Hansard Transcripts 2001-Jun-05 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I rise today as the member for the Upper Ottawa Valley to convey to the Harris government the incredible and dumbfounded response of my elderly constituents, who are hearing these past few days that their community care access centre is going to be withdrawing very valuable and important home care and home support services from hundreds, perhaps thousands, of elderly patients in communities from Arnprior to Stonecliffe, and from Pembroke out to Barry's Bay and Palmer Rapids.

These older people are absolutely incredulous. This government, which has closed scores of hospitals and taken over 7,000 hospital beds out of the system, promised in good faith just a few years ago that there would be more, not less, money from the Ontario government to support the frail elderly at home.

I've got a constituent, to name but one, who is an 84-year-old woman with Alzheimer's and a broken hip and she's now going to lose valuable home support, personal care service. She and her family are absolutely distraught and the family is making a great effort to sustain their mother at home.

This is an outrageous breach of faith with the elderly people of the Ottawa Valley and elsewhere in Ontario.

Just a few weeks ago, we had the Ontario budget promising a $2.2-billion corporate tax cut -- billions for corporations, fewer and fewer dollars for 84-year-old women with Alzheimer's trying to stay and be cared for at home.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Today I rise in the House to recognize a volunteer from Northumberland county, Mrs Minnie Pennell. It is wonderful to have the opportunity to acknowledge a local volunteer who has been honoured by the province with a Senior Achievement Award. Mrs Pennell has been a long-time volunteer for the town of Cobourg's environmental advisory committee and the Cobourg Area Environmental Association. Her main accomplishments have been the establishment of an exceptional ecology garden and a wonderful arboretum.

Yesterday Minnie had the opportunity to lunch with Lieutenant Governor Hilary Weston after she received one of only 24 achievement awards presented this year. The present Queen's father once said, "The test of our worth is the service we render," and clearly Minnie has passed that test with flying colours.

Since June is Seniors' Month, it gives us all a wonderful opportunity to thank the seniors such as Minnie Pennell for all of their sacrifices and for all of their contributions over the years.

I would like to personally congratulate Mrs Pennell on her award and on the outstanding work that she has done within Cobourg over the past 20 years.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I rise today to bring to the attention of members of this House the threat which exists to the property in this city known as High Park, an area enjoyed by not a few but by thousands of people as their connection with nature. Instead, being put forward and foisted upon local citizens, through a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, is an excessively large development that threatens to disturb the grounds and the water which provide one of the most pristine opportunities for the people of Toronto in general, not just those in my riding of Parkdale-High Park, to enjoy.

A condominium development has been exempted from the regular planning process by the Ontario Municipal Board. It is necessary for the province, and for the members of this House to encourage the province, to act, through the Environmental Assessment Act, to make sure that this development does not do what is feared and upset the delicate balance of nature, the wetlands, Grenadier Pond and so forth, because on this site are two service stations that were in business for 70 years, which have not been remediated and won't be remediated to a standard to protect this precious and fragile natural resource right here in the city, unless it draws the interest of the members of this House.

High Park deserves special consideration from the members of this House. This development is right on the edge of the most public of public parks in this province. It requires the sensitivity of the people of this House to ensure that there is an environmental assessment done in full before any development can go forward. Surely the interests of those future residents and of all the residents of the area have to be put first and an environmental assessment done on this development.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Ontarians are outraged at this government's initiative to give public dollars to private schools, and no less in my riding. I don't have time to read all the e-mails that have come to me, but I've selected two for your benefit.

One is from Fern Mosoff and Paul Magder, which reads: "The decision to spend/tax credit $300 million of the public purse on private education at this time in our province's social history is shameful, immoral and myopic. (What world are these decision-makers living on? Ultimately, this planet has only one tier.) We want to register our disgust with the arrogance of the Harris government and dismay at this further gross injury to our public school system."

The other letter is addressed to the Canadian Jewish Congress from Steve Werbin and copied to me. "I am writing to you today on behalf of myself regarding your recent approval of the tax credit the provincial Conservatives are introducing for parents who send their children to private schools.

"I am a lower-income resident living in the city of Toronto. I am dismayed and appalled at this apparent support for the wealthy Ontario residents at the expense of the less wealthy.

"In a climate where the public educational institutions face huge class sizes, sharing of textbooks (many times old books), a poisoned relationship between teachers and their employers, and funding formulas that simply do not work, it is a shock and even sick that our government would offer money of the public purse" --

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

Mr Marchese: -- "to aid in essence the private school system (albeit indirectly)."

The Speaker: Sorry, I looked away and he carried on. The member for Kitchener Centre.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Lately the opposition, including that member over there, has focused much of its time telling the government that they do not support the idea of letting parents have choice in the education of their child, or maybe it's choice as they define it. I want to take this opportunity to give yet another example. I am receiving hundreds of letters every day and thousands of petitions every day supporting parents having choice in their child's education.

This one here is from Simon Jeynes, who is a principal and administrator of Christ Lutheran Church. He writes: "I want to both thank and commend you and your government for providing some equitable treatment for all parents in Ontario. The tax credit program that you have introduced addresses the ability of parents to make choices in the education of their children and is a crucial step in enabling all parents to make wise and informed choices for their children."

Mr Jeynes also states, "Contrary to Mr McGuinty's slanderous statements about our parents, they are neither elite nor rich but represent a cross-section of society both socially and economically."

Mr Jeynes has only been in Ontario for the past eight months, but reflected on an Alberta experience with the Edmonton Public School Board. The school board there "encompasses Christian schools, specialist schools, Suzuki, academic, fine arts, regular neighbourhood schools and Jewish schools, all accessible to any student within its jurisdiction."

It's obvious that other parts of the country are finally giving more choice to parents on their children's education. It is also obvious that the opposition, especially its leader, is trying everything it can do within its power to keep that right away from parents in Ontario.

1340

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURY MONTH

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): June is Acquired Brain Injury Month. This is a wonderful opportunity for us as citizens to acknowledge a group of people who need our help, and also to thank the families and the organizations in our various communities that provide that support.

I have had the pleasure of knowing two individuals with acquired brain injury, and their perseverance, courage and determination are just phenomenal.

We have a number of organizations across Ontario that provide support for these people, but I would like to pay special tribute to Pathways for Independence in my riding. They operate a home for citizens who have had brain injuries, along with a number of other homes. They have an absolutely dedicated, caring staff, a strong administration, a good board. For the people who work for Pathways, it's not really a job; it is more a calling, they are so committed to their clients and rejoice in each and every step of progress these individuals make as they return to a normal life.

However, Pathways to Independence is facing a very difficult time. Funding cutbacks to them have caused them to close two of their homes, lay staff off and reduce services to the community. Our most vulnerable citizens are not being provided with services they need. I see the staff and administration and board spending time fundraising when they should be serving their clients to help our fellow citizens.

I call on this government to put our persons with disabilities ahead of funding golf tournaments. We can do better in this province, and we must do better now.

ALS AWARENESS MONTH

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): Once again this year volunteers from the ALS Society of Ontario will be selling cornflowers in my riding to mark the beginning of ALS Awareness Month.

It is important for Canadians to know that ALS is not just Lou Gehrig's disease; it is a disease that right now is affecting about 3,000 Canadians. Imagine not being able to walk, write, smile, talk, eat, and eventually even breathe on your own, and yet your mind and senses remain unaffected. This is what having ALS is like for those who suffer from this disease.

It can strike anyone and results in complete paralysis and death, generally within two or three years of diagnosis. While ALS is not considered a common disease, it is not rare. As a matter of fact, according to statistics in 1996, ALS claimed more than 1,100 people in our country, only 15% less than the number taken by AIDS. Yet the disease remains largely unknown and misunderstood.

Sadly, two or three Canadians die every day from ALS. A number of years ago my own father succumbed to this disease. As a result, I personally know the pain family members go through as they deal with ALS. Although promising research studies are being conducted, there is still no known cause, and no cure is yet in sight.

Throughout the month, volunteers will be canvassing in the malls and public areas across the province to raise funds to fight this devastating disease. All the funds raised will be spent on ALS scientific research. Please make a generous donation to the ALS Society so that the dream of finding a cure becomes a reality.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Community care access centres were established across this province to provide services to people who would then not need those services within an institutional care setting.

Unfortunately this government has decided to underfund the community care access centres. Patients today are discharged quicker and sicker from hospitals, and there are fewer hospitals open today for them to be discharged from. A freeze in the CCAC budget means a cut when numbers are increasing and will result in a $175-million shortfall this year across Ontario, in places like Sudbury, Windsor, Hamilton and Niagara. A budget freeze will put at risk our most vulnerable citizens, often the elderly and often those with disabilities.

Niagara has the largest per capita seniors' population in all of Ontario and will feel these cuts most acutely. CCAC Niagara's caseload increased by 12.5% this year, adding another 500 clients, and they will face a deficit of $9.4 million as a result of this government's freeze.

We have $2.2 billion for corporate tax cuts, $235 million to be spent on blatant partisan government advertising, and we now have the government embarking upon yet another tax scheme to deprive revenues from the government. Where indeed are the priorities of the Harris government?

EVENTS IN DURHAM REGION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the Legislature today to tell the people of Ontario about an event in my riding of Durham, one showcasing the village of Newcastle's strong historical ties to agriculture in our community and indeed our country.

On Saturday, June 16, the Newcastle Village and District Historical Society is hosting the Massey show, a day-long event where visitors can see antique farm machinery and other memorabilia made or owned and operated by the Massey family, whose descendants included Governor General Vincent Massey.

In the 1840s, Daniel Massey arrived in Newcastle village and established his family farm business, known to us today as the Massey Ferguson Co. His innovative farm implements gained the trust of Ontario farmers. The family business received worldwide acclaim in 1867 at the Paris exhibition, where the Massey mower impressed everyone, including Emperor Napoleon III. It's interesting to note that this agricultural machine company is the only one started in Canada and still operating today.

Visitors will be able to see the Massey tractor show at the Lovekin farm. The Massey family will also be presenting the Vincent Massey Memorial Award to the best-restored `44 Massey.

The Masseys made a lasting contribution to Newcastle before moving to Toronto.

Thanks to the historical society's Massey show committee -- Ron Locke, Myno Van Dyke, Sanford Haskill, Dick Lovekin, Jack Gordon, Ken Stephenson, Pat McConnell, Bill Lake, Mort Lake, Francis Jose and Pippa Schmiegelow -- for their efforts in preserving our significant history in Durham, and in fact agriculture in Ontario.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALTH INSURANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI
SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

Mr Duncan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 68, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act to satisfy the criteria for contribution by the Government of Canada set out in the Canada Health Act / Projet de loi 68, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-santé pour satisfaire aux critères régissant les contributions du gouvernement du Canada et énoncés dans la Loi canadienne sur la santé.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

The member for a short statement?

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): The bill amends the Health Insurance Act so that the Ontario health insurance plan satisfies the criteria set out in the Canada Health Act and the province of Ontario qualifies for receiving the full cash contribution from the government of Canada described in that act. Those criteria are public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility.

The bill states very clearly that Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals oppose the Harris government's attempts to privatize our health care system.

PROHIBITING PROFITING
FROM RECOUNTING CRIMES ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 INTERDISANT
LES GAINS TIRÉS
DU RÉCIT D'ACTES CRIMINELS

Mr Young moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 69, An Act to protect victims by prohibiting profiting from recounting of crime / Projet de loi 69, Loi visant à protéger les victimes en interdisant les gains tirés du récit d'actes criminels.

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

The Attorney General for a short statement?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I'll make a minister's statement, if I may.

1350

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
AMENDMENT ACT
(WORKPLACE VIOLENCE), 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT
LA LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ
AU TRAVAIL (VIOLENCE AU TRAVAIL)

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 70, An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act with respect to acts of workplace violence / Projet de loi 70, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail en matière d'actes de violence au travail.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'll give you the précis version of the explanatory note, which is rather lengthy.

The bill amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act to impose duties on employers, supervisors and workers with respect to acts of workplace violence, which are defined to be acts of physical or psychological violence that persons commit in a workplace.

In conjunction with the workers and supervisors, an employer must develop a written code of conduct with respect to workplace violence and post a copy of the code in a conspicuous location in the workplace.

An employer must establish strategies to deal with acts of workplace violence. The strategies must include establishing a team of specialists in the areas of management, human resources, security, labour relations, health, law, and risk management who identify and assess potential situations and acts of workplace violence and make recommendations to the employer on dealing with those situations.

An employer must develop a written policy of progressive disciplinary measures that the employer will take to deal with workers who it finds have committed acts of workplace violence.

Supervisors and workers must report to their employers all acts of workplace violence of which they know. An employer must keep accurate records of all reports received.

Finally, upon receiving a report that a worker has committed an act of workplace violence, an employer must have the worker undergo a psychological assessment.

I look forward to working very closely with the Minister of Labour in ensuring that this becomes law.

HOMES FOR RETARDED PERSONS
REPEAL ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 ABROGEANT
LA LOI SUR LES FOYERS
POUR DÉFICIENTS MENTAUX

Mr Baird moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 71, An Act to repeal the Homes for Retarded Persons Act, amend the Developmental Services Act and make related amendments to other statutes / Projet de loi 71, Loi abrogeant la Loi sur les foyers pour déficients mentaux, modifiant la Loi sur les services aux personnes atteintes d'un handicap de développement et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.

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

The minister for a short statement?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for children, minister responsible for francophone affairs): By resolution, the Ontario Association for Community Living has called the Homes for Retarded Persons Act inappropriate, intrusive, restricting and demeaning. I agree, as I'm sure all members do.

Advocates for persons with a developmental disability have called upon the government and the Legislative Assembly to repeal this relic of the past and to reject the outdated, devaluing philosophy behind it. This bill would repeal the Homes for Retarded Persons Act and replace the outdated terminology in more than 30 acts.

I look forward to working with all members on all sides of the House on this important piece of legislation.

FISH AND WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION AMENDMENT ACT
(DOUBLE-CRESTED
CORMORANTS), 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI
SUR LA PROTECTION DU POISSON
ET DE LA FAUNE
(CORMORAN À AIGRETTES)

Mr Brown moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 72, An Act to amend the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 in respect of double-crested cormorants / Projet de loi 72, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la protection du poisson et de la faune à l'égard du cormoran à aigrettes.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): The bill amends the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, to permit the hunting of double-crested cormorants, subject to specific restrictions. Section 1 of the bill permits the hunting of double-crested cormorants from September 5 to the end of December in any year. It goes on to impose daily and seasonal limitations on the number of double-crested cormorants which may be hunted. Section 2 of the bill makes it legal for a person to destroy, take or possess the nest or eggs of a double-crested cormorant.

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT
(CONSUMER PROTECTION), 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT
LA LOI SUR L'ÉLECTRICITÉ
(PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR)

Mr Hampton moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 73, An Act to amend the Electricity Act, 1998 to protect consumers / Projet de loi 73, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur l'électricité afin de protéger les consommateurs.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

The leader of the third party for a short explanation?

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): We believe the best way to protect consumers would be not to privatize and deregulate Ontario Power Generation. But while we're trying to persuade the government to do that, we want to pass this bill to protect consumers by prohibiting, until a date to be prescribed by regulation, the unsolicited marketing of electricity to consumers in connection with the opening of the electricity market. Consumers are entitled to invalidate any contracts made in connection with a breach of the prohibition.

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI
SUR LE MARIAGE

Mr Murdoch moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 74, An Act to amend the Marriage Act / Projet de loi 74, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le mariage.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): This act, if passed, will create a new position in the province of Ontario: a marriage commissioner. I don't know if my colleagues are aware of this, but it is difficult if not impossible to have a non-denominational marriage ceremony performed in Ontario. The problem only increases in rural Ontario.

That is why I've introduced this act. Through it, six marriage commissioners will be appointed in each of the 103 electoral districts in Ontario, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. These commissioners will be able to perform marriages during their three-year term, much like justices of the peace performed marriages in the past.

Marriage is a sacred institution; it should not be entered into lightly, nor should it be any less of a celebration of lifelong union. A religious ceremony has always been an option in this province. Up to a few years ago, a non-denominational ceremony was also an option. The Marriage Amendment Act will restore this second option to the people of Ontario.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI
SUR L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Mr Murdoch moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 75, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act / Projet de loi 75, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

The member for a short statement?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): It is my pleasure today to introduce a separate amendment to the Ontario Legislative Assembly Act. I believe it is an amendment that makes common sense out of a ticklish issue we faced recently: our salaries as MPPs.

If passed, this act will see Ontario's Integrity Commissioner, a person appointed after consultations with all political parties, be the one who determines how much the members of this House will be paid. I believe a truly impartial figure is the only one who should be setting the pay schedules of politicians. I believed this when I was the reeve of the township, I believed it when I was the warden of the county and I believe it now.

That is why the Ontario Legislative Assembly Amendment Act, 2001, if passed, also contains a provision that all municipalities in Ontario can opt into using the Integrity Commissioner's service in this matter -- an impartial look at a thorny issue.

1400

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

VICTIMS' RIGHTS

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Ontario is a leader in promoting victims' rights and in working to keep our communities safe. We believe that victims of crime not only deserve justice, but also deserve to have a strong voice within the justice system.

It is simply unacceptable that criminals could benefit financially from the pain they have caused to victims and their families.

Since 1995 the Harris government has implemented several initiatives to enhance victims' rights and to make Ontario's towns, cities and communities across this province safer.

Last month we took another step to enhance victims' rights and to help keep Ontario's communities safe by introducing the Remedies for Organized Crime and Other Unlawful Activities Act. If passed, it would be the first legislation of its kind to use civil law to freeze, to seize and to forfeit, in appropriate situations, the proceeds of unlawful activity. It would return illegal profits to the victims. It would place that money back in the hands of the people from whom it was taken.

Today I am very proud to stand in this Legislature to announce that we are proposing to do even more to enhance victims' rights, more to keep our communities safe.

Earlier today I introduced the Prohibiting Profiting from Recounting Crimes Act for first reading in this assembly. This represents a further step in fulfilling this government's promise, this government's commitment to strengthen victims' rights.

I want to pause, if I may, for a moment and reference the fact that today we are joined in the House by Sharon Rosenfeldt and Scott Newark. Both Sharon and Scott work with the Office for Victims of Crime. They work each and every day dealing with people who are placed in very unfortunate situations: victims of crime across this province. They are here today to indicate their support for the legislation that I have introduced and that will hopefully pass through this chamber over the next short while. They are here today on behalf of victims, as are the members on this side of the Legislature, to state very clearly that there is no profit in crime in this province.

The individuals who have joined us today and my colleagues on this side of the Legislature know that if this legislation is passed, it would send a very clear and very important message to those who consider profiting from the pain and suffering of their victims.

The groundwork for the proposed legislation was laid by my predecessor, the Honourable Jim Flaherty, and also by the Honourable Cam Jackson, who came forward many years ago with what was indeed an excellent first step in protecting victims of crime. I would like to take this opportunity to thank both of them for their insightful and hard work in this regard.

If the bill I have put forward is passed, it would prevent criminals from making money from recounting their crimes in any type of medium, whether it be television, movies, books or the Internet. This bill would apply to anyone convicted of a serious violent crime or serious property crime designated by this act. It would apply to persons acting on behalf of criminals such as a spouse, partner or other agent or relative. It would apply to a corporation in which the convicted person has a substantial interest. It would apply to accused persons for the purpose of any interim freeze orders.

Publishers and media companies across the province that have contracts with criminals would have an obligation in those circumstances to report their contracts. If they choose to do otherwise, if they do not report the existence of a contract with someone convicted of a serious crime, they, along with the directors and officers of those corporations, could and would face personal liability.

I say to you that our motivation in moving forward with this initiative is plain and simple. We are here to state very clearly that we are not going to allow victims to be revictimized. Anyone who has suffered the type of injustice that is discussed in the legislation should not have to be revictimized.

This act would establish a fund that would take the forfeited proceeds from any action instituted on behalf of these individuals by the Attorney General's office and would make this money available to victims.

As I said earlier, our government's priority is to protect victims and to clearly and unequivocally take the profit out of crime. The proposed bill would help to ensure that victims are not revictimized, and it would send a very clear message to any criminal who has any thoughts about proceeding in that manner.

I invite all my colleagues on both sides of the Legislature to join with me and to support victims of crime by supporting this bill.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Responses?

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I find myself looking at this bill and it looks new and smells new, but in fact we have here a new moment in the environmental policy of the Harris government. Never before have we seen such effective recycling, repealing and reusing of an old idea. Not only does this bill reintroduce a bill that was reannounced and reintroduced in December of last year, only to be killed by this government when it prorogued, but it actually repeals and recycles a law that has been on the books since 1995.

There is nothing new here for victims. This is just another tired old idea from a tired old government. I say to the public and I say to the press gallery, take a look at section 17 of this bill. It repeals the Victims' Right to Proceeds of Crime Act, 1994. What's that, you ask? Well, you look at the press release from the minister and he says this bill is "the first in Canada to protect victims in this way." Then you go to the government's fact sheet and it says that the Honourable Mr Jackson's bill, the VRPCA, was the first law of its kind in Canada. Which is it, Mr Speaker? It's as if Minister Young drafted the sound bites and Minister Jackson drafted the fact sheet. Does that make any sense to you? It doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't want anybody in this chamber to think, and I know the government wouldn't want anybody to think for a moment -- I know they wouldn't want to hit that hot button and suggest that this bill in any way would stop films or books being done that will result in revictimization of victims. All this bill does is what Mr Jackson's bill did in 1995, supported by all sides of this House, and ensure that criminals themselves cannot profit from those crimes, arguably already available to the common law.

I say to the government that instead of recycling the bill of opposition member Cam Jackson, as he then was, how about bringing forth some new initiatives being proposed by the official opposition of the day? How about making sure that every man and woman has the right to be tested for date rape drugs so they know whether or not they have had such a drug slipped into their body? How about support for the Bartolucci bills on child prostitution? How about support for Dave Levac's bill on organized crime?

How about bringing forward and supporting a bill that will mandate that trigger locks be installed on all guns manufactured and sold in Ontario so that we will prevent accidental deaths and suicides in a country in which guns are the third-highest cause of death among kids aged 15 to 24, in a country that ranks fifth in the world in terms of firearms-related deaths among kids under 14? We rank just behind Israel and Northern Ireland. I would ask this government to stop talking about victims of crime and start acting on the report on victims' services in Ontario: A Voice for Victims.

1410

In particular, how about recommendation one, which called for a provincial victims' service standard applicable to all victims of crime wherever they are situated in the province of Ontario? Instead, what has this government done for victims? They introduced the Victims' Bill of Rights Amendment Act, 2000, which ensured that this office, which already existed, would have statutory powers, but they haven't proclaimed that bill. Proclaim the bill, I say to the government. They passed the Domestic Violence Protection Act, 2000. They haven't proclaimed the bill. Proclaim the bill, I say to the government. They introduced the Remedies for Organized Crime and Other Unlawful Activities Act. It died on the order paper, and they reintroduced it. They introduced Prohibiting Profiting from Recounting Crimes Act. It died on the order paper, and they reintroduced it.

I say to the government, for the sake of victims, please stop this policy of recycling, repealing and reusing old ideas, and act on new initiatives and new proposals that are before this House that will act on A Voice for Victims. It will mean there is something new for victims of crime in Ontario, not recycled old ideas, not repealed and reused old ideas, but something new for victims of crime.

It requires a commitment from this government to say no more reusing, recycling and repealing when it comes to victims of crime, because victims of crime in this province deserve better. Victims of crime deserve new rights. They deserve to have a standard that applies to all victims across this province. Act on the recommendations, I say to the government of Ontario.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Well, it's the same old bill, Attorney General, that your predecessor introduced on December 14, 2000, and I have to tell you, we've got the same response now as we did then because things haven't changed.

What an insult to your colleague Cam Jackson, because the New Democratic Party, when it was in government in 1994, passed the Victims' Rights to Proceeds of Crime Act, 1994. It was a private member's bill. It was put forward by Cam Jackson and you now repeal Cam Jackson's bill. You repeal your own colleague's bill, a bill that quite frankly does a lot more for victims than your piece of fluff ever will. You see, what you're doing, Attorney General, is confiscating property that under the Victims' Rights to Proceeds of Crime Act, 1994, would be the property of the victim of that criminal. You're confiscating those proceeds and putting them into your little slush fund so that you decide as government how they're going to be divvied up. You'll decide which victims are worthy of receiving the proceeds derived from their particular perpetrator by his or her crime against them.

I tell you, Mr Attorney General, we're sticking with legislation that works. We're sticking with legislation that protects victims. We're going to oppose any effort to repeal the Victims' Rights to Proceeds of Crime Act, 1994. That's a bill that works. That's a bill that works for victims. That's a bill that represents best the interests of the people of this province. That's a bill that forbids exactly what you're doing. It forbids you and your government from dipping into monies that are rightfully the property of the victims of the criminals who are earning those profits as a result of the recounting of those crimes.

You've got to understand, Attorney General. I appreciate you show up for work at 9:30 or 10 in the morning and you get your script for the day. You get directed east, west, north, south, to wherever it is you're going to do your photo op. You've got the blue backdrop; you've got a couple of officers in blue standing on one side or other of you. There's been half a dozen of them with you already. You read your script well. I have no hesitation in telling you that. But I have to tell you, Attorney General, that you're the Attorney General. You are the Attorney General whose provincial prosecutor cut a deal when a 17-year-old boy was struck dead by an illegal truckload down in Milton-Burlington while he was working at his job, so that the charges would be pulled and that trucking company would merely have to make a $2,000 charitable donation, and get a tax receipt to boot so as to get a credit at the end of the year. That's how you and your government value the rights and interests of victims in this province.

You haven't been here long enough but you had better read some of the files in your ministry, Attorney General, to look at the history of your government's Victims' Bill of Rights. Talk to people like Linda Even and Karen Vanscoy, victims of the most atrocious crimes that could ever be imagined, deserted and abandoned by your government.

Indeed, when they litigated with your government to seek some enforcement of their rights under the Victims' Bill of Rights, your very own lawyers, the Attorney General's lawyers, argued that the Victims' Bill of Rights didn't mean a tinker's damn, that it wasn't worth the paper it was written on. It was the most successful day in court this Attorney General has ever had, because Judge Day agreed with the government's own lawyers who argued that the Victims' Bill of Rights provides no rights.

Your Premier, Premier Harris, promised amendments to that bill, to give teeth to the Victims' Bill of Rights, to give teeth to victims' rights here in Ontario, and you've broken that promise. You've broken that promise day after day, month after month, since you've been at it and you're breaking it again today.

You want to talk about victims' interests? Then why, Attorney General, did you pull the support to the Sudbury restorative justice program, a program that had received two years of funding and had demonstrated itself to be incredibly successful at responding to crime at a community level in the community and surrounding area around Sudbury? It had the support of every single stakeholder and actor in the criminal justice system, it had the support of the community, and it was successful. You pulled the plug on that because you're not about law and order, you're not about safer communities, you're not about making our streets safer for our folks or our kids to travel on; you're all about photo ops and recycling old press releases to try to delude the people of this province, to try to con them. You're not the Attorney General, you're the province's top con man --

The Speaker: Order. I would ask the member to withdraw the word "con."

Mr Kormos: -- withdrawn -- believing that the people of this province receive any protection at all from their Attorney General or their Premier or their criminal justice system under your watch here in Ontario.

The Speaker: Just before we begin question period, a quick reminder that we're going to try to keep it to one minute. The questions have tended to creep up a little bit. As you know, I'll try to remind you at about 50 seconds. Hopefully that isn't too intrusive when I yell "question" or "answer." That will be a reminder you have about 10 seconds to wrap up. If all members could adhere to that, that will allow us to get more questions. As is usual, we tend to take a little bit longer as the session goes on. Your co-operation would be much appreciated.

VISITORS

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the gallery today we have students from my riding who were the successful candidates for an educational program: from l'école Ste Marie de l'Assomption of Green Valley, the gateway to Ontario, Rachelle Décoeur et Andrée-Anne Lefebvre, and from l'école L'Escale de Rockland, Marie-Pierre Lalonde.

Also, thanks to VIA Rail which has complementary transportation for this program.

Bienvenue à l'Assemblée législative.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It is now time for question period.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I know the Minister of Education is here. Oh, there she is. We have questions for the Minister of Education.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My questions are for the Minister of Education. You continue to boast, day in and day out, about the $13.8 billion you're going to spend on education this year. I want you to put that number in some perspective.

Back in 1994, in the Common Sense Revolution, it said, "Ontario spends $14 billion a year on primary and secondary education -- more per pupil than any other province -- and still gets a failing grade." Well, since 1994, enrolment has grown by over 62,000 students. What that means, Madam Minister, is that you haven't provided a single new dollar for those students and their education. Forget about enrolment for a moment: the Bank of Canada calculates that our schools would need over $15.9 billion just to have kept up with inflation.

The good news of late is that you've been able to come up with $300 million more for education in Ontario, but you, Madam Minister, want to put that into private schools. The question I have for you on behalf of Ontario's working families is, if you've found $300 million for education, why wouldn't you invest it in public education where we need it?

1420

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): The facts are very clear. As the honourable member knows, in 1995-96 it was $12.9 billion, if you're comparing apples to apples. It is now $13.8 billion. We did increase that amount. We put over 360 million new dollars this year, one year alone, a one-year increase into our public education system because it is a very important priority for this government.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, you may want to make reference to your own documents. You tell us that you're spending $13.8 billion. The Common Sense Revolution, on page 11, tells us very clearly that Ontario was spending, at that time, $14 billion a year on primary and secondary education, and there's no fine print in this either. It was all very straight up and voters relied on it.

To add insult to injury, not only have you cut funding to public education, now you've put forward an incentive, an inducement for parents to pick up and leave public education, and every time they do that that will cost the local public school board. When you've been presented with this by the media, you have denied that in fact it will mean it's going to be a loss in funding to the local school board.

Let me read to you from this weekend's Kingston Whig-Standard. "Rob Savage, a Ministry of Education spokesperson, said that an enrolment drop in Hastings and Prince Edward is responsible for transfer cuts in that board. When a school loses one student, it also loses funding, said Savage."

Minister, why won't you now admit what your press secretary already has in print: every time a parent leaves a public school for a private school, public education pays a price?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We've also been very clear that we fund our public education system above enrolment, as we should, and that will continue.

Secondly, we could add all kinds of things into the spending for public education. We could add in, for example, teachers' pension plans. But what we do over here on this side of the House is make sure that the figures we put out for our public education system are apples to apples: $12.9 billion; it is now $13.8 billion. This year alone, over 360 million new dollars to our public education system. That's one increase, one year, on top of what was increased last year. That kind of investment in public education is important and it should continue. It's above enrolment, as it should be.

We are also making sure that our school boards are putting more of those dollars in classrooms. That's why we've had less administration, fewer school boards, fewer school board politicians -- things that the honourable member fought against. He may think we should have lots of money in school boards --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

Mr McGuinty: I'm not sure why it is that you're having so much difficulty understanding what it is that your party committed to in 1994, and what specifically they said when it came to funding for public education. In 1994, they specifically said that the Ontario government was spending $14 billion on primary and secondary education. Today you trumpet that we're spending $13.8 billion. That means that you are spending less today than you said we were spending back in 1994. That's what that means, and the evidence is painfully obvious through public education throughout the province of Ontario.

The truth is that in that financial context for public education you now want to take $500 million and put that into private schools. We are aware of your cuts to everything from heating our schools to busing and textbooks. Families want to know why it is, if you've been able to come up with $500 million, while you've even estimated it could be as high as $700 million, if you've been able to find that much money for education in Ontario, why would you not invest it in their schools, in their public schools?

Hon Mrs Ecker: When this government increased money in this budget for children's treatment centres, I didn't hear the honourable member saying, "Oh, that's going to come out of the public education system," because it's not. When this government increased funding for health care, I didn't hear the honourable member saying, "Oh, that's going to come out of public education," because it's not. But somehow or other, when five years from now $300 million is going to go to the parents, the hard-working Ontario families who choose to send their children to an independent school, he says that's going to come out of the public education system. It is not, and he knows better.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, I want to bring to you the case of Mr and Mrs Christmas, who are an elderly couple resident in Hamilton. Mrs Christmas is 86 years of age. She suffers from diabetes and recently, as a result of complications, she had one of her legs amputated, so she is confined to a wheelchair. Her husband, Mr Christmas, also recently had an operation and he is fragile as well. They have applied for home care through their local CCAC and have been informed they're entitled to one hour of care every week. They need home care for help with their personal needs, with bathing, use of the washroom etc.

Premier, on behalf of Mr and Mrs Christmas and our parents and grandparents just like them throughout the province of Ontario, why have you got $2.2 billion for additional corporate tax cuts, you've got over $200 million for partisan government advertising, you've now got $500 million for private schools, but you haven't got enough money to enable people like the Christmases to enjoy some basic dignity and a modicum of care in their own home?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm sure in the supplementary the minister will want to respond with some of the specifics and the details.

We did announce in this budget $15 million this year by way of tax credits. That's one five, $15 million, by way of tax credits for those parents who are double-paying for education, which as we said will certainly help support low- and medium-income families, just to correct the record on your preamble.

Yes, we have been a party that wanted to cut taxes to allow businesses to be able to compete here in Ontario, to invest here in Ontario, to create jobs here in Ontario, so that the Christmases' children and grandchildren could have jobs right here in this province.

With regard to CCAC funding, we have increased the home care portion 72% since we took office, which is a massive increase in a fast-growing area. If the member would like us to look into an individual case to see if the case was assessed improperly, I'm sure the minister would be pleased to do that. If you're suggesting there's more to do, we agree. There's more to do in a whole host of areas, including home care.

Mr McGuinty: If you go from the specific, then, Premier, to the general, let me tell you about CCACs and home care throughout the province as it's developing and how it reflects your commitment and levels of funding. Here's a press release put out today from the Algoma Community Care Access Centre. They say they've approved reductions in services to current and future clients to reduce expenditure levels to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's 2000-01 funding allocation level. They're saying they've got to make cuts because of something you've done here through your government. They say the planned reductions include, for nursing, elimination of health supervision visits; elimination of monitoring of wound care.

That is what is happening on your watch. That is an accurate reflection of your commitment to home care for our parents and grandparents throughout the province. The question I have to you is, Premier, why are you able to come up with money for corporate tax cuts, you're able to come up with money for private schools, you're able to come up with money for partisan government advertising, but you can't come up with money for our parents and our grandparents as they get on in life?

Hon Mr Harris: I think it's really important that we review the facts. When we took office, we had an $11-billion deficit. We have taken care of that $11-billion deficit with tax cuts to create jobs and prosperity for the Christmases' children and grandchildren and for all of those seniors' children and grandchildren in this province.

The second thing we had to deal with was a rapidly escalating cost of health care. We put $5 billion more into health care over that same period of time, 72% more into home care over that same period of time. We thought we had a partner in health care, and that was the Liberal government in Ottawa. Over that same period of time, your Liberal counterparts in Ottawa have cut funding to Ontario by $100 million. With all the money they've put back in in the last couple of years, they're spending $100 million less than they did six years ago when we took office. So we made up $5 billion; we balanced the books; we put 72% more into home care. Yes, there's more to do --

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

1430

Mr McGuinty: Premier, let me bring you down to earth here and tell you what's happening in Sudbury, where they're coping with your cuts to their community care access centre. Do you know what they're proposing now? They've got it in the newspaper article here. They are introducing eligibility tests for home care services. To my understanding, this is a first in a long, long time in Ontario. Premier, we're talking about eligibility tests for our parents and our grandparents who are unable to cope with their own basic health care needs, needs around the home.

I looked at your in-home services document that's available on the Web, and it says "You can receive in-home health services if you are an Ontario resident insured under OHIP, if adequate treatment can be provided at home and if your needs cannot be met as a hospital outpatient."

There's no reference to your documentation, Premier, to this new means test. I'm just wondering if you're going to be making it clear now to CCACs throughout the province that you will not accept any means test for our parents and our grandparents when it comes to meeting their basic needs through home care services.

Hon Mr Harris: Those members of this Legislature who actually have their feet on the ground do understand: $5 billion more we've put into health care, while the federal Liberals in Ottawa cut $100 million. I think members of this Legislature who have both feet on the ground and who say the same thing out of one side of their mouth as they say out of the other side of their mouth will understand that 72% more money has gone into home care in Ontario. Any member of this Legislature who has both feet on the ground will understand that Ottawa pays not one cent of any home care program. Any member of this Legislature who has both feet on the ground will also understand that the province of Ontario, without a cent from Ottawa, has the most --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Sorry for the interruption, Premier. We're getting too loud. We need to be able to hear the answers as well.

Sorry for the interruption, Premier. Are you done? OK.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is also for the Premier. Premier, 15% of parents in Ontario indicate that they will move their children from the public school system into private schools if your government proceeds with your scheme of tax credits or vouchers to fund private schools. If 15% of students move from the public school system to private schools, we know that under your education funding formula you would cut public school budgets by $2.3 billion.

My question to you, Premier, is the same as my question to the Minister of Finance yesterday: how do you expect public schools in Ontario to address the educational needs of our students if your tax credit/voucher scheme means they lose another $2.3 billion a year?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm sure the Minister of Finance can respond.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): As the member knows, or should know if he has reviewed the material concerning the five Canadian provinces that do provide grants to independent schools, he will see that in their experience, which is quite substantial now, the rate of increase has been relatively minor in terms of enrolment changes from the public sector to the independent sector. Specifically, in the 10 years of actual experience in Manitoba, independent school enrolment as a percentage of the total increased only marginally, from 5% to 6.6%, from 1990 to the year 2000.

As I say, if the member is interested in the actual facts as to what has happened in other Canadian jurisdictions in our sister provinces, he can look at them. They are clear that the movement is relatively minor between the two systems.

It does give choice to parents. We believe in choice; I don't know if you do or not, but it's clear that this initiative would give parents the opportunity to make that choice --

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

Mr Hampton: The Premier would know that the system of enticements that you're putting forward is completely different from any other funding mechanism in any other province. In fact, your system of enticements is like the pilot projects that are happening in the United States right now. The clearest example is Milwaukee, where 15% of the students left the public system for the private system. That's the clearest comparator.

We asked the board of education in Peterborough what a 15% reduction would mean for them. They're very clear: it would mean laying off 300 teachers and 75% of their speech pathologists and other support staff. The director of education at the board in Windsor says that a 15% reduction would mean closing 10% of the schools, laying off principals, vice-principals and teachers.

The directors of education are all very clear about what this means. They're clear that when you lose students from the school, the funding formula reduces their budget. So, Premier, if 15% of parents say they're prepared to move their children if you give them an enticement, how do you expect the public school system to function with $2.3 billion less each year because you've cut it under your funding formula?

Hon Mr Flaherty: As I say to the member opposite, he'd do well to look at the actual experience that we've had in our sister provinces. Were Ontario to enact this tax credit, then the majority of provinces in Canada would be providing some sort of assistance to parents whose children are attending independent schools. In another large province, British Columbia, independent school enrolment, for example, rose from 7.1% to 8.5%. Over the same 10-year period, only one out of every 70 public school students moved to the independent school system.

Those are the facts -- not facts from foreign places, not facts from other countries; facts from our sister Canadian provinces.

Mr Hampton: The Minister of Finance wants to continue to ignore the only comparative system, the pilot project that is now underway in the United States, where the government offers direct enticements -- tax credits, vouchers -- to parents. There, 15% of the students moved from the public to the private system.

But just to confirm, I spoke today with the director of education for the Keewatin-Patricia board. They've lost, over the last three years, 700 students, 7% of their children. When they lost 700 students, your funding formula cut their budget by $4.5 million. The Rainy River school board lost 200 students; you cut their budget by $1.4 million because of the reduction in the number of students.

The question again, Premier, is, 15% of parents in Ontario say that they would move their children to private schools if you provide the enticement. Under your funding formula, a 15% move in students results in a 15% cut to the public school system. How are they going to function with a $2.3-billion cut?

Hon Mr Flaherty: As I've explained to the member opposite, in fact the enrolment growth in independent schools in our sister provinces has been relatively minor. But there was a dramatic change in enrolment growth in independent schools in the province of Ontario, and it happened between 1990 and 1995, when the NDP government was in power, when public school enrolment grew by only 9% while private school enrolment grew by 19.1% during the time that the NDP was responsible for public education in the province of Ontario, driving students from the public school system.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Another question for the Premier; the Minister of Finance seems determined to do everything to avoid answering the question. My question is about electricity in Ontario. I put forward a private member's bill today which would stop door-to-door marketers from going to someone's house, intimidating them and telling them a false price or a dishonest price in terms of electricity, and then trying to get them to sign up with a new electricity marketer. Because what's going on out there, Premier, is people are being scammed. They're being told dishonest stories. They're being given unrealistic prices. I'm asking you to support my private member's bill and to stop this kind of misrepresentation of consumers across the province. Will you do that, Premier?

1440

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Energy can respond.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I used to be on that side.

I certainly agree with the honourable member that consumers need protection. I would ask what took him so long, though. In 1998 this Legislature passed the Energy Competition Act, which for the first time brought in consumer protection against unscrupulous marketers. For years under the NDP, gas marketers were out there, unlicensed. There were more complaints. In fact, I was one of those on the opposition benches who brought to the NDP's attention those scams that were going on at that time. So in 1998 we brought in the toughest consumer protection law for energy marketers in this country. It requires a cooling-off period. It requires that marketers operate in an honest fashion, in a fair fashion, that all the contracts be explained; and it is monitored by Floyd Laughren, the former NDP finance minister, and the Ontario Energy Board. They are responsible for making sure marketers operate in an honest and fair fashion in this province.

Mr Hampton: The problem you have, Minister, is that your legislation doesn't provide the protection, and if your legislation doesn't provide the protection, there's nothing the Ontario Energy Board can do about it. Even professor Don Dewees, who participated as a vice-chairman of your Market Design Committee, has come forward and said that he wouldn't have enough information, with all of his expertise, to be able to tell if someone was scamming him in terms of the electricity price they offered or if they were in fact going to offer him a better deal. Even with all his information, he wouldn't be able to tell.

You're allowing these scam artists to go out there and tell people, "Oh, we're going to give you a good deal on electricity," but when you finally add up the price, people are being taken to the cleaners. People are being, literally, ripped off. That's a problem now.

My question is: are you going to do something about it? Are you going to support my private member's bill and prohibit this kind of activity, or are you in there with the scam artists, letting them go out there and lie to people across this province?

Hon Mr Wilson: I'd be happy to support his bill if it did anything different than what's already provided for in our consumer protection legislation. For instance, I have a copy of his press release from this morning and it calls for a cooling-off period so that consumers can cancel their electricity or gas contract. Of course, in the Energy Competition Act of 1998, passed by this Legislature, there is such a cooling-off period. It calls for fines for unscrupulous marketers. We have the ultimate fine, and that is Floyd Laughren can take away their licence to do marketing in this province.

We also have -- and I'll give the honourable member credit for this, catching up to the government -- a red-tape bill coming before the Legislature that brings in a series of fines against unscrupulous marketers. But right now the ultimate teeth are in the legislation that was passed two years ago, and that's to take away their marketers.

I say to the honourable member: when you were a member of the NDP government, why didn't you protect consumers then? There were thousands and thousands of gas marketing complaints every month, and they didn't even go to the extent of licensing --

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

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday I asked you whether you were going to abandon plans to merge cancer centres with hospitals. Instead of answering the question, you tried to deny that there even was a plan. Last month you accused hospital board members of intellectual dishonesty. Now you seem to be making the same accusation about Cancer Care Ontario board members who risk speaking out.

You had decided to force through this agenda with no consultation: no consultation with Cancer Care Ontario and no consultation with hospitals. When Cancer Care Ontario wrote you a carefully worded letter, expressing their concerns about staffing and fragmentation of the cancer care system and access to care, you wrote back and said that your plan would be carried out within six months. You said, "The end point of the process has been defined." Any co-operative effort was to be about how to do this, not whether to do it.

Minister, there is no doubt you had a plan, and yesterday's question still stands: are you going to abandon your plan to merge cancer centres with hospitals?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I can assure the honourable member and this House that we are not abandoning plans to have better integrated cancer services in the province. We're not abandoning our plan and our commitment to better cancer services for cancer sufferers in Ontario.

We're not abandoning our plan to work with Cancer Care Ontario for the best way to best deliver the best services in the province of Ontario. If she wants me to abandon plans that deliver better services to more people in their home communities in an integrated way, I refuse to abandon those plans.

Mrs McLeod: Today, Minister, you announced that you are setting up an implementation committee. It will be chaired by Dr Alan Hudson, who in the past has advocated exactly the kind of merger you are proposing. You said that Cancer Care Ontario had recommended Dr Hudson's appointment.

In fact, if you were to be straightforward with this Legislature, you would acknowledge that Dr Hudson's name was one of three people put forward by Cancer Care Ontario to be part of an independent panel, not to chair an implementation team. Do you really expect anyone to believe that you're not going to impose this merger on Cancer Care Ontario?

I tell you this is not just about an organization and its future. This is about cancer patients. The Cancer Care Advocacy Coalition and the Canadian Cancer Society, both representatives of cancer patients, are deeply concerned about what you're doing. I quote the Canadian Cancer Society: "The proposed integration of services will hurt the delivery of comprehensive cancer care in this province and ultimately affect people living with cancer."

Minister, let me try once more. Will you assure concerned cancer patients that you are not going ahead with your plan to merge cancer centres with hospitals?

Hon Mr Clement: I can assure any cancer patients or their families, or indeed all Ontarians, that we remain committed as a government, like a laser beam, toward better cancer care in the province of Ontario. Of course, the funding has been there, an increase of 48% over the last few years.

We are intending to move ahead with what all of the experts have said, indeed what Cancer Care Ontario has said, that we have to continue to integrate the services at the local level. We will continue to do that, because the consensus has been that we move forward with better integration for better cancer care.

So if she asks me to abandon what is better for cancer patients, what is better for their families, I refuse to do that. We now have Dr Alan Hudson, an acknowledged leader in this field, who was in turn suggested by Cancer Care Ontario. He is part of the team now and he will get us to the better place, better cancer care at the local level for cancer sufferers in Ontario. I encourage the member to join us in this crusade for better cancer care, rather than being in the way.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question today is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. In 1998, the northern Ontario heritage fund provided Lakehead University Paleo DNA Laboratory with $1.2 million in funding to expand its research facility. Recently --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Sorry for the interruption. Order. There are comments back and forth. We need to be able to hear. I can't hear through you to the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, especially when you're so close. Sorry for the interruption.

Mr Miller: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Recently the lab undertook a project to examine DNA from remains of the passengers of the Titanic from near Halifax, Nova Scotia. In recent weeks the media has reported that the member from Nickel Belt questioned the use of Ontario tax dollars for a project conducted in Nova Scotia.

Minister, can you clarify any confusion the opposition may have with regard to this world-class lab located in northern Ontario and the funding they receive?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for his question. The Mike Harris government is proud to support, through funding mechanisms such as the northern Ontario heritage fund, state-of-the-art research facilities such as the Lakehead University Paleo DNA Laboratory in Thunder Bay.

Facilities such as these highlight Ontario's role as a global leader in a wide range of both basic and applied scientific research projects. The Titanic project represents a unique opportunity to showcase the specific capability of the Paleo DNA. It is my understanding that the actual research component of the project will occur at the lab in Thunder Bay. While the field research and information gathering may occur off-site, the analysis and lab research will be done in Thunder Bay.

1450

Mr Miller: Thank you, Minister, for your response. As a member from northern Ontario, I am always pleased to hear more details about what commitments and opportunities we have engaged in toward the further development of the north. Could you provide more details about this project and other opportunities it has created in the north?

Hon Mr Newman: Again I'd like to thank the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for his excellent question. The northern Ontario heritage fund has provided Lakehead University with the opportunity to create new forensic and paleo internship courses that have brought students and professionals to northwestern Ontario to study, to live and to possibly relocate.

The Northern Ontario Heritage Fund funding was used to purchase equipment for the lab, to provide training and workshops for the staff, to market the facility and toward further research and development. The lab continues to focus on fee-for-service DNA research. Accordingly, the director and the staff of the lab have been marketing the services available in the laboratory regionally, nationally and internationally.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Ontarians have wanted to know the truth about what happened at Ipperwash. There was a First Nations person who died and an OPP officer convicted of criminal negligence.

Premier, you have said that you would hold a public inquiry once all matters were out of the courts. That time now has come. The final hurdle has been cleared. The George family has in writing -- true to their word, I might add, because they have said this all along, that they had no interest in a civil case if you would call a public inquiry. Now, in a communication, a letter to you, they have formally said they would clearly drop the civil case if you would do what you have said you would do, and that is to call a public inquiry.

Now that the final hurdle has been cleared, Premier, will you finally personally -- you are the one who can make this decision -- make that decision to hold a public inquiry?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The Attorney General can respond.

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I have recently become aware of the fact that the George family indicated through their lawyer that they were prepared to have this action held in abeyance; not dropped -- held in abeyance. I must say to you that that is not a term that exists within the rules of civil procedure. It is one that I guess their lawyer has made up and thought it might be appropriate but is not known in the area of civil procedure.

Five years ago, the George family came forward and made some very, very serious allegations against senior members of this government. Throughout, the defendants have denied and categorically rejected each and every one of those allegations. We are finally getting close to trial and at this juncture the plaintiffs are indicating they don't want to go to trial. The defendants do want to go to trial. They want their day in court and they want it soon.

Mr Phillips: The George family has been categorical and said that they would finally terminate this when the final inquiry report is presented. It has been clear: Premier, you are trying to bankrupt the George family.

I will read from their letter. This is from Sam George: "We ... believe it is extremely unfair that I and my small family are left bearing the enormous weight of litigating against some of the most powerful institutions in the country, given the universal acknowledgement that this case raises many important issues of public interest. While we are willing and able to carry through with this litigation until its ... end, and will do so if that is forced ... it would be a sad comment on the state of public government and justice in this province if that remains necessary."

This family and Ontario deserves a public inquiry. You can't have them, on behalf of Ontario, bankrupting themselves fighting you and the courts. This demands a public inquiry. You have said all along that you would do that if this matter were removed from the courts. The George family have categorically said they would do that.

Now that you know that, Premier, will you today do the decent and honest and fair thing for the George family and finally agree to hold a public inquiry where they can have a fair day in court and Ontario can finally get to the truth of the matter about Ipperwash?

Hon Mr Young: I'm not sure if the member opposite is reading from the same piece of correspondence that I have been provided with through counsel, but I will tell you what the correspondence I have that allegedly comes from that source indicates. It is as follows: "While we are willing and able to carry through with this litigation until its final end ... if" we are "forced" to do so -- they indicate very clearly they are willing and able to carry through with the litigation.

Let's be very clear: the litigation that they started in which they made very serious allegations is a civil proceeding that would allow for the court to assess damages and to attribute blame. The public inquiry that they now want to shift to is a public inquiry that could do neither. The defendants want their day in court --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the Attorney General take his seat. Has the Attorney General finished?

Interjection.

The Speaker: New question.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, as you know, I represent the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant. It's a rural agricultural riding. It's well-known for its fruit and agricultural products. In the early spring I was pleased that our government pledged and distributed $90 million to --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Will the member take his seat. Sorry, will the member take his seat, please.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt, I have been patient. It's a very controversial issue. We're on to the next question. I can't have you shouting out.

Sorry for the interruption, member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant.

Mr Barrett: Minister, I was very pleased this spring when our government pledged to distribute $90 million to our hard-pressed grain --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury, this is your last warning. I just got up and then you continually shout the minute I get down. We don't stand up for our own good. This is your last warning.

Again, I apologize to the member who is trying to get the question out. Sorry for the interruption.

Mr Barrett: Minister, with respect to this $90 million for our grain and oilseed producers, this was thoroughly appreciated by corn farmers, soybean growers and other farmers throughout my area. However, last year fruit and vegetable growers faced weather-related problems, increased production costs and poor markets.

I understand that OMAFRA has developed a proposal to help horticultural producers across Ontario. Could you explain to me and for the benefit of growers across our province the details of this proposal for our fruit and vegetable farmers?

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I thank the member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant for the question. As you know, our $90-million contribution to hard-pressed farmers accessed $104 million of the federal pot of money of $500 million. Part of the condition of that was that we consulted with farmers who had extreme difficulties this spring, and that included all leaders in our commodities. The horticulture sector in particular will receive $36 million of the $104 million, and $68 million will go to the grains and oilseeds.

This is certainly in recognition of the edible horticultural crops and the difficult season and the conditions they endured in the past year. Producers of the horticultural crops who participated in the 1999 NISA program will receive a payment equal to approximately 6% of the eligible net sales for 1999. We have the means and the technology. As soon as we get the money from the feds, it will flow instantaneously.

Mr Barrett: Thank you, Minister. I know that is very much appreciated by our area fruit and vegetable growers.

While any funds that our government may grant to horticultural producers would be appreciated, farmers in all fields agree that the government must improve the package of safety net programs. What is currently being done by OMAFRA to address this concern for a system of safety nets that will do a better job of meeting the needs of fruit and vegetable growers?

Hon Mr Coburn: As the member points out, our government wants to come up with a made-in-Ontario solution. I'm pleased to tell you that the commodity groups have worked shoulder to shoulder with us on that particular issue so that safety net programs and ad hockery is a thing of the past. We have something that will provide some future to the agricultural commodities that they can depend on and make appropriate business decisions.

On May 29, my ministry wrapped up its most recent consultations with the farm and commodity leaders to develop options for safety net programs that will fully meet Ontario's needs in the future. The industry is strongly supportive of our efforts to develop these programs that will boost long-term competitiveness through increased industry self-reliance while still meeting those short-term goals.

1500

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is to the Premier. The Walkerton inquiry has let the truth be told, and what we're hearing is shocking. Two previous environment ministers and cabinet were warned that your government's drastic cuts to the environment ministry would jeopardize the environment and public health, but cabinet turned those serious warnings into a public relations exercise. You said that everything was fine, that the cuts would actually improve environmental protection -- and then Walkerton happened. Seven people died. Premier, why did you cover up the truth?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. You've got to withdraw that. I'm not going to allow that.

Ms Churley: I'll withdraw that.

Why did you not listen to the warnings?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the actions that we've taken are pretty much a matter of public record. We acted responsibly, in the best interests of Ontarians. We were trying to control costs, obviously, and the $11-billion deficit that your government transferred to us. If we had allowed that situation to continue, we wouldn't have had a nickel for the environment, education, health care or anything else.

We sought advice from the civil service on how we could best restructure a number of ministries, how we could do more with less, and how we could provide service to constituents. Now, as you know, there is a full inquiry -- an investigation, if you like -- into Walkerton, and we look forward to those results.

Ms Churley: Premier, you chose to cut taxes over people's health and the environment; that was the choice you made. You killed the only funding program dedicated exclusively to helping municipalities improve their water and sewer systems. Even with the new investment, the MOE budget is still $43 million less than when you took office.

Even the member for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound says your government's new water regulations won't work if you don't give municipalities the money to meet the standards. Now the member says that you are going to reach a compromise. Premier, we would really like to know what that compromise is going to be. Are you going to restore funding or are you actually going to weaken the requirements? Which is it, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: I think I should, first of all, correct the record. The tax reduction program from the massive tax hikes that you and the Liberals brought in is what led to the jobs, the growth, the prosperity and the $15 billion more of revenue. It's only with that $15 billion that we were able to balance the books and put $5 billion more in health care, while Liberals slashed funding from health care. It's the only way we've been able to increase funding for public education. It's the only way we've been able to increase funding in a whole number of areas.

With regard to the inquiry, Justice O'Connor is undertaking a comprehensive review of the events in Walkerton. He will be bringing forward recommendations. I look forward to receiving the recommendations. I think all of Ontario does. I'm sure Quebec does, because they've made some initiatives in the wake of initiatives that Ontario has made. I think they acknowledge Ontario's initiatives there. I don't think that it serves anybody well to prejudge, if you like, the investigation that Mr Justice O'Connor has undertaken.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to follow up with the Premier on the Ipperwash situation. The Attorney General, in his answer, indicated that one reason why you are not prepared to commit today to a public inquiry is because, in your opinion, the George family has not been categorical in their decision to agree to withdraw their civil case. Is that the reason why you're not agreeing today to an inquiry, Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Attorney General can respond.

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I appreciate having an opportunity to clarify the matter. I thought it was clear when I spoke earlier, but if the member opposite wishes some further details, I'm happy to provide them to him.

The position of the defendants in this lawsuit is that they are entitled to a day in court, they deserve a day in court, they want to proceed forward to a day in court. The reality is that a civil action will provide an opportunity for all of the issues in dispute to be aired fully and for a decision to be made.

Mr Phillips: Premier, I go back to what the George family has said to you since this incident, that they have one interest and one interest only, and that is in finding out what role you had in the situation, what role your cabinet had and what role your government had. In my opinion, there is substantial evidence of inappropriate behaviour.

You are forcing the George family. The legal bills now are approaching $1 million: your legal bill, the legal bill of the other cabinet ministers.

The George family has said from the start, Premier, that they would not launch this suit if you would have a public inquiry. They have said today they would stop their civil case if you have an inquiry. Will you, Premier, agree to do the decent thing and finally call a public inquiry so we can get to the bottom of what happened at Ipperwash and stop bankrupting the George family?

Hon Mr Young: I think it's worthwhile to take a moment and to consider just how far along the civil action is. The process is well underway. Literally thousands of documents have been exchanged. There is a schedule for discoveries, a schedule that will likely result in those discoveries being completed by year-end, and thereafter a trial will be scheduled and the issues that are in dispute can be resolved.

I say to you that the defendants expect and deserve their day in court. They have done their utmost to advance, to expedite, to move along this civil action so that all of the issues that have been hanging out there, including some very serious allegations made against senior government officials, can be resolved once and for all.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Premier of Ontario was heard by a number of members of this caucus --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I say your member down there is doing just as much yelling. Don't talk to me about the time. Members will know I quite frankly was looking at other members during this period of time and members were shouting things out. I would ask all members, we're dealing with a very, very controversial issue.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. He can get up at any time and do that. I thank the member. All members know they can get up and do that.

It's not a point of order. I listened very carefully. In addition, I have the table listen very carefully as well. It is very difficult when the honourable members, both sides, treat each other like this in all circumstances. I would ask all members on this very delicate situation to try and remain as cool as possible under these very difficult circumstances.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask if the Premier would withdraw that comment.

Interjections.

The Speaker: OK. That's enough. The next one who shouts out something is out, on any side, starting right now. The Minister of Labour, your last warning. You caught it by the very skin of your teeth on that one. We are not going to continue with this. No more points of order.

CHILD WELFARE

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, one of the major initiatives this government has undertaken is the reform of the child welfare system. One of the most crucial parts of that system is foster parents. The supportive and caring environment provided by these families is a remarkable commitment and a crucial contribution to the well-being of these children. What is the government doing to support these families?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for children, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Child welfare reform and the protection of vulnerable children has been a real priority for this government over the last five or six years. I want to certainly say and indicate to the member that we recognize that foster families and foster parents are the backbone of the system.

We do recognize the need to revitalize foster care in the province of Ontario, to strengthen the existing capacity of that system and, as well, to seek to find new foster families and recruit them into the system so that more children can obtain the benefits from that.

We've done two significant things in this regard. Most importantly, we've increased the base rate for foster care by 80%. We've gone from $14 a day to $26 a day to support foster parents. We've also introduced more flexibility into the funding system. We can provide up to $67 a day to help meet the unique and challenging needs of children with a disability.

1510

Mrs Munro: Many people in my community who are involved in fostering have told me they are also concerned about the need to increase the number of families providing foster care. Clearly we have to be working together to strengthen the foster care system and find more families that are willing and able to open their homes to a child in need. What action is the government taking to make sure this vital service will be there for children in the future?

Hon Mr Baird: I recognize the concerns that are out there. I recognize the concern she's brought to me as a member representing folks in her constituency. The government is partnering with the foundation of the Toronto children's aid society to launch a provincial strategy to recruit more foster families. We'll be providing $100,000 in each of the next three years, matching $100,000 from them, to launch a recruitment campaign to find more foster homes and also to increase public education about the importance of foster care.

This $600,000 initiative has a simple purpose, has a simple goal: to try to increase the number of foster homes, of foster parents, by 20% over the next three years, which is a big goal but one we're committed to work hard to try to achieve.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My question is to the Premier. Premier, you need to know that the physician shortage crisis continues to worsen in the city of Thunder Bay. Over 40,000 people are stranded without a family physician. To make matters worse, Dr Andrew Affleck, the head of emergency at Thunder Bay Regional Hospital, has told me we are short six full-time equivalent physician positions at the emergency department, leaving him scrambling to fill shifts on a daily basis.

The latest blow came when Dr Walter Kutcher, Thunder Bay's only full-time gastroenterologist, announced recently that he was leaving due to the extraordinary demands and the lack of action by this government. I met with Dr Kutcher last week and he told me he would consider staying if another gastroenterologist could be found and if your government took some of the suggestions they have already personally given you that would deal with retention issues for doctors.

Premier, I understand you are coming to Thunder Bay next week for a golf tournament and a fundraiser. Dr Affleck has written you on behalf of the Thunder Bay Physicians Planning Group, asking you to find time to meet with them while you are in the city. Will you agree today to meet with our local physicians while you're in Thunder Bay to hear their recommendations for solving this crisis?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the member shared with me some of the suggestions the doctor had given me, through him. We welcome all those suggestions. In spite of the massive amounts of dollars and incentives to try to get doctors and specialists into underserviced areas, it has been a big challenge, not only for this government but for all governments in Canada, and I think the member is aware of that.

We always welcome those suggestions and advice. I'm always happy to try to meet with as many people as I can who have ideas. I'd be happy to take the suggestion in mind. I am in the northwest, as you know, on a number of occasions. We are talking about a new job creation initiative in Thunder Bay, I believe next week. If it fits into the schedule, I'd be happy to consider that.

Mr Gravelle: Premier, what I'd like is confirmation that you will meet with the doctors in our community. If I may, I'll send you over a copy of the letter Dr Affleck has sent to you, if I can get one of the pages to bring it over. I think you're going to find that what is most frustrating for the immensely overburdened physicians, let alone the citizens of Thunder Bay who are experiencing on a daily basis the lack of accessibility to quality health care, is that many of the short-term solutions have been talked about and recommended for years.

You've spoken of streamlining the process by which foreign-trained physicians can practise in Ontario, yet there's been no real action taken, and many physicians who want to practise in Thunder Bay are, as a result, heading to other provinces to live and to work.

Dr Kutcher also told me that a reasonable retention bonus would make an enormous difference in recruiting and retaining doctors in the north, which even makes sense fiscally when you consider the enormous costs we are paying to fly locums into our community to deal with our extraordinary shortages.

We are desperate and we are scared in our community. We're scared that things will only get worse unless you take some immediate action. Will you confirm that you'll meet with the local doctors? Will you commit to the people of Thunder Bay that you'll take the action that's needed to turn this crisis around and that it'll be your number one priority when you come to Thunder Bay?

Hon Mr Harris: As you know, I met with Dr Affleck in fact last year when I was in Thunder Bay. The minister has met with Dr Affleck as well. We have adopted a number of the initiatives they proposed to us. The fast-tracking of foreign-trained specialists, for example, was part of the announcements we have made this spring as well. Certainly we are trying to make it more attractive to practise in northwestern Ontario. I would be the first to say that in spite of the initiatives we've taken, in spite of the $5 billion of new money we've put into health care while the Liberals in Ottawa slashed funding to us, in spite of all these initiatives, there is still more to do.

Dr Affleck and his group have had a meeting with me and with the minister, and we are doing our very best to meet their needs. Am I going to commit today to yet another meeting? If there is something new they have beyond what they had when they met with me or the minister, that would be fine, but I think you would agree that there are 11 million --

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

ONTARIO NEW HOME
WARRANTY PROGRAM

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. I understand from my constituents that the coverage offered by the Ontario New Home Warranty Program is providing protection from a variety of factors that can impinge on what may be an individual's or a family's single greatest investment. Last month the Ontario New Home Warranty Program celebrated its 25th anniversary. Can you please tell us how the Ontario New Home Warranty Program has developed over those 25 years?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I can't trace all of the 25 years over this short period of time, but back when the Ontario New Home Warranty Program began there were only 15,000 new homes built each year in this province; now there are 60,000. This program, over the last 25 years, has produced unparalleled protection for new homeowners. Over $170 million in claims has been paid out across our province.

The good news about this is that the Ontario New Home Warranty Program has been able to drop its fees consistently over the last couple of years because the program is working better and the builders are producing better buildings. The fact is that those total reductions are now some $220, down around $500 or $600 per new home for this great protection.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Minister. Obviously customer protection is very important to this government. Could you also tell us what kind of protections and services are offered by the Ontario New Home Warranty Program for Ontario new home buyers? As well, many small builders in my riding and in Ontario have indicated to me that they want an alternative protection plan to be considered.

Hon Mr Sterling: Recently there has been a review of the Ontario New Home Warranty Program and its structure. We have looked at various different alternative models, for instance, an insurance model, and we're still continuing to look at it. However, I must say that the unparalleled success this particular organization has had over the last 25 years makes me somewhat reluctant to strike out in a new direction, because of that success and what they have done in the past. In my opinion, they really have proved their worth. They protect people for deposits up to $20,000 on their new home. There is a full warranty for defects for one year on materials. There is a structural warranty for seven years on the major structural components of the building.

I don't know of any other jurisdiction that has such protection for new home buyers. I'm proud of the fact that our province of Ontario created this in a previous Conservative government. It has continued to live through New Democratic and Liberal governments and it is continuing to survive in another Conservative government.

PETITIONS

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas prostate cancer is the fourth leading causes of fatal cancer in Ontario;

"Whereas prostate cancer is the second leading cause of fatal cancers for males;

"Whereas early detection is one of the best tools for being victorious in our battle against cancer;

"Whereas the early detection blood test known as PSA (prostate specific antigen) is one of the most effective tests at diagnosing early prostate cancer;" and whereas the Minister of Health's inaction and the Mike Harris government's policies is literally causing men to die needlessly;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to encourage the Ministry of Health to have this test added to the list of services covered by OHIP, and that this be done immediately in order for us to save lives and beat prostate cancer."

Of course I affix my signature to this petition, as I am in agreement with it.

1520

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James) : J'ai une pétition ici adressée à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario qui se lit :

"Whereas the annual rent increase guidelines for multi-unit residential dwellings in Ontario increase every year more than the rate of inflation and more than the cost-of-living increase for most tenants;

"Whereas no new affordable rental housing is being built by the private sector, despite the promise that the implementation of vacancy decontrol in June of 1998 would encourage new construction;

"Whereas one in four tenants pays over 50% of their income on rent;

"Whereas over 100,000 people are on the waiting list for social housing, homelessness has increased as a result of unaffordable rents;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to implement an immediate province-wide freeze on rents which will stop all guideline increases, above-guideline increases and increases to maximum rent for all sitting tenants in Ontario for a period of at least two years."

I sign this petition and give it to the page here, Sabrina.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

"Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or another religion, is best for their children; and

"Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children; and

"Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

"Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

"Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of the tuition fees paid for that education;

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

"To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible."

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

ONTARIO DISABILITY
SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the objective of the Ontario disability support plan (ODSP) is to eliminate the stigma of `welfare' and provide income support to meet the needs of persons with disabilities; and

"Whereas our province will benefit from supporting and encouraging the employment of persons with disabilities; and

"Whereas the present ODSP monthly allowance of $930 for a single person fails to meet basic living requirements; and

"Whereas a person in receipt of ODSP is allowed to earn only $1,920 per year employment income without penalty, therein removing incentive to break free of assistance; and

"Whereas this government has made ODSP a barrier to independence for persons with disabilities and in so doing, thwarted personal self-esteem;

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

"Amend the Ontario disability support program such that recipients are not forced to live in poverty without hope. Truly help persons with disabilities find and maintain employment so that they can live productive, independent lives. Enact a meaningful and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act by November 23, 2001."

I am pleased to add my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James) : Une autre pétition, cette fois-ci signée par des gens de Timmins qui sont venus à un meeting vendredi passé dans le comté faisant affaire avec l'éducation. Ça se lit :

"To the Ontario Legislature:

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

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

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

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call on all members of the Legislature to fight and defeat this attack on the choice parents most want: stability, co-operation and respect in clean, safe public schools."

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for London West.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I have a petition signed by 184 people.