Journal des débats 1999-avril-29 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Apparently, more tax cuts are coming our way. How much more will he borrow to fulfill that commitment? How much more will the debt of the province grow to fulfill that commitment, a debt that has grown by more than $20 billion in the last four years? How much more pain will the most vulnerable in our society face because of Mike Harris?

Speaking of fulfilling commitments, how are we to believe anything in this document? Common Sense I said no hospital closings. So far, he has closed over 38 hospitals.

I want Mike Harris to tell the people of Kingston why they should trust him. He broke the promises he made the last time. He's closing schools and he's closing hospitals.

In Kingston, we've seen the waiting list for surgery grow from six weeks to one year in neurosurgery. We have seen the frail elderly cut off from homemaking services. We have seen children, parents and teachers confused as they try to figure out just what Mike Harris is doing to our education system.

Mike Harris believes in confrontation. He has attacked the most vulnerable. He has attacked teachers and nurses.

The upcoming election is about choice. Our 20/20 Plan is a clear vision for Ontario, an Ontario that has clear, enforceable standards for health care, the best education system for our children, tough new laws and enforcement for our environment, and a responsible fiscal plan to deal with our finances.

Ontarians in Kingston and throughout this province will not be fooled again.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Today the Ombudsman released the results of her recent investigation into the Family Responsibility Office. It's clear that despite the rhetoric of this Attorney General, the Harris government is failing to meet its obligations to the thousands of families in Ontario who are owed support payments.

The Ombudsman said: "From the evidence gathered in my investigation, it is clear the FRO remains far from stabilized. In its third year of operation, the FRO is still failing to fulfill its mandate through timely and effective enforcement of its caseload."

The reason why is that the Attorney General and this Conservative government have repeatedly failed to provide money to hire the staff needed to make this office work. The Ombudsman made it clear that this is the responsibility of the Attorney General but, as she said, "I believe the ministry has failed to discharge this obligation and as a result, the FRO is not in a position to carry out its mandate."

The Ombudsman concluded it was unreasonable for this situation to continue. She made it clear that people who are financially dependent on the FRO deserve better, and she called on the Harris government to take all the steps needed to guarantee the office would be staffed to get the job done.

The Harris government severely cut staff at the family support plan in 1996 to help finance the phony tax scheme. The Attorney General should explain to families why this government has money to give a tax break to the wealthiest Ontarians but has no money to staff the Family Responsibility Office so families can get the support payments they are owed.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I rise today to state that our government's health care plan is working in Simcoe Centre.

Contrary to the continuing unsubstantiated litany from the opposition about spending cuts in health care, my constituents know that health care spending has increased substantially under our watch. My constituents know that we are bringing state-of-the-art essential health care services closer to them than ever before.

The Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie was opened under our watch as a brand new, state-of-the-art acute care facility second to none in the province. To date, we have invested an additional $15-plus million there to fund new services like MRI, breast screening, expanded oncology service, and a soon-to-be-opened kidney dialysis unit. Simcoe Centre is growing rapidly, and RVH received growth funding increases of more than $800,000, with more to come, to help them deal with the increasing demand.

Our government's health care investments mean that constituents can stop travelling to Toronto or Hamilton to reach state-of-the-art diagnostic and life-saving treatments. Patients who depend on regular kidney dialysis treatment will not have the additional stress of driving long distances in harsh winter conditions for their treatment.

Currently I'm working with ER professionals who plan to open an urgent care clinic in the bustling south Barrie-Innisfil area.

Our government's health care plan is working. As a result, my constituents are receiving additional state-of-the-art health care services that they need closer to home than ever before.

LANDFILL

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): In September 1998, the Ministry of the Environment launched an investigation into allegations of dumping illegal hazardous waste in the Taro landfill site in Stoney Creek. Eight months later, the ministry has as yet not released this report. The residents are fearful for their safety and their health, and the company has a cloud hanging over it.

The report that was submitted by the investigators was completed in February 1999. That was three months ago. I find it hard to understand why the minister so far has failed to release this report. Is there something he's afraid of? Do the residents not have the right to know what went into that landfill site? Does the company not have the right to know whether they're guilty or innocent?

Clearly, what is happening here is that political considerations on behalf of the government are getting in the way of the releasing of this report. It also shows clear incompetence on behalf of the government and the minister or, worse, a political cover-up. What is the minister afraid of?

I cannot believe that in eight months you could not complete a report into dumping in one landfill site. You're either acknowledging that you don't have the ability to do it or, worse, you're acknowledging that you're playing political games with the health and safety of the residents. I ask the minister to immediately release the report into the investigation into the Taro landfill site so the residents can be at ease, so the company can deal with the problem and the community can get on with its life.

If the minister wants to put political considerations first and is afraid to release it before the election, he should come clean and say so, because clearly this is nothing more than a political cover-up to try to save their butt on -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

ARBOUR DAY

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Tomorrow marks the beginning of Arbour Week in Ontario. Arbour Day was a day that was set aside to plant and care for trees in 1872. This year, to mark the International Year of Older Persons, I'm going to be involved with a number of students and others in Windsor to plant a commemorative forest in St Rose Park.

This effort is the result of organization of work by the department of parks and recreation in the city of Windsor, the City of Windsor Retirees Group, the Essex Region Conservation Authority, Essex County Field Naturalists Club, the Edward Street Walkabouts, Union Gas and the Little River Enhancement Group.

There are local schools that are going to be involved in the planting of trees in the park: students from A. V. Graham, Concord, St John Vianney, Princess Anne, Our Lady of Lourdes, McManus and Riverside Secondary School. The students will be planting trees to honour seniors who have made a significant contribution to their development.

Also, A. V. Graham teacher Julie Leadbetter has written a song called "In your Name" to mark the occasion. Arbour Day this year will be a perfect way for young people in our community to pay tribute to their elders and to learn the importance of planting trees as a way of making sure the environment they leave their children is better than the one they inherited from their parents.

HIGHWAY 24

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): The county of Wellington has requested that I bring their concerns to the attention of the House regarding the costs associated with the transfer of Highway 24 to the county. I want to thank my seatmate, the Minister of Transportation, for personally meeting with a delegation from our county last December to discuss this issue.

The county has requested that I inform the House of the following: An environmental assessment study approved in November 1997, just prior to the date of transfer, identified Highway 24 as experiencing the highest accident rates for a two-lane highway in the province because of its poor alignment, and it recommended a four-lane, controlled-access highway.

Using the criteria applied two years ago when the province transferred responsibility for certain highways to municipalities, a four-lane, controlled-access highway is not one which typically serves mostly local traffic. If the province does not step in to assist the county with the estimated $35-million to $40-million realignment of Highway 24, county residents could face an increase in their property tax burden of over 20% over the next 10 years.

Highway 24 was described in the ministry's own environmental assessment document as a major north-south transportation link in Ontario.

With no significant opportunities in Wellington county to generate private funds, the county is asking either that the province financially assist the county, given the unique nature of the work required on Highway 24, or reassume responsibility for the section of Highway 24 from Guelph to Cambridge through Wellington county. This is a unique situation in Ontario and I support the county's position.

I know that the minister will give this matter serious and prompt consideration.

1340

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Members of the Ontario Legislature will have an opportunity to turn talk into action by passing a bill I will be introducing that will protect independent retailers from the oil giants in this province.

We in the provincial Parliament have the jurisdiction to pass a predatory pricing law that would prohibit the big oil companies from selling gas to their own retailers at a price below what they would charge independent retailers. This measure would help to maintain some semblance of competition in the market as the independent operators would be protected from predatory pricing practices by the major oil companies.

With the co-operation of all members of the House, this bill could receive quick passage and be in effect next week.

Those who are content to point fingers elsewhere or to huff and puff at the oil companies, then retreat when they bark back, will be able to take direct action as provincial legislators by passing expeditiously the bill I will introduce, a bill I have asked the government to introduce for the past three years.

The Premier has refused to call the captains of the oil industry on the carpet for the huge increases in gas prices before long weekends and this government refuses to do anything to investigate what appears to be collusion as retail prices rise in concert and remain very close.

By protecting the independent retailer, this Legislature, like some other provinces, and many states in the US, could promote competition in the market and give consumers a break.

POVERTY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Of all the things this government has done to this province over the last four years, and there have been many that have been damaging and hurtful, the most reprehensible, the most damaging and the most morally indefensible is their attack on the poor and their approach to issues of poverty.

No matter how you look at it, the majority of people in need of assistance in this province are children, people with disabilities, people mentally not well and the 8% to 10% who, because of the economic model we work under, will never have worked because that is the natural rate of unemployment always present now in Ontario.

In the last four years we have cut their income, removed or diminished significantly support programs and blamed them for everything that ails us.

The new Blueprint delivered by Mike Harris today for Ontario, if he's elected again, takes this a step further. Where Ontario has prided itself on the fact that no one should ever, no matter their circumstances in this province, go without, we will now have, if we follow this Blueprint, a class of people, by way of the new regulations put in place, who will no longer qualify for anything. Not only that, when they find that they no longer qualify for assistance of any sort, they will not be able to beg, they will not be able to panhandle on the streets of Toronto or any community across this province because if they do, they will be thrown in jail.

Shame on you; shame on you.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Time's up.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I'm pleased today to inform this House of some exciting developments taking place in research and development at McMaster University. As you know, Mr Speaker, this government believes that we must invest in research and development if we are to keep our best and brightest research minds here in Ontario.

In 1997 this government developed the Ontario research and development challenge fund which will provide $500 million over 10 years in matching grants to academic institutions to ensure they continue their work in research and development of innovative products and technologies.

McMaster University has been the recipient of over $30 million in research dollars over the past two years, including a project to develop a steel research centre funded by Stelco and Dofasco in Hamilton, as well as a new chair in gastroenterology funded by Glaxo Wellcome, a pharmaceutical corporation concerned about nervous intestinal problems that people encounter.

Dr Peter George, president of McMaster University, has been very proactive in securing partnerships with the private sector because he believes strongly that by pursuing research partnerships it will, in the words of Dr Peter George, "benefit universities by ensuring their programs stay current and relevant and by helping keep some of the brightest minds in Ontario."

CASE REPORTS, OMBUDSMAN

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I wish to inform the members that I have laid upon the table the Ombudsman's case reports in the matters of the complaint of Mrs P regarding the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the investigation of the Family Responsibility Office's processing of its caseload, the investigation of the timeliness of birth-relative searches conducted by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and the investigation of the timeliness of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's investigative process.

I would also like to note that the Ombudsman is in the Speaker's gallery today. Welcome.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION DES CONSOMMATEURS EN MATIÈRE D'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

Mr Sampson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 21, An Act to increase fairness and consumer protection while maintaining a balanced and stable automobile insurance plan in Ontario / Projet de loi 21, Loi visant à accroître l'équité et la protection des consommateurs tout en maintenant un régime d'assurance-automobile équilibré et stable en Ontario.

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

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): This bill is aimed at fine-tuning the Ontario automobile insurance system to ensure that injured accident victims get the treatment they need and that rates remain stable and affordable.

Among other things, this bill would improve children's statutory accident benefits and their right to sue in court, eliminate the deductible for pain and suffering damages in large awards, and require insurance agents to disclose to consumers that they represent only one company, thereby bringing them in line with the existing rule for brokers.

GASOLINE PRICING ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LE PRIX DE L'ESSENCE

Mr Bradley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 22, An Act respecting the price of gasoline / Projet de loi 22, Loi concernant le prix de l'essence.

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

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The purpose of this bill is to preserve competition in the gasoline retailing business by prohibiting the major oil companies from selling at one price to their own dealers and a different price to independents.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Mr Speaker, I'd like to ask if I can have unanimous consent to introduce a bill on behalf of my colleague from Essex South, who has been called away.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

Mr Agostino, on behalf of Mr Crozier, moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 23, An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act / Projet de loi 23, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection du consommateur.

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

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): The purpose of Mr Crozier's bill is to extend the scope of section 36 of the Consumer Protection Act to protect consumers from the practice of negative option billing with respect to the provision of services. Currently, this section only applies to the provision of goods.

The Speaker: Motions?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Mr Speaker, may I have permission to have a statement on Sexual Assault Prevention Month?

The Speaker: Sure, but we're in the middle of motions right now, so I'll finish that and then we'll go right back to you.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to move motions to strike legislative standing committees.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that the membership of the standing committees for this session be as follows:

Standing committee on administration of justice: Mr Boushy, Mr Crozier, Mr Kormos, Mr Martiniuk, Mr Ramsay, Mr Rollins, Mr Stewart, Mr Tascona, Mr Wood (London South);

Standing committee on estimates: Mr Bartolucci, Mr Bisson, Mr Cleary, Mr Doyle, Mr Kennedy, Mr Parker, Mr Pettit, Mr Wettlaufer, Mr Young;

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs: Mr Arnott, Mr Baird, Mr Brown (Scarborough West), Mr Guzzo, Mr Kwinter, Mr Phillips, Mr Rollins, Mr Silipo, Mr Wettlaufer;

Standing committee on general government: Mr Colle, Mr Danford, Mrs Fisher, Mr Froese, Mr Gilchrist, Mr Lessard, Mrs Munro, Mr O'Toole, Mr Sergio;

Standing committee on government agencies: Mr Gerretsen, Mr Gravelle, Mr Grimmett, Mr Johnson (Perth), Ms Lankin, Mr Marchese, Mr Newman, Mr Spina, Mr Stewart;

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly: Mr Curling, Mr DeFaria, Mr Fox, Mr Hardeman, Mrs Johns, Mr McLean, Mr Morin (Carleton East), Mrs Mushinski, Mr North, Mr Ouellette, Mr Pouliot;

Standing committee on the Ombudsman: Mr Agostino, Mr Beaubien, Mr Ford, Mrs Johns, Mr McLean, Mr Pettit, Mrs Pupatello, Mr Vankoughnet, Mr Wood (Cochrane North);

Standing committee on public accounts: Mr Beaubien, Mr Grandmaître, Mr Grimmett, Mr Lalonde, Ms Martel, Mr Patten, Mr Preston, Mr Tascona, Mr Young;

Standing committee on regulations and private bills: Mr Barrett, Mr Boushy, Mr Caplan, Mr Hardeman, Mr Leadston, Mr Martin, Mr Ruprecht, Mr Shea, Mr Sheehan;

Standing committee on resources development: Mr Christopherson, Mr Chudleigh, Mr Conway, Mrs Elliott, Mr Galt, Mr Hastings, Mr Hoy, Mr Maves, Mr Preston;

Standing committee on social development: Mrs Boyd, Mr Carroll, Ms Castrilli, Mr Duncan, Mr Hudak, Mr Klees, Mrs McLeod, Mrs Ross, Mr Smith.

The Speaker: Mr Sterling moves that the membership of the standing committees for this session be as follows:

The standing committee -

Interjection: Dispense.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

HOUSE SITTING

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding this evening's sitting.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): This is a motion without notice to - why don't you read it again. I couldn't hear.

Hon Mr Sterling: I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding this evening's sitting.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that, notwithstanding the order of the House of April 26, 1999, the House shall not meet from 6:30 to 9:30 pm this evening.

The Speaker: Agreed? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Let's call in the members; it's a five-minute bell.

Can I get the members' attention? It's a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1354 to 1401.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): All those in favour of Mr Sterling's motion, please stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Grimmett, Bill

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Johnson, David

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cordiano, Joseph

Gerretsen, John

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Lessard, Wayne

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 53; the nays are 18.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I want to move the schedule for the committee meetings to be established this session. I need unanimous consent in order to do this.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The government House leader wants to move the schedule for the committee meetings this coming session. He needs unanimous consent. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that the following schedule for committee meetings be established for this session:

The standing committee on administration of justice may meet on Monday and Tuesday afternoons following routine proceedings;

The committee on estimates may meet on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings;

The standing committee on finance and economic affairs may meet on Thursday mornings and Thursday afternoons following routine proceedings;

The standing committee on general government may meet on Thursday mornings and Thursday afternoons following routine proceedings;

The standing committee on government agencies may meet on Wednesday mornings;

The standing committee on the Legislative Assembly may meet on Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings;

The standing committee on the Ombudsman may meet on Wednesday mornings;

The standing committee on public accounts may meet on Thursday mornings;

The standing committee on regulations and private bills may meet on Wednesday mornings;

The standing committee on resources development may meet on Monday and Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings;

The standing committee on social development may meet on Monday and Tuesday afternoons following routine proceedings; and

That no standing or select committee may meet except in accordance with this schedule or as ordered by the House.

The Speaker: Mr Sterling moves -

Interjection: Dispense.

The Speaker: Dispense? Agreed.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that the standing committee on regulations and private bills be authorized to meet on Monday morning, May 3, 1999.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Sterling moves that the standing committee on regulations and private bills be authorized to meet on May 3 at 10 am.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I am seeking consent to make a statement with regard to Sexual Assault Prevention Month.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: May is Sexual Assault Prevention Month in Ontario. It's a time for us to acknowledge that we are all responsible for stopping sexual assault.

Our government is committed to ending violence of all kinds. We have provided strong leadership to ensure that women have the support they need and that perpetrators are held accountable for their crimes. We are ensuring that public education teaches the important lesson that the violence must stop, that it has a devastating impact on women's lives and the lives of their children, our families, our communities and our country. The costs for victims of sexual assault and their families go far beyond dollars and cents.

For women who have suffered the pain, whose potential has been restricted, whose independence has been diminished, we must commit ourselves to stopping the violence.

For crisis intervention workers, the front-line workers in shelters, the police, health workers, for our neighbours, and indeed for whole communities, the effects of this violence are both long-term and far-reaching.

Each one of us, individually and together, must take responsibility, and we must continue to work to build safe homes, safe communities and safe workplaces.

Positive change can occur. We have the responsibility to teach boys that physical intimidation and unwanted touching are not jokes, they are crimes. They must learn, in their relationships with women, that attempts to manipulate, intimidate or control are not acceptable to anyone.

We have the responsibility to teach girls and young women that no one has the right to touch them in any way without their consent. We must teach young women that no one has the right to limit their freedom, their choices, their access to family and friends. Society supports all of our rights and freedoms and no acts of violence or intimidation should go unreported.

Men, as our friends, our family and colleagues, have a crucial role in ending the crime of sexual assault. We actually count on them to be a strong voice in conveying the message that violence and abusive behaviour is totally unacceptable.

Our government continues to keep its promise to improve services and programs. Since the Agenda for Action violence prevention strategy began in 1997, we have launched over 40 new initiatives across some 10 ministries to create flexible services to meet the needs of women. I'm proud to stand in this House today and share with my colleagues the Agenda for Action progress report, which summarizes our many accomplishments in this area.

1410

For the members of this House who are wanting to explain to their communities the programs that actually extend across some 10 ministries, for all of us in our constituency offices, because this is a non-partisan issue, I hope they will put out these programs that explain the services that are available.

This is an Agenda for Action report on the first 18 months since we all agreed together to move in this direction.

For example, one of the new programs is the new Trillium sexual assault and domestic violence centre in Mississauga. It's one of many new programs that offers women more choices. This warm, welcoming centre brings together the health care professionals, the police and child care services and the shelters to ensure women who have experienced sexual assault receive exceptional care in a safe and compassionate environment.

All sectors of communities are working together in every way they can to stop sexual assault and to stop the violence.

We must all accept the responsibility - I will say this once again - ourselves and take the opportunity to do whatever we can to end sexual assault. No one sector or group can work alone.

Today we encourage everyone to speak out against all forms of violence.

In this Legislative Assembly over the years, as I looked at the statements that have been made since 1978, we've worked together to set the standards. All governments have. We have worked together to stop the violence, and we will continue in our efforts to work together and make our quality of life better for everyone.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I don't know where to begin to speak in recognition of May being declared Sexual Assault Prevention Month. Perhaps the best place to begin is to reiterate our support for the implementation of a registry of sexual offenders. I believe that is a step, and I trust an important step, in the prevention of the most vicious sexual attacks.

But the prevention of sexual assault has to go so far beyond that, and it seems to me that we are still doing so little. I don't mean just this government. I mean all governments and I mean, as the minister has said today, all of us.

I wonder what progress we have actually made since last year, when we all rose and made our statements of concern about sexual assault and the importance of prevention. We keep hearing stories of children being abused in settings where they should be safe and I wonder how much we have really done to ensure that our children are not at risk in places where they expect to be safe.

I wonder whether or not the statistics about the sexual abuse of women are any different. A 1993 survey showed that 54% of women had an unwanted sexual experience before the age of 16; that 51% of women over women 16 experienced rape or attempted rape. I have four adult daughters. I wonder what those statistics say to me as a parent and, more important, what those statistics say to my daughters. The statistics aren't theoretical. They are a measure of what is actually happening. They're not just numbers, because there are real people behind them.

The new initiatives of the current government that were released today focus on the justice system. Yes, I agree that sexual assault is a crime. Yes, I agree absolutely that the justice system has to deal with sexual assault in a sensitive and very clear way. We are all still reeling from the impact of the crinoline case, which put the understanding of "no means no" back into the Dark Ages.

We also have to recognize that the vast majority of the women and men and children who are sexually assaulted will never go to the justice system. Those women and men and children who seek help need the immediate support of community-based services, and those services have been cut rather than strengthened, whether we are talking about children's mental health centres or women's shelters.

Women who have been assaulted don't need to be linked to, as I quote the new platform, "the cutting edge information tech of the criminal justice system" as much as they need physical and emotional support and counselling to deal with the reality of what has happened to them.

Prevention must mean more than prosecution. Women need, more than anything else, to be helped not to be victims and not to be vulnerable at home, at work or on the streets.

It's sadly ironical that as women have become more free to participate fully in our society, they have become more vulnerable.

Children need to be safe in their homes, on their streets and in their classrooms. They have not been safe in the past and they are not yet safe enough.

We are not doing enough to recognize the risks let alone deal with them. We're not doing enough to build awareness of what sexual assault is in all of its manifestations, from violent sexual assault of children by strangers to domestic assault in the home. We need to be aware of the realities of rape, from violent rape to date rape. We need to understand what sexual harassment is and how the abusive power feeds into harassment and assault of the less powerful.

We need to start earlier, before the patterns of behaviour are established. We need to challenge unacceptable behaviour and define more clearly what is and is not acceptable. We need to make it possible to talk about what is happening without denial. We need to make it possible to disclose without fear of guilt or embarrassment or revictimization, and with an assurance of understanding and support. We need to do all of this and more. If we don't, maybe we should stop getting up once a year to make these statements.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'm pleased to respond on behalf of the NDP this afternoon. I want to start by all of us remembering Theresa Vince, who was murdered in 1996 by a sexual harasser at her workplace, who then killed himself. Theresa worked at Sears. By now we all know the tragic story: She complained, she sought help and advice but she didn't get it. The ultimate happened to her: She was murdered. I start by mentioning Theresa Vince again because we mustn't forget that sometimes when we talk about sexual assault, we don't remember what can happen to women when they're sexually harassed.

I remind the minister again this year, there was a call last year and the year before, as a result of Theresa Vince's murder, that the first week of June be proclaimed as sexual harassment awareness week, which I believe all of us in this House suggested would be a good idea. That still has not been done. I think it's all the more important to be reminded of that today, because we haven't heard a lot of discussion for the past several months, at least since last year, in this House about what happened to Theresa Vince and the life-altering circumstances that happen when women are harassed in the workplace.

I wanted to remind everybody today that we should also remember, when we're talking about sexual assault, that sexual harassment is a very serious problem, and it's experienced by vast numbers of women at some time in their lives. I would ask the minister today once again to consider declaring the first week of June as sexual harassment awareness month.

We are aware that still, as we speak today, rape crisis centres have reported that statistics of reports of rape are going up, not down, and that the problem we raised last year, about the use of drugs on women to sedate them and render them unconscious, is still a problem. There have been more stories in the media about it again lately. We've seen no movement on that from the federal government or from this government. That has to be remembered. I call again this year, as I did last year, on the federal Liberal government and the government of Ontario to look at ways that we can move.

One of the problems, as I pointed out before, is that in most cases women cannot be tested to see if the drug was used - sometimes up to 12 hours after; then it's too late - unless they agree to press charges, and of course in many cases there are many reasons why women don't want to do that.

This brings me to the issues around where our focus should be. As I've said many times in this House, I or my party has no problem with the focus on the justice system; it's very important and the work that's being done there is good work. Unfortunately, the problem is that most of the focus of this government is on the justice system and we're moving away from the community-based support systems that we hear time and time again are so important to victims of sexual assault, from the front-line women, the women who have worked in this area for a long time or who are survivors of sexual assault themselves.

1420

It's very important that more work be done on making sure that the community-based support is still there. I'm afraid that with some of the cuts that have happened across the board to rape crisis centres, this government is moving away from that. I want to remind everybody today that indeed we still have a lot of work to do.

The last thing I'd like to say is that there's an issue now that has presented itself to us, and that is one that may seem like a very minor issue to most people, but it is the city of Toronto giving the taxi companies permission to raise fees at night - a night service charge.

I have to admit that when I first heard about that I didn't really think much about the ramifications and implications of it, but then just immediately after I started thinking about it I realized that a lot of women who work late at night have no other way of getting home except to take a cab. I believe the rape crisis centres and others came out today asking that people speak up and not support this measure and take that into account. It's an issue we all need to think about and bring up, and make sure there's some attention and focus paid to that.

One of the things we all know and all have to remember to be aware of at any level of government is that when we consider making changes to laws, sometimes we forget to look at all the different sectors in our society that may be affected. It's clear that this particular measure would have a detrimental effect on women who, for whatever reasons, are out late at night and whose only choice is to take a cab. Of course, many women who work at night are low-wage earners. This could create a mammoth problem.

We need to look at our laws in the context of safety. I'm hoping that this is a message we can carry to the taxi companies and the Toronto city government to make them aware that this new measure may impact on women's safety.

I would like to thank all the members of the House for their attention to this issue today, and hope that we can continue to work in any way we can to make our streets safer for women and their homes safer for women and their children.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Minister, you've stripped down the Ontario health system, and that stripped down system hit yet another family on Monday night.

Eric Rodriguez of Uxbridge is 79 years old. On Friday night he was suffering from chest pains. They called the ambulance. The ambulance was there within five minutes. They brought him into the Uxbridge hospital, called North Durham Health Services. The doctors responded, but as they tried, Minister, they ran into your health system. They determined that Mr Rodriguez needed an ICU bed. While he lay on a stretcher, while his whole family was there with him, two doctors tried for hours to find a critical care bed for Mr Rodriguez somewhere, anywhere in the Toronto area.

They failed to find a bed in the Toronto area, not one critical care bed was open and available for Mr Rodriguez. Instead, four hours later they sent him to Kingston by air ambulance. Minister, will you admit today that this is your responsibility? It's your fault that Mr Rodriguez had to go to Kingston.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As the member knows, our government has attempted to improve the health system which unfortunately had been badly neglected by previous governments. We have been improving the level of service. We are spending more money than any other government in the history of this province. We've gone from $17.4 billion to $18.9 billion. We are ensuring that the appropriate level of services can be provided to people throughout Ontario.

Unfortunately, other governments closed 10,000 beds, but they did not embark upon the process of restructuring to ensure that people would have the beds and services available when they would need them. I'm proud to say that's what our government is doing today, improving the system and making beds available, to ensure that the needs of patients can be addressed.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, your idea of improving the system is spending millions of dollars in government funds on advertising to tell people about the system and spending hundreds of millions of dollars firing nurses. That's your idea of improving the system; it's not in providing nurses and it's not in providing beds.

Your government, and your government alone, cut 70 intensive care beds, part of over 2,000 beds that you cut just in the Toronto area alone in the last three years. You made the system too small. You can't blame the hospitals.

The doctors in this case responded extremely well. They put an external pacemaker on. They tried to keep this patient, Mr Rodriguez, alive. They wanted one simple thing from you, Minister, an intensive care bed, necessary for any time somebody has an emergency like that. They begged the hospitals. The family overheard them saying, "I've got a critical care patient here, and you won't give me a bed?" That family had to stay there and go in and ask every 20 minutes: "Is there a bed? Is there a bed?" The last resort was Kingston. They were air-lifted there.

Do you agree that if you had not cut the 70 beds, Mr Rodriguez would -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Maybe the member forgets what his government did not do. Let's take a look at the editorial in the Windsor Star in July 1989 which says:

"For four hours local doctors tried in vain to send Mr Budd to either London or Toronto, where hospitals are mandated to serve the cardiac needs of the Windsor area. The response of the three out-of-town hospitals boiled down to this: No space. Mr Budd was sent to Beaumont Hospital in Detroit where he was operated on but suffered a heart attack and died two days later."

Our government is ensuring that the very specific needs of people in this province can be addressed. That's why we are expanding the cardiac system. That's why we are constructing three additional cardiac centres throughout this province. That's why we are providing more cardiac surgery than ever before. We will continue to do this, because we have a plan that will ensure that the needs of people can be addressed.

Mr Kennedy: What you're saying is that the system didn't work at one point in 1979, and since then you've cut 70 intensive care beds out, 2,000 hospital beds. You took them away from a system you said wasn't working 10 years ago.

Minister, here's what people think of what you're saying. Scott McKendrick is a police officer. He's Mr Rodriguez's son-in-law. He and his wife Marisa say: "You live in a country where you believe that this could not happen, that the health system would not be there for you when you need it. What are you working for?" We're turning this province, according to Mr McKendrick, into the United States.

Mr Rodriguez's wife had to get on a bus and go to Kingston to visit her husband, because there wasn't a single ICU bed available in the whole greater Toronto area, and you cut 70 beds.

Minister, you stripped down the health care system. Mr McKendrick has a response to you for that: He used to be a Conservative; he is not any more.

Will you at least have the decency to stand up today and apologize to the Rodriguez and McKendrick families and put back the ICU beds you cut?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Perhaps the member isn't aware of the fact that we are expanding the health system. Let me remind him as to what's happening. In the city of Toronto, six of the emergency rooms are being expanded to meet the specific needs of people in this province. In fact, the space in the emergency rooms is being expanded by 15%. There will be an additional 500,000 visits made available to people in this province. We are ensuring that we can provide for the needs of patients throughout this province. We have provided 23,000 new cardiac procedures since 1995, a 50% increase over what was done before. We are expanding services, whether it's cancer, cardiac, dialysis, or the number of MRIs from 12 to 35. We are providing long-term-care services which your government and the other government -

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - didn't provide for over 20 years. We are making community care services available for people throughout this province.

We are making the tough decisions -

The Speaker: New question, official opposition.

1430

HOME CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Minister of Long-Term Care. Minister, last August the Essex county Liberal MPPs asked you to reveal an internal financial audit on home care in Essex county. We asked you last August. We didn't get it. We asked you in a personal meeting of October 1 and you promised we would have it in two weeks. That was over six months ago.

Is there a reason why you are not releasing a financial audit? We believe that it will implicate your ministry to show us that in home care we have no provincial standards of care, you have inappropriate guidelines of care, and you are seriously lacking in policy and guidelines which these home care organizations will follow. Why, after six months, have you still refused my freedom-of-information request to have that financial audit?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Long-Term Care, minister responsible for seniors): First of all, I'd like to advise the member opposite that no minister in any government can interfere with a freedom-of-information request. These requests follow legally and logically in accordance with the legislation.

Mrs Pupatello: Answer the question, Minister.

Hon Mr Jackson: The member has interjections. The Windsor-Essex CCAC audit is not a secret, and I'm very willing to share that information with the member opposite. We also have to respect the privacy legislation and the rights of individuals both who work in the city of Windsor and who are providing care to the residents of your own community. Therefore, this information will be released in accordance with the legislation, a piece of legislation, I might add, which was unanimously passed in this Legislature in a previous government.

Mrs Pupatello: Minister, here's the financial audit that you refused to give us. Is this the reason why you did not want this document public, because every one of the six major observations of the auditors implicated your ministry for inadequate policies and guidelines, every single one of them?

The document indicates that it's your ministry that lacks accountability in terms of the spending of dollars in home care, so that in July of last year, when Alice Siddall, at age 93, died at home with inappropriate home care, you are responsible. Your lack of policies and standards in home care created that mess for the Siddall family, and now you refuse to stand up and take responsibility. Minister, it's in black and white now. I want to know what you are doing to improve home care for families like Alice Siddall's.

Hon Mr Jackson: I'm disappointed to hear the member opposite suggesting that the nurses in the Windsor area are responsible for the death of this individual. I think that is a most offensive and inappropriate suggestion on the part of the member opposite. We have very highly professional, very dedicated community representatives in the Windsor CCAC.

This government has expanded community based care in this province by some 54% in just three and a half short years. We are leading all other jurisdictions in this country for access to community based care. That has been expanded all across this province, including the Windsor area.

The member opposite condemns the activities of the Windsor CCAC. I want to remind her that four years ago, you campaigned in the last election not on expanding home care in this province. In fact, all the red book said that was you were going to get a committee -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mrs Pupatello: Let me read from your audit, Minister, your accountability. It says, "The long-term-care division did not fulfill its accountability role and this has resulted in the questionable use of resources."

Let me continue to read from the report. You need to improve the accountability, "ensure full accountability over the funds." We would never accuse the local professionals and the work they do. It's your policies and guidelines that are inadequate. What that means is that the families who deserve care, deserve more visits, deserve supplies, deserve appropriate guidelines did not get them under your ministry. That is your bailiwick. You created it and you are responsible today.

I want to know, given this report, what are you going to do to ensure appropriate home care for the sick and the elderly not just in Windsor, but the ones cut off in North York, the ones cut off in Kingston and right across Ontario?

Hon Mr Jackson: This government is very proud of the community care access centre system that has been built in this province. In fact, Windsor was the very first CCAC to open in Ontario.

Having examined all the matters that have been raised with respect to the additional funding that's gone into the Windsor area, I can stand here with great assurance for the member opposite that the additional monies that the Mike Harris government invested in the Windsor area went directly to patient care and they have improved the quality of those residents' lives, because this government is committed to expanding long-term care, something you'd still be studying if the province of Ontario had elected you as a government four years ago. We're investing more money for more people in Windsor and every corner of this province.

TAXATION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Acting Premier. I'm not sure exactly who that is today, but in the absence of the Premier and the Deputy Premier, Minister, four years ago you were elected on a combined promise of tax cuts and a promise to maintain or enhance funding in education and health care. Four years later, Ontarians know that that didn't turn out to be true. You certainly cut the taxes, which benefited largely people of higher income. People have seen cuts in services, to education and health care and many other services.

Today, as you unveil your platform for the next election campaign, you are essentially promising more of the same. We note with interest that you're now promising the same thing that Ontarians know has not worked. The Liberals are promising essentially the same thing: to maintain the tax cut and to also put money back into health care and education.

My question to you is this: You fooled people four years ago. Do you really think, based on the experience of the last four years, you can fool Ontarians one more time?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I can understand why the member from the third party is in the third party position. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but if you look around Ontario, Ontario is once again back leading Canada.

You're right: We cut taxes, and that created a strong economy, which created jobs. We're right on track for that. It takes a strong economy to provide for the extra funding that we've given to health care despite the federal Liberals' cuts to health care. We've strengthened those services and strengthened education with a number of quality initiatives, and now for the first time an equitable funding formula that treats children, whether they're in Red Lake or in Rosedale, the same for a quality education. That's something we can all be proud of.

Ontario is back on track, and with today's platform we're going to show the strong leadership and the strong platform that will lead Ontario into the next century on a sound footing and lead Canada.

Mr Silipo: Let me tell this minister and his government where we get the information. We get it from talking to people every day. We get it from seeing that people are paying higher property taxes. Interestingly enough, even a group like the Fraser Institute points out that property taxes have increased on average 16% between 1995 and 1998. We get it from seeing increases in tuition fees. We get it from seeing exactly the impact of the cuts in the many services that Ontarians have come to know and that you have slashed in order to find the money for the 30% income tax cut. We know that the same is going to happen if you proceed with the 20% income tax cut, if people buy into that in the next election.

We also note with interest that as we look at your platform, the closest thing we can find to user fees - remember user fees? Those were the things that your Premier used to call another tax, a tax by another name. All of a sudden in your platform today there's very little mention of fees. You talk about them as if they don't exist any more.

My question to you again is this: Why have you forgotten the old concept that in fact user fees that are increasing all over the province are simply a tax by another name?

1440

Hon Mr Hodgson: The member has a point that the federal government and the Liberals believe in higher taxes. But let's take a look at your failed policies that led to $11 billion in debt every year that was being accumulated to almost $100 billion in debt. You almost drove this province to the brink of bankruptcy. Your record on job creation was negative 10,000. There were 10,000 less jobs at the end of your time than at the beginning. Those failed policies are what your party is now advocating you want to return to.

What I suggest is that the doom and gloom brothers get out from the backrooms of the union leadership in trying to curry their support and talk to real working Ontarians, who realize that a strong economy means we have the dollars to provide for priority services such as quality health care and quality education. It's only through a strong economy that you get that and it's only through strong leadership that you keep it.

I would encourage every Ontarian to read today's platform.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'll remind all members that there are no props, not just the government side but on the opposition as well.

Mr Silipo: Speaker, that's exactly why I didn't come in here waving our green booklet, which sets out very clearly the position that we are taking very proudly into the next campaign, in which we say to people that the devastation that has been caused by the Mike Harris government, the cuts to health care, the cuts to education, need to be reversed. Ontarians need to know that money can come from a real source, not from somewhere out in blue sky or red sky, but from a real source. That's why recouping and stopping the tax cut for people with a taxable income over $80,000 is the most sensible, detailed and accurate thing to do.

We'll be quite proud to debate that. We'll be quite proud to talk to people about why we took the courageous decisions we did when we were in government, unlike what you are doing, which is simply to push the responsibilities down to the local level.

We're looking forward to this campaign. The only thing we need is simply the election call. Stop this pretence that we still need a legislative session to do no-matter-what. You've put out the platform; let's get on with it.

I want to ask you again: Do you really think you're going to be able to fool Ontarians another time, given the experience of the last four years?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm glad to see that the member has read our platform and concurs that a strong economy provides for essential services like quality health care and quality education. We're looking forward to the chance to debate our respective platforms. When you compare that to Dalton McGuinty's collection of spending promises to every special interest group he's run across in the last year and a half, I think it's going to be an interesting debate and a good choice for Ontarians, who I think will choose a strong economy and a strong leader for a progressive plan to lead us into the next century.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Health. In the wake of the deadly shootings in Colorado and Alberta, it is really important that we listen to the voices of the experts here in our province in the area of children's mental health. We listen to them and hear them say that in fact there is a crisis. There are over 7,000 children and youth who are on waiting lists. They're desperate for services. Their parents have identified the warning signs and they're trying to get the help they need. They're begging for that help, but the system is overloaded and can't respond.

During the review your government conducted, I know you heard and your colleague ministers in Comsoc and children's issues heard over and over again that there's an investment of $200 million needed for the necessary services. But I also know that the experts told you that they need an immediate $20 million to establish crisis response capacity in communities, a crisis response that would help to avoid the horrible acts of violence by troubled teens that we've seen in other jurisdictions.

Minister, will you commit $20 million to establish this crisis response capacity in our communities, or is it more important to give wealthy Ontarians another tax cut?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I'll refer that to the minister with responsibility for mental health for children.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): The member across the way is quite right that children's mental health services for many years has been badly in need of change and reform so that we can better meet the needs of those families. That's why we've taken significant steps to try and start doing that reform process so that those services are there when those families need them. Unfortunately, in the past what has happened, as the member said, is that when those families needed help it hasn't been there for them. So through initiatives like Making Services Work for People, which is a community-based planning process, we are trying to make sure that those services are there.

Because of the increased revenues that this government has brought in, we've been able to increase resources in certain targeted areas; for example, the child protection sector, which is a very important support for children's mental health as well.

Ms Lankin: Minister, I would like to read to you the definition of a mental health crisis: "A crisis involves the sudden breakdown of an individual's ability to cope resulting, in a desperate situation which is likely to worsen without immediate intervention. Often, the individual is at risk of harming himself or herself or others."

The Association of Children's Mental Health Centres is telling us that the vast majority of communities in this province do not have the necessary resources to provide an effective response to children in crisis, to help families stabilize their children and prevent the problem from escalating.

Minister, do you agree that we need urgently to establish crisis response capacity in communities? Do you agree that $20 million is a very small amount to make kids' lives safe? Do you agree that it's more important than further tax cuts for Ontario's wealthy?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, if we didn't think that there needed to be an improvement in those children's mental health services, we wouldn't have launched Making Services Work for People, we wouldn't have had Minister Marland doing the consultation she's been doing with all of the organizations and the families to see how we can better improve those services, because we understand that those families need those services.

I would also like to remind the honourable member over there that in order to have those services that families need, we need the economic growth, we need the prosperity, because that's how we build those social services that are so important for us. She likes to dump on the tax cuts. To those 655,000 low-income families that don't have to pay another Ontario income tax dollar, that is a benefit, that helps to create jobs, that generates the growth that allows us to increase money in these social services that are so important to families.

Ms Lankin: Let me remind the minister over there, to use her own words, that there are over 7,000 children and youth on the waiting list right now in the province, and your long-term review and long-term solutions are not going to fix that problem right now. These are kids who are sad, who are angry, who are depressed, who are anxious, who are hyperactive and sometimes who are violent. They are acting out in classrooms, they are overburdening teachers, they are causing families stress, and families are barely being able to hold it together to meet the needs of their children.

We're asking you to give an immediate response. The longer-term problem will still be there and we will all work together on that, but they have asked you urgently for $20 million to establish the crisis response capacity in communities so they can move in, in an immediate way, and intervene when there are situations. Who knows when the next troubled teen is going to turn to violence to try and solve their troubled state?

Minister, think about this: $20 million. You can make a difference. You have a budget coming next week. We are asking you to make a downpayment on kids' safety, to do something that could save kids' lives, an immediate action in this province. I'm asking you to say that that is more important than tax cuts for the wealthiest in this province.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Children's mental health is a very important service in this province. As I said, that's why we've made some of the changes in my ministry. Where we've been able to increase resources in key priority areas, we have done so. We will continue to do that as the growth in this economy allows us to afford and invest in those services so we can expand those services.

We've made significant changes. We're going to continue to do that. I look forward to the recommendations from my colleague Minister Marland. She's heard a lot of very good suggestions and recommendations from the organizations and the families. We will be acting on those because we know how important this needs to be for those families out there.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is for the Minister of Health and follows up on an issue I've raised with her before. She will be aware that there was a young lady in the area I represent who went to the hospital. She was 30 weeks pregnant, had a brain hemorrhage. The hospital desperately tried to get neurosurgery in the surrounding hospitals, made 21 phone calls, and couldn't. The closest hospital that could do it was in Hamilton. They phoned the air ambulance. It wasn't available and they transported her by land. Tragically, they were able to save the baby, but she died.

There's going to be an inquest, as you know, starting May 31.

My question is the same one that I sent two letters to you on, and that is, what have you done to ensure that this never happens to any other person in Ontario?

1450

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As the member knows, an inquest is pending, and obviously the appropriate steps have been taken by the ministry. Certainly on any recommendations coming from the inquest there will be full co-operation from the Ministry of Health.

Mr Phillips: The problem for me and for others is that this individual, tragically, died. Most who have looked at the case say it was a tragedy that could have been avoided. The reason I sent you the letter some months ago, and then followed up again, was to make certain that steps had been taken to make sure that she didn't die in vain, that no one else would face the same consequences.

With all due respect, awaiting an inquest to take steps to fix the problem is inappropriate. I think you need to stand and tell the people of Ontario that you have examined this case and that you have taken appropriate steps to make certain, as I say, that no other person needs to die under similar circumstances. That's simply the question that I posed to you in two letters and I'd like to pose again to you: What steps have you taken to ensure that this does not happen again?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I have already indicated, Ministry of Health staff always take the appropriate steps and certainly will co-operate with the inquest and will take any further steps that are necessary.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question for the Attorney General. This morning, the Ombudsman released her report on her second investigation of your Family Responsibility Office. She said the following: "From the evidence gathered in the investigation, it is clear that the FRO remains far from stabilized. In its third year of operation, the FRO is still failing to fulfill its mandate through timely and effective enforcement of its caseload."

The reason why, Minister, is that you and your government have failed to provide the money necessary so the FRO can hire the staff needed to get the job done. In fact, the Ombudsman said, "I believe the ministry has failed to discharge this responsibility, and as a result the FRO is not in a position to carry out its mandate." Can you explain why your Conservative government has money to give the wealthiest Ontarians a 30% tax break but no money to hire staff at the FRO so families can get the support payments they're entitled to?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I'm really sorry that the Ombudsman is unhappy that we now spend $5 million more than has ever been spent on a Family Responsibility Office in this province before. I'm really sorry that the Ombudsman doesn't seem to realize that we collected 37% more in March of this year than we collected in March 1995. I'm really sorry that the Ombudsman is disappointed that we've collected $135 million more for women and children this year than has ever been collected by the Family Responsibility Office before. I'm sorry that the Ombudsman is disappointed that we answered 2,800 phone calls in one day last week with a 7.7-minute response time. I'm sorry that the Ombudsman is disappointed that all monies are distributed within 24 to 48 hours.

I can go on, but I'll wait for the supplementary.

Ms Martel: Minister, I'm really sorry that you continue to fail to recognize your responsibility for the crisis at the Family Responsibility Office, a crisis that you created in 1996 because it was more important for you to take money out of the Family Responsibility Office to finance your tax cut than it was to ensure that families would continue to get the support they're owed. I'm sorry that you continue to fail, after three years, to accept your responsibility for the job you're supposed to be doing.

The Ombudsman, who is independent, whose judgment I trust far more than yours, sir, said the following: "The Ministry of the Attorney General should urgently address the continuing omission of the Family Responsibility Office to fulfill its mandate, and the ministry should take all necessary steps to ensure that the Family Responsibility Office is able to enforce support orders in a timely and effective manner, including providing it with the capability and resources to fulfill its mandate."

Explain to families in Ontario why it's more important for your government to give a 30% tax cut to the wealthiest Ontarians than it is to ensure that families get the support payments they're owed.

Hon Mr Harnick: Explain to me why, if this is the report of the Ombudsman, one week ago she gave the Family Responsibility Office an award for service delivery.

I'm really sorry she's upset that we've now reported 76,400 people to credit bureaus who are not paying their child support. I'm really sorry she's not happy with the fact that we now suspend drivers' licences and we've collected 10 million additional dollars, something the NDP wouldn't do when they were the government because they liked to put the files in the bottom drawer and not deal with them. I'm really disappointed that we now send 20,000 files that they had in file cabinets, hidden in drawers, out to collection agencies to collect money.

I tell you, the Ombudsman's report isn't worth the paper it's written on.

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is addressed to the Minister of Transportation. Over the last four years your ministry has made several changes to improve truck safety and the people of Ontario are very appreciative of those changes. I understand that recently you have also made some new changes to improve and strengthen the written tests for truck drivers. Minister, could you please update the House on some of those changes.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I'm always pleased to talk about this government's record on truck safety. I thank the honourable member for Northumberland for his question.

I should report to this House that effective Monday, April 26, the Ministry of Transportation has fully implemented a new class A written test for truck drivers. This was via consultation with the industry and the truck driver training community. We have developed a tougher and more comprehensive class A written test as part of our commitment to improve both truck safety and road safety.

The tougher test will apply to approximately 34,000 people who take the class A written test every year. It will be phased in and it will cover commercial vehicle operator's registration, weight and dimensions, inspection and maintenance, hours of service, defensive driving and general rules.

1500

I should say that this is in conjunction with several other measures that we have already implemented involving truck impoundment, absolute liability for wheel-offs, higher fines for safety violations and 24 by 7 truck inspection stations.

Mr Galt: Thank you for that update. I also understand that Ontario is moving to implement a carrier safety rating program by issuing a public label to all operators of commercial vehicles. Could you please update us on how you're progressing with this particular move on truck safety?

Hon Mr Clement: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I'd be happy to update the House on the implementation of the carrier safety rating system.

In 1999, this year, we will be providing an objective evaluation of the overall safety performances of truck and bus operators to encourage investment in commercial vehicle safety and to reduce those fatalities on Ontario's roads. The rating that is issued by my ministry will be based on the operator's safety record and will assist the shipping community in selecting those safe carriers.

These carriers will be given one of five ratings: unsatisfactory, conditional, satisfactory, satisfactory unaudited or excellent. If you have an unsatisfactory rating, that means the carrier's operating privileges in Ontario have been suspended or cancelled.

We are already beginning an education and awareness program on the carrier safety rating system through updates on our web site, presentations to the trucking associations and trade organizations and individual letters. I am pleased to say that we are harmonizing with other advantages and other implementations that are going on throughout Canada, and that will make our roads safer.

TUITION FEES

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. You said on October 15 that you would be personally involved in reviewing the quality improvement plans for our universities. It has now been six months since you made that statement in the House and I think our medical students at the University of Western Ontario deserve an update.

Can you report to this House on the reinvestment that the University of Western Ontario has made to its medical school and how you've addressed the fact that none of the additional revenue collected from students has gone back to improving their education? In fact, the base budget for medicine for the University of Western Ontario has been increased less than 1%, while tuition fees have increased 250% since 1995.

Minister, you said you would get personally involved. Obviously it's another broken promise. Obviously students can't take you at your word. You've failed our post-secondary students, you've failed their families. Tell us today what you're going to do to rectify the situation.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm happy to report that the post-secondary institutions have quality improvement plans.

Mr Caplan: Did you review them?

Hon David Johnson: I have personally reviewed the plans and I think it was a good first effort. We are the first government that has required the post-secondary institutions to have such a plan because the students are rightfully interested in the financial implications of their post-secondary education, but even more so, they're interested in quality. That's what this government, the first government, is trying to establish: quality.

We've done that through a number of ways, such as the access to opportunities program; investment in the key performance indicators; assisting students through the student opportunity trust fund, some 185,000 students over the next 10 years through the 30% set-aside; 45,000 students already assisted in Ontario.

Mr Caplan: Platitudes from this minister don't fool anybody. The board of governors at Western not only overruled a Senate recommendation to freeze fees for three years but they refused to hear from the dean of medicine, Dr Robert McMurtry. They did that, Minister, because, like you, they didn't want to hear Dr McMurtry's real fears about accessibility to the program. They refused to hear the results of a study of the first-year class that showed that because of your higher tuition increases, first-year students are now from a wealthier economic background.

Minister, when did you decide that it's the size of your parent's wallet that determines whether or not you can go to medical school? You said you'd be personally involved in ensuring the money went back into the program and that students could gain access. When are you going to actually act like a minister who cares about accessibility? Tell the students what you're going to do. The first-year class at medical school at the University of Western Ontario is paying double the fees and they have the same education, and you're doing nothing about it.

Hon David Johnson: It's interesting through all this bluster that the actual fact of the situation is that we have more post-secondary students today than ever before in Ontario; there are more students participating in post-secondary education in our universities and colleges.

Because there are investments that are required, investments in terms of increasing enrolment, investments for renewing our facilities, the question is going to be, which party can fund those investments that are required? I can say that the government's approach will be through strong leadership to grow the economy, to raise the funds that are required for the investment.

We know that the Liberal Party has a different approach for education. Their approach, for example, is to put $1.3 billion on the backs of property taxpayers. That's what the Liberal Party supports -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, third party.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Earlier this week you made a statement in the House where you said that your new funding formula for children's aid societies will "support rational planning and effective management."

Earlier this month the Toronto Catholic Children's Aid Society announced the closing of a program that helps troubled teens at home, Reconnecting Youth. It was cancelled after five effective years because the society does not know how much money it's getting from the province or what it can be used for.

Here we are one month into the second year of your new funding formula and that CAS and all of its sister agencies don't know what their budgets are. None of them can do rational planning or effective management.

Let me read to you from an April 8 letter from Mary McConville to you, "Boards of directors are extremely anxious about operating without an approved budget, especially at a time when" your ministry "is about to implement a zero-based budgeting approach and service demands are very high." She says that since the implementation of the funding formula began, communications from your ministry have "slowed to a trickle and there are no open discussions."

Minister, wealthy Ontarians know when they're getting tax breaks. When are children's aid societies going to know what budgets they have and what they can spend the money on?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): The honourable member knows that children's aid societies have for many years needed a funding formula that was not as difficult to deal with as the old contingency formula they had before. What we have done is we've consulted with associations, we've listened to what they said about what was needed, and we are investing that money over three years - the process started last year - in a way that responds to the needs they've said are important, but not only what they want in the system but also what the coroners' juries have said was needed. We need better benchmarks, better standards, better ways to measure caseload and workload, better ways to reduce the workload for front-line workers, and this formula will indeed do that.

We knew it was going to take some time to put it into place. We were prepared to take the time because where vulnerable children depend on it, this system is not something one wants to rush. We've been doing it in very close consultation with children's aid societies, as we should.

Ms Lankin: Mary McConville, the executive director of the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, is not saying it's been in close consultation. She's saying that communications have "slowed to a trickle." The benchmarks aren't done, the standards aren't done, workloads have increased and they don't know what their budgets are.

I asked your ministry two months ago for a full briefing on the funding formula, how it works. I've had to ask your office a number of times and I've asked you twice. That information has still not been forthcoming.

Mary McConville also says: "Some agencies are being cash-flowed at 1998-99 approved budget levels; some at expenditure levels from" that year; "others at amounts close to full implementation of the funding framework. Several agencies have been given letters by area offices to support borrowing at the local bank against lines of credit in this first month" of this budget year.

Minister, the point is they don't know what their budgets are, so they can't determine what they're going to have to spend, and they don't know how the funding formula is going to restrict from one area to another, much like your botched education funding formula. They don't know what categories they can spend on. Programs like Reconnecting Youth and others across the province are being cancelled as a result of it. They need some clarity and some surety. When will they know what their budgets are and what they can spend the money on?

1510

Hon Mrs Ecker: I understand the nervousness, because we are going into a new framework, which has much more accountability, much more emphasis on benchmarks and standards. I understand that nervousness, and that's why as early as this week we had another meeting, my deputy and the children's aid association. We have had training sessions across the province for executive directors of agencies so they can be clear. I'd also like to remind the honourable member that one of the things we're trying to fix is this old contingency funding formula where they didn't know what their budget was going to be at the end of the year, because it was, "Go out and spend it, and then we'll figure out how to pay for it," which is not exactly a good way to be funding something as important as child protection services.

We've made a commitment to have $170 million over three years. We are well on our way. We had the first phase of that money go in last year. The second phase is coming in this year. We know this is a transition year. We're working carefully with them to make sure this formula will work to better support those front-line workers.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for privatization, and also the government's lead on auto insurance. I'm pleased to note that today you introduced a bill designed to further enhance Ontario's automobile insurance system. While I know that the auto insurance premiums have decreased substantially since our reform in November 1996, I appreciate you are continuing to look for ways to improve the system, and this bill certainly is proof of that commitment.

I wonder if the minister could provide a little detail regarding the background to and the rationale behind the bill you tabled today.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I want to thank the honourable member for the question. He's right. In fact, the auto insurance reform we implemented in 1996 is indeed doing well. As a testament to how well it's doing, rates have fallen year over year, month over month, quarter over quarter - these are the average rates paid by Ontarians - by up to almost 12%. That's a tremendous achievement of any government in any part of North America. It has happened because we have implemented some reforms which have made some sense in auto insurance, finally, which neither of the previous governments were prepared to do.

We also committed to Ontarians that we would review auto insurance legislation on a regular basis to make sure that the reforms we brought forward kept pace with the times. We've done that. I struck a committee just after we introduced the original bill and passed that bill to start the process of reviewing the auto insurance legislation over the next two years so they could bring forward reforms that made sense to us. Those reforms are captured in the bill I've tabled today and those reforms are captured in other regulations that I spoke to when we introduced those regulations and the reforms in November of last year.

Mr Hardeman: Thank you, Minister. I certainly appreciate your explanation and your determination to continue to improve the system. I wonder if you could elaborate on some of the particular provisions contained in the bill. In particular, I would be most interested in hearing how children will benefit from the government's planned auto insurance changes.

Hon Mr Sampson: I'm pleased to say that indeed the bill we've tabled today does recognize the special needs of children. Children are a different category of auto insurance consumers in this province. They don't drive themselves and they don't have the ability to make the decision on what particular insurance product to buy for their own protection. We've recognized this. Health care professionals have said to us that indeed in some cases when a child is involved in a serious accident involving catastrophic injuries, it's very difficult to determine, given the nature of the injury and the nature of the child, whether the injury is indeed catastrophic. They've asked us to take a look and see whether there are ways in which we could expand the application of not only the statutory benefit schedules to children, as they relate to catastrophic injuries, but also expand their ability to access the health care system through the tort system -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mr Sampson: - to the court system, to be able to sue for excess health care benefits should they need to have them. Of course, if you're a catastrophically injured child -

The Speaker: New question.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Health. As you well know, Mike Harris promised he was not going to cut a cent from health care. He then cut $870 million from hospital budgets, with more cuts yet to come. The result is people waiting for hospital beds in emergency rooms and waiting at home for desperately needed surgery.

Earlier this week we raised the case of a woman in Thunder Bay who chose to have a double mastectomy as an outpatient because she was not prepared to wait for a surgical bed. This is what health care has become in Mike Harris's Ontario, women having to make a choice between waiting for life-saving surgery or having a double mastectomy done as an outpatient. Do you believe, Minister, that women with breast cancer should have to choose between having a double mastectomy as an outpatient or waiting for the surgery they need?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): The member is well aware that there has been a lot of dialogue on this particular issue. Again, I want to point out that Ministry of Health officials have received information that indicates that in this particular situation it was not a case of a lack of resources, and any decisions that were made were clinical decisions that were made by a physician.

Mrs McLeod: The fact is that Mike Harris cut the funding for hospitals; he cut the funding for the Thunder Bay Regional Hospital. The Thunder Bay Regional Hospital has had to shut down beds, it's had to lay off nurses, we have shortages of physicians, and patients are waiting too long for treatment.

Another Thunder Bay woman is making a different choice from the one we raised earlier this week. This woman has breast cancer and she will have her surgery in hospital on May 12. It has taken two months from the time she noticed a lump in her breast until she can have the surgery that she needs.

I want to tell you what this woman is saying. She says: "I'm a breast cancer patient who has had to wait almost two months from the time I found the lump in my breast to the time a surgeon could take it out. The anxiety and worry is almost too much as I wonder every night how much more damage is being done to my system while I wait for treatment."

Minister, do you consider a two-month wait, from the time a lump is detected until this woman can have needed treatment, to be acceptable? I ask you, why would this woman or any other woman with breast cancer trust Mike Harris on health care?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As the member knows, we have indicated that we are doing everything we can to ensure that women who have breast cancer are diagnosed as quickly as possible. We have invested $23 million, and as a result of the capacity now to make an early diagnosis through breast cancer screening, we know that in women between the ages of 50 to 69 it will decrease the incidence of death by one third. We are certainly moving forward. We recognize the need to diagnose quickly and to provide treatment, and we are investing additional money throughout the province to assist women with the screening and with treatment.

If I take a look at Thunder Bay, actually spending in Thunder Bay has increased by over $51 million since 1995.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The Ombudsman today issued a follow-up report to a report from 1998 which said that the adoption disclosure registry has a backlog of over 16,000, waiting up to 7.25 years to have a search conducted. In fact, we know it's longer than that. Nevertheless, the report today says that while the number of registrants has been reduced as new applicants decline, applicants are still having to wait as long as in the past or even longer, and there has been no significant progress in addressing this backlog.

Minister, you have repeatedly said in this House and to the press when asked questions about this disclosure system that you were improving it, that the backlog has been reduced. Clearly, that is not the case. This is unacceptable. Why is it OK with you to give a huge tax cut to the wealthy in this province and leave thousands of people in agony, searching for birth relatives? Will you answer that question, and will you do something about this backlog?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): To the honourable member, who I know has been very intimately involved in the issue of adoption disclosure, we quite recognize that the backlog for those seeking birth relatives, parents and family connections is very, very big, and it shouldn't be there. That's why we have taken the steps we have to try and start getting that down to an acceptable service level. For example, we're putting $350,000 more in resources into the system. We are also speeding it up through working with other parent finder groups, for example, the use of technology, sharing information and databases that the Ontario government has.

I'd like to say to the honourable member that voluntary matches, where both parties have registered, are up to date. The other thing that we make very sure of is that medical and urgent needs for that information have the top priority in the search.

1520

Ms Churley: It seems to me from that answer that the minister is doing nothing about adoption disclosure reform, which in fact she promised the adoption community she would do when she changed the Child and Family Services Act.

I had a private member's bill, Bill 88, passed in this House with a vote of 57 to 3. There is a huge consensus across this province to move forward on adoption disclosure. While people are twisting in the wind and waiting for information, older birth parents are dying. People are having health problems and people are living in actual agony trying to find each other.

Minister, you know this. It is not complicated. My bill has consensus across the province. Will you commit today to allow quick passage in this House, before the session ends, of Bill 88, so we can get on with adoption disclosure in this province?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I had said that when we got the amendments passed to strengthen the child protection system - that was our first priority - once that piece of work had been done, we wanted to go to adoption disclosure.

Ms Churley: The work is already done, Janet. That's bull.

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, if she would stop shouting at me she might hear the answer.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Member for Riverdale, you must withdraw that comment.

Ms Churley: I withdraw that comment.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: We wanted first to get the work on strengthening the child protection system and do that. Of course, that was not able to have been passed last fall so we want to get that done during this session. That is the priority. But I would like to remind the honourable member that we know that the backlog is unacceptable. That's why we are investing $350,000 this year. Maybe the NDP thinks $350,000 is insignificant, but I think it's a significant investment. They didn't do it when they were there, so I have some difficulty accepting the criticism from across the way.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. On the subject of rent controls and further to his questioning of you earlier this week on this issue, my heart went out to the member for York South, because I think in his questioning he demonstrated some misunderstanding of the changes of legislation this House committed to several years ago. I wonder if you would be good enough to refresh the members of this House on the changes you have made, and this House has approved, to the Rent Control Act and the Tenant Protection Act and if you would also remind the House of what measures have been put in place to protect tenants from harassment and from poorly maintained buildings.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): First of all, before I respond to the question, I'd like to extend my congratulations and thanks to the member from High Park for the fine work he has done over the past four years in this House.

Following that, I would like to clarify the misinformation that was distributed last week by the ambulance chaser from York South.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The minister stated that the other member had given misinformation. Surely that's unparliamentary.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I did hear the word "misinformation," but I don't know who he was talking about. It was very difficult to hear.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hold it, that's your conclusion.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, that's your conclusion. I can't draw the same conclusion. If the minister said something inappropriate, I'm sure he will withdraw it.

Hon Mr Leach: Well, Mr Speaker, if "misinformation" is inappropriate, I will withdraw that and just say the unfactual information that was put, or non-factual, whatever - pick a word for me -

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Pseudo-factual.

Hon Mr Leach: - from the member for York South, because I think everybody knows that the Tenant Protection Act that has been put in by this government is far superior to that which was in place by the legislation that was put in by the Liberal government.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to revert to motions to move a further motion with respect to the Monday sitting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that standing order 86 respecting notice of committee hearings be suspended for consideration of Bills Pr1, Pr4, Pr7 and Pr8 by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Monday, May 3, 1999.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I have the weekly business statement, pursuant to standing order 55, which I wish to indicate for the remaining part of this afternoon and next week.

This afternoon we'll be dealing with second and third reading of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act and hopefully the second and third reading of Bill 8, which is the vintners act.

On Monday afternoon, there will be an NDP opposition day. In the evening, as we agreed before, we'll be dealing with Bill 6, the Child and Family Services Amendment Act.

On Tuesday afternoon, the budget will be at 4 pm, and in the evening, at 6:30 pm, we'll be dealing with Bill 17, Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act.

On Wednesday, May 5, in the afternoon, we'll be having budget debate.

On Thursday morning, May 6, we'll be having private members' public business. Ballot item number 1 is Mr Shea's, ballot item number 2 is Mr Cordiano's. In the afternoon, we'll be having budget debate as well.

PETITIONS

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas seniors in our community owe it to you, Premier, that our health and drug conditions have, over the last few years, been getting worse;

"We call on you to help us regain our faith in the health care system;

"We call on you to make available for us more drugs and more affordable drugs;

"With all your cuts and user fees, we have to choose which prescription we can afford;

"We are frail and in need of continuous care and medical assistance;

"Without proper help, we feel helpless;

"Your deep cuts to our health care system are taking a heavy toll;

"We call on you, Premier, to respond and assist with fair and just funding."

I agree and I will affix my signature.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 120 people from various places across the province.

"Whereas children are exposed to pornography in variety stores and video retail outlets;

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to pornography;

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

"To enact legislation which will create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to pornography in retail establishments; prevent minors from entering establishments which sell or rent pornography; restrict the location of such establishments to non-residential areas."

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition reads as follows:

"To the government of Ontario:

"Whereas the major oil companies in Ontario have had a free rein to gouge consumers by raising prices together at the same time and by as much as 30 cents per gallon; and

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris has taken no meaningful actions to protect consumers from the practice of rising retail gas prices immediately before long weekends; and

"Whereas the Premier has refused to call the captains of the oil industry to account for uncompetitive pricing practices; and

"Whereas the provincial government has within its power and jurisdiction the power to take action against uncompetitive pricing policies by the big oil companies;

"Be it therefore resolved that the members of the Legislative Assembly support and pass quickly the predatory pricing bill introduced by the MPP for St Catharines to ensure that independent retailers are not driven out of business by the pricing practices of the major oil companies."

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

1530

OSTEOPOROSIS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have petition to the Legislature of Ontario signed by more than 100 constituents. I'd like to read it.

"I believe that the women of Ontario should have access to the highest quality health care. As osteoporosis is a significant women's health issue, it must be managed effectively. As such, I believe that all women in Ontario should have access to appropriate diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. I urge the Ontario government to provide women with immediate government-funded access to proven, effective drug therapies appropriate for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, thus ensuring a range of drug therapies are available on the provincial formulary."

I affix my signature.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition here that reads like this:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has passed Bill 96 legislation which killed rent control in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris campaign literature during the York South by-election stated that rent control will continue; and

"Whereas tenant groups, students and seniors have pointed out that this legislation will hurt those who can least afford it, as it will cause higher rents across most markets in Ontario; and

"Whereas Mike Harris's proposal will make it easier for residents to be evicted from retirement care homes; and

"Whereas the Liberal caucus continues to believe that all tenants, and particularly the vulnerable in our society who live on fixed incomes, deserve the assurance of a maximum rent cap;

"We, the undersigned, demand that the Mike Harris government scrap the proposal to abandon and eliminate rent control and introduce legislation which will protect tenants in the province of Ontario."

I'll affix my signature. I'm in total agreement with this.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have here a petition signed by a large number of Ontario residents. It's addressed to the Legislature of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas this government has undertaken to reform the system of education funding to ensure fair funding for Ontario's children; and

"Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the province could, if it so chose, pass legislation extending funding to denominational schools other than Roman Catholic schools without infringing the rights guaranteed to Roman Catholic separate schools; and

"Whereas providing our children with an excellent education consistent with our cultural and religious beliefs is a necessity and not a matter of preference; and

"Whereas independent schools successfully educate children across the entire spectrum of learning abilities and special needs; and

"Whereas all children of taxpaying Ontario parents deserve to have funding distributed in a manner that does not discriminate against those not using the public or Catholic systems;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens and taxpayers of Ontario, respectfully request that the government take immediate steps to extend fair funding to all students of the province."

EDUCATION FACILITIES

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a further petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, dealing with portables and lack of quality buildings for education in my area. It reads:

"Whereas we, the undersigned residents of the Jane-Steeles-Finch area, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on the following:

"Our elementary school is no longer safe or healthy due to too many portables with mould, extremely poorly kept conditions and beyond the stage of reasonable repair. This government's cuts in funding mean that our kids will have to continue to go to these portables for years to come. We believe the education of our children is adversely affected, as our board will have to decide to cut out more teachers or on school books.

We ask the Minister of Education and the Premier of Ontario to keep their promise and fund our schools fairly and equitably."

I concur with the content of the petitioners here. I think they are quite right in what they are saying and I'm affixing my signature to it as well.

WOLF POPULATION

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas currently any wolf leaving the boundary of Algonquin Park can be killed at will;

"Whereas such unrestrained killing is having dramatic negative effects on an already small wolf population in the park;

"Whereas such practices are unlikely to be sustainable for the future integrity of the Algonquin wolf; and

"Whereas research shows that the Algonquin wolf is a previously unknown, separate species in its own right;

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

"To immediately legislate, monitor and enforce a 10-kilometre no-kill zone around the entire boundary of Algonquin Provincial Park."

I affix my signature.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

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

"Whereas essential public services have been deprived of government funding because the Conservative government of Mike Harris has diverted these funds to self-serving political propaganda in the form of pamphlets delivered to homes, newspaper advertisements and radio and TV commercials;

"Whereas the Harris government advertising blitz is a blatant abuse of public office and a shameful waste of taxpayers' dollars;

"Whereas the Harris Conservatives ran on a platform of eliminating what it referred to as government waste and unnecessary expenditures while it squanders over $100 million on clearly partisan advertising;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Conservative government of Mike Harris to immediately end its abuse of public office and terminate any further expenditure on political advertising."

I affix my signature, as I'm in complete agreement with this particular petition.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition to present on behalf of my colleague from Victoria-Haliburton. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas children are exposed to pornography in various stores and video rental outlets;

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to pornography;

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

"To enact legislation which will create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to pornography in retail establishments; prevent minors from entering establishments which rent or sell pornography; restrict the location of such establishments to non-residential areas."

To this petition of 132 people, I sign my name.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition here that reads:

"Whereas since Mike Harris took office consumers across Ontario have been gouged by large oil companies who have implemented unfair and dramatic increases in the price of gasoline; and

"Whereas this increase in the price of gasoline has outpaced the rate of inflation by a rate that is totally unacceptable to all consumers in this province because it is unfair and directly affects their ability to purchase other consumer goods; and

"Whereas Premier Mike Harris and ministers within the cabinet of this government while in opposition expressed grave concern for gas price gouging and asked the government of the day to take action; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government could take action under Ontario law and pass predatory gas price legislation which would protect consumers, but instead seems intent on looking after the interests of big oil companies;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to eliminate gas price fixing and prevent the oil companies from gouging the public on an essential and vital product."

I'm in full agreement with this and I affix my signature to it.

VETERANS' PENSION

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario signed by hundreds of constituents.

"Whereas a great number of Canada's surviving war veterans are falling through gaping cracks in Canada's pension system; and

"Whereas it is a myth that all war veterans receive a service pension or a pension of any kind; and

"Whereas it is a myth that all war veterans are entitled to a VIP to let them remain in their home; and

"Whereas it was reported by the Department of Veteran Affairs that eight out of 10 war veterans who apply for a disability pension are rejected; and

"Whereas there is a Canada-wide consensus that war veterans, whose average age has now exceeded the average life expectancy in Canada, are reasonably entitled to receive a basic service pension to help them live the remainder of their lives in dignity and comfort;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the House of Commons of Canada to create and pass legislation to create a basic service pension to be paid to each and every war veteran living in Canada in recognition for their service to the country and that the basic service pension legislation be presented to Parliament for consideration at the 1999 spring sitting."

I affix my signature.

1540

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): This is a petition concerning the closing of Woodbine Junior High School, causing severe impacts to the international language program for the Mandarin Heritage Community Group. It's titled:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Mike Harris is cutting the heart out of many communities by forcing boards of education to close hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario; and

"Whereas this massive number of school closures all at once will displace many children and put others on longer bus routes and close child care facilities;

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut almost $1 billion from our schools and has instituted a funding model that does not work for Toronto District School Board, resulting in the need to close schools;

"Whereas Mike Harris is pitting parent against parent and community against community in the fight to save local schools; and

"Whereas parents in Romney, Toronto, Ottawa, Stratford, Hamilton-Wentworth and many other communities are calling on the government to prevent the closing of so many of their schools;

"Whereas the closure of a school should be based on local decision-making and student population, with enough time to consider all options, not complicated formulas imposed by the province and aimed at quickly reducing educational funding;

"Whereas all of these actions by the provincial government will undermine the quality of public education;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature to call on Mike Harris to change his funding model to take into account local and regional considerations and to stop his headlong rush to institute changes that result in so many school closings."

I agree wholeheartedly with this petition, and I will affix my signature to it.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 104 people from across the province.

"Whereas children are exposed to pornography in variety stores and video rental outlets;

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to pornography;

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

"To enact legislation which will create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to pornography in retail establishments; prevent minors from entering establishments which rent or sell pornography; restrict the location of such establishments to non-residential areas."

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): We have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas Mike Harris is cutting the heart out of many communities by closing hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario; and

"Whereas this massive number of school closings all at once will displace many children and put others on longer bus routes;

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools and is now closing many classrooms completely; and

"Whereas Mike Harris is pitting parent against parent and community against community in the fight to save local schools; and

"Whereas parents and students in the city of Toronto and many other communities across Ontario are calling on the government to stop closing so many of their schools;

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

"Demand that Mike Harris stop closing local schools."

I concur, and I will affix my signature to it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SOCIÉTÉS DE PRÊT ET DE FIDUCIE

Mr Young, on behalf of Mr Eves, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 3, An Act to amend the Loan and Trust Corporations Act / Projet de loi 3, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les sociétés de prêt et de fiducie.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): It's a pleasure to speak on second reading of Bill 3, the Loan and Trust Corporations Amendment Act, 1999. If passed, this bill would amend the Loan and Trust Corporations Act and would extend the legal authority of loan and trust corporations to operate in Ontario.

Under the current act, no corporation may carry on the business of a loan or trust corporation in Ontario after July 1, 1999. This amendment would change the date to July 1, 2001. If legislation to extend the date is not enacted before July 1, 1999, loan and trust corporations would be unable to legally carry on business in Ontario after that date.

This straightforward amendment before us needs to be addressed in a timely manner. To help ensure quick passage, the bill deals only with amending the date.

This amendment would affect nearly 50 loan and trust companies, with assets of about $100 billion, and estate and trust money under administration of more than $900 billion. These companies have been a vital part of the financial services sector for years and have served the needs of Ontarians by performing important financial services in our communities. They have traditionally been providers of mortgage financing for families buying a home. Trust companies are a source of capital for small business. They are an important source of competition and innovation in the financial services industry.

Our government's goal is to ensure that consumers continue to be protected, that small businesses have greater access to capital, and that companies can compete and respond to the changing needs of individual and business customers. All of this leads to a strong economy, a strong economy that is critical to everything that people want in life for themselves, a strong economy that ensures that every possible dollar goes towards a strong health care system -

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't believe there's a quorum here.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Clerk, could you check and see if there's a quorum, please.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Halton Centre.

Mr Young: All of this leads to a strong economy, a strong economy that is critical to everything that people want in life for themselves, a strong economy that ensures that every possible dollar goes towards a strong health care system, maintains a strong education and training system, for better jobs for our young in their early years.

For too long this government has heard that there was too much duplication and waste in the way things were done. We've worked hard and will continue working to reduce overlap and duplication in the regulation of the loan and trust industry. During the past two years we have taken some important steps.

We eliminated an extra layer of regulation, known as the equals approach, on companies already regulated by the federal government. This had imposed outdated provincial rules on all loan and trust companies operating in the province, even when those rules conflicted with modern federal legislation. We modernized and harmonized investment and lending rules with the federal rules. We gave Ontario incorporated companies the power to apply for federal charters. We signed an information-sharing agreement with the federal Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to help Ontario meet its examination requirements of federal companies registered in the province and to help Ontario companies apply for federal charters. We streamlined regulatory resources to reflect Ontario's changing regulatory role.

We've consulted extensively regarding Ontario's future role in the regulation of this industry.

Over the last 10 years, the trust and loan industry in Ontario has changed dramatically. It is now dominated by companies owned or controlled by federally regulated institutions like the chartered banks and insurance companies. Only a handful of small Ontario incorporated trust and loan companies remain. They account for about 1% of the industry's assets.

The federal government has implemented major legislative changes and has taken an increasingly larger role in setting standards for the industry. At the same time, several other provinces have recently taken steps to limit their regulatory involvement.

The recent federal Task Force on the Future of Financial Institutions recommended streamlining the regulatory process and reducing or eliminating intergovernmental overlap.

1550

We recognize the importance of a strong, competitive financial service sector. It is clear that regulatory duplication creates additional costs to industry, consumers, and most of all, taxpayers. These costs are not justified in Ontario today.

As the Lieutenant Governor said in the throne speech last Thursday: "The economy is strong. But today's successes are merely a prologue to tomorrow's challenges." As well, the Lieutenant Governor indicated, "In a competitive global environment, the eyes of the international community are upon us."

We continue to work to make Ontario more competitive and to maintain and build our reputation worldwide as an attractive place to invest, do business and create jobs. The deficit has been reduced; the budget is on track to be balanced by fiscal year 2000-01; the private sector has created 540,000 new jobs in less than four years; taxes have been cut 69 times. Ontario leads the nation in economic growth.

We are committed to keeping Ontario's loan and trust industry strong and maintaining its important role in Ontario's positive business climate. This amendment is a step towards that goal.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to continue the debate on the bill to amend the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. It is, as we all understand it, a comparatively straightforward bill in that essentially it allows the loan industry to continue beyond July 1 of this year, because currently, unless we pass this bill, our loan and trust organizations would cease to exist, I think as of July 1. Clearly we will be supporting the bill. I would urge a future government to deal with this perhaps on a more long-term basis than extending the life of the loan and trust industry by a year, although this does it for two years.

I want to comment on some of the same issues the previous speaker commented on, and that is the impact this bill will have on our financial institutions and the lessons we can learn from some of our financial institutions.

I asked the legislative research people if they could review for me the history province of how we manage our finances in the province. I asked them to look back over the budgets of the province and I said, "When did we have balanced budgets and when did we run deficits?" I was quite, I guess "surprised" is the word, to find that the last time a Conservative government balanced the budget, according to the legislative library, was the 1969-70 budget. It was this budget here. The Honourable Charles MacNaughton was the Treasurer. Ever since then the Conservatives have never balanced a budget.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): And the Liberals?

Mr Phillips: The member for Peterborough says, "And the Liberals?" Here's what the researcher said: "You inquired about the date of the last balanced budget in Ontario. In fiscal 1988-89, the province of Ontario recorded a surplus of $90 million. The Liberal Party was in power at that time. Previous to that the budget was balanced during fiscal 1969-70 when the Conservatives were in power."

The reason I raise that is because none of my business friends believe me when I say that. I say: "Bill Davis never balanced a budget. Mike Harris has added" - as a matter of fact, I was out knocking on doors the other day and this fellow said to me, "You know, I think it's important to get our fiscal house in order." I said: "I agree with you. Do you realize Mike Harris has added over 25% to the debt of the province of Ontario? He's added $23 billion to the debt of the province since he came in." They can't believe it. This person said, "Send me that, because I want to show my friends at work." That's $23 billion, 25%, added to the debt of the province of Ontario. Anybody who is watching this who may be interested can phone our office and we'd be happy to send it to them.

It's in the budget. You simply look in the budget book. There will be a new one coming out on Tuesday. But as you can see here, when Mike Harris took over as Premier, the debt was $88 billion. It's now $110 billion - as I say, up 25%. Nobody believes that, but there it is.

The last Conservative government that balanced a budget was in 1969. I went to the library and got it out. I thought it was quite interesting. Mike Harris won't balance the budget in his term in office. As a matter of fact, he's saying that on Tuesday he won't balance the budget. It's going to be March 31, 2001.

I was interested to see, as I'm sure most members were, that Quebec has a balanced budget now, March 31, 1999, completely balanced. Newfoundland has a balanced budget, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, PEI, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia. But Mike hasn't even come close to a balanced budget. Not only that, but he's saying: "I won't balance the budget next Tuesday. You're going to have to wait until the next millennium, well after the next election." As I say, none of my business friends can believe that.

Then I say to them, "You know, I remember when Mike Harris was sitting here and Bob Rae was sitting there and the credit rating in the province of Ontario was downgraded. Mike Harris accused Bob Rae of almost everything.

Mr Marchese: I remember.

Mr Phillips: Mr Marchese remembers. I can remember Mike saying - going that way then - "You're ruining the province. We can't get by with a credit rating downgrade." Ontario had three credit rating downgrades during the NDP. For those who follow it, Ontario used to have a AAA credit rating and it went to AA+, AA, AA-, and Mike Harris couldn't believe it.

Now where are we? We're four years into the Harris government regime. There are four major credit rating agencies; none of them has upgraded Ontario's credit rating. Mike Harris has exactly the same credit rating after four years as Bob Rae had, and he hasn't made a dent in the credit rating.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: What's the point? The point is, the people who are the objective evaluators of how Mike Harris manages the finances of the province say you are as creditworthy now as Bob Rae was. That's the point of it all. The point of it all is that Mike Harris has the same credit rating as Bob Rae, not a change in it.

Mr Young: On a point of order, Speaker: We're debating Bill 3.

The Acting Speaker: I listened closely to your speech as well, and I've allowed some leniency in your speech as well as in this one.

1600

Mr Phillips: Thank you, Speaker. I listened carefully too. The member talked about exports, jobs, finances, all of those things. I'm essentially responding to the parliamentary assistant who introduced this.

I wanted to respond by saying these things: First, the last balanced budget by a Conservative government was in 1969. A lot of people can't believe it when you tell them that. I say, "Listen, they've added 25% to the debt of the province. The tax cut that Mike says everybody benefits from, we had to go out and borrow all that money. We borrowed the money to give ourselves a tax cut. About $10 billion of that $23 billion was as a result of having to borrow money for the tax cut.

As part of the finances that the parliamentary assistant talked about, I want to talk a little bit about the 407 deal. The reason I raise that is because loan and trust organizations were involved in those proposals. Here's what happened on the 407. I talk to my 905 friends and I say: "You know what happened on 407? The 407 cost about $1.5 billion to build, and Harris sold it for $3.1 billion."

How could he do that? How could you pay $1.5 billion and sell it for $3.1 billion? Here's how he did it: He promised whoever bought it that they would own it for 99 years. Other projects like this around the world have a much more limited time, but Mike said, "No, no, you can buy it for 99 years," and believe me, 407 will be jam-packed. All of my 905 friends realize now that they have essentially given Mike his reelection fund, because they sold it for 99 years and then they also said: "Whoever buys this can increase the tolls every year by 2% above inflation. You take inflation and we'll let you go 2% above that." It is a licence to print money, and so there was a bidding war to see who could buy this. But you know who's going to pay for it? The 905 toll payers. They are now beginning to realize that Mike doubled the price on them, sold it out, and guaranteed that whoever buys it could take the tolls up 2% a year over inflation.

By the way, you don't get your licence renewed if you go to get your licence renewed and you haven't paid your tolls. This is a wonderful deal for the organization that bought it. It is a one-time infusion of a bundle of money. I'll tell you when the deal closes: May 5.

Mr Marchese: What a coincidence.

Mr Phillips: What a coincidence. If you look at the deal, on May 5 you've got to deliver the money. Well, of course, that's probably the day the election will be called. Mike Harris must thank all those 905 people. He must get down on his knees and say, "Thank you for giving me this re-election fund."

It is going to give these private sector arrangements a bad name, because rather than saying, "Who can build a road the most efficiently and charge the users of that road the most efficient tolls and still make it a reasonable business deal?" those weren't the criteria. It was, "Who will give us the most one-time money?" So there were four companies in a bidding war. They had a choice: 99 years or 199 years. They took 99 years, but believe me, down the road when the 905 people who are going to pay this realize that they paid $1.6 billion above the cost to build it - what does $1.6 billion mean? Most organizations want about an 8% return on investment, so the tolls have to be almost $130 million a year higher than they would have been if we had simply said, "You users pay for the cost of the road." No, no. Mike wanted that big profit, and the difference between the cost of the road and the profit is going to cost the users about $128 million a year.

The reason I raise that is because we are dealing with the financial institutions. Most of the financial institutions in Ontario were involved in the bidding on the 407. This was one of the huge deals, and I know that Mike is very proud of this. "We sold this road for $3.1 billion and we only invested $1.5 billion. We doubled our money." Well, who paid for that? Nobody but the users of that road. What Mike Harris did is he sold those toll road users to the company. He said, "I'll guarantee you for 99 years both a huge number of customers, and I'll guarantee that over the next 15 years, every single year, you can increase the toll by 2% plus inflation, and I'll guarantee that I won't let anybody who doesn't pay the tolls renew their licence, so you're going to get all your money."

I remember the day it was announced. It was trumpeted as one of these great private sector deals. There's one person who was forgotten in this and that's the taxpayer, that's the users, that's the 905 people who have to use this road. So it's going to be interesting.

I want to be very clear. I'm for building the 407. I'm for the private sector involvement in it. I dare say it should be expanded well beyond the Brock Road, but the criteria used - which is to say, "How do we get this built for the best deal for the users?" It wasn't that at all. "How do we get the highest possible price paid on May 5?" That was the criteria. Probably the day the election is called that money flows in from the company that bought it. As I say, the 905ers will give a huge re-election fund for Mike. I'm not sure they'll get much thanks for it.

I'm pleased to discuss this bill to say that we're supportive of it, obviously. If we don't pass it, the loan and trust organizations are out of business. But I want to get on the record, because the parliamentary assistant raised these issues - and people can get this information on their own. As I say, the last balanced budget from the Conservative government was in 1969, the debt adding already roughly $23 billion, and I gather on Tuesday they're going to add some more debt to the province. The credit rating of the province after four years: The professional organizations whose job it is to rate the credit worthiness of companies and governments say, "No, I'm not going to give Mike Harris a better rating than I gave Bob Rae."

On the 407, as we peel back the deal, we find that there was one huge loser in this and that's the users of the toll roads who've now got to pay probably close to $128 million a year extra in tolls to carry the $1.6 billion that they paid over the cost of the road.

Finally, I'd say that in terms of management of things, I find it really odd that this is the second bill like this we've had to pass extending the life of a major organization in the province of Ontario. As I say, I would hope that future governments deal on a more long-term basis with important organizations like this.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I just want to say from the outset that I will be sharing my time with the member for Fort York, who I expected was going to be here momentarily to engage in this debate of such important significance.

Mr Marchese: Of course he's here.

Mr Lessard: We have a piece of legislation that I know is of exceptional importance to this government, that we have to be here on a Thursday afternoon when I know that all of the members of the Tory caucus are anxiously awaiting the opportunity to adjourn so that they can go down to their gigantic political fundraising event this evening, an event where they expect they're going to raise $3 million to fund their election campaign, I might say.

I look to my friend the member for Fort York and ask him, "How is it that members of the NDP are going to be able to compete in this coming election, with resources like that to buy all those expensive television ads that we expect the $3 million is going to go towards? I know that one of the ways we're going to do that is that it's going to be a platform that is a clear alternative to the blue book, I guess is what has been released today, of the Progressive Conservative government.

1610

This legislation, Bill 3, An Act to amend the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, that this government seems to think is so significant that they have to call it on the eve of an election, the dying days of this government, makes me wonder, what about all the other important legislation that the government had on its agenda just before Christmas? What about some of the other things that we should have been debating during that long break between December 17, 1998, and the beginning of the Legislature just a couple of weeks ago? Months and months went by where this Legislature wasn't doing any work whatsoever while there were important issues that we should have been debating but weren't.

In my own riding, we were experiencing long waits for emergency service, people who were being discharged from the hospitals too early, if they were able to get emergency surgery, or being discharged from hospitals too soon. I sent a letter to the Premier asking him to recall the Legislature, but I never got any response to that - no surprise.

We're debating this bill to amend the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. I think of other legislation that was on the order paper that we should have been debating during that time, that should have been reintroduced by now and that we should be able to pass quite expeditiously. I'm thinking of the adoption disclosure legislation, for one good example, a bill that had the support of almost all the members in this Legislature, at least a strong majority of support, prior to the break at Christmas but just never got passed. There are many in our communities hoping that legislation is going to be passed, but I'm afraid it's not going to make it because we're on the eve of an election and we're debating legislation like An Act to amend the Loan and Trust Corporations Act instead of an important piece of legislation such as that.

I would have thought we may have had an opportunity to discuss some of the findings of the Environmental Commissioner's report, another scathing attack on this government's environmental record, the fourth or fifth year in a row, I think, that the Environmental Commissioner has been exceptionally critical of this government's environmental record. In fact, the bottom line of her report is that the Mike Harris government is bad for your health. Even that doesn't seem to get the attention of this government to take action with respect to trying to improve the environment. But no, we're not dealing with any actions to try and improve the environment and to improve the quality of health of people in our communities.

Mr Marchese: It's bad news. That's why they don't want to talk about it.

Mr Lessard: That's right. It is bad news. It's bad news for this government. That's why they don't want to engage in a debate about it. They don't want to introduce any new ideas or legislation to deal with the problems in the environment and the impact that's having on our health because they know it might cost a few bucks too, and we know where those bucks are going these days. Those bucks are going to the top 6% of the population in Ontario, the wealthiest few in Ontario who are going to benefit from the fact that there have been substantial cuts from the budget of the environment ministry in the province of Ontario. In fact, the other night the member for Northumberland used the fact that there had been so many cuts in staff in the Ministry of the Environment as a sign of success, that so many people had been cut from the ministry and that they were still able to operate with so few staff. But we know they're not able to enforce the law, they're not able to prosecute the law and they're not able to collect fines when people are convicted, the few people who are convicted, of contravening the environmental legislation.

Those are just a few of the pieces of legislation that I think we should be debating instead of Bill 3, An Act to amend the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, a bill that is probably more substantive than the paper it's printed on, I would think - one piece of paper on each side; that's the extent of this legislation. It really is one section to permit the business of a loan corporation or a trust corporation to continue after July 1, 2001. Really, all that does is extend the ability of loan and trust corporations for two more years. It sounds like it's not a bad idea, but I'm looking forward to my friend the member for Fort York to enlighten me further about the importance of extending this time period for another two years.

Maybe after we're finished debating this legislation we can deal with those important issues of the lack of action on air quality in Ontario, how Bill 35, the energy act, is going to encourage dirty, coal-fired electricity from the United States to be sent to Ontario and how we in the southwestern part of Ontario are just going to end up with increased air pollution as a result. There's a possibility that there may be cheaper electricity, but the cost to the environment and the cost to our health is going to be enormous. I, for one, and I believe the people I represent, don't want to pay that cost. They want clean air, they want clean water, they want clean land as well. That will be an issue on the agenda during the coming election which I am looking forward to in the next couple of weeks.

At this point I'd like to turn it over to the member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: I congratulate my colleague from Windsor-Riverside for the comments he has made and would add a few more for the benefit of the few Tory members who are still here, those who are waiting to get to the fund-raising event. This is my first opportunity since we have come back to make some points. We're on live.

Applause.

Mr Marchese: I thank the Tory members for the applause. I've got to tell you, I'm happy to be back; I've missed this place. It has been a long, long time since we have been here. I have missed the opportunity to speak with the Tory members opposite and welcome it as always, happy to speak to this particular bill, which we support, by the way. I would add a few comments because the member for Halton Centre talked about how this sector is so key to the economy and an important component of the generator of wealth in this country.

It is all in keeping with the ethos of this government when they talk about wealth and when they talk about the economy, because tonight these Tories are going to a fund-raising event, and this event costs $500 a pop. The members opposite, with consternation, say "wow," as if it's not a big deal, I imagine. But there are a lot of homo sapiens out there, ordinary people, who don't make that kind of money to come to your event; $500 is a whole heap of money. I've got to tell you, I make a good salary and I can't afford to go. Even if I were invited, I couldn't afford to go. Who goes to these events, talking about the great economy and wealth and the generators of wealth? Who do you think goes?

1620

Mr Young: Who donates to your campaign?

Mr Marchese: I'll be quite frank with you. The member for Halton Centre says, "Who donates to your campaign?" The people who donate to my campaign are individuals who live in my riding - ordinary people. I don't have bank managers or bank presidents giving me a few bucks. I don't have the loan and trust companies coming to me, "Marchese, here are a couple of bucks for your campaign." No siree - ordinary people.

Mr Young: Bob White. Buzz Hargrove.

Mr Marchese: The member for Halton Centre says, "Who else funds your campaign?" He says Buzz Hargrove. He's not a friend of mine. I've got to tell you that. He's not a friend of mine. Maybe he is for many others, but I'm not sure whether he's a friend of mine or not.

The unions support this party in small measure: 15% of our funding comes from unions. The rest comes from people who believe in what we stand for, unlike you fine Tories. The loan and trust company people who are coming to your event tonight to thank you for this are the people who are coming to dish our 500 bucks - 500 bills. It's a lot of money.

The people who earn less than $20,000 won't be able to come to your event, and they send their regrets. The people who earn $30,000 will not be able to come; they send their regrets. I suspect the people who earn less than $60,000 are unable to come; they send their regrets. I suspect the people who make less than $80,000, non-taxable yet, are sending their regrets too. You know who's coming to your event? Largely the people who earn over $80,000 taxable income, the very people your income tax cut benefits. These are the people whose wheels you are helping to grease, who are coming to give you their thanks for helping them out so that they can do well in this economy.

We have such tremendous wealth in this country and in this province. Did you know, my friend from Windsor-Riverside, that the gap between the rich and the poor is so vast that the top few percent make 315% more than the little guy at the bottom? We're not talking about a percentage difference between these people here and these people here; we're talking about 315%. We're talking about their buddies, the ones who make over $80,000 taxable income.

The banker who makes $1.5 million gets $120,000 back because Mike Harris, the Premier, believes they deserve it. And don't worry if they reinvest that money in their own stocks and bonds because that's money well invested. It will go in their own accounts for sure. It might go to foreign investments, but Mike Harris says: "That's OK. If the big guys get $120,000, that helps the economy." But you ordinary people watching this program, do you believe the bankers need $120,000 a year in an income tax cut? I ask you, loan and trust corporation managers, do you believe you need this income tax cut? I don't think you do. I don't think you need it. We're going to take that money back.

It is all fine for the Tories to say that's a tax increase, and you've got a lot of help. You've got the Toronto Sun, God bless them. You've got the Globe, God bless them too. You've got the National Post. How many papers do you need on your side to send the message? Are there any more papers out there that - you need more newspapers to send the message? Three is not enough?

Why, even the Toronto Star is helping you guys out because they say the message of the NDP is that that's a tax increase. We're taking the money that Harris has given the top 6%, $1.5 billion, representing 25% of the income tax cut - a few people taking a big chunk of money. We're saying we're taking it back because you don't need it. Even the Star says that's a tax increase. I don't understand it. I understand it from the Toronto Sun and the National Post. God bless Conrad Black; he earns a pretty good buck. He's getting more money from you. The income tax cut will be good for him because he'll reinvest that money back into buying more newspapers across the country.

You see, Conrad Black doesn't own enough. Like owning 60% of all the newspapers in this country is not enough. He needs money from this government, right? Because he earns - I don't know. He must earn a lot of millions. Stronach earns $25 million a year. He's going to get a pretty dollar back. He earns $25 million as his salary, right? How much are you boys giving him back at the end of the - come on, Norm, you know. Come on, don't give me that. You know how much money he gets back, because you know what he earns, right? Come on, you know.

I'm going to finish very shortly. I just wanted to make a few points.

By the way, this income tax cut is adding $1.2 billion -

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: Please, this is an important point. This income tax cut of yours adds $1.2 billion to the deficit. It adds to the deficit. These fine Tories say: "Oh, the economy is thriving. Why? Because of the income tax cut." It's boosting the deficit up - no doubt about that - $1.2 billion.

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Listen who's talking about deficits. You're a joke.

Mr Marchese: The member for Etobicoke-Humber laughs with his usual friendly smile. I've got to tell you, I love it. He says, "Look who's talking." The NDP isn't saying, "Increase the deficit," but you boys who take credit for bringing it down are simultaneously -

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: No, no, listen to the answer, please. I know, he's a friendly man and he's here to have a good time, and I'm glad he's here, but I'm telling him and the others that he's increasing the deficit. He and the others, they're part of the same government, the same gang who are here making these decisions and adding to the deficit.

Mr Ford: If you want to know what deficit is all about, the federal government is $600 billion in debt. That's why we have to pay more taxes.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Member for Fort York, speak to the Chair, please.

Mr Marchese: I want to congratulate and thank him for the contribution. They've added $1.2 billion to the deficit because of the income tax cut.

Mr Ford: I'm going to go.

Mr Marchese: Finally, he's leaving. It's about time. Member from Humber, we'll talk to you later. It was nice to see you here.

Highway 407, what a gravy train that is. What a sweetheart deal. By the way, are they coming to the fundraising event?

Mr Lessard: I wonder how many tables they bought?

Mr Marchese: Tables, please, they probably bought the convention centre with that kind of money.

We're talking about three billion bucks and you guys have given them a lease for 99 years. You see how long that gravy train is? Like it goes on and on. It's beyond my lifetime, unless they come up with some genetic invention that will allow me to see the end of that deal, and I don't think so.

Giving these corporate friends of yours the ability, the freedom, unhindered by any government, to do what they want for 99 years, to raise the tolls perpetually, all to do us a favour, all to help this government out because the government says: "Oh, we made $1.6 billion out of this deal. Aren't we good?"

It's hard to really fathom the intelligence of this government, quite frankly, but some people buy into it. The fact that they have sold a public traffic system that should belong to us, that should be public - these guys have given the corporate sector for 99 years a gravy train that will go on and on and they're happy that the government has made 1.6 billion bucks.

I don't know. I'd be happy to come to your fundraising event for $500 a pop. These are your friends. I'm describing the types of people this government relates to, connects to, is in sync with. These are the people who share the wealth with these members of this Legislature. These are the people for whom we are doing a lot of good. These are the people for whom this economy has done well. They're the ones who are doing well in this economy while the rest of us, ordinary people watching this program, are working longer, harder, for less money, with more stress than we have ever witnessed before. In fact, the civil servants who are advising us tonight, who are behind the benches of the Speaker, the ones smiling behind there, your staff and other ministry staff, these people are putting in longer hours, working harder, longer, for less, with more stress than they have ever seen before, including the clerks, I would think.

1630

Mr Young: Are you talking about the social contract?

Mr Marchese: No, I'm talking about the fact that you fine people have laid off 14,000 to 20,000 civil servants -

Interjection: And they say it's not enough.

Mr Marchese: - and they say they want to fire 14,000 more in order to allow those people behind the bench there to work longer, harder, for less money, with more stress, and if they don't like it, there are 14,000 other people you fired who would come back and do the job.

This economy has done well for a whole lot of people, but at the bottom levels it's not happy times. They are working double time under stressful conditions. Wages have been frozen for nine years for most of these people, whereas the corporate profits have double or tripled for many, whereas corporate profits for managers have doubled or tripled because they take pleasure in firing people so their profits can triple, which they call "effective management," "greater accountability to the profit holders," and so on and so forth. The poor schlep out there working for a couple of dollars has to work longer, harder, for less, and it's not getting any better.

Young people are working longer, harder, for less. The kinds of comforts we had in our great economy - it's not getting any better. They won't be able to afford the houses that we could afford a while ago because they are not making the money that we did at one point. But your corporate friends who are buying the 407, they're doing OK. The loan and trust companies are doing OK, and the banks are doing OK. God bless the Tories, and to a great extent the Liberal Party helping out, because they sure could use the help.

We obviously support this bill. It's important to pass it. But I just wanted to remind the public that I won't be able to make the Tory dinner for $500. I apologize and regret it, because if I had a couple of hundred thousand, I might have been able to go and listen to Mike and see what he has to say tonight.

Tonight he's going to unveil this great blue book. Tonight he may or may not announce that we're going to have an election. I suspect this is what Mike is going to do, Speaker, if you will allow me just a few more seconds to say that Mike Harris is worried that his popularity is dipping, and it is. He was going to wait for another week and a half to call the election. I predicted May 12 for June 10. I predicted he was going to announce his budget next week, allow that to simmer, allow the magic of the budget to filter very nicely into our psyche, and then have the election, but he can't afford that.

So what is he going to do? He's going to announce the budget next week. He's going to announce all those great tax cuts again. The bankers are going to be happy with more cuts because they don't have enough; they've been starving for years. Their profits haven't been high enough. So Mike says, "I'm going to announce a few more cuts. People are going to feel great"; it's a sugar pill. Immediately, poof, the election gets called. That's what Premier Mike Harris is going to do.

I predict it may not be May 12 any longer; it may be right after the budget. So I thought I would stand to speak on this important issue before Mike Harris calls the election, because we may not have another opportunity.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Young has moved second reading of Bill 3. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to complete third reading of Bill 3 this afternoon.

The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed? Agreed.

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SOCIÉTÉS DE PRÊT ET DE FIDUCIE

Mr Sterling, on behalf of Mr Eves, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 3, An Act to amend the Loan and Trust Corporations Act / Projet de loi 3, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les sociétés de prêt et de fiducie.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ APPELÉE VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE

Mrs Ross, on behalf of Mr Tsubouchi, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 8, An Act to provide for the designation of a wine authority to establish an appellation of origin system for Vintners Quality Alliance wine and to administer that system / Projet de loi 8, Loi prévoyant la désignation d'un office des vins afin d'établir et d'administrer un système d'appellations d'origine pour les vins de la société appelée Vintners Quality Alliance.

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): In Ontario we have a determined and committed industry of grape growers and winemakers who have established our reputation for fine wines both nationally and internationally. In speaking to this bill, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to some of those individuals who've worked so hard.

From the VQA, I'd like to thank Len Pennachetti, the current chairman, and Don Ziraldo, who was the driving force behind the VQA; the Wine Council of Ontario, under the chairmanship of Bruce Walker; and the grape growers, under John Neufeld. As well, I'd like to thank the wine caucus of the government: members Tim Hudak, Tom Froese, Frank Sheehan, Bart Maves and Jack Carroll.

Adopting the VQA Act, 1999, is an important step in the continuing development of Ontario's fine wines. This act will promote opportunities to export Ontario wines and enhance our standards of excellence in winemaking. This development will help our industry grow and prosper and further strengthen its reputation for producing world-class wine products.

The act provides for government-sanctioned standards for those who wish to produce VQA wine in Ontario. For example, it will establish a system to control appellation of origin and it permits the Lieutenant Governor in Council to designate a not-for-profit corporation - a wine authority - that will administer the act and its regulations.

As I suggested earlier, this legislation is the product of close cooperation between the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the wine and grape-growing industries in Ontario. We keep in close contact with these organizations involved in grape production and winemaking. We understand the challenges facing the industry. We have listened carefully during our discussions and we have responded to their concerns.

We know, for example, that the request for legislated standards is far more than just a marketing strategy. It is an essential move to ensure our wineries are world players. In describing the importance of mandatory standards, the Wine Council of Ontario says that legislation is an historic rite of passage for the Ontario wine industry, allowing it to take its place among other serious wine-producing regions in the world.

Such legislation is an important prerequisite in gaining access to world markets and making VQA as recognizable to consumers as appellation quality rules and controls are for wines from France, Italy, Germany and other countries. The absence of government-sanctioned standards makes it difficult for our wines to be accepted in Europe, with its well-established appellation systems. For example, Ontario makes some of the finest dessert wines in the world. Our icewines regularly win gold medals at international competitions, but they are not for sale in Europe because European Union standards do not recognize Ontario icewine as a wine product. Sanctioning VQA rules through legislation puts us in a position where we can argue that our icewine and other VQA wines have quality standards that are equivalent to the world's best.

Therefore, this legislation will help the federal government in its discussions with European officials on wine access and open the door for us to obtain mutual recognition with that market.

We are pleased to be helping our wine industry overcome international barriers and introduce VQA to other nations. Wine consumers around the world are ready for a taste of Ontario. By passing this act, all of us in this Legislature can say we helped to make it happen.

1640

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Questions and comments? Further debate.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): The opportunity I have today is to speak on this bill that we were so long awaiting. As you know, no grapes are grown in Scarborough North, but I can tell you that in Scarborough North we drink the finest of wine. The finest of wine really is from Ontario. Sometimes in a competitive way we want to make sure we're drinking the right stuff. We really welcome this act, the Vintners Quality Alliance Act.

We know that Ontario is competing in the world and winning awards all over. As a matter of fact my colleague Jim Bradley, who is from the area of St Catharines, which as you know grows some the finest wines, is just ecstatic about this, that it's about time we had some quality and some sort of regulation and legislation to govern this, so we can make sure the wine we are drinking is labelled, and within any competition, regardless of what part of the world we're in, we know what kind of wine we're drinking.

The member has said to me that he wants to applaud this government. He has said basically he's very nervous about applauding the government, because there aren't many times he can do that. For years he has been asking for this to come forward, and now that it has come forward he said to me, "You tell them how happy I am about this," although he's not here to endorse that and give the word about this wonderful wine.

Let me tell you my experience with wine, because it's important. I was introduced to wine inside this Legislature, when they had the wine-tasting competitions. I was not a person who really enjoyed wine in any form. But having gone around and tasted some of the wines downstairs, in the members' lounge, and seen the people and the dedication of those people - the farmers, the growers of grapes - and the knowledge they had, I was extremely impressed. Surprisingly enough, having been able to understand what to look for in a wine, I said to myself, "It seems to me that Ontario is on the map, competing around the world, with wine." Later on I tried other wines. I've had other wines from Germany, France and even Italian wines. Let me tell you, the Ontario wines matched right up with any of those wines. I have to admire the fact that we do produce the best. But how could we know? We had no legislation.

I understand too that this legislation, this act, will make sure that when we are out in the market competing, it can be read very much that we are competing and we are one of the best in the world in that respect. I stand to endorse that.

I won't be speaking for long at all on this, but just want to say that the Liberal Party welcomes the fact that this act is in place. I want to commend those who have put it forward, and I want to commend the farmers and congratulate the growers in St Catharines. They have done a tremendous job to make us really proud of the fact that when we lift a glass and drink the wine of Ontario, we know we have one of the best wines in the world.

Those are just a few comments, although sometimes I'm tempted to speak on many other issues that I disagree with under this government. But I know it is not the opportune time now, because there are some anxious members who are going to their fundraiser right now, the big $500 fundraiser I heard about. What does this have to do with wine? Let me tell you. I hope that when you get there you will demand that you drink Ontario wines. It will be very upsetting to many of the growers in St Catharines and Niagara-on-the-Lake if you have ordered any foreign wines there, because we have the best. I'd like it if they could report to us on Monday what type of wine they had there. I know about the $500-a-plate fundraiser they're having and the tremendous amount of money they have. I hope they will order and serve the best wine, which is Ontario wine. But again, many of those who are contributing to this big fundraiser tonight have more money than they can even manage, and they may not be serving Ontario wine. It would be a sad situation to know that today, on the same day we are passing this act, to which we will give second and third reading, as I understand, we will not have Ontario wine, because we'll protect that in this legislation.

I just want to congratulate those who have brought this forward and also those grape growers in Niagara, St Catharines and all of Ontario.

I'll be sharing my time, I understand, with my colleague.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I am delighted to say a few words on this particular topic. It is not a topic in which I have a lot of experience, but I have some limited knowledge when it comes to wine, wine making, wine tasting, whatever. My comments will be strictly related to the bill that has been presented to the House, speaking in support of the bill.

I think this is high time. This is one good move that should be supported by every member of the House, for a number of reasons. Not only has our own Canadian wine established itself throughout the world, but it has become an excellent competitor among the best wines of the world. This is a testament to the fact that a number of Canadian, or I should say Ontario, wineries have acquired world-renowned qualities; they have won many, many awards.

I have to put in a plug - and I don't mind; I'll do it with great pleasure - for one very old, established winery in my riding. It is known, or was known originally, as Vin Bon, which translates into "good wine." It has been in operation for a great number of years. Recently they have grown to the proportion that now they have not only the one; they have expanded north of my own riding into my colleague Mr Palladini's area. They have a wonderful shop with a variety of their excellent wines, including perhaps the best ice wine. The wine is called Cilento Wines. I have to put that in because they have been wonderful business people in the community and they produce an excellent wine.

To the members of the House, why should we support the appellation of the VQA, standing for the Vintners Quality Alliance? I think our government should be doing everything possible to support this wonderful industry, the wineries. Niagara, St Catharines and other areas need that support, any support we can give.

This is a multi-million dollar industry, not only because of the quality of the various good wines we produce and not only because of the number of people they employ, but also because it produces a large income for the provincial coffers and it supports a lot of local industries as well.

I support the various wineries, the producers, in the general Niagara area. They are doing an excellent job in promoting themselves and what they have to offer the residents of Ontario, the rest of Canada and tourists as well.

Last year - and I love travelling in the area, driving in that beautiful part of our province - you could have seen a number of foreigners visiting those wineries; I enjoyed doing so myself. Indeed, they offer our consumers and our province another aspect of the variety of industries we have here in Ontario and in Canada.

1650

Tourism is big with respect to wine, wine-making, wineries, the region itself. I'm sure the local members of the area know that full well. The tourist industry is booming in that particular region, not only for the attraction of Niagara itself but the region as a whole.

I had an opportunity to visit a number of inns in the area, and I'll tell you they are wonderful places. That is one area that should be explored more by ourselves, by our own Ontario people. Our own government should be supportive and do more.

The inns, part of the tourist attractions we offer, offer some assistance to the wineries as well. They compliment each other; they support each other. Especially during the summer months they attract a tremendously large number of tourists, and of course that spells employment and that spells more money for the other industries in the region, other businesses, and also more money for our own government here, let alone the exporting. There are so many avenues to the nature of our business here.

I think it's recognition of the amount of work the people who are applying themselves to those industries have done. I think we have to recognize that as well; we owe it to those industrious people. They have come a long way. Indeed, if you look back 10 or 15 years, we have to say that in those last 10, 15, maybe 20 years or so, they have come a tremendously long way, and we have to applaud. We have to applaud those who managed to plod through the bad times, partly because of the quality of grapes and partly because of our own environment. They've been suffering, but I think now they have come a long way.

The quality of vines and the quality of wine that comes from them, I think we have a most wonderful variety, which rivals any other European - Italian, French and so forth. Let me tell you that our wine industry can be proud to call itself part of the world class of wine and wineries.

What else can I say? It's something we fully support, and I would exhort the government to do whatever it can to support this particular industry and even to support it from the tourist point of view.

To the people in my own community - they employ a lot of people in this particular industry - I say it is good to have you there. To the people in the Niagara region, all those people who have gone through bad times and good times, I say good for you for sticking it out and compliments for doing an excellent job on behalf of the Ontario people and putting us on the world map with respect to vines and wines. I would say we should be helping you all the way and help you promote and help our people in Ontario as well.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for having the opportunity to speak on behalf of the wine industry.

The Speaker: Questions and comments? Further debate?

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I just wanted to point out at the outset I'll be splitting my time with the member for Fort York, who tells me that he has got a great deal of expertise when it comes to speaking of the issues of wine and the Vintners Quality Alliance Act.

Oftentimes, as members here we're expected to speak on issues that sometimes we're not experts on, sometimes we need to do a little bit of research on. Sometimes they might be issues that we might not even be prepared to speak about, but this is one that I actually enjoy having an opportunity to make a few remarks about, because there aren't grape growers to any large extent in my own riding but there certainly is a very vibrant wine industry in the Essex county area, and I know this industry is looking forward to this legislation.

Once again, we're here about six months after this bill was originally introduced. This is another one of those bills that died on the order paper way back in December and now, finally, the government is getting around to passing this legislation in the dying days of this government. This is something we could have done a long time ago, but finally we are getting around to it and that is a great thing, because it is going to benefit wineries in the Essex county area.

I am thinking specifically of Colio wines, located in Harrow, in the southern part of Essex county, that either last year or quite recently was the winery that had the legislative white wine in the dining room here in Queen's Park. That just gives you some idea of the quality of wine that comes from the Essex county area.

Another winery is Pelee Island Winery, located in Kingsville, once again in the southern part of Essex county; they also have vines located on Pelee Island. They have a visitors' centre on Pelee Island and they attract a large number of tourists to the island as a result of that industry, a growing industry on that island as well. That has attracted a number of other businesses to come to the island and to invest as well. Tourism is going to be big business on Pelee Island this year, as a result of not only the winery but other initiatives as well. Another winery in southern Essex county near Harrow is the LeBlanc Estate vineyard, a very small family-owned operation that produces some excellent vintages. Most notably, they have ice wine.

When we talk about the provisions that are going to be provided for in the Vintners Quality Alliance Act, we're really talking about ensuring that there is a very high-quality standard, a government-regulated quality standard, an enforced quality standard, to ensure that connoisseurs of fine wine in places like Europe and the United States have the assurance that superior products, like ice wine from the Essex county area, for example, are going to meet those very high standards. They can now be assured of that guarantee. This legislation is going to ensure that we're meeting the highest standards of excellence in those products. It's going to be enforced by inspectors who are going to be appointed by a wine authority, and it's going to be established by government legislation.

Just so people who may be watching or who may be reading Hansard at some later date understand what VQA stands for, it's Vintners Quality Alliance. When you see that "VQA" on the top of a wine bottle, that means the wine in the bottle is produced entirely by grapes that are grown in the province of Ontario, as opposed to what might be referred to as "Ontario wine." Ontario wine doesn't need to be 100% produced from grapes grown in Ontario. In fact, that wine could be a blend of around somewhere up to 70% to 75% grapes or juice or wine that's imported from other areas, such as Chile. That's an area where we get a great deal of wine that goes into what is referred to as "Ontario wine" here in the province.

This legislation is going to not only say that it's a VQA wine produced 100% from grapes grown in Ontario, but that it comes from a specific area of the province and because of that area, it is going to have to meet a certain high standard related to geography.

1700

I guess one of the good reasons we want to encourage the wine industry here in Ontario is that it isn't one of those types of businesses that can say, "If you don't reduce my taxes, if you don't reduce the wages for employees, if you don't reduce my expenses, we're just going to pick up and leave and go to some other low-tax jurisdiction." This is an industry that is based in areas of Ontario because of the advantages that they have with respect to weather, the advantages that they have with respect to soil conditions as well, and micro-climatic conditions.

It isn't a business that can just pick up and leave the province and go to some other jurisdiction where they can say, "Well, come here and you can just lower your costs and be able to produce the same product." They can't do that. In order to produce that product, we hope they're going to be able to ensure that we have not only the high standards with respect to the production of the product, but that the people who produce the product are going to have the opportunity to make fair wages and have some sort of long-term job security as well.

Having said that, of course we want to ensure that there is a place in Ontario that is able to sell that product, and I'm referring to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario that this government originally had threatened to privatize, but thankfully they've backed off from that threat and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario is still a viable publicly owned entity in the province of Ontario that ensures that their product is not sold to persons who are underage. They ensure that there is a large cross-section of these types of VQA wines that are going to be sold throughout the province, and they are going to maintain those high standards and accessibility of those products in the stores as well.

I'm pleased that the government didn't go ahead with their privatization plans for the LCBO. However, I do hope that the government of Ontario does do something with respect to the return of the bottles that are sold from the LCBO so that the large number of glass bottles that end up in the waste stream are going to be collected at the LCBO and disposed of properly or reused or refilled or recycled in some way. But right now there is no deposit on wine bottles. There's really no infrastructure to take the wine bottles back at the liquor stores. I think that is an environmental initiative that this government should undertake as well. Unfortunately, it isn't going to be during this mandate, I can see, because I think we really are on the verge of an election.

As we know, there's the big fundraiser this evening. I know that Tory members are going to be anxious to try and attend a fundraiser where they expect to make $3 million to be used during the next election campaign for expensive TV advertising, and people can look forward to seeing those TV advertisements very shortly, I am sure.

I can only hope that only the finest Ontario wines are going to be served at that big fundraiser tonight because I, for one, am not going to be able to be there to see whether those wines are there, because I can't even afford one of the cheap seats. I can't even afford one of the $500 seats that are way back near the exit sign because I'm not in that league - the league of the people who are buying the $12,000 tables, the people who are getting the biggest benefit from this government, who have the bucks to be able to buy seats at those tables at the big Mike Harris fundraiser this evening.

In closing, before I turn it over to my friend the member for Fort York, I just want to say that I am supportive of the Vintners Quality Alliance Act. I think this is going to be an act that will benefit vintners in the Essex county area and is also going to ensure that consumers have a superior product throughout the world.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): The member for Windsor-Riverside has covered a great deal of ground on this particular issue, so it isn't my intention to speak at length, not too long, just a few points I wanted to make.

Speaker, as you and a few other members know, I enjoy wine a great deal. Others whine; I like to drink wine. I like it from all sorts of places. Wine from Chile, for example, is very good. Australian wine, I've discovered, is quite good, Argentinian wine, of course Italian, and French, naturally. I've got to tell you a story. I was in Portugal in 1987 or 1988 and we had a bottle of wine that was worth about $5. It was the best wine I have ever had. In fact, the wine was cheaper than the Coke, which was a little more expensive there at the time, if you can believe that. Imagine, to offer you a bottle of the best wine you could have - it was a 1974 bottle of wine.

Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton): Where was this?

Mr Marchese: I know, consternation once again. Its true, 1974 for $5. It was 1987-88.

Mr Saunderson: Where?

Mr Marchese: Portugal. You're not listening. Speaker, they're not listening.

The Speaker: Would the members listen.

Mr Marchese: It's a good story: a 1974 bottle of wine for five bucks. You can't get it. You can't find it anywhere. It was a great delight for me to be treated thus for a couple of dollars.

I enjoy wine a great deal, and it is for that reason that this particular bill that you fine Tories have introduced is obviously good, acceptable to all of us. Establishing, like so many other countries have, this appellation of origin system for Vintners Quality Alliance wine is a good thing. Our member for Windsor-Riverside has commented a great deal about that, but also made reference to your event this evening.

I drink modestly priced wines because I can't afford the expensive ones. I was lucky with the 1974 bottle of wine. It was just pure luck, because if I'd had to pay the money that bottle would have been worth today, I couldn't afford it. But I can guarantee your friends coming to tonight's event can afford that kind of bottle of wine. I've discovered, through some modest sources not inimical to your government but friends of yours, that the tables to get into this event are more than $500. I was pointing out, imagine, $500; most people under $80,000 won't be able to come and they extend their regrets. I mentioned that earlier. But I understand that these tables bought tonight for this event, where hopefully they will be serving Ontario wines, but I'm sure they could afford more expensive ones - some of the tables are worth $12,000.

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: Consternation once again, right?

But there is legitimate consternation from the public watching this, because it's live. I find it perverse and I am sure the public listening to this would find it perverse that a table would cost a mere $12,000 to enjoy the Ontario wine that this bill will benefit, for the audience going to this event tonight. That's a whole heap of money. They're going to need the money, as you know. But it's the previous bill we passed - the loan and trust corporation people are going to be there. I'm sure they bought a couple of tables for $12,000, a mere pittance for them. The profits have been good the last couple of years. I just wanted to point that out to the public, the three million bucks that the Premier's going to raise tonight versus the $2,000 or $3,000 events we raise to bring -

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: You see, consternation again, Speaker. It's true. I'm not whining. I'm just saying that we serve modest wines. We charge $25 or $35, depending on the times. I tell you, in my area, even the well-to-do have a hard time coming to my events, at $25, 35 bucks, versus -

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: Hold on, hold on - 500 bucks or $12,000 a table. I want to know who the poor ones are. I want to know who the poor suckers are tonight who are going to pay 500 bucks versus the others paying $12,000 for a table. Imagine those who can't afford to be there, how poor they are. I tell you, as the $3-billion ads whack this province back and forth, with everything that this government has done or not done -

Mr Sergio: It buys a lot of wine.

Mr Marchese: This three million bucks is going to buy a whole lot of wine, all right.

Speaker, I know you point to the bill. I have no more to say. This appellation is a good thing. I hope you people enjoy your dinner. I hope it's Ontario wine, modestly priced. I hope you have a good time, to raise enough money to be able to do all the wonderful magic that you have done over the last year with those dollars paid by the Ontario public so you could tell us in four months the things that you're doing. I want to thank you for that and I'm sure the public will thank you. They're sorry they can't make it to the event because they really wanted to be there tonight.

The Speaker: Questions and comments? You can't question and comment on your own speech.

Mr Lessard: You started the clock again, the 20 minutes for the next speaker.

The Speaker: As far as I'm concerned, you split your time, because you told me at the start of your speech that you would split your time. You said at the start of your speech you were sharing your time with the member for Fort York, so ultimately you cannot have questions and comments on your own speech, although I myself have made a lot speeches here that I had questions and comments on. But you can't do that.

Further debate? None?

Mr Lessard: Can I correct the record, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: You can correct your record, sure.

Mr Lessard: I just wanted to correct my own record. I was referring to the wineries that were in my area of Essex county. I neglected to mention Sal D'Angelo's winery in Amherstburg as well and I wanted to make sure they got mentioned.

The Speaker: Mr Sterling has moved second reading of Bill 8. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to complete third reading of Bill 8 this afternoon.

VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ APPELÉE VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE

Mrs Ross, on behalf of Mr Tsubouchi, moved third reading of the following bill:

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mrs Ross has moved third reading of Bill 8. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): Mr Speaker, I move adjournment of the House.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

This House now stands adjourned till Monday at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1714.

29 avril 1999