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

December 1, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L062A - Tue 1 Dec 1998 / Mar 1er Déc 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

HIGHWAY ACCIDENTS

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

PLEA BARGAINING

EATING DISORDERS

COMMUNITY SAFETY

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

KENNETH K. CARROLL

VISITOR

WEARING OF RIBBONS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WOMEN'S INSTITUTE WEEK ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SEMAINE DU WOMEN'S INSTITUTE

LOWER PROPERTY TAXES IN SUDBURY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA RÉDUCTION DES IMPÔTS FONCIERS PRÉLEVÉS À SUDBURY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WORLD AIDS DAY

VISITOR

MOTIONS

STATUS OF BILL 72

ORAL QUESTIONS

DIALYSIS

PORK INDUSTRY

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

NORTHERN EDUCATION SERVICES

LONG-TERM CARE

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

HEALTH CARE

STEEL INDUSTRY

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

CANCER TREATMENT

PORK INDUSTRY

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

LAND USE PLANNING

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

EDUCATION REFORM

REMEMBRANCE DAY

EDUCATION FUNDING

ADOPTION

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRE

ABORTION

ROAD SAFETY

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HEALTH CARE

PALLIATIVE CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA COMMISSION DES SERVICES DU GRAND TORONTO

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

HEALTH CARE

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): Today is the first anniversary of the passage of Bill 160 and I want to take a moment to reflect on this government's record on education, both in Ontario and in my riding of Oriole.

It's been one year since this government took over total control of our educational system, and what have these changes meant? They've meant cuts to schools and daycare programs that operate in our school buildings.

Parents in Oriole are angry. They're frustrated that the provincial government does not listen to their concerns. They don't want to lose their daycare centres; they don't want them to close. They don't want to see their libraries threatened. They don't want to see money wasted on advertising by this government to sell them that everything is OK.

They're frustrated that the government did not listen to their concerns on the funding formula. Both before and after Bill 160, parents, students, teachers and other community members told you they wanted these changes to the funding formula so that it would not threaten their local schools. They told you they wanted the funding formula changed so that their children could receive bus service again. They were all frustrated when you only made changes on the threshold of an election, not because you've admitted that you need to start again and restore local input and flexibility to the education system, but because you're worried about votes.

This is a day that I will remember - the passage of Bill 160 - and I know that parents in my riding of Oriole will be doing the same. Parents in Oriole know that Premier Dalton McGuinty will repeal Bill 160. I'm sure that on election day the people of Don Valley East will remember that as well.

HIGHWAY ACCIDENTS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise on a very important issue: to request that a coroner's inquest be held into the accident at the Root River bridge at approximately 7:15 pm on Friday, November 20, in my riding. This accident resulted in the death of 10-year-old Linton Muncaster, son of Mr and Mrs Kevin Muncaster of Desbarats, as well as in serious injuries to a number of other people. This accident was the last in a series of three accidents which occurred within a very short time on the three bridges on Highway 17, the Trans-Canada Highway, on the Garden River reserve between Echo Bay and Sault Ste Marie.

The bridge road conditions were very slippery because of black ice on all three bridges. The one salt truck that was on duty had not traversed these bridges. The first accident occurred on the Garden River bridge and the salt truck was then called out. The second accident happened on the Echo Bay bridge a few minutes later. There appears to be some confusion about whether this accident held up the salt truck. The traffic was allowed to proceed before the salt truck went through and the third accident happened on the Root River bridge, taking Linton Muncaster's life.

A number of questions must be answered: Why hadn't the salt truck spread salt on these slippery bridges earlier? Why was it only called out after the first accident? Why was there only one salt truck, instead of two, on duty in those weather conditions? Is this because of cutbacks to MTO? Why wasn't the road closed by the OPP after the first accident to prevent further serious mishaps? These questions must be answered by a coroner's inquest to determine all facts.

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I would like to update the members of the House and congratulate those involved in a unique and exciting project which was officially unveiled last week in my riding with the help of my colleague the Honourable Jim Wilson, Minister of Energy, Science and Technology.

Ontario Hydro's Lennox generating station near the town of greater Napanee, in co-operation with Union Gas, has completed its $40-million dual fuel conversion project, which will enable the facility to burn natural gas as well as oil in two of its four 550-megawatt units. This undertaking is a first in the energy industry and makes the Lennox generating station a one-of-a-kind facility, offering both oil-generated and natural-gas-generated power.

The successful completion of the project, six months ahead of

schedule and on budget, was a fine example of what can be accomplished when the private sector and all levels of government work together in the name of the consumer. Burning natural gas would help lower Lennox's operating costs by about 20%, while helping to reduce sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and greenhouse gas emissions by about 25%.

Natural gas is expected to be used during the March-to-October period of each year when demand is lower, with the plant switching to oil during the winter home heating season. Lower fuelling costs will help Hydro maintain its commitments to consumers of no rate increases for the remainder of the 1990s, and should strengthen Lennox's competitive position as a supplier of electricity. These are the types of projects which both create and maintain employment in our province.

PLEA BARGAINING

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I have repeatedly, in this House, requested clear guidelines on plea bargaining. The issue was first raised by me as a result of the horrendous deal that was struck in the case of Karla Homolka and her

part in the brutal killing of two young women. That deal has been widely called "the deal with the devil."

We pressed for an inquiry into the matter, and finally the Attorney General agreed to one. Mr Justice Patrick Galligan concluded, among other things, that the minister should look at establishing clear guidelines for plea bargains. Subsequently, in response to a question from me in June 1996, the Attorney General indicated, "The senior members in the criminal law division are working on this project, and I expect they'll have guidelines prepared and dealt with." Assurances to that effect were given to me again later that year by the Attorney General.

Yet here we are, more than two years later, having just witnessed the fiasco created by the government and the arrangement last week with Ken Murdock in Hamilton. I see little evidence of the Attorney General acting on his word. While this may not be the most sympathetic case, it is cases such as these that make precedents for the most tragic cases.

Ontarians want a government willing to create rules to bring clarity, ensure public confidence and enshrine accountability in our justice system. This was one of the key lessons in the miscarriage of justice in the Homolka case. It's time for the Attorney General to live up to his office and to his commitment. Stop the delay and bring forward plea bargaining rules, clear guidelines, now.

EATING DISORDERS

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Anorexia nervosa is a devastating disease which ends up being fatal in 10% of all cases. That's why governments must acknowledge the severity of eating disorders in our society and provide necessary health care close to home. Since January 1998, the Sudbury Regional Hospital eating disorders clinic has had a proposal in to the Ministry of Health to provide specialized services to children under 16.

This clinic is the only ministry-funded community-based mental health program to provide outpatient, interdisciplinary care to sufferers of eating disorders throughout all of northern Ontario. It has served adult clients and their families for eight years now and has a proven track record.

The proposal to the ministry is to expand these specialized services to children. There are no services like this for children north of Toronto. This cannot continue. Because of the desperate needs of children, staff have been trying to help them through the outpatient clinic. But it's high time the clinic received the funding it needs to fully expand its services to sufferers under 16.

A constituent dropped off a letter to me yesterday about this matter, and said of the clinic and staff: "I do not know what we would do without all their support, because as strong as our family is, we could not get through this without the help and counselling they give to help us understand and deal with this. I thank God every night that the clinic is willing to help us even though she is only 16."

This Conservative government must fund this proposal now. It's unacceptable that we do not have services for children north of Toronto.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Community safety is an important issue in my riding of Oshawa, as it is in all of Ontario. I have met with many of my constituents in Oshawa and with the municipality where we discussed the concerns many Oshawa residents have about the safety of our neighbourhoods and our community.

In last spring's budget, the government announced its commitment to investing in new initiatives to promote safety in our communities and helping municipalities hire new front-line police officers to serve in our communities as part of the province's community policing partnership. Last week the province followed up on that commitment by announcing that it would help fund 1,000 new police officers in Ontario to keep the streets safe and protect our communities and families.

The final report of the First International Conference for Crime Prevention Practitioners, held in March 1996, called for partnerships with all levels of government which have responsibilities for policing and program development for community safety. The province's community policing partnership responds to the concerns of the residents of Oshawa and Ontario about community safety and the need for all levels of government to work together in making our communities safe.

For the Durham Regional Police Service, this announcement means that the Durham Regional Police Service would receive up to $5.54 million from the province for the hiring of 42 new police officers on our streets. These officers represent a net new addition to the strength of our local police force. Putting 42 new officers on the streets of Oshawa and other communities in the region of Durham is part of our commitment to building and maintaining a safe and secure community in which to live and raise our children.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Anyone who thought that Bill 160 was about anything other than removing hundreds of millions of dollars from the education system and centralizing all control of education at the ministry office in downtown Toronto should now be aware that the real motive of the Conservative government of Mike Harris in ramming through their drastic and ill-conceived changes like some human wrecking crew is obvious.

At a time when the Harris regime, like its heroes in the Republican state of New Jersey, was giving income tax cuts which benefit the wealthiest and most powerful in the province the most, it was slashing per-student funding, causing disruption and anxiety among those who deliver education services on the front line.

Schools are closing, teaching positions are being eliminated, budgets for secretarial and maintenance staff have been significantly reduced, and relations between boards and employers have deteriorated badly. The morale in our schools is at an all-time low as educators and non-teaching staff have become yet another target of Mike Harris and his backroom boys who call the real shots in Ontario today, and students around the province see the sorry results.

Yes, Mike Harris, that self-appointed, self-anointed guardian of the taxpayers' dollar, is squandering over $50 million on blatantly self-congratulatory TV and radio commercials, newspaper ads and glossy pamphlets which seem to arrive in our mailboxes on a weekly basis. Now we know where the slashed budget in education and hospital care is going, to Mike Harris's re-election campaign, and the Ontario taxpayer is picking up the tab.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Today marks the first anniversary of the passage of Bill 160, this government's most destructive piece of legislation dealing with Ontario's education system. To mark this occasion, People for Education will be visiting their MPP's offices between 4 and 5 o'clock.

Unfortunately, I'll be unable to be in my office, and I wanted to take this opportunity to state publicly that I agree with the 15 points about education set out by the Wind-Ex group in my community. I'd like to highlight a few of them.

"

(1) Our education system must be fully publicly funded. Privatization of the public education system is unacceptable.

"

(3) The province must develop a funding formula based on students and programs, not square feet and dollars.

"

(5) Savings from school board amalgamations must be reinvested in the education system.

"

(10) The arts and physical education are an essential part of learning.

Finally, "

(15) Charter schools and voucher systems must not be introduced in the province of Ontario."

The Liberals say they'll repeal Bill 160, but only the NDP will not only repeal Bill 160 but are committed to reinvest in public education and have a plan that says how they're going to pay for it. We'd like to see the Liberal plan.

KENNETH K. CARROLL

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): On behalf of my colleague the Honourable Dianne Cunningham, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and member for London North, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr Kenneth K. Carroll, who passed away on October 3, 1998. Dr Carroll was professor emeritus in the department of biochemistry at the University of Western Ontario and a pioneer in the field of nutritional biochemistry. He was instrumental in recognizing the links between dietary components and disease prevention, specifically with relation to breast cancer.

Dr Carroll was born in New Brunswick. He attended the University of Western Ontario, and in 1949 earned the first doctorate awarded by that university. He began his teaching post at Western in 1954 and spent his entire teaching and research career there, developing a lab that became an international training centre. During his tenure, he trained gradate students, post-doctoral fellows, research associates and visiting professors and technologists from across the world, because he had become known as an outstanding chemist and nutritionist.

He was in demand throughout the world to present papers and attend symposia on nutritional links to the prevention of cancer and was the founder of the Centre for Human Nutrition at the University of Western Ontario.

He was honoured with membership as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and received an honorary doctor of science degree from the University of New Brunswick in 1993. He was also presented with a lifetime achievement award of the American Oil Chemists Society.

His significant contributions, dedication and energy made him a highly respected and internationally sought-out -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Let me just take a moment. We have in the opposition members' gallery the member for Huron in the 35th Parliament, Mr Paul Klopp. Welcome back.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Pursuant to the rules of the House, I would like to ask unanimous consent for permission for us to wear the red ribbons today, which are commemorative of World AIDS Day.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WOMEN'S INSTITUTE WEEK ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SEMAINE DU WOMEN'S INSTITUTE

Mr Wildman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 86,

An Act to designate a week of recognition for the Women's Institute / Projet de loi 86, Loi désignant une semaine de reconnaissance à l'égard du Women's Institute.

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

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The week beginning the second Monday of February in each year is to be proclaimed Women's Institute Week, in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the Women's Institute. February is a significant month in WI history: In that month, the first branch was formed in Stoney Creek in 1897; Adelaide Hoodless, WI's founder, was born and died; the Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario was organized to coordinate the work of the branches; and the Federated Women's Institutes of Canada was organized to work at the national level in that month.

It is desirable to recognize and acknowledge WI's real and continuing contribution to improving the lives of families and communities both in Ontario and throughout the world.

LOWER PROPERTY TAXES IN SUDBURY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA RÉDUCTION DES IMPÔTS FONCIERS PRÉLEVÉS À SUDBURY

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 87,

An Act relating to property taxes in Sudbury / Projet de loi 87, Loi concernant les impôts fonciers prélevés à Sudbury.

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

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The bill is going to be entitled Lower Property Taxes in Sudbury Act. It will ensure fairness for all residents of the regional municipality of Sudbury with regard to property taxes, both commercial and private property.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WORLD AIDS DAY

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I rise in the Legislature today and I speak on the occasion of the 11th annual World AIDS Day.

HIV and AIDS have touched many of our families and friends, and I stand in the House today to reaffirm this government's commitment to HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention.

This year's theme, "Force for Change: World AIDS Campaign with Young People," builds upon the momentum of last year's campaign, "Children Living in a World with AIDS." This theme is important for several reasons. Over 50% of the new infections with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, are now occurring in young people in the 10-24 age group. Of the 30 million people living with HIV around the world, at least one third are young people aged 10-24. Every day 7,000 young people worldwide acquire the virus. To put it in very real terms, five young people are infected with HIV every minute.

Secondly, it is youth that are central to any discussion of HIV and AIDS. Today's youth will continue to strive to find a cure for this disease. It will require their vision and participation to reduce the spread of HIV as well as enlisting support for young people already suffering.

However, each of us has a role to play. For young people's participation to be effective, adults, especially parents, must be open to listen and communicate with children. This is a disease that does not recognize age, class or economic status. It is also a disease that is very close to home. The Bureau of HIV/AIDS and STD estimates that as of the end of 1996 approximately 54,000 Canadians had been infected with HIV and 42,000 Canadians were living with the HIV infection. In Ontario, 16,000 people are diagnosed every year with HIV.

This government takes pride in our ongoing efforts to help those inflicted with AIDS. We continue to be proactive in supporting HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives and have made HIV and AIDS care, treatment and support a high priority as a government. This year alone the Ontario government will spend $51.6 million for HIV/AIDS-related programs. That is $9.4 million more than the federal government spends for all of Canada. It is important to remember that this $51.6 million spent in Ontario does not include physician billings to OHIP.

Our funding supports important initiatives like the Ontario Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS, the Ontario HIV Treatment Network, anonymous HIV testing and HIV outpatient clinics. Last year alone our AIDS hotline received over 90,000 calls.

These are just a few of our initiatives in our fight to both prevent the further spread of this disease and to encourage communities across Ontario to become more educated about HIV/AIDS.

However, we cannot rest. Later this afternoon, I will be announcing further steps that our government is undertaking to expand our prenatal screening program for AIDS. This will allow us to be even more aggressive in the fight to prevent the spread of AIDS, especially in children.

When discussing government initiatives, it is important to acknowledge the many individuals who have been working in partnership with the Ministry of Health and this government to ensure that we continue to prioritize AIDS issues within the overall health framework.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr David Hoe of Ottawa, the current co-chair of the Ontario Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS, and Dr Anne Phillips of Toronto, the other former co-chair who has recently left the committee, for their invaluable advice and assistance to the Ministry of Health and their tireless work on behalf of the AIDS community.

In addition, I would like to acknowledge the work of all other individuals involved with the Ontario Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS, as well as all of the individuals and volunteers who are working in their individual communities to try to educate and support those with HIV/AIDS. On behalf of all Ontarians, we thank you for your hours of hard work and dedication to such a worthy cause.

As a society, we must ever be vigilant in our efforts as we continue to work to eliminate the AIDS epidemic. We must continue to fight prejudice, whether in the workplace or in the school yard, we must continue to educate our families and our neighbours about the devastating effect this disease can have and we must continue to offer our assistance and our help to our fellow Ontarians who are suffering.

By working together, whether we are young or old, we can someday hope to knock down all of the barriers that stand between us and a cure for AIDS.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I rise today not with a great deal of relish or pleasure but out of the grim necessity that we need, on World AIDS Day, to be addressing our role in the response to this disease.

Everyone in this House is affected, and maybe to understand that, we need to pretend that each one of us is infected and walk some of the streets and some of the paths that people with AIDS are having to walk right here in our province. We know there are five million people across the world and we know there are 54,000 people in Canada who have been infected, but let's try to bring it down to just one.

For those of us who attended a press conference earlier today and heard from the people from AIDS Action Now, we recognize that we have been deficient. While we have tried to keep this a non-partisan issue, we have to say that this government has been deficient in our response to the dignity and the simple requirements that people have in terms of being able to be provided for in this province.

The minister opposite would do well to listen to what the people from AIDS Action Now said today about having to wait since 1995, when they were promised by your predecessor there would be changes, to have access to the drugs they need to survive. Instead, today, Minister, you are going to make a partial announcement of some of those things that your government promised more than three years ago, almost four years ago.

When it comes to living up to the credentials, the ability for us to be a compassionate society, your and your government's unique job is to represent the rest of us, because you have the power. There is a test for that, and the test for that is how quickly we respond, how readily we recognize that real people are involved.

We heard today from a mother and a young son who receive treatment not because we met the test; they're receiving treatment because they used their credit cards to get the medication they couldn't get easily and quickly through the Trillium drug program that this province has established and this government is now charged to try to approve and make accessible, because it has failed to do that over the last number of years.

We also heard from people who are walking the path that all of us should put ourselves on, because it's the path of people who have an everyday need for our health system. The rest of us sit in fear of having to use an emergency room, a concern of not being able to access services. People with AIDS have to live that on a day-to-day basis.

They're telling us and they're telling you, Minister, about home care hours that are being cancelled, about waits in emergency rooms of 24 and 48 hours to be seen when the manifestations of their disease become serious, about recent restrictions in not being able to see specialists for more than 10 minutes at a time except for one comprehensive assessment once in a lifetime. There's heavy irony to that. That's the kind of Ontario health care system you're creating.

Minister, you bear another test in terms of the ability of your government to stand up today on behalf of the rest of us in this province on the issue of AIDS, and that is, testing for AIDS in women who are pregnant. There's been a study in Ontario that is now four years old that told us something very simple: If we're able to make testing available to all pregnant women in this province, we can actually prevent AIDS in a huge number of these cases.

I'm sad to report to the House today a study done in this province that talks about 35 preventable AIDS infections on the part of infants because we haven't implemented that. All of us stand reasonably accountable in terms of this not having come about, but it has been on the table, it has been promised, and it has not been delivered.

When it comes to a commemoration of World AIDS Day, when we want to afford to all those who are infected the full rights of citizenship, when we say to those who have contracted this disease through no fault of their own, because we don't subscribe to that, that they have the right of full citizenship, when we say we want to remove barriers, when we say we want to make sure they feel like they belong in this province and in this country, we are measured by our actions. Today, in 1998, on World AIDS Day, we cannot say that the Ontario government has lived up to that on behalf of the rest of us.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Mr Speaker, I'm pleased to be able to respond to the minister's statement, although I would say to you that we understood we had agreement, we had unanimous consent, for a statement about World AIDS Day, not a minister's statement which is a non-announcement. This minister dares to stand up in this House and say that later today she's going to announce something.

Well, the secret's out, Minister, and we know exactly what it is you're planning to announce. You're going to go to Sick Children's Hospital and you're going to announce a prenatal testing program for women. On the surface that may sound like an excellent plan, and it may indeed be in some cases, but there's a little matter of consent. You were told by the AIDS committees and by AIDS Action Now about the issue of unwilling testing and you have not answered those concerns. Furthermore, you have waited to announce this as part of the rollout of your great scheme to persuade the people of Ontario that your government has a new face.

As the member for York South pointed out, in December 1995, in celebration of World AIDS Day, the previous minister promised there would be changes to the Trillium drug plan to meet the demands that AIDS patients and their supporters had made. Those demands were very reasonable.

They pointed out, first of all, that anyone with a chronic illness who is having to pay a deductible up front without having that spread over a period of time creates undue hardship, particularly for those who are low-income earners.

Second, they pointed out that there was no pro-rated system. You pay the entire fee for the year in which you're applying for Trillium drugs, whether you applied the month before the year changes, now August 1, or on August 1. That was another issue for people.

The third issue was the elimination of the deductible payment for those people with AIDS who continue to try and work who are low-income earners or who are on long-term disability plan. Those long-term disability plan recipients are considered earners, so they continue to pay the deductible for their drugs even if their income is at or below the level it would be if they were on social assistance or on the ODSP.

Minister, your predecessor promised this three years ago. Here we are again. Canadian Press announced this morning that you were going to announce a change in this, to have the deductible be able to be paid four times a year. You know from the representations you've had from groups like AIDS Action Now that that doesn't really resolve the problem for low-income earners. So if you plan to try to say you are meeting the demands that have been made, you haven't.

I want to take a moment to talk very briefly about the importance of our honouring those who have acquired HIV and who have full-blown AIDS. Unlike my colleague in the Liberal Party, I don't assign fault to anyone who has this disease, and I think it is important for all of us to understand that this is a scourge on all of us.

We know that the numbers are appalling and we know that prevention is the most important aspect. One of the reasons we're so disgusted and disappointed with the download this government has made is the download of public health services to municipalities, where the possibility is very clear that some municipalities may not recognize the need for ongoing funding for AIDS prevention programs, and where they may try and stick their heads in the sand and deny that HIV and AIDS is a problem for every community.

We call on you again in honour of World AIDS Day to reverse this foolish decision around public health care and to restore full funding for HIV/AIDS programs from the provincial level so they will be available all over this province. It is the least you could do, Minister, if your fine words mean anything.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to draw the House's attention to the government members' gallery and introduce Mr Andy Watson, the member for Chatham-Kent from the 32nd Parliament. Welcome.

MOTIONS

STATUS OF BILL 72

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent to move a motion without notice respecting Bill 72, the Intercountry Adoption Act.

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

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that the order of the House of November 4, 1998, referring Bill 72,

An Act to govern intercountry adoptions and to implement the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption in order to further the best interests of children, to the standing committee on social development be discharged and that the bill be ordered for third reading.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

DIALYSIS

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I'd like to ask you about your recent announcements in terms of dialysis services in this province. In particular, you made announcements recently in Cornwall, Belleville and Ottawa. These were services promised a very long time ago and finally realized. We want to give credit to the member for Cornwall in particular, John Cleary, for his tireless efforts to make sure his community did not receive detrimental treatment.

In awarding those contracts, you decided to give the dialysis contracts to private companies. I'd like to know in the House today why you chose private companies over bids that were put in by public hospitals, which could have used their space already publicly paid for, could have used some of their ability, some of their staff, some of their support. They could have done that and provided those services. Can you explain to us why you chose private companies to provide these services?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I want to tell you that yesterday was a very special day, because yesterday we saw the benefits of the announcements that the government has been making about making services more accessible to people throughout the province. We had made a commitment to people that we were going to be expanding dialysis services. We had made a commitment that we were going to ensure that we were going to bring services closer to home, and we have done so.

We have announced now the creation of 21 new dialysis centres in Ontario. We are bringing services closer to home. These are people who no longer have to travel hours each day back and forth and then be subjected to dialysis of three to five hours each day. I have to tell you there is universal joy in this province because of the improvements it's making in the quality of life of individuals. Yesterday we had people -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, if you will listen to the question, you will understand that it's not the joy of the hard-pressed, long-waiting dialysis patients in Cornwall, Brockville and Ottawa that we're questioning here. We're asking why you decided to give so much joy to private companies.

Particularly I would like to draw your attention to Bayshore Dialysis in Brockville. I know you were there recently. I'm wondering if you can tell us why Bayshore Dialysis, which receives a fee from your ministry to provide dialysis services, also houses Bayshore Healthcare, owned by the same company, Polar Valley investments, on the same site. Can you tell us whether Bayshore Healthcare pays you any rent for the space they use or is this being subsidized by the money you give them for dialysis?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Maybe the member has forgotten, because he hasn't been here all that long, but it was your government that brought in the Independent Health Facilities Act in the late 1980s under Elinor Caplan, and it was your legislation that paved the way for private companies to operate in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Mr Kennedy: Everyone watching you knows you didn't answer the question; you distorted it. The question was, why are you choosing private health care companies? First you gave it to an American company that had a problematic track record where somebody was hurt in the United States under their service, then you were sued by that company - your own mismanagement of the issue - then you tried to give it to the Kingston General Hospital and now you have awarded it to some other private companies.

Minister, what I asked you is, are you aware these companies are using the space that you pay them for for their other businesses? Also, are you aware that the square footage being rented is some 30% less than what they're actually telling you is available?

I'll ask you a simple question: Will you open the agreement that you made with Bayshore Dialysis in Brockville to the public so we can see that private companies are not getting any special treatment from your government when it comes to health care?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just remind the member that it was his government that brought in the Independent Health Facilities Act. It was your government that opened the way for private companies to compete. In fact, here's a quote from Elinor Caplan, July 7, 1993, where she says:

"We are seeing them" - meaning the NDP - "force the private sector out of the delivery of health services, all in the guise of health reform, and I will say to the minister, who's here today, that what is important...from my experience as a former Minister of Health is not so much who delivers the service, but the result.

"I believe there is a very important role for the private sector to play in the delivery of health and social services."

I agree. We are taking action today because your government refused to recognize the needs of dialysis patients in this province, and we are moving the services closer to home in order that people don't have to travel and they can have an enhanced quality of life that you -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, official opposition.

PORK INDUSTRY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Today nearly 2,000 pork producers travelled to Queen's Park, along with supporters of their industry, to bring to you the message that indeed their industry is in a crisis situation. They are looking at prices that have not been seen in 30 years. It was 30 years ago that prices were at this very low level. We're here to help, but you have known since July of this crisis.

The producers who travelled here today were hoping for a positive announcement, but they heard nothing. What they did hear was that an announcement may be made in 30 or 40 days. Minister, 30 or 40 days from now will be too late for many producers. You know that other provinces have already taken action. Why do you sit there and do nothing?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): That is somewhat strange coming from a Liberal member. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has been lobbying the federal government since the summer to put an emergency plan in place. Our hog producers are facing catastrophic prices. You're aware of that. We're all aware of that.

We are working with the federal government. The pork industry is very concerned about countervailing measures which have been applied to them in the past. We want to make sure that the program that comes forth is not countervailable. We must test that program before we initiate, and we are preparing to provide advance monies to those farmers.

Mr Hoy: Minister, you know that other provinces have already taken action, but this is what we've learned just in the last few moments from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs public service announcement dated today: "The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has established a temporary hotline to provide advice and counselling to pork producers on financial and business management and animal care. The service will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week." Yet another hotline from your government. Is this your response to a crisis within the pork industry?

Pork producers need your assistance now. Thirty to 40 days will be too late. Many farm families are looking at a very bleak situation for this coming Christmas. People at the OFA convention said that almost a year after the ice storm disaster many people have yet to receive any of their relief money. Yours is a ministry of inaction. Will you not assist the Ontario pork producers immediately?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I feel rather sad that the member opposite is against having some moral support for a hotline. If indeed that is the kind of thinking he is putting forth, then I think he should reconsider his position.

He spoke of the ice storm. On January 29 we had cheques made out to farmers at the ice storm. We will have advance funds to our farmers as soon as your federal friends come up with a program.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): We could spend $10 million a year.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Grey-Owen Sound, come to order, please. Thank you. Final supplementary, member for Prescott and Russell.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): Minister, you say your government understands that this is a crisis situation. You say you met the federal minister last week to foresee a solution. The pork producers came today to hear what the solution was. Your government has ignored the problem for far too long. This help is needed and it is needed now, today. In eastern Ontario, the pork market is in dire straits. Quebec pork producers are overcoming our market, offering a lower price than Ontario producers because of the provincial subsidy they receive.

Minister, stop blaming the federal government. You are the Ontario Minister of Agriculture. Your government must act now. Other provinces have come to the aid of their producers. Ontario pork producers are tired of hearing promises. They need action now. They need it before the whole industry disappears. What will your government do today to ensure the pork industry's survival?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I simply repeat to my colleague from Prescott and Russell, I am in constant and regular contact with the federal minister. He is saying there will not be any program forthcoming until the middle of December. I believe we have to work together. It will be a percentage funded by the province and a percentage funded by the federal government, as was the case in the ice storm. We will be providing advance funds.

The province of Saskatchewan is dealing with the federal government and they do not want to support any portion of the relief assistance. We're quite prepared to carry our portion, but we need to know from Ottawa what they are going to do.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. Last Friday, the member for Welland-Thorold and I made an unexpected visit to the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. We had heard that there was an unusually high number of mentally ill patients who were languishing in Ontario jails, and we decided to see for ourselves. What we found was much worse than we expected.

We asked to be taken to the male and female segregation units, where the mentally ill are most often housed. In fact, that's what's known as "the hole," and those units are seldom used for administrative punishment any more because so many of the mentally ill need to be kept there for their own safety. Again and again we saw doors with "medical observation" and "suicide watch" on them. The female unit has four of those cells; all four had mentally ill patients in them and three of those were on suicide watch. Similarly in the male units - we visited half of them - there were two offenders who had severe mental illnesses and two suicide watches.

Minister, there are people in those jails with serious mental health problems. When did you become responsible for the mentally ill, rather than the Minister of Health?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I guess I could go back to the member who posed that question and ask, when did she become aware of a problem with mentally ill people in our corrections system? She was a justice minister and a Comsoc minister in the former government, and now she steps up in this House with a typical holier-than-thou attitude of a member of the NDP, suggesting that this is something new. This was identified by the Provincial Auditor in at least two reports to the Liberal government and the NDP government. This is the first government that is attempting to address this problem in a serious and meaningful way.

Mrs Boyd: As usual, this government tries to blame the problems they've caused by hospital closures on everyone else. Minister, we spoke to correctional officers who had worked for over 20 years in the jails, and they told us they had never seen anything like this. They told us how serious this problem is. In 1996, Toronto police alone apprehended people under the Mental Health Act 2,485 times. People who are apprehended that way are put in jail while they wait for trial or assessment.

A leaked document obtained by OPSEU suggests that an average of 76 mentally ill patients are detained in Ontario jails under the Mental Health Act at any given time. By your own estimate, the estimate of your ministry, 15% to 20% of the prison population suffers from severe mental disorders requiring psychiatric treatment.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mrs Boyd: I must tell you that you are responsible, and I want you to tell me, if this is the situation now at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, what's going to happen when those two -

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Runciman: I believe the issue of the number of people who are suffering from some degree of mental illness in our corrections system was first raised by the Provincial Auditor in 1986. The NDP served as the government of this province from 1990 to 1995. I can recall during their years in opposition, with their friends in OPSEU, complaining about deinstitutionalization and the closure of mental health beds in this province. Then they formed the government, and what happened to OPSEU, what happened to the NDP with respect to deinstitutionalization policies in this province? Absolutely nothing.

If anything, they were accelerated. That's a reality. I don't like this holier-than-thou attitude and I don't believe the public of Ontario do. The reality is that this government is doing something about the situation through infrastructure renewal and providing facilities in our new institutions which will effectively deal with mentally ill offenders. We as a government are actually doing something about a real problem, unlike that party across the way, unlike the Liberal government, which had nothing but rhetoric to offer.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Talk about a holier-than-thou attitude. You are the government. You are the government that is going out there and closing psychiatric hospitals and opening mega-jails, and you say that's a solution.

These people are suffering from mental illness. They need beds and care, not jails and bars, and that's the only solution you're offering. When we were at Elgin-Middlesex, we spoke to a staff member who used to work as a psychiatric nurse. She told us, "My former patients are now my inmates."

There is a crisis in our jails. When you add closed psychiatric hospitals to overcrowding and understaffing in the jails and you multiply that by mentally ill inmates, you have a disaster that's about to happen.

In 1995 your Premier said that no psychiatric hospitals would be closed. Are you going to hold him to that promise, or are you going to continue putting mentally ill patients in jail?

Hon Mr Runciman: It appears the member didn't receive the message that since 1995 the government has taken steps to add 60 new forensic beds to the system and, in conjunction with the Ministry of the Attorney General, established a consolidated mental health court for downtown, increased funding for intensive case management services, and expenditures on forensic services are 15% higher today than they were in 1995.

The reality is, of course, that we see a position from the NDP which is consistent with their position in years gone by in opposition and a totally different position from when they were in government. In fact, they accelerated deinstitutionalization of mental health facilities while they were in government and did not provide the necessary community support. This government is going through an infrastructure renewal program in the corrections system. We're going to address the problems of the mentally ill.

We're also moving expeditiously to provide the necessary community supports for people who are going through the deinstitutionalization process. We are addressing this problem, a problem that was neglected for many years by both the NDP and Liberal governments.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mr Hampton: I would say to the Minister of Correctional Services, you have made a lot of announcements about mental health; the only thing you've done is put mentally ill patients in jail.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Education. This is the anniversary of -

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Labour, do you want to talk to me?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The leader of the third party gets up and addresses his question to the Minister of Education and then addresses -

The Speaker: I've addressed this on a number of occasions: I don't tell them how to ask the questions and I don't tell you how to answer them. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Minister of Education, this is one year after the date when you forced Bill 160 through the House. We all know now that Bill 160 isn't about improving education; it's about getting the money out of our schools so you can finance your income tax scheme for the most well-off people in Ontario.

Yesterday, I visited the city of Oshawa, Oshawa Central Collegiate Institute, an inner-city high school that is slated to be closed by your school closing formula. Gratefully, the Durham Board of Education voted last night not to close it, voted not to follow your funding formula, but that's going to cost them $5 million. Five million dollars is what you're going to take away from them now because they didn't close that school.

Your funding formula is pitting community against community. Minister, you changed the funding formula in Toronto. Will you change it for other communities before they have to close their schools?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): It's a little bit difficult to make any sense out of the question from the leader of the third party. The funding formula applies to all the school boards across the province of Ontario, applies equally to each and every school board across the province. That's the beauty of the funding formula, that it treats every child in Ontario on a fair and equitable basis, allowing for an equal opportunity -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister?

Hon David Johnson: Every child across the province of Ontario will get the same opportunity through the funding formula, whether it's a child living in an urban or a rural area, whether it's a child in a wealthy or a poor community. The injection of over $200 million - $211 million, to be precise - in permanent funding affects each and every school board, including the Durham school board. They will realize the benefits of this injection of total, permanent funding into the system to support the maintenance of our schools right across the province.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you can continue with that line, but you and I both know that in places like the Durham board, in places like Kitchener, you're going to force, through your funding formula, those boards of education one way or another to close inner-city schools before they get any funding to increase the size of their suburban schools. It's your funding formula that's driving that.

Your funding formula is also driving scenarios where students who need extra help, students who have special needs, aren't getting those needs met any longer under your funding formula.

This funding formula doesn't work. It doesn't allow students to get the education they need, it doesn't allow special-needs students to get the education they need, and it's going to force communities to close schools. Will you, once and for all, permanently change the funding formula so that schools and education and students are the priority, not getting the money out for your tax scheme?

Hon David Johnson: More nonsense from the leader of the third party. In fact, this government is injecting more money into the education system than ever in the history of elementary and secondary schools. There will be over $15 billion spent in the education system in the province of Ontario over this school year, as opposed to about $14.5 billion in the previous year, and do you know what? More per pupil, and more per pupil in the classroom, where it really counts: for teachers, for books, for computers, for professionals to help out, for supply teachers, everything that counts in the classroom - more money for it.

Yes, I'm not embarrassed to say that we will be reducing funding to administration, to bureaucracy, to waste, but where it really counts, in the classroom, there will be more money in every board right across Ontario.

Mr Hampton: You should tell that to parents in Peel, who are now paying extra fees so they can have lunchroom supervisors; or the schools in Dowling that no longer have caretakers; or in Huntsville, where parents are volunteering to teach phys ed because they lost their gym teacher; or all of the parents across Ontario who have children who have special needs, who are worried that they don't have the educational assistance they used to have.

Minister, independent analysis of the education funding shows that when you factor in inflation and increases in enrolment, you've actually taken $883 million out of the funding base. We disclosed your deputy minister's contract a year ago, which said she gets a bonus if she cuts $667 million in a year. Did you pay your deputy minister the bonus for getting the money out of the schools?

Hon David Johnson: The facts are these: There will be over $15 billion spent in the education system this year, probably closer to about $15.4 million. Last year, 1997, in the education system there was some $14.4 billion spent in elementary and secondary. There will be an extra roughly billion dollars spent in education across Ontario this year, all up, for all purposes. That money is being directed right into the classroom, where it counts to the best advantage.

We're doing this because education is a top priority of this government. The two most important services to the people of Ontario are education and health care. That's where we need to invest the money, that's what the people of Ontario want to see and that's where we're putting the money for the best advantage of the people of Ontario.

NORTHERN EDUCATION SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is also for the Minister of Education. It is indeed exactly one year since you took total control of all education funding, and for the past year we have had one fiasco after another. I want today to give you one more example of a fiasco that you refuse to fix: your remote and rural school grants.

The member for Renfrew North has already raised this issue with you because his board is not considered to be remote. Now we're learning of northern school boards that you have decided are too densely populated to get any extra funding. Once again, Minister, you have simply goofed up. You have left out huge chunks of northern Ontario from your calculations. I understand that you may never have visited northwestern Ontario, but we could at least have loaned you a map so that you get this right. When will you go back to the drawing board and fix your remote and rural schools factors?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): The member opposite raises the Renfrew Country District School Board as an example.

Interjection.

Hon David Johnson: That's one that you've raised today, and I am pleased to report, for example, that in the case of Renfrew last year, 1997, the funding available to the board was $74.5 million. This year, 1998, there has been an increase of over $2 million, to $76.7 million, including over $400,000 in small schools grants, recognizing the particular needs of that school board. I might also say that this money, which is permanent money, doesn't include another $2.5 million over and above that for textbooks.

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, if I can over the caterwauling, another $2.5 million for textbooks and support for financial accounting through the transition fund. So the board this year will have over $4 million, almost $5 million, of additional funds.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary. Member for Kenora.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Minister, under your formula, the Keewatin-Patricia district board in my riding receives no additional funding - a big, fat zero. It's also very interesting to note that the Nipissing board is receiving more than $600,000 under this formula. Your formula has simply left out a huge part of land and population that the board now serves without any funding. Your calculations show your total disregard and a great lack of understanding for the geography this board covers, an area larger than France, an area of 75,000 square kilometres.

Minister, I ask you today, will you make a commitment to sit down with this board and discuss finding a solution to the mess you have created? Will you commit to that?

Hon David Johnson: Attempting to hear the question, I believe the member opposite referred to the Keewatin-Patricia board which is projected this year to receive $1.8 million through the small schools grant and $4 million through the remote and rural grant, according to the Ministry of Education; some $5.8 million through the small schools grant and the remote and rural grant.

All I can say is that the ministry staff have worked long and hard with school officials all across the province to establish support that recognizes special needs - special needs in rural Ontario, northern Ontario, eastern Ontario, in urban areas - all the different circumstances. Rest assured, the end result is that in the classroom each and every board, including the board you're referring to, will receive more money for teachers -

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is for the Deputy Premier. He was here a moment ago. Has he left for the day? Do we know?

The Speaker: I'll stand it down. We'll go to the government question and come back.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is for the Minister of Long-Term Care. I want to ask the minister about some details on an announcement he made in Sudbury last month concerning veterans' long-term care in northern Ontario. Veterans have had a long-standing complaint that they could only receive long-term-care services in southern Ontario, far away from their friends and family. What has our government done to address these concerns?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Long-Term Care, minister responsible for seniors): I would like to share with the House the fact that for over a decade, veterans across Ontario have been lobbying provincial governments past to expand access to long-term-care beds for veterans. In fact, during the two governments between 1985-90 and 1990-95, when 11,000 beds were closed in hospitals in this province, there were also additional beds closed from access to veterans at the Sunnybrook here in southern Ontario.

Our government, recognizing this inequity, finally sat down with the veterans, and we're pleased that we were able to deliver as well as announce the expansion of 96 priority access beds for veterans in 15 northern centres all across northern Ontario. The veterans have received this with great appreciation, because it has been almost 13 or 14 years that they have been asking for this. We're very pleased that these priority access beds are being installed all across northern Ontario.

Mr McLean: I want to thank the minister for the leadership he's shown in this crisis that we've had over the years with regard to taking some real action to solve this problem.

I want you to clarify how this announcement is not part of the additional announcements that we've been hearing from you lately on the first new long-term-care beds in this province in the last 10 years. Minister, I was happy to host you when you came to Orillia to announce 150 new long-term-care beds for Simcoe county. Are any of these new beds you're announcing going to be claimed as part of the veterans' announcement?

Hon Mr Jackson: Previously veterans in Ontario could only receive these services at the three hospitals in Ottawa, Toronto and London. As our government is expanding the 20,000 new long-term-care beds, these additional 100 veterans' priority beds are separate and additional, on top of the 20,000.

What we're trying to make very clear to veterans in Ontario is that when the previous governments turned their backs on expanding long-term-care beds for seniors in this province for an entire decade, they were also turning their backs on veterans in this province. The government, recognizing that, is now expanding as quickly as possible with the announcement of 6,700 new long-term-care beds that have been announced and will be built in the next 18 months in this province. It's a $650-million investment, one that we're proud of and one that's long overdue for the seniors of Ontario.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Deputy Premier. Each year on December 6 we remember the women who were murdered by Marc Lépine in Montreal.

Now in Ontario there is a very long list of women and children who have been murdered. I can read some of the names: Carmie Jeannot and her daughter Josiane; Vanessa Ritchie and her two children, Tod and Fatima; Fran Piccolo and her children, Jason and Alisha. I'm going to send you a copy of the list. There isn't enough time to read it all during question period, but I'm sure you would agree that this cries out for action.

I've also got a copy of Team Harris's New Directions: A Blueprint for Justice and Community Safety in Ontario, which your party put out in 1994. Let me remind you of the promise. It says, "Decades of studies have established the need for more shelters for abused women and children."

Deputy Premier, you failed to keep your promise in this respect. I ask you today in memory of those women and children to put back the money into women's shelters and into the front-line community services that women and children -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The leader of the third party asks a very valid and sincere question. He should not doubt the commitment of people on this side of the House towards helping abused women and children.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Why not?

Hon Mr Eves: "Why not?" the honourable member from Hamilton says. Because when I was the Minister of Community and Social Services, I founded the first six pilot projects for homes for abused women and children in Ontario. So you don't have to lecture the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario about the need for such facilities for women and children.

There's not a single Ontarian, I hope, who takes any solace in the fact that there's one single person's name on this list that the leader of the third party has provided me with. The government will continue to do what it can to help abused women and children in Ontario.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Deputy Premier, the facts in the report of the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, the facts in the Anne Golden report, the facts in the stories from abused women, the facts from the May-Iles inquest paint a whole different picture than the one your government is trying to sell to the people of Ontario.

Your government has cut the very services that women and children need when they're finding their way out of abusive situations. For instance, you've stopped every dollar of investment in affordable housing. You've cut social assistance by 21%. You've cut money for daycare spaces. You've cut money for training and education that women need to start new lives.

We're talking about the Common Sense Revolution here. It has failed the women of Ontario. I'm asking you today, will you put money back into the services abused women need to help them live independently and get back on their feet?

Hon Mr Eves: The minister for women's issues has seen her budget for prevention of violence against women increase by 13% over the last two years. Arguably -

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Just a minute. Arguably you could say that is not enough, that is not sufficient. She's also announced a comprehensive $27-million package to reduce violence against women comprising many components with respect to special courts, domestic violence etc.

I can assure the honourable member that as we sit down in the next few weeks to plan the budget for this spring, we will certainly be looking to assist the minister for women's issues in providing further aid to women and children in need in Ontario.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is to the Minister of Health. The Saturday, November 28, edition of the Windsor Star, in a column written by Richard Brennan, quoted the Premier as saying, "The opposition continually misrepresent and lie and put out information that is not correct. I have to constantly try and correct that."

Minister, try and correct this. An Essex South constituent of mine named Margaret had an X-ray in August and waited until October for a biopsy that proved to be positive for cancer. She's been anxiously awaiting a scan which will not take place till December 8. Then she must wait until December 14 for the results. Five months will have elapsed and nobody knows yet when her treatment might start. Is this your definition of good care?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As you know, these waiting times related to cancer treatment and related to radiation therapy are totally unacceptable to our government. They have been brought to our attention, and for the first time a government in this province is taking action that was not taken by either your government or the government before. We will be spending $8.2 million immediately to help ease the radiation waiting list. Some of that money will be used to hire more radiation therapists.

We are moving forward to set up a task force that can specifically look at the issue of radiation treatment. It will be responding within three weeks. We are setting up an individual who will act -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - in the capacity of a facilitator with Cancer Care Ontario.

It was our government that recognized the need to coordinate cancer -

The Speaker: Supplementary, member for Timiskaming.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Minister, one third of the people who live in Kirkland Lake today are without a family doctor. Part of the situation is caused by your uneven incentive program that attracts family doctors away from mid-sized towns like Kirkland Lake and New Liskeard to smaller ones throughout this province.

In Kirkland Lake there are terminally ill patients who sit for hours in the waiting room, because they don't have a doctor, waiting for treatment and waiting for a prescription refill. It's so bad that a trustee at the Kirkland Lake hospital said she would trade places with a terminally ill patient, to give up her spot with her doctor, so that patient could get treatment.

Minister, for these people time is not a luxury. They need the treatment now. These people are going without treatment. When are you going to allow the mid-sized towns like New Liskeard and Kirkland Lake to use the same incentive programs of salary and benefits to attract doctors to those people who need them?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As the member well knows, our government has taken many steps in order to ensure that we can not only increase the access to physician services in the north but also retain the physicians in the north. As you know, recently we introduced a new program for 20 communities in the north and we are providing increased reimbursement to physicians. We're recognizing the administrative costs. There will be an opportunity for physicians now to receive a bonus if they remain in the community for three years. This is an agreement that has been put together by the Ontario Medical Association and the Ministry of Health, recognizing the problems that this province has had for many years.

Our government has introduced many initiatives to encourage physicians to relocate in the north. We have underserviced programs. We recently introduced nurse practitioners and we made them available to the underserviced areas -

The Speaker: New question, third party.

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Are you aware of the very devastating impact the unprecedented offshore dumping of steel is having on the industry in Ontario? The industry is making a case to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and you have been silent. Will you and your government support the steel industry? Will you personally, as Minister of Economic Development and Trade, get behind this action?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I must ask the honourable member to repeat the question. Was it the steel industry? I will certainly do everything I can as the Minister of Economic Development, because we understand the importance of all industries in the province of Ontario, especially the steel industry in the northern sector of the province. I will take that under advisement and get back to the member to see what help this government can be.

Mr Martin: To fill you in a little bit on this issue, the steel industry is being faced with unprecedented dumping of steel in Canada as we speak, affecting the communities of Sault Ste Marie and Hamilton and this whole province. They have taken a case to the Department of National Revenue. That department has declared that the case is fully documented. Now we're waiting for them to decide to accept that case and to take it to the international trade tribunal.

I'm asking you here today to get on the phone and call the Minister of National Revenue and tell him how serious this is, because if we don't move now - the Americans are already taking action - the steel that's on the water today coming to the States will be redirected to Canada, so we will be in double jeopardy. The steel industry in Ontario is in a terrible state, while you sit there and obviously know nothing about it. Will you get behind this and call that minister and make sure this action happens as soon as possible?

Hon Mr Palladini: As the member well knows, our government dearly cares about the economic state of Ontario. We want to make sure we do what needs to be done in order to maintain this province strong. This province is becoming much stronger than it was under your administration, when you look at 441,000 jobs that have been created in this province since then. However, back to your question. I have taken that question under advisement. I would be very happy to go to Ottawa personally and talk to the minister of economic development in Ottawa to make sure no dumping is allowed in Ontario in any sector, not just the steel sector.

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Finance. I noticed today in the press that there is speculation that the federal government will be cutting EI premiums by a paltry 15 cents on every $100 of insurable payroll. What is Ontario's position on this proposal?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I'm sure all members of the Legislature read the reports today, or heard them, about the federal government's purported decrease of EI premiums by 15 cents per $100 earned. Of course, I hope no member of the Legislature would agree with such a reduction. It will only half-offset the 30-cent increase per $100 the federal government will be bringing in on January 1 for CPP premiums. At the very least, in my opinion, the federal government should be offsetting the increase in CPP payroll taxes with a reduction in EI payroll taxes by January 1.

Mr Maves: Minister, in essence you're saying that this EI premium reduction will actually be a payroll tax increase after the CPP premium changes. Ontario has always taken a strong position on cutting payroll taxes, especially EI premiums. What is Ontario's stance on this issue, and what benefits would we expect for Ontarians?

Hon Mr Eves: All provinces have agreed that the federal government should be reducing EI premiums by 50 cents per $100. Every single province, every single finance minister, every single government across the country, regardless of their political stripe, believes that the premium should be reduced to the traditional level of $2.20 per $100. By the federal government's own survey and study, this would create over 200,000 jobs Canada-wide. They should eliminate those premiums entirely for youth employees, which would create another 50,000 jobs for young people across the country. That is what we believe in.

I also understand today that Mr Pettigrew is going to announce some further enhancements to EI benefits. I would hope that the first monies he spends are to bring what the average Ontarian collects - which isn't much, because we contribute about $5 billion more a year than we take out of the system - up to the national average, at least. The average Ontarian gets about $415 in EI benefits, but if you happen to live in the Maritimes you get about $500 a month, if you happen to live in Quebec you get close to $600 a month, and we're paying the shot here in Ontario.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Health. On June 18 in the Legislature, and again on June 21 by way of a letter to you, as yet unanswered, I asked you to establish a committee to study workplace carcinoma.

Cancer Care Ontario has told you that 9% of cancer deaths are due to workplace environments. If you live in cities like Sudbury, Hamilton, Windsor and Sault Ste Marie, you have a higher risk of getting cancer because of the workplace environment. In northeastern Ontario, statistics show that the increase in lung cancer is 300% higher than in the rest of the province.

Will you listen to what Cancer Care Ontario asked you to do two months ago? Will you announce today that you will establish a committee to study workplace carcinoma and that you will guarantee that this committee will have representatives from industry, from workers' unions and from Cancer Care Ontario? Will you make that commitment and that announcement today?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): We are certainly very concerned about any working conditions that contribute to an increased rate of cancer in the province and, as you know, we are working extremely closely with Cancer Care Ontario. It was our government that set up Cancer Care Ontario to ensure that we could coordinate all of the activities related to treatment, to prevention, each and every issue, the issue of human resources, and I can assure the member opposite that we are continuing to take a look and review those proposals.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Minister, I want to ask you about the critical delays in MRIs for cancer patients in the Hamilton-Wentworth area, for someone who is declared to be in an emergency situation and doctors believe that an MRI should occur within 24 hours. Only 40% of these individuals can access that MRI in the 24 hours. In urgent situations the doctors classify that MRI must be done within a week. Fewer than 50% of those individuals can get those MRIs within that one-week period. The Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre, which serves a catchment area of two million people, is the only cancer centre in Ontario that does not have an MRI on site.

In your briefing notes you're going to give me your phony upcoming announcement about two more MRIs for Hamilton-Wentworth. The only problem with that is that your funding formula that only allocates $150,000 per machine does not come close to meeting the needs. Today, will you commit immediately to funding two additional MRIs for Hamilton, including capital and operating costs for the cancer centre on the mountain?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member knows full well that our government is taking action when it comes to providing cancer care that is certainly very different than his government provided. Let me quote from what happened when the Liberals were in power. This is from the Toronto Star, September 13, 1989: "Princess Margaret announced yesterday it will refuse to treat new patients for six weeks after September 30, 1989, because of a shortage of technicians trained to give radiation therapy." "Patients are dying because their cancers have grown while they're waiting for treatment." That's September 7.

Let me assure the member opposite that we are moving forward, we are providing funding, and yes, we will be making the announcement in order to ensure that whether you live in Hamilton, London or Toronto, we are moving forward. In fact, yesterday I made another announcement whereby we are giving additional funding, as you know, for pediatric -

The Speaker: New question. Leader of the third party.

PORK INDUSTRY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. You will know that today over 2,000 farmers and their supporters demonstrated in front of this Legislature, asking you to support and fight for a farm income disaster relief program. They don't understand why you're so quiet about it. They see your government howl like a hyena at the Liberals in Ottawa about employment insurance premiums, they see you turn the switch for $50 million in partisan political television propaganda, but when it comes to speaking up and fighting for Ontario farmers, you and your government are very silent.

I'm going to ask you the same question I asked you last week: Will you not only fight, but fight vociferously, for a farm income disaster relief program, and will you support and contribute to it so that it happens before the new year?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Quite obviously, the leader of the third party was not listening as I was speaking to the farmers gathered this afternoon. Yes, we are working on that program, a program that will go beyond what we now have.

We're now spending $75 million a year on safety nets. We need a disaster fund and we are in disaster conditions in the hog industry. Yes, we are working on that with the federal government. They are not moving all that rapidly in Ottawa. We are ready.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Riverdale has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Deputy Premier concerning services for abused women. This matter will be debated at 6 o'clock today.

Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Timiskaming has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Health concerning the shortage of doctors in Kirkland Lake. This matter will be debated at 6:10 today.

Dinner is at 6:30.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition containing over 800 signatures. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas due to the Harris funding cuts to education, the Toronto Catholic District School Board is being forced to consider the closing of 29 Catholic elementary schools in the city of Toronto before next September; and

"Whereas the parents of the students of Venerable John Merlini school do not want the school closed, because it is operating at full capacity, and fear the further chaos and crisis the Harris government is imposing on the education of their children; and

"Whereas there is apprehension and turmoil in the community that due to government rules to determine school capacity, hundreds of students will have to find a new school next September;

"Now therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"We call upon the Minister of Education, who has the primary responsibility for providing a quality education for each and every student in Ontario, to:

"1. Listen to the views being expressed by the teachers and parents of Venerable John Merlini school students, who are concerned about the implications and disruptive effects the school closure would have on their children;

"2. Recognize the fundamental importance of our local schools to our neighbourhood community;

"3. Live up to its commitment to provide adequate funding for the important and essential components of a good education and not allow the closing of Venerable John Merlini school, because it is operating at full capacity."

I concur and I will affix my signature to it.

LAND USE PLANNING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have hundreds of letters and petitions here to the Honourable John Snobelen. This one reads:

"Dear Sir:

"During the 1995 election campaign, your government promised to create a system of protected areas that would fulfill Ontario's commitment to the endangered spaces campaign. The primary goal of Lands for Life was to create such a system of protected areas to ensure that future generations would benefit from the wilderness in Ontario that we have today."

I won't read the whole thing. It later says:

"The Lands for Life round table recommendations announced on October 30 have completely failed to protect wild spaces on public land in Ontario.

"There are no recommendations to increase the level of protection within parks or conservation reserves, only to decrease them.

"The round tables failed to achieve the goal of completing the parks and protected areas system, as required by the provincial government.

"The round tables created new designations such as `enhanced management areas,' `heritage waterways,' and `Great Lakes heritage coastlines,' all of which would allow industrial activity, including mining and logging, to continue within them.

"This is unacceptable. The government must reject the round table recommendations."

Later it says, "Please let me know what steps you will be taking to keep your government's commitment to protect our wild places and reduce the risk of serious, irreversible damage to our environment and climate."

This one is signed by L.D. Sweeton from my riding. I will be affixing my name to this letter.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my pleasure to present a petition from my constituents Janie Dodds and Phil Paterson and a number of others to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas heritage is vitally important to the social and economic health of Ontario communities and Ontario residents; and

"Whereas community museums, galleries and heritage organizations work hard to protect, promote, manage and develop our provincial heritage resources; and

"Whereas the provincial government has a responsibility to the people of Ontario to promote the value of heritage and heritage conservation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has abdicated their responsibility for heritage by cutting support to community museums, galleries and heritage organizations; and

"Whereas the Harris government has not implemented a new heritage act that would give communities the ability to better protect heritage sites; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has not undertaken meaningful consultation with Ontario's heritage community;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to provide stronger support to Ontario heritage institutions and organizations and to work with the people of Ontario to establish a new heritage act."

I'm very pleased to present this petition on behalf of the LACAC committee in the municipality of Clarington.

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): "Whereas as of April 1, 1999, G-code therapeutic physiotherapy services will not be covered by OHIP; and

"Whereas the only recourse for patients will be through hospital outpatient services that already face waiting lists of three to four months; and

"Whereas these same services are provided in other areas of the province through

schedule 5 clinics, which are funded through a $39-million allocation by the Ministry of Health; and

"Whereas of that $39 million none has been allocated for northwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas if the delisting of G-code physiotherapy services goes forward and because there are no

schedule 5 clinics in northwestern Ontario, there is a real fear that a two-tier system for physiotherapy services will be the norm, in that one system would accommodate those who have private insurance or enough money to pay out of pocket, while the other tier will be one where those in need wait for months on waiting lists while continuing to suffer; and

"Whereas as our population ages, those requiring physiotherapy will increase, and without these services the strain on our medical system will only increase as people aggravate old injuries that were not properly treated through modern physiotherapy treatments; and

"Whereas the delisting of G-code physiotherapy services is further indication that there is a real erosion, by this government, of sound medical services in northwestern Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the planned fee

schedule delisting of G-code therapeutic physiotherapy services and provide northwestern Ontario with a portion of the $39-million Ministry of Health allocation for physiotherapy services."

It's signed by 283 people who are very concerned about this system. I'm very pleased to sign my name to this petition.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): "To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has not listened to the public on Bill 160; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has chosen to overtly deceive the people of Ontario as to the true objectives of Bill 160; and

"Whereas we, the people, believe that no government has a mandate to act in isolation of the wishes of the electorate of this province and we have lost confidence in this government;

"We, the undersigned electors of Ontario, petition that the Legislature be dissolved and that a general election be called forthwith."

I affix my signature to it.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to present a petition to the Parliament of Ontario, and it reads:

"Whereas it is important to honour the courageous memory and sacrifices of Canada's war dead and of our veterans who fought in defence of our national rights and freedoms;

"Whereas there is a need for succeeding generations of young, school-age Canadians to learn more about the true meaning of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas Ontario veterans' associations have created excellent educational materials for use in Ontario schools on the meaning and significance of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas a special Remembrance Day curriculum for all grades in Ontario's education system, developed on the basis of the programs by Ontario veterans' associations and involving their direct participation, would increase awareness of and appreciation for Canada's wartime sacrifices in the hearts and minds of all Ontario citizens;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the provincial Ministry of Education and Training ensure that a suitable Remembrance Day learning unit be included in the curriculum of all grades of Ontario's education system."

I support the petition and affix my signature.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Given that today is the anniversary of the passage of Bill 160, this is a very appropriate petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas education is our future; and

"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's education system; and

"Whereas you cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers want reinvestment in education rather than a reduction in funding; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down; and

"Whereas Ontario Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty has pledged to repeal Bill 160;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and

"Further,

be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to do his homework and be a co-operative learner rather than imposing his solution which will not work for the students, parents and teachers of Ontario."

I bring this on behalf of all those who live on, in this case, Langlois, Elm, South Pacific.

ADOPTION

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition here signed by residents in the city of Ottawa. This is to the Legislature of Ontario with respect to adoption reform, and I will simply summarize. The petitioners are asking the Legislature to pass Bill 39, entitled the Access to Adoption Information Statute Law Amendment Act. This bill would allow access to birth registration and adoption records for adult adoptees, birth parents, adoptive parents and other relatives; implement a no-contact notice option; recommend optional counselling; offer access to other adoption information; and acknowledge open adoptions.

I am in support and will affix my signature to it.

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRE

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm pleased to present a petition on behalf of about 400 or 500 members of the municipality of Port Colborne. It reads as follows:

"We would like to petition the provincial government of Ontario towards the implementation of a driver's test examination centre to be located here in our community of Port Colborne, Ontario."

It's addressed to Premier Harris, Minister Clement and myself, and I affix my signature in support.

ABORTION

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

I affix my signature to this.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition here dealing with red light cameras to make high-collision intersections safer.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas red light cameras can dramatically assist in reducing the number of injuries and deaths resulting from red light runners; and

"Whereas red light cameras only take pictures of licence plates, thus reducing privacy concerns; and

"Whereas all revenues from violations can be easily directed to a designated fund to improve safety at high-collision intersections; and

"Whereas there is a growing disregard for traffic laws resulting in serious injury to pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and especially children and seniors; and

"Whereas the provincial government has endorsed the use of a similar camera system to collect tolls on the new 407 tollway; and

"Whereas mayors and concerned citizens across Ontario have been seeking permission to deploy these cameras due to limited police resources;

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

"That the province of Ontario support the installation of red light cameras at high-collision intersections to monitor and prosecute motorists who run red lights."

I affix my signature to this.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): I have a petition here from 26 constituents in my riding. They request the Ontario Legislative Assembly to "urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

I submit this on their behalf.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Ontarians are gravely concerned with the historic $1.3-billion cut to base funding of hospitals; and

"Whereas Ontarians feel that health services are suffering; and

"Whereas the government is reducing hospital funding and not reinvesting millions of dollars into the communities that they are being taken away from;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Conservative government to stop the cuts to base funding for hospitals across Ontario and to ensure that community services are in place before the removal of hospital services. The Conservative government must fund hospitals with a funding formula that reflects demographic and regional needs. The Conservative government must ensure that health services are available, including emergency and urgent care, to all Ontarians."

I have affixed my signature in full agreement with the sentiments.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition signed by many residents within the riding of Ottawa West with respect to certain practices within our health care system, and I am pleased to table it on their behalf in the Legislature today.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 64 people.

"Whereas most Ontario residents do not have adequate access to effective palliative care in time of need;

"Whereas meeting the needs of Ontarians of all ages for relief of preventable pain and suffering, as well as the provision of emotional and spiritual support, should be a priority to our health care system;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that a task force be appointed to develop a palliative care bill of rights that would ensure the best possible treatment, care, protection and support for Ontario citizens and their families in time of need.

"The task force should include palliative care experts in pain management, community palliative care and ethics in order to determine effective safeguards for the right to life and care of individuals who cannot or who can no longer decide issues of medical care for themselves.

"The appointed task force would provide interim reports to the government and the public and continue in existence to review the implementation of its recommendations."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA COMMISSION DES SERVICES DU GRAND TORONTO

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 56,

An Act to establish the Greater Toronto Services Board and the Greater Toronto Transit Authority and to amend the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act / Projet de loi 56, Loi visant à créer la Commission des services du grand Toronto et la Régie des Transports en commun du grand Toronto et à modifier la

Loi sur la Régie des transports en commun de la région de Toronto.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on this bill and want first of all to thank the House for allowing us to defer this particular presentation until today.

I also want to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Ottawa West and the member for Nickel Belt, who I know will have their own particular perspectives from their own areas of the Ottawa region and the Sudbury region to add to this debate.

This bill, as we know, deals with the establishment of the Greater Toronto Services Board as well as a new board to govern the GO Transit system in the greater Toronto area, although in terms of the GO Transit system, it stretches even outside of what are generally known as the parameters or the boundaries of the GTA to include even the area of Hamilton-Wentworth, and I want to touch a little bit on that issue as well.

When we look at the greater Toronto area, we know that we are dealing with a geographical area that, compared to the rest of the province, is relatively small, but in terms of the population that it houses is quite significant. There are about four and a half million people who call the GTA their home. That's about 40% of the population of the province. A lot of economic activity takes place here in this area. That is not in any way to take away from the importance of other areas in the province, economically and otherwise, but simply to put this issue in somewhat of a context.

As the minister himself reminded us when he began debate on this bill last week, this is an area that is governed by 29 municipal governments and there has been for some time now a sense about the need to coordinate the provision of services at the regional and local level in a far better way than has happened to date or is happening now.

Obviously the question of governance is central to this bill. It is one of the reasons, I indicate to the government, why we have some serious reservations with this particular piece of legislation. I want to speak at some length about that issue, as well, as I said, as touch on some of the actual powers, particularly the GO Transit piece, in this bill.

It may be for most people out there that the issue of governance is not a particularly attractive one, but I want to bring to people's attention what we have gone through in this place and what that has meant for the GTA as a whole, particularly one half in particular, the new city of Toronto. I go back to the comment the minister made in reminding us that there are 29 municipal governments, at both the regional level and the local municipal level, now functioning in what we call the GTA.

It's particularly interesting that after the changes the Harris government has brought about we now have in the GTA a situation in which roughly one half of that population, that is, the population within the old Metropolitan Toronto and now the new city of Toronto, is now governed at the regional and municipal level by one local government, the new city of Toronto council,

whereas the remaining half of the GTA population is governed by some 28 municipal governments. Am I saying there are too many other governments in the rest of the GTA? No, that's not the point I wanted to make, because while I'm sure there are arguments that could be made, and I would even support some of those arguments, for there being fewer governments at the local level than there are in the rest of the GTA, I am not one to stand here today and say that should happen, but I think a review of that should happen and needs to happen.

What I particularly wanted to underline in making that comparison was why the Harris government has chosen to, in effect, have such a dramatic difference in the way in which they have treated the governance at the local level within the same economic region, the same area in which people cross borders back and forth day to day, both to work and for various other reasons, as they go about their daily lives, and why in the most inner, core part of that greater Toronto area, the government has chosen the rationale that says, "We only need one government to deliver all the services," the ones that are delivered in the rest of the GTA at the regional level as well as the ones that are truly local, yet in the rest of the GTA they have not chosen to apply that same rationale, or even a slightly adapted version of that rationale.

I know the government doesn't want to get into this area in a particularly in-depth way, because if we did, we would have to remind the government and people across the GTA that what drove the government to make the decisions they did were far less reasons about good planning and good governance and were far more reasons and rationales having to do with sheer politics.

They chose to pick on Toronto and suggest that there the governance could be done within one massive city council, yet in the rest of the GTA they have been afraid, because they have not wanted to alienate their own political base in that area, to tackle the thorny issue of how you should govern and set up the structures for governance into the next century and the next millennium.

I know that when the minister began debate on this bill he talked a lot about the coordinating function this Greater Toronto Services Board will provide. But he himself, at various points in his own speech, had to admit that there wasn't a lot in the way of powers that were and are being given to this new board. In fact, coordinating services, with the exception of the issue of GO Transit - as I say, I'll talk a little bit about that later in my comments. If you just put that aside for a second, there is nothing but the coordination of services that is being set out through this piece of legislation.

Is that a bad thing in and of itself? No. It is probably better than nothing at all, but it is certainly not doing what needs to be done if we as a Legislative Assembly are serious in setting the course for what needs to happen in this region over the next five, 10, 15, 20 years.

This is an area that houses 4.5 million people, that is the heartbeat of much of the economic activity of the province.

The one thing over which there has been common ground in study after study, which the minister and the government have chosen to ignore, is that any serious restructuring of how the region is to function and therefore how the region is to be governed at the local and regional level has to begin by taking into account the reality that the GTA region, however far out you want to draw those boundaries - but if you look at the regional municipalities that now make up that region, there should be a serious restructuring of the governance at the regional level.

That is the best and most effective way of reflecting the reality that this region today is now more and more the region, that we no longer have a Peel region, we no longer have a Halton region, we no longer have a York region. Yes, they exist as structures, but the boundaries between each of those regions and the city of Toronto are ones that quite frankly don't make a lot of sense any more to people. They made a lot of sense 10, 15, 20 years ago, but they don't make as much sense in terms of the flow of people back and forth.

It was interesting; I know the minister referred again to the two previous studies that were done, the one by Mr Crombie and the one by Ms Golden. Wasn't it fascinating that the one thing the minister didn't talk about was that in both of those major studies of this very important region of the province, the first priority that each of those two studies set with respect to restructuring, particularly around the whole issue of governance and coordination of services, was that the major issue to address was the regional level of government?

They said that's where any restructuring of local governance should begin, and only within that should you then take a look at what we should do with respect to local governments.

That was the point we kept making when we went through the whole megacity debate. That was the advice the government chose to ignore. What we have now reflected in this bill is not even a lukewarm first step towards acknowledging that this restructuring at the regional level has to happen.

We have taken, I want to reiterate today, a very clear position in the New Democratic Party caucus, which is that there should be a serious restructuring at the regional level to lead to, in effect, one regional government across the whole GTA. Our preference would have been that the government would have begun the restructuring of services, the restructuring of governance, by taking that as the first step rather than the amalgamation of the municipalities within the old Metropolitan Toronto.

But even at this point, it makes a lot more sense now, having made the decision that the government has made to amalgamate within the city of Toronto, that there be a serious step taken towards amalgamating the regional governments in this new GTA region and dealing with and creating a new regional government, as opposed to the four remaining regional governments that exist, plus the city of Toronto, which now functions as a uniform, both regional and local, government.

That's the way in which the issues that are being dealt with by those regional governments now - the questions of planning, the questions of managing planning in a way that doesn't simply continue the level of urban sprawl that we have seen, the way to manage the issue of public transportation, the way to deal with the delivery of social services, for example, any and more of those services - all of the issues that deal with people's day-to-day lives, quite frankly in a much more direct way than even some of the things we debate and deal with directly at the provincial level of government, those are the kinds of things that need not just coordination at the regional level, but need an elected body that is responsible politically and accountable to the citizens who live in this part of the province.

I'm afraid that we don't have in this bill anything along those lines.

I know the minister and the government want to talk about the importance of beginning this process with this very soft coordinating body, but what we don't see in effect is anything with real teeth, anything that provides for real accountability.

It's interesting that we have gone from the Milt Farrow study that at least provided something of a structure that, in powers, wasn't substantially different from what we have here, but in terms of that balance between the current city of Toronto and the rest of the GTA, it at least provided a smaller body, which I would have thought the government wanted.

But in this case the minister and the government have chosen, as a result of further discussions with the local politicians, to go to a body that will have 40 members, and in order to allow representation from each of the councils in that area they've had to go to a weighted vote system to take into account the balance they want to strike between having every council represented, with at least one person on there and some alternates in some cases, and weighing the votes, taking into account the reality that the city of Toronto has roughly half the population base and therefore, on a representation by population basis, that needs to be reflected in the vote.

If you're going to move in this direction, to that kind of structure, I don't have any problems with that. But where I do continue to have a major problem is that while on the one hand this government chose to play a tough role as they saw it, were making the tough decisions around governance within Metropolitan Toronto, they then chose not only not to play a tough role but to completely cave in in terms of any serious restructuring when it came to the rest of the GTA, the 905 area.

I continue to come back to this point, to why this government would not have demonstrated the same courage, to use their approach and their phraseology, that they chose here with respect to the city of Toronto. We now have a situation with the new council in the city of Toronto where, despite the many efforts that all the councillors there and the mayor are making - I may not agree with all the decisions they make, but I do agree wholeheartedly with the efforts I see there to try and make this new structure work - it simply is too cumbersome.

You cannot have a council with over 50 members that has to deal with myriad issues, both regional issues from child care to social services to transportation, and very local issues such as front yard parking and garbage pickup, and try and do that in a structure that doesn't allow yet a very good balance between the kinds of issues that are more local and therefore can and should be dealt with through what used to be the local councils but now are the bodies that have replaced those at the level of each of the old municipalities - and because there still continues to be this control at the overall city level, there just is an incredible continuing problem there.

What we are seeing is the result of the government not having heeded the advice that was given not just by us but by many in this area, certainly including the Golden study and the Crombie study, which both said that restructuring at the regional level was of foremost importance.

The government clearly is not going to back down from this legislation, although again I find it interesting that at the beginning of this legislative session we had a sense that the government wanted to proceed with this legislation, but then we heard very little about it for almost two months. Now here we are, a couple of weeks away from the House breaking for the Christmas recess, and the government all of a sudden has the full-charge-ahead approach, which is that now they have to finish this legislation in the remaining last couple of weeks.

I'm still waiting to hear and see whether this bill will get to committee, because we have a couple of important amendments that we would like to see put. I thought the minister yesterday talked about the bill going to committee. I hope that's going to happen, although my preference would be that the government not see January 1 as a crucial timeline that they have to now all of a sudden meet, after they've been sitting on this thing for the last year and a half.

The Milt Farrow study came out in 1997, almost a year and a half ago. Then I know the minister wanted to consult with people etc - and that's important; I don't want to deny that. But what we have again is this kind of thing of sitting around and now, all of a sudden at the end, rushing to get it done. This is too important a piece, too important a change, for us to be trying to rush this through, unless of course, as the minister himself indicated, this is just a coordinating body so it doesn't matter.

What I want to say to the government is that you can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand tell us that this is not another level of government, just a coordinating body, and then say that because it's just a coordinating body it doesn't matter. If it's just a coordinating body, then what you're doing is simply adding another layer of bureaucracy on to the system, which we don't need.

If you are adding another layer of government, I have to ask why it makes sense that half the GTA is going to be governed by one council and then be part of this structure, while the rest of the GTA, the other half, is going to have now not one, not two, but three levels of government: the municipality, the regional governments and now this Greater Toronto Services Board.

Either way you go, the rationale doesn't mesh, and it doesn't mesh because the actions of the government simply don't square one against the other and because the actions of the government have been based not on good, sound planning, not on what makes for good local governance, but indeed have been simply about politics. They thought they would gain political points by picking on Toronto and doing the harshest thing they could do there, and they have been scared as hell to touch this issue when it came to the 905 belt.

I believe the government is making a major mistake, because in doing what they are doing now, they are setting up another body which, as I say, at best adds another layer of bureaucracy to the existing system and at worst adds another level of government, which will mean a third level of regional and local government, for half the 905 belt, and that doesn't make much sense.

If the government intends to proceed in this way, we hope that at least a couple of things could be changed in this legislation. The first is that we would see some sense built into the legislation that this is in fact a transition body. I made the point earlier that we believe some serious restructuring at the regional level is what should be happening.

We would be prepared to go to the point of saying, begin a process that over whatever period of time is necessary, if you can't make the decision now to make it effective at a certain point a couple of years down the line, which I believe we can do, but if the government isn't prepared to do that in terms of saying that at some point in time the existing regional governments will be collapsed into one regional government - that's the position we have taken and it's the position I want to reiterate here and offer again to the government and the people of the greater Toronto area that we believe is the most sensible solution over the next number of years.

Can that happen in one step? I think so, but again I say to the government that if you're not prepared to make that happen in one step, at the very least put in place in this legislation, in this bill, a sunset provision that means that by a certain time, two or three years down the road, the existence of this board will end and that something else will take shape, and I believe that something else should be a new regional government for the greater Toronto area. That, I think, is the only sensible solution for the longer term, and even for the foreseeable future.

At the very least, if that kind of amendment were put into this legislation, it would give everybody dealing with this a sense that while this body that is being put in place is not the preferred route that we would go, it at least is seen as a first step towards something else, that something else being a more logical, a more sensible governance level. I would also look at some of the powers that are set out in this legislation in terms of ensuring that even in the short term, there are some greater powers given so that it's not just a coordinating function, that there is an ability to deal, far more strongly than is in this legislation, with some of the problems that have to be addressed.

We see that to some extent with the issue of GO Transit, but in the GO Transit area, and I want to just touch on this for a couple of moments, we see another set of problems. There we have the incredible situation where the cost-sharing that the government wants to perpetuate by this piece of legislation, I think is unfair towards that inner core of the GTA which is the city of Toronto now.

I don't understand on what basis the government can continue to justify having the city of Toronto property tax base pick up 50% of the costs of GO Transit when about 85% of people who use that service live outside the city of Toronto. You follow any of the logic that this government has used and you come up against this situation. It just does not make any sense. Again, the only rationale is not one that's based on good logic, on good common sense; it's simply one that's based on the politics. The government does not want to be seen to be putting the onus where it should be if they wanted to be fair about this, which is in the 905 area.

I know that there's an issue with respect to the role that the regional municipality of Hamilton plays on this, and they will have a voice and vote when it comes to the issue of GO Transit. I know that my colleague from Hamilton, Mr Christopherson, has addressed at some length the issue and the concerns he has from his perspective in that municipality around the still limited powers that are being given in terms of representation from that part of the province, and I don't want to repeat those but simply to echo some of the points that he was making.

I would just say to the government that what we have here is something that's not a first step towards anything better or greater and at the same time something that will simply add to the cumbersome nature of what we have now. As I watched the kind of hot-and-cold approach that the government has taken to this, if you had asked me a couple of weeks ago, I would have said to people that this legislation wasn't going anywhere. Then all of a sudden we hear again that the government is gung-ho about proceeding with this and that they now need to get this done before Christmas. All of a sudden the rush is on, because I gather some people have said to the government, "You need to get this done."

We would say that the government has not handled this particular issue very well. They've plunged ahead where they didn't need to plunge ahead and they've hesitated where they needed to plunge ahead. Given that they are where they are now, my advice and my recommendation to the government would be twofold.

One would be to put this aside and begin again a proper process that will result in some sensible legislation that sets up, if not immediately, over the foreseeable future, over the next couple of years, a real governance body to deal with all of the regional issues, to reflect the reality that the GTA is now one economic and social region.

If you're not prepared to do that in one fell swoop, then at the very least, I would say to the government, change this legislation, which we can do in this House, so that what this body, the Greater Toronto Services Board, becomes is simply a first step towards that, and a first step in a way that we can actually see the second step happening over the next two to three years. I think it can be done in that way. I think it would lead to some sensible preparation.

I know that government members will probably remind us again of the fact that they have built into this legislation a review process that talks about the review in a couple of years' time of the powers of the board. The minister, I know, talked about that. But none of that addresses the issue that I've been raising, b