Hansard Transcripts 2001-Jun-06 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by her own hand.

The Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March 2002 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LANGUAGE PROGRAMS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Today I'd like to thank the Toronto District School Board, especially its trustees, for voting against cutting adult education and international language programs.

All of us in this House know how important these international language programs are, not only in getting a job, but also in getting Canadians ready for international competitiveness, because the more languages a person knows the more competitive he or she becomes.

At the same time, I'd like to point out, especially to the Minister of Citizenship, that he should stop blaming his favourite whipping boy, the federal government, for cuts. Instead, what he should be doing is making a phone call to the Toronto District School Board and offering what he can do in order to help a very desperate situation so that the Toronto District School Board does not have to cut these international language programs.

We know what these programs will do. The provincial government has done cuts and cuts and cuts, to the bone; not only that, the provincial government has cut into the bone. I ask today that the Minister of Citizenship make the phone call to the chair of the Toronto District School Board and simply say, "In what way can I help? In what way can I ensure that these programs will stay so that all new immigrants and everyone else is going to be helped?"

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): This week all of Cambridge is proud to celebrate Portuguese Week. Cambridge has a rich history of Portuguese heritage. Over 10,000 residents are of Portuguese origin, predominately from the Azores islands: São Miguel, Santa Maria, Terceira, Graciosa, São Jorge, Pico, Faial, Flores and Corvo.

Portuguese Week is a wonderful celebration of food, music, sports and culture. Many volunteers have worked tirelessly on this event. I would like to thank Armando Cabral, Nazario Teixeira and Tony Camacho in particular for their role in organizing and coordinating this celebration. My congratulations to all the volunteers, in particular those of the Cambridge Portuguese Club and the Oriental Sports Club, for their hard work.

A parade will be held in downtown Cambridge on June 9, and there will be an open air Mass at our Lady of Fatima church on June 10, conducted by Father Antonio Cunha.

We are justifiably proud of the contribution our Portuguese residents have made to our municipality. I would urge everyone to join us for Portuguese Week in Cambridge.

ST JOSEPH'S LIFE CARE CENTRE

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On Sunday, June 2, 2001, I was honoured and privileged to attend the day of tribute for St Joseph's Hospital, where our community recognized the past contributors of the decommissioned St Joe's and celebrated the exciting future for the new St Joseph's. You see, the riding of Brant has made lemonade out of lemons so that at this bittersweet moment we will see a new and exciting project rise from the imposed central dictate.

This dynamic new facility, appropriately named St Joseph's Life Care Centre, Brantford, calls for 205 long-term-care beds transferred from the John Noble Home in Brantford, a hospice for terminal patients and their families, a research and academic centre that will focus on senior health issues, and a family practice unit that will have on-site physicians. A number of new community partnerships will also be formed, including a daycare centre that will include intergenerational programming that will mingle seniors with children.

The board of governors of John Noble Home, St Joseph's Hospital, the St Joe's Foundation, the Brantford city council, the county of Brant council and the Sisters of St Joseph all support this project and want it to happen. The citizens of Brant want this to happen.

All I want now is to make sure that the Minister of Health realizes that all we're waiting for is your final approval, your signature on a piece of paper. Please help us realize our riding's wishes for better health care.

LISA-MARIE COULTER

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): Earlier this week I had the pleasure of hosting for lunch the page from the Vaughan-King-Aurora riding, Lisa-Marie Coulter.

My friend and colleague the late Al Palladini would have been proud to meet Lisa-Marie and hear about all her aspirations. Lisa-Marie's interest in pursuing a political life or a law degree has been enriched during her time here in the Legislature. She has told me that she has thoroughly enjoyed her duty as a page.

Lisa-Marie Coulter is a grade 7 student at St Gregory the Great Catholic Academy in Woodbridge and enjoys dancing, reading, swimming and music.

I am pleased to recognize here today, in the east gallery, Marie and Maurice Coulter, Lisa-Marie's parents, her brother Mathew, and her aunt and cousin Bruno. It is evident they are all very proud of her.

As I recognize Lisa-Marie, whose family are constituents of the Vaughan-King-Aurora riding represented by the late Al Palladini, I take this opportunity to also highlight how well respected a member of the community he was. This Saturday there will be a community centre dedication ceremony to honour the late Al Palladini. The West Vaughan Community Centre will be dedicated as the Al Palladini Community Centre. This dedication is important as we remember the significant contribution Al Palladini made to the community.

PREMIER'S COMMENT

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand that a few members opposite have raised concerns about a comment attributed to me yesterday. I indicated outside the House this morning, and I would like to repeat it inside the House, that if any comment I made, which was off the record to a colleague of mine, offended anybody, I apologize.

MINISTRY OF
THE ENVIRONMENT STAFF

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): With each passing day, new and damning testimony comes out of the Walkerton inquiry that clearly indicates the Harris government knew it was putting lives at risk when it chopped 45% of the budget and one third of the staff of the Ministry of the Environment soon after taking office in 1995.

A review of the testimony of Daniel Cayen provides further chilling details of how the Harris government understood the potential adverse impact of their cuts, but attempted to portray them as benign and without dangerous repercussions. Mr Cayen, who at the time of the Harris cuts was the acting director of public affairs and communications at the Ministry of the Environment, wrote a letter to cabinet on July 8, 1995. He writes: "Environment groups may react, and some might remind the government that it declared during the campaign that it would not cut the environmental area. Our reduction should be positioned in such a way as to allow us to advance the argument that we have not done so."

1340

So there you have it. The Harris game plan was quite clear all along: cut without appearing to cut and then deny the health risk created by those cuts.

In light of the damning testimony that has come out of the inquiry, from the likes of former MOE assistant deputy minister, Sheila Willis, and drinking water expert, Goff Jenkins, how else can the Premier explain his direct contradiction of their testimony when he stood in this House and told the people, "At no time has this government ever taken an action that we felt would ever jeopardize water, water quality, safety of people in the province. I think common sense would tell you we would not do that"? I believe it is quite apparent that it is now time for Mike Harris and his twisted definition of "common sense" to stand accountable to the people of Walkerton.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): This government talks a good line about accountability but demonstrates none when it comes to the critical issue of funding for community-based long-term-care services. In 1998, the Conservatives promised $550 million in new dollars to CCACs and other community-based long-term-care agencies over the next eight years. This money would be allocated using the government's equity formula.

This government refused to allocate equity funding to the Manitoulin-Sudbury CCAC in the first two years. I objected to that decision and I wrote to the minister, Cam Jackson, to urge him to fund us too, given the difficulties in delivering home care in the north. He would not, but made a specific commitment to provide equity funding to our community beginning in the year 2000. In a letter to me dated August 27, 1998, he wrote, "Starting in 2000-01 and in each of the next five years, the Manitoulin-Sudbury CCAC will receive additional funding based on our equity formula."

In 2000-01, the Sudbury-Manitoulin CCAC did not receive one penny of equity funding, despite the specific promise made by this government. We will not receive equity funding again this year, again despite the government's specific promise to provide the same. Our CCAC, like every other CCAC across Ontario, has already been told not to expect equity funding this year.

So much for the 1998 commitment made by the Harris government to all communities to add money to the base budgets of CCACs over the next eight years. This government had $2 billion for its corporate friends in the recent budget; it should fund CCACs.

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I'm pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of half a million people of Portuguese heritage living in Ontario. Canadians of Portuguese heritage celebrate June as Portuguese History and Heritage Month and celebrate June 10 as Portugal Day in Canada. I urge all the members and all the people who are watching us, if they see their neighbour who is of Portuguese background on Sunday, not to forget to wish them a happy Portugal Day.

This year's celebration has a very special historical significance for Portugal and for Canada. This year marks the 500th anniversary of the arrival of Portuguese navigators led by Gaspar Cortereal to Terra Nova, which is Newfoundland.

Canadians of Portuguese background were proud that the president of Portugal chose Canada to visit on this important occasion. The message that the president of Portugal left for the community was that Canadians of Portuguese background should be good Canadians, because that's so important, that being good Canadians would make them into very proud people of Portuguese background here in Canada.

PHILLIP BIRNBAUM

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): As Liberal children's critic, I would like to tell you about a very special young person who has moved many hearts in his quest to raise money for the Canadian Cancer Society and his commitment to volunteerism. His name is Phillip Birnbaum.

In 1996, Phillip lost his father, Perry, to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. In the summer of 1998, at the age of 10, Phillip decided he wanted to raise money for cancer. He did not ask any adults for help, but he took it upon himself to ride his bicycle throughout Richmond Hill collecting prizes for a cash-for-cancer raffle. Phil has raised over $4,000 in the past two years and this year he hopes to raise over $3,000 to fight cancer. You can find out more about Phillip's work on his Web site at www.philscancerraffle.bigstep.com.

Phillip also volunteers for the Multiple Sclerosis Society and fundraises for other organizations, including the Hill House Hospice. He was presented with the 2000 Ontario Junior Citizen of the Year Award.

I believe that Phillip is an exceptional example, not only for young people in Ontario but also for all Canadians, young and old alike. The commitment and courage of this young man have contributed significantly to the causes he supports. I am especially pleased that I am able to personally present this young man today, as he has been assisting us in the role as a legislative page. Congratulations, Phillip.

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I'm honoured to rise today to mark D-Day. This is the 57th anniversary of that day when the 3rd Canadian Division and the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion landed in Normandy and began the liberation of France.

I saw in the Toronto Sun that a Hamilton regiment has just laid to rest another one of Canada's heroes, Denis Whitaker. Mr Whitaker won the Distinguished Service Order medal twice and was made a brigadier general.

Today, with the menace of the Afghani Taliban, I don't doubt that there is such a thing as evil and that free people must band together to stop it anywhere in the world where necessary.

I look at the massacres in the former Yugoslavia, when the world waited too long to act. I look at the genocide in Rwanda, when the world did nothing at all. I wonder if the free people of the world still have the moral strength to stand up against oppression, like Denis Whitaker and his generation did.

One thing I know: in 1944, Canada and the free world had the necessary strength and courage. I'm proud to remember those brave soldiers on this 57th anniversary of D-Day.

NOTICE OF MEETING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Mr Speaker, I'd like bring up a point of privilege, and I gave you notice of this earlier today as required under the act.

First of all I'd like to refer to standing order 21(a), which states: "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes," and it's the other statutes I'm referring to today. It's specifically the Audit Act, subsection 29(1), if I could just read the section: "The auditor shall present annually to the board estimates" -- namely, the Board of Internal Economy -- "of the sums of money that will be required for the purposes of this act."

Subsection 29(3) states, "Notice of meetings of the board to review or alter the estimates presented by the auditor shall be given to the Chair and the Vice-Chair of the standing public accounts committee of the assembly and the Chair and Vice-Chair may attend at the review of the estimates by the board."

On May 30, the Vice-Chair and I were given notice of the estimates that were going to be discussed by the Board of Internal Economy that day. However, later on that evening of May 30, I understand that a motion was passed by the Board of Internal Economy flatlining the budgets of all the offices of the assembly. Of that particular meeting, neither the Vice-Chair nor I was given notice of our right to attend. Again, our rights are set out in subsection 29(3) of the act.

My reasons for bringing this forward are twofold. First of all, the committee, during its deliberations this past year, passed two motions: (1) to cause the Provincial Auditor to do a review of the Bruce nuclear-Ontario Power Generation contract. This was after some debate by the committee last fall, and the motion that was passed at that time was that he do this, even though he indicated to us that there would be an additional cost of $85,000 involved.

1350

There was also another motion passed to the effect that he do a review of Cancer Care Ontario, and although there weren't any specific financial terms attached to that particular review, the committee did pass, again, a motion to the effect that the auditor do a review of Cancer Care Ontario.

The reason for my bringing this forward at this stage is that I am well aware of Speaker Stockwell's ruling back on December 7, 1998, when he ruled that in this House there could not be specific questions raised of anyone who is on the Board of Internal Economy about matters that come before the Board of Internal Economy. You may recall that at that time the question was raised with respect to the rather large settlement that was paid to Allan McLean to deal with that particular issue.

My reason for pointing that out is that the ruling specifically stated that there were no questions that could be raised of anyone in this House relating to matters that came before the Board of Internal Economy. If matters can't be raised in the House relating to that, it is all the more imperative that the section of the Audit Act dealing specifically with the auditor's estimates be followed scrupulously. It wasn't followed in this particular case. I know that we were given notice of an earlier meeting that day, but we were not given notice of the meeting that took place in the evening of May 30.

Speaker, I would ask you to take these matters into consideration. The point that I am simply trying to make is this: if we want the officers of this assembly -- and we have four of those officers, of which the Provincial Auditor happens to be one -- to exercise their independence, then we want to make sure they are properly resourced. With the Board of Internal Economy's action as it relates to not only the Provincial Auditor but the other three officers as well, the real question is, can a decision of the Board of Internal Economy in effect frustrate the will and direction of a committee?

The committee in my particular case, the public accounts committee, specifically authorized the auditor to do two additional reviews which would cost additional monies and which now in effect have been frustrated by the decision of the Board of Internal Economy.

The question I have is, the Audit Act specifically authorizes, under subsection 29(3), that the Vice-Chair and the Chair be notified of any meetings so that they can be in attendance at these meetings. We did not receive notice of the meeting that took place in the evening of May 30, and therefore my rights and privileges as a member under that specific act and as Chair of the public accounts committee were violated or not adhered to.

Speaker, I await your ruling in that regard.

The Speaker: I thank the member. What he does point out deals with notice and provisions of the Audit Act for the Board of Internal Economy meetings at which the estimates of the Provincial Auditor are considered. The issue the member raises is one of legal interpretation and is not a matter of privilege. I would be happy to speak to the member privately about it.

Just for some clarification, what 29(3) says is that the Chair and the Vice-Chair "shall be" notified. I have a letter here of May 17 to both you and the Vice-Chair advising you from the auditor, cc'd to me. It goes on to say, " ... and the Vice-Chair may attend at the review of the estimates" committee, the operative word being "may."

In fact, it was not a separate meeting that was held that night; it was the same Board of Internal Economy meeting, and we just adjourned for a vote in the House and then came back and finished up. So there was not a new meeting. It was a continuation interrupted by a vote in the House of the same meeting, and all the members of the Board of Internal Economy who were there will know that.

He does raise some valid points and I would certainly be pleased to meet with him and the member of the board to discuss the issue further. But I do thank him for bringing it to my attention.

Mr Gerretsen: If I might just add to that, Speaker --

The Speaker: Very quickly, because we're not going to debate this issue.

Mr Gerretsen: No, but I specifically requested that night that we be advised, the Vice-Chair and I, of any further meetings. At no time was it indicated, when the meeting broke up for a vote in the House, that in effect the committee, the Board of Internal Economy, would be meeting on that issue later on that evening. I think we could at least have been given --

The Speaker: Thank you. Again the operative word is "may" be advised.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have spoken to you about a similar issue before. I have not given notice of privilege; I'm not raising it as a point of privilege. But I am the mover of one of the motions my colleague referred to, specifically the motion calling for a value-for-money audit of the private cancer care centre. It was supported by a majority of people at committee.

As you'll know, Mr Speaker, that is the only recourse we have, as individual members of the House, to direct the auditor to carry out business that the House has determined is of value. I would ask whether you would determine what the status is of a special audit order placed and supported by a majority of the members of a committee, and whether in fact that must be done because it is a direction of the assembly.

The Speaker: I thank the member. We had some brief discussion. I have asked the members of the table to contact you and deal with that issue, hopefully to your satisfaction, and anything we can do to clarify that, because I do appreciate you raised that matter with me. We will try to clarify and give you all that information from the members of the table.

MEMBER'S COMMENT

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I see the Minister of Education in the back. Last week in this House, I used the term "hissy fit" in the heat of debate, and at the time the member for Beaches-East York rose in her place and expressed the concern that that was a sexist comment. I took the member's concerns to heart and I went out and looked into the history of the term and what it means. I can tell you, sir, that it is in fact a term that originated somewhere in the United States. It is a shortening of the term "hysterical fit," and of course the Latin base of the word "hysterical" is "hustera," which refers to the womb.

I earlier this week apologized privately to the Minister of Education and to the member for Beaches-East York for the use of that term. It is a term, sir, that I must confess I have used quite commonly, not fully appreciating the magnitude of it or its history. I want to apologize to you and to this House and to the minister. Although we differ politically, I have a very high regard for her ability. That term was completely out of order. It was very insensitive and I'm embarrassed that I used it in this House.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member sincerely for the gracious gesture.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

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

Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the City of Elliot Lake.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE
ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

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

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FARM IMPLEMENTS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI
SUR LES APPAREILS AGRICOLES

Mr Barrett moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 76, An Act to ensure fairness, to foster competition and consumer choice and to encourage innovation in the farm implement sector / Projet de loi 76, Loi visant à assurer l'équité, à favoriser la concurrence et le choix des consommateurs et à encourager l'innovation en matière d'appareils agricoles.

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

The member for a short statement?

1400

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): This bill, if passed, amends the Farm Implements Act and will remove dealer exclusivity as an irritant in dealer/distributor agreements by allowing dealers to sell farm machinery from any distributor or manufacturer. Dealers will be protected from termination by distributors without cause, as specified. It will discourage distributors from imposing discriminatory contracts on individual dealers, and small distributors would be enabled to share warranty costs, parts supply and inventory responsibilities with their manufacturers.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE
STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE
QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE
RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

Ms Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 77, An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of Adoption Disclosure / Projet de loi 77, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les statistiques de l'état civil et la Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille en ce qui concerne la divulgation de renseignements sur les adoptions.

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

The member for a short statement?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): The Adoption Disclosure Statute Law Amendment Act, 2001, would provide access to birth registration and adoption records for adult adoptees, provide access to birth registration and adoption records for birth parents, implement a no-contact notice and amend the Child and Family Services Act to provide, upon request, counselling for adopted persons, birth parents and others who may be affected by disclosure of adoption information.

This is not the first time I have introduced a similar bill in this Legislature. Many of the people present here today will know that I introduced Bill 88 in 1999 and Bill 108 in 2000. Bill 88 passed second reading with almost unanimous consent from all parties in this House. I just hope that this bill won't have an "8" in the number, because in both cases those bills died on the order paper.

This is an opportunity for all of us in this House to work in a non-partisan way to, this time, not let the adoption community down, many of whom are here today for this first reading, and, in good faith, to get this bill passed and out to committee and finally pass progressive adoption disclosure in this province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY OF
THE ENVIRONMENT STAFF

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. This morning, Justice O'Connor took the rather extraordinary step of asking you, a sitting Premier, to appear before his commission of inquiry into the Walkerton tragedy.

In the past, Premier, we took some heart in knowing that you pledged your government's full co-operation with the inquiry and with any request to come from the commissioner. Will you accept Justice O'Connor's invitation?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think we made it very clear when we appointed Mr Justice O'Connor to the inquiry that we wish to co-operate in every way. I think all of us across the province want to get to the bottom not only of Walkerton but of post-Walkerton, things that we need to do to protect water quality in the province.

We want the answers to these tragic events. We've said from the beginning that we will fully co-operate, and I look forward of course to fully co-operating in testifying at the inquiry and assisting Mr Justice O'Connor in any way that I can. I think I've made that very clear.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, in the past you categorically denied that your cuts had anything to do with the Walkerton tragedy. You said that you did not cut the number of inspectors. You have denied the existence of cabinet documents calling for more staff to be hired because of public health risks and when one of those very documents was produced, you said it was a phony-baloney cabinet document.

We're wondering, Mr Premier, if asked, will you repeat the same answer, under oath, before the Walkerton inquiry?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I will certainly -- I assume I'm under oath, I'm not sure how these inquiries work, but I'm looking forward to it. I said I'll fully co-operate. Whether I'm under oath or not, I always tell the truth, and I will do so with full co-operation at this inquiry.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you were warned countless times that your cuts to the environment would put people at risk. The Provincial Auditor warned you, the Environment Commissioner warned you, Ministry of the Environment staff had warned you and we on this side of the House had warned you on several occasions, as well.

I'm sure the commission will want to know, and perhaps you can tell us today, why did you ignore these warnings and why did you make cuts at the Ministry of the Environment that you were told would put people at risk?

Hon Mr Harris: I think it's very important that having called the inquiry and empowered Justice O'Connor -- and everybody that he is requesting is testifying -- we not prejudge the investigation that Mr Justice O'Connor has undertaken. So we'll await the findings of the commission.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is also to the Premier. The crisis in our emergency rooms has not gone away. You may have made it somewhat more difficult for us to obtain information in terms of what's happening with redirects and bypasses and the like, but the crisis itself has not gone away. People in Toronto, in particular, are still being turned away. People are still having to wait for care.

Do you know why our emergency rooms are in crisis, especially here in Toronto? Because you closed six separate emergency rooms: you closed them at Wellesley, Women's College, Northwestern, Branson, Queensway and Doctors. We're also experiencing an emergency room crisis because you closed 2,200 beds right here in the greater Toronto area.

Premier, will you now admit that the reason we continue to experience these crises in our emergency rooms is not because of the absence of some protocol, or because somehow ambulance attendants and people in emergency rooms can't work together, that it's because of the fact that there is a desperate shortage of beds in our hospitals and that's the result of your desperate cuts?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): First of all, let me say that our sympathies go out to the families of any member who is having difficulty accessing our emergency rooms, or indeed any of our medical facilities. Certainly I understand, the coroner is looking into the three cases that I assume you are referencing that occurred between January and May 2000. Obviously we regret any circumstance where anybody dies, any circumstance where anybody does not received appropriate or what they feel is appropriate care.

With regard to bed closures, I think the record is very clear. No government closed more beds than your government, unless it was the NDP government.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, this is fundamentally an issue about hospital beds. We are short hospital beds in the province of Ontario. You closed 8,000 province-wide. You closed 2,200 in the GTA. You closed six emergency rooms in the GTA. We now understand you've got plans to shut down two more.

GTA hospitals have an occupancy rate of 96%. International evidence tells us that we should have no more than a 90% occupancy rate in our hospitals or otherwise we're going to have, as we're experiencing here in Ontario, a regular emergency room crisis.

Last September, we put forward a plan to help resolve some of the crisis. Two things in particular we asked you to do then, and I ask you to do the same things again today. Will you, first of all, place an immediate moratorium on emergency room closures?

Secondly, will you reopen 1,600 acute care beds immediately so that we can begin to address the concerns that our working families are having in knowing there is a tremendous doubt when it comes to whether or not they're going to find room at the hospital in the case of a dire emergency?

1410

Hon Mr Harris: As I indicated, most of the beds that have been closed across the province were closed under your administration and then again under the NDP administration. Since then, we've had consultations. We've brought the experts together. We brought in a restructuring commission, headed up by Duncan Sinclair, and these matters were all dealt with.

Since 1998, we've invested more than $705 million in the most comprehensive emergency room strategy in Canada. We've opened beds, we've provided more dollars and we've worked at better coordination. The system, while it may work very well in 99.9% of the cases, obviously is not perfect. This concerns us, and we'll work with our partners to try and improve the situation. It's tough when your party in Ottawa slashes funding for us, but we'll do the best that we can.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, if you're dedicated to anything, it's to reducing corporate taxes by a further $2.2 billion. It's perfectly obvious that you're not on the side of working families, whether it comes to protecting and improving their health care or protecting and improving their public education. That's what you are all about: cutting corporate taxes.

The coroner's office is now investigating the death of a critically sick man who had a second heart attack while paramedics struggled desperately to find a hospital that had space for him. You should know that his case is not isolated, and it comes down to the fact that here in Ontario we are short of hospital beds. People inside ambulances can't be admitted to hospital emergency rooms because there are no beds available to accommodate them, should they require admission. That's the fundamental problem. You shut down 8,000 beds Ontario-wide, you shut down 2,200 right here in the GTA, you shut down six emergency rooms in the GTA, and now you've got plans to shut down two more.

Premier, why won't you adopt our plan? Impose an immediate moratorium on emergency room closures and open up 1,600 acute care beds. That is something that is in the interests of our working families.

Hon Mr Harris: Let me first of all correct the record. The tax cuts we brought in were so we could have working families. Your policies led to unemployed families. Tax cuts were to have working families; Liberal policies are for unemployed families. We understand your strategy. You're happy to have unemployed families, but that's a separate issue.

It is because we have working families that we've been able to make up the additional $5 billion costs in health care, that we've been able to make up the cuts from the Liberals in Ottawa. Only because we've had working families have we been able to do this. We were able to have 371 new acute beds and 38 new ICU beds. It's part of the strategy that we worked out with hospitals, ambulance attendants and front-line workers. Only because we have working families are we able to make up the shortfalls of the beds that you closed and that the NDP closed and the shortfall of Liberal money from Ottawa.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is to the Premier. The Minister of Health said today that the situation in our hospital emergency rooms is not getting worse. Meanwhile, just down the street a tragic death occurred because Glenn Garden could not get the treatment he needed in a timely way at the emergency room. The ambulance paramedics were told, "The emergency room is too crowded. Find another hospital."

In January another man, deemed extremely critical due to a heart attack and resuscitation, was turned away by an ambulance from Toronto General when again the emergency room was too overcrowded. He died before he could get to another hospital.

Premier, the Fleuelling inquest recommended that there be no more closures of emergency rooms in Toronto, but you're ignoring that coroner's inquest. How many more people have to die, Premier, while your government goes about closing more emergency rooms?

Hon Mr Harris: As I've already indicated, we're putting more and more money into emergency rooms, into more beds, particularly ICU beds and acute care beds, to support emergency rooms. We've come forward with a comprehensive strategy, working with doctors and with nurses and administrators. It has taken some time to undo the damage your party inflicted on not only the economy, leading to record unemployment and deficits, but on the health care system as well. Your savage attack on cutbacks really has taken some time for us all to try and overcome in a rational and comprehensive way, but we are getting there.

Is everything perfect? No. I'd love to tell you that it's perfect. Did we get any money from the Liberals in Ottawa? No; we got $100 million less than we did six years ago, which is really one of the greatest tragedies facing this country, all across the country.

Yes, there is a coroner's inquest into the very unfortunate event that you raise, and again, our sympathy to the families.

Mr Hampton: Premier, every day in Toronto, ambulances are lined up for sometimes four hours at emergency wards because the nurses and the doctors are overworked and understaffed. In case you've forgotten, Premier, it was your government that closed the emergency rooms. It was your government that laid off over 10,000 nurses. It was you, Premier, who referred to nurses as out-of-date Hula Hoop workers.

Hospitals cannot hire and keep the nurses they need to operate the emergency rooms. They don't have the funding to pay nurses adequately and to work them on a full-time basis. That's the root of the problem.

Premier, the question is this: instead of another $2.5 billion of bloated corporate tax cuts, why not provide the hospitals with enough funding so they can hire the nurses?

Hon Mr Harris: As you know, we'd like to do both. That's why we are heavily involved in nursing in this province: $375 million annually of brand new funding as part of the nursing strategy, worked out with the nurses themselves.

I think you probably have seen the statistics, that for the first time in a long time there are now more nurses in Ontario. We've reversed the trend that we inherited and that quite frankly did continue in a modest way, not the massive layoffs that occurred under your administration but in a modest way, under our administration. We have reversed that, and now we're starting to get more nurses, and more nurses per capita, for the first time in a long time here in the province of Ontario.

Related to that, we had another problem we inherited from you, and that was, like the Liberals, you supported unworking families, unemployed families. It has been our tax cuts that have turned unemployed, unworking families into working families.

Mr Hampton: As much as you try to avoid it, the problem is not enough nurses working, not enough nurses in our hospitals and in our emergency wards to be able to provide the medical care that people need. Your government talks a lot about accountability, but just in the last year you did away with the ambulance redirect system and the ambulance critical care bypass system. That was the system that actually kept figures so that people would know what's happening in the hospital emergency wards and how long the wait is. You did away with that measure of accountability so that people can't be aware of what's going on. What's happening now is that people are dying in the lineups and people are dying in the emergency wards.

I ask you again, Premier, how do you justify further bloated $2.5-billion tax cuts for corporations when you don't have enough money to hire the nurses to properly operate our emergency wards in our hospitals?

Hon Mr Harris: As I indicated, I don't know where you get your figures from, but we are a party that favours working families, unlike the Liberals and the NDP which favour unworking families. We believe it's important for the health and the safety, if you like, and the security of families that they have a job and be working. To do that, what we found out from your disastrous policies, piled on top of the disastrous Liberal policies, was that you have to be tax competitive. So that's the first issue that deals with working families.

The term "working families" really only applies under our administration. Surely you wouldn't talk about working families and the Liberals wouldn't talk about working families with the abysmal record of driving people out of jobs and driving investment out of the province. Only when we have working families are we able to provide the dollars for hiring nurses.

Regrettably, there is a nursing shortage across Canada. There's not a shortage of dollars to pay nurses. We've had a shortage, quite frankly, in being able to recruit. We've been very aggressive in that. This is a challenge we are all working on and we're working with --

The Speaker: New question.

1420

MINISTRY OF
THE ENVIRONMENT STAFF

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Premier again: the Walkerton inquiry has discovered that your cabinet and the policy and priorities committee of cabinet, which you chair, were warned in writing in 1996, a full four years before the Walkerton tragedy, that your cuts to the Ministry of the Environment would increase "the risk to human health and the environment" -- in black and white a warning from your own Ministry of the Environment. Is it true that you knew in 1996 that something like Walkerton could happen?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No.

Mr Hampton: Premier, it's your government and your Ministry of the Environment that are responsible for drinking water safety. Seven people in Walkerton died and more than 2,000 became seriously ill. They didn't get a warning. The documents at the Walkerton inquiry say that you did get a warning. We've learned today that you have to appear before the Walkerton inquiry and present evidence. What will you say when the commission of inquiry asks, "Did you know that your cuts would increase the risk to human health and safety?"

Hon Mr Harris: No.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): This has to do with Ipperwash. The Attorney General, Premier, acting on your behalf, gave reasons yesterday why you will not call an inquiry. He was incorrect in the interpretation of what the George family have committed to. He misrepresented what the George family said they were prepared to do.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the member for Scarborough-Agincourt can't use --

Mr Phillips: -- what the George family said they were prepared to do. He said that --

The Speaker: Sorry to be picky. You need to withdraw that.

Mr Phillips: Withdraw. He said they were not prepared to drop their civil litigation. What the George family said, Premier, in their letter is that they "are willing to fully and finally drop their wrongful death lawsuit if your government commits to and holds a full public judicial inquiry into the death of Dudley George." They said it "would be formally and finally terminated" the day "the inquiry final report is presented." Now that you're aware of what the George family said in their letter, are you prepared now to call for a public inquiry?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think you heard the comments from the Attorney General yesterday and that's our response.

Mr Phillips: The comments from the Attorney General yesterday were that the George family was not prepared to drop the case. I've just quoted to you from their letter. It couldn't be clearer. So we have two interpretations of their letter, with the government saying the George family is not prepared to drop it. The George family in the letter they sent to you is very clear and unequivocal that they "are willing to fully and finally drop their wrongful death lawsuit" if you will commit to hold "a full public judicial inquiry into the death of Dudley George." It "would be formally and finally terminated.

The reason I raise this is that yesterday, in answer to the question, on behalf of the government, one of the reasons you decided not to hold a public inquiry is because you had not had assurances from the George family that they're prepared to drop it. I am telling you today that they gave you those assurances completely, totally, unequivocally. Knowing that now, will you agree to hold a full public inquiry?

Hon Mr Harris: I read the Hansard from yesterday. The Attorney General outlined a number of reasons. That's the government's position and that's it.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to seek unanimous consent to allow the Premier an opportunity to apologize directly to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for the --

The Speaker: Order. The Premier did come in and make a statement.

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Over the past --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Sorry to interrupt the member. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt, come to order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: OK, folks, last warning. I start naming people.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Simcoe North is now named. I would ask him to withdraw from the chamber.

Mr Dunlop was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Anybody else that starts is going to be named. We're not going to carry on like yesterday with the shouting back and forth. The Premier has made a statement today, and we're now going to proceed with the question from the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Mr Miller: I'll start over. My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Over the past few months I've been reading in the papers about how foreign countries have been dumping steel in Ontario and grossly undercutting the cost of steel here. Ontario's steel producers are suffering because other international jurisdictions aren't playing by the rules.

Algoma Steel in Sault Ste Marie has been forced into CCAA protection because they just can't compete with price of steel being dumped here by other countries. Minister, could you please update us on the state of Algoma Steel?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The member is right. The steel industry in Ontario has been suffering as a result of unfairly priced imports. Algoma Steel is in the process of restructuring their debt that they acquired while trying to compete in a market flooded with underpriced product. The purpose of the CCAA protection is to give the company time to reorganize its financial situation to find a way to better manage itself. Both myself and my colleague the Minister of Northern Development and Mines have spoken with company president, Sandy Adam, about the filing, and he remains confident that they will be able to resolve their difficulties.

I know these types of announcements are very stressful on everyone in the community of Sault Ste Marie and I encourage them to remain optimistic while Algoma undergoes this restructuring.

Mr Miller: I thank the minister for his answer. Minister, this is not a local phenomenon. Steel producers across Canada and North America are all having trouble surviving because of the games being played by other countries. I understand that the federal government has initiated some trade cases against offending countries. What are they doing? Is it going to protect Ontario's interests?

Hon Mr Runciman: The answer is yes. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency investigates these complaints and can take action against offenders. A complaint about hot-rolled steel was initiated by Algoma in January, but it took the federal government three months to process the case. This is one of the reasons our steel companies are having trouble. They're getting lost in the federal bureaucracy.

I met with Minister Pettigrew last month. I encouraged him to fight for our steelmakers on the international stage. However, I think they could and should go further. Just yesterday the Bush administration announced that they would be putting the steel dumping issue on their national agenda. If George Bush can find the time to talk about steel dumping, where is Jean Chrétien? Where is the Liberal government? It's time to act.

1430

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. Yesterday I pointed out that while you tell us you're spending $13.8 billion annually now on education, your party documents also told us that back in 1994, this ministry was spending $14 billion annually on education. That tells us that even though we have had 62,000 new students enrol in public education since 1994, there hasn't been a single new penny made available for them.

I want to tell you what this means to working families across the province in their local school boards. In Niagara, the board there is short $5.6 million and the board is saying they have no choice, that they're going to have to make some cuts. So the amount of time that educational assistants are allowed to spend with special-needs kids will be reduced by half an hour each day, there will be new user fees for parents, and 25 teaching positions are going to be lost. There is a myriad of examples throughout the province in virtually every single school board.

My question to you is, why is it, when there is such a crying need for funding for basic matters in public education, that you are able to come up with $500 million for private schools?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): As I said in the House yesterday, and obviously the honourable member wasn't listening, in 1995-96, funding for school boards was $12.9 billion; today it is $13.8 billion, and that is a clear, clean number of what goes to school boards for classrooms. Now, if the honourable member would like to do our books the way the Liberals did their books and the NDP did their books, we can add in ministry costs; we can add in the teachers' pension plan. But with all due respect, while those are very important investments, they are not money out there for school boards to deliver education.

Secondly, if you check your figures on some of the boards that you like to mention, you will find that their increase in money this year was above their enrolment increase. That is the way we have continued to fund education. That's over $360 million in new dollars that are out there for this coming school year. It is money that is more than the growth in enrolment. It's an important investment. We will continue to support the public education system because we believe it is a very important priority.

Mr McGuinty: To listen to you, Madam Minister, our public boards are just swimming in money, times have never been better, and they have never been more empowered to deliver a quality education on the front lines to the two and a quarter million children who are attending public schools.

Let me tell you that there is a very different reality out there. At the Thames Valley board, they are short $17 million, and they are telling us what that is going to mean for their students. First of all, there will be larger classes; secondly, the waiting list for psychological help will increase by 14 weeks; thirdly, they are cutting computer spending by $500,000, which means it will now take 13 years to replace a classroom computer; and finally, they're going to lose 75 full-time jobs, including education assistants, literacy teachers, psychologists and speech-language pathologists.

I ask you again: given the crying need for support from you for our public schools, why is it you found $500 million for private schools but you can't find any money for our public education?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member keeps trying to play politics with this issue, but the Thames Valley District School Board last year received over a 5% increase while their enrolment growth was zero. So they got 5% more and their enrolment growth was zero. This year they have over 1.5% and their enrolment growth was less than zero. They actually had a decline in enrolment, and yet we gave them more money because we know the needs in our classrooms are very high.

The needs in our classrooms are a very major priority for this government. That's why we have continued to increase dollars to our public education system. We understand that the pressures and the decisions that our school boards have to make to live within their budgets are extremely difficult. They are just as difficult for a school board as they may well be for an Ontario working family trying to live within their budget. That is a challenge. That's why we ask boards to set clear priorities for the classroom so that we can make sure that every year, step by step, we are improving quality and accountability in our public education system -- an extremely important priority for this government.

VICTIMS' RIGHTS

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Attorney General. Minister, in November 1999 I introduced a petition in the Legislature that condemned the Dalton McGuinty cousins in Ottawa, the federal Liberals, on their soft treatment of Paul Bernardo and other serious offenders. Over 4,000 Scarborough area residents signed that petition.

But in December of last year my constituents were shocked to learn that a movie script had surfaced about convicted sex killers Paul Bernardo and his wife Karla Homolka. I was appalled. These monsters committed many unspeakable crimes in my riding of Scarborough Centre which culminated in the deaths of two beautiful, innocent young women in southwestern Ontario. My constituents were outraged that something so recent, so hurtful and so close to home could be exploited for profit.

Minister, could you please clarify what the new proposed victims' bill entails and what it does for victims?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank my colleague for the question. Let me be very clear. The legislation we introduced yesterday is the very first of its kind in Canada. It was introduced because victims and victims' groups from across this country came forward and said that this legislation was necessary. I'm told, by the way, that other provinces, including Alberta, are currently working on similar legislation.

If this Legislature passes the bill that we introduced, it will relieve the burden on victims. It will allow for the Attorney General to go to court to take any proceeds that might exist, any profits, any money, whether it's a penny, whether it's a nickel or a dime, from individuals serving time or who have been convicted of serious crimes. We will not allow them to benefit. We will not allow them to profit from the crimes that they committed. We will not allow victims to be revictimized.

Ms Mushinski: Yesterday, the member for St Paul's spoke in response to the minister's bill entitled Prohibiting Profiting from Recounting Crimes Act. He claims, Minister, that your bill was nothing more than reusing, recycling and restating an idea that stems back to 1995. Also, the member for Niagara Centre said in reference to your proposed bill, "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."

Minister, can you please explain the facts of this bill to the members opposite. Obviously, they don't understand.

Hon Mr Young: I was frankly disappointed with both the Liberal and NDP comments relating to this bill, this bill that comes forward to assist victims.

This bill would relieve the burden that currently exists upon victims to go to court. Under the current law, they would have to go to court, they would have to retain a lawyer, they would have to incur all the costs and the time that is associated with that. If this bill passes, we will then be in a position as a government to go to court for victims. The money that is collected would be provided directly to the victims through an application process -- much simpler, much more direct, to individuals who are certainly deserving of that.

Any excess funds that we get as a government would then go back into the communities. It would go back to support victims' services, not back to the criminals. The bill that they stood in this House to support yesterday, the current law, which was a good first step, would see the money returned to criminals, and we will not allow that to happen. That's why we've come forward with this initiative.

WORKPLACE FATALITY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): My question is to the Premier, Speaker.

Premier, why are you and your government so soft on crime, this time corporate health and safety crime? You see, this is Robyn Lafleur, and I'm sending her photo to you because her life was stolen from her in an explosion and fire at the capgun ammunition factory where she worked in Thorold in 1999. Investigators looking into her death -- to the Premier, please, Danielle -- found sufficient evidence to lay charge after charge, under both federal and provincial statute, against the company as well as three individuals.

1440

Her mother, Joanne Stubbins, is here in this chamber today. She's been in court every time the case has been called. She gets no information from prosecutors or government officials. She was shocked to read, as was I, that your prosecutors have cut a deal, they've plea bargained the charges away, so that the individuals charged, notwithstanding the evidence collected, will walk away scot-free.

Premier, please tell Robyn's mother, Joanne Stubbins, here today, how you can justify denying Robyn Lafleur, her family, her friends and her co-workers their day in court.

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

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): My friend opposite, who I believe to be a lawyer, has raised this issue, and it may well be an issue that is deserving of attention in an appropriate forum. It is an issue that I believe in the premise to his question he confirmed was a matter in front of the courts at this time. Of course, that being the case, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time about that. In fact, if we did, I have absolutely no doubt that the member opposite would be the first to be suggesting that the government was doing something most inappropriate.

Mr Kormos: You bet your boots it's before the courts, and on June 27, this government's plea bargain is going to cut loose all of the perpetrators of what amounts to the life of a young woman worker who was crushed to death under a burning beam, whose body was burned so badly that the hospital pulled the plug on her near-lifeless body.

This Attorney General is responsible for the conduct of his prosecutors. It is his prosecutors who are cutting the deal, who are cutting loose accused people, individuals who are responsible for Robyn Lafleur's death.

You talk about being tough on crime; you talk about standing up for victims. Where are you when it comes to Robyn Lafleur and other workers? Where are you when it comes to standing up for Joanne Stubbins? Robyn isn't left to speak for herself; her mother has to speak for her. Join in demanding that your prosecutors and their federal counterparts engage in a tough and full prosecution of these charges against the perpetrators of that crime against Robyn Lafleur, her family and that working community.

Hon Mr Young: Let me say that we have great sympathy for the family. If there is some way, at this time or in the future, that we can assist the family, I'm prepared to do so.

But one of the things that we cannot do, one of the fundamental principles of our justice system and of this government, one that dates back over centuries, is that we can't stand in this Legislature and comment upon pending court cases. So if my friend opposite wishes to bring forward information, wishes to facilitate meetings between victims and crowns, which is something that we always make time for, then I am prepared to co-operate in that regard. But public statements at this time are something that we simply cannot do.

SERVICES FOR THE
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question? The member for London-Middlesex. Elgin-London-Middlesex.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): You got the Elgin in. That's the important part, Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. Your government continues to force persons with disabilities and older adults to live in institutions, rather than coming up with a method of direct funding to them and their families so that they can hire their own attendants. Direct funding is considered appropriate under an independent living model. It is preferred by most members and their families, and it was promised by your party since you were first elected.

Dani Harder, who is sitting in the Speaker's gallery today, is a 26-year-old woman whom your government is forcing to live in a children's hospital, in complete violation of her rights, simply because there is no mechanism in place to help her move to her own apartment in the community with 24-hour attendant care.

Premier, will you stop warehousing people in institutions instead of helping them to live a more independent and dignified life in their own homes and their own communities? When will you finally act to help this vibrant young woman get out of an institution?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Community and Social Services can respond.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for children, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Let me indicate at the outset that I'm certainly happy to work with the honourable member and to talk to this family and see what more we can do for this family.

I can tell the member opposite that providing supports to people with developmental disabilities has been an incredible priority for me and for this government. We've brought in a record investment to help people with developmental disabilities, the biggest investment in Canadian history.

I look at the situation in southwestern Ontario, where the executive director of the Wallaceburg and Sydenham District Association for Community Living said, "The minister listened well." He called our announcement, "It's really everything we asked for."

We acknowledge that we can do more. We acknowledge that the plight of people with a developmental disability and their families needs to improved. That's why we've made an unprecedented five-year commitment to do more to help community living, to do more to provide supports to people and their families right across the province of Ontario.

Mr Peters: I am the critic for agriculture, and there's one thing in agriculture: a lot of silos. What we've just seen today is the problem within this government: silos. Do you know who should have answered this question? Not the Minister of Community and Social Services; it's the Minister of Health. It's the Minister of Health whom Dani Harder has been dealing with, and that's part of the problem we've got in this province right now. We've got government ministries working in silos and not working in the best interests of individuals.

Premier, I am appealing to you for your direct intervention. The difference between what Dani's family requires to care for her and what the Ministry of Health is offering is $50,000. Money seems more important than the quality of Dani's life.

Why would you be willing to spend $120,000 to place her in a congregate living situation like New Visions, but you are not willing to fund the same amount so that she can live with dignity in her own home? Why are bureaucrats comparing the cost of her care to what it costs in a seniors' facility, rather than what it would cost in a facility for young people with disabilities who require 24-hour care? Is it your intention to force young people like Dani into seniors' facilities because of your government's failure to act? I implore you, Premier, for the sake of Dani Harder's dignity and for the other individuals in this province like Dani Harder, will you please intervene and help this family?

Hon Mr Baird: I have indicated to the member opposite that I'm more than prepared to work with my colleagues, whether it's my colleagues at the Ministry of Health or it's our colleagues through our regional offices of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

We've made an unprecedented commitment to community living in this province with more budgets. That commitment is shared by many folks right across the province of Ontario. I support expanding opportunities for community living. We have had a consultation.

One of the members in your own caucus just got up and presented a petition the other day calling on us to keep the institutions open, saying that institutions had a place in Ontario. That hasn't been the policy of successive provincial governments, be they Liberal, New Democrat or Conservative.

We're moving forward, with an unprecedented commitment. We're moving forward to expand the number of services. One individual said, "One of the good things that the budget did is that they did do some good things to help people with a developmental disability and the developmentally handicapped, and they ought to be congratulated, because it was long overdue." That was Greg Sorbara who said that last month.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Transportation. Unnecessary carnage still occurs on our highways due to drinking and driving. In fact, statistics suggest that approximately 25% of all --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Hamilton East, this is his last warning. I'll have to throw him out. Sorry --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. I'll make the decisions in here, I say to the ministers. You worry about your own ministries and I'll worry about in here.

Member for Northumberland.

Mr Galt: In fact, Minister, statistics suggest that approximately 25% of all fatal collisions involve a drinking driver. This indeed is unacceptable, as each and every one of these accidents could have been prevented. Many organizations, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving, and the Ontario Provincial Police are in fact doing their part.

Minister, what are you doing to reduce and preferably eliminate drinking and driving in the province of Ontario?

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank my colleague for the question. I want to assure him that this government has taken tough action to reduce the incidence of drinking and driving in Ontario. Since 1996, we have introduced a number of initiatives, one of them being administrative driver licence suspensions. It might surprise people in this House: there have actually been 89,000 people who have lost their licences for 90 days since the program was implemented in 1996.

We've also introduced remedial measure programs as a precondition for licence reinstatement. We've also increased the suspension period for repeat offenders.

1450

Vehicle impoundment is another program which we have put in place for those who were driving while suspended due to Criminal Code convictions. Over 2,800 vehicles have been impounded by this government.

The Solicitor General has also developed a dedicated, multi-year RIDE program, which we have funded to the tune of $1.2 million annually.

Mr Galt: Thank you very much, Minister, for that answer. Indeed, with every action associated with drinking and driving there is injury and often death and families destroyed. It is reassuring to know that our government is addressing the dangers that drinking and driving continues to pose in the province of Ontario.

Action is only one part of the equation. The other part of the equation -- of course, the most important part -- is the result obtained. Minister, can you describe to my constituents in Northumberland what effect these measures are having in reducing the problem of drinking and driving and the number of associated accidents, injuries and fatalities?

Hon Mr Clark: Once again I thank my honourable friend for the question. I want to emphasize that the Ministry of Transportation's commitment to road safety and our efforts to reduce drinking and driving are an integral part of this commitment. Let there be no mistake: drinking and driving continues to be a serious issue in the province of Ontario.

But I also want to make it clear that our tough action against drinking and driving is working. Since 1995, drinking and driving fatalities in Ontario have decreased by over 36%, more than one third. We will continue to make every effort to crack down on drinking and driving in Ontario in the years to come. That includes making use of new technologies. For example, my ministry is working with other ministries to develop a coordinated approach to implementing an effective ignition interlock program. Ignition interlock is a device that will prevent drunk drivers from being able to start their vehicles. It was the basis of a private member's bill that was passed in this House last December, and I'd like to credit the member for Simcoe North, Mr Dunlop, if he were here right now, for his work on that bill to help combat drinking and driving in Ontario.

HOME CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Premier. Premier, I wanted to read to you from your own document that you went to the electorate with and in which you agreed to the people of Ontario to take care of their health needs. What you said to them was that you were going to look at patient-based budgeting. That's what you were going to do. You said that you were going to put the priority on people who need health care. You said that "for many who need this care, this is going to mean an end to rationing and waiting lists." That's what you said.

I want to talk to you about all of the home care agencies now across Ontario that are rationing service and who have longer waiting lists than ever before because your government will not fund these people according to the people that they need to serve.

Premier, what do you have to say about the promises you made before you embarked on all of this massive change to health delivery and what we have now in home care -- rationing of service, service cuts, and waiting lists?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think it's important to put a few things into context. First of all, funding for community health services has increased by $658 million since we took office -- $658 million from the province of Ontario. The federal share: zero dollars. That's the first thing that you need to understand. This represents an increase of some 57%.

We have increased in-home services by 72%. Is it enough? Obviously a number of CCACs are saying it is not enough. In spite of the federal Liberal cutbacks and the slashing of $100 million out of our budgets from 1994, over the last six or seven years, in spite of putting 72% more in, in spite of all these funding pressures, there are still some CCACs who say it is not enough. That's why the minister is in consultations with the CCACs: to review the budgets to see if there are other areas where money can be found. We can't count on --

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: All three of us are up. We look like the Three Stooges here. The member for Windsor West.

Mrs Pupatello: It's not about "in spite of." It's in spite of your promise to the people of Ontario. You promised that you were going to bring in budgets that were patient-based. You said you would end rationing and you would end waiting lists. What you did was you cut hospitals and sent people home sicker and quicker than ever before. You said you were going to spend money in the community before you did that. The community was not ready for that, and that means that home care takes care of 70% of their patients from the hospitals, never mind the elderly women who rely on the most basic of services to keep them in their homes. Let's talk about York region, one of the largest community care access centres, that is facing a $12-million shortfall in the 905 region. I want to tell you that this affects mostly women; it affects mostly elderly women. What these people are saying is that those who have a personal worker for the basics -- housekeeping, shopping, meal preparation, banking -- are going to have the service discontinued. Premier, what do you say to the elderly women of the 905 --

The Speaker: I'm afraid the member's time is up.

Hon Mr Harris: I say to them that we have increased funding 72%. I say to them that it is a tremendous challenge for the province of Ontario. I say to the Liberals in Ottawa, who contribute not a cent -- in fact, they've cut their funding levels to us -- that in spite of the fact that they campaigned on a pharmacare program and on a home care program, not one cent has flowed from that, and that has put extra pressure on every Premier and on every government all across the country. I say to them in spite of that, thanks to our tax cuts and our miraculous recovery in the economy, that we fund home care more than any other province does all across the country -- more per capita, the most generous program that's there. And I say to them we're working with the CCACs, and in spite of the Liberals' slashing and lack of honouring their commitments, we're going to do our very best to do more.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Ontario has seen unprecedented growth in the past number of years and, as we continue to grow as a province, I'm concerned that with the broad base of industry that we have in this province, we don't have enough qualified and well-trained apprentices in place to help continue to build the province's future.

Apprentices are an integral part of our economy, Minister, and we need these skills and these experiences that apprenticeship training can offer. Without the continued supply of young people in training, I'm worried about our ability to foster further economic growth. Minister, can you tell us what the government and your ministry are doing to build participation in apprenticeship training in this province.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): I'd like to thank my colleague from Brampton Centre for his question. Apprenticeship training is something that this province has known for a very long time needed some serious attention.

A few years ago we introduced the Ontario youth apprenticeship program in our schools, which is aiming to get young people opportunities, sometimes credit, for their apprenticeship training so that they will be interested in moving into the trades, which are well-paid jobs, where we actually need them.

In the last budget in May we also had an increase of some $33 million, and that is to assist us in helping to double the number of people right now in apprenticeship training in the skilled trades.

We take this issue very seriously. We are getting great co-operation from the trades and from people who are interested in assisting government. I know that parents will be looking with their students to make different decisions for their future.

Mr Spina: Thank you Minister. I'm pleased that you're taking this seriously. We know that a lot of Ontario's young people are excited about job possibilities that can result from good apprenticeship training, and there are a number of rewarding careers that are available to these young people with the proper training.

Minister, it's not only critical to invest in students in terms of the place in the operations, but we also have to make sure they are given every opportunity to learn with the most current technology and the most current equipment possible. Minister, what is the government doing to give these young people access to the latest equipment and technologies so that they can pursue their careers in these most needed skilled trades?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In response, we are committed to doubling the number of people in apprenticeship training in the skilled trades. I have already mentioned the $33 million in the budget right now to help with this goal to double the number. There's another number in that budget of $50 million over five years and that's to help our colleges, which are tremendous partners with the trades in different communities across this great province, to provide better equipment so that we can assist these young people in their goals.

But one thing is missing, and I wonder why the Liberals across the House don't speak to the federal members so that we can get the training agreement signed. Therefore, I will be very serious: they would rather spend money on kiosks than on apprenticeship training.

1500

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Premier: the law says that when a worker believes they're in danger, but the boss disagrees, that worker --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. Order, please. The member for Niagara Centre now has the floor. Sorry for the interruption. The member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Kormos: Thank you. Premier, the law says that when a worker believes that a job puts them in danger and their boss disagrees, they can refuse to do that job, and if she does, an inspector has to come and inspect that work site, take a first-hand look, be there and meet face to face with those involved and make a decision. That law saves lives every day in workplaces across this province and, quite frankly, every one of those lives saved is worth every penny of what those on-site inspections cost. Bill 57 says those inspections are no longer necessary. Premier, how many lives and injuries are you prepared to risk in return for your so-called efficiencies that you seek, that you're going to obtain, by eliminating mandatory on-site inspections?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister gave a full explanation of that very same question in the Legislature this week.

Mr Kormos: Premier, your hubris, I tell you, should be alarming to everyone here. We're talking about workers' health, about workers' safety. We're talking about working women's and men's lives.

Look, a decision to refuse dangerous work is one of the most difficult decisions any worker makes in this province. It doesn't happen very often. The worker acts alone and the worker risks antagonizing his or her employer. It's a standoff and the stakes are as high as they get. A much wiser Conservative government and labour minister recognized this historically. They created that law, a solution, and that was a mandatory inspection by a third party who must come to the work site and determine whether or not it is safe to proceed. You see, that saves workers' lives. That protects workers' health and it protects workers' safety. The law works, but you want to undo it.

Premier, we know you can't guarantee that these changes to Bill 57 won't mean another death or injury. Why are you taking that risk with working Ontarians' lives?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the Minister of Labour can respond.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I want to go on the record very clearly. This will not be responsible for any death or injury in the workplace. Let me give you an example --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Hold on. Let me give you an example of a situation where the inspector would decide that a site visit isn't necessary. This is an actual example. An employee phoned up the Ministry of Labour and said, "I don't think my boss is qualified to be my boss." The inspector then --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That was you, talking about the Premier.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Hold on, member for St Catharines, just listen. The inspector said --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The minister has the floor. Sorry, Minister of Labour.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I agree with the member opposite. This is an important issue and I think we need to discuss it rather than -- the comments you made need to be challenged.

The ministry inspector would then have the power to say, "Why don't you fax me the accreditation that this individual, the boss, has. I'll review it and determine whether or not he should be or is capable of being your boss." They went out to the site, reviewed the accreditation and said, "This stop-work order isn't necessary. You can go back to work." Saving that transit for the two- or three-hour trip, shutting down the operation because one employee said, "You're not qualified to be my boss," is asinine. That's why we instituted a provision that said you can fax it to the inspector and They can review this and make a decision. It's simple common sense. Quit going over the top and quit fearmongering.

PETITIONS

NURSES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the nurses of Ontario are seeking relief from heavy workloads, which have contributed to unsafe conditions for patients and have increased the risk of injury to nurses; and

"Whereas there is a chronic nursing shortage in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has failed to live up to its commitment to provide safe, high quality care for patients;

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

"We demand the Ontario government take positive action to ensure that our communities have enough nursing staff to provide patients with the care they need. The Ontario government must:

"Ensure wages and benefits are competitive and value all nurses for their dedication and commitment; ensure there are full-time and regular part-time jobs available for nurses in hospitals, nursing homes and the community; ensure government revenues fund health care, not tax cuts; ensure front-line nurses play a key role in health reform decisions."

I submit more of the over 12,000 names that have been added to this petition and add my own name in full agreement with their concerns.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that reads as follows, and it is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will create two-tier education;

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

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society of narrowly focused interests;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will steal money from an already cash-starved public system and deliver public money to special interests who do not have to account for its use;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario;

"Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure,

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

"We call on the government of Ontario to withdraw its plan for two-tiered education and properly fund public education in Ontario."

I agree with the petitioners and I've affixed my signature to this petition.

ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I am presenting this petition on behalf of the residents of Mississauga South and the residents of the riding of Oakville, where the MPP is Gary Carr, the Honourable Speaker of this House. This is in a series of now thousands of names. The petition reads as follows, and it is a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas Sithe Energies Canadian Development Ltd is actively pursuing the development of an 800 MW electricity generating facility;

"Whereas the 14-hectare parcel of land on which the station is proposed is located on the east side of Winston Churchill Boulevard in the Southdown industrial district of Mississauga;

"Whereas Sithe has stated its commitment to an open dialogue with communities where it has a presence and to being responsive to the concerns of the same;

"Whereas the government of Ontario has a responsibility to ensure the safety of Ontario citizens and to determine how this facility will impact those who live in its immediate, surrounding area,

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

"That the government of Ontario direct the Ministry of the Environment to undertake a formal environmental assessment of the Sithe project."

I add my name to this petition.

NURSES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the nurses of Ontario are seeking relief from heavy workloads, which have contributed to unsafe conditions for patients and have increased the risk of injury to nurses; and

"Whereas there is a chronic nursing shortage in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has failed to live up to its commitment to provide safe, high quality care for patients;

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

"We demand the Ontario government take positive action to ensure that our communities have enough nursing staff to provide patients with the care they need. The Ontario government must:

I affix my signature. I'm in complete agreement with the petition.

1510

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to rise in the House today and present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

"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 affix my signature.

BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have some more petitions to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, stating:

"Whereas the existing Highway 519 bridge over the Magpie River south of Dubreuilville is a single-lane, 45.7 metre span Bailey bridge; and

"Whereas the safety of the residents, workers and visitors driving into and out of Dubreuilville is constantly jeopardized because of the single-lane capacity; and

"Whereas the minister has been made aware that there is an immediate need to replace this single-lane bridge with a two-lane bridge; and

"Whereas the ministry has agreed to prepare a design for a future double-lane replacement bridge, however, they have not yet approved the project;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and the Ontario government once again to immediately approve the replacement of the single-lane Bailey bridge by a two-lane bridge."

Mr Speaker, I agree with my many constituents in Dubreuilville who have signed this petition.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): We have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from a number of constituents of mine and Minister Clement, who is not in a position, obviously, to present for his constituents, and I am pleased to do so also on his behalf. It reads: