L004A - Wed 28 Apr 1999 / Mer 28 Avr 1999
FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA DIVULGATION RELATIVE AUX FRANCHISES
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES
PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS
ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION
SERVICES DE SANTÉ DU NORD / NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
The House met at 1333.
Prayers.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
ROUGE VALLEY
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): In March 1990, the Liberal government in Ontario formally declared the Rouge area a park. Since then, subsequent governments have seen the wisdom of protecting and expanding the Rouge, the largest urban park in North America.
Although cabinet ministers are ready for photo ops in the Rouge, when it comes to assisting my constituents who live in the Rouge area, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is nowhere to be seen. In October 1998, my constituents Doreen and Clyde Mount wrote to the Minister of Municipal Affairs asking for his assistance. He has not responded. They are owners of private property in the Rouge who have had their hands tied by red tape.
There are three problems. First, since their house and property are on the Rouge, they are not able to make any expansion to their property; it must stay exactly as is. Secondly, buyers are aware of these restrictions and will not buy the house and property. Thirdly, the government will not buy their home and land. These owners are not able to expand their home, nor can they sell it. They have become boxed in. In the six months since the minister was contacted, Mr and Mrs Mount have not received a response.
To refresh the minister's memory, I am sending a copy of the letter to the minister. I hope that between all the campaigning and the propaganda announcements they have, he will find some time to respond to my constituents.
There are four property owners in the same predicament. I am calling on this government to act today.
DAY OF MOURNING
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Today, on injured workers day, I rise to join with people from across this province to mourn fallen workers, workers who have died on the job, to extend sympathy to workers who have been injured on the job and to express solidarity with their friends and with their co-workers.
We set aside this day in Ontario to honour all of those who have died in workplace accidents or from occupational disease, but it's important that we honour them every day by fighting for the rights of all working women and men, not only the right to have a healthy and safe workplace, which of course is paramount for all of us, to know that we can count on our surroundings to be a place of safety, to be a place where we can carry out our work without risk of harm, but we also fight, in the New Democratic Party, to ensure that workers have the right to organize without fear, to earn fair wages, to have successor rights, to be free from the threat of scab labour, things that this government has stripped from workers in Ontario. It has systematically attacked workers in Ontario.
We rise today to join in the slogan that says, "Today we mourn, tomorrow we organize and fight." There's a big tomorrow, called "an election," in this province and together with workers we'll be organizing and we'll be fighting.
BELLEVILLE BULLS
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It is with great pride that I rise in the House today to congratulate the hometown heroes, Junior A hockey's Belleville Bulls. For the first time since 1986 the Belleville Bulls are in the race for the Memorial Cup and the people of Quinte couldn't be more excited. Then again, the Bulls have provided hockey fans in the Quinte area with plenty of excitement on and off the ice for the past 19 years.
Nothing is more exciting in hockey than the Great One, Wayne Gretzky, who for a brief time was a part owner of the Belleville Bulls.
Of course, there was Belleville's last trip to the playoffs that ended in 8-6 points, lost to Guelph. That year Guelph went on to triumph over Portland to take home the Memorial Cup in the only year the cup was played outside Canada.
The loss is all but forgotten now as the Bulls, led by team captain Ryan Ready, take on the London Knights. Coach Lou Crawford is sure to have plenty of plans to stymie the opposition and goalie Cory Campbell promises to make himself a target the Knights just won't miss.
I want to congratulate team owner Dr Robert Vaughan and all the players and staff for the great season and wish them the best of luck in the playoffs. I'd also like to congratulate Brian Campbell from the Ottawa 67s on winning the Red Tilson award as the league's most valuable player, as it was announced at city hall in Belleville just a few moments ago. Congratulations, Bulls, and may the best team win.
HEALTH CARE FUNDING
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): The cutbacks to health care by this government have had an immediate and drastic impact on the patients who need emergency rooms. Our paramedics need more hospital emergency rooms. The potential exists for patients to die. Recently, half of the city's emergency rooms have been turning away patients at an alarming rate, leaving paramedics scrambling to find available beds.
Toronto Ambulance Services general manager Ron Kaluski told the city's emergency and protective services committee they're being forced to negotiate access to health care for their patients. He said emergency rooms have been closed and they've added 11 minutes to the average time it takes an ambulance to respond to an emergency. "The potential exists," he repeats, "for patients to die."
In a recent case, paramedics were forced to pronounce a patient dead themselves after spending two and a half hours trying to find a hospital to do it. They wound up taking their patient to a morgue instead of a hospital. This is a city-wide problem but it tends to concentrate itself in the west end, west of Yonge Street. The west end is the most underserviced area in Metro.
That's why the headlines are urgent. It says that on a recent Monday night every one of the eight emergency wards in the city's west end was closed. That's why we need help. That's why we've had eight demonstrations. The residents are fed up, they're disgruntled and they're bitter. We're asking the Harris government - we're saying this today - to ensure that Northwestern hospital stays open.
SATELLITE SERVICES
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Today I'll be introducing a petition signed by over 4,000 residents of Windsor and Essex county calling on the Mike Harris government to provide the necessary funding to establish and staff a satellite treatment centre for local children diagnosed with cancer.
Such treatment is now only provided in London and in Toronto. The financial and emotional burden placed on these children and their families can be devastating. It's hard to imagine how families with two or three children, with both parents working, having to take time off to travel, can cope.
Dr Ethan Laukkanen from the Windsor Regional Cancer Centre estimates that it would cost a mere $100,000 a year to staff a centre in Windsor. Space is already available.
This isn't just a matter of dealing with cancer. This is a matter of how we care for our kids. If this government had any sympathy for kids with cancer, any compassion whatsoever, they would provide the funding necessary for a satellite clinic in Windsor.
Thanks to Ken Bondy, chair of the CAW Windsor regional environment council, for the tireless work he has been doing on this initiative and in pointing out the causes of cancer, whether in the workplace or in the environment. Too many people have died from exposure to carcinogens in the workplace. On this national day of mourning for workers killed on the job we must remember them, and children with cancer in our community as well.
1340
LONG-TERM CARE
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I rise in the House today to reflect for a moment on what is for me perhaps the most satisfying achievement of my political career: the announcement that Runnymede Hospital will be rebuilt and will receive 200 long-term-care beds.
I remind the House that it was the Liberal government of David Peterson that promised my community $20 million for a desperately needed new facility if we raised $10 million. We raised the $10 million and, just as quickly, the Liberal government forgot its promise. Sadly, the NDP government of Bob Rae showed no greater integrity. It also made the same promise and it also broke its promise. Two governments in a row made a solemn promise to the patients of Runnymede and my community and each, in succession, callously broke those promises.
For more than a decade, the patients of Runnymede, their families, the staff and the community have needlessly had to live under a dark cloud of uncertainty, but thanks to Premier Harris and Minister Jackson that dark cloud of uncertainty has been blown away. Thanks to the Harris government, a wonderful, new future has been guaranteed to Runnymede, including sufficient funding to ensure a state-of-the-art new facility and a level of care that will be determined by the needs of each individual patient.
To the patients of Runnymede and their families and to the superb and dedicated staff and supportive community, I offer my profound thanks for rallying around Runnymede. Our efforts have been rewarded, and along with each of you, I look forward to the construction of the new and improved Runnymede.
EDUCATION
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Yesterday at a news conference the Ontario Secondary School Students' Association released their post-Bill 160 survey. Of no surprise to many of us who have followed education issues, they said that class sizes were higher, they said there was less support for extracurricular activities and they said that students are worried about school closures.
This is probably one of the largest post-Bill 160 surveys of its kind among all the student populations in Ontario, from an organization representing all high school students in Ontario. Worst of all, the students are stressed because of the chaos the government created in the classroom, and that as well came out in their survey.
Despite this mess, the Harris government is now pushing through with its changes to Ontario's high schools. It's full steam ahead for Mike Harris. We wonder when the government is going to realize they're putting children's education at risk.
I'd like to put a quote from the president of this organization, Javeed Sukhera, student Premier of Ontario, who says: "Not only did it" - Bill 160 - "act as a trigger for massive labour disputes that still plague many classrooms in the province, but it also made several drastic changes" to the classrooms in the province. "As students we feel that if our education system is of the best quality that it can possibly be, we are being failed."
On that note, I must report that overall their survey reportedly gave Mike Harris an F for his changes to education.
DAY OF MOURNING
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise today to advise the House that in Hamilton we held a ceremony at the monument dedicated to injured workers on this the international day of mourning for workers who are injured and have died on the job.
I'm proud to reflect on the fact that Hamilton was the first city in all of Canada to allow such a monument to be placed, not just on city hall property but on a very prominent corner of the city and of city hall, right at the corner of Main and Bay streets, where over 200 people assembled earlier this morning.
My leader, Howard Hampton, along with Mayor Bob Morrow and Hamilton and District Labour Council president Wayne Marston, talked about the fact that far, far too many workers are dying on the job. In fact, in 1998 we looked at 216 workers who died needlessly on the job.
We also commented about the fact that there are far too many people, estimates of upwards of 20,000 workers a year, who are dying from cancer, and it's far too often in Ontario that people are starting to think that dying of cancer is natural. There's nothing natural about dying of cancer, and with the thousands of new chemicals that are being brought into the workplace, people are being exposed to substances not knowing what the long-term impacts are. This is a day the government should hang their head in shame.
AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY
Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I rise today to commend the Lions Club of Renfrew for another successful farmers' night. Over 200 people attended this event last Thursday which featured an address from the Honourable Lyle Vanclief, the federal Minister of Agriculture. I congratulate Lions Club member Rob Briscoe for a job well done.
By holding the meeting in the town of Renfrew, they strengthened the tradition of bringing together rural and urban people to foster a greater understanding of agriculture. The same concept is applied by rural and urban governments which are amalgamating to provide better service at a lower cost. I was also pleased to present Warden Paul Curtis with close to $1.7 million to further streamline and enhance the provision of services.
We were doubly blessed in Renfrew county for having both the Ontario and federal agriculture ministers there, all in one week. The Honourable Noble Villeneuve and I met with seven leaders of Renfrew county's agricultural community to discuss their concerns about the crop insurance hay and pasture program. We heard of payout discrepancies between farms, concerns about calculation methods, and possible inequities in deadline management. As a result, the minister will review the program and report back shortly.
Tomorrow I look forward to welcoming Senator Eugene Whelan, former Minister of Agriculture, to my riding at the Arnprior Lions Club farmers' night.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
CITY OF WINDSOR ACT, 1999
Mrs Pupatello moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND VULNERABLE SPECIES ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LES ESPÈCES VULNÉRABLES, MENACÉES OU EN VOIE DE DISPARITION
Mr Wildman moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 16, An Act to revise the Endangered Species Act and to protect Threatened and Vulnerable Species / Projet de loi 16, Loi révisant la Loi sur les espèces en voie de disparition et visant à protéger les espèces vulnérables et les espèces menacées.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The act currently provides protection to endangered species of animals and plants. The bill extends this protection to threatened and vulnerable species of animals and plants.
A committee may be established to advise the Minister of Natural Resources as to which species should be declared endangered, threatened or vulnerable and as to possible recovery plans to ensure survival of these species. The minister may acquire land or enter into land management agreements with a view to protecting designated species and their habitats.
FAIRNESS IS A TWO-WAY STREET ACT (CONSTRUCTION LABOUR MOBILITY), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 PORTANT QUE LA JUSTICE N'EST PAS À SENS UNIQUE (MOBILITÉ DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE DANS L'INDUSTRIE DE LA CONSTRUCTION)
Mr Flaherty moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 17, An Act respecting Labour Mobility in the Construction Industry aimed at Restricting Access to Those Taking Advantage of Ontario's Policy of Free Mobility / Projet de loi 17, Loi sur la mobilité de la main-d'oeuvre dans l'industrie de la construction visant à restreindre l'accès de ceux qui profitent de la politique de libre mobilité de l'Ontario.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
HEALTH CARE ACCOUNTABILITY AND PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR L'OBLIGATION DE RENDRE DES COMPTES À L'ÉGARD DES SOINS DE SANTÉ ET SUR LA DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DES PATIENTS
Mrs Boyd moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 18, An Act to promote patients' rights and to increase accountability in Ontario's health care system / Projet de loi 18, Loi visant à promouvoir les droits des patients et à accroître l'obligation de rendre des comptes dans le système de soins de santé de l'Ontario.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): The bill codifies the rights of the residents of Ontario who receive health care services in the form of a Patients' Bill of Rights and it provides for the appointment of a health care standards commissioner who will perform functions such as participating in the setting of standards. It also provides whistle-blower protection for employees of providers of health care services.
1350
CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1999
Mr Guzzo moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill Pr1, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
CHRISTOPHER'S LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY), 1999 / LOI CHRISTOPHER DE 1999 SUR LE REGISTRE DES DÉLINQUANTS SEXUELS
Mr Runciman moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 19, An Act, in memory of Christopher Stephenson, to establish and maintain a registry of sex offenders to protect children and communities / Projet de loi 19, Loi à la mémoire de Christopher Stephenson visant à créer et à tenir un registre des délinquants sexuels en vue de protéger les enfants et les collectivités.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): This bill, if passed, would provide police with an important tool to help protect all Ontarians, but particularly women and children, from pedophiles, rapists and other sex offenders. I urge all members of the House to support the bill.
FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA DIVULGATION RELATIVE AUX FRANCHISES
Mr Tsubouchi moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 20, An Act to require fair dealing between parties to franchise agreements, to ensure that franchisees have the right to associate and to impose disclosure obligations on franchisors / Projet de loi 20, Loi obligeant les parties aux contrats de franchisage à agir équitablement, garantissant le droit d'association aux franchisés et imposant des obligations en matière de divulgation aux franchiseurs.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES
CONSTRUCTION LABOUR MOBILITY
Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): I was pleased a moment ago to introduce the Fairness is a Two-way Street Act (Construction Labour Mobility), 1999.
The bill fulfills a key part of the government's promise to level the playing field in construction between Quebec and Ontario in an effort to protect and create construction jobs. If passed, it would place restrictions on contractors and workers from jurisdictions that don't treat Ontario fairly.
For far too long, Ontario residents have faced many barriers when trying to work or carry out business in the Quebec construction industry. The result has been lost opportunities and lost jobs for Ontario residents. Yet at the same time, Quebec contractors and workers continue to have unrestricted access to Ontario.
This bill is about restoring the balance, it is about jobs and fairness, and it is about a government acting to protect Ontario jobs so that the citizens of this province get a fair crack at making a decent living.
Creating a level playing field with Quebec has been a priority for Premier Harris and this government from day one. In 1996, we negotiated the bilateral agreement with Quebec to better promote the free two-way flow of construction workers and contractors. Despite the agreement, it became clear that full and open access by Ontario construction contractors and workers inside Quebec was still not a reality. So we took further action.
Last December, Premier Harris wrote to Premier Bouchard asking the Quebec government to work with Ontario to remove the barriers. Premier Harris made it clear that the playing field had to be levelled by April 1 or Ontario would take action. Unfortunately, the Quebec government refused to tear down the barriers, despite another three months of discussion.
Keeping his promise, the Premier announced on March 31 that Ontario would level the playing field with Quebec by taking three steps.
First, effective April 1, Quebec construction companies would be prohibited from bidding on all Ontario government construction projects.
Second, effective April 1, Ontario would step up enforcement to ensure absolute compliance with Ontario's health and safety laws, retail sales tax laws, truck safety laws and workers' compensation laws.
I am pleased to report that both these measures are already having a major impact in levelling the playing field. It is already much harder for some Quebec contractors to carry out business in Ontario. Our enforcement crackdown has turned up hundreds of violations of Ontario's laws by Quebec contractors, and Quebec contractors now don't have access to the hundreds of contracts worth millions of dollars being let by the government of Ontario.
The third measure that the Premier unveiled was a promise to introduce legislation that would, if passed, place restrictions on workers and contractors from any jurisdiction that does not treat our workers and our companies fairly. So today we have the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act.
If passed, the act would mean that contractors from jurisdictions that don't treat Ontario fairly would not be allowed to bid on construction projects funded by the Ontario government, including school boards, municipalities and hospitals. And contractors would face other hurdles before they could bid on private construction projects in Ontario. They would have to register with the new jobs protection office, post a $10,000 security and provide financial statements.
Aggregate haulers from places that don't treat Ontario fairly would be unable to haul aggregate between construction projects in Ontario. I might add that this has been a particular problem in eastern Ontario with respect to hauling aggregate. We've been assisted in the consultation and support of the bill by the Ottawa-Carleton truckers' association. In the members' gallery today is the president of the association, Dwayne Mosley, and I thank him for being here to support it.
We've also been supported during the consultations and the discussions in eastern Ontario in particular by many of the municipalities. More than 31 municipalities have passed motions supporting the steps being taken by Premier Harris. Today also in the members' gallery is one of the leading municipal leaders in that regard, Brian Coburn, the mayor of Cumberland.
Workers from places that don't treat Ontario fairly would have to prove their work experience and qualifications from both Ontario and Quebec and pay a registration fee.
I would rather not have to introduce this bill. Our clear preference is free labour mobility and open borders. We believe that free trade and labour mobility are vital to the economic growth of both Ontario and Quebec.
That's why I urge the Quebec government to act now to create a level playing field. That way we can dismantle the barriers we've been forced to erect and both provinces can start enjoying the benefits of free trade and open borders.
The draft bill has been public since March 31. This is a 30-year-old problem. It's time for action. I ask the members opposite to support speedy passage of this legislation. I would ask for unanimous consent to debate the bill without the printing of the bill, if that is necessary.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There was a lot of noise around; I didn't hear whether the minister said he doesn't even have this bill printed yet. Did I hear that?
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I don't know what you heard, actually, member for St Catharines, but let me help. I think what the minister said is that he would like unanimous consent to debate the bill before it's printed, and that's in order.
Mr Bradley: If necessary.
The Speaker: If necessary.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I don't think it's going to be necessary.
The Speaker: It doesn't matter, necessary or not. That's the actual request for unanimous consent.
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If necessary, certainly, but is it necessary?
The Speaker: What you're really saying is that you want unanimous consent to debate the bill before it's printed, period.
Hon Mr Flaherty: Right.
The Speaker: Is it agreed to have unanimous consent to debate the bill before it's printed? Agreed.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Certainly we're going to allow the debate, but are we going to get anything in writing so that we know what the bill contains? Are we going to get a fax copy or anything?
The Speaker: As far as I'm concerned, I don't know what you have or what you don't have, but now you've agreed to debate the bill before it's printed.
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You should know that I shared this piece of legislation with both House leaders last week and it should have been distributed to all members of the House at this time.
The Speaker: I don't know anything about that.
1400
SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY
Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Earlier I introduced a bill that, if passed, would establish Canada's first sex offender registry. For the past three years this government has urged the federal government to establish a national sex offender registry but they have consistently refused.
This is an extremely important community safety issue for all Ontarians, but especially for women and young children.
The government of Ontario is committed to ensuring that people feel safe in their homes and in their neighbourhoods. It is my belief and this government's belief that police should have the ability to track the whereabouts of pedophiles, rapists and other sex offenders and to access information on sex offenders registered in other communities.
If passed, this legislation would require convicted sex offenders residing in Ontario to register their names and addresses with police in their communities. They would also be required to update that information on an annual basis or any time their address changes. This information would be placed in the sex offender registry and would be accessible to local police services that under the Community Safety Act have the ability to release the information to the public. The provincial government believes in disclosure of the names of sex offenders to protect the public and by regulation has given local police services the authority to do so.
The sex offender registry would build upon this authority and better enable police to keep a close eye on any known sex offender, thereby further protecting the most vulnerable people in their communities.
I'm sure all members remember Christopher Stephenson, an 11-year-old Brampton boy who was abducted from a mall and brutally murdered more than a decade ago. The convicted pedophile who was responsible for Christopher's murder was out on federal parole and local police had no formal way of knowing that this dangerous sexual predator was in their midst.
A coroner's inquest was held following Christopher's death. The inquest jury made 71 recommendations, key among them the call for the establishment of a national sex offender registry. The federal government has rejected this recommendation, as well as repeated calls for action from Christopher's family and the Ontario government.
Ontario will wait no longer. We have acted alone and introduced the necessary legislation that would create a province-wide sex offender registry. I would also like to acknowledge the work of my colleague the member for York Mills, the Honourable David Turnbull, who has been a long-time advocate for the creation of a pedophile registry.
Through the proposed bill, it is our intent to demonstrate in a tangible way just how serious our commitment is to community safety for all Ontarians. We will not forget Christopher. Instead, we remember him with this bill, which is intended to prevent other innocent people, especially children, from becoming the victims of similar senseless acts. I am proud to say that we have developed this proposed legislation in consultation with Christopher's parents, Anna and Jim Stephenson, who with other members of the family are with us in the gallery today. I want to thank them for their participation in what I know had to be a very difficult task.
The Stephensons have shown incredible strength and courage over these past long and difficult years in their fight for justice. I am very proud to advise members of the House that this bill is called Christopher's Law, in memory of the son they loved so much.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Responses?
CONSTRUCTION LABOUR MOBILITY
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): Finally the government seems to realize the seriousness of this issue. It must be easy for this government to introduce this bill, because most of the work was done by myself or my office staff.
Three and a half years have now passed. Some of our contractors have been forced to fold. Some of our workers have no choice but to go on welfare. Our province has lost over $200 million a year because of this government's refusal to deal with the Quebec-Ontario construction mobility issue. This, even though in June 1996 the Minister of Finance was advised and stated that he would look into it.
Your government promised all contractors and construction workers in Ontario that it would introduce legislation to help alleviate the problems which are presently facing them. This bill you are introducing today is the first step of many in order to do so. For example, nowhere in the bill do you include trucking for snow removal or logging.
There are also other areas that need to be addressed. Can the construction industry in Ontario be assured that its government has done all the research and produced the most efficient solution to this 30-year-old problem? After all, you have made other statements without ever following through. For example, the 1-800 number is not working. The TQA has yet to be enforced. The sales tax guide 804 has been in place since 1995, but there is no one to enforce it.
Even if we say that this bill will be passed before the adjournment of this session, how long will it take before the actual system is in place? The Ontario construction industry and I have waited three and a half years, since my bill was introduced and received unanimous consent on June 20, 1996, for your government to finally react.
I believe that amendments must be brought later, but also that this bill is a step in the right direction. Let me advise you that the Liberal Party will support it and encourage this bill to pass all three readings today. Our construction industry has waited long enough.
SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY
M. David Ramsay (Timiskaming) : Merci, Monsieur le Président. Mes félicitations à mon collègue Jean-Marc, le député pour la circonscription de Prescott-Russell.
I want to comment on the Solicitor General's introduction of the sex offender bill today and say to the minister that he promised this four years ago in a justice paper that his ministry had produced in June 1995. That's four years ago, Minister, that you had promised this, and now in the dying days of this government, with maybe only three legislative days remaining, we now have a major piece of legislation that is of utmost importance to the people of Ontario being introduced. I don't know what his plans are with the House leader to do that, but it's really a shame this took so long.
The opposition also is committed to ensuring that people feel safe in their homes and in their neighbourhoods. We also believe that police should have the ability to track the whereabouts of pedophiles, rapists and other sex offenders, and to access information on sex offenders registered in other communities.
We remember Christopher Stephenson, an 11-year-old boy who was abducted from a mall and brutally murdered more than a decade ago. All of us here in this Legislature want to work together to make sure that this never happens again. This bill is a start. I wish it had come sooner. We will wait and see, when we see the details of how the government is to proceed with this bill.
1410
CONSTRUCTION LABOUR MOBILITY
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I am really surprised, in responding to the Minister of Labour, that we don't have a printed bill. I remember the member for Prescott-Russell introducing a bill in this Legislature at least three years ago which was an even tougher bill than this particular bill the Minister of Labour happened to introduce. We find out on the eve of an election that they're going to introduce this bill and it's not even printed. I'm surprised.
SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): In response to the Solicitor General, in the absence of our justice critic let me just briefly say that we look forward to working with you on this bill. We want to work with you to ensure that it both achieves its stated goals of community safety and that it withstands any kind of charter challenge which we know will be forthcoming on a bill like this.
Certainly there have been controversies about the establishment of registries and how you balance issues. We've seen certain concerns raised with the child abuse registry, but on the balance we believe it's the right thing to do and we need to work to mitigate those concerns and ensure that the law is good.
We join with you today to commit this law to the memory of Christopher.
CONSTRUCTION LABOUR MOBILITY
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): In response to the Minister's introduction of the Fairness is a Two-way Street Act, you guys are really something else with these names. I don't how much you spend on the talent to do that but it is a talent, I give you that. Conning people is a defined talent.
Interjections.
Mr Christopherson: Hang on, you're going to be more upset when I'm done. Let me just say that the minister talks about -
Interjections.
Mr Christopherson: I was starting to say to the minister that when he said that this has been a 30-year problem, it's a 30-year problem that every government has done a chunk of the work on to move it forward. Certainly our Minister of Economic Development, Frances Lankin, laid the groundwork that was there for you to pick up on and run with, but you talk about 30 years and you don't even have the bill printed. In the last four months the House hasn't been sitting. What have you been doing over there?
The minister talks to us today about wanting to do this for workers. This isn't about construction workers; this is about politics. If you cared a wit about workers you wouldn't have done what you tried to do last week to the TTC workers. That's the real face of the Mike Harris government when it comes to how you feel about workers.
I also think it's absolutely no coincidence that it's on the day of mourning, when you knew the opposition would be talking about your horrible track record around the health and safety of workers, that you chose to introduce the bill. The fact of the matter is that you haven't had any major consultation with the construction trades unions - you did go after the construction workers in Bill 31, you went after the apprenticeship workers in Bill 55 - this is all about politics and not about workers.
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): In response to the Minister of Labour's statement regarding the Quebec construction worker issue in eastern Ontario, I'm pleased to be able to support this bill both on behalf of myself and my caucus colleagues. This is an important first step to bringing the Quebec government to the bargaining table to improve access for qualified Ontario workers to Quebec construction sites.
I know too well the frustration of many qualified Ontario workers being prevented from working across the Ottawa River when no similar restriction exists on our side. We need to negotiate a better deal and this legislation begins that process. But it is important to remember that access is the key issue here, not relaxing standards that protect jobs and protect working men and working women in this industry; standards governing trade qualifications and occupational health and safety requirements.
If we are to accept the slogan put forward by the government opposite that fairness is a two-way street, then we have to recognize that protecting workers and employers through better trade qualifications in Ontario has to be part of that deal.
This is only a first step to bring us to the bargaining table. We have yet to see what the government will bargain for and bargain away, and that is what we are concerned about.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): As my colleague from Ottawa West said, this is a first step. But I want to say to the Minister of Labour, you're forgetting another part of the province that has an equal problem in another industry, and that is northeastern Ontario. We have a situation that's been going on that we've been asking your government to move on, which is the workers coming in from the province of Quebec into the forest industry and displacing Ontario workers because of the unfair practices between Quebec and Ontario.
I can tell you specifically that we have people who have huge investments, Ontario investors who own equipment in the forest industry who have their machines sitting idle because they're not able to get back into the province of Quebec to compete against Quebec contractors, but the Quebec contractors are allowed to come into Ontario and compete against us. I think that's an unfair advantage.
If you're really talking about a two-way street, I'd like you to pave the sidewalk a little bit and bring it up into northern Ontario so that we're able to see a little bit of fairness when it comes to the legislation that you put forward.
I also want to point out to you, we have the same problem in the trucking industry. I don't know how many times I've been approached by people in my riding and across northeastern Ontario around the trucking industry. The truckers are harassed as they go into the Quebec side of the border trying to move goods, whereas Quebec truckers are able to come to our side. So bring it up to northern Ontario -
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I seek unanimous consent to recognize today as a day of mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace.
The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.
DAY OF MOURNING
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Today I rise to recognize and observe the day of mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace.
On February 1, 1991, Canadian legislation designating a day of mourning for workers killed and injured on the job was given royal assent. April 28 was chosen as the day of remembrance because it's the anniversary of the day in 1914 when Canada's first workers' compensation legislation was passed here in Ontario.
Quality of worker health and safety means healthier families and healthier communities.
Today we join with our colleagues in the government and in the third party to urge employers and employees alike to ensure that proper health and safety protocols are in place, and that we here in this Legislature continue to recognize our role first in recognizing the importance of health and safety legislation and compensation legislation to workers right across this great province.
1420
As all of us in this House affirm our commitment today to the prevention of workplace injury and death, we know that the statistics tell us there is work to be done. According to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board officials, on an average working day in Ontario we have one fatality in the workplace, we have three amputations, we have 70 permanent disabilities and we have 500 lost-time injuries. That is every day in the province of Ontario.
We can't rest of course until tragedies in the general sense are eliminated, tragedies such as an accident which occurred in Mississauga last year where a young 18-year-old man with this whole life ahead of him was performing construction work, where a car went through a row of orange pylons which was separating the work site and hit an 18-year-old construction worker, where a young man's legs were immediately amputated and his life was changed forever.
We know that hundreds of thousands of injury claims are registered each year and that workplace injuries and illness account for millions and millions of dollars in compensation claims. The threat of job loss - coupled with privatization, restructuring and layoffs - has contributed towards the continuation of unsafe conditions in some workplaces. No one should be reluctant to speak out against unsafe conditions at a work site for fear of losing their job.
Each member of my party and my colleagues here in the Legislature and our constituents in our communities all over Ontario join all of the members of the Legislature in recognizing this important day. I think all of us believe as members, regardless of how we believe that end ought to be achieved, that our common goal ought to be to reduce lost-time injuries and certainly fatalities in the workplace. I am proud, on behalf of my party, to join in this recognition today.
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Today we join with others across Ontario to mourn fallen workers. I was at a moving ceremony in Hamilton this morning and other members of the NDP caucus spoke at solemn commemorations in other communities across the province.
We set aside this day to honour all those who have died in workplace accidents or from occupational disease, but we honour them every day by fighting for the rights of all working women and men - not only the right to healthy and safe workplaces, but also the right to organize without fear, to earn fair wages, to have successor rights, to be free from the threat of scab labour.
On this day in 1914, the Legislature passed Ontario's first workers' compensation act and it was called and was a workers' compensation act. April 28 has since become the official day of mourning in Ontario, across Canada, the United States, Australia and Spain. People in 70 countries now observe the day of mourning. I hope one day it is recognized universally.
In 1914 most who worked in the foundries and the forests, the mines and the mills, risked life and limb to feed their families. What would those workers say to us today? They would be amazed at some of the changes and appalled that so many lives are still at risk, appalled as we are that on average in a working day in Ontario there's one death, three amputations, 70 permanent disabilities and 500 lost-time accidents.
When we talk about health and safety today, we use words that workers from 1914 might not understand, like the deadly threat of carcinogens and toxins in the workplace, the intolerable working conditions in call centres, burnout from bearing the brunt of privatizing health care and education by the back door, and sexual harassment and intimidation in the workplace.
Workers from 1914 wouldn't know some other words either, words like "globalization," "shareholder profits" or "downsizing," but I believe every worker in every time and place would in an instant understand that our fight has always been the struggle for basic human dignity and respect for all workers. It is to that struggle on this day of mourning that New Democrats continue our pledge, and we ask others to continue the pledge, continue the struggle. There is still so much that needs to be done.
Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of all those workers who lost their lives or were injured on the job last year. Today is a day of mourning for those workers. As Minister of Labour, I read the fatal and critical accident reports that regrettably are on my desk too many mornings. It is the saddest and most solemn part of my job. No job - not yours, not mine and not the other four million jobs in Ontario - is worth dying for. No job is worth a permanent disability. No job is worth an occupational illness down the road. No shipping order, no production line, no project deadline is worth the shortcut and haste that are almost always to blame for fatalities and critical injuries.
The priority is life. Therefore, let us renew our commitment to work together to end workplace fatalities and injuries. Let us leave no stone unturned, no good idea unexplored in our search for accident-free workplaces.
Progress is being made. In 1995, we set an ambitious target to reduce the number of lost-time injuries in Ontario by 30% by the year 2000. We're on track to make that target; we may well exceed it. Progress is also being made in preventing injuries through proactive inspections by the Ministry of Labour. Since 1995, inspections have increased 63%; since 1995, orders have increased 83%.
The key here is partnerships. Right now there are a number of organizations, including the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, the safe workplace associations, the Safe Communities Foundation and the Ministry of Labour, all engaged in a unified effort to prevent injuries and illness in the workplace. Tomorrow we rejoin the fight. We will prevail. But today we remember those we could not save. I ask all members to stand and honour them in one minute's silence.
The House observed one minute's silence.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): In accordance with standing order 95(d), I'm required to conduct a ballot to determine the order in which private members' public business will be considered during the third session of the 36th Parliament.
It is not necessary at this time to indicate your choice of subject matter to be debated; however, if you wish to participate you will please so indicate below and return this ballot so that I can actually do what I'm supposed to do. The draw will be conducted in room 104 on Thursday, April 29, and today is the last day to get your ballots in.
ORAL QUESTIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. This morning the Environmental Commissioner released her report for 1998. Clearly this report is the most damning, brutal report on the performance of an environment minister that has ever been tabled in this Legislature. It systematically goes through all of your failures, through government's direct action on hurting the environment and hurting the lives of Ontarians.
The report states that it "documents the decline of Ontario's capacity to protect the environment." The commissioner goes on to say, "Evidence of the deterioration of the province's environmental standards is widespread." It also goes on to say: "Ontario's emphasis on less government - when it comes to the environment - has translated into less enforcement and less protection for the environment."
1430
Minister, these are the facts that your $100-million taxpayer-funded re-election ads don't tell Ontarians. These are the facts that your Drive Clean ads don't tell Ontarians. Will you now stand up and admit that your government has totally failed to protect the environment and the health of Ontarians in its last four years?
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I obviously don't agree with the member opposite or what the commissioner says with regard to the performance of this government. We are very proud of our performance. We have attacked a number of problems that have been neglected by previous governments and we will continue to do so, because we are a government of action. We are a government of fixing problems with regard to air quality standards, with regard to Drive Clean, with regard to bringing forward real action to environmental problems, something previous governments haven't done.
Mr Agostino: It's obvious that the minister has not yet read the report. I would suggest you read it and be briefed on it before you comment on it, because clearly we're not talking about the same report. This report, when it talks about air quality, labels your attempts to upgrade standards as "feeble." That is not my word; that is the word of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.
In 1966 you said you were going to aggressively work to update 70 air quality standards. To date, not one of those standards has been updated. You fail to understand what we're talking about here. Understand this: Every five hours of every day of every month of every year, one Ontarian dies prematurely in this province as a result of poor air quality. We are talking about 1,800 deaths a year. Minister, you've done absolutely nothing in the past four years to try to improve this. You have failed on air quality standards.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.
Mr Agostino: Drive Clean was much delayed. You have failed all of us.
Minister, will you start to take the interests of Ontarians first and will you protect the environment -
The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.
Hon Mr Sterling: This government has taken more actions than any previous government over the last 10 years prior to our coming into power in 1995. In terms of the air quality standards, by the end of this fiscal year, 1999-2000, we will have dealt with 70% of the air quality standards that affect our air.
The reason that it's taking us so long to deal with it is because the task is so great, because so little was done over the previous 20 years, as the Provincial Auditor pointed out. It does take some time to strike standards intelligently, to strike the stiffest standards in North America, and that's exactly what we're doing.
Mr Agostino: Again, the answer would be more helpful if the minister had read the report. Clearly, Minister, you have the worst track record of any environment minister in the history of this province. Your government's track record is second to none; you have the worst governmental record of any government in the history of this province. You have failed in every aspect: air quality, hazardous waste, protecting the health of Ontarians. Very clearly, you have shown no commitment to the environment.
It is clear through this report and others that Mike Harris is a polluter's best friend in this province and that environmental policy is being set in the boardrooms, not the cabinet room, of this province. You have sold out to your corporate friends, you have failed to act, you have failed to set standards, you have let Ontarians down.
Again, 1,800 Ontarians prematurely every single year as a result of air quality, and you have the nerve to sit there and brag about your record and what you have done. You have done a great deal to dismantle environmental regulations and to kill Ontarians.
Will you do the honourable thing today and resign? That will give you more time to read this damned report.
Hon Mr Sterling: With regard to this particular member, the rhetoric doesn't change. Every time we move out in a positive way to address a problem, the member for Hamilton East stands up and says: "It's not enough. It's too late. Resign." That's the answer and the constructive criticism that I receive from the member for Hamilton East.
This government has addressed -
Interjections.
The Speaker: Minister.
Hon Mr Sterling: There are people who die prematurely because of air quality in this province, but that was happening under the previous regimes as well. The same number were suffering as are suffering today. The difference between their governments and our government is that we're trying to lower that number and they did nothing.
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question for the Solicitor General. On June 11, 1996, I asked you in this House when you were informed of the allegations of assaults at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre on February 29. You replied that you were unaware of any allegations to June 6 of that year.
We now know that your executive assistant was informed of the allegations on March 4 by the deputy minister. He has also stated in court transcripts that he continued to keep in close contact with your executive assistant.
I can't comprehend how your most senior assistant didn't tell you for three months. Do you really expect us to believe that not once in those three months did your senior political assistant tell you about these allegations?
We also know that the former Minister of Community and Social Services knew about this, as well as his deputy minister, but again didn't speak to you about this over the three-month period.
Minister, I find this all very hard to believe. When are you going to come clean as to when you first heard of these allegations?
Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Those reported comments with respect to my former executive assistant are completely inaccurate.
Mr Ramsay: Let's go over this again. Your assistant deputy minister knew, your deputy minister knew and we think your executive assistant also knew. The former Comsoc minister knew and his deputy minister also knew, but you did not. Minister, I've heard of spin, but this is a stretch at the very best.
I also have some grave concerns regarding the firing of the six men over this issue, most of whom are here today. It seems that there were insufficient grounds and the only reason that they were fired was to defuse a potential political crisis. It is also clear from court transcripts that we have received that you were the one who ultimately gave the final approval for those dismissals.
We want to know why during a senior management meeting where there was consensus that there wasn't enough evidence to suspend the managers, you decided to do it anyway, and why just before the story re-emerged two weeks ago, your government offered to reinstate with back pay the remaining two managers fired.
Hon Mr Runciman: Personnel matters are handled by the senior public service and not by political officials. In this case that course was followed and there was no interference from a political level in those decisions.
Mr Ramsay: Your fingerprints are all over this and so are senior management's and other high officials' in this government.
In May, the London police advised the superintendent, George Simpson, that there wasn't sufficient evidence in the child advocate's report to justify a police investigation. It seems, though, that they changed their minds after a phone call from the ministry with an offer to pay for an investigation. As a result, 31 charges were laid; 29 were dropped. The other two pleaded guilty because they couldn't continue to afford their lawyers' fees. Were the police sent in to divert attention away from you and a political crisis, or is it just the Harris government's policy to pay for police investigations?
Minister, we need answers. We need a public inquiry. When are you going to call a public inquiry into this?
Hon Mr Runciman: I've indicated clearly that there was no political interference with respect to this. There was a police investigation and charges were laid. There are still some matters pending before the Grievance Settlement Board, so I think to go beyond that would be inappropriate. But I can indicate clearly that there was no undue interference or pressure from the minister's office with respect to this whole matter.
1440
TRANSIT SERVICES
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Today I put it to you that the $1.6 billion that your government got from the sale of Highway 407 should be put into a transit fund for the greater Toronto area and for Hamilton-Wentworth.
Your government downloaded responsibility for public transit on to municipalities and you cut the funding. You have created a crisis in public transit in the greater Toronto area, in the Hamilton-Wentworth area and across this province. The Hemson transportation study shows how big that crisis is going to get.
Minister, you've got a chance to do something about it. You've got $1.6 billion in revenue from the sale of 407. Do the right thing: Put it into a public transit fund for the greater Toronto area and Hamilton-Wentworth so that people can be sure they're going to get the transit service they need.
Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I disagree with some of the honourable member's conclusions. That's what democratic debate is all about. I find it a bit peculiar that the same party that opposed privatization is now willing to spend the money which is the fruit of privatization. Perhaps the public can judge how sincere that is.
I should also say to the honourable member that there has been an exchange of services through our local services restructuring, which has been supported by the municipalities, I might say. They have supported the exchange so that they could have more control over hard services, and we uploaded to the provincial level $2.5 billion worth of charges that were formerly on the education portion of the property tax. This is all part of the restructuring, so that the municipalities have $2.5 billion worth of tax room to deal with services such as public transit.
We are looking after the municipalities and their needs based on their wishes just fine, thank you very much.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.
Mr Hampton: Minister, you can try that fairy tale here. Don't go out there and try it, because nobody believes it. The Environmental Commissioner today issued her report. It says your government has abandoned public transit, you're causing a huge public health problem, a huge pollution problem, not to mention the fact that you're leaving municipalities that need public transit in a huge financial hole. That's what you've done. Nobody buys your rhetoric about revenue-neutral, that somehow this is all going to work out. It's not working out. The Hemson transportation study proves it's not working out.
Minister, what are you going to do? Are you going to go out there and pay for the construction of more Spadina expressways? Is that your solution to urban transit? Is that your solution to the kinds of transportation we need in large urban areas, or are you going to put in place now a transit fund that will allow for the kind of transportation funding that large municipalities are going to need? What's it going to be, more Spadina -
The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Transportation.
Hon Mr Clement: I disagree that any government policy has reduced the amount of available expenditures for public transit. I talked already about the tax room that is available to the tune of $2.5 billion. Let's go over the facts. It's not only that tax room, it's $829 million for the TTC capital funding last year; it's $106 million for GO Transit and their capital funding; it's an extra $70 million for other municipal transit services. That speaks louder than the words and the rhetoric of the honourable member. It took strong leadership to make those decisions, and the strong leadership is on this side of the House.
Mr Hampton: We're talking about a service that is needed by at least a couple of million people. In the broadest context, we're talking about four million people. This minister thinks that if he buys a couple of subway cars, he has dealt with the issues of urban transportation.
You know yourself that you have downloaded just on to the city of Toronto $163 million in costs for urban transit and there is no money to cover that. How can you even claim to be the Minister of Transportation? You are abandoning one of the most essential services in terms of transporting people in a large urban environment. If you don't have a plan for the financing of public transit, I'll give you ours. It provides $96 million a year. What's it going to be? You don't have a plan of your own. Will you at least adopt our plan?
Interjection.
The Speaker: Member for Etobicoke-Humber, come to order, please. Thank you. Minister of Transportation?
Hon Mr Clement: I hope the honourable member was not suggesting that $829 million to the TTC in some manner just buys a couple of subway cars. That helps finance the majority of the Sheppard subway system for the people of Toronto and indeed for the people of the greater Toronto area. If you are speaking lightly of a commitment on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario of $829 million, if you are ridiculing that, I put it to you that you're ridiculing all of the taxpayers of Ontario and their hard-earned money that is going to that service.
The honourable member says, "Adopt our plan." The last time the people of Ontario adopted their plan, we tripled the deficit and doubled the debt. I don't think the people of Ontario want their plans any more.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Environment. I want to ask about the report of the Environmental Commissioner today. This is the fourth report in a row where the Environmental Commissioner has trashed your government's record on the environment. She goes through literally dozens of examples where you have basically abandoned the environment.
I know what you've done over the last four years: You've cut environmental protection, you've cut the Ministry of Environment, you've cut the Ministry of Natural Resources, in order to finance your 30% so-called income tax cut. I don't approve of that.
What I want to get at is what the Environmental Commissioner gets at. Because of the lack of environmental protection, we now have some of the most polluted air in the province. Some 1,800 people died from that polluted air last summer. Children are suffering epidemics of asthma, in part as a result of that polluted air.
Minister, when you made these decisions to cut environmental protection, did you consider any of those things? Do any of those things matter in your race to give the most well off a tax cut?
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I think the member opposite perhaps has got it backwards. In terms of air quality, what our records actually show is that the air quality in the province has been improving over the last four years. The last time there was a bad air quality year was in 1994. Previous to that it was 1988. Part of that relates to weather, part of it relates to what actions are taken by the government. We have taken more actions with regard to air quality than any previous government.
In 1992 the Provincial Auditor told the NDP government that they should revamp air quality standards. When we arrived at the Ministry of the Environment, nothing was going on with regard to revamping our air quality standards.
We're doing that. We're improving the air quality and driving down the number of people who suffer from bad air quality in this province, and we will continue to do so.
Mr Hampton: I guess according to the Minister of the Environment this report, covering 288 pages, is all fiction. I guess this fourth report issued by the Environmental Commissioner which condemns your government is all fiction.
Minister, when are you going to take responsibility? The fact of the matter is that your government has abandoned environmental protection in area after area. You have cut. You have decimated. You have done away with the enforcement officers, you have done away with the inspectors, you've done away with the technicians, you've done away with the scientists, all in your mad rush to give the most well off people in this province a tax cut at the expense of the environment.
What I'm asking is, when you make these decisions, do you consider what the results are going to be for people who have to breathe the air, people who have to deal with more toxins and carcinogens in the environment? Do you think about the number of children who now suffer from respiratory diseases? Does any of that matter in your calculation, Minister, or is it all about tax cuts?
Hon Mr Sterling: That is my only consideration.
1450
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary, member for Riverdale.
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Minster, I heard you earlier say that you are proud of your record. If you really mean that, every member in this House should be ashamed to be associated with you and you should be ashamed of yourself. There has been report after report after report for the last four years from independent bodies telling you to clean up your act, and you have ignored them.
Let me tell you what I find the most frightening about your response to this, your lack of action: It's that we're not going to see the results of some of your slashing and burning until in the future, when you and Mike Harris are long gone, when more children have asthma, when more people are dying, when we have more Plastimet situations like we have in Hamilton. That is what the Environmental Commissioner said to us loudly and clearly today.
Minister, apologize to this House and to the members of our communities for what you said today and tell us today that you are, while you still have the chance, going to fix this problem.
Hon Mr Sterling: I'm sorry the member opposite turns this into a personal attack rather than dealing with the issues.
This government has done more with regard to dealing with environmental issues than any previous government has. Just take a look: "Ontario Green Plan Wins B Plus," the highest award given to any province or federal government in this country.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Stop the clock. Minister?
Hon Mr Sterling: In 1988, the Liberal government then said they were going to implement a vehicle emissions testing program and they were going to have it done by 1992. The NDP government talked about it, had a pilot project, but did nothing. Which government took action? Our government took action because we are not afraid to attack problems to actually improve the air quality and the environment of the people of Ontario, and we will continue to do so.
HEALTH CARE FUNDING
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): My question is to the Minister of Health. This week, we have heard many horror stories that have occurred in hospitals following the cuts your government has made to our health care system. Today, I have the unfortunate obligation to bring another tragedy to your attention.
Mr Desjardins of Hawkesbury was scheduled for bypass surgery on March 11. This great man had an indescribable love for life. He had a loving wife and family, all of whom were anxious for his operation. For them, this surgery was a sign of hope and an assurance that he would regain the life he once had. However, the day of his scheduled surgery Mr Desjardins was advised that no bed was available, but if one were found he would be contacted. Mr Desjardins waited all day by the phone. At 5 o'clock he received a call, "Still no beds available." Worse still, he was later told that he must wait until the end of April to have his surgery. Unfortunately, four days later Mr Desjardins died of a heart attack.
Minister, having been elected to protect the rights of all Ontarians, do you have the nerve today to stand and tell the people of our province that the Harris government cut to health care was the right thing to do?
Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I think it's important to indicate one more time that our government has not cut health care. As you know, we have increased the level of spending from $17.4 billion to $18.9 billion, and our government is also making the very difficult decisions which previous governments neglected to make. If you want to take a look at the whole issue of cardiac procedures, we are today performing 23,000 more cardiac procedures than were done in 1995. This is a 50% increase. We will continue to do so. We will continue to make the services available and increase the capacity in the system.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary, the member for Kingston and The Islands.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Minister, why don't you just admit that your health care policies over the last four to five years have been a complete and utter failure? That's what the people of Ontario think. All of us have heard horror stories in our constituency offices of surgeries being cancelled, emergency wards being closed. Each cancellation, you well know, adds more stress and anxiety to the patients and their families, actually their physical pain, and also causes them to basically put their lives on hold. One of my constituents had surgery for an aneurysm cancelled three times due to a lack of bed space.
Over the last four to five years, the waiting list for neurosurgery has increased for each neurosurgeon in Kingston from a dozen to 60 or 70 people, from a six- to eight-week waiting period to waiting periods of well over a year. Today 90% of all neurosurgery is of an emergency nature. Why don't you just admit your total failure in your health care policies?
Hon Mrs Witmer: We have a plan. Unfortunately, previous governments did not plan for the needs of our population. I would just like to take you back to when your government was in power. From the Kingston Whig-Standard, January 24, 1989: A 63-year-old man died in St Michael's Hospital after cardiac bypass surgery. It happens. His operation had been postponed 11 times. These are the stories, and there are pages and pages of this happening under your government.
That is why we are expanding the capacity of the system. We want to make sure there's the capacity there not only today; in fact, we have, as you know, planned for the construction of three additional comprehensive cardiac units in this province. We are providing additional capacity in Kingston, in Peterborough. We are planning for the future. As I say -
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, third party.
ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): To the Minister of Citizenship: Last Thursday, after the throne speech, you made quite an amazing statement to a room full of people from the disability community. You stated that your government had never promised to pass an Ontarians with Disabilities Act, that you had only promised to introduce it. You repeated that statement to a group of reporters and CBC Radio news reported on your quote the next day.
It was a breathtaking attempt at rewriting history, and I have to say I think a cynical attempt at covering up a broken promise. Will you tell us today, is that still your version of history or will you revise it again and admit that your government promised to both introduce and pass an Ontarians with Disabilities Act within your first term of office?
Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I would say that we have not broken any promise. We did introduce an Ontarians with Disabilities Act of which I was proud in that it is the first act of that nature to be introduced in Canada, to prevent and remove barriers to people with disabilities. It is far more than you did in five years in office. Over the period of time, before the Legislature came back, since it died on the order paper before Christmas, we listened to the people who phoned in. We read our mail and we decided that we will now consult, and we proceed to move forward with this issue.
I can't promise you anything because we are in the House hearings. We may be here in three weeks and we may be moving forward. I am consulting with people.
1500
Ms Lankin: Let me contrast what you claimed last week with what your Premier said in writing in his May 24, 1995, letter to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, where he promised "to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act in the first term of office."
Let me go on to remind you that on May 16, 1996, one year later, the Ontario Legislature passed a resolution with unanimous Tory caucus support - and I'm going to quote from that too - "to keep its promise as set out in the letter from Michael D. Harris to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee dated May 24, 1995, to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act in its current term of office."
Minister, what do you think the word "enact" means? Where is the commitment? What do you mean you can't make a promise? Mike Harris, the guy who's out there, who said he's kept every promise, has obviously broken a promise to persons with disabilities. A promise reneged on is a promise broken.
Minister, let me put this question to you. You have two options. You can either admit that you've broken a promise or you can recommit to pass this legislation within your first term. Which will it be?
Hon Ms Bassett: The Premier has certainly not broken any promise. He did what he said he would do. This government has brought in an ODA and it died on the order paper, as we all know. We were all upset that that happened. I felt that this bill would prevent and remove barriers for people with disabilities.
We are -
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Member for Ottawa West, please come to order. Thank you.
Hon Ms Bassett: We are moving forward. We have paused to listen to what Ontarians have told us. They wanted us to re-examine what we are doing and then to bring it forward. We are in the process of doing that. We are sitting here, and you know the legislative process as well as anyone in this room. You know that there is an order in which things come forward.
ENERGY COMPETITION
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): My question today is for the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. In October 1998 the Energy Competition Act led to many changes in the current electricity market. It's a very complicated field and certainly the way we buy energy, the way we buy electricity, how our bills are going to look, is going to be dramatically changed. Constituents have expressed concern that this is a highly complicated industry and very confusing.
I would like to ask the minister what he has been able to do through this act to keep Ontarians aware of impending changes in how we come to know electricity.
Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): Thank you very much to the member for Guelph for her help earlier on. As the Minister of Environment and Energy three years ago, she began the process of developing the Energy Competition Act, and that was taken up by our colleague Norm Sterling. I inherited it some 17 months ago and I'm proud that before Christmas the act was passed.
Since that time my ministry, along with outside advisers on the minister's energy transition committee - people like Hazel McCallion, the mayor of Mississauga, are on that committee - has been working very actively to get the word out to the public that the marketplace will be open to competition for electricity in the year 2000.
This little pamphlet here was produced by the committee of stakeholders. Some five million are being sent to households with people's electricity and gas bills. We've had tremendous co-operation from the Municipal Electric Association and the gas distribution companies in getting that out.
Also, my ministry produces Power Switch, which goes out to all municipal leaders, PUCs and municipal electrical utilities. We've also held some 18 workshops across the province - over 1,000 municipal leaders attended those workshops - to explain the changes that are coming. There will be many more communications with the public to ensure they're well prepared for -
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.
Mrs Elliott: With change come opportunities, and not necessarily always good opportunities. In my riding we've heard stories from constituents about unscrupulous gas marketers, about people who were signed into contracts they didn't necessarily understand and wanted to follow through. Lately we've been hearing about lack of service and more than unhelpful call centres. I'm wondering if there are further actions you are able to take to protect consumers against these kinds of difficulties and other unfair practices.
Hon Mr Wilson: Because of the confusion, as we've had a competitive market for some years now in the gas side of the energy business and in the telephone side of the business of telecommunications, we've had some confusion out there with marketers calling people up. You don't know whether these people are legitimate or otherwise when they call you at dinnertime or come to your home. So for the first time, under the Energy Competition Act, we'll be licensing all marketers, agents and retailers of electricity. They will be required to have ID. They will be required to meet a code of conduct.
For the first time the Ontario Energy Board will regulate this area, so any complaints in the future will go to the impartial, arm's-length Ontario Energy Board. They can pull a marketer's licence, something that can't be done today when a marketer comes to your door, but it is part of the new act and will in place very soon.
Also, for anyone who has signed an energy contract from now until the electricity market is open in the year 2000, that contract will have to reaffirmed. It becomes null and void and people will have to re-sign. So if anyone has signed anything now, they'll have an opportunity to look at that again in the year 2000, next year, when competition comes in.
Also, there will be a 10-day cooling-off period with all new contracts -
The Speaker: New question.
GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. There is a growing revolt across Ontario against the orgy of blatantly partisan propaganda ads that are blanketing television screens, the airwaves, newspapers and mailboxes, all at taxpayers' expense and all designed to re-elect the Mike Harris Conservatives.
University of Toronto political scientist Nelson Wiseman said of your taxpayer-paid ads:
"It's a flagrant and wasteful expenditure of public monies. It's all the more insulting to the intelligence of the public because this is a government that said it's going to cut back on wasteful spending."
At a time when you're closing community hospitals, at a time when morale among our educators and health care workers has sunk to an all-time low as a result of your axe-wielding policies, at a time when you are closing community schools, how can Mike Harris, the self-appointed cost-cutter, justify squandering millions on yet more self-serving, clearly partisan television commercials whose only purpose is to get his government re-elected using taxpayers' dollars?
Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I think the member of the opposition would recognize that all governments have an obligation to the public to advertise and to explain their policies and their programs. I would agree with him that we have cut costs. When the Liberals were in power they spent $277 million in a four-year period. Our government has spent $163 million. There has been over a $100-million reduction. The facts speak for themselves.
Mr Bradley: I have an even more telling quote from a genuine expert on blatantly partisan ads paid for by the taxpayers. This expert on using taxpayers' money for government advertising of a partisan nature said the following, and I want you to listen carefully to it:
"Prime-time ads promoting the government's Jobs Ontario program are being used by the NDP to woo voters. It's nothing more than a propaganda blitz for the NDP. It's electioneering and campaigning on taxpayers' money and it's wrong."
Guess who said that.
Interjection: Who said it?
Mr Bradley: The author of that quote is none other than Mike Harris - Mike Harris himself.
Will you bring to an immediate end this abuse of public office described by Mike Harris as "electioneering and campaigning on taxpayers' money and it's wrong," and will you assure this House that this advertising will not continue during the period of time of an election campaign in this province?
1510
Hon Mr Hodgson: As I mentioned before, governments have an obligation to explain to the public what's going on. There's been a lot of change. There are a lot of things we have to talk about - massive changes in terms of restructuring Ontario to make sure we have the framework to create those 540,000 net new jobs and to revitalize Ontario back to its rightful place of leading Canada.
If he wants to talk about quotes in past governments, as I mentioned we're spending over $100 million less than his government spent when he was in power. I can quote, because from time to time there are criticisms of government advertising. When his government was in power, the Chair of Management Board at the time was Murray Elston. He answered the complaint by saying: "From time to time there is a need to make information available to the public in the broadest possible way. We do the best we can in managing our budgets."
There was another minister in 1985 - this was only about three or four months after your government was in power. Vince Kerrio, the Minister of Natural Resources, on December 10, 1985, answered the complaint this way: "We're going to have to send the message out that Ontario is in good shape and is going to be in better shape than it had ever been in the past 42 years. The member can put that in his little pipe and smoke it."
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister, you're out of order. Sit down, please. Member for Ottawa West, you have to come to order. No more heckling. I'm warning you: If you heckle again I'm going to throw you out.
PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Minister of Health. On June 25, 1998, I introduced a Patients' Bill of Rights in the Legislature. This bill calls for provincial standards and accountability for high-quality health care so that patients know what they should expect from health care institutions and providers.
At the time, you said: "We support the Patients' Bill of Rights. We know that this is very much needed. It's what people in this province are asking for. It introduces accountability into the system. Work is underway on a patient safety bill." That was what you said 10 months ago, Minister. Have you any intention of introducing such a bill, or is this just another empty promise that you and your government won't keep?
Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As the member has rightly indicated, our party is very supportive of a bill which would deal with the issue of patient safety, quality services for patients. In fact, I did reaffirm, when I responded to the recommendations of the Nursing Task Force - as you know, we have recently done a complete review, addressed all the concerns of the nursing profession. We are moving forward to ensure that we have the appropriate level of nursing. We're going to have 12,000 nurses by the end of the year 2000. At the same time, I indicated again that we are moving forward with patient safety.
Mrs Boyd: Promises, promises, Minister. No one is believing you when you say you'll keep those promises.
On Monday in this House, my leader brought to your attention two terrible health care stories. We hear them all the time. Kim Ginter's life is still hanging in the balance as he waits for a bed at Toronto General, the only hospital that can treat his life-threatening condition. Karen Ford still waits for the surgery and treatment she needs for her malignancy. She is still waiting for her infection to clear up, an infection she developed because she was sent home quicker and sicker from the hospital.
Minister, it occurs to me that you're not acting on this promise, you're not bringing in a bill of rights, because your government would flunk the test, every test, whether it's standards or access or accountability in health care. Is that the reason we're still waiting?
Hon Mrs Witmer: Again, let me assure you that our government does remain committed to ensure that all Ontarians receive timely access. As you know, we have been moving forward with a plan. We are not moving forward in the way that you did. If I look at 1993, it says, "The provincial government scrambles to put together a cancer treatment strategy," and the waiting lists get longer and longer.
The reality is that we are putting in place a plan. We are, as you know, building additional capacity. We're going to have three new cancer centres. We're also ensuring that the human resources are available because, as you know, under your government there was a shortage of human resources. We now have a plan that will ensure that we have the radiation therapists, we have the oncologists, we have the physicists. In fact, we have invested $155 million into cancer treatment for people in this province in order that the waiting time can be reduced and people can have the services as quickly as possible.
LONG-TERM CARE
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): My question is for the Minister of Long-Term Care. Last Friday you made an announcement that was greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm in the Hamilton area. The announcement revolved around St Peter's Hospital, which has been a cornerstone in our community for over 100 years and which will shortly begin a new role as a long-term-care centre. Could you share with us how this new initiative will improve the lives of Hamilton's seniors?
Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Long-Term Care, minister responsible for seniors): I'd like to thank the honourable member for his question and for his vigilance in seeking out the additional long-term-care beds that have been required in the Hamilton-Wentworth region for the last 20 years.
We're proud to be a government which has responded with 902 new long-term-care beds which are being built in the city of Hamilton. The residents of St Peter's Hospital, the last of the chronic care hospitals in this province to reclassify its beds, will now receive in a fully integrated care setting various levels of care, whether it is complex continuing care, because they have made an arrangement with Chedoke Hospital, or long-term care and some additional supports that are going to be provided on that site. Because our government was the first government to bring in levels-of-care funding, those residents will actually get the funding that is required to meet their needs, and that's an important first in our province.
Interjection.
Mr Skarica: I know that Hamilton area residents have been waiting a long time for these long-term-care beds. I would, however, like you to provide some assurance that the needs of the current patients at St Peter's and the other three chronic care hospitals will be provided for. The NDP member for Hamilton Centre, who just spoke out, has been critical, as he usually is, of this transition and others. What assurances can you give us?
Hon Mr Jackson: In 1985 there were 15 chronic care hospitals in this province. I think it was Elinor Caplan in 1987 or 1988 who closed the first chronic care hospital in the member for Cornwall's riding. I know the member for Hamilton Centre, who was a member of the cabinet of the previous government, sat at a table and watched his government close several chronic care hospitals.
What this government has done in the announcement on Friday is ensure that the residents will find accommodation on the current site. They will not be asked to leave, as previous governments have done with long-term-care patients who have been resident in chronic care hospitals.
The news has been welcomed by the Hamilton community. The agreement that has been reached between St Peter's Hospital and this government is one that will allow for increased funding for patient needs, will allow for partnership to meet the specific needs of Alzheimer's patients -
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, member for Fort William.
EDUCATION ISSUES
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is to the Minister of Education. Your government, to serve its political purposes, has waged a constant attack on teachers over the course of the last four years. You have demeaned them as individuals, you have devalued their work, you have totally demoralized them, and you have been successful in driving them out of the profession in record numbers.
More than 10,000 teachers are retiring. Twice as many as you had expected have opted for early retirement. As a result, we're facing a teacher shortage this September, even though you have done your best to have fewer teachers in our classrooms when the students come back in the fall.
I'm asking you today what steps you are taking now to make sure there are qualified teachers in every classroom next September.
Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm happy to indicate that some time ago I set up a task force on teacher recruitment. This task force is composed of representatives from the Ontario College of Teachers, from the Council of Ontario Directors of Education, deans of faculties of education, teachers' federations, principals' associations, among others. This particular task force has been doing a good deal of work. I expect their report in the very near future. I look forward to it.
I can also say, and I'm pleased to say, that the preliminary data show that the number of applicants to teacher education faculties is up over 40% -
Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): In spite of the scaremongering.
Hon David Johnson: - in spite of the scaremongering of certain opposition parties, particularly in math, science and technology, which is a great comfort to me: over a 70% increase in applicants in technology pursuits. I encourage young people to consider teaching as a career. It's a wonderful, challenging career.
1520
Mrs McLeod: It is a matter of public knowledge that record numbers of teachers are leaving the profession in this year and that it has created a crisis of proportions we've never seen before. Obviously, having increased numbers of applicants for teachers' college programs in September won't put qualified teachers in the classroom in the fall. We are at the end of April. We are going probably into an election. We need to know what will be in place to ensure there are qualified teachers. The concern, Minister, is that your government has tried to put unqualified teachers into the classroom in the past. The College of Teachers had to come to you on Bill 160 and make you back off on the intention to have unqualified teachers head up the classrooms.
I know that your deputy minister has approached the College of Teachers and asked them to consider putting in place a six-week training program. Minister, I am asking for your absolute assurance that you will not be putting in place a six-week training program and putting these less qualified teachers in front of our classrooms in September.
Hon David Johnson: You have my absolute assurance that we'll be working very closely with the task force that has appointed the College of Teachers to ensure that we have quality teachers in our classrooms this fall.
The member opposite has mentioned Bill 160. Bill 160, which has been upheld in the courts just recently, provides fair funding, directing more dollars into the classroom, putting caps on average class sizes. What is the answer from the Liberal Party in terms of their approach to funding teachers and classrooms in Ontario? Their approach, according to the Toronto Star, is to put $1.3 billion on to property taxpayers. In the Toronto Star today - download, that's your plan. Download on to property taxpayers by $1.3 billion. Say it isn't so.
SERVICES DE SANTÉ DU NORD / NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES
M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Ma question est au ministre de la Santé. Pour payer pour votre réduction d'impôts, l'hiver passé vous avez pris la décision de couper le financement pour le programme des cliniques pour spécialistes médicaux en visite au nord de la province. Après l'intervention de M. Len Wood, moi-même, les communautés et leurs hôpitaux, vous avez choisi il y a une couple de semaines de réintroduire le financement de ce programme pour six mois. Je vous demande, que comptez-vous faire après six mois ?
Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As the member has indicated, we have made the funding available. We will continue to review the situation and, based on the feedback that we get from the people in the northern community, we will make a decision at the end of the six months.
M. Bisson : On sait que c'est beaucoup plus cher pour envoyer les patients d'un bord de la province à l'autre pour être capable d'avoir les traitements d'un spécialiste qu'envoyer le spécialiste directement dans la région. Je veux demander : on sait que vous faites ça pour être capable de payer pour votre réduction d'impôts. Ma question est bien simple : est-ce que ça fait plus de bon sens de donner une réduction d'impôts aux personnes au-dessus de 90,000 $ par année, ou est-il mieux de payer pour avoir ce programme-là en place pour le monde du nord de la province quand ils ont des problèmes et qu'ils ont besoin de spécialistes ?
Hon Mrs Witmer: Our priority has always been to ensure that people in this province, no matter where they live, have access to needed services, and that's part of the reason why we have been expanding the number of dialysis centres. At the present time, since we were elected in 1995, we have an additional 25 dialysis centres throughout this province. We have more MRIs.
We are endeavouring to bring all the services as close to home and to the communities of the individuals, where the individuals live. In this instance as well we will continue to ensure that people have access to the primary care and the specialist services they need, and that the appropriate level of funding can be provided to ensure that access to specialists is there when they need the services of specialists.
WOMEN'S ISSUES
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. I understand that the women's economic independence round tables have been completed. Could you tell this assembly a bit about the findings, please.
Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Thank you to my colleague from Peterborough, who not only has been tremendously supportive of our partners for change programs across this province but has been very active in his own community.
We have completed round tables recently with women who have come to our partners at round tables, who have been invited by their own individual program leaders in their communities, in London, Ottawa, Barrie, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Toronto, Peterborough and Timmins. I think most everyone considers this a great success.
It's a place where we come together as leaders who are trying to improve the quality of life of others in our community and especially focused on helping young girls choose careers and make the right choices so that they can become economically independent. It has been a success.
I should say to my colleague that we will continue on with this way of getting good information for our government that we can pass on to other ministers and to do everything we can to motivate these young women to make good choices for their lives.
Mr Stewart: As you know, I had the privilege of being at the round table in Peterborough, and the input and feedback that we have received since have been just wonderful.
I understand that last night the partners for change met in Toronto. Would you please share with the House the purpose of that evening and that meeting.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Last night the large group of women that was able to come together - we do this once or twice a year to share in some of the success stories of many of our partners who take on individual projects, whether it be to assist in the prevention of violence against women or whether it be to assist in their own communities in any way they can in our partners for change projects to help women become economically independent.
One of the projects is called Words on Work. It's a women speakers' bureau. Many of the groups came together to put this brochure together so that this can be distributed to our schools. There will be about 100 role models who will be working in the schools with the teachers and the young women next September, and we hope a year from now we will have 5,000 role models who will be in schools across Ontario to help young women choose the right careers and make good decisions for success.
RENT REGULATION
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I want to ask you about the Harris and Leach legacy in terms of removing any tenant protection in this province. You know that the record is in, the results are in, and rents are up in Toronto by 10%.
Minister, you ran and a lot of your colleagues ran on phony promises, on phony brochures to say you would bring the rent down and you would protect tenants. Instead you've abandoned tenants and you've encouraged bad landlords to use those rules.
Minister, will you stand up and admit today that your rules were bogus and that you've actually harmed tenants by allowing rents to increase in Toronto by an average of 10%?
Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I would suggest to the honourable member across that he stick to chasing ambulances. That's something he knows more about than the rent control system.
It's incredible that the Liberal Party could talk about increases. Here are increases under the rent control of the Liberal government. Rents increased as much as 115%. In the member's riding, here are a few examples: tenants living at 29 Jane Street saw increases of 21%; tenants living in Howard Park saw increases of 11.3%; and people living at 100 Quebec Avenue saw increases of 48.9%. This is under the Liberal rent control.
For them to stand up and say that rent controls are not working under our government is laughable.
1530
PETITIONS
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here that deals with the gas price situation in Ontario.
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. If you're going, can you leave now?
Member for Kingston and The Islands.
Mr Gerretsen: I never knew that the presentation of petitions caused this much of a ruckus in this House. It deals with gas prices which have gone up dramatically in the province.
It states:
"Whereas since Mike Harris took office consumers across Ontario have been gouged by large oil companies who have implemented unfair and dramatic increases in the price of gasoline; and
"Whereas this increase in the price of gasoline has outpaced the rate of inflation by a rate that is totally unacceptable to all consumers in this province because it is unfair and directly affects their ability to purchase other consumer goods; and
"Whereas Premier Mike Harris and ministers within the cabinet of this government while in opposition expressed grave concern for gas price gouging and asked the government of the day to take action; and
"Whereas the Mike Harris government could take action under Ontario law and pass predatory gas pricing legislation which would protect consumers, but instead seems intent on looking after the interests of big oil companies;
"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to eliminate gas price fixing and prevent the oil companies from gouging the public on an essential and vital product."
I have signed the petition as well, as I am in complete agreement with it.
CANCER TREATMENT
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I have a petition that is signed by over 4,000 residents from Windsor and Essex county, from Windsor, Belle River, Amherstburg, Leamington, Comber and many other towns in the county. It says:
"We, the undersigned residents of Canada, draw attention of the House to the following:
"That approximately eight new cases of childhood cancers are identified each year in the Windsor-Essex region;
"That the impact of having a child diagnosed with cancer is physically, emotionally and often financially devastating to the families of these young people;
"That the Windsor-Essex region lacks the ability to treat children diagnosed with cancer, therefore forcing families to travel to London for all treatments related to their diagnosis;
"That the Ontario Ministry of Health for the last two years has denied the necessary funding to treat childhood cancers in the Windsor-Essex region.
"Therefore, your petitioners call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to provide the necessary funding through the Ministry of Health to establish and staff a satellite medical treatment centre in Windsor to treat local children diagnosed with cancer."
I add my signature to that petition along with CAW environmental committee members Ken Bondy and 4,000 others because I agree completely with it.
NOISE POLLUTION
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): It's a pleasure to rise today to present a petition signed by over 1,000 residents of Mississauga East. It reads as follows:
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas residents of Mississauga East living east of Dixie Road, north of Burnhamthorpe Road, in the Rockwood and Fleetwood communities of Mississauga face daily noise by low-flying airplanes using the north-south runways of Pearson International Airport; and
"Whereas the Rockwood community includes Bough Beeches, Fieldgate Drive, Ponytrail Drive, Audubon Boulevard, Claypine Rise, Beechknoll, Pallisades Lane, Chalkdene Grove, Garnetwood Chase, Garrowhill Trail, Tapestry Trail, River Mill Way, Saltdene Terrace, Branchwood Park, Shale Oak, Hartfield Grove, Copseholm Trail, Marblethorne Court, Bryce Road, Dewberry Crescent, Ottewell Crescent, Anworld Court, Corkstone Glade, Rowntree Court, Capilano Court, Poltava Crescent, Owlsnest Lane, Bacchus Crescent and Rathburn Road East, Carscadden Chase, Maple Ridge Drive, Dallas Court, and the Fleetwood community includes Steepbank Crescent, Ridgewood, Silverplains Drive, Pagehurst Avenue and Pagehurst Court, Ponytrail Drive, Stonepath Crescent, Briarcrook Crescent; and
"Whereas the residents can no longer tolerate living under conditions similar to living in a war-torn region in that, when these airplanes fly by, their homes vibrate, their electronic equipment malfunctions, their children cry, and their mental and physical health are seriously challenged; and
"Whereas these concerns have been raised in a statement to the Legislative Assembly by Carl DeFaria, MPP, on December 7, 1998;
"We, the undersigned, hereby respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the federal Liberal government to listen to the appeals of residents and enforce strict restrictions in the use of the north-south runways at Pearson International Airport to be for use on an emergency basis only."
I, as a member of provincial Parliament, affix my signature to this petition.
HOSPITAL FUNDING
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
"Whereas Ontarians are gravely concerned with the historic $1.3-billion cuts to base funding of hospitals; and
"Whereas Ontarians feel that health services are suffering; and
"Whereas the government is reducing hospital funding and not reinvesting millions of dollars into the communities that they are being taken away from;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the Conservative government to stop the cuts to base funding for hospitals across Ontario and to ensure that community services are in place before the removal of hospital services. The Conservative government must fund hospitals with a funding formula that reflects demographic and regional needs. The Conservative government must ensure that health services are available, including emergency and urgent care, to all Ontarians."
It's signed by my constituents, and I've affixed my own signature in full agreement.
EDUCATION FUNDING
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
"Whereas the government of Ontario has imposed a politically motivated funding formula that will force the closure of hundreds of schools across Ontario; and
"Whereas the only reason for the funding formula is to justify removing more than $1 billion from the education systems so that the wealthiest Ontarians can get a tax break; and
"Whereas schools are the heart of our communities and to close schools would be to cut the heart out of our communities; and
"Whereas a properly funded quality education system is critical to the well-being of the children of this province and to the future of the province itself;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"That the government of Ontario scrap the funding formula and save our schools by properly funding public education, starting with the return of more than $1 billion taken out of education by the government of Ontario."
I affix my signature to this.
PORNOGRAPHY
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 47 people from across the province.
"Whereas children are exposed to pornography in variety stores and video rental outlets;
"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to pornography;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"To enact legislation which will create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to pornography in retail establishments; prevent minors from entering establishments which rent or sell pornography; restrict the location of such establishments to non-residential areas."
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition reads as follows:
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas since Mike Harris took office consumers across Ontario have been gouged by the large oil companies, who have implemented unfair and dramatic increases in the price of gasoline; and
"Whereas this increase in the price of gasoline has outpaced the rate of inflation by a rate that is totally unacceptable to all consumers in this province because it is unfair and directly affects their ability to purchase other consumer goods; and
"Whereas Premier Mike Harris and ministers within the cabinet of this government while in opposition expressed grave concern for gas price gouging and asked the government of the day to take action; and
"Whereas the Mike Harris government could take action under Ontario law and pass predatory gas pricing legislation which would protect consumers, but instead seems intent on looking after the interests of the big oil companies;
"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to eliminate gas price fixing and prevent the oil companies from gouging the public on an essential and vital product."
I affix my signature. I'm in complete agreement with this petition.
ROAD SAFETY
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario dealing with red light cameras making high-collision intersections safer.
"Whereas red light cameras can dramatically assist in reducing the number of injuries and deaths resulting from red light runners; and
"Whereas red light cameras only take pictures of licence plates, thus reducing privacy concerns; and
"Whereas all revenues from violations can easily be directed to a designated fund to improve safety at high-collision intersections; and
"Whereas there is a growing disregard for traffic laws, resulting in serious injury to pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and especially children and seniors; and
"Whereas the provincial government has endorsed the use of a similar camera system to collect tolls on the new Highway 407 tollway; and
"Whereas mayors and concerned citizens across Ontario have been seeking permission to deploy these cameras due to limited police resources;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:
"That the province of Ontario support the installation of red light cameras at high-collision intersections to monitor and prosecute motorists who run red lights."
I'm proud to affix my signature to this.
1540
EDUCATION FUNDING
Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have here a petition signed by a large number of Ontario residents, including Mr John Van Asselt. It is addressed to the Legislature of Ontario and it reads as follows.
"Whereas this government has undertaken to reform the system of education funding to ensure fair funding for Ontario's children; and
"Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the province could, if it so chose, pass legislation extending funding to denominational schools other than Roman Catholic schools without infringing the rights guaranteed to Roman Catholic separate schools; and
"Whereas providing our children with an excellent education consistent with our cultural and religious beliefs is a necessity and not a matter of preference; and
"Whereas independent schools successfully educate children across the entire spectrum of learning abilities and special needs; and
"Whereas all children of taxpaying Ontario parents deserve to have funding distributed in a manner that does not discriminate against those not using the public or Catholic systems;
"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens and taxpayers of Ontario, respectfully request that the government take immediate steps to extend fair funding to all students of the province."
GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I'd like to read this petition. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it states:
"Whereas essential public services have been deprived of government funding because the Conservative government of Mike Harris has diverted these funds to self-serving political propaganda ads in the form of pamphlets delivered to homes, newspaper advertisements and radio and television commercials; and
"Whereas the Harris government advertising blitz is a blatant abuse of public office and a shameful waste of taxpayers' dollars; and
"Whereas the Harris Conservatives ran on a platform of eliminating what it referred to as government waste and unnecessary expenditures while it squanders over $100 million on clearly partisan advertising;
"We, the undersigned, call upon the Conservative government of Mike Harris to immediately end their abuse of public office and terminate any further expenditure on political advertising."
I've signed this petition as well.
PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to save the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital.
"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"We, the undersigned citizens of Hamilton and the surrounding communities, beg leave to petition the government of Ontario as follows:
"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has announced the closure of Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital; and
"Whereas the government of Ontario through the Health Services Restructuring Commission is divesting its responsibility for mental health care without any consultation with the people of Hamilton-Wentworth; and
"Whereas the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital has a reputation for excellence and is a leader in providing mental health care services and many unique programs; and
"Whereas in 1998 the American Psychiatric Association awarded their gold award to the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital for its program on mood disorders; and
"Whereas both city and regional councils oppose the closure and more than 30,000 people have signed petitions opposing the hospital's closure; and
"Whereas the people of Hamilton-Wentworth will pay the price when the Harris government shuts down the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital;
"Therefore we, the people of Hamilton-Wentworth who care about quality, accessibility and publicly accountable mental health care, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to keep the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital site open and deliver the services and programs from that location."
I add my name to these petitioners.
PORNOGRAPHY
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
"Whereas children are exposed to pornography in variety stores and video retail outlets;
"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to pornography;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"To enact legislation which will create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to pornography in retail establishments; prevent minors from entering establishments which rent or sell pornography; restrict the location of such establishments to non-residential areas."
That is from Orillia, Hawkestone and Marchmont. It is signed by approximately 25 people and myself.
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is to the government of Ontario:
"Whereas people across the country are marking the day of mourning for those who have died in the workplace; and
"Whereas the number of individuals injured and killed in workplace accidents remains at an unacceptably high level;
"We, the undersigned, call upon the government of Ontario to enact legislation and promulgate regulations designed to increase safety in the workplace and adequately compensate those injured on the job."
I affix my signature.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
THRONE SPEECH DEBATE
Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): It is a tradition for opposition leaders to respond to throne speeches. As leader of the NDP, I am pleased to do so today. But there is a problem. Usually we respond to the substance of a throne speech. Today that is difficult because there is no substance to the government's throne speech. There is no meat in the sandwich, no beef on the bull.
There was a lot of bull about leadership, but real leaders don't hide from the public. Real leaders don't depend on the Queen's representative to make campaign speeches for them. They don't beat up on people who can't fight back. They don't go after the most vulnerable people in the province. They don't hide behind a commission when they close hospitals in order to get the money to finance their income tax scheme for the wealthiest people in the province. They don't close down public hearings when the public starts to ask questions. Real leaders stand up. They take responsibility for what they have done.
Over the last three years I have challenged the Premier to defend his record on health care, on education and on the environment time and time again. I have made the challenge in several communities across the province. I've said we can debate on television, we can debate on the lawn at Queen's Park, we can debate at his favourite golf course. I am willing, but the Premier continues to find excuses why he can't defend his record. What's he afraid of? I can only conclude that perhaps he is not up to the job. Maybe it's easier to play "let's pretend" than show real leadership.
That's what was in the throne speech. It was a script of a game called "let's pretend." If Siskel and Ebert saw it they would give it two thumbs down. The script was bad, but the acting was even worse. After being bullies of the schoolyard, the Harris Conservatives now want us to believe that they've become Boy Scouts. After four years of Americanizing and privatizing our health care system, they want us to think they're Tommy Douglas.
Ontarians deserve good government, not a game of "let's pretend." The struggles of people across this province are real. Most people in Ontario are putting in longer hours, working harder, struggling more than ever before and having a very tough time.
What did they hear in the throne speech? They heard the Harris government say that the debate about tax cuts is over. That may be true in the Albany Club but it's not true in the living rooms and kitchens of most people in Ontario. Most people in Ontario understand what's happening. They go back to what this Premier and the Conservative Party said in the spring of 1995. This Premier and his colleagues told people across Ontario: "There will be a 30% tax cut. There will be no cuts to health, no cuts to education and the money is going to come from somewhere over there."
People know that was completely untrue. They know there is no "over there." They know that the money to finance this so-called tax cut, which only benefits the most well-off, came directly out of health care, came directly out of education, came directly out of protecting the environment. It came directly out of important community services.
1550
People see through this game of "let's pretend." People also see through the game of "let's pretend" that my Liberal colleagues now want to play. It was in 1995 that Mike Harris said: "Thirty per cent tax cut, no cuts to health care, no cuts to education. The money will come from over there." People know it's not true now, but they see Liberals now saying: "Thirty per cent tax cut, money for health care, money for education. The money to do all this will come from somewhere over there." People know it wasn't true between 1995 and now, and they know that it's not true now and into the future.
The very agenda that was responsible for cutting health care, cutting education, cutting environmental protection and cutting important community services can't possibly be the agenda to restore those things. People know they were fooled once; people will not be fooled twice by the same rhetoric, the same agenda, just by changing the packaging of it a bit.
The vast majority of people in this province - modest-income families, middle-income families - know they haven't received a tax cut. Either whatever they were supposed to receive out of the so-called 30% tax cut they haven't seen or what little bit they've seen has been more than overwhelmed by the $1,600-a-year increase in tuition fees for university or college; more than overwhelmed by the prescription medicine copayment tax; more than overwhelmed by increases in property taxes; by new user fees for municipal services, for libraries, for recreation centres, for community centres; by motor vehicle registration fees. People know they are in fact paying more hidden taxes, more user fees, more administrative fees, more tuition fees than ever before.
The only people who got a tax cut were the 6% at the top of the income and wealth ladder who get over 25% of the money. That's where the tax cut went. Ordinary people in this province are paying for that very unbalanced and unfair tax scheme in dozens of ways and paying for it most severely of all through cuts to the health care system they need and cuts to the education system we all need. People see that; they understand it.
How does this government really feel about working families in Ontario? In the throne speech they boasted about Bill 31. That's the bill that encourages the intimidation of workers who try to organize unions. That gives non-construction employers like the Toronto-Dominion Bank the right to rip up agreements with construction unions and insist on lower wages.
The government has turned the clock back 50 years for working women and men. This is a government that has welcomed scabs into the workplace, thrown out successor rights, gutted wage protection, taken worker representatives off the Workers' Compensation Board, trashed an impartial system of professional arbitration and then frozen the wages of the lowest-paid workers in this province for four years. Anyone who works for minimum wage has had their wages frozen for four years by this government, at the same time that this government gives the wealthiest 6% more wealth than ever. That's the reality that families face when you get through this game of "let's pretend."
Did this help Ontario? Did it improve labour relations in Ontario? The TTC labour dispute is a case in point. This government had already cut the funding for Toronto transit, for GO Transit and for all the other urban transit organizations in the province, cut the funding, then downloaded it on to municipalities to find the money to finance their income tax scheme. That was the context.
Every urban transit authority, every urban transit service in this province is in trouble now, and that trouble will get worse in the out-years. When a symptom of that trouble showed up in the labour dispute at the TTC, what was this government's answer? To bring in very unfair legislation that would present the workers with a stacked arbitration system and insist that it be passed right away. That was their answer. That was also the answer of my Liberal counterparts. They were bully-boy tactics.
Don't sit down and talk about the realities of what's happening to urban transit. Don't talk about the desperate financial situation that you've put urban transit in. Simply use the bully tactics. Force them back to work, put on them a very unfair, unbalanced, biased arbitration system that will not possibly result in a fair settlement, and then wipe your hands of it.
We've said we're having none of that. We're not prepared to participate in an unfair, unbalanced, unjust, stacked system. We've found that by inviting the two parties together, those people who are responsible for Toronto transit and who actually take responsibility - instead of this government, which tries to avoid responsibility - when talking to those who are responsible for the Toronto transit and talking to the leadership of the union, they were quite prepared to come together to find an agreement. You don't need to use bully-boy tactics. That was leadership. Instead, we've got a government here that confuses leadership with bullying people.
Has attacking working Ontarians helped our economy? That's what this government would have us believe. By freezing the wages of the lowest-paid workers, by attacking the right of those workers to organize and to bargain for themselves and to protect health and safety, they would have you believe that by doing away with those things, somehow the Ontario economy has been improved.
There are some interesting numbers that refute the government's case. In the years 1991-95 the number of person-days lost in Ontario from work stoppages varied between 371,000 and 580,000. Compare that to the Harris record in 1996-97, after this government threw out the most progressive labour legislation in North America. The number of days lost in Ontario from work stoppages went through the roof. In both 1996 and 1997 the person-days lost in each year was more than 1.9 million. What a terrible record.
What is our response? I want to be absolutely clear. New Democrats will immediately repeal Bill 7 and ban the use of scabs in Ontario workplaces. We will reinstate full successor rights for all workers. We will make sure that injured workers have the legislated right to receive fair treatment and compensation. We will restore full support for achieving and maintaining pay equity, as the law says we must. We will boost the wage for Ontario minimum-wage earners, 60% of whom are women, to $7.65 an hour, which is the Ontario equivalent of the American minimum wage. I challenge any Conservative or any Liberal to show evidence that the increase in the minimum wage in the United States has resulted in any lost jobs. Even Republicans won't make that argument in the United States now.
Finally, we will bring back to Ontario the capacity for workers to strive for and to defend their own health and safety in the workplace, on what is the day of mourning for workers who have lost their life and who have been injured in the workplace. This government has the most despicable record of all in terms of doing away with the Occupational Disease Panel, in terms of firing and laying off the labour inspectors who used to ensure that workplaces were healthy and safe, in terms of doing away with some of the basic protections - the agencies and the organizations - that were there to promote health and safety in the workplace. This government has done away with them. New Democrats will ensure that they are restored once again.
Working families in Ontario deserve more than what they got from this government's game of "let's pretend." They deserve more than one round after another of "let's pretend." As cynical as it sounds, the Harris government even wants 1.5 million Ontarians with disabilities to play along with their game of "let's pretend."
1600
When their three-page act was introduced, the outcry from the disabled community was long and loud, and for good reason. David Lepofsky is chairman of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. That group represents some 85 organizations across the province. Mr Lepofsky described the outrage of people with disabilities. He said to reporters: "Premier Mike Harris has slapped us in the face. He has punched us in the stomach." We're talking here about some of the most vulnerable citizens in Ontario. We're talking about people who have to overcome in some cases a number of handicaps, who have to overcome not only their own physical handicaps, their own challenges in their life, but they have to overcome the challenges that society puts in front of them. What did the Premier do? He "has slapped us in the face. He has punched us in the stomach."
Last Thursday this government had an opportunity to change that direction, to show real leadership, but it didn't. The Harris government is once again asking Ontarians to accept their record on disability issues, to be content with a vague promise of additional input. One and a half million Ontarians with disabilities do not deserve another slap in the face, followed by vague promises.
These Ontarians deserve action on the 11 principles to which this House agreed unanimously last fall. They deserve action by a Harris government that told them four years ago that there would be action. New Democrats will stand by those principles and we will keep speaking out and keep fighting until they are entrenched in law. We will answer the slap in the face by continuing to raise these issues until they become the law of Ontario.
Then there's the issue of the environment. In the throne speech, the government tried to play "let's pretend" about the environment as well. They try to hide their dismal record behind their so-called Lands for Life process, or what is more accurately lands for litigation. That was a process where people who are unelected, who represent no one but themselves, who are accountable to no one but themselves, behind closed doors and in back rooms, without involving the very people who are going to be most affected by this such as native people who live in northern Ontario, pretended they could make these decisions and could avoid dealing with the very people who are going to be most affected.
Aboriginal people have said: "We're going to go to court. You're not going to force on us a strategy of intensive forestry, which means applying more and more herbicides and pesticides in the forest than ever before. You're not going to dump that on us." So they are going to go to court. While the government may think they have a photo op, what they have in fact created is all kinds of strife, and Lands for Life is now lands for litigation.
I want to talk about what the Environmental Commissioner said today. I don't want to talk about a photo op. This government is famous for photo ops that have no substance. I want to talk about what the Environmental Commissioner has said four times now in the last four years. Three years ago the Minister of the Environment said that this government would test buses and trucks to ensure we had cleaner air. Well, that was three years ago; it's still not happening. They should call their strategy the omissions program, not the emissions program, because trucks and buses are completely left out. While working families must face inspections and pay to bring their cars up to some vague standards, corporate polluters can get away with almost anything.
The government is also playing "let's pretend" with its so-called smog patrol. They're pretending that nine staff will be able to patrol seven million vehicles - nine staff in the whole province to deal with seven million vehicles.
What about enforcement? The Harris government has cut the Ministry of the Environment budget by 45%. They've laid off 750 scientists, technicians, inspectors, monitors and technical experts. They've laid off the very people who used to enforce environmental protection, who used to do the inspections, the very people who used to prosecute the polluters. That's the true story about how protection of the environment has been weakened in Ontario.
What's the result? Fines and prosecutions are down from more than $3 million a year under Ontario's first NDP government to less than $1 million a year in 1997. Environmental enforcement was sacrificed to help pay for their so-called tax cut, which benefits only the wealthiest people in the province. They not only slashed the funding, they have tried to keep the public in the dark. They have narrowed down the environmental assessment process so they don't have to include public hearings. They've closed the door to the public.
The government gave a bright green light to big polluters to continue dumping toxic substances, with little regulation and no one to stop them. Ontario is now by far Canada's largest generator of hazardous waste. This province generates between 1.2 million and five million tonnes of hazardous waste each year. That's about 60% of the total produced in Canada. In the last four years, hazardous waste generated by Ontario industry has grown dramatically. There was a reported 50% increase in waste sent off-site for disposal between 1994 and 1997. That's the real record.
This government's negligence has real-life consequences. We're not talking about "let's pretend" when the Ontario Medical Association says that 1,800 people a year now die from air-pollution-induced diseases in this province. The government's response in the throne show: They tried to green-wash their record with a so-called conservation award. What were they thinking? If you can't breathe the air and drink the water, maybe you'll feel better if you think about a conservation award? Is that the strategy?
New Democrats will hire 500 new environmental officers to inspect, monitor and enforce the environmental protection regulations of this province. We will implement the Ontario Clean Air Alliance targets to reduce the emissions from Ontario's electricity generating stations. We will move Ontario towards the goals of the Ontario campaign for clean air. We will introduce right-to-know legislation that will bring all information about the state of our environment to the surface, where it should be. No more trying to keep the people of Ontario in the dark concerning what's happening to our environment. No one is safe from this government's game of "let's pretend," not even children.
In the throne show, the government pretended to care about learning in the early years. This is the same gang who scrapped all 13 NDP pilot projects in early childhood education, the same gang who ended mandatory junior kindergarten, who cut thousands of daycare spaces, the same gang whose leader said four years ago that expanding education for young children was the most ridiculous recommendation he'd ever heard.
New Democrats will invest $360 million to help protect community schools and keep them open, to protect junior kindergarten and early childhood education and adequately support special needs education and ensure that child care spaces are there for the children and families who need them. We will also change the funding formula so that it includes spaces for child care. It's an investment that Ontario must make and that only New Democrats will make.
1610
Ontario faces the growing tragedy of homelessness, but the government in its throne show kept playing its game of "let's pretend." This round was called "Let's pretend that homelessness does not exist." There was not one sentence, not one phrase, not one word dealing with the crisis of homelessness, even though we've started to see a new class of people without homes - families with children - and even though 38% of the people who are homeless in cities like Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and London now carry the tuberculosis bacterium. The government's silence is appalling. It offends the core of decency that has always been part of the heart and soul of Ontario.
There is a solution to homelessness. It's called political will. New Democrats will restore real rent control. We will boost shelter allowances and create supportive housing. We will build 16,000 units of affordable housing over four years, as well as 14,000 units of supportive housing for people with psychiatric problems, addictions or other serious challenges. These are investments that Ontario must make, and only New Democrats will make them.
In the throne show script the government didn't talk about homelessness, but they did talk about the economy. What about the 540,000 jobs they bragged about? First of all, let me point out that almost half of these so-called jobs are so-called self-employment jobs. They are people who have been downsized out of their jobs or outsized out of their jobs or who are the result of a complete corporate shutdown and now they are out there trying to promote themselves as self-employed, as consultants, as technical experts. Many of these people we know aren't employed at all. Many of them are simply out there on their own, which is the new definition for social responsibility under the Harris government: out there on your own.
A majority of the rest of the jobs are minimum-wage jobs. That's what they are. Every time Premier Harris stands up and brags that new jobs have been created under his government, I can honestly say to you, Speaker, that I know someone who has three of those jobs. They have one part-time job during the day, one part-time job in the evening and one part-time job on the weekend. They all pay minimum wage, and the person has to work at all three to even be close to making ends meet. That's the history of this government in terms of the economy. Those are the kinds of jobs that more and more are the reality under this government.
The numbers that this government trots out don't even begin to capture what's going on in the real world. They don't capture the anxiety too many people in this province feel as they work harder and harder, and feel less secure about their own jobs, trying to make ends meet. They don't take into account the growing gap between those who are well off and those who aren't, a gap made worse by Mr Harris's tax cut for the 6% at the top. If the Harris Conservatives dared to venture beyond staged photo opportunities to listen to real Ontarians, they would see a very different picture.
The government tried to get us to believe that Ontario is on the road to economic growth at the same time they are putting up roadblocks. The single most important key to success in this new knowledge economy is human capital. It's the ability and capacity of our own people. None of us refers to our kids or to ourselves as "human capital," but I agree with all those economists who are now coming forward and saying very clearly that investing in human capital, investing in our own people, is the single most important comparative advantage in this new knowledge economy.
The kind and the quantity of our natural resources isn't as important as it used to be. Neither is closeness to the market as important as it used to be. Technology has made these factors less important than they used to be. Even money, having your own captive supply of capital, isn't as important as it used to be. Investment banks are discovering that their own employees can transfer their investment capital around the world overnight without even telling them.
What's important in this new economy? What's important is having the most knowledgeable workforce, having a workforce that is talented, that is skilled, that has the capacity in this knowledge economy to apply itself and to create the new opportunities. But to get that, to have a population of Ontarians who are skilled, who are knowledgeable, who are capable, who are talented, we must invest in them. We must invest in their communities; we must invest in their schools; we must invest in their colleges; we must invest in their universities.
But that isn't happening. This is a government that is cutting from the very community services that allow us to invest in our people. This is a government that takes pride in the fact that it has taken $1.5 billion out of elementary and secondary education. This is a government that takes pride in the fact that our colleges and universities in Ontario are now funded at the lowest per capita rate in all of Canada. Even Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, poor agricultural provinces like Saskatchewan fund their colleges and universities at a higher per capita rate than Ontario.
If we look at the North American context, Ontario is next to the bottom in North America. Even states like Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana - for God's sake, even Arkansas - invest more in their colleges and universities per capita than Ontario does. At a time when investing in our people, investing in their knowledge, their skills, their capacity is more important than ever before, the Harris Conservatives are moving in the opposite direction.
What must we do? We know what we must do. New Democrats will immediately cut university and college tuition fees by 10%. Young people should not have to mortgage their future to get a higher education that not only helps them but helps our economy be more productive. Attracting their knowledge, maintaining their knowledge, maintaining their skills is the key to success. In fact, investors come to Ontario because of the quality, the skills, the knowledge of our workforce. They come here because of our capacity to be productive, not just because it's a good place to live but because it makes good economic sense.
If we continue to Americanize our health care system - that's what the Harris government's doing. If you look at home care, home care is being handed over to private, for-profit corporations, many of them American for-profit corporations. If you look at long-term care, it's being handed over to private, for-profit corporations. If you look at the downloading of public health and where that's going to end up, it will end up being privatized as well, Americanized. If you look at what's happening to ambulances, it's the same thing. Piece by piece by piece, the Harris government is Americanizing and privatizing our health care system.
It is absolutely the wrong direction. Why would anyone want to emulate or copy the American health care system where they spend more money on health care and yet close to 100 million Americans are almost totally left out? Why would we want to move to a system of health care where less and less of the health care dollar goes to treating patients and more and more of it goes to corporate bonuses, corporate salaries? That's not where we want to go, but clearly that is where we're going.
To give you an indication of how efficient our system of medicare, our system of publicly funded, publicly administered community-delivered health care is, to give you an idea of how efficient it is, we only need to look back at the period 1993-94 during an NDP government. During that government the Big Three in the auto industry - Chrysler, Ford and General Motors - invested $6 billion in the auto industry, the largest single reinvestment ever in the auto industry in the province.
The reasons they made that investment are very interesting. When you talk to them, one of the reasons they want to make those investments is not because of the exchange rate, not because of a tax rate, not because some government is trying to force down the wages of those workers. They made it - one of the single big reasons - because of the efficiency of our health care system. Purchasing health care here in Ontario under medicare, the public system of medicare, saves them hundreds of dollars per vehicle compared to private sector health insurance in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the United States.
The investments we've made in medicare not only make good health care sense, not only make good social sense; they make good economic sense as well.
1620
We've seen in the last few days that this government is now driving around the province trying to shovel money out the back end of the truck, back into the health care system to cover up the damage they've done. We've seen that. But despite their rhetoric, this government is determined to Americanize and privatize health care, not by the front door but by the back door. That's why 70% of the new long-term-care contracts have been awarded to private, for-profit companies. That's why the majority of the new contracts for home care are going to private, for-profit companies. It is an assault on the principles of the Canada Health Act.
What must be done? What must be done is simply this:
New Democrats will stop the move to American-style, for-profit health care and home care.
New Democrats, and only New Democrats, will invest an additional $250 million immediately in home nursing, homemaking and personal support services.
New Democrats will stop the destructive, cutthroat bidding wars for home care contracts that lead to unrealistically low bids, low wages for health care workers and poor service.
Health care investment should go into patient care, not into profits for private companies.
I won't go into detail about our guarantee for assessment by registered nurses in all emergency wards in hospitals across the province within 15 minutes. I won't need to go into detail about that because after we announced it two months ago and after we showed people how it would work, first the Conservatives and then the Liberals adopted it. I don't need to persuade either this government or the Liberals about the wisdom of the direction the New Democrats have set out for health care. After studying it for two months they've accepted it.
But there is one big difference. The difference is this: We know how we can pay for our investments in health care, our investments in education, our investments in the environment, our investments for the homeless. We know how we can pay for it. We know that by rolling back the so-called 30% income tax scheme for the 6% at the top, it will give us $1.5 billion a year to reinvest in health care, reinvest in education and reinvest in the community services that will do the most good for the most people.
Conservatives will talk about the money being somewhere over there. Liberals will talk about the money being somewhere over there in an imaginary place. New Democrats know where we will find the money to implement these commitments, we know where we can find the money, we know how to pay for these commitments and it will not add one cent to the deficit of the province.
We will also put in place a Patients' Bill of Rights, not the bill of goods the government has talked about. Our bill of rights sets standards for health care to hold governments accountable. It also guarantees whistle-blower protection for health care workers. High-quality health care for Ontarians when and where they need it is an investment that Ontario must make and it's an investment that only New Democrats will make.
The further you go into the throne show script, the worse it gets. The Harris government wants to institutionalize their underfunding not only of health care, but also of education and also of communities. They intend to introduce their so-called appearance of a balanced budget legislation, and the Liberals are cheering them on. This kind of legislation would make the funding cuts to health care, to education and to communities an institutional reality.
The throne show was pap and empty rhetoric but it did make one thing clear: The only thing this government stands for and is willing to fight for is a tax cut for the wealthiest 6% in Ontario at the expense of everyone else. They have done and will do absolutely anything it takes to pay for it. They will suck $4.5 million a day from essential services to give the wealthiest 6% that tax cut. They will sacrifice services that Ontarians count on and believe in. They will sacrifice medicare, they will sacrifice public education, they will sacrifice the community services we all need, all the things that have made this one of the best places in the world to live and one of the most productive places in the world to live.
I am proud that New Democrats were the first to put our campaign vision on the table where it can be examined in the light of day. We will roll back the Harris tax cut for the 6% at the top who get more than 25% of the money. That will give us the $1.5 billion that we need to reinvest in health and education and our communities, and we will put that money where it will do the most good for the most people.
Our commitments are specific. They are costed out and they will not add a single cent to the deficit. Our plan is focused, it's disciplined and it's doable. Others promise to reinvest, but they too are playing "let's pretend." Others will talk about the money that might come from somewhere over there, but it only underscores the fact that they have no idea how to accomplish the necessary reinvestments in health care, in education and in the communities that we all need.
Some people count on an imaginary surplus. Some of them want to have us believe that they can go to their uncle, the finance minister in Ottawa, and ask for more transfer money; the same finance minister that has cut $3 billion a year from post-secondary education and put none of it back; the same Liberal finance minister in Ottawa who cut $3 billion a year from health care and put only a fraction of it back: Uncle Paul Martin. They want Uncle Paul Martin to increase their allowance.
I have a simple message to all those Ontarians who know that investments in health care are more important than a tax cut for the well off, who know that investments in education are far more important than a tax cut for the well off, who know that protecting our environment is more important than a tax cut for the well off. To all those Ontarians who are sick of playing "let's pretend," I can tell you New Democrats hear you, and we are clearly on your side.
We have a plan to remedy the damage that has been done to health care and to education and to the environment. We have a detailed strategy that will help us pay for it and put us back on the right road. We will stand up and fight for what we and a million Ontarians know in our heads and in our hearts is the right thing to do: Fight for an Ontario where everyone, not just the well-off, have the opportunity to succeed and no one is left behind.
It's time to stop playing "let's pretend." It is time to start working for and looking out for all those Ontarians who need a good medicare system, all those Ontarians who know we need a good education system, colleges and universities that are funded adequately and all those Ontarians who know that we must protect our environment. If we fail to, the costs down the road multiply and will surely cause us all kinds of pain.
New Democrats speak to and for all of those Ontarians. It's time to stop playing "let's pretend." It's time for people to know who is on their side. New Democrats are on the side of hard-working Ontarians across this province and we intend to make the difference, to turn this province around and put us on the road we want to be on, not just a road that benefits the 6% at the top.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to the order of the House dated April 26, 1999, the debate is adjourned and the House is adjourned until 6:30 this evening.
The House adjourned at 1633.
Evening meeting reported in volume B.