Journal des débats 2001-juin-20 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to express my significant concern about the government's plan to ram through its public funding for private schools. The public should be aware that this is a huge change to public education that will fundamentally change public education in Ontario.

I quote from the National Citizens' Coalition, which said, "This is the most significant development in education going on in North America." The Fraser Institute said it's the biggest change and most important change in education in 100 years. Both of these very conservative organizations have spelled it out for us: this is a huge change.

The second point I want to make to the public of Ontario: you should get a copy of Premier Harris's brief to the United Nations two years ago, where he, on behalf of Ontario, argued strenuously against doing this. There is strong language in this brief that said it's wrong to do it. A major paper calls this a huge flip-flop by Premier Harris.

We've asked for evidence of why they changed their minds. Mr Flaherty has refused to give us any evidence at all. We said, "How do you arrive at the $300 million?" He refused to table with us any evidence of how they arrived at that. So, while public education is being attacked daily by this government, Ontario taxpayers are going to spend $500 million that could have been better spent strengthening our public education system.

ONTARIO EDUCATIONAL
LEADERSHIP CAMP

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Today I am pleased to be able to introduce to you the board of directors of the Ontario Educational Leadership Camp, which is located on the east shore of beautiful Lake Couchiching, which is located in my riding of Simcoe North.

The Ontario Educational Leadership Camp, established in 1948 by Mr Gordon Wright, principal of Banting Memorial High School, Minister Jim Wilson's former school, in Alliston, Ontario, provides leadership training and education to more than 2,000 young men and women each year. In addition, the Ontario Educational Leadership Camp, which is in its 52nd year of operation, is managed by a volunteer board of directors, and partners with organizations such as the Ontario Provincial Police auxiliary program to make use of the facilities on a more year-round basis.

Today I was joined by Minister Tsubouchi in presenting volunteer certificates to the board of directors of the OELC. I want to thank the board again for their efforts in administering the programs at OELC that will no doubt continue to produce our leaders of tomorrow.

I'd like to recognize Mr Terry Harkins, president; Ms Jane Cutler, vice-president; Anthony Burley, secretary-treasurer; Bette Turner, Eric Runacres, Gilles Metivier, Beccy Rodgers, Beverly Comfort, Rock Lachance and Jacques Riopelle. I'd like to acknowledge them.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My statement today is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, there is a group of citizens in this province who need protection from you, and they are the small business owners. The retail sales tax branch has been going in and doing audits on a number of firms, and unfortunately, in some cases, hasn't even been going in. They've simply been doing a reassessment based on the provincial averages. They are then confronting these small business owners with reassessments of $75,000 or $100,000.

Now, here is where the whole system breaks down. Normally in Ontario, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In order for these small business owners to appeal this reassessment, which actually never took place within their offices, they must pay the reassessment in full. For many of these owners, $75,000 or $100,000 is simply not possible with their cash flow situation. And if they do pay the money, it is still a year or better, at times, before the assessment is held.

Minister, these small business owners deserve to be treated with dignity. The majority of jobs in this province exist because of our small business owners. They don't need reassessments done arbitrarily at length; they need reassessments done on a legitimate audit of their books. I call upon you to introduce fairness into the system and to allow these small business owners to continue to operate. Give them the opportunity to make the appeal before they are faced with a penalty and then the backlog of getting their money back. We need to help our small business owners, not punish them.

MULTICULTURAL EVENTS

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): This weekend, the annual multicultural festival will take place, centred in my riding of Kitchener Centre. This year marks the 34th year for this outstanding cultural event. Members of this House may be surprised to learn that Kitchener-Waterloo is the fourth-largest immigrant centre in Canada. That means Kitchener-Waterloo is recognized throughout the world as one of the wonderful places in this truly great country to call home and raise a family.

This weekend, tens of thousands of people, including many visitors and tourists from foreign shores, will attend the multicultural celebrations. What the visitors and tourists will experience is a community that has learned that the diversity in the cultural, racial, national and ethnic makeup of the community is a source of pride and a reason for celebration.

Canada is a model to the rest to the world for the successful blending of peoples from all parts of the world. Our community is a model for the rest of the country in how peoples from widely diverse backgrounds can live together in a state of respect and harmony.

This weekend, I will attend this year's Multicultural Summer Festival to celebrate and enjoy the foods, dancing, crafts, displays and sporting events in Victoria Park, located in the centre of my riding. The activities will include people with backgrounds from India, the Philippines, Santo Domingo, Russia, the Sudan, Germany, Laos, Bosnia, the Ukraine, South America, Vietnam, Greece, the Arab countries, Ethiopia and Belgium, to name but a few. I invite all members of this House, and all viewers, to come to Kitchener to join me in this celebration of international respect and to experience the joy of a truly multicultural community.

Congratulations to Myrta Rivera and the Kitchener-Waterloo Multicultural Centre.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): In my riding of Hamilton Mountain there is a residence called Hillview Manor, which specializes in the care of mentally and physically challenged individuals from our community. The residents of Hillview Manor suffer from chemical imbalances, brain injuries, epilepsy, behaviour and mood disorders, and alcohol and drug abuse.

As advocated by the best-practice models, these patients are encouraged to pursue an independent lifestyle. They are able to come and go in the community, attend religious institutions, do their banking and shopping, and utilize public transit. The staff and management at Hillview Manor do their utmost to service their patients' needs and to provide a safe and warm environment.

Up until one and a half years ago, mental health services used to come to the home. Now, with cuts in funding, that service is no longer available. There is no access to a psychologist available to the residents. There are not enough case managers available, and these sick, elderly patients have to travel to see them.

Hillview Manor struggles to make its funding cover all the essentials; however, the residents in the neighbourhood are never sure about the state of the patients' mental health, and how can they be? These patients struggle with some of the most challenging issues and are at times a danger in the community.

With downloading and restructuring, there is no inspector, no clear standards. The rules to access funding are so restrictive that these types of homes, which provide an essential service to the community, cannot gain an increase in funds.

The government must investigate the situation around Hillview Manor. Because of cuts made by this government to the funding available to Hillview, conditions have deteriorated to the point of having an unsafe environment. Shame on Mike Harris for making the most elderly and frail suffer in our society.

1340

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): Last week I suggested to the Premier that perhaps he would like to take up a challenge from me and work an eight-hour shift in one of Ontario's long-term-care facilities. I don't think the Premier has had a chance to do that yet, with his busy schedule, but I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, that as I indicated to him last week, I intended to do that and I have done that.

I spent last Wednesday in Ottawa at the Perley and Rideau Veterans' Health Centre, and it was eight hours of amazing enlightenment for me. The intent was that I would spend that shift with front-line workers and see the daily routine and how hard they work to try and give the best services to the residents.

I saw situations where personal support workers were responsible for eight to 10 residents, to get them up in the morning, to get them toileted, washed, dressed, into breakfast, and quite frankly they couldn't do it. Those residents who were heavier care, who were just too hard to deal with, ended up staying in bed and were dealt with later in the day. I saw wards where there was one RN for 80 residents.

Recently, Price Waterhouse put out a report calling on the government and expressing the need to restore nursing levels in our long-term-care facilities, to increase the per diem average of resident and government co-payments to $125. It is so urgent. I've seen it with my own eyes. I spent the time on the front lines with those residents, with their families, with the staff. It's urgent. I call on the government to act.

CONESTOGO DAM

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): With regret, I must again address the House on the need for provincial funding to repair the gates on the Conestogo dam, an issue that should have been resolved months ago.

The repairs will cost between $1.2 million and $1.5 million, a burden that the Grand River Conservation Authority and the watershed municipalities should not have to bear alone.

It continues to be my position that the province should become a major funding partner for these repairs and that they should consider funding the maintenance of flood control structures throughout the province. The Conestogo dam is essential, and without the necessary repairs, in a worst-case scenario, lives could be lost in a flood and drinking water downstream could be at risk.

I have expressed these points directly with the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources, whom I thank for meeting with us and for supporting further discussions with the chair and CEO of SuperBuild, David Lindsay. However, in a written response I recently received from David Lindsay, there is still no indication whether provincial support will be available, and so I'm compelled to continue to raise this matter. I do so with the support of my constituents, who also realize that this is a top priority issue for Waterloo-Wellington.

With that in mind, I am pleased to acknowledge my guests here in the east gallery: Mapleton Mayor Carl Hall; Councillor Jim Curry is here, as well as CAO Patty Sinnamon. Councillors Mike Downey and Earl Campbell will arrive shortly, I think. The Conestogo dam is located in their township.

I look forward to joining Mayor Hall and council for their tour of the Conestogo dam on Monday, June 25. In addition to serving as mayor, Mr Hall is also chair of our rural water quality program review committee.

It is my hope that the tour will generate the support and information needed to convince the government to help us fix the Conestogo dam.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I want to speak this afternoon on behalf of all the seniors in my riding who are justifiably furious about the Premier's and the health minister's threat to terminate the universality of drug coverage for Ontario's seniors.

On top of the government's funding freeze to our vital home care sector, this public musing about eliminating the universality of drug coverage has provoked a response from my constituents that I have rarely seen.

The seniors I have spoken to are certainly angry. They believe they have earned the right to receive this support through their contributions over a lifetime. But they are also frightened about what this will mean to their future security and quality of life.

What is so cruel about this trial balloon is that it is taking place during Seniors' Month, the time when we celebrate the contribution our seniors have made and are continuing to make to the betterment of our province. What a tribute from the province.

Let me be clear. Mike Harris and the Minister of Health, Tony Clement, must back off from this threat, and they should also apologize to every senior in the province. It is vital that this happen before the House rises next week, because the fear we have is that over the summer, while the Legislature is not sitting, the government will use its regulatory powers to increase the co-payment seniors already pay for their drug coverage. Such a sneak attack would be unconscionable, but it would not be the first time this government has used its regulatory powers to pile on user fees to our seniors.

So I say to Premier Harris and Health Minister Clement: back off. Our seniors deserve much better than this kind of treatment.

EVENTS IN
NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to announce the Cobourg Waterfront Festival being held this year on Saturday, June 30, Sunday, July 1 and Monday, July 2. The town of Cobourg has a wonderful schedule of events, with shows and entertainment planned for the upcoming July long weekend.

It will be three days of fabulous fun, with more than 250 artists and crafters, a Canada Day parade at 11 am on the Saturday, gigantic fireworks at dusk on July 1 and an exciting midway for the child in all of us.

Several community groups are contributing this year to the success of the weekend. The Lions Club of Cobourg will have an art show and sale featuring 100 well-known artists from across Canada. The Rotary Club of Cobourg is having a craft sale with more than 175 of Canada's premier crafters. The Cobourg District Chamber of Commerce, along with Post Cereals, will be offering a delicious pancake, sausage and cereal breakfast from 7:30 am until 10 am daily.

This is one of the largest, best organized and most interesting Canada Day celebrations in the province. I urge all Ontarians to consider joining us in Cobourg for what has become a fantastic weekend of fun and frolic on Cobourg's beautiful waterfront.

VISITORS

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): Mr Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome a great group of grade 5 students from Pringdale Gardens public school in my riding of Scarborough Centre who are here in the east gallery.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the eighth report of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON
JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

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

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

Bill 58, An Act to ensure the provision of essential ambulance services in the event of a strike or lock-out of ambulance workers / Projet de loi 58, Loi visant à assurer la fourniture des services d'ambulance essentiels dans l'éventualité d'une grève ou d'un lock-out de préposés aux services d'ambulance.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON
REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr8, An Act to revive 1072550 Ontario Limited.

Bill Pr11, An Act to amend The Welland-Port Colborne Airport Act, 1976.

Bill Pr14, An Act to revive 1150982 Ontario Inc.

Bill Pr16, An Act to revive 1252563 Ontario Limited.

Bill Pr17, An Act to revive RDP Computer Consulting Inc.

Bill Pr19, An Act to revive 569924 Ontario Limited.

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

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Whitby-Ajax has provided me with written notice of a point of privilege. I'd like to thank the minister for giving me sufficient time to carefully review the matter.

I wish to advise that I will be deciding on this matter without further hearing directly from the member at this time, as standing order 21(d) permits me to do.

The member's point relates to press reports concerning the vandalism that occurred last week at his Whitby constituency office, and specifically to quotes in those press reports attributed to the leader of the official opposition.

I think the minister will know, and I will now remind him and the House, that comments made outside of this place by other members lie outside the purview of the Speaker. The rules of debate as set out in the standing orders do not apply beyond proceedings in Parliament and, while a member may take strong exception to something said, this would constitute a personal disagreement but not a valid case of privilege.

However, I will say to the minister I note that the minister's written note to me also indirectly refers to the incident itself which occurred at his office last week, and I know the minister will be aware that the issue was raised in a point of privilege by the member for Oak Ridges, the Honourable Mr Klees. I am currently considering that matter and will be reporting back to the House in due course.

1350

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

KEELE VALLEY CLOSURE ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 SUR LA FERMETURE
DE KEELE VALLEY

Mr McGuinty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 84, An Act to provide for the closure of the Keele Valley waste disposal site and to amend the Waste Management Act, 1992 / Projet de loi 84, Loi prévoyant la fermeture du lieu d'élimination des déchets de Keele Valley et modifiant la Loi de 1992 sur la gestion des déchets.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. We've had enough time. We've had our fun. We now need to proceed. The members have had their fun and their little chuckle.

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

The member, for a short statement.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): What this bill does is revoke the certificate of approval to operate the Keele Valley waste disposal site effective December 31, 2002. The bill provides a guarantee to local residents that the Keele Valley waste disposal site will be closed by 2002.

PATIENT RESTRAINTS
MINIMIZATION ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 SUR LA RÉDUCTION
AU MINIMUM DE L'UTILISATION
DE LA CONTENTION SUR LES MALADES

Ms Lankin moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 85, An Act to minimize the use of restraints on patients in hospitals and on patients of facilities / Projet de loi 85, Loi visant à réduire au minimum l'utilisation des moyens de contention sur les malades des hôpitaux et des établissements.

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

The member, for a short statement.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): If I may begin, I want to thank sincerely the members of this House in all three parties who supported my earlier bill on second reading and at committee. As you know, that bill died on the order paper.

The bill I am reintroducing today is a bill that has taken into account what we heard at committee and, I am thrilled to say, has been drafted in consultation with the Minister of Health, with staff from his political office, as well as policy and legal staff from the ministry.

We have gone a long way to addressing the concerns that have been raised. It is a bill that will prohibit hospitals from restraining except in circumstances where serious bodily harm may occur. It will require hospitals to have policies. It will require training of staff. It will require measures to reduce the use of restraints. It will have regulations that will set out monitoring. It covers basically the same issues but in a way that I think stakeholders will find acceptable.

The collaborative work -- and my true appreciation to the Minister of Health on this -- I think speaks to the nature of this bill, that it is not a partisan or ideological bill.

Our intent is that, over the course of the summer, major stakeholders who have now been given a copy of the bill will have an opportunity to provide comment. The Ontario Hospital Association is currently devising new policy on minimizing the use of restraint as a result of the work of this Legislature and our committee. We hope that that will come forward in the fall and be incorporated into the regulations of the bill. So no further action will be taken at this time, but it is the opinion of the government -- I've spoken with the government House leader and the other House leaders -- that this bill need not go back to committee for hearings; in fact, the next stage should be clause-by-clause.

After I'm finished here I will be asking, Speaker, for unanimous consent to restore this bill to that committee.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent -- I believe it is with the agreement of House leaders -- that this bill, An Act to minimize the use of restraints on patients in hospitals, be given second reading and be restored to the Legislative Assembly committee.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY /
RESPONSABILISATION DU GOUVERNEMENT

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Today I am pleased to table the Ontario government's 2001-02 business plans. These plans reflect on our commitment to an agenda of growth, accountability and fiscal responsibility.

The Harris government was the first to table business plans, in 1996, and has faithfully reported to Ontario taxpayers every year since. When we took office we made a firm commitment to manage government resources in a more businesslike way and to be more accountable to the public. Business plans are proof of this commitment. We constantly refine our business planning so that the public can measure the progress.

Today, with the Ontario budget, the printed estimates, the public accounts, Ontario quarterly finances, and the fall economic outlook and fiscal review, these documents provide more disclosure than ever before to the Legislature and the public on how the government manages taxpayers' dollars in a very prudent manner.

As you know, the Taxpayer Protection and Balanced Budget Act was introduced in 1999 to protect taxpayers from irresponsible government spending. The act provides personal financial penalties to the Premier and members of cabinet for not being able to meet budget commitments.

Business plans outline the responsible choices this government has made and that the public has come to expect. They not only tell the taxpayers of this province how we spend their money, they clearly outline how we do it in a prudent manner. Business plans reflect our intention to offer best value for money. They show we are listening to taxpayers and are delivering on our action plan to protect the economy and ensure Ontario's quality of life.

This year's business plans highlight the accomplishments of 24 ministries and our investment in services that people have told us are important to them: health, the environment, education, children's welfare, transportation and justice. We will continue to focus on services that are most valuable to the people of Ontario. We will undertake a value-for-money review of government spending. We will introduce initiatives designed to keep businesses of the province strong and to encourage new businesses to set up shop here. We have paved the way for tax cuts in this country. I believe no other jurisdiction in North America is so actively pursuing value for taxpayers' money.

I want to reaffirm our government's intention to deliver the quality programs that the people of Ontario need and deserve in the most efficient way possible. Our goal is to make the government better for the people of Ontario, and to help make Ontario the best place to live, work and raise a family in the 21st century.

1400

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Responses?

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): It's interesting today, as we look at these business plans that are being introduced, that we're almost three months into the fiscal year. We are nearing the end of the session. We won't be back till September; then there will be only about three months left in that session in which we might be able to determine whether they are even following these business plans.

It was only this morning that the Minister of Health said that the ministry is still reviewing hospital operating budgets and they'll have to wait until the reviews are done and that they would hope the hospital budgets would be provided earlier. I'm sure the hospitals would like as well to have their funding known a little bit earlier. In fact, they'd like to know that their funding isn't being cut by about $100 million.

I wonder if these business plans contain the fact that health care is in a state that we haven't seen for many years. I wonder if these business plans, for example, include the lack of funding for community care access centres. I wonder if these business plans include the fact that cancer care is underfunded in Ontario. I wonder if these business plans also state that they want emergency rooms in chaos and that they are limited.

I wonder if these business plans contain information on education, where publicly funded education is being robbed, where students are being robbed of the resources that they need to learn in our province.

I wonder if these business plans contain some information that my colleague from Sarnia-Lambton brought to us earlier this year. I quote from her comments that day: "What I found incredible, and you talk about smaller government, more efficient government, is that the cabinet office costs have more than doubled since 1995. The cost in 1995 was $7,858,000 and the cost in 2000 was $15,816,000.... I'd like to know why the operational costs of the cabinet office have more than doubled and every other sector of this province has been nickelled and dimed to death for ... six years."

I haven't had an opportunity yet to review these business plans in their entirety but I doubt that it mentions those facts in these business plans. In fact I suspect, when I go to Management Board itself, that I probably won't find in there that the Red Tape Commission influences cabinet decisions and receives cabinet information even before the members of the government do. I wonder if the Management Board's business plans will mention the fact that the Ontario Realty Corp, with all its problems, is in there as well. I doubt that those kinds of facts will be mentioned in these business plans.

I'm not even sure they're business plans at all. We're going to go back over the last three years and we're going to find out what the business plans were then and what the business plans are now. Dalton McGuinty and the official opposition are going to take our responsibilities seriously and we're going to hold the government accountable. I say again, I doubt very much that some of the issues I just mentioned are in these business plans.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): One of the issues the minister brings up in his press release is, as he states, "Plans for the government's report card to the taxpayer." I submit that the best report card to the taxpayer of Ontario is to have a strong Provincial Auditor, adequately funded and with the right and authority to follow the money where it's actually being spent. I therefore call upon this minister to call forth Bill 5, a bill that I introduced earlier this year, a bill that's also been introduced in the past by government members and by other members of this House: An Act to amend the Audit Act to insure greater accountability of hospitals, universities and colleges, municipalities and other organizations.

Why don't you do something meaningful and give the Provincial Auditor the powers to make sure there is value for money in the taxpayers' money that's being spent? The Provincial Auditor is an independent officer of this Legislature. He's not there on behalf of the government or on behalf of the opposition. He can give this government a true report card as to how it's doing in the various aspects of the government's activities.

So I say to the minister, if you really want to do something positive in this regard, give unanimous consent and let's pass Bill 5 so that the auditor can get on with his work and follow the 60% of the total amount of money that's being expended by you through your transfer agents.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): The minister has tabled business plans for various ministries once again. Thanks to the Walkerton commission of inquiry, which this government didn't want and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to hold, now we know what the real value of these business plans is, these business plans allowed to be published by the cabinet and Cabinet Office under the thumb of this Conservative government.

We know what happens to ministry business plans once those folks in the Premier's office, the ones that the member for Bruce-Grey calls the "pimply-faced nancies," get their hands on them. What happens? Well, they get sanitized. It's like going to the dentist. All the stains get removed, the cavities get filled, and these business plans come out looking so nice and clean that no one would ever suspect that any of the business decisions like cuts and underfunding to ministries could ever have had any negative impact on the province, on the natural environment or -- oh, yes -- on the safety of our drinking water. Because that's exactly what happened to the 1996 business plan from the Ministry of the Environment, isn't it? We know, finally, thanks to Justice O'Connor and the Walkerton commission of inquiry, that that's the case.

We learn that the first version, the unsanitized version of the business plan of the MOE, Ministry of the Environment 1996 business plan, actually contained a frank admission of the truth about this government's policies. It contained a very clear warning that cuts to the Ministry of the Environment could lead to increased risk to human health and the natural environment. That's what it said in the version of the business plan that went to cabinet and P and P. But what happened to that message in the business plan? Was it in the business plan that was tabled in the House? No. Was it buried? Yes. Has anyone accepted responsibility for that? No.

Does it give us any confidence, never mind any great confidence, that the business plans the minister releases today will tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Of course it doesn't. And you know what? I bet it doesn't give the Environment Commissioner of Ontario any confidence either. I bet that tomorrow when the commissioner releases his special report called Broken Promises, we're going to find that the Ministry of Natural Resources' business plans may not have been telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth either. I don't know what you think, Speaker, but I'd be prepared to engage in a friendly wager and settle up with you tomorrow after the Environment Commissioner issues his report, but I wouldn't blame you for not entering into that wager.

Read the other areas of this so-called business plan, read the citizenship ministry's business plan, and you'll find that there's no intention whatsoever, there's no indication, no suggestion that there's going to be an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. There is no plan, least of all is there a plan for Ontarians with disabilities, notwithstanding the repeated promise. And you find those broken promises, that lack of commitment, in every tabbed section of this report.

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay) : Je dis simplement, quel culot. Ce qu'on voit dans ce rapport, c'est encore un autre exercice en relations publiques pour le gouvernement. C'est un rapport qui a été écrit par eux pour être capable de dire au public, « Regardez comment on est bon. On est en train de faire de belles affaires. » Je regarde le rapport du ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones qui dit, « Comme certains services gouvernementaux sont offerts par les fournisseurs de l'extérieur, notamment les municipalités, l'Office a rappelé aux ministères leurs obligations en vertu de la Loi sur les services en français. » Par l'admission d'eux-mêmes, ils n'ont pas la responsabilité de dire aux municipalités, à qui ont été délestés des services provinciaux de, eux autres, suivre la Loi 8, parce que la Loi 8 n'applique pas.

On l'a dit dans le dernier parlement. On a dit que les francophones, eux autres, n'étaient pas pour se retrouver sans aucune protection de s'assurer que les services dans les régions désignées qui sont délestés aux municipalités soient respectés quand ça vient aux services en français. Ce qu'on trouve asteur, c'est que dans beaucoup de situations dans ces régions désignées, d'habitude les services ne sont pas donnés en français ; d'habitude on les trouve en anglais. C'est dans les municipalités où on trouve beaucoup de francophones, dans les régions désignées.

Je dis au gouvernement que vous n'avez rien, vous autres, de quoi être fiers. Vous n'avez rien à vous dire que vous avez fait une terriblement bonne job, parce que tout ce que vous avez dans ce rapport, simplement, c'est un exercice quand ça vient à une relation publique. Je dis encore que vous, comme gouvernement, avez complètement échoué quand ça vient à la protection et de promouvoir les services en français ici en Ontario pour la communauté francophone.

1410

VISITORS

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want members to know that the grade 5 class from Port Dover public school is in the gallery. They're from my hometown.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of privilege, Speaker: If a page would please bring you a copy of my submissions, along with the various documents referred to. To the Speaker, please, Brittainy.

I stand pursuant to standing order 21, rising again today on a point of privilege, this time concerning the government's refusal to grant access to documents to the Ombudsman. It's our submission that once again the government has flouted its self-professed agenda of accountability and responsibility. I'm speaking today of statements made by the Ontario Ombudsman, Mr Clare Lewis, regarding his investigation into the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's funding for breast and prostate cancer patients who must travel for radiation treatment.

The report was laid before the Legislative Assembly on June 14 of this year and it confirmed what my colleague the member for Nickel Belt, Ms Martel, has been saying all along, that this government openly discriminates against northern cancer patients by refusing to offer them the same coverage for transportation, food and accommodation costs afforded to patients from southern Ontario who must travel to receive treatment for this life-threatening disease.

My concern today is not with the appalling discrimination against northern Ontarians that was confirmed by Mr Lewis's investigation, but rather I draw your attention to page 8 of his final report under the section entitled "Analysis," which reads: "I recognize that the Attorney General is entitled to exercise the authority to deny me access to documents in the restricted circumstances set out in s. 20 of the Ombudsman Act. However, this step has limited the scope of my investigation."

I cite here the contents of section 20 of the Ombudsman Act: "(1) Where the Attorney General certifies that the giving of any information or the answering of any question or the production of any document or thing (a) might interfere with or impede investigation or detection of offences; (b) might involve the disclosure of the deliberations of the Executive Council; or (c) might involve the disclosure of proceedings of the Executive Council or of any committee of the Executive Council, relating to matters of a secret or confidential nature, and would be injurious to the public interest, the Ombudsman shall not require the information or answer to be given or, as the case may be, the document or thing to be produced."

Speaker, this section, I submit to you, is written very clearly and very specifically about the limits that can be placed on the Ombudsman's access to what we acknowledge and the Ombudsman Act acknowledges is necessarily from time to time sensitive information. It's clearly not intended to act as a shield behind which the government can hide. I put to you that this is exactly what the government was doing when it denied the Ombudsman's information request in the course of his investigation into discrimination against northern cancer patients.

Speaker, I refer you, sir, back to your ruling of June 19, 2001, on my point of privilege concerning comments made by freedom of information commissioner Ms Cavoukian. In that case you did not find, as you well know, that a prima facie case of contempt had been established because "there was no mention in the commissioner's report that the commissioner was being hindered or obstructed. The report was simply expressing serious reservations about the impact of the government's policy, and it was requesting a change in that policy."

I argue, Speaker, that the case I bring before you today clearly goes well beyond the scenario with Ms Cavoukian and the one that you ruled on, because the Ombudsman, Mr Lewis, states, and I quote it again, "This step has limited the scope of my investigation."

Like Ms Cavoukian, Mr Lewis was appointed an officer of the Legislature. He works for all of us collectively. He was appointed as an officer of the Legislature to exercise powers and perform duties prescribed in section 2 of the Ombudsman Act. It was his responsibility to investigate the allegations of discrimination that were made by Ms Martel. Here we find evidence of what Ms Cavoukian called the government's "contentious issues management process" in action.

The government attempted to undermine Mr Lewis's investigation into accusations of discrimination against northern cancer patients by denying him access to potentially incriminating documents. Interestingly, Mr Lewis found that the government did indeed discriminate against northern residents, even though Tory politicians and ministry officials blocked his requests under information access rights.

I submit there's only one conclusion that we can draw as a result of this, and that is that there was an effort on the government's part to conceal and certainly to inhibit access by the Ombudsman to certain information. One can only speculate as to how damning Mr Lewis's report could have been had he had full access.

Speaker, I put it to you that the government's obstruction -- and in this instance I submit that it is obstruction; it's the only inference that can be drawn from the words of the Ombudsman -- of the Ombudsman's information request constitutes contempt of this Legislature.

Once again, the 22nd edition of Erskine May defines contempt in this way:

"Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence." That's at page 108.

Erskine May goes on to outline contempt as it applies to obstructing officers of either House, and I submit to you that Mr Lewis clearly is an officer of this House. "It is a contempt to obstruct or molest those employed by or entrusted with the execution of ... their duty."

It continues, "Both Houses will treat as contempts, not only acts directly tending to obstruct their officers in the execution of their duty, but also any conduct which may tend to deter them from doing their duty," page 125.

The Canadian House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit also speaks to this issue in its reference to the now increasingly better known ruling by Speaker M^me Sauvé in 1980, which said, "While our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred," found at page 67 of that text.

You yourself found that a prima facie case of contempt had been made on May 18 last year in your ruling concerning the release of private information. In that instance you referred to section 46 of the Legislative Assembly Act, which defines the jurisdiction of this House to inquire into and punish as breaches of privilege or contempt a range of matters, including "assaults upon or interference with an officer of the assembly while in the execution of his or her duty."

Speaker, I submit to you that, in the Ombudsman's own words, the government's actions have limited the scope of his investigation into one of the most controversial policy positions -- obviously among many, but one of the most controversial policy positions -- ever taken by this government.

I accept the points you made in your June 19 ruling of this year concerning the position of members of Parliament as it relates to freedom of information.

I want to describe to you the hurdles the member for Nickel Belt has come up against in her efforts to gain access to documents from the Ministry of Health. I want to paint a picture of what the Ombudsman was referring to. I think this is an important reference when looking at the conduct of the government and determining whether or not it and its policies effected a contempt of this Parliament by virtue of their obstruction, because I submit that all the facts are necessary to determine, yes, indeed, there was a clear case of obstruction and therefore a clear case of contempt.

In September 2000 Ms Martel requested a copy of the report entitled Patient Travel Assistance Programs in Ontario in the possession of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. She believes the report documents the discrimination against northern cancer patients in the inadequate northern health travel grant. The request was turned down in November 2000 on the excuse that cabinet was using the document to make decisions regarding travel grants. I submit to you that that explanation does not stand well in the whole context of the facts that have been laid out.

1420

Ms Martel appealed the decision to the Information and Privacy Commissioner in December 2000. A mediator ruled that the government was still using the document to make decisions about travel grants and advised Ms Martel to file again in four months if cabinet failed to take any action. Please, sir, understand that it was a mediator who heard from the government the same explanation that had been given to Ms Martel and who, based on that, recommended that Ms Martel wait four months, one can only infer, one must infer, based on information that that mediator obtained from the government in the ministry as the result of acting as mediator. Ms Martel waited and waited some more. Nothing happened. On May 3 this year she started the process all over again by filing yet another freedom of information request with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, and here we are 273 days later. That's nine months after the first request was made by the member for Nickel Belt, and she's still waiting for an answer.

I feel compelled to raise this issue again because I think it is a matter of critical importance to this Legislature. I ask you, Speaker, to consider the damage being done to the democratic functioning of this House, which rests on the cornerstones of transparency and accountability, if officers of this assembly are continually obstructed in the process of carrying out their duties by cabinet and ministry officials who abuse the guidelines governing access to information. I ask you to look very carefully at the words of the Ombudsman. I believe that Mr Lewis has made himself very clear.

Finally, Speaker, I ask you to consider what is fair, because certainly fairness has to be one of the guidelines that determine your approach to this. Southern Ontario cancer patients have enjoyed financial support to help cover the cost of seeking remote treatment. At the same time, thousands of people living in the north have not received a dime in compensation from this government even though they were forced to drive for hours to receive radiation treatment. Northerners have been asking for fairness. Ms Martel, on behalf of those northern constituents, has been asking for that fairness during question period. The Speaker knows the nature of the responses given by the government. There has been an effort, I submit to you -- and again I submit that this is very relevant; the Hansard of this Parliament speaks very much for itself -- that the government's responses inevitably have been obfuscatory at the very least.

Despite the government's best efforts to what we submit was an effort to conceal or cover up bald-faced discrimination, the Ombudsman found in favour of those northern cancer patients. This, we say, is only the tip of the iceberg. These people deserve to know the whole story. So do we. The government ought not to be allowed to hide the truth from them. As outlined in Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada on page 221, the responsibility of the Speaker is to determine if "the evidence on its face as outlined by the member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the matter and to send it to a committee to investigate." In the words of the Ombudsman, I believe I have made such a case, Mr Speaker, and I ask you to find that that is so.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Further to the point of privilege?

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I will be very brief because, as you know, we have raised this same issue in question period repeatedly over the past week. I do want to suggest, Mr Speaker, that since this is only the second time in history that the Ombudsman of Ontario has been denied access to information which he believes is important in carrying out his investigation, it is incumbent upon you to seek at least the reasons as to why that embargo was placed on his access to information. I do believe, unless you can be satisfied that there was a reason provided for embargoing that report that in no way blocked the Ombudsman in carrying out his responsibilities to this Legislative Assembly, that you do have a case to find that the privileges of all members have been violated.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his point of privilege. The government House leader as well?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Just very briefly, I appreciate the concerns that have been raised here, but the document in question, as I understand it, pertains to cabinet documents. There was in fact a cabinet document itself, as I understand it. There has been a convention in many governments and many Parliaments that that information does have protection. There are many reasons for that. So I certainly would respect whatever ruling you wish to raise. But it's certainly our contention that nothing untoward has occurred, that the government has made a prudent and correct decision.

The Speaker: I thank all the members for the input, and I will reserve.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Because of the importance of the bill I introduced a few moments ago, and because I know many members of this House want to ensure that the Keele Valley site is closed by 2002 -- I should tell you as well, Speaker, that I've given the House leader and the Minister of the Environment earlier notice of this so it does not come as a surprise to them -- I am requesting unanimous consent to pass second and third reading of the Keele Valley Closure Act, 2001.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Ontario Liberals understand that strong public education is an absolute essential for our working families. It is not an option. Public education is the ladder our kids climb to achieve their dreams. You don't agree. You pursue your attacks on public education, the latest manifestation being your voucher. Since you've introduced your voucher you have refused to call it a voucher and you choose instead to call it a tax credit, but your friends at the Fraser Institute disagree. Last week, during the committee hearings, Claudia Hepburn appeared before us and she said your tax credit is most definitely a voucher. Premier, if it looks like voucher, if it sounds like a voucher, if it robs our public school system of money just like a voucher, if the Fraser Institute calls it a voucher, why not acknowledge that this is a voucher?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The only party I've heard entertain vouchers is the Liberal Party of Ontario. I know your critic and others have said that if you're going to entertain this policy, it should be done by way of voucher. I think you alluded to either voucher or direct funding to the schools, for those in the Liberal Party seem to favour either direct funding, which would be the same as a voucher -- what we have brought forward, as you know, is a very limited tax credit to help those parents who make the choice of an alternative school for education. This year that tax credit amounts to a budgetary item of $15 million versus $13.8 billion for the public education system. So I would say our ongoing commitment to excellence in education has been demonstrated with every change we have made to enhance --

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

Mr McGuinty: Premier, let me just say that I was most appreciative last week of the Fraser Institute's candour and honesty when it came to their perspective on this matter. They said it was a voucher.

I can tell you, Premier, that the Fraser Institute isn't your only friend smothering you with kindness on this front these days. The National Citizens' Coalition recently started running ads praising your voucher program. They like it because they say it will save the government money. Let me quote the National Citizens' Coalition quoting you, Premier, "Premier Harris suggested the government will save about $7,000 for each student who does not attend a union-run public school."

Premier, why not admit it? Your voucher isn't about choice; it's about saving money. Your voucher is an incentive for parents to remove their kids from public education and put them into private schools, thereby robbing our public schools of desperately needed funding. How can you defend this policy when it is, at the end of the day, a voucher, and when you know, as the National Citizens' Coalition is telling us, that this will take money away from public schools?

Hon Mr Harris: I think, as you know, that as to the number of people over a 10-year period choosing alternative schools in Ontario versus other jurisdictions that had a tax credit or a voucher or a direct payment for those students of those schools, the difference between Ontario, which had no voucher or no tax credit or no funding, was negligible.

1430

So when we looked at those other jurisdictions, the ministry, as you know, does not feel there will be any substantial increase -- maybe a small decrease. But we don't think it will be affected by the tax credit. Therefore, we do not think there are any savings, nor are there any costs, to the public school system. The tax credit is a budgetary item over and above the full funding for the public school system, so therefore it costs the public school system nothing. In fact, it's all part of choice for parents. To suggest otherwise, I think, is just incorrect.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, this is not what you told the United Nations in a very detailed, extensive, considered and thoughtful brief. You told them this would cost somewhere between $300 million and $700 million, and that would come at the expense of public education.

Premier, there are three indisputable and irrefutable facts in this matter: (1) your private school tax credit is a voucher; (2) it's going to take money away from public education; and (3) you have no research, no evidence whatsoever, on which you relied to confirm that this would not cause harm to public education, to our working families and the opportunities for their children. You have been able to provide us with no such evidence or information whatsoever.

In light of all that, Premier, why not admit this was drawn up on the back of an envelope late one night, God knows why? Why don't you do the right thing and scrap this voucher program?

Hon Mr Harris: The ministry, as you know, had the available data from other jurisdictions and from Ontario that showed very little difference when you got some funding or some partial credit or some partial direct funding.

I can give you an example now. Enrolment in the district of Niagara board is projected to go down this year, but they're getting an increase in funding. We will fully fund the public education system, as we always have. We will make sure that it is funded to a level far in excess, as you know, of most jurisdictions in the world on any fair per student level.

The policy of fairness for a partial tax credit to parents has no impact on education funding. But we did get the Liberal position; it was clarified by Greg Sorbara recently. He said that as a matter of policy, when you want to support denominational schools -- and he said he wasn't opposed -- you give the money directly to the denominational schools. You don't --

The Speaker: Order. The Premier's time is up.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, for years now we've heard horror stories about seniors in desperate need being denied access to home care services. Whenever we've raised these matters with you, you've washed your hands of them and said this responsibility lies entirely with the community care access centres, that they call all of the shots on the front lines; this has nothing to do with you. The fact is, Minister, you are the one who's supposed to decide who gets home care and who doesn't. You set the rules for eligibility, and so far you have refused to do so.

Well, Minister, the chickens have finally come home to roost. We now have in our hands a landmark decision of the Health Services Appeal Board, and this ruling says your failure to set eligibility rules means that CCACs can no longer make the determination as to who is and who is not eligible for home care. Seniors are now waiting on you, Mr Minister. They want to know whether or not they are eligible. What are your rules for eligibility and when will you give them to us?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): This is precisely one of the things that was part of the review that was done by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The conclusions of that review, which we have described before this Legislature, indicate that there are managerial issues at the local level with the CCACs, there are standards application issues where different standards are applied in different ways by the CCACs, and these are things that this government is quite concerned about.

Given the fact that we are funding the CCACs at a record amount -- a 72% increase since we got elected -- given the fact that 100% of those dollars are provincial dollars -- not a cent, not a nickel, not a shekel comes from the federal government -- that is, in fact, what we are doing: we are funding. Now we're making sure that the funding goes to the individuals, to the patients, to the recipients of that home care in our communities, but we have to make sure it's done right.

Mr McGuinty: I gather from that response, Minister, that you're unaware that there's a very important legal decision that was made on June 5 and it says that you have yet to fulfill your responsibility.

You have had six years in government to determine the eligibility requirements for our seniors when it comes to getting home care in the province of Ontario. All along you've been blaming those home care deliverers. You were saying, "Those people can't get it right. There are all kinds of inconsistencies out there; they're doing one thing in one part of the province and another thing in the other part of the province." The problem is there are no rules. You have yet to establish the rules, Minister. That's the problem.

So the question I've got for you is, will you now tell our seniors where you draw the line when it comes to their obtaining home care services?

Hon Mr Clement: As the honourable member no doubt is aware, CCACs were formed by this government, but it was done in a way so that we could formalize the CCACs through revisions to a long-term-care act at the most available and most opportune time. But in the meantime there are standards in place in this province, there are rules in place in this province, done by regulation, and of course we're accountable to the Legislature for that.

But what is more important, of course, is that the dollars that are spent, the 72% increase in the CCAC dollars, go to the patients, go to the users of the home care system. That is what we're concerned about on this side of the House: to make sure that every dollar spent on behalf of the taxpayers, on behalf of the citizens of Ontario, goes toward patient care, goes toward home care. That's what we're concerned about on this side of the House. Perhaps the honourable member should spend more time being concerned about the same thing.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I can understand why you are uncomfortable on this. You've been found out. For months now you've been blaming the CCACs. You've been telling them it's their responsibility to make decisions, the tough decisions about whom to provide services to and whom to deny when it comes to home care services.

Now we discover that in six years your government has yet to set eligibility requirements for our seniors. So you can't any longer blame people who work on the front lines, all those people in our community care access centres, those volunteers who dedicate themselves to their parents and their grandparents in their communities. Now it's up to you. You haven't been able to come up with one specific eligibility requirement.

But I have a question for you on behalf of Ontario's seniors. It's very straightforward and very direct. Seniors want to know, will you be income-testing them for home care services?

Hon Mr Clement: The premise of the honourable member's question is fundamentally flawed. He's suggesting that we're not concerned about standards. In fact, we inherited a system where there were no provincial standards, something that when he was a member of the government he seemed quite happy to perpetuate.

But on our side of the House we have been instituting standards. That's why we did a review of the report. Three years after the creation of CCACs as independent bodies, what are the standards that are being applied? Are they acceptable to Ontarians? Are they acceptable to our seniors? Are they acceptable to the recipients of the home care services? Despite the fact that we have increased funding by 72% over five years, is the money going to the care? Despite the fact that there are zero federal Liberal dollars -- zero, zilch, nada -- we have put the money into the system.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister, take a seat. He's got a few seconds left. It's getting too noisy in here. I'm going to have to start to pick people out.

Minister of Health, sorry for the interruption.

Hon Mr Clement: I guess my point is, despite the current federal-provincial funding arrangements which have shown zero dollars on behalf of seniors, on behalf of those vulnerable in our society given by the federal Liberal government to the Ontario government or indeed any other government in the Dominion of Canada, we have put the money in, we have developed the standards, we are developing the expectations, and that process will continue. If the honourable member wants to be helpful in this regard, perhaps he should talk to his federal Liberal counterparts so that they can be part of the solution as well.

1440

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Premier, I'm sure it's not your intention, but you're taking steps that could put lives at risk. The law requires that health and safety inspectors arrive and inspect on-site the workplaces where there's an unresolved workplace refusal as a result of unsafe work. These are unusual situations, less than one a day out of tens of thousands of workplaces, but that on-site inspection is vital. The proof is that there are only some 200 to 300 work refusals a year, but your inspectors issue 2,000 to 3,000 stop-work orders. The fact that they are there, on site, enables them to determine far more than the worker even reported, and it's because they go to the workplace and inspect.

It's a good law, Premier. Ontarians have supported it for 20 years. Why are you revoking it?

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

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): Let's be clear: it will be the inspector's decision to go to a health and workplace safety place, and they'll be allowed to inspect -- excuse me.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): Get it out of your system.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I'm going to need more than a minute.

They would be allowed to inspect these sites at any time. It is up to that professional civil servant to determine, if the call comes in, whether or not it's necessary for that inspector to go there. The simple case I gave you a couple of weeks ago was the person who phoned in to say their boss wasn't qualified to be their boss. That they can review by fax and e-mail and over the phone.

Let's be clear: if you're forcing these health and safety inspectors to go out there and inspect sites they don't necessarily have to go to, for many, many hours they're being taken away from those places they should be at, where there is truly a health and safety risk, and taking advantage of a situation.

We are putting forward this recommendation because it was vetted within the ministry and the inspectors heard it and agreed.

Mr Kormos: That just doesn't add up, because you're shy 80 work site inspectors. Your full complement is some 278; you're down to around 200. You haven't replaced any of those who are gone.

Workplace accidents cause people to die horrible deaths every year. In 1999, the number of workers killed on the job increased to over 200. Last year it increased again to 243. That is 243 people dead because of workplace dangers.

Minister, look: your government listened to the critics of the mega-tribunal and you withdrew that plan. People are telling you to withdraw your plan to kill mandatory on-site inspections. Your own inspectors say, "Such an approach will inevitably result in tragic consequences that the lack of regulatory vigilance led to in Walkerton." Minister, will you listen to your own inspectors about this bill? Will you put safety first? Will you please reconsider Bill 57?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Let's be clear: your statistics are as flawed as your argument. From 1995 to 2000, after we came to office, field visits were up 38%. Inspections are up 45%. Orders issued by inspectors -- get this one -- up 92%. Stop-work orders, up 70%. Work refusals remain unchanged, I say to the member opposite.

We were not happy with the abysmal showing your government had with respect to health and safety. We improved on it. Is there more to do? Of course there's more to do. But we should celebrate this record. Your record was abysmal. I share your concern. That's why we could not accept the failed policies of the NDP, and we made Ontario a safer place to work.

Mr Kormos: I wish I could share your joy and pleasure in that record, because that record is one where, in 1999, the number of workers killed in the workplace rose to over 200. The record that you're praising is one where, in the year 2000, 243 workers died in workplaces in Mike Harris's Ontario.

Look, Bill 57 and its repeal of mandatory on-site inspections are part of the government's efficiency act. Senior Ministry of Labour staff have told us that sacrificing these on-site inspections could, on the basis of your guidelines, save them two or three trips a year. If indeed this service is privatized -- and it appears that that's what Bill 57 is designed to do, to facilitate the privatization of Ministry of Labour inspections; it could be much more -- are you prepared to pick a fight with the health and safety professionals of this province and even your own ministry but for what could be no more than two or three on-site inspections per year?

Hon Mr Stockwell: This is the flaw in the ointment with respect to your argument --

Interjection: The flaw or the fly?

Hon Mr Stockwell: The fly in the ointment with respect to your argument is that it only saves two or three trips a year. There are hundreds of inspectors out there, hundreds. If those hundreds of inspectors save two or three trips a year, that's hours and hours per trip, going to what they will determine in a call that they can do over the phone. Where they could be is at sites that need to be inspected. They can show up at a workplace and inspect a site that's unsafe. This is the flaw in your argument.

The point that you want is for them to go out there chasing inspections they can do over the phone, and not inspect places where they could really save lives. You're not interested in saving lives; you're interested in silly statistics and numbers. That's the difference. We're interested in saving lives. We would like to get them out to the places where they go. We're in favour of seeing the inspectors go to places where they need to go. Going to inspect a site where someone has complained that their boss isn't qualified for them to work for him --

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

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Health.

Minister, I want to talk to you as well about the June 5 Health Services Appeal Board ruling. That was a case that was brought forward by the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly on behalf of one of their clients. In that case, as you know, at least I hope you know, the ruling indicated that the CCACs cannot deny someone benefits because they are not able to set eligibility criteria.

A reading of that decision would take you to the next logical step, that the current actions of the CCACs, as a result of the funding pressures that they are experiencing, of cutting services to seniors based solely on the dollars available and not on the health needs of the seniors would also be an appealable item and an item which is likely to receive results in the Health Services Appeal Board similar to the ACE decision, which would overturn that decision.

In light of this new decision, could you advise this House what you're telling CCACs about their service cuts?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The fact of the matter is that the decision is a commonsensical decision in the sense that, of course, we would all want certain minimum standards, at the very least, to be applicable province-wide and there is only one body in the entire province that can do that, and that's the province of Ontario. So in that respect it's a commonsensical decision.

The fact of the matter is, we are seized of that issue. When we created CCACs in the first place, we said, "Here are the standards that we expect you to meet." The problem that we're facing, based on the review that was done by the independent third party, is that they are meeting these standards in a very haphazard way, or some parts of the province are meeting the standard, others are not meeting the standard. Some have the managerial competence to do that, others are struggling. That's the information that we shared with this House, that came about as a result of the third party report. So we are seized with this information. We want a solution too, and the solution is not the status quo.

Ms Lankin: Minister, I'm getting a really big suspicion here that you actually don't know about the content of this decision.

Let me say to you, CCACs are currently making service cuts based on the dollars that you have told them are available this year, not based on the health needs of the clients that they serve. There is a basic problem here in terms of those seniors, and for you to continue to say that your goal is that the $72 million gets to client care doesn't help us resolve the issue of the cuts seniors are experiencing today.

I can tell you over and over again the reviews that have been done, your latest one, through the Fleuelling inquest, through many others, have told you that over 15% of the dollars are being spent administering your competitive bidding model. You've been told to scrap it.

Minister, you've got to do two things today: you've got to announce that you're scrapping the competitive bidding model, and you've got to announce that health services will be given based on health needs, not on your arbitrary budgets that you've set.

Hon Mr Clement: Again, the fundamental premise is that in some way underfunding is going on. We have increased the funding since her government by 72%.

We have example after example of individual CCACs that have said they can live within the budget and deliver the excellent services required by the citizenry. The Oxford CCAC said, "We can live within the budget, we can deliver the services." The Niagara CCAC said, "We can live within the budget, we can deliver the services." The York CCAC, after a 193% increase in their funding since they were in power, said they can live within the budget, they can deliver the right kind of services to the right people in the province of Ontario in their catchment area.

Those are the results that I care about. What I want to do is ensure that every CCAC has the managerial ability, has the competence, has the standards to deliver excellent services that are required to the people of Ontario who require them. Join me in that task and maybe we can get somewhere.

1450

VISITORS

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Just before a group from my riding has to go on their tour, I know all members will want to join with me in recognizing the Adjala-Tosorontio Residents Association in the public gallery opposite. There's a very large crowd of them here today from my riding.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Ontario seniors are afraid right now of what it is you might be doing to their drug plan. They're afraid they might wake up one day to discover that suddenly you've imposed an income test or that they're going to have to start paying new user fees. To make matters worse, you can do all this under cover of darkness. You can do it when the House is recessed, after the by-election is over and you think no one is watching. You can do these things -- put in a new income test, put into place new user fees -- just by way of regulation, just by way of a signature. Premier, can you relieve Ontario seniors of their anxiety by guaranteeing for us today that you will not further restrict seniors' access to drugs or add any user fees?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me assure seniors of this: as long as this government is in office and as long as they continue to elect the Progressive Conservative Party to government, they will continue to get the largest funding for drug programs and for home care that is available anywhere in the country.

I can also tell them that when I look at the Liberal Party, when the Liberal Party was in office, the drug benefit plan that is so sacred and so important to seniors was funded to the tune of $647 million, and that's when you left office; that's at the end of your term. Under our government today, this same drug plan has tripled to about $1.8 billion. That's what happens when you elect a Harris Progressive Conservative government over a Liberal government when it comes to the drug plan that is so sacred and so important to them.

Mr McGuinty: I'm sure your words of comfort will be very well received by seniors, Premier. I guess that they've never felt more secure, that they've never felt they could have greater confidence in a Premier since your arrival. I guess that's how they're feeling.

Let me tell you the truth, Premier.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: I guess sarcasm is perhaps a bit too sophisticated for the members opposite.

Let me tell you the facts, Premier. Let me --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, the government benches, and the other side now as well. The leader of the official opposition has the floor.

Mr McGuinty: Let me tell you some of the recent words of comfort offered to Ontario's seniors by the Minister of Health. He referred to our seniors as the "richest generation" of seniors "in the history of the world." That's what he said about our seniors. Here are a few facts. One half of our seniors between 65 and 75 years of age make just a little over $16,000 a year; only 0.5% of our seniors have incomes over $60,000, and still, Premier --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm sorry to interrupt him. I know it throws his speaking off and it's very disruptive, but I'm getting it now from both sides back and forth, when their own leader is trying to speak. Come to order. I'm going to start picking people out and they'll be asked to leave. My patience is up right now. The leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you said that Ontario seniors should thank God they live in this province. Your Minister of Health himself said they are the "richest generation" of seniors "in the history of the world." I just gave you the opportunity to provide every possible reassurance to our seniors that you will not introduce income testing for their drugs or user fees for their drugs, and you refused to provide that assurance. I'll give you one more chance. Prove you're on the side of seniors now.

Hon Mr Harris: Let me carry on with what this government has done. I don't know why the Liberal Party wants poor seniors. We're very proud that our seniors are retiring, on average, with more dollars than ever in their history. We're very proud that through our tax cuts and a booming economy our seniors are better off. We want the wealthiest seniors that we can possibly have, and we're very proud that they're better off today than they were under the Liberals or the NDP. We're very proud that since 1995, 3,100 drugs are available today, 1,200 new ones that weren't available when we took office in 1995. We're very proud of this fact.

We're very proud of the fact that since the Liberals were in office -- for example, in home care, you spent $305 million for home care when you left office; we are now spending $1.1 billion. We have more than tripled the funding for home care. Why have we been able to do this? Because we have a booming economy, because we have tax cuts to create more --

The Speaker: Order. The Premier's time is up.

LANDFILL

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, today the opposition has attempted to forward a position regarding the closure of the Keele Valley dump. This is an obvious reaction to the panic that the Liberal candidate in Vaughan-King-Aurora is facing in this by-election. Minister, this is just another flip-flop from the Liberal opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for London-Fanshawe, come to order, please. He's yelling right beside her. The minister has been trying to answer. I can see their faces; they can't even hear.

Sorry. The member for Thornhill.

Mrs Molinari: Minister, this is just another flip-flop of the Liberal Leader of the Opposition. When the Liberals were in government they had the opportunity. They did nothing. Coincidentally, the candidate in Vaughan-King-Aurora is the one who is trying to come back.

Minister, can you clarify this government's long-standing --

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

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): The member is right. The Liberal government has had 16 years to take a position on the Keele Valley dump site. Their solution to garbage for Toronto was the Keele Valley. Ever since 1995, our Premier and our member, Al Palladini, have made it absolutely clear the Keele Valley dump site will close in 2002.

Mrs Molinari: My supplementary question is, Minister, have you had a chance to look at the bill, and can you tell us what it means to the surrounding community?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Unfortunately, what we have before us is a very hastily and poorly crafted bill. It is a shameful example of political expediency and grandstanding. This bill, if introduced, would have dire consequences for the people in the communities surrounding Keele Valley. This is what happens when a party which has refused to listen to the concerns of the people for over 16 years drafts a bill. This bill would not allow for the remediation of the site. It would not allow for any dealing with erosion. It would not allow for anyone to deal with the littering. It would not allow for new fences to be constructed. It is absolutely unbelievable that such a bill would be introduced.

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

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): To the master of muster when it comes to indignation, to the minister of indignation, on the same issue, the Minister of the Environment --

1500

The Speaker: Order. You'll have to withdraw that.

Mr McGuinty: I'm sure viewers understood who I was talking about.

Madam Minister, you will understand why the people of Vaughan-King-Aurora have some very real concerns about your government's commitment on this front. The fact of the matter is, there is a loophole present in the legislation which allows you to extend the lifetime of the dump.

Mayor Jackson in 1996 wrote to the Ministry of the Environment, and then-Minister Elliott said that no, she would not then commit to closing this loophole because you might need to extend it. I'm just wondering why it is that you won't support my bill so that we can put this thing to bed with absolute finality.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I want to refer again to this McGuinty-Sorbara bill that has been introduced today. I want to point out to this Legislature once again how poorly drafted this bill is and that it is an example of political expediency and grandstanding. If you take a look at what is being proposed here, they are recommending that the certificate of approval be revoked. This would put the health and the environment of that community at risk. It would not allow for any remediation of the site. It would not allow for us to deal with problems of erosion. It would not allow for us to deal with problems of littering. It would not allow for us to control leaching. It would not allow for us to maintain the surface above the waste. It would not allow for us to use the land in a --

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

Mr McGuinty: Minister, it's just a simple bill to close a dump. We're not talking about nuclear weaponry here. Let's take a look at the record. Let's listen to what the Minister of the Environment said to Her Worship Lorna Jackson back in 1996, when she said, "Would you please close this loophole." This is what the minister at the time said: "This section provides a contingency in the event that Metro Toronto ... runs out of landfill capacity before long-term alternatives can be found. I believe it would be appropriate to leave this part in place until the regions have found replacement landfills."

What the people of Vaughan-King-Aurora want is what I've incorporated in my bill. They want to know that you're prepared to nail the final nail in the coffin of this dump in 2002, and they want to know why you won't support it.

Hon Mrs Witmer: This simple McGuinty-Sorbara bill is an example of a party that eight days before a by-election has decided to grandstand. It's an example of a party that has refused to make a commitment. Our Premier and our colleague Al Palladini made a commitment to the people in that riding. That dump will close in 2002. I cannot support the McGuinty-Sorbara bill. We will close the dump in 2002.

LABOUR PROTEST

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. On Friday, June 8, on CFRB radio station I was informed that Sid Ryan planned to develop flying squads of union members for the purpose of randomly shutting down industries. Apparently Mr Ryan is opposed to the economic success of the Harris government and wants to penalize the industries that are doing well because of our policies.

Since he was unable to get elected, and I'm not surprised that he tried to win Marilyn Mushinski's riding, he now wants to use militant, brownshirt bullying to bring attention to the views of the union.

Are you aware of this plan, and, if so, is it legal to attempt to bring a company to its knees by such action?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I think all members would agree that we would expect all people in this province to live within the laws of the land. It is obviously against the law to do such a thing. It would certainly break any collective bargaining agreement that those industries would have with their unions.

I would hardly suggest that there would be anyone in this House who would counsel any member of the population within the province of Ontario to go out and wilfully break any laws of the province.

I can only suggest to Mr Ryan and his flying squads that it would be particularly important to understand that it's important in a democratic society to have laws, to live within the laws. Demonstrations are OK, they're acceptable and certainly welcomed, but it's very important to ensure that those demonstrations don't go too far and in fact break laws. I can caution everyone who would take part in these that that would be a watchword to live by.

Mr Galt: Thank you very much, Minister, for that response indicating how illegal it would be and that it would indeed be breaking the law.

It's very possible that Sid Ryan and his flying-squad band of bullies could hit an industry in my riding and try and shut it down. This could indeed be disastrous for the workers who depend on their paycheque. It could cause bankruptcy of the industry and result in large numbers of layoffs, who might be union members, and it could even be dangerous for the residents in the surrounding area. This action, of course, is wrong, ill-conceived and unfair.

Minister, should this happen within Northumberland, what advice can I share with the community and industry leaders as to how to respond to such an illegal action?

Hon Mr Stockwell: There are obviously many remedies they could use: through the courts and the Ontario Labour Relations Board would be some of the avenues they could take. I think there's a growing trend here, and I think all members of this House would agree that having CUPE fund OCAP and notably say in the funding that they agree with what they classify as street theatre and we would classify in this House as damage to public buildings and violent acts -- I think we can all agree that these kinds of actions are reprehensible. I myself would suggest to Mr Ryan and to you and to anyone else that I think we need to band together and decide to say very clearly in one voice from this Legislature that intimidating and frightening constituency staff, intimidating and frightening workers at their workplace, is unacceptable. I don't think anyone in this House would disagree with that.

On a final note, I would ask that the members who have a closer tie with Mr Ryan -- I know of maybe one -- possibly talk to him and suggest that this is a flawed public policy approach for his union to take, and --

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

AIR QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): A question for the Premier. Premier, coal continues to burn in Ontario Power Generation plants, causing smog from Welland to Parry Sound, clear across the province these days, and pumping out 38 million tonnes of greenhouse gas. Look at the sad facts, Premier: the Sierra Club gave you an F minus on climate change.

Your own energy minister calls Nanticoke "the cleaner alternative," and claims that Kyoto requires him to allow emissions trading. Neither of these things is true, Premier, but what is true is that you let OPG use trading to exceed emissions targets by 12 million tonnes. So I'm asking you today, Premier, will you agree to suspend the emission trading program that allows excess smog and greenhouse gas from OPG?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The emission trading program was a key part of the Kyoto commitment. It is viewed as one of the ways in which we can get overall reductions of greenhouse gases.

I think the member will also know we are committed to continuing to protect and to improve Ontario's air quality. We've aggressively tackled air quality, including climate change and smog, through transboundary air pollution initiatives. We continue to lead the way. We continue to commit to standards that are the toughest in Canada. We continue to commit to standards that are the toughest in North America. We continue to challenge the Americans to match these standards.

So everything from Drive Clean, where we lead North America, to new, tougher standards -- far tougher than the NDP had for our electricity sector -- are all part of our action plan. What we do here at the same time is we press others to do more.

1510

Ms Churley: So, Premier, what you're saying is that everything is hunky-dory and we shouldn't have to worry. That's what you told us about the state of the environment before Walkerton happened, and you were warned then about possible dire consequences.

I want to focus now on Nanticoke. Despite the fantasy of Minister Wilson, you know, or you should know, it's the largest source in Ontario of smog and greenhouse gas.

You could save lives in Ontario through smog reduction and you could protect the atmosphere from climate change by doing the right thing with Nanticoke. You could have Nanticoke converted to natural gas and you could eliminate it from participation in the emissions trading program that makes it possible for OPG to buy the right to increase air pollution, which is exactly what they're doing, which makes the air worse and our hydro bills higher. Will you do that, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the Minister of Energy can respond to that.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): This government has done more to try and decrease smog coming out of the electricity sector than any of the previous two governments in this province: tough new emissions standards are tougher than those in the United States of America, tougher than any other province in Canada, including the great coal-producing province of Alberta, where they're actually building new coal plants, not something we're doing in the province of Ontario. In fact, we've spent $2 billion in the last five years bringing in state-of-the-art pollution control equipment.

The honourable member and the NDP go on time after time and try and tell Ontarians that the reason our coal plants are running is we're exporting electricity. No one exported more electricity than the NDP during their five years in office -- in fact, 67% more than at any time during our time in office, and all of that coming out of the coal plants. Don't talk to us about smog created by electricity, because you created more than any other government before you and any other government --

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

RED TAPE COMMISSION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and it concerns the Red Tape Commission. We know now that on the basis of the evidence tendered by the Cabinet Office, by the red tape secretariat and by Mr Steve Gilchrist that the members of the Red Tape Commission have access to a very wide range of very important, very sensitive and very valuable government information. Mr Frank Sheehan, the current co-chair of the Red Tape Commission, is a private citizen. My question today to you is simply this: given the extraordinarily sensitive and valuable government information that the Red Tape Commission and its membership possess, what specific rules does the government of Ontario apply to the members of the Red Tape Commission so that members -- private citizens like Frank Sheehan -- possessed of such extremely valuable information do not profit out in the marketplace by virtue of their possession of that information?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Mr Sheehan is not a private citizen in the definition the member is suggesting here. He is an order-in-council appointment, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and he takes an oath of secrecy like hundreds of others do, public servants who have access to confidential cabinet materials. This is nothing unusual.

In terms of the conflict question, I do agree that there is no provision for Mr Sheehan or other members in positions like he is in in this particular situation to reveal any potential conflicts. That has not been a requirement, but certainly Mr Sheehan has indicated that he is quite willing to undergo that process, if you will.

Mr Conway: This is very helpful. There is no provision to guard against potential conflicts of interest here. The Members' Integrity Act makes plain that all of you as cabinet ministers, in your duties as cabinet ministers, because you've got access to this very valuable insider information, are specifically prevented from a whole series of things. You can't be engaged in business. If you've got assets, they must be put in a management trust. That's there for a good reason.

We now know, according to the Cabinet Office documents, that this Red Tape Commission has access to a sweeping range of very sensitive and very valuable government information. Frank Sheehan and Steve Gilchrist, we know from their most recent filings to the ethics office, have active outside business interests. They are in possession of extremely valuable information. I want to know, how is it that these people for months and years have had this extraordinary access and are not held to the same standard as cabinet ministers, who are understandably prevented from engaging in business because of the enormous potential there is for serious conflict of interest?

Hon Mr Runciman: There's a clear difference here. The Red Tape Commission is enabled to provide advice to cabinet and to committees of cabinet with respect to legislation and regulatory changes that are being proposed, as well as regulations of the government that they feel are onerous and not suitable to an enhanced business climate in Ontario. To suggest that individuals like Mr Sheehan should be required to place their assets in trust I think is quite inappropriate. Mr Sheehan has sworn an oath of secrecy. He abides by the same confidentiality provisions as any member of cabinet or any member of the public service who also has access to these kinds of documents.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the minister responsible for seniors. There has been a lot of media attention recently about the well-being of seniors in Ontario and in Canada. Last Saturday the Toronto Star printed an article that compared the quality of life for seniors in Ontario vis-à-vis the rest of Canada. In fact the article states, "Within Canada, Ontario ranks high among the provinces and territories.... Seniors are living longer and healthier." However, this was not always the case. Historically, long-term care and community services were underfunded in Ontario. Since the Harris government was elected in 1995, these services for seniors have seen the largest increase.

As the minister responsible for seniors, could you please elaborate on what proof this government has that Ontario is a leader in investing and planning for seniors?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): I'd like to thank the member for York North for her question. She is quite right: more has been invested in seniors' health services in this province than by any other government in this province's history. Historically, low funding by previous governments has been a challenge.

I recall that the Sorbara-Peterson Liberals, when they were in government standing on this side of the House, promised Ontarians they would build 7,000 new hospital beds. What in fact happened was that Elinor Caplan and Greg Sorbara -- not only was he silent when they closed hundreds of hospital beds in York region; they closed thousands of beds across Ontario. In the last three years of the Sorbara government on this side of the House, the Sorbara Liberals didn't build one new long-term-care bed.

The fact of the matter is the Liberals don't understand the needs of seniors as an aging population and they have done nothing but break their promises and give hollow words to seniors.

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

Mrs Munro: Minister, thank you for your response. I appreciate your answer with regard to the province as a whole. However, York region has had a dramatic growth in the population over 65 in the last five years; in fact, 21,000 people, or a 40% increase. Today, how can we be assured that services for seniors will continue to keep pace with the growing number of seniors in the ridings of York region?

Hon Mr Jackson: There's no question that the Liberals broke every promise they made to Ontario seniors when they were in government. When we set about, six years ago, to correct the inequities of the past Liberal government, the proof is very clear for Ontario's seniors, and the Toronto Star agreed with us: we've got three times as much funding for the Ontario drug benefit plan, $1.8 billion, and we've got five times more home care funding for York region, up to $50 million. Yet we know that in the last year Greg Sorbara watched as his government cut home care in his own York region.

We have seen a 90% increase in the number of long-term-care beds: at the Villa Colombo, 160 new beds; Yee Hong Centre, 200 beds; Mon Sheong, 120 beds; the Baycrest Centre. Seniors have benefited from the leadership of MPPs like Tina Molinari, Frank Klees, Julia Munro, David Tsubouchi and Al Palladini --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

1520

RED TAPE COMMISSION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My second question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, you seem to not understand what your own Cabinet Office has said is the function of the Red Tape Commission. Let me refresh your memory and the memory of the House.

"According to the Cabinet Office, the Red Tape Commission is inextricably connected to the cabinet decision-making process." According to the Cabinet Office, the Red Tape Commission has been acting "as a screening process for cabinet and its committees on a wide range of policy issues." The director of the red tape secretariat swore an affidavit to confirm that in fact the Red Tape Commission had sweeping access across all aspects of the Ontario government.

With that as evidence tendered by your government, I want to come back to the critical question: we know that people like Frank Sheehan and Steve Gilchrist -- Gilchrist has confirmed it -- have routine access to a great amount of very sensitive and highly valuable insider information. Are you telling us that cabinet ministers are expected to behave at one standard and people like Sheehan and the other red tape commissioners are expected to operate at a much lower standard, with no conflict oversight?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm stating clearly that Mr Sheehan, I think, can be quite fairly compared to senior civil servants who indeed have access to the same kinds of material. They do not have to put their assets in trust. I think that's what the member is suggesting, and that's simply not the case. This is an effort, I think, to suggest that something nefarious is occurring here. That's not the case. Mr Sheehan is doing a good job. The Red Tape Commission is doing a good job. Any suggestions to the contrary are just inappropriate.

Mr Conway: Let me say, as a former cabinet minister to a current cabinet minister, we both know that the cabinet is specifically precluded from these kinds of outside activities, as are public servants, for a very good reason: you've got very valuable insider information. The province is about to find out that Mike Harris's Red Tape Commission has been everywhere, across policy, across enforcement, across compliance. Frank Sheehan and Steve Gilchrist have very powerful mandates. They are armed with very, very important and valuable information. In the morning they do their red tape work, and after hours they are out actively engaged in business, something you are not allowed to be doing.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): That's a scurrilous attack. Shame on you.

Mr Conway: I have got the filings. I want to know --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member take his seat. The member for Etobicoke North isn't going to yell out. This is his last warning. The last warning to the member for Etobicoke North and he's out. You don't shout across like that to the members.

Sorry, to the member.

Mr Conway: I want to know in the public interest why Bob Runciman, cabinet minister, possessed as he is of insider information, is specifically precluded by statute from a whole range of business and outside activity, and Frank Sheehan and Steve Gilchrist, possessed, we hear now, of the same kind of information, apparently are not so proscribed.

Hon Mr Runciman: This is, I think, an unfortunate attack on the integrity of at least two individuals here. The reality is these individuals are not the decision-makers. They provide advice to the government and cabinet committees of government. They have access to information that parliamentary assistants have access to, hundreds of public servants have access to.

They have a clear record of success. One is a former member of this House; one is a current member of this House. They have a clear record of success -- the facts are there -- as individuals. As a commission on the part of the government, they have cut thousands of unnecessary regulations and improved the business climate in this province.

As I said, the facts are there. Some political smear job is simply not going to change that.

LIVING LEGACY DAY

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. I know he's taking his seat. Minister, my question is in relation to a constituent who wants to compliment you on the job that you're doing in the protection of logs and frogs. My constituent also noticed something the other day, something called Living Legacy Day, and was wondering if that's a new statutory holiday in Ontario through your ministry and if you could explain Living Legacy Day.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I think that the question from the member for London-Fanshawe is an excellent one. I'm glad he put it forward today, and I'm glad to edify all the members of the Legislature that in fact this next June 24 will be Living Legacy Day in the parks in Ontario. We will waive the gate fee for all the people who want to participate on June 24. We have some excellent programs planned, including a Carolinian tree tour at Wheatley, a Legacy Kids' Creature Theatre and Game Extravaganza at Rainbow Falls Provincial Park and other of those kinds of activities for young people and families all across our parks system.

Of course, Living Legacy celebrates 378 new parks and protected areas, over six million additional acres of protected land in Ontario and a $100-million commitment to the largest Ontario heritage program ever in the history of this province. We're going to have fun on June 24.

PETITIONS

HOME CARE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have a 10,000-name petition which was gathered by the clients, administration and staff at the community care access centre in Sudbury. It is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it says:

"Whereas the need for home care services is rapidly growing in Ontario due to the aging of the population and hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the prices paid by community care access centres to purchase home care services for their clients are rising due to factors beyond the control of community care access centres; and

"Whereas the funding provided by the Ontario government through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is inadequate to meet the growing need for home care services; and

"Whereas the funding shortfall, coupled with the implications of Bill 46, the Public Sector Accountability Act, currently before the Legislature are forcing CCACs" -- community care access centres -- "to make deep cuts in home care services without any policy direction from the provincial government;

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

"(1) That Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to take control of policy-setting for home care services through rational, population-based health planning rather than simply by underfunding the system; and

"(2) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to provide sufficient funding to CCACs to support the home care services that are the mandate of CCACs in the volumes needed to meet their communities' rapidly growing needs; and

"(3) That the Legislative Assembly make it necessary for the provincial government to notify the agencies it funds of the amount of funding they will be given by the government in a fiscal year at least three (3) months before the commencement of the fiscal year."

I agree with this petition and I have signed it.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Thank you kindly, Speaker. I've got another group of petitions from young James Sandham Jr, a Centennial Secondary School student, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Public money belongs in public schools.

"We, the undersigned students, teachers and parents, are in opposition to the Ontario Progressive Conservative's proposed Bill 45, which would see public tax dollars used to fund private schools through a system of tax credits. This bill promotes a two-tier education system with one set of schools for the wealthy and one set of schools for the less privileged; undermines the concept of a public education system equally accessible to all, regardless of social class, religion or race; encourages segregation and isolation of religious groups, therefore undermining the multicultural aspect of Ontario's education system; paves the way for future privatization of public services,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, oppose the passage of Bill 45."

I have affixed my signature as well.

1530

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): As opposed to the member from Niagara who has a couple of signatures, I have hundreds here and many of them come from Kennedy Road Tabernacle Christian School, John Knox Christian School and Khalsa, in the member from Bramalea-Gore-Malton's area. The petition says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We firmly agree with this, and this young lady, Leora, is going to be pleased to take this down to the Clerk's desk.

NURSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are now more than 13,000 signatures on this petition, and once again I sign my signature in full agreement with the concerns.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the northern health travel grant offers a reimbursement of partial travel costs at a rate of 30.4 cents per kilometre one way for northerners forced to travel for cancer care while travel policy for southerners who travel for cancer care features full reimbursement costs for travel, meals and accommodation;

"Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location;

"Whereas northern Ontario residents pay the same amount of taxes and are entitled to the same access to health care and all government services and inherent civil rights as residents living elsewhere in the province;

"Whereas we support the efforts of ... Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care, founded by Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario, Northeast Region, to correct this injustice against northerners travelling for cancer treatment;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to fund full travel expenses for northern Ontario cancer patients and eliminate the health care apartheid which exists presently in the province of Ontario."

I agree with the petitioners. I have signed my name to it and I call on the government to do something with respect to the Ombudsman's report.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows: