role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

December 6, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Dec-06 vol. A (PDF)

L114A - Wed 6 Dec 2000 / Mer 6 déc 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

TRANSALTA COGENERATING FACILITY

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

RÉNO DÉPÔT

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION LAYOFFS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY

ST FRANCIS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

NURSING STAFF

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

WEARING OF RIBBONS AND PINS

VISITORS

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

MINISTRIES' WEB SITES

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION

MANDATORY DRUG TESTING

EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION

MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

MINISTRIES' WEB SITES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FARMING PRACTICES

SKILLS TRAINING

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

ONTARIO INNOVATION TRUST

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

PROTECTION OF MINORS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT, 2000 (CONTINUED) / LOI DE 2000 SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI (SUITE)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I'm here to respond in a way to the Minister of Community and Social Services, who yesterday took it upon himself to threaten members of this side of the Legislature with sanctions for having protested some of his actions. What I want to do instead is draw attention to this Legislature and to pledge, I'm sure on behalf of other members of this Legislature, perhaps not restricted to this side, that we will not be intimidated by the Minister of Community and Social Services to talk to him about the dereliction of duty that's taking place on the part of this government.

Specifically, I want to talk about the increase in deprivation that's taking place in this province on this government's watch. We have a member opposite who's grinning. I think for this government to divorce itself from its fundamental responsibility-of all the things it does, making sure that children, that families, that seniors have enough to eat and live in some state of dignity in this province should be prime among them. Instead we have a government that has abdicated, a government that has put in the way of people more barriers rather than fewer.

Last month, 118,986 children used food banks in this province. They used food banks in a time of unprecedented prosperity because they can't have the focus of this government that has allowed rents to increase by 25%, that has seen food prices go up by 15%, that has seen other things like transit go up far ahead of inflation, and not one single cent from this government for the poorest people in this province, who will, by dint of their own ingenuity, find a way. But the deprivation, the suffering they go through is put upon them and it is deepened by the ignorance of a minister who won't do his job.

TRANSALTA COGENERATING FACILITY

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): The lead

article in the November 4 Sarnia Observer reads as follows: "Energy Plant Welcomed." On November 3, I, along with Ministers Newman and Wilson, had the honour to assist in the groundbreaking ceremonies for the TransAlta cogenerating facility. This is a $400-million investment. The facility will produce 440 megawatts of power when fully operational in October 2002. That is enough power to supply a city of 350,000 people. Over the next 18 months there will be 400 construction jobs created, which will result in 20 to 30 permanent jobs once the project is completed.

Equally important is the fact that this plant will burn natural gas. Emissions will be reduced by 60% on a per-kilowatt basis through improved fuel usage and equipment upgrades.

This is a win-win situation. It's good for the local economy but it's also very friendly to the air we breathe in the area.

I quote from a September 16, 2000, editorial in the Sarnia Observer:

"The controversial project agreement may have been a bitter pill for local construction unions to swallow last year, but it should seem a little sweeter now....

"The project agreement between unions and contractors was designed to encourage new construction in the valley after concerns were raised over local construction costs....

"With Thursday's announcement, it's clear that strategy is having a positive impact on the community."

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I want to express my opposition to the Harris government's sudden decision to break up and sell off most of the businesses associated with the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. The last we heard from the Minister of Northern Development and Mines was that he ordered the ONTC to make recommendations on how to improve rail passenger service in the northeast. Now northeastern Ontario is reeling from the sudden announcement that all the components of the ONTC are up for sale, save for the bus service.

We, the residents of northeastern Ontario, are the shareholders of the ONTC and we should have a say concerning its future. The ONTC has been providing passenger and freight rail service, bus service, telecommunications, ferry service to Manitoulin Island, for decades. It is this government agency that opened up northeastern Ontario with its railway and telecommunications systems.

In the past six years, the Harris government has created this crisis, as in so many other things, by starving this organization of the cash it so desperately needs to deliver these important services to Ontarians. We need to immediately see the consultant's report that concluded this breakup was the only answer. Then, in the new year, we need a series of public meetings in each of the towns along the rail corridor to give the people an opportunity for input as to how their transportation company should be managed.

Again Mike Harris has betrayed the trust of northern Ontarians by this arbitrary decision. Again Mike Harris has abandoned northern Ontario.

RÉNO DÉPÔT

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): The construction and home improvement market in Ontario is worth more than $6 billion, and it's still growing. It is valued at more than $17.2 billion across Canada.

Last Wednesday I had the pleasure of attending the opening of the Building Box, a new home improvement warehouse store in Scarborough Centre. A few hours later a second location was opened in Cambridge. An additional 13 stores are slated to open across Ontario in the next three years. The Scarborough and Cambridge stores are the first phase of a $350-million investment in Ontario by Réno Dépôt, a Quebec-based subsidiary of the Groupe Castorama of France. The group is the world's third-largest home improvement retailer, with 503 stores in 11 countries.

The Scarborough store represents an investment of over $23 million in Scarborough Centre. Hundreds of construction jobs were produced during construction of the facility, and more than 300 new, permanent jobs have been created in the community. I welcome Réno Dépôt's investment in Scarborough Centre's people and their faith in Ontario's booming economy. I wish them well in their future investments in the province.

Please join me in congratulating the company on its expansion into Ontario and in welcoming the president and CEO of Réno Dépôt, Mr Yves Archambault, to the Legislature.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION LAYOFFS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): As the Whig Standard reported today, "A big bag of coal was delivered to about 150 Ministry of Transportation employees in Kingston yesterday when the government announced that their jobs will be lost to the private sector."

As the privatization bulldozer moves on, it is well to recall the words of David Turnbull, Minister of Transportation, when he stated at the introduction of Bill 137 that it was the intent of the bill only to transfer driver examination services to the private sector. In the Kingston MTO office, that affects 20 of the 150 jobs lost to the private sector. What we have said all along is that Bill 137 is not just about transferring driver testing, but it has also affected many other jobs as well in the Ministry of Transportation, such as data and records management and other driver and vehicle services.

With all the problems the government is having in privatizing much-needed government services, especially just recently in the area of correctional services where a minister has resigned over alleged offences committed related to the Young Offenders Act, I implore the government to stop its reckless privatization of good government services. They are done for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to drive the wages of public sector employees lower. Instead the government should boost the morale of all those public servants, whether it's in the public service or in the broader public service in such vital areas such as teaching and the nursing profession.

I implore this government to stop its wanton destruction of our public institutions and instead boost the morale of the men and women who continue to serve the Ontario public in such an exemplary fashion.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): November 30, 2000: that was the day the Ministry of Health was supposed to make concrete recommendations to the Minister of Health to solve the doctor specialist shortage in our community. November 30 has come and gone and we have heard nothing from the Minister of Health about this crisis or how the government will solve it. We do know that the crisis has gotten worse in recent months, and the silence from the government on this important issue is just not acceptable.

At a meeting on May 17 at the Sudbury Regional Hospital, the chief of staff and the then-chief of nursing told government officials how bad the situation was then. Since January 1999, our community had lost 15 doctors and specialists, including our only full-time thoracic surgeon and our only hospital-based neurologist. Further, 22 family doctors had withdrawn their hospital privileges due to a heavy workload, leaving 30% of Sudbury's population as orphaned patients when admitted to hospital.

Government officials said they understood these problems and promised to bring recommendations to the Minister of Health by November 30 to solve them. Now, six months later, the crisis has deepened. There are now 14 full-time emergency physicians when we need 20. The present group is overwhelmed every day, and too many patients are still orphans when admitted to hospital. One specialist in each of obstetrics, general surgery, oncology, paediatrics and orthopaedics has left since May. There is still no thoracic surgeon and no hospital-based neurologist. Our shortage of specialists is 30% worse than the provincial average and we have 20,000 people without a family doctor.

November 30 has come and gone. Where are the recommendations?

CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY

Mr David Young (Willowdale): A short time ago, I attended the "Heart of Fashion ... Shop for the Cure" charity gala at the Bayview Village shopping centre. The proceeds from this very unique fundraiser, which featured festive shopping, wine tasting and a silent auction, will support the Canadian Cancer Society's breast cancer research program. The Canadian Cancer Society does wonderful work to assist people living with cancer and supports our medical researchers in search of a cure.

Cancer is a deeply personal illness for all of us. We have all been touched by this devastating illness, whether it is a personal struggle or the struggle of a neighbour or a cherished loved one. The challenge we as a community face in dealing with cancer is enormous, but every challenge must be met by a dream.

This disease demands that we fight, that we muster all possible courage to successfully defeat it. The support of the Canadian Cancer Society makes it a little bit easier for individuals and their families to fight this disease. The society and its volunteers provide hope that we will one day eradicate cancer. Their work involves every community across this country. On behalf of the residents of Willowdale, I want to thank the Canadian Cancer Society and its volunteers for all that they do and all the hope they provide.

ST FRANCIS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I am absolutely delighted to rise in my place today as the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke to pay tribute to the staff and volunteers at St Francis Memorial Hospital in Barry's Bay, one of the very best community hospitals not just in Ontario but across Canada, on the occasion of their 40th anniversary.

I well remember the day 40 years ago this fall when Premier Leslie M. Frost walked into that beautiful new facility. I was in grade 4, and we got the afternoon off school. He opened a wonderful health care facility in the heart of the Madawaska Valley. The vision of Monsignor Peter Biernacki of Barry's Bay had finally been realized. I want to say to the current board, ably chaired by John Sorensen, and to the present auxiliary, ably led by Ms Lorraine Finn, that they have carried on the great tradition of that hospital.

The Sisters of St Joseph in Pembroke were responsible for the leadership of that hospital in terms of a professional nursing staff in the first 15 years, and they have been succeeded in the last 15 to 25 years by largely a lay staff.

I want to say to the volunteers, people like Theresa Beanish and Agnes Pecarskie, those wonderful people, mostly female, who worked so hard to raise the money to keep that facility in the tradition of excellence it has become, may their next 40 years be as successful as their first 40 years.

NURSING STAFF

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): Recently the opposition has been making boisterous accusations toward the Minister of Health, indicating that this government has fired thousands of nurses and refuses to acknowledge the urgent need for more nurses in our hospitals. They claim that none of the hospitals in the province are able to hire nurses.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House that at least for York Central Hospital, which serves the constituents of Thornhill, this is far from the case. York Central Hospital recently received funding of $11.6 million, to be used to address costs associated with providing patient care. Just last Friday, York Central received an extra $2.2 million for high-priority health services, including dialysis, orthopaedic implants and level 2 neonatal care.

With the help of this new funding, York Central Hospital has been able to increase its registered nursing staff complement both last year and this year: in the year 1999-2000, an increase of 60 full-time equivalents; and for the current year, York Central has increased its nursing staff complement by 87 FTEs. This trend most definitely dispels the myth reiterated constantly by the opposition that hospitals are not hiring nurses.

These additional FTEs represent 28% of the hospital's total required 1,109 FTEs, as outlined in this year's current operating plan. Should other nursing staff be included, such as registered practical nurses and other nursing assistants, 41% of the total new FTEs would be in the nursing field.

York Central Hospital provides high-quality care to my constituents, and this includes increasing staff to provide the quality services.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Before we proceed, we have in the members' west gallery Mr Hugh O'Neil, the member for Quinte in the 32nd, 33rd, 34th and 35th Parliaments. I'm sure all members join in welcoming our honoured friend.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice and social policy and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 139,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 / Projet de loi 139, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1995 sur les relations de travail.

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.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1348 to 1353.

The Speaker: Will the members kindly take their seats.

Mrs Mushinski has moved adoption of the report from the standing committee on justice and social policy on Bill 139.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McMeekin, Ted

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 47; the nays are 33.

The Speaker: The adoption of the report is carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Wednesday, November 22, 2000, the bill is ordered for third reading.

WEARING OF RIBBONS AND PINS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent for all members of this Legislature to wear the white ribbon, a symbol of men against violence against women.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Speaker: Because of the rules of the Legislature, I also ask unanimous consent for members to be able to wear the rose pin today to remember the December 6 massacre.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

VISITORS

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): On a point of order, Speaker: the Dairy Farmers of Ontario are in the members' gallery. I would ask all members to join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Minister of Correctional Services, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask for unanimous consent that each party be given five minutes in order to make statements surrounding the anniversary of the Montreal massacre, and at the end of those statements I would ask you to call for a moment of silence to remember the women who died so tragically in this event.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): Today marks the annual national Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. Because of the terrible events that occurred in 1989, December 6 has become a date that's engraved in the minds of Canadians and Ontarians. Fourteen young women were murdered at l'École polytechnique in what is now known as the Montreal massacre, an event that has affected the country deeply. It was

an act that ended the lives of these women simply because they were women. We can't help but wonder where these women, these 14 who meant so much to their families, their friends, their communities, would be in their lives today had they survived. Where would they be in their careers now? Would they be realizing their dreams? Would they have daughters of their own? We will never know the answers to this, and that sad silence is part of the profound grief that revolves around this tragedy.

December 6 is now a day of reflection across the country. People take time to commemorate the 14 Montreal women that we all lost, and we take time to reflect on the issue of violence against women.

Sadly, it is estimated that in Canada over the last 10 years an average of two women a week have been killed at the hands of their partners or ex-partners-two women every single week. Here in Ontario, this past year has been marked by a number of cases of women who have been seriously assaulted or even killed by their current or former spouses.

When we remember the 14 women who lost their lives in Montreal, we must remember all the women who are affected by violence, all the women who have died because of their gender, all the women who live in fear of violence in all its forms each day of their lives.

This is not a crime that happens somewhere else; it is a crime that happens in our own country, in our own province, in our own city, in our own community. It's a crime that has to stop.

It is important to acknowledge, on this day of remembrance, that the last 11 years have brought a new awareness in our society about violence against women and about women's right to live in safety. This government is committed to ensuring a woman's right to safety. This government is committed to assisting women and their children to live free from all forms of violence.

What we need is a society that continues to work for change, a society that continues to work for women, a society that continues to honour the 14 women who were slain. In honour of all women whose lives have been affected by this violence, we must remember.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I rise in memory of the 14 women who were massacred 11 years ago and of the other hundreds and thousands of women who have died alone in their homes, for whom there is no national day of mourning.

Today in Canada we mark the national Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. Let us reflect for one moment on what the years have meant since this most horrific day 11 years ago. Violence against women still exists. We have been fighting for changes in this Legislature, and since September on a specific action plan, but to no avail. For the past 11 years, the activists have been trying to raise this issue in the consciousness of the public, the media and the government. With great fortitude, they have persevered, even as governments have ignored and confused the issues.

I also want to make mention of the women who have escaped their abusers. For it is a testament to their own strength of spirit and fortitude that they have been able to escape this violence. They often leave without any supports in place to provide for their children and themselves. Yet they risk leaving in the hope of providing a better life for their children, free of violence.

Women represent half our population. We do ourselves a disservice when we ignore the plight of so many. Violence against women is an epidemic of shameful proportions. By averting our eyes from its existence, we ourselves become complicit in its perpetuation.

The Montreal massacre was not simply the work of a madman. It was the work of someone who blamed those innocent women for his own failure to succeed. He blamed women for preventing him from attaining what he thought was rightly his. It is this ignorance, this belief, that enables violence against women to continue. By failing to understand that all people are equal, some individuals are able to project their anger, their dissatisfaction with life upon the women in their lives. This is wrong. Violence against women is not normal, it is not OK and it cannot be rationalized.

It is only when a paradigm shift occurs in our understanding of the principle of the equality of men and women that we will be able to eradicate violence against women. This change of attitude and perception must begin at home. For the change to occur, we must first educate our citizens, and for this, we here in this government bear responsibility. This government's cutbacks in education have affected essential programs in our schools. If we are not educating our young on the equality of women and men, on how to recognize abusers, on how to manage anger and address frustration, then we are failing in our duty to raise future generations.

Today we still struggle for equal female representation in our science-based programs. Programs like engineering still fight for female enrolment. At the time of the Montreal massacre, only 13% of the engineering students were female. Today it sits at 19%. This is still not enough. My husband's department of civil engineering at McMaster doesn't have one female engineering professor, and out of eight graduate students only one is a woman.

The 14 women who lost their lives at L'École polytechnique represented a brain trust that is lost to us forever. These women had fought against the mould, had fought the stigma and the stereotypes aligned against them. There are many who will never be able to imagine being lined up and shot because of their gender. But this is what happened 11 years ago. They are dead for one reason and one reason only: they were women. This is something we can never forget.

Let us reinstate funding for women's shelters, for crisis lines, for second-stage housing, for pay equity, for all the most important front-line services that provide the assistance and the stepping stones to enable women to leave their abusers.

But let us, first and foremost, look inside ourselves as a government here in Ontario, as a society, as a community and as individuals and reaffirm our commitment to the principle of equality between men and women.

We need to prevent violence against women, not react after the fact. We need to educate our children about the need to create a society where all people are equal. We need a comprehensive educational program to teach our students how to manage their anger, how to respond in peaceful ways to the stresses in our society and how to recognize the danger signs of anger and abuse.

Today is a day of remembrance. Let us remember the sacrifice that has been made. Let us remember the bright lights that were extinguished in Montreal on this day 11 years ago and all those other women who have died alone since, and let them not have died in vain.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On Wednesday, December 6, 1989, a 25-year-old man entered the University of Montreal's school of engineering building. He was carrying a semi-automatic rifle. It was a little after 5 pm when he walked into the classroom, shouting, "I want the women." He separated the men from the women, ordered the men to leave and lined the women up along an execution wall. "You are all feminists," he yelled, and began shooting to kill.

By the end of his rampage, he had murdered 14 women and injured 13 others-mostly women. Eleven years later, the anger is still there. We mark this tragic anniversary by remembering the 14 women who were killed, who were executed that day.

Today I will once again, as we all will, think of these young vibrant women, bubbling with energy and promise. I'm thinking of their parents, their families. What a terrible day this must be for them. I will think of the grief and pain that is the legacy of the Montreal massacre.

And I think of all the women who have been murdered, battered and terrorized by their spouses and lovers. I am thinking of how much I want, as I hope we all do, the lives of my daughter and our daughters to be free of sexual harassment, to be free of fear and violence. Yet hope presents a far different picture than reality. Think of last summer in Ontario, a summer of horrific, graphic violence against women, where men brutally tracked down their wives and former partners, murdering the women and sometimes their children.

Our work is far from done. The horror is far from over. Every few weeks this fall, the Legislature has been visited by a growing coalition of strong and committed women who have responded to last summer's murders with a growing resolve to treat violence against women as the crisis it is. This coalition of women has presented this Legislature with a set of well-thought-out measures, emergency measures, to help put an end to the violence that keeps women and children locked in chains of fear.

On a day such as this, where warm words and sad thoughts accompany our tribute to the 14 women who died in the Montreal massacre, the actions of governments stand in stark contrast. The government says it is a difference of opinion on how to deal with this issue. With due respect, this is not a difference of opinion. It is ignorance, and ignorance is tolerance. Please listen to the victims of violence and the front-line workers. Listen to what they are telling you. We must not be complicit with this inaction. We must act now and we must act decisively. First mourn, then work for change. Eleven years later we are still mourning, but we are still working for change.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Today I encourage all men to remember the lives of the 14 women killed in the Montreal massacre with a simple white ribbon, which is a symbol of the need for men to break the silence, to end men's violence. As men, we owe it to all women and children and to ourselves to confront men's violence, to work toward full equality for women and to redefine what it means to be men, to discover a meaning to manhood that doesn't require violent behaviour or displays of power over women. To that end, today we remember and we dedicate ourselves to change.

The Speaker: I would ask all members and our friends in the gallery to join us in a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment's silence.

MINISTRIES' WEB SITES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Earlier today I wrote you, pursuant to standing order 21(c), with respect to government Web sites. You'll recall, sir, that yesterday I raised the question of the Ministry of Community and Social Services Web site in a similar point of privilege.

This morning I visited several government of Ontario Web sites. Instead of reliable, accurate information, I found partisan political propaganda, propaganda that should not be funded by my constituents and other taxpayers. Earlier today, I forwarded to you five separate Web pages from the Premier of Ontario's official government Web site. Each of them contains blatant partisan attacks on my leader, Dalton McGuinty, and my Liberal colleagues. One government Web page even highlights the Premier's speech to the Burlington Progressive Conservative Riding Association.

In addition, we came into possession yesterday of Intranet communications in the Ministry of Labour, which I provided to you, that were blatantly partisan. It is an affront to taxpayers, and we believe on this side of the House that it's a violation of our privileges as members of this Legislature. I'll speak to you about that violation in the context of intimidation.

As you consider my question of privilege, I want to raise the point that the use of government Web sites for partisan purposes not only violates my privileges as a member of this Legislature but also violates the law. The Public Service Act clearly states in sections 28.1 and 28.2, "No crown employee shall engage in political activity in the workplace." Partisan activities are defined in clause 28.1(1)(

a) as "anything in support of or in opposition to a federal or provincial political party." The Public Service Act considers these violations so serious that they can warrant an employee's dismissal.

Mr Speaker, I ask you to look at these additional Web sites that we've provided you with and, as you consider that, I invite you to consider the question of intimidation. I will refer you to the most recent text by Marleau and Montpetit with respect to Canadian parliamentary procedure and read to you two brief but, I believe, salient points.

"Over the years, members have brought to the attention of the House instances which they believed were attempts to obstruct, impede, interfere, intimidate or molest them, their staffs or individuals who had some business with them or the House. In a technical sense, such actions are considered to be contempts of the House and not breaches of privilege. Since these matters relate so closely to the right of the House to the services of its members, they are often considered to be breaches of privilege."

It goes on to say, and I quoted several rulings with respect to intimidation, "Speaker Fraser stated, `The privileges of a member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfillment of his or her duties and functions. It is obvious that the unjust damaging of a reputation could cause such an impediment.'"

Further, "In finding a prima facie case of privilege on March 21, 1978, Speaker Jerome ruled that the electronic surveillance of a member beyond the parliamentary precinct, ` ... could be regarded as a form of harassment or obstruction or molestation or intimidation of a member, all of which phrases have been used in our precedents to support the position that such conduct is a contempt of the House.'"

Mr Speaker, it is the view of the official opposition that the use by the Minister of Community and Social Services of his government-paid-for and -run Web page, the use by the Ministry of Labour of its government-paid-for Intranet and the use-and this is the most appalling, sir-by the Office of the Premier of Ontario of a government-paid Web site to place partisan political speeches and attempt to, in my view, hurt or harm the reputation not just of my leader, someone whose integrity is without question, but of any member of this House or, frankly, of any citizen of this province, is an attempt by this government to intimidate its opponents using taxpayer dollars in a manner that is completely contemptible and, in my view, sir, violates not only my privileges but the privileges of my colleagues, certainly the privileges of my leader, Dalton McGuinty, and indeed it violates the ethics of the people of the province of Ontario.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Minister of Correctional Services, Government House Leader: Mr Speaker, unless you're going to rule on this immediately, I would like the opportunity to respond in writing to you with our arguments. We don't believe this is a breach of privilege but we of course haven't had any prior notice of this, and therefore for us to interject and argue on a rational basis we will have to review some of the documents he's referring to.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Certainly we'll look at it. To be fair, though, I should let you know I will circulate it to the other side as well.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Just a quick clarification. He mentioned the Ministry of Labour. Was that the Intranet?

Mr Duncan: Yes, Intranet.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Intranet, the internal-OK, thank you.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his point of privilege and for giving me the information. Again, I want to thank him also for attaching copies of the Internet site. As you know, and as I mentioned again yesterday, often what happens in this situation with technology is that we don't get copies of that and then when we do go to look, technology being what it is, it has changed. So I thank the member for attaching that to his point of privilege.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. The Education Improvement Commission produced its final report today. In it your commissioners are telling you what we've been telling you on this side of the House now for several years, and that is quite simply that your war that you're continuing to wage against teachers in Ontario is costing our children terribly.

Here's a specific finding made by the commission. Students "believe that the ongoing tensions among the Ministry of Education, the school boards, and their teachers have affected their education, and are concerned for themselves and for the students who will follow them. Many told us, with frustration, that every year of their secondary school career has been disrupted by labour disputes."

In the years to come, these five years will be known quite simply as the Harris years, years in public education which were characterized by teachers sapped of their enthusiasm, schools sapped of their spirit, and general turmoil. Minister, how does it feel knowing that you have robbed an entire generation of high school students of the quality education of which they are so richly worthy?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I share the EIC's concern about politics in the classroom. It's not appropriate, it undermines the work of good teachers, it undermines the work of a good curriculum, and it is not helping our students to learn better or our teachers to teach better. I share that concern. We will continue to take steps to ease that. We will continue to take steps to put in place initiatives that are helping improve student achievement. We've set higher standards, and the research is showing that those standards are starting to pay off in terms of increased performance by our students.

We need to do more; I recognize that. I share the EIC's concern that politics in the classroom undermines that.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you just don't get it on this score. We're never going to get the best for our children unless we get the best out of our teachers, and you can't get the best out of our teachers by attacking them day in and day out. It's not much more complicated than that.

Listen to what the commission says: "We cannot"-I repeat-"cannot overstate our concern about the reduction in extracurricular activities. Research shows that students who take

part in extracurricular activities enjoy greater overall success in school, and students who participate in after-school programs have lower dropout rates. If the current impasse continues, it's clear that more students will drop out and fewer will succeed." This commission is telling us that as a result of your policies our students are dropping out of school and those who are staying aren't doing as well as they could.

Minister, leadership on your part requires that you sit down now, that you declare a ceasefire, that you drop your rhetorical guns and that you bring teachers to the table in a conciliatory fashion. Are you prepared to do that in the interests of our children?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, he may well have missed it, and his research staff may not have pointed it out to him, but we did have a meeting two weeks ago with all of our education partners from Ontario to talk about the concerns that we all share about the lack of extracurricular services for our students, because I agree with the Education Improvement Commission that extracurricular services are very much part of what our students should be getting. Unfortunately, the Ontario Teachers' Federation did attend; they did not participate.

That was disappointing for all of the partners there. We are going to continue to have discussions. The teachers' federation can certainly be part of that. I have regular meetings with them. I will continue to do that because I see that as my job, but it is their choice about where and how they wish to participate.

If the honourable member was so concerned, where was he when the EQAO and the TIMSS results of testing showed that teachers in the classroom-good, hard-working teachers-are making improvements in student achievement? Did he stand up in this House and congratulate them? No, he didn't.

Mr McGuinty: This is just too much. This minister who has spent so much time, dedicated energy and effort and brought so much enthusiasm to the task of attacking teachers is now the great defender of teachers in Ontario. This is just too much to swallow.

What I'd ask you to do, Minister, is to take into account the very, very good advice offered by your own commission. This is what they said: "We urge the Ministry of Education to immediately renew dialogue with teachers' federations, and consult with all education partners as appropriate, with a view to the immediate reinstatement of extracurricular activities."

Let me tell you once more, Madam Minister, what leadership means in this context. You are the leader of public education in Ontario, not the teachers, not the parents, not the students. You have to make the first move, Madam Minister. You have to declare a ceasefire. You have to say to the teachers, "I want to sit down. I want to work things out with you, because I insist that we all act in the better interests of our children." That's the kind of leadership we've been looking for. That's the kind of leadership that's been missing for the past five years, and our kids have been paying the price as a result.

Are we ever going to see that kind of leadership here in the province of Ontario? Will you stop playing politics with our kids and start acting in their interests?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member seems quite obsessed that there's some war going on out there. The only war that is going on is his attempt, on the backs of hard-working teachers, to score political points.

When the TIMSS results showed that our teachers out there in math and science and literature were actually starting to make improvements, when the co-operative efforts of the Ministry of Education and the teachers' federation put in place supports and training for teachers, when the results are actually showing that those teachers are making a difference in the education of those students, did the Leader of the Opposition stand up in this House and say thank you to them for their hard work? We did. Where was he?

Good quality teachers are important to education. I have said this, and I will continue to say that, because I believe it. Every time he turns around he's trying to say there's some war in the education sector. The only war is on-

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

MANDATORY DRUG TESTING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): This question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I want to talk to you about your bent to drug-test welfare recipients in Ontario.

Two important papers have been produced, and I'm sure you're familiar with them, one by the Addiction Council and the other a background paper prepared by 10 experts in drug addiction in Ontario, including three PhDs and a number of nurses and MDs, a background paper prepared for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. This is what the experts are telling us. They're telling us that welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than you or I or anybody else in the general population.

According to a recent study, out of any 103 Ontarians, let's say 103 MPPs, during the past year nine of us would have used marijuana and five of us would have used cocaine. The experts are also telling us that your assumption that drug use is a barrier to employment is false. Fully 70% of drug users are gainfully employed today in Ontario.

Minister, why not admit that the reason you want to drug-test welfare recipients, and welfare recipients alone, is because you're trying to score some cheap political points by pandering to some ugly stereotype that you know is completely false?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): The member opposite may be surprised to learn that I don't disagree with him on either count. I don't disagree with him that those folks on welfare are any more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population. I wouldn't for a moment suggest that. I've gone out of my way to say that. I wouldn't for a moment suggest, as he has suggested, that every single person who is addicted to drugs would face a barrier to employment.

What I do know is that a program for people who are unemployed is likely to have more people where that is a barrier to employment. That's why we don't want to leave anyone behind. That's why we want to provide mandatory treatment. That's why we want to provide the hand up. That's why we want to provide supports to help people realize the dignity that comes with a job and the pride that comes with independence.

That's why this government isn't prepared to turn its back on any single person in the province. That's why we want to reach out and pull people from the state of despair they find themselves in, so they can make that important transition from welfare to work.

Mr McGuinty: Your actions speak far louder than your words on this score. When you made your plans to drug-test welfare recipients public in Ontario, you invited the TV cameras into a news conference, and you were very dramatic, and with a wonderful flourish you allowed syringes to trickle out of your hands. You put a poster behind you showing people shooting up.

The message that came across TV that night for all Ontarians was that-and this is a message that came from you, the Minister of Community and Social Services, the guy who is supposed to be the chief advocate for welfare recipients in Ontario, the guy who is supposed to tell the truth about them and not pander to stereotypes. Your message to Ontarians was, "Welfare recipients are all drug addicts." You should be ashamed of yourself for pandering to an ugly stereotype which you know is completely false. That's exactly what you are up to. Why not admit it?

Hon Mr Baird: I won't admit it, because it's not true. I won't admit it, because our government isn't prepared to turn its back on anyone on welfare. It would be very easy to simply turn our backs on this problem. It would be very easy to say the welfare caseload in Ontario is down by more than 565,000 cases. It would be very easy to declare victory and turn our backs on a group of people who so obviously need help. This government isn't prepared to turn its back on anyone.

We want to reach out and provide that support, reach out and provide that treatment, so that people can get their lives back, so that people in this province can realize the dignity that comes with a job and the pride that comes-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Please take your seat. Order. It's too noisy. I can't hear the minister. You have about 10 seconds, Minister.

Final supplementary?

Mr McGuinty: Listen to what the Addiction Council experts said about your performance and your props: "The drug of choice for Ontarians whether on welfare or working is alcohol. A very small amount of the general population uses injection drugs as featured on the poster that is being shown for this proposed program. The reference to injection drugs is very damaging to persons on welfare who already are depicted in the media and referenced by the government in less than attractive ways. The stigma associated with drug or alcohol addiction should not be reinforced by dramatic effect."

If you had any sincere and genuine interest in helping people on welfare get into the workplace, then you'd go to those areas where they need real help. I'm talking about literacy issues, transportation issues, child care issues, health problems. Those are all areas where you should be lending your efforts and your support. Instead, what you are doing-and this has been beneath the dignity of your office-is pandering to an ugly stereotype. You're putting out information you know is incorrect, and it's coming at the expense of the very people in this province who are entitled to depend on you, to look to you for help and not to become the subject of attack.

Interjections.

The Speaker: OK. Now we start throwing people out. Order. Now we start warning people. You've had your fun. Now I'll start warning you, and I'll throw you out. It doesn't matter to me. Whoever wants to start-

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Throw `em out.

The Speaker: And it starts with the Premier too. When I'm standing up here, I don't need comments coming from the Premier as well. Minister.

Hon Mr Baird: What is required, in terms of welfare reform, is a government that's committed to providing the support, care and attention to every problem that anyone on welfare would have, so they can realize the dignity that comes with a job and the pride with independence.

The Leader of the Opposition stands in his place and says what is damaging to people on welfare. I'll tell you what's damaging to people on welfare: a government that was prepared to turn its back on a group of people who so obviously needed help. The honourable member opposite has disagreed with every single welfare reform this government has taken. We introduced workfare. Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party disagreed. When we tried to combat welfare fraud, Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party disagreed.

When we tried to ensure that employment supports were in place so that people on welfare, who so obviously need our help, could escape the trap-whether the trap was despair, whether the trap was drugs, whether the trap was illiteracy-this party and this government could depend on Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party to oppose the initiative and to turn their backs. The policy written for Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party for people on welfare was written by an insurance adjuster. They want to turn their back and just write people off. Well, this government isn't prepared to do that.

EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. The Education Improvement Commission is urging you to invest in full-day learning for our preschool children. We know you have the money to do it. In fact, we know that you have more than a $1.4-billion surplus to do it with. That's 1.4 billion good reasons to provide safe, regulated, affordable child care for working families and to ensure that junior kindergarten and senior kindergarten are provided on a full-day basis across the province.

This is a wonderful opportunity to restore some of the things you've taken out of the education system. Is your government prepared to seize this opportunity and provide children in Ontario with the head start they need in order that they can achieve more, do more with the education system?

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

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): As the honourable members will know, trying to help our students be better prepared for learning when they come to school is very much a priority of this government. Through the early years initiative, we are taking considerable steps to do that. We have also been funding schools for JK and kindergarten programs. One of the significant improvements we've made is to actually have curriculum standards for junior kindergarten and kindergarten, something that had been lagging for quite some time, to actually help our teachers with our young children to learn better.

The recommendations from the Education Improvement Commission, as usual, are going to be very helpful. We've adopted many of their recommendations. We have done many of the significant funding investments they've asked us to do. So we'll be looking at this particular recommendation consistent with what our other education partners have asked us to do as well.

Mr Hampton: I asked the question of the Premier because it was the Premier who, before the last election, came forward with the Mustard report on early learning and said that this was something that was a priority for the government. Literally nothing has happened. This is the Premier who discarded all of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Education. This is the Premier who cancelled the already existing early years learning projects. That's the record of your government.

You've issued a lot of press releases and a lot of rhetoric, but in fact what you've done in terms of early childhood education is cancel the early learning projects and move away from full-day kindergarten for our youngest children.

Here is an opportunity. The Education Improvement Commission says this is and ought to be a priority for your government. This could make a real difference. Are you going to follow the recommendation of the Education Improvement Commission, or are you going to issue more rhetoric? Which is it, Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Actually, the Education Improvement Commission in this report, as they have in all of their reports, has made some very excellent recommendations. They've backed them up with good research. We are going to be looking at those recommendations in the context of the other recommendations our education partners are asking us to do. There are a number of priorities that they have for new money in the education system, and I think we need to give them consideration as well. But I think the honourable member knows full well that there has been considerable follow-up on the Fraser Mustard report.

The minister responsible for children, Minister Marland, has done considerable work to get that initiative going, to provide supports in our community for early learning.

The other thing is that we have put and will continue to put money where it does the most good for our children. For example, this year alone, $70 million in new money is going into early literacy for kindergarten to grade 3. I think we will see, as the years roll by, that this investment and support for those-

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

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): The Early Years Study is gathering dust on the shelf. Your government announced a challenge fund in the budget of May 1999, you reannounced it in the budget of May 2000 and we'll finally have applications for funding ready in the year 2001. Your government has done nothing to respond to the important initiatives in the Early Years Study.

Further, the EIC said today, "But as yet, despite some investment, some progress and much talk, we have no firm commitment-either provincially or federally-to a systemic framework to improve our children's early years."

That's why they made a recommendation for guaranteed access to high-quality child care. That's why they made a recommendation for guaranteed access to family resource centres. That's why they made a recommendation for full funding for full-day junior and senior kindergarten. These are important initiatives. They require a significant investment, and God knows, your government has the money to do it. The question is, will you fully fund the early years initiatives recommended in this report today?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We are fully prepared to fund initiatives that are going to help our children do better before school and during school. That is our commitment, and we have the track record to back that up. I mentioned the $70 million, just one initiative, new money this year, to help early literacy. We have the early years challenge fund, for example. We do have family resources in this province that the community and social services ministry and the minister responsible for children are working with. They do a wonderful job out there for parents.

We have over $215 million that is going out to low-income and working families to help them with their children. That was something I would think the honourable member would support because that is real dollars in the pockets of low-income and working families to help them with their children. That is an important support. We are doing more to help support parents in helping them be part of the learning team. So it's an important recommendation. They've said over the next five to seven years, we should look to try and-

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

MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a question for the Premier. Yesterday we learned that senior officials in the ministry of corrections oversaw the publishing of a list of young offenders and the distribution of that list to members of the public. Those activities are clearly in breach of the criminal law of Canada. Today we learned from the Probation Officers Association of Ontario that the ministry of corrections is routinely providing the records of young offenders to organizations that are outside the justice and corrections system-yet another breach of the criminal law of Canada.

My question is this: since this doesn't seem to be just one accidental slip-up but a series of rather systemic events, what are you doing, Premier, to hold the officials in your government accountable and to clean up this mess?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Just to correct the record, we didn't learn anything today. What we learned today was that there was an allegation, and we treat all allegations very seriously. You treat them as fact; we treat them as allegations until they have been thoroughly investigated.

We have, indeed, asked for an investigation, both my deputy and the deputy responsible for the Ministry of Correctional Services. They've announced a major administrative review of policies, procedures and practices that flow from the confidentiality provisions of the Young Offenders Act. I can tell you that the deputy has instructed Mr Paul Fleury, the regional director of community and young offender services for the western region, to assume the executive lead for that.

As you know, the Deputy Attorney General is looking at this matter, as is the protocol arising out of what occurred, which was the first part of your question. If you have more in the supplementary, I'm happy to try to shed more light on that, too.

Mr Hampton: This is not about any criminal investigation that may involve Mr Galt. This is about a series of events in the ministry of corrections which would indicate that, while you pronounce one thing to the public about obeying the law, your government in the ministry of corrections routinely goes about ignoring the criminal law of Canada. We spoke with some of the people who work at the Brookside young offenders facility and they indicated to us that, for example, at the ceremony that was held, the assistant deputy minister for corrections was in attendance.

She was in attendance when the list of young offenders' names was published. She was in attendance when the list was provided to members of the public, including Mr Galt.

So this is not about a criminal investigation of one individual. This is about asking you, Premier, to be accountable for a ministry where it seems that breaking the criminal law is becoming almost an everyday occurrence and where senior officials of the ministry are present when this happens and seem to let it happen without any repercussions until it gets out in the wider public, until it gets known in the media. What are you doing to hold these officials accountable, Premier, and don't tell us about a limited criminal investigation of Mr Galt. What are you doing about your own government to ensure they obey the criminal law of Canada?

Hon Mr Harris: As I indicated to you, there is a review underway, and if we have any more information, we would be happy to share that with you. You keep referring to allegations as if they were facts. This seems to be a bad habit with the leader of the Liberal Party and it will get you into the same kind of trouble it gets him into when the facts he alleges turn out to be myth, turn out to be fiction, turn out just not there.

I can tell you this with regard to your allegation: there is no directive from the ministry for any probation or parole officer to share information inappropriately. There has been an allegation that has been brought to the ministry's attention. There is an investigation into that claim. To date there's not a shred of evidence to support it, but we are still investigating.

MINISTRIES' WEB SITES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I have a question for the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet. Yesterday and earlier today I raised points of privilege with respect to what the official opposition contends are the misuse of government-funded, government-paid-for Web sites. We cited yesterday the Minister of Community and Social Services. We cited today the Premier's office. We cited the Minister of Labour's use of the Ministry of Labour Intranet, which we have distributed throughout this building this afternoon for others to see.

I wonder if you consider this to be an appropriate use of government-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Sorry for the interruption. The member for Windsor-St Clair.

Mr Duncan: I wonder if you consider this kind of bullying and intimidation an appropriate use of government resources.

In terms of the appropriateness of what is on a Web site, I think you're fully aware that you've already asked the Speaker to rule on that.

Mr Duncan: The minister is right. In fact you published a document called Operating Procedure on Usage of IT Resources and you signed it in July of this year. Let me read to you a very important

section about unacceptable activity on Web sites. I quote from the minister's document: "It is unacceptable activity if there is a breach of the Public Service Act."

Section 28 of the Public Service Act prevents public servants from participating in political activity. We say there's been a breach. It goes on to say, "The Public Service Act conflict of interest regulation or the conflict of interest in post-employment directive," and let's continue by saying, "Electronic networks should not be used for private business, for personal gain, for profit or for political activities." That is your document. It goes on to say, "The electronic technology of the government should not be used to discredit others in the government through electronic communications."

This morning we looked at the federal government's Web pages; we looked at the government of Alberta; we looked at the government of Quebec; we looked at every province in this country. Not one other government has a partisan reference under any

section of its Web site except this government, which insists on using them in an illegal fashion, in the view of the official opposition, to discredit not only our leader and our party, but moreover to bully the people of Ontario. Why don't you show some courage? Why don't you read your directives, instead of your glib, cheap answers about other governments, and start acting like a minister and do what your own bloody report says you should do and get the partisan nonsense off your Web page?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The only one in this Legislature trying to bully anyone by huffing and puffing and pointing his finger is you. You've asked the Speaker to rule on what you consider partisan advertising. Our Web sites have a policy that we implement through Management Board, along with all other directives. You've asked the Speaker to rule on this. Why are you trying to circumvent what you've already asked him to rule on?

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Over the past couple of weeks, I've had a number of inquiries from individuals, from groups and organizations and from the press as well, on both sides of the amalgamation issue. Essentially I understand that our government announced today that the town of Blind River will annex all or part of seven surrounding unincorporated geographical townships, and I hope constituents of ours know exactly what "unincorporated" stands for. Minister, can you tell us what this means for not only the residents of Blind River but also the affected townships that are being annexed?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'd like to thank the honourable member from Oshawa for the question. This gives me an opportunity to congratulate the Blind River council and the representatives from the surrounding unorganized territories for coming together and taking what we think is responsible and positive action. The head of council and six councillors elected during this past municipal election for the town of Blind River will continue to serve in the new council.

We've also created a transition committee composed of two members of the Blind River council and five members representing the annexed area. They will deal with transitional matters and make recommendations to the new council. This is yet another example of municipal leaders across the province exploring ways to benefit their own taxpayers through lower taxes, improved services and more responsible local governments. This will provide more effective local government in this particular area as well.

Mr Ouellette: So our constituents inquiring on these issues know how it takes place, could you please also tell us in the House today how this initiative came about and how successful restructuring has been in the province?

Hon Mr Clement: As in the great majority of cases, this was a locally arrived at solution that was decided upon completely locally, where the municipalities and their civic leaders came together to discuss local solutions and local options. That is how this came together. I would like to again congratulate the town for bringing forward the proposal. I'm confident they'll be able to operate much more effectively in their new boundaries.

Since 1996, local government reform in this province has meant that the number of municipalities has been reduced from 815 in 1996 down to 447 as of January 1 next year. The number of municipal councillors in the province has been reduced from 4,586 in 1996 down to 2,804 as of January 1, 2001. Better government, more effective government, more accountable government at less cost to the taxpayer.

FARMING PRACTICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. For over a year now, we've been asking for provincial legislation regulating our farming operations, particularly insofar as dealing with their manure. It's not just me who has been asking that for quite some time now. The auditor has been asking for that legislation. The Environmental Commissioner has been asking for that legislation. Our farmers have been asking for that legislation. They want one set of rules that applies right across the province.

And of course our municipalities are asking for that kind of legislation. Just recently, the mayor of Chatsworth, Howard Greig-and he said this because there's a new farm going up in his community-said, "I'm not confident that without the proper provincial legislation we can adequately protect our citizens."

Minister, this is all about our groundwater. It's all about making sure that the water that ultimately comes out of the tap is safe and clean for Ontarians to drink. Why are you continuing to fail Ontarians by not pro ducing this legislation when so many have been calling for it for so long?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I refer the question to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I just want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that a safe water supply is of utmost importance to the public health of our communities and our agricultural communities.

As the member opposite will know, we started consultations on the changing face of farming last January to get comments from the public on that, to see what needed to be done. We got a report from my parliamentary assistant as to some of the recommendations that were received. We took the information from that report.

We then started consultations in conjunction with other ministries to make sure, as the auditor suggested, that we could come forward with a plan that would deal with all the needs of our society, to make sure that we protect the quality of our water in this province.

Mr McGuinty: The fact that the Minister of the Environment has fobbed this off on to someone else tells me that nothing has changed over there. The protection of our groundwater is your responsibility; it's not the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture.

Maybe you should just listen to what your own Premier said a few weeks back in this House. He said, in response to my questions, "we agree with the Environmental Commissioner that this is a matter for the Ministry of the Environment." He said, "We agree, when it comes to groundwater, the Ministry of the Environment must be the lead agency to develop the legislation to bring forward."

That's your job. Even your Premier says that's your job. How long are our farmers going to have to wait, how long are our municipalities going to have to wait, how long are Ontarians going to wait, until you do your job? One more time, where's the bill?

Hon Mr Hardeman: I want to assure the member opposite that we share his concern about the quality of our water, and indeed it is a very important environmental issue to protect the groundwater in the province of Ontario. But I think it's even more important to consult with the farmers and to deal with the changing face of agriculture and to make sure that, as farmers, as agriculturists, we are looking after the effluent from our farms to make sure that it's being used for nutrient management as opposed to getting into our waters, and we are doing that.

We're not prepared to come out and stand here and say we know the answers. We want to make sure that we consult with all our communities-the non-farming community, the farming community and the municipalities-to make sure we come forward with a plan that will address the issue.

It's more important to come forward with the right plan than to come forward with a hasty plan.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. I believe that most people, perhaps even the members of the NDP and the Liberals in the Legislature, now recognize that skills and training are the keys to success in the modern economy. As the requirement to find and keep rewarding jobs increases, so does the need for better training. In my own riding of Kitchener Centre, thanks to the activities of this government, the economy is so red-hot that our people resources are stretched to the limit. There needs to be more people trained.

Additionally, it is increasingly evident that we have to do more than ever thought necessary in the past to ensure that Ontarians are learning throughout their lives. While government and educational institutions have an obligation to meet this challenge, the private sector has an important role to play, too. Recently, in Waterloo region there have been significant investments in training and research by such companies as Research in Motion and Mortice Kerns and their executives, as well as others.

Minister, what role do you see the private sector playing in building a skilled workforce that can compete with the best in the world?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): Ensuring that Ontario's workforce has the skills necessary to succeed is a responsibility shared by government, our partners in education and training and, of course, the private sector.

There is huge enthusiasm. In fact, I'd like to advise my colleagues in the Legislative Assembly that just yesterday at St Clair College in Windsor, Ontario, the Ford Motor Co of Canada made a $3-million donation to support a new manufacturing and training facility, right in Windsor.

I think all of you would like to know that at the end of December the president of the Ford Motor Co of Canada, Bobbie Gaunt, will be retiring. She's a person who cares a lot about young people and education, and I think this was a tremendous commitment on her part as a leader in making sure that those young people, people involved in apprenticeship training, will have this opportunity at this new facility.

Mr Wettlaufer: Minister, our government has made significant investments in training, including $228 million for the access to opportunities program and $130 million for the strategic skills initiative. But while we encourage industry, we must also ensure that any barriers to training are examined to ensure that government is not standing in the way of more training for Ontarians. What steps has the government taken to encourage greater private sector investment in skills training?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: This has been a tremendous plan on behalf of the government and we have in fact taken concrete steps to encourage the private sector to invest in training. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank them for their tremendous commitment, especially to SuperBuild, where we have about $0.8 billion to support $1.8 billion in new construction right across the province, much of which will of course be in the training field.

We introduced Bill 55, which makes Ontario's apprenticeship system more responsive to the needs of employers and does remove barriers to expanding training in new trades and areas of economic growth.

We're very excited about OYAP, the Ontario youth apprenticeship program, which is $5.4 million in our schools, to encourage young people to enter the trades.

Through the leading education technology co-operative education tax credit, we're encouraging employers-

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

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a question for the Premier. Today is a very important day because we remember the 14 victims of the Montreal massacre. It's also a crisis year because we've had a record number of killings of women as a result of domestic violence, so much so that an emergency task force of women's groups came here earlier this fall and asked your government to implement a number of emergency measures. When I asked you to commit to those emergency measures last week, you said that your government has already implemented some of them.

But, Premier, the women's coalition which has come here on a number of occasions says that's not true. They say your government has not acted on a single emergency measure they have called for. Why won't you take action to prevent violence against women, as these women are asking you to do?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): We have.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): OK, Premier, I want to ask you about another aspect of your remarks on violence against women. When I asked you to reinstate vital services that women need, that your government took away, you said, "We are trying very hard to ensure that women who are in abusive situations are not financially dependent and we don't think you solve that problem by making them financially dependent on the state."

I don't know if you understand how deeply offensive that statement really is. Poverty and emotional stress are very harsh realities for battered women who leave abusive situations. For many, social assistance shelters, second-stage housing, subsidized housing and other community supports are their only hope of leaving and staying safe. I cannot believe that you want to deny women that opportunity. I'm asking you, Premier-

Interjection.

Ms Churley: Yes, he did. I'm asking you, Premier, will you retract that statement and reinstate the community services that you have so cruelly taken away from battered women and their children in this province?

Hon Mr Harris: Given that we're spending substantially more money than your party ever did on preventing violence to women, I'm surprised that you want us to undo some of this new spending. Of the 39 demands that were proposed by the Cross-Sectoral Violence Against Women Strategy Group, we have implemented or are implementing a whole host of these issues, contrary to what your party alleges.

They asked us to fund community outreach workers for rape crisis centres. We've done that. They asked us to fund counsellors within rape crisis centres. We have done that. The group asked us to ensure sufficient funding to French-language services, to community-based agencies. Our network of regional French-language services coordinators have been providing support to health care facilities and agencies. They asked for changes to the legal aid system. The Attorney General facilitated a meeting on December 1 between the cross-sectoral strategy group and the chair of Legal Aid Ontario. I understand the meeting went very well.

We have implemented or are implementing more than 90% of the May-Iles coroner's jury recommendations. More than 70% of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Domestic Violence have been or will be implemented-

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

ONTARIO INNOVATION TRUST

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is for the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. As you may be aware, the auditor's report last week raised some issues surrounding the Ontario Innovation Trust. This is the fund that is responsible to your ministry. In his report he alleged that "the government used the trust to significantly exaggerate its spending on `innovation' in that fiscal year." Specifically, he mentioned the fact that in the previous two budget statements, $500 million was earmarked for the trust, so it was assumed this transfer would be made.

In fact the auditor reports that for the fiscal year ending March 31, "only $161 million of the initial ... contribution had been approved for matching funding by the trust, of which only $2.5 million was disbursed for eligible projects" in that year. You can see why there's some confusion. Perhaps today we can shed some light on this particular disparity.

I'd like to ask if you would explain to Ontario taxpayers and to this House, exactly what is the relationship of you and your ministry to the fund?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): There are a couple of questions there. The fund is an arm's-length trust that has been put in place to support innovative projects and infrastructure in research and development in the province. Its primary role is to match federal government's grants for science and technology under the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Through an agreement with the federal government, we jointly decide on projects in Ontario that need to be invested in. The trust board disburses funds to match federal government grant money.

In addition to that, scientists are entitled to apply directly to the fund for their own infrastructure projects to deal with laboratories or equipment they may need to carry out their research.

To date, a large amount of money-a total of $750 million-has been put in over three budgets, and about $288 million has been spent. That trust is chaired by Michael Gourley, the former Deputy Minister of Finance of Ontario. I think they're doing a very good job on behalf of the people of Ontario in disbursing the money-

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

Mr Patten: Minister, you didn't really answer the question. The question really was, what is your relationship to that in terms of accountability? That's what is really at stake here. I have no qualms at all with the objectives and the purpose of the fund and the good things I hope it will do. However, I do worry about transparency and accountability. It is supposed to be arm's-length. It is 100% funded-$750 million of resources. All the people who sit on that board are Lieutenant Governor in Council appointments made by your government.

The auditor pointed out a lack of ministerial accountability, though, for the trust activities. He was concerned about the fact he could not conduct value-for-money audits of the Ontario Innovation Trust. In its response to the auditor, the finance ministry said, "The results of this audit will be available to the public and beneficiaries of the trust."

I ask you two things:

(1) Will you table with this House the audited report that has not been made public?

(2) Will you assure us that the Provincial Auditor will have access to do value-for-money audits in the future?

Hon Mr Wilson: The answer to those questions is, I'm more than happy to. If the honourable member goes to the trust Web site right now, he will see the 1999 audited statements-and the year 2000 audited statements as soon as they are available.

This trust has to meet all the laws of the land. It is a non-profit board and has to meet all the rules of that. It has to meet all the rules and laws of trust in this province and this country. In addition, it is accountable to this Parliament through the minister. It is very transparent, because they are using public money. Their audited financial statements are available on the Web site and, as I said, when the year 2000 statements are available, we'll make sure they're posted right away. I'll be sure to provide the honourable member with a copy, and to all the people of Ontario who would like one.

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Reforming our welfare system has been a central priority of our government, and providing hands-on, direct support to welfare recipients to help them obtain employment is essential if we are to continue to see our welfare rolls decline. There are those who have suggested that in order to make work-for-welfare work, it will require a substantial financial investment in employment supports. Minister, do you believe we are spending enough and are you prepared to put more financial resources into helping welfare recipients get a job?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): We in this caucus recognize that it takes more than a growing economy fuelled by tax cuts, it takes more than welfare reform and new legislation to help people make that important transition from welfare to work. We recognize that we've got to make a significant number of investments in employment supports.

We spend a significant amount on basic education and literacy programs, job skills training, structured employment supports and workfare placements in the private and public sectors; through our Learning, Earning and Parenting program to help teenage parents, through child care supports and transportation allowances. As the caseload falls, we will have more money than ever per welfare recipient to provide that support, to focus attention, energy and resources on helping those who are left.

We celebrate the fact that 565,000 people have been able to leave the welfare system and we're committing that we're going to take those resources that were used to help over a million people to help the 450,000 people who so desperately need our help to make that important transition from welfare to work and realize the dignity that comes with a job.

Mrs Munro: Minister, obviously Ontario Works is only half the issue. There's another side to that, and that is providing help to Ontario's disability support program recipients. This is equally important. People with disabilities resented the old system, a system that labelled them permanently unemployable. What are you and your ministry doing to help Ontario disability support system recipients move into employment?

Hon Mr Baird: The member is certainly correct. Initially, early on in our first mandate, we moved to take people with disabilities right off our welfare rolls, right out of the welfare system. It's a program where I don't believe they ever should have been in the first place. I know many members on this side of the House and on all sides of the House would share that goal.

I think probably most importantly, we eliminated the label "permanently unemployable," and not just the label but the thought and the philosophy behind that label, which for many years in this province was acceptable in all quarters but which was wrong.

In terms of financial resources, we are in the process, as the member opposite discussed, of doubling the budget for the Ontario disability support program's employment supports, to provide more support for people with disabilities to move into employment.

People with disabilities want to work. They want to have that opportunity. They just need the employment supports that the government is putting forward, and we'll continue to work to do that.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I had a farmer stop in on the weekend and show me samples of this year's crop. He showed me corn that was underdeveloped and wet. He told me that because of increased fuel costs, he was not going to combine the rest of his crop and let weather conditions dry the crop down and risk snow damage.

In the past few months I have heard from dairy farmers across eastern Ontario and they tell me that because of the cold, wet weather we had this spring, the corn and hay crops produced this year are of poor quality. As a result, milk production has dropped significantly.

I've heard this story every day, and the longer you wait, the worse it gets. Unlike you, Quebec and Alberta have already taken a leadership role to try to save their agricultural communities. They have provided financial support over and above the 60-40 split with the federal government. You, on the other hand, have done nothing.

Minister, without a strong agricultural sector our rural economy will collapse. Why don't you take a leadership role and help the struggling farmers in times of crisis?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Thank you very much, to the member opposite, for the question. I recognize that Ontario farmers have indeed been facing a difficult year in terms of commodity prices, especially in the grain and oilseed industry. As last year was also a bad year, obviously one compounds the other and things keep getting worse for them. I want to assure him that to help farmers through the crop year we have provided them with interim market revenue payments, more so than last year. We put $35 million into the hands of Ontario farmers as the interim payment.

We have moved forward with a second interim payment, to send out another 30% of the market revenue payment to help farmers through these difficult times.

I can assure the member opposite that our concern for the farmers is there, and we want to make sure we do everything we can to help them through these difficult situations.

Mr Cleary: Minister, I don't think you've answered my question. Unless you step in now and take a leadership role, we will have a real crisis. The farmers didn't cause this. It's the seasonal weather conditions this year. We normally have better growing weather. I'm telling you, farmers can't wait any longer. Unless you step in and do something a lot of the farmers are going to lose their livelihood. How much longer are you going to wait before you step in and help the farmers? Please try to answer my question this time.

Hon Mr Hardeman: I want to assure the member opposite that we are answering the question. As a government we are committed, as we were in the Blueprint, to get our fair share of the federal safety net money for our Ontario farmers, which prior to that commitment we were not getting. In negotiating that deal, we got another $30 million from the federal government to go toward our farmers in Ontario. Along with that we had a commitment that we would top that up with our 40%, as a government. So now that will be $50 million more to help our farmers through these difficult times this year.

I want to assure the member opposite that we really do appreciate the fact that the farmers are facing difficulties and that we need to work with them. We are also calling on the federal government to put more money toward the market revenue program. Incidentally, the member opposite will know we are the only province in Canada that still has the market revenue program, which he will know is a program that helps fund commodity prices when prices drop the way they have in this past year.

I can assure the member opposite we are working with our farm communities, we are working with the federal government and we are working with all the stakeholders to make sure that we can bring-

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

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Today is the national Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. I can tell you that as a father with two daughters and three granddaughters, the events that took place in Montreal 11 years ago are of very special importance to me. We've heard the statements from the opposition members earlier and I want to say that I share their concerns about violence against women. Minister, what are we doing to prevent violence against women?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): I'd like to thank the member for the question. I think everyone across the province with young daughters, granddaughters and wives is concerned about this issue. Let me start by saying that this government will not tolerate domestic violence. We're proud of our record in preventing violence against women and we're working to provide appropriate services for all women who have been victims of abuse. We're helping them to build a better life for themselves and their families.

Money isn't the only thing that matters in a situation like this, but the government has moved from $100 million in 1995 to $135 million this year and $140 million next year in spending on programs that help women in domestic violence situations. My colleague the Attorney General has done more in the justice system to help women who have suffered domestic abuse, and has worked on the domestic courts to made sure they are the finest courts in the land, processing more quickly and making sure there is more availability-

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

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature. It is northerners demanding that the Harris government eliminate health care apartheid.

"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"-that's health care apartheid and discrimination;

"Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location"-that's a fact;

"Whereas a recently released Oracle research poll confirms that 92% of Ontarians support equal health travel funding; and

whereas the Minister of Health, Elizabeth Witmer, and the Premier of this province, Michael Harris, continue to practice discrimination against northerners;

"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; and

"Whereas we support the efforts of the newly formed OSECC (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; and

whereas Gerry Lougheed Jr and northerners and Ontarians across Ontario are not going to give up the fight despite the government's inaction;

"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" and discrimination "which exists presently in the province of Ontario."

Of course I'm in agreement with this petition. I affix my signature to it and give it to Jared to bring to the table.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

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

"Whereas children are exposed to sexually explicit material in variety stores and video rental outlets;

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials;

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

"To enact legislation which will:

"Create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to sexually explicit material in retail establishments;

"Make it illegal to sell, rent, or loan sexually explicit materials to minors."

I am pleased to attach my signature to this petition.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it has been determined that recent funding allocations to the developmental services sector in the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent, and Windsor-Essex have been determined to be grossly inadequate to meet critical and urgent needs;

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

"That the Ministry of Community and Social Services immediately review the funding allocations to the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent and Windsor-Essex and provide funding in keeping with the requests made by families or their agents."

It is signed by a number of persons from Chatham and Grande Pointe. I affix my signature to it and pass it on to Rose.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "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 a recently released Oracle research poll confirms that 92% of Ontarians support equal health travel funding;

"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; and

"Whereas we support the efforts of the newly formed OSECC (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 care;

"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."

Since I agree with this, I will sign it and I will send it down with Tim to the table.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to present a petition. It was actually given to me by Dave Boyd from my constituents Arnold Kerry, Alex Williamson and a number of others.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there are many Ontarians who have a passion for perfection in the restoration of vintage vehicles; and

"Whereas unlike many other jurisdictions, Ontario's vintage auto enthusiasts are unable to register their vehicles using the original year of manufacture licence plates; and

"Whereas Durham MPP John O'Toole and former MPP John Parker have worked together to recognize the desire of vintage car collectors to register their vehicles using vintage plates; and

"Whereas the Honourable David Turnbull as Minister of Transportation has the power to change the existing regulations;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to pass Bill 99 or amend the Highway Traffic Act to allow vintage auto enthusiasts to use year of manufacturing plates when registering their vehicles."

I'm pleased to endorse and sign this petition on their behalf.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

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

"To the Legislature Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas patients requiring eye care in Niagara are faced with a shortage of ophthalmologists and, as a result, are compelled to wait several weeks to secure an appointment with an ophthalmologist;

"Whereas Niagara patients who require potentially vision-saving eye surgery have to, in many cases, wait for several months to have that surgery scheduled;

"Whereas, while the shortage of ophthalmologists is occurring, the removal of billing caps on these medical specialists provides a temporary but essential easing of the health care crisis;

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Health's solution of removing exemptions of the billing cap and forcing patients from Niagara to travel along the very busy Queen Elizabeth Highway to receive treatment in Hamilton is unacceptable;

"Whereas Dr Jeffrey Sher, chief of eye surgery at Hamilton Health Sciences Corp has written to the Minister of Health informing her that Hamilton does not have a sufficient number of practising ophthamologists to handle additional cases from Niagara;

"Be it resolved that the Ontario Ministry of Health remove the cap on billing for ophthalmologists in Niagara until such time as Niagara is no longer an underserviced area."

I agree completely with this petition, and I affix my signature to it and give it to Miranda.

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas charities such as the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada, Goodfellows, the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, firefighters and many others participate in fundraisers on streets, sidewalks and parking lots;

"Whereas the Safe Streets Act, 1999 effectively bans these types of activities, putting police forces in the position of ignoring the law or hindering legitimate charities; and

"Whereas charitable organizations are dependent on these fundraisers to raise much-needed money and awareness;

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

"We ask that the government of Ontario amend provincial legislation by passing Bill 64, the Safe Streets Amendment Act, 2000, to allow charitable organizations to conduct fundraising campaigns on roadways, sidewalks and parking lots."

This is signed by a number of constituents in St Thomas, Aylmer and Elgin county, including such individuals as Harold Boe and David Rock, and I affix my signature in full agreement. Thank you, Jared.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there are many Ontarians who have a passion for perfection in the restoration of vintage vehicles; and

"Whereas unlike many other jurisdictions, Ontario vintage automobile enthusiasts are unable to register their vehicles using the original year of manufacture licence plates; and

"Whereas Durham MPP John O'Toole and former MPP John Parker have worked together to recognize the desire of vintage car collectors to register their vehicles using vintage plates; and

"Whereas the Honourable David Turnbull as Minister of Transportation has the power to change the existing regulation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to pass Bill 99 or to amend the Highway Traffic Act to be used on vintage automobiles."

I affix my name to this petition.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): As the CCAC case managers' strike in Hamilton is now in its ninth week, and as the CCAC has commenced to hire replacement workers for the striking managers who are on the picket line, I will read the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas there are a higher number of elderly people and people with disabilities living in the Hamilton-Wentworth region, because of the excellence of the health care system in the area; and

"Whereas the case managers and placement coordinators in the Hamilton-Wentworth Community Care Access Centre have higher caseloads than other community care access centres in the central-southwest region; and

"Whereas the staff at the Hamilton-Wentworth Community Care Access Centre are paid less than their counterparts in the central-southwest region; and

"Whereas the health care system in Hamilton-Wentworth is a self-contained seamless system; and

"Whereas increasing funding will be needed to provide health care services to citizens in the future in this self-contained seamless system; and

"Whereas all workers working in the health care system, and the citizens of Hamilton-Wentworth, expect adequate funding for the health care system in toto in Hamilton-Wentworth, both now and in the future and recognize the equal importance of all the parts of the seamless health care system;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to provide adequate funding immediately to the Hamilton-Wentworth Community Care Access Centre so that pay and conditions of staff will be equal to those in other community care access centres in the central-southwest region; and that adequate funding will continue to be provided in the future according to the needs of the community."

I am pleased to add my signature to this, and send this petition down with Aaron.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

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

"Whereas there are many Ontarians who have a passion for perfection in the restoration of vintage vehicles; and

"Whereas unlike many other jurisdictions, Ontario vintage automobile enthusiasts are unable to register their vehicles using the original year of manufacture licence plates; and

"Whereas Durham MPP"-my good colleague-"John R. O'Toole and former MPP John Parker have worked together to recognize the desire of vintage car collectors to register their vehicles using vintage plates; and

"Whereas the Honourable David Turnbull as Minister of Transportation has the power to change the existing regulation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to pass Bill 99 or to amend the Highway Traffic Act to be used on vintage automobiles."

I am pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas this government has reduced funding for Ontario's special education programs without regard to the impact these changes are having on some of the province's most vulnerable children; and

"Whereas these special-needs students are now struggling with reductions in the amount of support they require with special education teachers, education assistants and classroom resources; and

"Whereas these high-need children thrive on consistency and routine and these disruptions in their educational support are negatively affecting their progress and self-esteem;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore fair and equitable funding to special education so that parents and teachers can provide the best future for our children."

I agree with this petition, and I proudly sign my name to it and will hand it to this lovely page, Heather.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I really am flattered by the number of people who are responding to this petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas there are many Ontarians who have a passion for perfection in the restoration of vintage vehicles; and

"Whereas unlike many other jurisdictions, Ontario vintage automobile enthusiasts are unable to register their vehicles using the original year of manufacture licence plates; and

"Whereas Durham MPP John R. O'Toole and former MPP John Parker"-in fact, he used to sit right here-"have worked together to recognize the desire of vintage car collectors to register their vehicles using vintage plates; and

"Whereas the Honourable David Turnbull as Minister of Transportation has the power to change the existing regulation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to pass Bill 99 or to amend the Highway Traffic Act" to allow vintage auto enthusiasts to use year-of-manufacturing licence plates when registering their vehicles.

I'm pleased to give this to our great page, Geoff, and he will present it to the table on behalf of the people of Durham.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it has been determined that recent funding allocations to the developmental services sector in the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent, and Windsor-Essex have been determined to be grossly inadequate to meet critical and urgent needs;

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

"That the Ministry of Community and Social Services immediately review the funding allocations to the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent, and Windsor-Essex, and provide funding in keeping with the requests made by families and/or their agents."

I affix my signature to this petition, and I will be giving it to David.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 5, 2000, on the motion for second reading of Bill 147,

An Act to revise the law related to employment standards / Projet de loi 147, Loi portant révision du droit relatif aux normes d'emploi.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Continuing our position from the NDP perspective on Bill 147, I'd like to begin the completion of my remarks by first reading into the record an

article that was published by professor Judy Fudge of Osgoode Hall, who happens to be an expert in employment legislation. The government, of course, claims that it's only the opposition that really cares about public hearings, that we're making a mountain out of a molehill. We've heard all their rhetoric. This is what a law professor has to say about the law and the lack of any kind of public hearings or public participation since the bill has been tabled:

"The government has rewritten the Employment Standards Act. This is an important law because it provides basic employment rights, everything from minimum wage to working hours and parental leave, for workers in Ontario. It affects almost every worker in the province. The government proposes completely to overhaul this basic law in two weeks. Why is the government in such a hurry? Why won't it let people have a say about employment rights?

"The government needs to slow down. Some of the changes it has introduced are just plain bad public policy. The proposed law would take away rights employees already have won. It would make it easier for employers to make employees work longer hours. It would take overtime pay out of employees' pockets and put it into employers'. It is not good public policy to make employees work more hours, especially when people's lives are already squeezed, and pay them less for doing so. People need to talk about these changes before they are turned into law.

"In rewriting the legislation, the government has changed much of the wording and reorganized it. It may be good. It may be bad. Who knows? People need time to read through the proposed law, figure it out and compare it to what the existing Employment Standards Act says. Some of this new language changes important

definitions in the legislation. This could mean either more or fewer people are covered by minimum standards. No one knows. The government has not even discussed it."

Anyone who deals with legislation on a regular basis knows that

definitions are crucial. The devil is always in the detail. I would remind anybody watching or reading the Hansards after the fact that this is not just a few amendments. It's a brand new law from front to back, and it replaces five existing pieces of legislation. It wipes out five of them and they're replaced by this bill. In less than two weeks, with no public input, it's going to become the law of the land and affect-detrimentally, I will argue-millions of people. Millions. This is it. This is the bare minimum standard.

If you don't have a collective agreement and you want to know what your rights are or your child's rights, if you have a teenager or a young person in the family that's out working and they don't have a collective agreement, the only protection that you have in law is this one. This is it, and it's being rammed through here once again at lightning speed.

As I mentioned yesterday, that means both pieces of legislation, the two pillars of labour law in the province of Ontario-the Ontario Labour Relations Act basically and primarily talks about the laws and the parameters regarding the relationship between unions and their employer vis-à-vis the legal rules they have to work under. The brand new Ontario Labour Relations Act was rammed through this place in October 1995: a brand new act, front to back, not one minute of public hearings.

Now the Employment Standards Act, the bare minimum for those who don't have benefit of a collective agreement, is being rammed through in exactly the same process. Where's the legitimacy in that?

Interjection.

Mr Christopherson: Yes, you've got the legal right to do it, but where's the moral right, where's the ethical right to ram through legislation that has such a profound impact on the very quality of working life that millions of people work under, and nobody gets a say? How can that be? How can the media allow this to go on without making it a bigger issue? I'm really concerned about the desensitization that seems to have taken place in the public and in the media about the number of bills that go through this place without any public input.

I've been scrambling the last few days, trying to get legal

interpretations of what this bill means so that I can offer up, hopefully, an informed, intelligent comment on what I think the implications are on behalf of my NDP colleagues. But this government is rushing it through so fast we can't get those legal

interpretations. Is that a coincidence? No. There's something really wrong in a democracy when there's not enough time for the experts.

We deal with a lot of rhetoric in this place, but there are the lawyers and the labour representatives and people who have an obligation to deal with this on a day-to-day basis, and the individual language that's in here makes a huge difference. We need to understand those legal implications if we're to understand the social implications. Why can't that happen? Is there some magical law of physics that's preventing that kind of dialogue and intelligent discourse from taking place? No. The only thing that's limiting that kind of an intelligent debate is that this government is ramming it through.

I guess as long as the public galleries are pretty much empty, the way they are today, and as long as the media treats it as, "Oh, well, that's the Harris government; they're like that," then I guess nothing's going to change. Anybody who is upset about this-I can remember making a similar speech back in 1995. I'm only a little less loud than I was then, simply because I guess I've lived with watching this happen. We've had election laws changed, the funding of elections changed with no public input, just rammed through-unprecedented. We never had those kinds of changes before.

The government knows that if things continue, if it's not on the front page-we've got occupations of ministers' offices, Premier's constituency offices yesterday. It hardly made a blip. What are people supposed to do? But I would say that when I look around today and I look at the papers and I watch the news and listen to the radio, it would seem they're going to win. They have a majority government, they're going to win the vote, that's for sure. But this broader issue of democracy is going by and people are going to wake up in 2001 and find out that there's a brand new law.

If you belong to a union, it's like waking up January 1, 2001, and finding out your whole collective agreement has been changed overnight and you didn't get a say. For the millions of people who are covered by the Employment Standards Act only, with no union, no collective agreement, that's what's happening to them right here and now, and nobody seems to be doing much about it. It's scary, and why would it stop? If the government can get away with it, why would they stop?

Let me start to deal with some of the particular sections in here. First of all, I want to deal with the issue of the 60-hour workweek. It's in

part VII of Bill 147, subsection 17(2). It says:

"An employer may permit an employee to work up to a specified number of hours in excess of an amount set out in subsection (1) if,

"(

a) the employee agrees to work those hours; and

"(

b) the employee will not work more than 60 hours or such other number of hours as are prescribed in a work week."

First of all, before I deal with the implications of a 60-hour workweek-and I want to deal with those at the same time that I deal with the averaging of wages in terms of determining overtime rates-I want to take one step back before I deal with those two issues specifically to deal head-on with this issue that the government talks about in terms of, "It can only be done by mutual consent." The minister said it yesterday; I expect there are going to be members of the government backbenches who are going to try to take all of the horror stories that I think are quite legitimate and real and say, "They don't really matter, because if someone doesn't want this, they just have to say no."

Obviously, anybody who's arguing that point is either ignoring their own experience or has never experienced the workplace, certainly workplaces where you aren't dealing with people who have rights-because there's no contract; there's no union here. If we're dealing with a group of PhDs in some circumstance in a lab somewhere, I suppose they probably could fend for themselves. But for the vast majority of people-don't just take my word for it; let's take a look at what the Supreme Court of Canada had to say.

Again, keep in mind that the government is arguing that if somebody's being asked to work 60 hours a week, meaning over the standard workweek, after 48, they can say no. Our argument is that's a ridiculous point to try and make when there is an absolute, total disharmony of the power relationship in a workplace.

The workplace is not a democracy. There are employees and employers. The boss has the upper hand. The boss is the boss is the boss. That's supposed to be offset by rights, by laws. But there's nothing here. They've eliminated the permit system. I'm going to talk about that too, because that's their other great defence: "Oh, don't worry about eliminating the permit system. It didn't really work anyway." But now they're arguing, "If you don't want to work 60 hours"-it's like a commercial. They think work life is like a commercial: everything's nice and clean and sparkly and the world's great.

It's like you see people who work at a gas station on TV: there's not a grease spot on them; everything's nice and glimmering, and the glint off their teeth. They think that's the real world. That's not the real world. The real world is, when the boss comes over and says, in whatever fashion, "I'd like you to work beyond 48 hours this week," it is not just a matter of saying, "Thanks a lot. I appreciate the offer, but I'm really not interested." "Oh, that's fine. I'm sorry to disturb you. I'm sorry I upset you in any way. I'll just go on and ask someone else." That's not the way the world works.

What does the Supreme Court of Canada say about that very point? In Slaight Communications v Davidson, 1989, the Supreme Court of Canada had this to say about the power relationship in a workplace between employers and employees where there is not the protection of a union:

"The relation between an employer and an isolated employee or worker is typically a relation between a bearer of power and one who is not a bearer of power. In its inception it is

an act of submission. In its operation it is a condition of subordination.... The main object of labour law has always been, and we venture to say will always be, to be a countervailing force to counteract the inequality of bargaining power which is inherent and must be inherent in the employment relationship."

They went on further-actually it was the year before, 1997. Pardon me, that was 1989, so this would be eight years later. The Supreme Court reiterated its position in Wallace and United Grain Growers:

"The contract of employment has many characteristics that set it apart from the ordinary commercial contract. Individual employees on the whole lack both the bargaining power and the information necessary to achieve more favourable contract provisions than those offered by the employer.... This power imbalance is not limited to the employment contract itself, but informs virtually all facets of the employment relationship."

There is no equality. The average worker cannot just say, "No, I don't want to work any more overtime" with impunity. At the end of the day, this clause means there will probably be hundreds of thousands of people who will feel coerced or intimidated. Is that all e