issues with the city of Sault Ste Marie and the Batchewana First Nation at Rankin. The funding and construction of

this important

section of crown highway must be fast-tracked and the people of Algoma, Sault Ste Marie and indeed all motorists must be finally assured of the swift completion of this highway.

DURHAM ACCESS TO CARE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to advise my colleagues of the important work of Durham Access to Care in my riding of

Durham and, indeed, the entire region of Durham. Statistics tell us that over 1,000 residents of Durham received services during the month of September, but I prefer to think of these individuals,

the people behind the numbers. These are the children, men, women and youth who recover at home after hospital visits. They are senior citizens who need support that makes home living more

comfortable for them. This important agency helps people recover and maintain their health close to their family, their community and friends.

I'm pleased to share with the House some of the important milestones that Durham Access to Care has achieved. These include: a five-star rating for

hospital-community care access relations in the OHA hospital report card -- only two five-star ratings were awarded in all of Ontario; successful accreditation through the Canadian Council of

Health Services; and completion of a community health forum recently with over 150 participants.

Through a question to the House, I will bring to the attention of the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care some of the specific concerns MPPs have discussed in

a recent meeting with Durham Access to Care. We look to this outstanding agency for experience and input on important priorities of care in the home. I'd like to congratulate the dedicated staff of

Durham Access to Care, CEO Janet Harris, board volunteer president Bill Botshka, as well as past chair Barb Hiemstra. I thank those volunteer board members and the agency for the success and

service they provide to our community.

NURSES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): A shocking study was released yesterday by the Canadian Institute for Health Information. The report

shows that nurses in Canada are 50% more likely than the average employee to miss work because of injury or illness. Shocking as this finding is, the fact that stress, burnout and physical injury

are affecting nurses should come as no surprise, certainly not here in Ontario.

Ontario nurses have been pleading with this Tory government to understand the reality of their working conditions. Just look at where nurses work: many of them

work in acute-care hospitals -- at least, they do when they are not being laid off because of budget cuts. It was just over five years ago that 10,000 nurses were fired. Many of them left nursing

or left the province, and now we face a nursing shortage.

Yet despite the need for nurses, hospitals have no idea of what their budgets will be and are still not hiring full-time nursing staff. Some 60% of nurses are

hired on a part-time or casual basis. They have no job security, yet they are being called in for far more overtime than anyone should be expected to do.

Nurses work in long-term-care facilities, but there are so few nurses hired there, because of budget restraints, that a nursing home can actually be a physically

dangerous place for both the vulnerable elderly person and for the nurse.

In home care, nurses are being asked to take on more and more patients, without the time to provide adequate care.

In 1998-99, $39 million was spent in Ontario on sick time for nurses; $17 million went to overtime; $19 million was spent on replacement for nurses off sick. It

would be far better for patients and for nurses to spend those millions on better working conditions for Ontario's nurses.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I draw the attention of government members to the fact that a quick read of today's Hamilton Spectator

provides a pretty good snapshot of what exactly is happening in communities as a result of your giving away billions of dollars to the very wealthy and to corporations in this province at the

expense of transfer payments and other public services.

First of all, the front page talks about the mayor vowing food checks, where they're going to jump on the issue of restaurant inspections in Hamilton, much like

we saw happen here in Toronto. But let's keep in mind that this is a result of the downloading that this government placed on municipal councils like Hamilton, where they've been forced to cut in

places that don't obviously generate headlines right away but down the road affect the quality of life of citizens. I can't think of a better example than something like this.

Next, "Public Schools Need $20 Million in Repairs." You've offered us $6.8 million. We need $20 million just to keep the existing schools in the kind of shape

that most of us would accept for our children to be in. But you haven't given them the money because you've given it all away in tax cuts to the corporations and the rich.

Lastly, Ken Mitchell talks about the "Erosion of the City's Tax Base Must Be Stemmed." We're already boxed in, in terms of our inability to be competitive, based

on our tax rate, and yet how do we cover off public services that you don't provide the funding for any more?

HOSPITALS IN PEEL

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Brampton got good news last week. Brampton is one of Canada's fastest-growing cities, and

Peel region is growing by 20,000 people each year. We all know that the hospitals of Peel are straining to carry this growing and aging population. That is why we were all so thrilled last year

when Minister Witmer announced a new hospital in my riding at Bramalea Road and Bovaird Drive.

So we had the issue of the old hospital site. It is old and worn out, but it's an important part of the economy of downtown Brampton, and one hospital will not

be enough for such a large city.

I was very pleased last week when we got word that the old hospital, Peel Memorial on Lynch Street, will be staying open. Our two hospitals will serve the needs

of my community into the next decade. As part of the William Osler group, they will take cases from all over the western GTA. In his announcement, Mr Clement said, "The Ministry of Health has

recognized Brampton is big enough, and mature enough, for two hospital sites." The minister has shown a strong commitment to proceed with the new hospital and has indicated that he would like to

see a shovel in the ground by spring or summer next year. We're looking forward to that continued support and commitment.

This is a proud day for Brampton. I congratulate the government for planning ahead, for delivering on its promises and for ensuring access to hospital care for

Bramptonians today and in the future.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): "I don't know how anyone can tell you they're going to do tax cuts next year, looking at a $4-billion or

$5-billion deficit.

"I'd like to say that but I don't know how I can say it and then turn around and look you in the eye and say I won't have a deficit. In my mind, you can't square

that circle."

You must be wondering who made that statement. Was it Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty, Liberal finance critic Gerry Phillips or any member of the Liberal caucus?

Was it one of dozens of economists who have said that for years? It could have been, but it wasn't. That bold statement came from none other than Labour Minister Chris Stockwell.

Too bad Stockwell couldn't have convinced his ideological revolutionaries in the Harris government of this wisdom before they borrowed billions of dollars to pay

for the tax cuts in the first term, tax cuts that added $22 billion to the provincial debt under the Harris regime.

Stockwell must be embarrassed to see his boss, Mike Harris, trying to convince a skeptical public that he wants more money from the federal government for health

care. A sharp guy like Stockwell understands that Harris wants the money to pay for his ill-timed and ill-advised tax cuts, not for health care. Stockwell, like Ontario Liberals, understands that

his government has a choice: either health care or tax cuts. Come on, Chris, tell Mike and the gang that he has all the money he needs for health care and to balance the budget, if only he will

abandon his tax gifts to the rich and the powerful.

PLANT CLOSURES

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): Last week I met with three members of Stratford city council, along with union representatives and employees

from Canadian Fabricated Products in Stratford. Two months ago their US parent company, Johnson Controls, announced they would be closing their Stratford plant this December, putting 400 people out

of work. Westcast Industries also announced recently that they are closing their Stratford plant. In that case, most of the employees will be offered jobs in other Westcast plants in southwestern

Ontario.

In places like Stratford, these plant closings have a major impact on workers, families, the local economy, social services and the community in general. Such

closings raise the important question of what the role of government should be in these types of situations. These closings also demonstrate the importance of all three levels of government

providing an economic climate for businesses to grow, prosper and compete.

This government believes that strengthening Ontario's economic fundamentals continues to be the best strategy. This includes sound fiscal management, keeping the

province's expenditures under control, cutting taxes and removing barriers to investment in the private sector.

The closings of Canadian Fabricated Products and Westcast Industries have hit Stratford hard and I want to thank my colleagues the Minister of Economic

Development and Trade and the Minister of Labour for their assistance. I encourage all three levels of government to work together to create the economic conditions so that communities like

Stratford can retain their existing businesses and attract new ones.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to seek unanimous consent for all members who have

the white ribbon campaign flag on today to be able to wear it. This is a campaign led by men to seek a way to eliminate violence against women. It's an important campaign run internationally and I

would be grateful if all members would agree to this.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard a no.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Oh, one member didn't hear it. Would you say it again for the member, please, on a point of order? The member again on unanimous

consent?

Mr Gravelle: I'd like to seek unanimous consent to wear the white ribbon emblematic of the white ribbon campaign, a campaign led by men to

eliminate violence against women.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed. I thank the members.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 90,

An Act to promote the reduction, reuse and recycling of waste / Projet de loi 90, Loi visant à promouvoir la réduction, la réutilisation

et le recyclage des déchets.

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

Pursuant to standing order 72(b), the bill is therefore ordered for second reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

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

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 87,

An Act to regulate food quality and safety and to make complementary amendments and repeals to other Acts / Projet de loi 87, Loi visant à

réglementer la qualité et la salubrité des aliments, à apporter des modifications complémentaires à d'autres lois et à en abroger d'autres.

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

Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 15, 2001, the bill is ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

UNIVERSITY OF ONTARIO INSTITUTE

OF TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR L'INSTITUT UNIVERSITAIRE

DE TECHNOLOGIE DE L'ONTARIO

Mrs Cunningham moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 139,

An Act to establish the University of Ontario Institute of Technology / Projet de loi 139, Loi visant à constituer l'Institut universitaire de

technologie de l'Ontario.

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

The minister for a short statement?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): I'll do it later.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

UNIVERSITY OF ONTARIO

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

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

great strides in improving the post-secondary sector for the people of Ontario.

For example, increasing choices and opportunities for students at all levels of study is a priority for our government. To date, we have increased the capacity

of our colleges and universities to address the expected enrolment growth. Through SuperBuild, we have launched the largest expansion of Ontario colleges and universities in more than 30 years. The

government is spending over $1 billion to create new spaces for future generations. In addition, to ensure that there will be faculty and resources to support these new students, we are

increasing operating grants by $293 million over three years.

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

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

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

chosen program's tuition for the next four years.

The list goes on, and today we take another step.

At the opening of this legislative session, Premier Harris reiterated our government's focus on strengthening the economy. One of our government's priorities

is to address skills shortages and ensure that Ontario boasts the skilled workforce necessary to attract investment and jobs. Ontario's workforce is facing long-term challenges, with more people

retiring from work than the number of new workers starting their careers. As Ontario's workforce retires in record numbers, the availability of new recruits with the skills to enter the workforce

will be increasingly in demand. These new young employees will need a wider range of post-secondary education choices, and in some cases a new kind of educational choice, to acquire the skills they

need.

Durham region is one of the fastest-growing areas in Ontario. To support this growth and plan for the future, the people of Durham have been working to expand

the region's economic base and aggressively court knowledge-based industries. For some time now, the people of Durham have been telling our government that a university built on the strong

foundation of Durham College is necessary to support their goals. A university would serve as an anchor institution to provide a skilled and trained workforce, along with the necessary research and

know-how needed by the Durham region to secure its economic future.

Our government has also heard from other stakeholders that the time is right for more choice and flexibility in post-secondary education. The Ontario Jobs and

Investment Board report recommended that post-secondary institutions should be stronger partners in regional economic development.

In addition, students, parents and employers have asked the Ontario government to allow greater flexibility in the educational opportunities available to

students so that they can acquire the marketable skills they need to prosper in today's world. They asked for greater collaboration between our post-secondary institutions.

As chair of the Council of Ministers of Education for Canada, I am proud to tell this House that all the ministers from the provinces and territories in Canada

agree. We will pursue the transferability of post-secondary credits between colleges and universities and between provinces and territories, given the rapidly transforming landscape of higher

learning and the growing importance of prior-learning recognition.

There are several young people from Durham College here in the House. I want them to know that we have listened to what they have told us and we are

responding.

Here to celebrate today's introduction of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology Act we have Darla Price, who is president of the student

association, and Kerri-Ann Keohagan, a vice-president of university students.

This is all about students and post-secondary education, and we are very pleased today to welcome president Gary Polonsky, governor Dave Broadbent and governor

Garry Cubitt as well.

In October we proclaimed the Post-Secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000, as part of our strategy to make the post-secondary system more

responsive to the changing needs of students and working adults. Under this legislation we are accepting applications for new applied degree programs at the Ontario colleges of applied arts and

technology and for out-of-province and private institutions to provide degree programs or operate as a university in Ontario.

In the May budget, my colleague the Minister of Finance announced that the government would invest $60 million to establish the University of Ontario Institute

of Technology, to be located on the campus of Durham College. Today I was pleased to introduce legislation,

An Act to establish the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2001.

The institute, better known as OIT, would be an innovative university where students would have the choice of earning degrees in programs that mix practical

and theoretical knowledge and skills geared to needs of the local workplace. If established by this Legislature, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology would offer a wide range of

opportunities to help students complete their degree. In short, the goal here is to provide one-stop shopping for students looking for a mix of academic and hands-on experience.

OIT would focus on degree programs designed to meet current and future employment and economic development priorities, including applied health science,

applied science, advanced manufacturing, policing and community safety, applied art, nuclear technology and safety, business and information technology, and scientific and technological teacher

education. Mr Speaker, with the introduction of

An Act to establish the Ontario Institute of Technology, 2001, we are addressing the need for workers who will have a higher level of skill and

hands-on experience.

Let me assure you and the students of Ontario that our government will ensure that any programs offered by OIT will be of the highest quality. The proposed

degree programs would first be assessed by the Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board against strict criteria to ensure that they meet or exceed our standards for university

education.

Overall, our government is meeting the commitment to allow greater flexibility in the educational opportunities available to students. We have created the

framework for more flexibility and opportunities for learning and for greater collaboration between our post-secondary institutions here in Ontario and throughout Canada.

If passed by this House,

An Act to establish the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2001, would offer students more opportunities and a full range

of choices to acquire the skills they need to succeed.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Responses?

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): After six years of the largest cutbacks in post-secondary education in Ontario's history, over

60% increase in tuition and students sleeping in motels and on friends' couches because there aren't enough residences built, this government today announces the University of Ontario Institute of

Technology.

This is what parents, students, faculty and presidents are telling us --

Interjection.

Mrs Bountrogianni: I'm just relaying the message from the voters. I think you should be interested.

Why is this institute jumping the queue? Other universities and colleges have applied to the quality assurance board and have been waiting patiently, have

drawn up plans, it has cost them money -- these are places in your ridings, gentlemen and ladies across the way -- yet they are not anywhere near being announced in the Legislature.

I'm happy to hear that it will in fact go in front of the quality assurance board. I'm assuming it will go through the quality assurance board with the

appropriate amount of time and attention to detail to ensure that this indeed will be a quality institution, that it won't be swept through the legislation in the next day in your fervour to get it

all done before you prorogue the Legislature and go on to your leadership campaign. I'm assuming that's what's going to happen.

Interjection.

Mrs Bountrogianni: "Years," the minister says. Do you hear that, everybody? That's good to hear.

The second thing that I'm hearing from the stakeholders out there is the name: Ontario University Institute of Technology. "That is a very misleading name," is

what I'm hearing from the faculty out in the other universities and colleges. In this digital world when people are doing searches for their children and for themselves to look for institutes

across the world, when you cue in "University of Technology," you'll have a very misleading picture. You'll have one institute. That's false advertising, it's confusion, and it contradicts Portals

and Pathways, which says one-stop shopping: make it clear for the students.

The other thing I'm hearing is that there is no commitment from the government that this $60 million will be over and above the operating grants to the

existing institutes.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's not even operating; it's capital.

Mrs Bountrogianni: Whatever. The $60 million is not over and above the other institutes. Your own Portals and Pathways -- speaking of capital,

your own committee says $1.2 billion is necessary. You've only given $140 million. Thank you for reminding me.

Where are you going to get the professors for this institute? You have not hired any. They're retiring. We will have a shortfall of 12,500 professors by the

end of the decade. You have not given them money to hire new ones. You can't hire one overnight, Minister.

The Price Waterhouse study -- which, by the way, was not made public -- showed that enrolments will be a lot higher than your predictions. You buried that

report. I demand on behalf of the students out there that you make that report public. You have based your funding formula, intellectually vacant as that funding formula is, on numbers that are

inaccurate. They're significantly below the students actually enrolled, significantly below. Please show us.

Trent University -- and the member from Trent should listen to this -- has asked for a faculty of education for years. Why are you giving it to this institute

when an existing university wants one and you're not giving one to Trent University?

Queen's University wrote to Minister Runciman about the same thing. They have a bachelor of education in technology; it's under capacity. They can handle more

students. Instead, you're opening a bachelor of education in technology here. I think I know why, and I think Mr Runciman should take note, and Mr Eves should take note as to why Queen's was

ignored.

The Ontario College of Art has a technology niche, and they are also worried about you taking away this niche. They're not worried about competition, Minister;

they're worried about unfair competition. If you want to fund this institute, fine, but don't underfund the other institutes.

As far as residences, where are these students going to live? Have you thought about that? They are presently in motels, hotels and on friends' couches.

It's no wonder that today's release of OCUFA's poll shows that 70% of London constituents -- your riding, Minister -- say that your government has failed the

students of this province, your government has mishandled post-secondary education, your government has no plans, and if there was an election tomorrow, they would be voting for the Liberal Party

because we care about our students and we care about the future of this province.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I just want to say to the minister that I really don't think it's a bad idea. I don't. I think it's a

good idea, in fact, to introduce such a measure. And do you know what? I don't even think it's such a bad idea to have it in Durham, because I think Mr Flaherty likes it. Clearly he's a big

supporter of the idea, because he's flowing the money, and when Flaherty likes it, money flows, right?

Similarly, he loves the private schools, and so he said, "I'm sending over $500 million of our public dollars to fund private schools," and you can rest

assured the Minister of Finance will flow the money. No matter what, the money will flow. So it's a good idea.

I know the Minister of Finance is running your ministry by remote control too, and I'm happy to hear that the money will flow. But here's the problem,

Minister: you are introducing a very good idea at the wrong time, again and again. You are sacrificing the rest of the system because Minister Flaherty says, "I want a university in my area," and

he gets one. But the entire system that this minister is presiding over is falling apart. They've got no money. Presidents of colleges and universities are saying, "Our system is falling apart."

I've got to tell you they are saying it privately; they are not saying it publicly. I'm saying to the presidents, have the guts to tell her, the minister, and to tell this government what you tell

us privately: that the college and university sector is floundering.

The minister doesn't want to listen to it because, you see, she's so proud of all of the investments she is making in the university and college sector that

she nonchalantly introduces this idea and tells us how great she is and how great this government is and all the money that's flowing from this government to that sector. The presidents are telling

us, Minister, and you know -- that's what's sad: you know what they're telling us privately that they can't tell you privately, or the public -- that we are in trouble. Tuition fees have

skyrocketed under you people. Tuition fees have gone up 60%. They can't bear the burden of that debt load. The minister is happy to say, "It hasn't prevented students from going to university." Of

course not, because the majority know that you need a university and college education, and they will sustain the debt no matter what. The minister is proud and happy to say that it hasn't

prevented them from going to university. We know that, but the debt burden is intolerable. Buildings are decrepit and are falling apart, and the money isn't flowing. Then madame la ministre says,

"But we capped tuition fees at 2%," as if to say that for the poor students who have no basis of earning a living, 2% is not a big issue. Oh, yes, we've increased tuition fees by 60% and we've now

capped tuition by 2%.

The presidents of the colleges are saying, "We cannot allow more students in our system, because we can't afford it. We don't get the money commensurate with

the numbers of students who are coming into our system. We can't do it." They're telling me privately that they are going to incur a deficit next year. The colleges are saying -- Minister, you're

not listening.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Ask me why not.

Mr Marchese: But I'm telling you -- pay attention to me. College presidents are saying there will be a deficit coming. They won't know how to

pay that problem. They're saying, "If the government doesn't give us money, we're going to have to increase tuition fees," beyond this paltry 2% that these students have got to pay, because they

can't keep up. They can't keep up with the cost of allowing these students to come in, because you are not giving them the money. Collectively, colleges and universities have gotten $2 billion less

than ever before. They need money to provide programs for these students, and this government doesn't give it away -- $5 billion they're going to cut. Where do you think that money is going to come

from? When Flaherty says, "We're going to have to cut $5 billion more," it's going to come out of the university sector, out of the college sector.

I'm saying to you, Minister, give this $60 million in capital back to the colleges, give it to the universities, which are starving for money. Give it to them,

because this money is needed preciously by them.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent in the face of a new assessment by a member

of the executive council that if the government proceeds with more tax cuts, we could get a deficit not of $5 billion, as has been predicted, but as high as $6 billion or $7 billion. Therefore, I

seek unanimous consent to allow the finance minister to bring forward a revised economic statement.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. This morning the Premier threatened Ontario's

seniors when he threatened to walk away from their home care and drug programs. He said none of these are mandated by the Canada Health Act, so he might just up and walk away from these programs.

Your government has already thrown home care into chaos. We know you've committed yourself to removing some seniors from the drug plan. Now you're talking about abandoning these two programs in

their entirety.

Minister, will you take this opportunity to calm our parents and our grandparents by unequivocally denouncing the Premier's reckless threat to their home care,

to their health care?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the honourable member knows, the context of the discussion was the fact that

federal health spending, when you look at it from a five-year period, a 10-year period, or whatever period you want to look at, has gone down, down, down. Ever since Jean Chrétien has been

elected, the percentage of federal spending is lower than it was in 1993. Since 1994-95 we've increased our spending in the province to $23.7 billion, an increase of over 35%, and yet the federal

Liberal government has increased their revenue by over $8 billion but their health and social service transfers have increased by a paltry $400 million. We spend in Ontario, as a provincial

government, over $750 a second on health care. Ottawa contributes just $107 in the same time period. It's clear the federal government is not living up to its responsibilities. The honourable

member should be ashamed to be part of the same party.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, let me tell you that you and your government have no moral authority whatsoever when it comes to making your case

before the federal government.

Here are the facts, Minister: just last year you signed a five-year deal that's going to give Ontario $8 billion more over the course of the next four years.

If it was such a bad deal, why did you sign it? Of the $1.2 billion in new money invested in Ontario health care this year, $1.1 billion came from the federal government. The third matter Ontarians

should know is that now that you're telling Ontarians there's no more provincial money for health care, you found $2.2 billion in provincial money for corporate tax cuts. We know where you stand

when it comes to your commitment to health care for Ontarians.

I'm asking you, Minister, in the light of all that, why don't you agree now that you're going to put health care first and that you're going to cancel that

corporate tax cut?

Hon Mr Clement: Let me first correct the record. The Premier of this province did not sign any deal with Jean Chrétien. The Premier of

this province said at the time -- I've got the news release indicating that it falls short of the needs and the expectations of Ontarians. He's been a fighter for health care for this province. He

has been fighting the federal government, which cut down on the social service transfers and the health care transfers. He has been fighting Jean Chrétien.

Where has Dalton McGuinty been when we've been fighting for health care? Nowhere. He has not only opposed our position when we're fighting for health care, he

has opposed every single tax cut we proposed in Ontario. That's not leadership; that's a disgrace.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, listen, I'll make you an offer. You and I and the Premier will go to Ottawa and we'll ask the federal government to

give us more money for health care, and in return you and I are going to make a solemn commitment. We're not going to put money into corporate tax cuts, we're not going to put money into private

school tax credits, and we're going to stop spending hundreds of millions of dollars on partisan political advertising. That's my offer to you.

Hon Mr Clement: Here's the record, Mr Speaker: his federal Liberal cousins promised money for pharmacare. They didn't deliver. His federal

Liberal brothers and sisters promised money for home care. They didn't deliver. His federal Liberal cousins say they're for health care. They don't deliver. If he wants to be associated with the

federal Liberals, he can go right ahead. We're going to fight for the people of Ontario, and we're proud of it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Members for Windsor West and Windsor-St Clair, please come to order. I think the minister was done. I didn't mean

to interrupt him.

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Health in his capacity as Acting Premier. US economists are

telling us today that the US has officially been in a recession for some months now. Of course this is big news here in Ontario because we understand that our economy is so closely linked to the US

economy, with 95% of our exports being US-bound.

Your government is telling us that the financial picture here in Ontario is not that rosy either. Our revenues are shrinking and we're looking at up to a

$5-billion deficit.

In these circumstances, Minister, and that is, the case of a US-led recession, the fact that we're looking at up to a $5-billion deficit which is going to

necessitate deep and severe cuts, can you name one economist -- I just want one -- who supports your government's spending $2.2 billion on a corporate tax cut?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I don't have to rely on that. I can rely on the statistics of the last few years of

a Mike Harris government, where we have cut $6 billion of income taxes and all sorts of taxes and there has been a $14-billion increase in provincial revenue. Why is that the case? I'll remind the

honourable member. We have more jobs in this province, we have more economic activity in this province, we have more economic opportunity in this province because of our policies of tax cuts

creating jobs, of spending within our means, of not trying to be all things to all people. That is the economic record. Those statistics speak louder than words. We are proud of our economic

record. We're proud of the over 800,000 jobs that this economy has produced with the Mike Harris policies. We have noted with a certain amount of entertainment that finally the federal Liberals are

touting their tax cuts. They are saying tax cuts are important. The only party in the western hemisphere that doesn't believe in tax cuts creating jobs is the opposition provincial Liberals. They

should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr McGuinty: Here are a couple of statistics you might want to keep in mind with respect to your tax cut policies. Since the last budget,

Ontario has lost 30,000 jobs. We've had the slowest rate of growth in the country. Your predilection for this corporate tax cut has nothing to do with economic policy and everything to do with

ideology.

Do you know what I think you should do? I think you should pay some attention to your leadership colleague Chris Stockwell, who said, "I don't know how anyone

can tell you they're going to do tax cuts next year, looking at a $4-billion or $5-billion deficit." I think Mr Stockwell makes perfect sense when it comes to this particular issue and I'd urge you

as a colleague to consider that.

Of course, he's not the only one. I hope you've been keeping an eye on some of the commentary in Ontario newspapers. The Brantford Expositor: "Tax Cuts Need to

be Rethought"; the Niagara Falls Review: "Ontario Tories must reconsider their planned $2.2-billion corporate tax cut"; the Sarnia Observer: "Province Should Reconsider Tax Cuts."

Minister, why don't you admit this has nothing to do with economic policy, it has nothing to do with doing the right thing for Ontario families and it has

everything to do with neo-conservative ideology?

Hon Mr Clement: Now I've heard everything. The honourable member started off the question by quoting economists. Then he went to editorial

writers. Perhaps the next person will be Jean Chrétien. He's going downhill all the way with his quotations.

I prefer to rely on the testimonials of the 800,000 men and women in Ontario who have a job, who have a chance at economic activity, a chance to pay the rent,

a chance to pay the mortgage. Those are the people we listen to on this side of the House because the record speaks for itself. They're the people who have been the direct beneficiaries of tax

cuts, because tax cuts create more economic activity, and more economic activity creates jobs. I know the honourable member has voted against every single tax cut that we have proposed in six and a

half years. The honourable member belies his concern by his voting record, by not caring about competitiveness, by not caring about productivity. But we on this side of the House listened to the

800,000 individuals who want a better life in Ontario. We're with them.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I'd ask you to pay a little bit of attention to the 30,000 Ontarians who have lost their jobs during the course of the

past year, since your government tabled its last budget. I want to draw your attention to a very important report that was released recently by the city of Ottawa. They had some work done with

respect to consulting the international high-tech community. Of course that's part of the knowledge economy, and those industries are going to drive growth in the new economy. They asked executives

in the international high-tech sector, "What is it that you look for before you decide to come and invest in an Ontario community?" Do you know the number one thing they're looking for, the key

desired attribute? It was a skilled workforce. Out of 20 parameters, tax rates came in ninth. Ahead of tax rates were -- and these are high-tech executives -- clean air, safe drinking water,

investment in post-secondary institutions, leadership in research. Those are the kinds of things that are going to make Ontario truly competitive.

So I'm asking you, Minister, why are you hell-bent on proceeding with $2.2 billion in corporate tax cuts, when it's going to compromise what really makes

Ontario competitive?

Hon Mr Clement: Of course those issues are important, but that's within the context of the fact that we have instituted 166 tax cuts. If

Dalton McGuinty's Liberals were in power, none of those tax cuts would have occurred and perhaps something else would be higher on the agenda of the high-tech firms in his riding.

We know for a fact that the record of Dalton McGuinty has been clear and clear and clear again. As far back as 1998, he is quoted as saying, "I am not the tax

cut guy." He's true about that: he is not the tax cut guy. He has never voted for a tax cut, he is not in favour of tax cuts, he does not believe in our competitiveness, in our productivity, in the

job growth that we have created in our province through the blood, sweat and tears of hard decisions that had to be made, creating economic opportunity for every Ontarian, regardless of station in

life.

That has been our record. We will not shy away from that record, because the record speaks for itself in terms of results, jobs, opportunity and a better

economic future for every man, woman and child in this province. That's a record that we are very proud of.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, the failure of the Liberals in Ottawa to follow

through on their commitments for a national pharmacare drug plan and a national home care plan is a problem across Canada. But I have to ask you, is that any excuse to go out there and threaten the

frail elderly across Ontario and those who rely upon the Ontario drug plan? That's what you're doing.

So I'm going to ask you for a commitment today. I'm going to ask you to commit that home care will not be cut any further, that the Ontario drug plan will not

be cut any further and that you are prepared to support now and for the term of your government the principles of the Canada Health Act.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It is absolutely accurate to say that we are trying to save the Canada Health Act

from the depredations of the federal Liberals. To have the honourable member and his caucus on our side would certainly be helpful.

We have been adding to the health care budget in record amounts: $6 billion out of $6.8 billion that we have added to spending in this province has gone

directly to health care over the six and a half years of our power. I would say that that will continue to be a top priority for this government. Year in, year out, the amount of money we spend on

health care increases.

During the 1997 election campaign, the federal Liberals promised in their red book, "All Canadians have access to medically necessary drugs within the public

health ... system." Nothing has happened; complete and utter silence on a red book promise going back to 1997. That's the record of the federal Liberals.

not getting it from the provincial Liberals. Perhaps the honourable member can oblige us on his side.

Mr Hampton: Minister, the Liberals in Ottawa have been breaking their commitments on medicare for years; that's an old story. But the issue in

Ontario is this: at a time when home care needs new investments and the Ontario drug plan needs new investments, your government strategy is another $2.4 billion in corporate tax cuts, a

$300-million tax break for private schools and another $1-billion tax cut for high-income earners; $3.7 billion in tax cuts. Even the Minister of Labour, who sits next to you, says that it makes no

sense, when health care needs those injections, to be cutting $3.7 billion from corporate and income taxes.

So I'm going to ask you again: commit to the Canada Health Act and stop your reckless tax cuts, which make no sense even to your cabinet colleague, and put the

money into the health care system.

Hon Mr Clement: Again, for the record, obviously our increases to home care have been part of the public record: 72% over five and a half

years. The drug benefit plan has increased every year. Hospital expenditures have increased to $8.6 billion, which is a record amount. Our record is there, but there is a growing consensus within

and without this province that the real culprits are the federal Liberals. I cite three sources:

Dave MacKinnon, president of the Ontario Hospital Association: "Federal funding has not kept pace with need.... Federal funding of public health care spending

in Canada was 15.8% in 1992-93 and is now only 12.3%." In their submission to the Romanow commission, the Canadian Health Coalition and the Canadian Labour Congress say, "The need for the federal

government to fully assume its responsibilities in respect to health, particularly by restoring and increasing federal transfers" is their position. My favourite is Sharon Sholzberg-Gray, the wife

of the Liberal Deputy Prime Minister, who called upon the federal government to increase their contribution to federal-provincial transfers on health care by at least $2 billion. I agree with the

wife of the Deputy Prime Minister. I don't agree with the leader of the official opposition.

Mr Hampton: I say to the Minister of Health again, the fact that the Liberals in Ottawa have broken their commitments on medicare time and

time again is old news. The issue here is that if you want to put a responsible argument before Ontarians and Canadians, don't on the one hand cut $3.7 billion in tax revenue and then on the other

hand say you simply don't have any money to invest in health care. That makes no sense. Finally, don't try to frighten and threaten the frail elderly in this province and those people who rely upon

the Ontario drug plan. That's exactly what you're doing.

Stop the reckless tax cuts, commit to the Canada Health Act, commit to the golden charter that New Democrats have outlined for you, and then you can make the

case to Ottawa and shame them into following up on the commitments they've made and have failed to deliver on. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Clement: For a leader of the third party who for weeks on end -- it seemed interminable at some points -- was advocating a sales tax

cut for Ontario, he has quickly changed his tune all of a sudden. He's back on the old and tired rhetoric of how they opposed every single one of our tax cuts.

Our tax cuts, 166 of them, create jobs. They create economic activity. They create economic opportunity at the low end of the pay scale as well as at the high

end of the pay scale. We are proud of those tax cuts. It is part of our record that has created over 800,000 new jobs for Ontario. It's how we pay, through more economic activity -- which

incidentally is taxed -- for our health care, for our safer streets, for equal access to an excellent education. That has been our record. We are proud of that record. We are proud of the results

it has shown for the people of Ontario. If we only had a federal government that would live up to its responsibilities, which they have shirked year in and year out, then health care in this

province would be assured for many years to come.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. The controversy surrounding Hydro One is becoming humorous

because on the one hand we have Eleanor Clitheroe, the head of Hydro One, who defies everything you've said in this Legislature. Her vision is that Hydro One would become a transnational company

and would be delivering power all over North America, selling Ontario power into the United States. We know what that means: Ontario residents would have to pay the American price -- in other

words, 70%, perhaps 100% more than what they're paying right now.

Minister, will you finally admit that is the strategy of the people you've put in charge at Hydro One and at Ontario Power Generation? Will you finally admit

that that will mean much higher electricity rates for Ontario residents and for Ontario industry, and will you do the right thing and simply say that the answer is don't privatize, don't deregulate

our electricity system?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): The honourable member has two issues mixed up: deregulation and entering into

competition in the electricity sector. It has nothing to do with Hydro One in the regulated monopoly wires business, of which Floyd Laughren is in charge. It's hard to answer such hypothetical

nonsense given the honourable member doesn't know what he's talking about.

Mr Hampton: Ernie Eves, to whom you might want to talk one of these days, certainly knows what I'm talking about, because he has said that the

whole issue of privatizing Hydro One is a very serious one that should be debated over the next four months. So you might want to talk to the, perhaps, next Premier of Ontario before you give such

a flippant answer.

Whether Hydro One is owned by international energy companies or whether it is operated as a non-profit in Ontario, the reality for Ontario consumers is that

British Energy wants to export power. They have said so. Other international investors who are interested in buying up OPG want to export power. They have said so. You know that the reason they

want to export power into New York, Chicago, Detroit and Boston is because they can get a much higher price there. Are you telling Ontario residents they will have to pay the same high price to

keep their power? That's what it means and you know that's what it means. What does that mean for Ontario jobs? What does it mean for Ontario industries? What does it mean for Ontario --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member's time is up. Minister?

Hon Mr Wilson: To respond, if the honourable member wants to talk solely about the future of Hydro One, then Ernie Eves is absolutely correct.

It's a monopoly wires business and it has nothing to do with opening up a competitive market, which is the generation side of the business. Again, that monopoly wires business was never regulated

in the past. We are regulating it now under the Energy Competition Act, 1998. Floyd Laughren and the Ontario Energy Board, on behalf of consumers and in the best interests of the people of Ontario,

now fully regulate the line charges, as the CRTC regulates Bell's line charges on its wires and the OEB regulates the gas line charge on the gas pipeline that's in the ground in the province of

Ontario. So I hope he understands that.

Secondly, in the four days this summer when we didn't have enough electricity in this province because we hit peak high temperatures and all the air

conditioners were running, we had to buy power. Guess where the most expensive power came from? Not the United States, at $38 a megawatt hour, but Quebec, at $1,000 a megawatt hour. I had to pay $7

million one day to keep the air conditioners on in our hospitals. That was highway robbery. Competition will give us more choice and will give cheaper power to the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Chair of Management Board, but may I say in passing that it is my hope

that the Minister of Energy will be staying away from the nukes over the course of the next couple of hours.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): Is that a shot?

Mr McGuinty: Yes, that was a shot.

Minister, last month you promised that new rules would stop taxpayer-funded partisan advertising from filling our airwaves. Clearly, they haven't. Over the

course of the past few weeks, Ontarians have been subjected to a veritable carpet-bombing of education ads over the airwaves. Those ads are breaking your new rules in five separate ways. Most

important, they are partisan, they are wrong, and you know and I know and Ontario taxpayers know that those dollars could be put to a much better use.

Tell me, Minister, why did you break your own rules and allow these partisan government ads on the air?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Mr Speaker, you'll forgive me if I don't take the analysis of the leader of

the official opposition. The government has a responsibility to inform the people of Ontario of many of our programs. We want to make it as easy as possible for people across this province to

access information about the government.

Most of these government publications, if not all, provide valuable information. I point again to some of the publications we have had. On magazine is a very

good example. We have had a number of programs that we have been able to explain. We used them for surveys going back to the public. That's certainly part of the throne speech commitment to

actually converse and to interact with the public of Ontario. We've given them the means to do that. Certainly they can't do it unless they're being informed.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, why don't you admit that you can't even honour your own rules? You refused to pass my bill, which would allow an

independent, objective third party, ie, the Provincial Auditor, to pass judgment on these ads and determine whether or not they're in the public interest or the interests of your party. You can't

do that and you can't even honour your own rules.

You ran more ads during the Grey Cup than the beer companies did. Those ads are partisan and they're breaking your own rules. Listen to some of the

self-congratulatory partisan rhetoric: "For six years Ontario has worked to raise education standards. Higher standards are putting our kids first." You go on to make a specific reference to

building a stronger economy.

Minister, your rules are obviously a joke. So far, you have spent 234 million -- not taking into account the cost of this recent advertising blitz -- taxpayer

dollars which could have been used to buy textbooks for our children and their schools, to get more hospital beds up and running in Ontario and to get more environmental inspectors up and on the

job in Ontario.

I ask you again, Minister, why won't you pass my bill? Let's put an end to partisan political advertising in Ontario once and for all.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I would thank the Leader of the Opposition for actually saying those words. I think they're very important things to say. We

have worked very hard to raise standards in education and we are putting children first as a result of these higher standards, so I thank you for continuing this conversation with the public of

Ontario.

But getting to the point at hand, we brought in these changes to the directive. This is in direct response to the Provincial Auditor's concerns.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I must say this, and I hear a lot of groaning on the other side from the opposition members: the fact of the matter is that

they had an opportunity to do these types of important amendments to the directive while they were in the government. They chose not to do that. We responded directly to the Provincial Auditor and

the concerns he had. I believe we have done something very positive.

MINOR HOCKEY

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question today is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. At this time of year many

families in my riding, Parry Sound-Muskoka, including three of my own children, Renée, Stuart and Winston, are involved in that great tradition of minor hockey. Volunteer coaches, trainers and

parents donate a great deal of time to make sure their kids get the most out of their hockey experience. Parents work hard to give their kids an opportunity to play, driving them all over the

province, getting up early to go to those early-morning practices and helping with team responsibilities.

But increasingly violence, both physical and verbal, is becoming a greater concern. I was pleased to see that last week you announced an initiative to curb

violence in minor hockey. Could you provide more details on this initiative, please?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation): I appreciate the very good question from the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, one

of many members of this government who are strong supporters of amateur sport in Ontario to help keep kids fit, to have fun, to develop skills and to encourage teamwork and friendship.

Just last week, one particular program I had the pleasure of launching at the Hockey Hall of Fame with Ron MacLean, the co-host of Hockey Night in Canada, is

called Goodsport: the True Spirit of Hockey. The goal of Goodsport is to bring good sportsmanship and respect to the arenas, back into minor hockey, and to create a safe and enjoyable environment

for youth hockey players to hone their skills and see their skills flourish.

Players, coaches, parents and referees are asked to participate in the Goodsport program, and with funding of $250,000 from the province and the work of the

Hockey Development Centre, we're going to bring this to arenas from Fort Erie to Fort Frances, right across Ontario.

Mr Miller: I know from my own experience as a coach, trainer and parent that hockey teaches great lessons in teamwork and discipline along

with skills like skating and stick-handling. We don't want to see these lessons ruined by violence.

Minister, I have certainly witnessed first-hand overzealous spectators yelling at officials and ruining the experience for participants. How will this program

help players, parents, coaches and officials work together to create a better and more enjoyable environment in minor hockey?

Hon Mr Hudak: The member makes an excellent point. Violence, verbal abuse and harassment of players and referees are a growing concern in

minor hockey across the province. We want to take them out of the arena and create some room for the true spirit of the game, the skills development and the fun of the sport to flourish. I know the

member for Oshawa, Mr Ouellette, a five- and six-year-old instructional coach as well, will tell you the number one reason why referees are leaving the sport is because of verbal harassment from

fans and other coaches.

The province of Ontario and the Hockey Development Centre have engaged players, coaches, fans and parents who are awake at the crack of dawn to take their kids

to practice on a regular basis to help to create a code of conduct to use as examples to support sportsmanship. We want to create more Lady Byng-type players like Wayne Gretzky and Stan Mikita and

Joe Sakic.

The one important element of good sport is to encourage parents, coaches and officials to sign a good-sport contract to imbue respect for sportsmanship, for

safety, for healthy competition, as I said, from Port Colborne to Port Loring and all arenas across this province.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD

OF ONTARIO

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. LCBO outlets in Ontario are selling items and

articles such as kitchenware and household goods that are totally unrelated to the sale of alcoholic products. Merchants operating small businesses in small, rural towns in our province are being

severely affected by the competition they are facing from their own local LCBO outlets. I don't have to tell you, Minister, that it's very tough to survive as a small business today and the last

thing that small entrepreneurs need is competition from their own provincial government.

With the slowing economy, small merchants are looking to the holiday shopping season for some much-needed relief. Will you today tell the House and assure

small business owners in Ontario that you will stop competing with small business and sell only related products at the liquor store, which is wine, spirits and liqueur, and stop competing with the

small merchant in rural Ontario?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I'd like to thank the member opposite for the question, because it

certainly isn't the intention of the LCBO to go into competition with small business. In fact, I was in the riding of Chatham-Kent last week and was approached by a small business person who is

involved with a competitive product with what the LCBO is doing. He had a word with the chairman, Mr Andy Brandt, and as a result of that conversation Mr Brandt withdrew a particular product that

was in competition with the small business.

So if the member has specific complaints about specific products in specific areas, please forward them to me, and I will assure you that Mr Brandt will view

those with an empathetic eye.

Mr Sergio: Not only will I do that, I will bring that to the attention of the minister.

But let me tell you that last year LCBO stores had some $6 million in sales of unrelated items, which is $6 million siphoned off from small businesses into

provincial coffers. The mandate of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario is to monitor and control the sale of alcoholic products, not to compete with small retailers. You cannot allow this to

continue. Either put a stop to this practice immediately or allow the retailers and other small merchants to sell alcoholic products. You have the responsibility to stop the abuse of power and

monopolization. Small businesses need protection, not more competition. I call on you to stop the cash grab and assure us that you will do it today and declare that the only things the LCBO can

sell are liquor-related items.

Hon Mr Sterling: I met recently with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and they did not mention this as a significant issue

with regard to some of their clients, and they represent many of the small retailers.

This party is more sympathetic to small business than any other party in this Legislature. Let us be clear about that. If small business comes to me or any

other minister in this government and has a legitimate complaint, we will look at that complaint and we will deal with it in a speedy fashion. There's no intention in the LCBO in terms of taking

over business from small businesses in various communities across Ontario. So as I said before, give me the particular situation, give me the product and we will take care of it. We will take care

of small business, as we have in the past.

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. First of all, I want to thank you for

coming to Oxford county last week to make a major announcement about manure management in the agriculture industry. It was a major project at one of the larger farming corporations in my riding. It

was at the establishment of Cold Springs Farm in Thamesford. Unfortunately I was unable to attend, so today in the Legislature I want to recognize his visit. I appreciate the comments he made.

Oxford is a county economically bound by the agriculture business and will undoubtedly benefit from this project. Minister, could you tell me what the project will do for farmers to reduce the use

of land application for the management of manure?

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I thank the member for Oxford for the question. As the member knows,

farmers are the original stewards of the land and they care deeply about taking care of the resources they depend upon on a daily basis.

Yes, I had the opportunity to be in Oxford last week, over at Cold Springs Farm where they run a very impressive and very environmentally responsible

operation. They have some innovative ideas in terms of developing technology in the handling of nutrient management. We've partnered with them and with Ontario Pork, Premium Pork, the Ontario Pork

Industry Council and Selves Farms, which are investing with us to explore new technologies to better manage manure.

This is a $352,000 project that reviews a variety of innovative manure management technologies to protect surface and groundwater, improve air quality,

increase the value of manure as a nutrient by-product or an energy source, and reduce the amount of land required for manure spreading adjacent to livestock. Our role in this is $222,000, a little

over one half of the project.

Mr Hardeman: Minister, it sounds like a very impressive project. The mayor of Zorra, I believe, attended the announcement. Mayor Bill Semeniuk

said, according to the newspaper report, that "the agriculture sector has been struggling with alternative uses for manure, hoping to find some use for it that would also be an economic benefit."

Recognizing that there is a group of partners involved in this initiative, could you tell us how other farmers will benefit and how they will find out about this project and the results it

produces?

Hon Mr Coburn: We have partnered with a number of exciting projects and partners across Ontario through the Healthy Futures program, and this

is one of them as well, where the results of some of this new technology and our studies will be there as information for others in the agriculture industry to benefit from. I'm pleased to say that

a report on this project will be written once the technologies have been evaluated. It will be made available to producers and farmers to help them decide what type of system they're better capable

of working with. The industry partners will explore opportunities to provide demonstration projects as well on exactly how the technologies work.

This is another example of how we're trying to work with our partners in agriculture and agribusiness in developing new and innovative technologies to handle

some of the challenges we have with our environmental concerns.

SCHOOLTEACHERS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Education. Your scheme to force teachers to recertify is nothing

but a bureaucratic plan designed once again to attack teachers. Thousands of teachers from across the province have written to say just that.

But worse, your recertification plan is going to mean a $10-million, 110-person bureaucracy, created yet again in downtown Toronto. Elementary teachers have

put forward a proposal called the accountability model that would provide improvements in teaching from the ground up in communities across Ontario, instead of creating another bloated bureaucracy

here in Toronto. Why don't you listen to educators instead of creating yet again another top-down bureaucracy that will only, in the end, attack teachers another time?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I'm actually rather surprised at the leader of the third party, who was part

of the NDP government that brought in the Royal Commission on Learning that recommended five-year recertification and mandatory professional development. Now the NDP is obviously opposed to it. All

three parties supported that recommendation.

We went to the people of Ontario and said, "If we are elected, we will do that." We were elected and we're delivering on our promise to make sure that all of

our teachers in our classrooms can be as up-to-date as possible, recognizing that teachers are out there doing professional development. They see it as part of their commitment to the profession,

and we need to make sure that all of our teachers can do that. So another promise made, another promise that we are delivering on.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Madame, you are very big on cutting red tape and you're equally big on attacking others for supporting

bloated bureaucracies, but when you do it you call it efficiencies. How does that work? What you're creating here is a $110-million bureaucracy in downtown Toronto. How can you justify it when

you're so big on saying, "We've got to cut red tape"?

Michael Fullan, the dean of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, said that your recertification plan is like a company keeping excellent books when

it's going out of business. It makes sense.

We have received thousands of letters from teachers -- hard-working heroes in our schools -- who are telling you that they cannot take yet another public

attack from you. The solution to this problem is that you've got to start listening to educators and to communities that listen to teachers. Will you listen?

Hon Mrs Ecker: This government did indeed listen. We listened to the Royal Commission on Learning that went out and consulted with educators,

with parents, with students. We looked at the best research. We've listened to that. We've looked at the recommendations of all our education partners. We've listened to that. We listened to

parents and students who said this was a step that was needed. We went out and said to the voters, "If we're elected, we will do this." We have been elected; we are doing it. We've taken the advice

of all our education partners to put in place a professional development requirement that reflects best practices and best research.

Why is it an attack on teachers to have professional development requirements that are in place for all kinds of professions, jobs and trades across this

country, across this jurisdiction? Why is it not an attack on police, on insurance agents, on real estate, on doctors, on nurses, on dentists, on physiotherapists, on massage therapists? The list

goes on and on of professions and jobs and people out there who have various kinds of professional requirements --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

SCHOOL BUSES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is also for the Minister of Education. The minister will know from having listened

to rural members on both sides of this House that school bus operators in rural Ontario are facing ever more difficult, nearly desperate circumstances. Six weeks ago in this chamber you, Minister,

told me and the Legislature that you understood there was a problem. To quote you from the Hansard of October 11, "We are looking at this and it is a priority." That was October 11.

Since that time, most of these rural school bus operators have been told by their insurers that their school bus insurance is going up in some cases by almost

100%. These rural school bus operators want to know, Minister, when are your ministry and your government going to provide the much-promised and desperately needed relief?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): The honourable member is quite correct: this is a priority for this

government. We quite recognize the pressure that is there for school bus operators. We've been able to provide monies on a one-time basis before while the transportation formula, the new policies

on transportation, is being developed. We have that as a request before the government to see if we are able to do it again this year.

The financial pressures this government is facing, as we've talked about very clearly, are causing us to have due diligence for a whole range of areas. It is

certainly not by choice, but I think the taxpayers in this province would require us to exercise that due diligence. We are indeed doing that before those decisions are made.

Mr Conway: As a former minister of the crown, I understand the pressures and I believe the choices, but we have been told in this province

just as recently as this week that the Harris government has decided, with the full support of cabinet, to proceed in a few weeks with opening the public purse to tens of millions of dollars of

public money to support kids of parents who want to send those children to private schools. That is a significant new expenditure that the Ontario government has decided, in the face of the very

pressures you have just announced, to proceed with.

As winter sets in in Ontario, in the Ottawa Valley I've got thousands of young people who on a daily basis are going to leave rural communities like Palmer

Rapids, Calabogie, Wilno and Stonecliffe and drive over very difficult roads, in many cases two and three hours a day, to get to their public school. Their rural school bus operator is telling

their parents, their teachers, their trustees and their local members that their situation is serious and almost desperate. It's a matter of good access and, increasingly, it's becoming a matter of

the safety of those kids in rural Ontario.

You have clearly decided that you've got the money to fund the private school tax credit. On behalf of rural public school kids, Minister, when are you going

to provide the much-needed and oft-talked-about additional financial assistance to rural school bus operators in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate the concern as brought forward by this member and the members of our caucus who have been advocating very strongly

on behalf of their school boards and on behalf of those bus operators who do indeed require relief, and I do agree with that.

The government is weighing the decisions on one-time funding for this, as we should, with the due diligence we are exercising in terms of making those

decisions in this fiscal year. As soon as the decision is made -- and I appreciate the pressure and the need for a decision quickly. If it could have been done quickly, we would have. I appreciate

the concern of the honourable member. When that decision is made, we will certainly be communicating that to this House and communicating that to the bus operators and the school boards.

WATER QUALITY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. First, Minister, I'd like to personally congratulate you on a

very successful celebration with the Ontario Environment Industry Association yesterday.

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario stresses that in addition to being purified in water treatment plants, drinking water must be protected at the

source. As you know, my riding of Durham includes the Oak Ridges moraine. The moraine contains the largest concentration of headwater streams in the greater Toronto area and acts as a recharge area

for groundwater. Many constituents, such as Barb Karthein and Sandy Beaton of the Scugog Shores Millennium Project, have been working hard in their communities to protect groundwater.

Minister, you can well appreciate how important groundwater quality is to my residents but indeed across Ontario. How will your most recent announcement of

flowing $10 million to groundwater studies help to protect Ontario's drinking water, not just in Durham but across Ontario?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): The announcement that was made recently, the $10 million that is flowing to undertake the

groundwater studies, is the first time we have undertaken such a comprehensive study of groundwater in Ontario. As the member has mentioned, many people in his riding do rely on groundwater, as

they certainly do in my community. It's absolutely essential, if we're going to protect the quality and quantity of water in Ontario, that we take a holistic approach. That is, we need to make sure

that not only is the water coming out of the tap clean, but we also need to ensure the water at its source, the groundwater, is thoroughly protected. The information we will obtain from the

groundwater studies will enable us to determine not only the quality of water that is available to us but also the quantity of water.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Minister, for that very thorough response. Could you explain to the House how Ontario municipalities such as Durham

region and our local conservation authorities will be involved in the process of studying groundwater? Also, how were the announcements received by municipalities across the province?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The money has flowed not just to municipalities, but money flowed to those municipalities that obviously had great reliance on

groundwater. It also flowed to those that were willing to work with other municipalities and with conservation authorities. All of the money will be made available and will have been released by

March 2002. The money is presently being released. As I say, it is the largest amount of money ever.

I would just like to quote Dennis O'Grady, the general manager of the South Nation Conservation Authority in Cornwall, who said, "This is the first time in at

least 20 years that a comprehensive study has been carried out. In some parts of the region, there may have never been studies carried out." In Owen Sound, the director, Jan McDonald, said, "We are

thrilled. How often do municipalities get 85% funding?"

This is another step that our government is taking in order to ensure that water in this province is protected and safe.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is for the Minister of Health. Mr Minister, on November 15 you joined me in

the riding with our local health care providers on the topic of hospital restructuring. In 1998, your hospital closing commission rejected local solutions and we were forced to close one of our

hospitals for acute-care patients and undertake expensive renovations to the other. Since that time, the cost has skyrocketed to some $20 million-plus. You forced this on us; you should pay for

it.

Minister, when you were in Cornwall you had no answers and no new money. Do you now? If not, will you have some answers before Christmas?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for the opportunity to discuss what I thought was a

very important meeting in his community which he invited me to. I think I actually paid the bill for the breakfast though, so I guess we got a little bit out of it that way. In any event, it

certainly was a very fruitful meeting. From my perspective, it was very important to have the mayor and the local reeve there, and some of the local civic leaders as well as local providers.

What I heard loud and clear was a pride in the local community, a pride in what is possible when it comes to the delivery of health care and an indication that

they understood that they had to participate in creating better health care in their community; that it all couldn't come from Queen's Park, that there was a local desirability and a local

responsibility as well, particularly from the mayor, if I may say so. I've taken all of those issues under advisement and I can tell the honourable member that I came out wiser than when I entered

that discussion.

Mr Cleary: Well, Minister, that's not good enough.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order, please. Sorry.

Mr Cleary: This has been going on for three years. The cost associated with this forced restructuring has climbed and the local taxpayers are

the ones that are facing the burden. As it stands now, this will result in a 20-year property tax burden to my constituents of $20 million-plus. I can tell you, I haven't heard one constituent yet

say they were in favour of that tax increase. If the province makes a decision, it should pay for it.

Minister, how much longer are you going to force citizens in my community to wait before you admit you were wrong and give them the health care funding they

deserve?

Hon Mr Clement: I'm sorry I'm not living up to the honourable member's expectations -- it's a good thing we weren't going for dinner. From my

perspective, in all seriousness, what we discussed, I think, was highly significant. There was an acknowledgement of local participation, not only in terms of finding the solutions but also paying

for those solutions, which incidentally is the case in every other community in the province of Ontario.

When we do these restructurings, when we do these additions to hospitals or brand new greenfield sites, there is always a local participation. Sometimes it is

done through local philanthropy; sometimes it's done through the local tax base; sometimes it's a combination of the two. From our perspective, there is no requirement that it be from the local tax

base, but there is a requirement that the local community participate in the decisions that have been made. Certainly I found from his community that that was the case, and certainly we wish to

come to a mutually understandable and sustainable solution with respect to his local community. The discussions are ongoing and I certainly appreciate the local member's participation in those

discussions.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship.

Minister, during second reading debate in the Legislature last week, opposition members argued that the Ontarians with Disabilities Act will have no effect on

the private sector. The Liberals went to the Ontarians with disabilities action committee and held consultations of their own, but I have yet to hear from the Liberals what recommendations they

have of their own. In the House, the Liberals say Bill 125 should include legislation that imposes sanctions on the private sector immediately. Do you have any idea where the Liberals stand on the

ODA?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): Like all members of the House, I listened to the debate from

the Liberals across the floor and --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Jackson: Well, you ask the questions. That's what you're supposed to do. You're not asking any questions on the ODA. People in Windsor

kind of like the program.

What we have heard from the Liberals is the following: first, they did an Ontarians with disability review and never talked to the private sector, never talked

to hospitals. They talked to a handful of disabled persons and promised them nothing. They didn't promise anything in the last election and they still, with this bill on the floor of the

Legislature, have not made one promise to the disabled community. Yet they're out there throwing around comments, like the member for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough, who says, "I don't care what this

costs. The taxpayers should pay for it." The member for Windsor-St Clair says, "You're going to have to wait two years" to hear from the Liberal Party and where they stand on the disabled and the

disabilities issues. All we've heard from the Liberals is that there is no commitment from their consultation, they want to delay the agenda of reform in this province and they want to play

politics with the needs of the disabled.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Ms Mushinski: My question is again to the Minister of Citizenship. Opposition members have also suggested that Bill 125 should be put on hold

while further consultations take place. Interestingly enough, this Liberal opposition tactic coincides with concerns expressed by the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, who wanted this act

passed by November 23.

Minister, disabled persons in my riding of Scarborough Centre have told me that they want us to get on with this legislation and the disabled community council

wants to work with government partners, especially municipalities, to implement the regulations. Notwithstanding that the Liberals want to delay, delay, delay, how soon can this government get the

ODA up and running?

Hon Mr Jackson: As members of the House know, the committee of the Legislature is going to five different cities in the province to conduct

the reviews and public hearings on the bill. We hope to have the bill back here for clause-by-clause and a bill for third reading in the House in December so that we can complete this legislation

as promised to the disabled persons.

I want to remind members of the House that the bill contains, in

section 22, 10 specific clauses with respect to regulatory and regulation-making authority put

in the hands of the disabled community, who will advise the government on making those regulations. It's the seventh principle of the eleven principles of the ODA resolution stated in this House.

These regulations will be developed by the disabilities community. We hope that this will be proclaimed by the end of the year and hopefully then the first elements to be proclaimed in this

legislation will be the regulatory power and the new --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up. New question.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Education. The Keewatin-Patricia school board doesn't have

sufficient money in their budget to provide special education to all the children who need it, so they have followed the lead of your government and they have cut the hours of work of special

education assistants from seven hours a day to five hours a day. The result is special-needs children are being hurt, their needs simply aren't being met and the special education assistants,

librarians and other school support staff have been forced out on strike over issues of working conditions and pay.

The question is, when will your government fully fund special education in this province so that the special-needs children will receive the education they

deserve and the support staff and special education assistants will receive the respect and dignity they deserve?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Special education is indeed a very important priority. Those supports can

help a student to succeed, to overcome a potential challenge. It's one of the reasons we've been increasing special-needs money for school boards every year. For example, we've had a 17% increase

in special-needs funding.

The school boards are funded based on their enrolment growth based on their assessments. There's a whole range of things. We've also built in guarantees to

school boards so they have some predictability in terms of what their funding will be. I do know there have been some school boards that, in terms of their funding, have to live within a budget and

school boards have been making decisions about how to allocate staff, how to pay for pay raises. Sometimes those things are related in terms of increasing pay, sacrificing in terms of the number of

staff that are available. Those are judgments that trustees are elected to make and that they indeed make.

PETITIONS

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I have a petition 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 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" 1,000 residents of Port Burwell, Alymer and other parts of southwestern Ontario, "petition the Ontario

Legislature to demand the Harris government take immediate action to ensure these important health services are maintained so that the health and safety" of the 1,000 people listed on this petition

"throughout southwestern Ontario are not put at risk."

I'm in full agreement and have signed my signature hereto.

INSURANCE CLAIMS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): This petition comes from 578 different people in my riding of Brant and as far away as Waterdown, Ancaster and

Waterloo.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it behooves us to ensure the practice of justice in all cases, and for all persons; and

"Whereas the statute of limitations applies in cases where it has been impossible to tell for many years what the truth of an insurance claim was;

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

"The laws concerning the statute of limitations for insurance claims should be suspended if it has been discovered that there was a possibility of evidence

tampering and/or it is discovered that the case was investigated poorly, causing hardship to those who were wrongly blamed for a car accident."

I affix my name to this petition.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's always important to stand and speak on behalf of my constituents. This petition was presented to me and I read

it as regularly as possible.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"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 and upgrading our apartments;

and

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

"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 to investigate these concerns to ensure that we the residents of 145 Liberty Street South in Bowmanville can continue to rent their apartments."

As a follow-up on this daily petition, I've written to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I have every confidence that he's listening to me. I've spoken with

the residents of 145 Liberty Street South and I'm pleased to submit and sign this petition on their behalf.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government's rigid education funding formula is forcing neighbourhood school closures" -- potentially -- "such as Consolidated, Dalewood,

Lakebreeze, Maplewood and Victoria in the city of St Catharines, 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 is strangling the system and students are suffering the consequences;

"Whereas there is evidence that larger 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 in

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 important meeting areas 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.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I have a petition here and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas in Ontario adopted adults are denied a right available to 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 affix my name to that petition.

LORD'S PRAYER

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

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

beginning of Upper Canada in the 18th century;

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

Ontario life;

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature.

MEDICAL SCHOOL TUITION

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

"Whereas medical school tuition was deregulated by the Ontario government in 1998; and medical school tuition has and continues to increase in excess of 300%

such that at some universities tuition is now $14,000;

"Whereas the physicians most likely to practise in a rural area are originally from rural areas themselves; and

"Whereas unaffordable tuition disproportionately excludes medical students from rural communities;

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario government and the universities of Ontario to ensure that medical education be made financially

accessible to all qualified students; and

"Be it further resolved that we, the undersigned, request that medical tuition be capped and re-regulated at a level accessible to all Ontarians, and that the

Ontario student assistance plan/Canada student loan program be adjusted, in order to ensure that Ontarians from all communities are able to afford a medical school education."

This petition is signed by a number of residents from Leamington and I'm pleased to hand it to a very dedicated page from Leamington, Kathryn.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"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; and

"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; and

"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; and

"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;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly 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; and replace mandatory reunion counselling with optional counselling."

On behalf of my NDP colleagues, I add my name to this petition.

CORMORANTS

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources is in year two of a five-year study on the impact of cormorants and possible management strategies which was to have

included experimental controls beginning in 2001; and

"Whereas recently the Minister of Natural Resources, the Honourable John Snobelen, reiterated at the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' annual general

meeting and wildlife conference that the MNR is committed to experimental control of cormorants at specific local sites in 2001; and

"Whereas cormorant populations in Ontario have increased to over 260,000 birds in the past several years and will continue to grow until they deplete fish

stocks; and

"Whereas cormorants are having obvious local negative effects on fisheries and habitats within the Great Lakes; and

"Whereas cormorant populations are no longer in need of special protection;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ministry of Natural Resources to:

"

(1) Immediately begin to significantly reduce cormorant populations where there are local habitat or fisheries effects and to make public the experimental

design and results to date of the MNR's five-year study to assess the impact of cormorants; and

"

(2) Remove the special protected status from cormorants."

I affix my signature in support.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I have another thousand signatures from the following communities. I'll be very

quick, because I've written out the names: Bath, Kingston, Odessa, Napanee, Enterprise, Newcastle, Bowmanville, Whitby, Penetang, Orléans, Gloucester, Kirkfield, Port Stanley, Tillsonburg,

Washago, Cucumber Beach, Sturgeon Falls, Lively, Bramalea, Stoney Creek, Pickering, Ajax, Smiths Falls, Brockville, Kanata, Bradford, Keswick, Owen Sound, Orangeville, Shelburne, Wasaga Beach,

Terra Cotta, Ottawa, Bobcaygeon, Parry Sound, Windsor, West Lorne, Rockland, Clarence Creek, Renfrew, Kingsville, Belle River, Stoney Point, Staples and Osgoode. They're from all over Ontario and

they've asked me to present on their behalf.

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

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

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

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

"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 sign that, knowing that those who have ears to hear will hear.

OHIP SERVICES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I've just got to say that's a good petition. I have another petition here on a different matter, and it

reads as follows:

"To the Ontario Legislature:

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

"Whereas these restrictions will cut off access to diagnostic hearing tests, especially in geographic regions" -- such as mine -- "of the province already

experiencing difficulties due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

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

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

other "nerve therapy stimulation and biofeedback; and

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

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

industrial workers; and

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

"We, the undersigned," and many people from our communities in the Timmins-James Bay riding, "petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately

restore OHIP coverage for these delisted services."

I affix my signature to that petition.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): On a point of order, the member for Wellington-Grey --

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): That's good enough. Mr Speaker, I was going to stand up during the time for petitions, but I

waited until it was over. The member for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, when he reads the petition, for two days in a row has read all the municipalities that he's reading the petition

from. I don't, quite frankly, think that's in order, nor do I think it would be if he were to list all the names in the petition. Unfortunately, you were not in the chair when he was doing that; Mr

Carr, the Speaker, was. I simply believe that it's out of order, and that in the future, whether it's you or the other Speakers, he should be ruled out of order.

Mr Bisson: On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to say I forgot to say that people signed from Smooth Rock Falls, Kapuskasing,

Timmins, Hearst and Mattice.

The Acting Speaker: As members know, the standing orders speak to what is permitted during petitions, and it is very helpful if members would

subscribe to the standing orders and not editorialize or read sections of the petition that are not relevant. As a matter of fact, if you were to paraphrase, which, I might say, is encouraged, and

just get to the "be it resolved part," it is very helpful for getting more members on to the petition

section of the day.

OPPOSITION DAY

WALKERTON INQUIRY REPORT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is an opposition day of the Liberal Party. I move that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario offers

its unequivocal support to the people of Walkerton who are calling on the Attorney General to release the report or reports of Chief Justice Dennis O'Connor on the Walkerton tragedy immediately

upon their receipt.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: I'm delighted, actually, that just having this particular item on the order paper has forced the government to agree that they

will release it immediately. Usually, you have to fight against the government to get something released. I guess the embarrassment of having this on the order paper and the fact that the

government knew it would have to vote on this has compelled the government to agree with me, and I want to say I'm delighted. I'll look forward to the reasoning they will bring forward this

afternoon in their speeches before the House.

But I do want to say that I had a genuine concern that somehow these people on the other side -- and that includes my good friend from Gore, Malton, Springdale

and other places --

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Bramalea.

Mr Bradley: -- Bramalea -- from all those places. I trust that he would want this report released immediately. There are others, however,

within the cabinet who don't always agree with what you people in the backbenches have to say. So I am delighted that the government is stampeding now to agree with my contention that it should be

released immediately. There is good reason to believe that this government would want to hide the results of this report as much as possible.

First of all, I should tell you, I'm going to compliment the government in this particular case on the choice of the commissioner, so get ready. I thought the

choice of Justice Dennis O'Connor was a good choice as commissioner. In my opinion, I think the manner in which he conducted the inquiry was exemplary. I may or may not agree with the final

conclusions and recommendations, but I do want to say that I thought that was a good choice, which the opposition obviously had to agree with or at least were asked about. We thought it was a good

choice.

You will recall that the reason we even had an inquiry into the Walkerton situation was because the opposition demanded that inquiry in the Legislative

Assembly and forced it upon the government. Initially the government was very reluctant to have an inquiry, but the pressure was building. Dalton McGuinty asked for it several times. Other members

of the official opposition and the third party asked for it. I think members of the news media were demanding it and certainly the people of Walkerton. So it was appropriate to have a public

inquiry into this matter, just as it would be to have a public inquiry into the Ipperwash affair, where the Premier, in that case, seems to be doing everything he can to avoid an inquiry into the

Ipperwash situation.

We had that inquiry, and there has been much testimony -- very revealing, I might add -- about the negligence of the government in this matter. If you were to

ask the bold question, "Was the government completely responsible for absolutely everything that happened in Walkerton?" I think you would not get a collective and unanimous yes in that case. If

you were to ask the question, "Did the policies of this government increase the possibility of a tragedy such as Walkerton happening?" I think most people in this province who are fair-minded would

say it did. Let me outline why I happen to think that is the case.

First of all, I want to say that my worry about when this was going to be released revolved around the fact that one of the first hirings the government made

after the Walkerton incident happened was Paul Rhodes. Paul Rhodes is a well-known government guru, media relations person, now in the private sector, making money hand over fist. Paul was hired to

bail out the then Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Dan Newman. I think the contract was $50,000, and that's one of the smaller contracts Mr Rhodes has had with this government or with

government agencies. There was a worry that somehow this was going to spin out of control. It was his job to spin it back into the government orbit.

I even noticed, although it wasn't widely advertised, that Paul Rhodes was up in Walkerton when the Premier appeared on June 30 before the inquiry. That was,

of course, the Friday before the long weekend and after the House had concluded its deliberations. Coincidentally, the Premier happened to be available on that occasion to appear before the

inquiry. I'm sure that was strictly coincidental. It had nothing to do with trying to protect the Premier from further questions in this House or hoping that the public would be interested in going

away on a long weekend.

I did see Deb Hutton up in Walkerton, and I said Paul Rhodes and others of the media relations types, the advisers on spin, were with the Premier. I'm sure

there are those in government who said, "Let's find a convenient day upon which to release this report. We'll have to massage the message that goes out with it, first of all, and then we'll find a

convenient time to release it."

That's why I thought it appropriate to bring forward this resolution, to get everybody on record as saying it should be released immediately it is available,

on behalf of the people of Walkerton.

Walkerton and the tragedy that happened there -- we call that Walkerton now; I guess people refer to it as Walkerton -- was something that was almost bound to

happen. It was bound to happen because of the kinds of policies the government had embarked upon, the kinds of policies the Minister of Labour, the Honourable Chris Stockwell, is talking about

today in his leadership campaign. Mr Stockwell, you will recall, said yesterday he didn't believe that the government could invoke further tax cuts because the government was going to face a

$4-billion or $5-billion deficit next year.

Back in the early days of the Harris government, they were so intent upon invoking and implementing tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this province that

they were prepared to make substantial and damaging cuts to various ministries, including the Ministry of the Environment, to be able to give those tax cuts. So they had a combination: they first

of all borrowed money to finance the tax cuts and made significant and substantial cuts to important ministries such as the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Can you believe that, Jim?

Mr Bradley: Of course, I can believe it because I know their ideology. One would think, I say to the member for Trinity-Spadina, that one

wouldn't want to believe something of that nature. But with this government I would certainly believe it because of their ideology and because of the fact that their policies are driven not by a

practical sense, not even by common sense, but rather by ideology.

What we had was a situation where the Ministry of the Environment was almost the number one target of the government. That's understandable because there were

a number of Tory candidates who were going around the province in 1995 -- probably none of them who are sitting in the House today -- who were saying to some of their business friends, "Wink, wink,

nod, nod. We'll get the Ministry of the Environment out of your face. Don't worry."

Do you know something? I want to give the government credit for keeping promises. That was one promise the government kept. Unfortunately, the consequences

were dire for the people of this province and specifically for the people of Walkerton.

Let's look at what happened to the Ministry of the Environment. They cut, first of all, one third of the staff. Fully one third, 33%, of the staff was fired

out the door -- most unfortunate -- out of the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): They went to --

Mr Bradley: The member for Brampton will have a chance later on to refute those comments.

Second, the budget was cut by 45% to 50%; I've heard higher than that. I have tried to say --

Mr Spina: It was transferred.

Mr Bradley: I don't think so. I have tried to err on the side of a conservative figure and I've tried to say 45%. But you cannot annihilate,

you cannot pull apart a ministry, you cannot savage such a ministry with cuts without having dire consequences.

The Ministry of the Environment used to have a good overseeing role, an inspecting role, when it came to the provision of safe drinking water in this province.

One of the first things they did was close the regional laboratories. The people who worked in those laboratories were considered to be among the very best in the country in terms of their ability,

in terms of their qualifications and in terms of their job performance.

This government decided it would close those regional laboratories and turn the water testing over to the private sector. I disagree with that step. But let's

put my disagreement with that step aside for a moment and say, if you were a government that was determined to do that, what you would do obviously is take some time to allow a transition and set

up a protocol or rules for the private sector companies in reporting contamination that would be found in the water supply.

I am convinced to this day that had the samples from Walkerton gone to a provincial lab -- that is, one of the Ministry of the Environment laboratories -- they

would have immediately sounded an alarm, not only to the operator of the system but even more importantly to the medical officer of health, and perhaps lives could have been saved and perhaps

several hundred people would have been spared the consequences of drinking poisoned water in Walkerton. But this government decided it was going to be more important to invoke tax cuts and make

substantial cuts to the Ministry of the Environment.

Having been a Minister of the Environment in years gone by, I can tell members of the House that it is labour intensive by its nature. It requires the

financial resources and the staff to be able to do its job appropriately. We were s