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

November 5, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L120 - Tue 5 Nov 1996 / Mar 5 Nov 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN VIETNAM VETERANS

EDUCATION REFORM

WORKFARE

HOSPITAL FINANCING

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

NIAGARA COLLEGE

OBSTETRICAL CARE

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

STATUS OF BILL PR35

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COURT SYSTEM

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION FINANCING

TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE

HAZARDOUS WASTE

VISITOR

PROVINCIAL PARKS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

LANDFILL

EDUCATION FINANCING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CLOSURE OF CAMPGROUNDS

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

PETITIONS

TVONTARIO

TENANT PROTECTION

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

ACCESS TO RECREATION AREAS

SCHOOL BOARDS

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

APPAREILS DE LOTERIE VIDÉO

CHILD CARE

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

FIREARMS CONTROL

NURSING STAFF

EDUCATION FINANCING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ALCOHOL, GAMING AND CHARITY FUNDING PUBLIC INTEREST ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉGISSANT LES ALCOOLS, LES JEUX ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES DE BIENFAISANCE DANS L'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ACCOUNTABILITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA RESPONSABILISATION

ALCOHOL, GAMING AND CHARITY FUNDING PUBLIC INTEREST ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉGISSANT LES ALCOOLS, LES JEUX ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES DE BIENFAISANCE DANS L'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN VIETNAM VETERANS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Between the years 1960 and 1975 approximately 40,000 Canadians joined the United States armed forces, many subsequently going to Vietnam. We now know of about 100 Canadians who were killed while serving in southeast Asia; another seven are listed as missing in action.

In the past several years Canadians who served in Vietnam have begun to form self-help groups to help each other and the families of those who did not return from southeast Asia. One of the main aims of these groups has been to have a memorial to those Canadians who paid the supreme sacrifice. Many of these family members cannot make the trip to Washington, DC, to see the memorial to their family member that is there, and they should be able to honour and remember their family member who did not return from southeast Asia in their own country, Canada.

For this reason, the Canadian Vietnam veterans wish to build a national memorial in Ottawa. Our government has land at the Perley and Rideau Veterans' Health Centre in Ottawa. Canadian Vietnam veterans are now asking for the support of all MPPs in obtaining this land in Ottawa. I trust that Canadian Vietnam veterans will have the support for this land and monument from all three parties in order for them to accomplish their dream.

EDUCATION REFORM

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have here a number of letters from constituents in my riding who are very concerned about the so-called education reform that the minister keeps hinting about and we keep hearing rumours about. They are feeling very worried about the future of their children's education. They continue writing to me and writing to the minister and they still have not been involved in any way in the process of this so-called reform.

The minister, in the early days as the new minister, said to his staff that he wanted to create a crisis. That's what he's done, all right. He knew he had to find a lot of money, and now we hear that another $1 billion has to come out of the education system. But Metro representation on the committee that decided how to handle financing was not even there; there was no representation.

I also have a letter here from the chair of the Toronto Board of Education, David Moll. He starts his letter by saying:

"For months, rumours and insinuations about education have been seeping out of Queen's Park like toxic waste.

"The result: a thoroughly demoralized staff, confused students and parents and a waste of valuable time."

He goes on to say that he has been a lifelong Conservative but that he is not supportive of what this government is doing on education in this province.

WORKFARE

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I want to inform members of the House today that the Liberal Party flip-flop we saw during the past election campaign is alive and well in their leadership race.

On the issues of welfare reform and workfare, the member for Windsor-Walkerville says, "We have to look at programs that will help erase the cycle of dependency and return to meaningful work in the economy." It sounds like he is endorsing workfare. On the other hand, he says, "Workfare is dumb and simplistic." He is flip-flopper number one.

The member for York South, on the other hand, admitted that his party lost the welfare discussion in the last election because "We were not prepared to take a stand." We all know where he stands. Like a true Liberal, he wants to put more money into welfare. That is what he told a legislative committee on March 6, 1990. Even though the member for York South admitted that "Nobody wants to see someone get something for nothing," he says that "Workfare does not work." Flip-flopper number two.

But there is one Liberal who supports us. The member for Downsview said, "There is no doubt that the system needs to be reformed." Absolutely right, and our government is reforming welfare and ending the abuse so that money remains to be put into the hands of the most needy.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): The Ontario Hospital Association annual general meeting is being held in Toronto this week. The message from hospitals across the province is clear: They cannot cope with the $1.3 billion in cuts to their hospital budgets. Those cuts to our hospitals have already resulted and will continue to result in serious problems of access and quality for patients in Ontario. The health minister must not ignore these problems.

As hospitals struggle to meet the Harris government's $1.3 billion in cuts, nurses who provide essential care are being laid off; 15,000 nurses is a realistic estimate of service cuts. Patient care is suffering. Health services are declining. We see services such as chiropody being moved out of hospitals to clinics where patients are being forced to pay. I worry that we will see a rise in infection rates in our hospitals as housekeeping budgets are slashed and our hospitals become dirtier.

Our communities, patients, sick people are being hurt by the cuts that the Conservative government is making to our health care. I, on behalf of the hospitals and their patients across this province, call on the government to eliminate the announced 6% and 7% cuts to hospital budgets planned over the next two years. Stop your cuts before irreversible damage is done to our hospitals throughout Ontario.

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): My belief is that Ontarians believe that the two most important services they have are health care and education. This government has created chaos in both.

Let's take a look at health care: The hospitals have been cut by $1.3 billion; there have been thousands of layoffs; there have been service cuts; waiting lists are growing again. There's been a major decline in public confidence in our hospital system due to the cuts of this government.

Doctors' negotiations have been botched. One day the minister attacks doctors, the next day he praises them, and then he can't understand why his agreement wasn't approved by the doctors. The doctors of this province don't trust the minister, and they don't respect the minister.

In education, there has been $400 million worth of cuts, and the minister is fond of saying it's only 1% or 2%. The fact is, the $400 million worth of cuts represents 8% already of general legislative grants or provincial funding, and there's more to come. One day the minister attacks trustees and blames them for all their problems; the next day he appoints Leon Paroian and the whole exercise is a major attack on teachers. The system is completely destabilized and is having a dramatic negative impact on the quality of education of our students.

Health and education make up very important aspects of this province for the way we live, work and the way that people invest. This government is destroying the province.

NIAGARA COLLEGE

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I recently had the pleasure of announcing on behalf of the Minister of Education and Training, the Honourable John Snobelen, that the new Niagara College Glendale campus in Niagara-on-the-Lake would go ahead. It's a tremendous undertaking. My government is providing $27 million towards this project in addition to the $5 million the college has already received.

This investment, like other post-secondary investments already announced, proves that this government cares about students, this government cares about post-secondary education opportunities and lifelong learning, and this government cares about economic development and jobs.

The entire Niagara region will benefit from this announcement. Immediate jobs will be created as well as spinoff investments for every single Niagara municipality.

There is no doubt about it, the approval of the Niagara College capital project proves that this government is spending wisely, with major human and job dividends as a result. There will be jobs in roadbuilding, construction, the trades, the purchase of equipment and furniture, and students and potential students visiting or relocating to our area will require transportation and housing.

The decision to approve the Niagara College capital building project proves that this government cares about the people of this province, its taxpayers, its businesses and its students.

OBSTETRICAL CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I'm pleased to stand today. Yesterday in the House, I was able to ask the Minister of Health a question regarding the women in my community requiring obstetrical services who are looking for obstetricians.

I might tell the minister if he doesn't know, although we've told him several times, I currently have 75 women in my community who do not have an obstetrician who are pregnant. Many of these women also have landed immigrant status. The problem with that is that while the minister attempts to tell women in my community that they can just "pop across the river" to deliver a baby, it is completely unreasonable.

We have to find a way to get the Minister of Health to understand how critical it is. Those of us in this House who have gone through this procedure before, or whose spouses may have, recognize the urgency of delivering a healthy baby. You have significant issues related to prenatal care and significant issues related to delivering a baby. We need to stress to the minister that it is paramount that he resolve this issue. Telling the people in my community maybe one day we'll have a clinic is not enough.

He suggested yesterday that I wasn't being positive. Let me share with the Minister of Health when this member for Windsor-Sandwich will be positive: when we positively see a clinic set up in Windsor, when we positively see obstetricians move to our community to accept the workload, when we positively see that women in my community --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I was at the announcement in Niagara-on-the-Lake where the member for St Catharines-Brock confirmed what had been announced by the last government: its commitment to building a new college for the Niagara campus on that location in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

It's remarkable that the people in the Tory caucus think they can hoodwink the public anywhere in Ontario -- least of all in Niagara region. Their Ponzi game isn't going to fool anyone. The reality is that at first people in Welland-Thorold were just fearful of what was being done to health care, education, day care and child care as a result of this government's commitment to a tax break for the wealthiest people in this province.

They've moved beyond merely being fearful to angry and mad. People in Niagara region are not going to tolerate the attack on public institutions this government has waged since its election in June 1995. No amount of spin doctoring, doctored-up polls and surveys, advertising and glad-handing is going to overcome the bad taste that's been left by this government and its backbenchers as they engage in this systematic attack on our public education, public health care and jobs.

People in Niagara know that unemployment in Ontario is higher now than it was a year and change ago when these Tories were elected. They don't buy it any more and they're going to make their views known come next election.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I rise in the House today to show my appreciation to the people of Perth, and the town of St Marys in particular, for the mature way in which they're addressing the proposed restructuring of the health care system in rural Ontario.

Last Wednesday I attended a meeting in the town of St Marys to address some of the questions surrounding the restructuring process. Although emotions surrounding hospitals often run high, the meeting was well run and the information that came out of the meeting was definitely useful to all.

I was encouraged by the turnout and the desire of all within the area to take

part in the process of maintaining a viable health care system.

The Huron-Perth District Health Council is presently reviewing the provision of health care in the area and is expected to determine where the priorities are for Perth. The people of St Marys have made it clear that they want to be part of this process. I commend them for their initiative and support them in their effort.

We, as government, have made a commitment to the provision of health care services and the wellbeing of the people in this province. I am proud to say that the people in the riding of Perth are working together to ensure that this goal is achieved and health care is affordable and available to all who need it.

STATUS OF BILL PR35

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received a favourable report from the commissioners of estate bills with respect to Bill Pr35,

An Act respecting the Ottawa Civic Hospital.

Accordingly, pursuant to standing order 86(e), the bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COURT SYSTEM

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I rise today to inform members of another major initiative launched in conjunction with Crime Prevention Week and Domestic Assault Prevention Month.

This government believes that all Ontarians have the right to feel secure in their own homes, neighbourhoods and communities. We are committed to community safety, strengthening victims' rights and building a swifter, more effective justice system.

I am pleased to announce that we are keeping these commitments. Beginning immediately we will launch a major attack on the backlog in the criminal justice system in the six most heavily burdened provincial court locations: Newmarket, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, Brampton and Barrie.

The backlog in our criminal courts is a long-standing problem that must be continually addressed. If we don't take action now to reduce the backlog, serious cases could possibly be thrown out of court because of undue delays. Criminal cases should not be thrown out because of undue delay. That is unacceptable to this government. The government is taking proactive steps to ensure that cases are dealt with properly. Some 40 ministry staff, including staff from our head office, are being assigned to special blitz teams to assist local prosecutors in speeding up criminal cases and to clear up the backlogs in our criminal courts.

The blitz will see prosecutors and court officials working together with victims, judges and police in order to open more courtrooms where serious, violent cases will be treated as a priority. This initiative will make the courts in these problem areas more efficient and move cases through the system more quickly. We will make maximum use of existing staff courtrooms and resources. We will work cooperatively with the judiciary to find alternative sites, in town halls or portables if necessary, for these cases. This six-month blitz will begin first in Scarborough and will be fully operational in other jurisdictions within weeks.

This is just the first step in addressing the systemic problems of long-standing court backlogs. Over the coming months, we will be working to identify viable long-term solutions to make the criminal justice system more efficient and help prevent a buildup of cases in the future.

This blitz is a cooperative effort. Crown attorneys are working in cooperation with our partners in the justice system: victims, judges, the defence bar and the police. This morning at Scarborough's criminal courts, I was joined by Chief Judge Linden, Judge Patrick Shepherd of Scarborough, Crown Attorney John McMahon and Chief of Police David Boothby, chief of the Metropolitan Toronto Police, to launch the blitz at the criminal courts. The special teams work with local prosecutors and court officials to assist them in moving cases through the system more quickly.

By clearing the criminal justice system of these backlogs, we will make sure that our community stays safe, victims' rights are strengthened and that we continue to enjoy swifter, more effective justice. Safe communities enhance our quality of life, which is key to promoting jobs, investment and economic growth.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Gee, you guys are absolutely amazing over there. My colleagues were just saying that you would think the Attorney General has swooped in like a caped crusader coming in here to fix a big problem. Why is there a big problem? Because you created it, just like your Minister of Education created a crisis. It's the way all your ministries work: Create a crisis and then come in like the big hero, "We're going to clean it up."

Why is there such a backlog in the courts, Minister? I'll tell you why. Because despite the promises that you're going to be cutting down on hard-core crime, your government announced over $19 million in cuts to the criminal justice system this year. These cuts included a $600,000 funding reduction in major criminal law prosecutions and the planned elimination of one third of the crown attorneys. In January 1996, the three senior justices in Ontario took the very unprecedented step of writing to you about the major problem in Ontario courts.

Last April, your government announced $120 million in justice cuts, of which $60 million and 600 jobs came out of the Ministry of Attorney General office. So you're creating the problem.

Since early this year, Ontario crown attorneys have been warning that thousands of criminal cases would be jeopardized if the government went ahead with its planned elimination of one third of the province's crown attorneys. Although the Attorney General eventually backed off on his plan to fire those 160 crown attorneys, we do know that we've lost 20 through attrition and you're not replacing those women who go on maternity leave, so you're starting to reduce the number of crown attorneys in the province.

Just a few weeks ago, in a leaked confidential memo from Madam Justice Susan Lang, she described also the chaos in the courts in Ontario, including incidents of lost files, long delays and missing evidence, all due to the budget cutbacks. We know that delays threaten 50% of criminal cases in Metro, but 542 cases have been in the system for more than eight months and risk being thrown out because of long delays. This crisis is a direct result of your budget cutbacks of this year. You created the crisis, Minister.

Despite your promises on taking a hard line on crime, it is clear that with the Harris government, the cuts come first. That means that something else has to give. In this case it looks to be our criminal justice system. Of course, it's important for victims to see that justice is done swiftly and surely, and nothing could be more detrimental to the legitimacy of our criminal justice system as a whole and nothing is more likely to throw it into disrepute than the prospect of hundreds of cases being dismissed out of hand by our courts.

But the Attorney General is not the hero here. You're not the hero here. You have not swept in on the white horse with your special blitz team to solve this problem and snatch a victory from the jaws of defeat, as you would have us believe. The truth is that this government's shortsighted thinking has gotten us into this mess in the very first place and many of these cases would not have been jeopardized if the government had not made the indiscriminate cuts to the criminal justice system.

There are simply not enough people and not enough resources in the system to process those expeditiously and in a timely fashion. This is why we have a backlog of criminal cases in Ontario. So, Attorney General, why don't you put the money back?

We are glad these cases now are not going to be lost, because it would be a tragedy for the victims of crime all over this province. But we don't think the government should be congratulated for coming up with the idea of this major criminal court backlog blitz. Instead, you should be criticized for making those cuts in the first place that caused this crisis. Ultimately, it will be the victims of crime who will pay the price for this crisis in the courts.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm pleased the Attorney General has finally responded to the real concerns that have been expressed again and again about the growing backlogs in the courts and has done something at least in these particular courts that he's mentioned -- Newmarket, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, Brampton and Barrie -- where I understand the backlog lists are probably well beyond the danger level. It is good to finally see some action being taken to deal with those.

I guess having a special blitz sounds very impressive to people. One of the real issues that is involved is whether or not it delivers justice services appropriately.

One of the problems with blitzes is that defendants have defence counsel who are usually, if you talk to defence counsel, booked many months in advance. Having a blitz that begins virtually immediately and then is going to spread to these other areas will cause real difficulty for defence attorneys who are defending defendants who are caught up in that kind of situation. I'm afraid, having had experience while we were in government with trying to clean up a mess that was left in the courts, that it is certainly easier said than done and the actual results will be something that people will be looking at.

The other issue of course is that of making sure that all of the court documents are present, that all of the evidentiary matters are present, that disclosure has happened properly, that all of those matters have been taken care of in a way that does not jeopardize the successful prosecution of those cases. I can tell the Attorney General from experience that when you take as many people out of the court system as this Attorney General has had to to meet the cost reductions that are there, very often that nitty-gritty support work to keep the courts going is what creates the havoc in the courts.

All of us have read the newspaper accounts of files not being available, of witnesses not having been served, of the problem around defence attorneys having been scheduled in other courtrooms and having a conflict when this kind of thing goes along.

So I would say to the Attorney General that I think it's a good thing that he has begun, but he is going to have to monitor very closely whether the additional costs -- and of course there will be additional costs. Let's not kid ourselves. We're talking about 40 additional staff from the Ministry of the Attorney General alone. When you add the overtime for police officers, police officers who I would say are probably scheduled long in advance -- I've done as a job-shadow exercise the scheduling in courts and know that it works with the duty time of the police officers on the cases.

One of the issues when you do a blitz is that you suddenly put into the picture another whole set of court dates that may conflict with off-duty time of officers who are essential to the success of the case. That is a real concern and something the Attorney General will have to keep his eye on.

I'm pleased that the Attorney General is finding Chief Judge Sidney Linden as cooperative as I always did in trying to deal in a timely way with scheduling issues in the courts. But it must be a real stretch for the Chief Judge to take that cooperative position given the number of vacancies that currently occur at the provincial level. There have been many vacancies on the bench at the provincial level that have not been filled despite the fact that the appointments advisory committee has put forward appointments advice to the Attorney General.

It obviously hasn't been to his pleasure and he has not made the appointments of the judges that are needed in order to continue this kind of situation. There are real concerns around the actual strength on the bench to deal with day-to-day matters, never mind to assign people additionally to this kind of blitz. That's a very important issue for the minister to keep in mind if he expects this to be successful.

The last issue, of course, as I read the Canada NewsWire report from the announcement this morning, was that the minister does have assurance from the federal Chief Justice that the General Division court will cooperate in Brampton and Newmarket. A lot of these cases are going through in other jurisdictions. If these are preliminary hearings that are happening and they get moved on to General Division, it is going to be necessary for the federally appointed judicial system to exercise a great deal of generosity with the province of Ontario to ensure that these cases actually move through the whole system.

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Premier, who is ultimately responsible for all major decisions the government makes. There is a growing concern in this province about your determination to place video lottery terminals -- that is, slot machines of electronic nature -- in every restaurant and every bar in every neighbourhood in Ontario.

When you were in opposition and even during the election campaign, you and Ernie Eves, your Treasurer, made compelling and angry speeches about the expansion of government-run gambling ventures and activities. I admired and agreed with and applauded those speeches, and so did many residents of this province.

Premier, in the face of all the evidence from police and other experts in the field of gambling addiction, why are you continuing to force this major escalation of gambling on the province of Ontario?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm happy to have the question and respond. There may be other details for which, in subsequent questions, the Solicitor General will have information on enforcement, or the House leader. Let me say generally that while I accept accountability and responsibility for the actions of the government, you would know that I don't make all the decisions.

Mr Bradley: Yes, you do.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Harris: Clearly, that's why we have a cabinet, why we have a caucus --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Harris: That's why we have a cabinet and why we have a caucus and why we have a bureaucracy and why we have a Legislature and why we have partners in municipalities, school boards and, of course, hospital boards and colleges and universities, but I accept the premise that as leader of this government and as Premier of Ontario I will answer and accept responsibility. The member indicated that we are embarking on placing video lottery terminals in bars and restaurants, and that's not the case.

Mr Bradley: I detect a shift in the Premier's position, but I want to continue with this line of questioning. This morning at a press conference in this building Rev Karl Burden, the head of Concerns, Canada, which is the oldest not-for-profit organization dedicated to the prevention of addiction in Canada, stated what so many in the police and addiction prevention community have said, and I want to quote him:

"Video lottery terminals are particularly seductive. They've quickly become known as the cocaine of the gambling industry because they provide an immediate rush, similar to the one experienced by cocaine addicts. This form of gambling is particularly addictive for young people because it marries the rush of old-fashioned one-armed bandits with the bells and whistles of the video arcade."

Karl Burden is stating what virtually anybody knowledgeable in the field of gambling addiction is saying, that your government is moving into the dark and murky waters of neighbourhood gambling. Premier, will you do what is right, now, and not what is expedient? Will you withdraw your VLT bill and show true common sense?

Hon Mr Harris: As I indicated, the VLT bill allows the government to proceed as eight other provinces have proceeded. It allows us to regulate and exact strict government control over any VLTs. As you know, the government has announced its intention to proceed with VLTs in permanent charity halls where proper control can be exerted, as cannot be in the three-day rovers right now, and also at racetracks, where there is gambling already.

It is the government's intention to provide more resources to clamp down on what some estimate to be in excess of the number of VLTs that we're talking about, operating illegally with no controls. It is our intention to do all the things we think will provide for fewer machines and better control of the whole industry, as eight other provinces have done in the country.

Mr Bradley: I hear a retreat in the Premier's answer and I want to commend him for that retreat, because clearly he's now understanding what neighbourhood gambling is all about. I know that you have a tax cut and as a result you have to make up revenue. It's extremely attractive to have hundreds of millions of dollars potentially coming into government coffers. But, Premier, you will be exacting a tremendous and awful price on the social fabric of this province in proceeding with video lottery terminals in every bar and restaurant in every neighbourhood in this province.

Are you really prepared to pay the awful social price of placing these electronic slot machines where the addicted and the young can get at them easily or are you now prepared to withdraw your bill and amend it and not allow these electronic slot machines in every bar and restaurant in every neighbourhood in Ontario?

Hon Mr Harris: There's no need to amend the bill. There is absolutely nothing in the bill that would allow them to be easily accessible to young people. Second, as long as our party is in power you can rest assured that this government has no intention of proceeding to make them available, for young people, in every bar, neighbourhood and community.

In trying to bring better control, better policing, bringing resources to bear, as opposed to the illegal terminals, which are now estimated to be in excess of what we're talking about, not everybody agrees with the information being propagated by the Liberal Party, NDP -- one and the same. In fact, according to the Addiction Research Foundation there is currently no credible research available to support the suggestion that video lottery terminals are any more addictive than other forms of gambling. Because one or two people say it and you repeat it, that does not make it so.

The Speaker: New question, official opposition.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is also to the Premier. Premier, you said there's a difference of opinion. Let me tell you something. This weekend Insight Canada Research, on behalf of Concerns, Canada, one of the oldest anti-addiction non-profit organizations in the province, and the Ontario Liberal caucus asked Ontarians what they thought of your plans to bring video slot machines to bars and restaurants in Ontario.

The results are clear: 62% of Ontarians oppose your plans to bring video slot machines to every bar and restaurant in every neighbourhood, and a majority of Ontarians believe it will not prevent crime; only 2% of Ontarians have bought your line on this issue.

Premier, will you listen to the very real concerns of ordinary Ontarians? Will you scrap your plans to bring video slot machines to every bar, restaurant and neighbourhood in Ontario?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the member will know that other than in the casino in Windsor and the casino at Rama and the proposed casino at Niagara Falls, there will be no video slot machines in Ontario.

Mr Crozier: That's certainly a retreat, and I want that on record. You didn't have a mandate to do it and I'm glad you've said that. You haven't fooled anybody, Premier, until today when you said that. Sixty-two per cent of Ontarians, I repeat, think your plan to bring video slot machines to every neighbourhood and bar and restaurant in Ontario is wrong, dead wrong. People know this has nothing to do with fighting crime because a majority of Ontarians don't believe it will eliminate the illegal machines. You're so desperate for cash for your tax cut for the rich that you've had to go this route.

Premier, will you tell us again that you will not put any video slot machines in any bar or restaurant in any neighbourhood in this province?

Hon Mr Harris: What we've indicated is this -- if that's the question that you asked the voters, then let me be very clear. The slot machines will be in the licensed casinos that have been brought forward -- Windsor, in Rama and then also in Niagara Falls. Secondly, the video lottery terminals, which are quite different, this bill will allow those to go into assorted places within the province of Ontario. They're outlined in the bill, of course.

What we have also indicated is that it is our intention to begin with no video slot machines anywhere, of course -- those'll only be in the casinos -- but with video lottery terminals of the kind that are now over 20,000 operating illegally. They will be introduced into the controlled environments of the permanent homes that will replace the three-day roving casinos, and into racetracks. That will be evaluated. We'll report back to people and analyse that before there would be any expansion into any other location.

Mr Crozier: This gets interesting. Let me tell you this: 51% of Ontarians believe your plans to bring video slot machines to every bar and every community of this province will lead to more crime, but they're not alone, unlike what you said earlier. Chief Fantino, head of the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario, says this will lead to more crime. Paul Gottschalk, the acting staff inspector, special investigation services, the Metro police, says this will lead to more crime. Even OPP officers who work for the Solicitor General say your plans to bring video slot machines to Ontario will lead to more crime.

Premier, can you tell me today that you're ignoring the concerns of ordinary Ontarians who believe that your video slot machines will cause more crime and are you ignoring the law officials of this province who say it will in fact bring more crime?

Hon Mr Harris: I realize you've wasted all this money asking people about video slot machines that are in the full-blown casinos, but what we are dealing with is video lottery terminals, and yes, there are some people who have opinions that they do not believe that in fact it will deal with organized crime. However, I might pass on to you that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police believe that legalized gaming can serve to curtail illegal gaming and corresponding criminal activities. That's chaired by Tom O'Grady, OPP commissioner, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have the union. This is Paul Walter, president of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association. He says legalizing VLTs will have a severe financial impact on these criminal organizations. So both --

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier. New question, third party.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health and it concerns some comments he made in the House yesterday. He said yesterday that he was very sensitive to the needs of remote northern hospitals with respect to their special circumstances and their need for unique funding formulas. That's what you said.

I want to ask you about Atikokan General Hospital. It has a $3-million operating budget. You've cut them $80,000 this year. In an effort to maintain services, they're already being forced into a deficit situation, so that next year they could face a shortfall of $280,000.

They put forward a plan showing how they would retain the services for the community, and your ministry rejected it. It showed no sensitivity to them whatsoever. Basically, what you said to them is, "Despite the fact that you're two hours away from any other health care centre, cut your rehabilitation services." That's what your ministry said.

By telling small hospitals like this that have no alternative for the community that they should cut, no matter what, is that showing sensitivity to them and their patients?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'd be very pleased to check into the facts of this particular situation, but I would say that my comments of yesterday certainly stand in terms of the special consideration that was given to rural, remote and northern hospitals, in terms of the joint policy and planning committee's funding formula that was developed for last year, and I expect the same consideration will be given to those same hospitals by the JPPC as they develop a new formula for the next fiscal year.

Mr Hampton: I can give you some of the facts. This is a hospital that has only three people working in administration. It has no more than 50 nurses, most of whom are working on a part-time basis. This is a hospital that is faced with cutting its rehabilitation services because of the cutbacks you've imposed on them.

I just want to turn to Windsor. Last week the Windsor Regional Hospital announced the elimination of 90 positions. Staff from across the organization will be affected, including some 30 to 40 nursing positions. Why? It's because of the cuts to the operating budget that you've imposed, and your response to the media was that Windsor Regional Hospital is not allowed to do this without your permission.

You told them that they weren't allowed to make these cuts without your permission, but we talked to them and they said they've got your permission; in fact they've got your direction to make these cuts. This is happening despite the fact that this regional hospital has already gone through restructuring. They've already worked with their numbers.

Minister, are you going to reinstate their funding? They're going to lose basic services as a result of your cuts.

Hon Mr Wilson: At the time the reporter asked me about Windsor -- I don't walk around carrying all 219 operating plans in my head. I will echo some of the comments made during the leader's question, though. The only one who cut health care in Windsor in terms of beds was the NDP government. You cut hundreds of beds out of the system in that part of the province, and we're now responding with getting rid of the waste, administration and duplication that you forgot to do.

The plan put forward by Windsor is their local plan. Yes, the ministry approved the operating plan and I want to publicly thank the health care leaders in Windsor, the union leaders, who, before we approved their operating plan, showed a 50% reduction in administration. It's one area of the province that's consistently ahead of many other areas of the province. They've cut their administration and now they're restructuring the delivery of their services. There's no evidence in their operating plan or anything I've heard from the health care leaders in the Windsor area that direct patient services will be affected in a negative way. If that's your contention now, I want to hear the facts.

Mr Hampton: This is all about the minister's contention that there have been no cuts to health care in this province. The fact of the matter is, you can take remote hospitals in northern Ontario or you can take hospitals in urban Windsor, and cuts are being made in all of those communities and people are being affected. This is about the fact that you can't have it both ways. You've taken $365 million out of hospitals this year. Then you turn around and you tell people that services won't be threatened. Then you turn around and tell hospitals that are trying to protect the service that they can't run a deficit.

Yesterday you said you were being sensitive to northern Ontario hospitals that have a remote situation. I give you the example of Atikokan, where you're not being sensitive at all. You're telling them to cut their rehabilitation services. That's what this is about. Do you realize that despite all your efforts to spin it, you can't have it both ways?

The fact of the matter is that community after community is losing health care services and you have no plan -- no plan with respect to the doctors, no plan with respect to the nurses, no plan with respect to the Ontario Hospital Association that's going to bring it all back together. What are you going to do?

Hon Mr Wilson: Specifically in Atikokan, you should know that ministry staff met on September 17 with the representatives of that hospital and made some suggestions in terms of efficiencies. No decisions have been made and we're waiting to hear back with respect to suggestions that were made by staff to the health care people at the Atikokan hospital.

Secondly, I don't know, my version of history must be entirely different from the honourable member's. I spent 16 months having the privilege as Minister of Health of making announcements in terms of improved health care in community after community, whether it be the community investment fund, the new dialysis clinics, the new heart surgeries, the opening of paediatric oncology units, cardiac stents, some 45 announcements in communities, many of them in opposition members' ridings, where I notice that during the week of the announcement, in their local papers they give the minister and the ministry and the government credit for having filled service gaps.

We're doing that across the province in an unprecedented way, including making sure we have doctors with emergency rooms. I was confronted with 67 emergency rooms that were closed or closing as we came into office, but 70 emergency rooms in rural and northern Ontario are now open because of the reinvestments this government has made.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Education and Training. The Minister of Education tried something cute here yesterday. He had his researchers take the time to figure out how many days had been lost to collective bargaining disputes with teachers. What he forgot to mention was that the days that have been lost over the last 20 years amount to less than 0.2% of all the instructional student days over the last 20 years -- less than 0.2%.

We made some phone calls yesterday. One of the people we talked to was Tracy Martin, who lives in Kitchener and has a six-year-old who attends grade 2 in Kitchener. Ms Martin was asking about her daughter's school day, and she was told, "Oh, we don't go to the library on Mondays any more because of cutbacks." Minister, when a six-year-old child realizes that your cutbacks are affecting her education and curtailing her education --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister of Education.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I actually find it somewhat shocking that the leader of the third party would see a report or read a report that indicates quite clearly that more than 17 million school days have been lost over the last 20 years because of collective bargaining and find that not disturbing. I find it disturbing, my colleagues find it disturbing and I'm sure parents across the province find it disturbing.

Mr Hampton: Once again the minister is so disturbed that he can't answer the question. What I asked him was, does he realize that in fact his cutbacks are taking back many more student days? Since he was so disturbed he couldn't answer the question, let me try again.

Michael J. Laverty, who is the principal of St Joseph's Catholic high school in Renfrew, sent an open letter to the Premier on October 24 in which he stated: "Although our student population increased, we lost the equivalent of one teacher. This effectively closed our library resource centre (which is shameful), and caused the loss of several subjects from the curriculum. Don't tell me that cuts don't hurt kids."

Minister, you took the time to have Mr Paroian figure out that 0.2% of instructional days were lost to collective agreement disputes. Have you taken the time to figure out how many hundreds of thousands of instructional days are going to be lost in libraries and resource centres across this province this year because of your cutbacks?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe I've said in this chamber on several occasions, and I'm pleased to say again today, that

this government will not accept a lower quality of education in any school in the province of Ontario. We asked school boards across the province to find 1.8% of their operating costs in reductions last year. The commission that was appointed by the previous government, by the leader of the third party's government, suggested that 47% of our spending occurs outside of the classroom, so we find a 1.8% reduction to be rather modest in that regard.

I can tell you that it is the member opposite's government that left this province with a system where we spend too much on administration, too little inside the classroom, where the right choices are not made and where in fact there are second-class students. This government will not tolerate that. We are right now involved in a fundamental review of the way education is funded and the way it's governed so we can make better choices in the future.

Mr Hampton: Speaker, according to this minister's formula, the formula that he accepts so warmly, do you know that libraries and student resource centres are not counted as classroom funding? Do you know that when children learn to read in a library, this minister doesn't count that as classroom funding? That's why people around this province laugh at you and find you so ludicrous.

But let's deal with special education, because special education is the other area that's getting cut. Are you going to recognize that literally hundreds of thousands of student curriculum days are being lost in special education because of your cutbacks? You took the trouble to have Leon Paroian figure out that 0.2% over the last 20 years have been lost to collective bargaining. Have you taken the time to figure out how many hundreds of thousands of days of special education have been lost because of your cutbacks?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I don't know how to make this any clearer. The leader of the third party's government failed to address fundamental issues inside of education. Your government was willing, sir, to have second-class students, in terms of funding, across this province; this government is not. Your government was willing to have a funding mechanism that put special needs kids at risk in our system; this government is not.

That is why we are right now engaged in the most comprehensive review of our education system ever conducted in this province. I'm proud of that. We will come to some decisions over the next few months which will ensure that there is sufficient funding to ensure a quality education for every student in this province. That's the commitment of this government.

TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question of the Premier. In July of last year, shortly after you were elected Premier, Gordon McGuinty, a close friend of yours and a proponent of the Adams mine garbage proposal, stated, "I have never broached this project with Mr Harris even during all the time he was in opposition." Premier, is that true?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Certainly many people in northern Ontario have brought the subject up with me; to be honest with you, probably in the neighbourhood of hundreds -- from the ONTC, supportive, the majority I believe of those involved in your riding, the majority involved in my riding, resolutions from mayors and reeves.

I don't ever recall being lobbied directly by Gordon McGuinty, but certainly Gord McGuinty has on many occasions, through his company or through others, sent information to me, particularly during that time in opposition, urging support and encouragement for the rail-haul proposal, which I am publicly on the record in support of.

Mr Ramsay: I have a sworn affidavit from a New Liskeard lawyer stating that in June 1991, you, Mr McGuinty, Metro councillor Joan King, Kirkland Lake mayor Joe Mavrinac, and then-Commissioner of Public Works Bob Ferguson met at a Toronto restaurant to discuss the Adams mine project.

The affidavit states that not only did you discuss the project, but that it took the form of a strategy meeting and you were prepared to lend your support to the project if and when you were in a position to do so.

Your friend has the potential to make millions of dollars on this deal, and now you have a law containing a last-minute amendment that could make this happen. Finally, you are in a position to make this happen.

How do you explain that both you and Mr McGuinty deny formally talking about this? What are you hiding?

Hon Mr Harris: I have never denied talking about this. I indicated very clearly to you that I have talked to hundreds of people, and I would assume including Mr McGuinty, on the merits of the project. I felt I was in a position as the member for Nipissing to do something about it and so I lent my wholehearted and enthusiastic support to this proposal. I still have lent my support as the member for Nipissing to this proposal.

But you will recall this: While the NDP brought in legislation saying, "We'll tell you where garbage will go," I moved in the opposite direction, scrapped that legislation and said it is now up to Metro, it is now up to other municipalities to determine where garbage will go.

Neither I nor my office nor my government will influence that, but what we will do is, we will bring in legislation to guarantee to the people of this province that we will protect in perpetuity the environment of this province, and, wherever it goes, it will have to pass those independent tests of the scientists and the experts, not the politicians.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. This is Waste Reduction Week in Ontario, so when are you going to bring in sewer use regulations and product steward regulations to prevent toxic waste from entering our sewers and our landfills?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'm glad the member raised that this is Waste Reduction Week. I was there yesterday with my parliamentary assistant with the Recycling Council of Ontario kicking off this week on their behalf and was pleased to participate in that event.

We are working with a number of industries to deal with the bars by various sectors in this province to deal with household waste. I promised the Recycling Council yesterday that I would work with them closely to develop programs where we could better attack this problem, which has remained unsolved until this time.

Ms Churley: Minister, you have already cut grants to municipalities for household hazardous waste programs. That's already done. You're axing all the hazardous waste programs in your ministry. That's through Bill 57. You have no plan and you have no strategy. I know that even the auditor has expressed concern in his document that you need to have better monitoring and tracking of toxic waste. You have no pollution prevention plan whatsoever.

I ask you again today --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Is he cutting?

Ms Churley: Yes, more cuts to come. Are you going to announce next week, in the very near future, your waste reduction plan for hazardous waste going into our sewers and our landfills?

Hon Mr Sterling: I think it's odd that we get criticized for economizing in areas where programs haven't worked in the past. The fact of the matter is that no government has been able to address this particular problem in an efficient and economical way and have any decent results.

We are now, for instance, working with the car battery industry to reduce the roadblocks to having cadmium car batteries deposited at various stations across this province so they can be collected and taken back to the manufacturers to be properly disposed of.

The problem we have with household waste is that the old programs didn't work. What we're looking at now is to put into place programs that will work to attack the real problem and to deal with it.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd just like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today the Italian ambassador to Canada, His Excellency Andrea Negrotto Cambiaso. Welcome.

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. In September of this year Ontario Parks ran newspaper advertisements concerning corporate sponsorship opportunities in our provincial parks. I represent a riding that contains the Selkirk, Turkey Point and Long Point provincial parks, all adjacent to Lake Erie, hence my curiosity. Could the minister let us know what he's looking for as far as private sector involvement in our provincial parks?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I thank the member for Norfolk for the question. Ontario Parks is inviting the private sector to participate in programs designed to support the park protection mandate, improve the park environment and enhance the overall quality for park visitors.

As you know, we've already created a dedicated fund for Ontario Parks that enables revenues raised in our parks to stay within the park system as a whole. We're now asking the private sector to work in partnership with us to promote and increase public awareness of the province's outstanding park system through a variety of sponsorship opportunities. Together with the businesses and people of Ontario, we will continue to pursue excellence in our parks program.

Mr Barrett: It's been a month or so since these ads suggesting this sponsorship and partnerships with corporations and business were run. What kind of response have we received to date to this initiative?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm pleased to inform the member in the House that, as of October 29, Ontario Parks has received 105 inquiries about this new opportunity. This is an outstanding show of interest and demonstrates the great attachment the people have to Ontario's park system. Parties interested in corporate partnerships with Ontario Parks can call area code 705-755-PARK.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier, and it has to do with your standards of conduct for your Conservative caucus in dealing with the police. The Premier will recall that last September 1995 at Ipperwash Provincial Park there was an occupation of the park by the native community. After three days, and this was perhaps one of the most major confrontations between our OPP and native community, for the first time ever a native was killed.

We now know, Premier, that on at least three occasions the local Conservative member, Mr Beaubien, was at the police command post. We also know he says, and I will quote here from a newspaper clipping, that he was "in constant contact with the Premier's office and the ministries involved. It was my job to keep them apprised." The question is this: Is this an acceptable standard of behaviour for members of your Conservative caucus?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I believe, to the best of my knowledge, everything that has been brought to my attention, including everything you have brought forward today, is.

Second, I would expect, when you consider an event, if it was in any one of your ridings where an illegal occupation had taken place in a provincial park following an occupation of an adjacent federal property, where there was tension, you would want information, you would seek information, you would call upon those to let them know the situation as you saw it from natives and non-natives, a very tense situation.

I think the member acted, to the best of my knowledge, in the best interests of both native and non-native constituents within his riding, a very difficult situation for him, and he sought to get information from any possible source that he could and he sought to inform everybody he could with his understanding of things he was hearing in his riding. I would expect my members to do that, yes.

Mr Phillips: I understand your standard then: In any confrontation with our police organizations dealing with very sensitive situations with our community, it is, first, acceptable for your Conservative caucus members to be there, to inform the police that they have been in constant contact with your office, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, that they are keeping you, the Premier, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General informed of everything that's going on there and that they are awaiting instructions from your office. I want you to confirm that you believe that is acceptable behaviour, is an acceptable code of conduct in your Ontario.

Hon Mr Harris: At no time did the police receive any instructions from anybody that I know in my caucus or my office or me or the cabinet.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): My question is to the Attorney General regarding the crisis at the family support plan. I'd like the Attorney General to respond to the following.

On November 1, Ontario Hydro directed the following letter to the director of the family support plan. It reads: "We have been telephoning the employer hotline for over a month now seeking clarification and assistance in processing our remittances to you. To date we have not received any reply to our numerous voice-mail messages.

"In frustration we called the number used by employees and -- "

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Find out what's going on over there. Get the facts straight. Talk about it outside the House.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Member for Lambton, come to order, please.

Ms Martel: "We finally got to speak to an agent. We've been trying to confirm where to send the payments via overnight courier as your recent form letter advising of improvements only provided us with a post box address. Your offices have now intermittently started to return our courier payments and it appears some have been lost. When we finally spoke to an agent, we were told to use the address to which the letter is sent.

"Enclosed you will find the cheques which we have received to date as returned. Please send them, because our employees and the payment recipients that your offices have talked to are telling them that we are failing to remit payments to you."

Can you now finally admit that your cuts are causing the crisis at the family support plan?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I don't have any knowledge of the details of the member's question, and if she would provide me with those details I will look into that.

As I've indicated, we are doing a number of things to make this plan better, including the bill that will be debated shortly in this Legislature. I hope the member opposite will take

part in that debate and support the bill and support the move to make this plan effective and to help those who depend on it.

Ms Martel: Let me provide a few more details to the minister so he understands the seriousness of the situation. Hydro weekly remits to the family support plan $70,000. On an annual basis they remit $3.5 million. They have been doing this via overnight courier since the inception of the plan. People who used to receive regular support payments, whose ex-spouses are Hydro employees, have gone without for the last four weeks because of this crisis. Now Hydro is receiving letters from the family support plan to say that many of these employees are in arrears and they now have to take even more money out of the paycheques of these employees because of the arrears notice.

When are you finally going to do something with respect to the women and children in this province who are suffering as a direct result of your attempt to finance the tax cuts?

Hon Mr Harnick: Again, I have none of the details. If the member will provide me with those details, as I've indicated to her, I will look into that. I'd be pleased to look into that matter and find the information. As I've said, we are restructuring the plan. We have a bill coming before the Legislature, and I hope the members of the third party will support that bill in an effort to make the family support plan work once and for all.

LANDFILL

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. On Thursday of last week you announced that cabinet had rejected an appeal from Redland Quarries regarding their proposal for a landfill site in the town of Flamborough. Would you explain to the House and the people of Hamilton-Wentworth why cabinet reached that decision?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): The proposed Redlands quarry was turned down by a joint board hearing consisting of members of the Ontario Municipal Board and the Environmental Assessment Board in March 1995. Citizens of that area have been waiting for their answer and we in the cabinet decided that because the proposed landfill was not supported by the host municipality, the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, and because the board had found that there were technical problems associated with the proposal, it was only fair to the citizens of that area to uphold the board, as we should, and reject the application for a landfill site at Redland Quarries.

Mr Pettit: I'd like to point out to the House and the people of Hamilton-Wentworth that this particular matter dragged on for some 10 years and cost untold millions of dollars to all the parties involved. I find that to be clearly unacceptable. My supplementary question for the minister is, how is the new Bill 76 going to improve the environmental assessment process to prevent occurrences such as this particular one happening again?

Hon Mr Sterling: I find the time spent unacceptable not only in terms of the monetary expense, but also, when I was out at the site on Thursday last, I found out from the citizens what anguish and pain many of them had been through for the past 10 years in dealing with this issue. It was indeed a very emotional issue.

Bill 76 will focus environmental assessment hearings in a much more efficient manner: efficient in terms of bringing the issues to a head, allowing proper public consultation, proper availability for all parties to put forward their side of the story. We believe we can scope a hearing of this nature down to a period of 12 months from a time span, as was exhibited in this area, of 10 years.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Education. You've continued to state in this House over the last few months that your cuts, your massive gutting of the education system in Ontario, are not impacting classroom education, or what you define as classroom education. I want to point out to you today some examples that blatantly contradict what you are saying.

In my community of Hamilton-Wentworth, we have school libraries that have been closed for the first two months of the school year because of staffing shortages and not being able to have librarians in those classrooms; a school, St Joachim's in Ancaster, that has a capacity of 400, has 1,000 students and has become Portable City because, as a result of your cuts, they cannot afford any expansion and the students are cramped in portables in unbearable conditions; school boards that have computers on their desks and can't use them because they don't have the affordability to maintain those computers.

Minister, this morning it was reported that the Halton Board of Education is considering laying off 500 teachers from their workforce next year. Can you explain to the House today how the layoff of 500 teachers in one board across this province is not going to impact classroom education?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the honourable member opposite for the question. It's an opportunity to perhaps inform him of some facts. First of all, I would reject the assumption or the allegation that a 1.8% reduction in operating costs is massive. I think that's hardly massive, and I think the people of the province of Ontario know much better than that. Secondly, you wonder about portables in school yards. I wonder about that too.

Under the previous two governments, some 8,000 portables were added to our school system across the province because the previous two governments were unwilling to take on the funding of education to make sure there were no second-class citizens in the province and to make sure there was a capital program that would work for people. We are doing both of those things, and I am proud of that.

Mr Agostino: I think the first thing we should provide to the Minister of Education is a calculator so he can figure out the extent of the cuts. Let me tell you, when you look at the real cuts and real dollars as provincial funding, you're talking about 11%, not 2%.

School boards have done their part. The Hamilton-Wentworth separate school board has cut administration by 50%. The Hamilton board of education has cut administration by 35%. We now have schools in our community where trustees, as told to me this morning, are concerned for the safety of the students because they cannot afford to maintain those schools in the order and the shape they should be in.

Minister, you are now contemplating more cuts. You're now talking about further cuts to education. I'm sure at the end of November we'll hear that wonderful news again, as you're going to impact and gut education in Ontario. Can you guarantee this House that any further cuts you make will not impact one single student in a classroom of any board across this province?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let's make this very clear once again. I want to make sure the honourable member understands this. No decision made by this government has hurt a single student in the province of Ontario, nor will it. This government, unlike the previous two governments, understands that every --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was rather remarkable --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I've been doing this all day. We can do it all day. Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: In all fairness, Mr Speaker, you might be able to do it all day but I'm getting tired.

I just want to say that I think it's important for the people of Ontario to understand this, that we have students in Ontario who receive as much as 30% less than other students in the amount allocated for their education. We recognize the essential unfairness of that. We are going to address it. I think it's regrettable that the previous two governments did not. We are taking that problem on.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. A number of credible studies have rejected amalgamation of municipalities, saying it's not going to save any money. Anne Golden, whose GTA task force you have praised, says amalgamation won't work. A study of Ontario municipalities published this year by the Canadian Tax Journal says, "Costs are affected by the quantity and quality of services provided, not by government structure." A Price-Waterhouse study of Ottawa-Carleton done in 1992 said, "One-tier government would increases taxes by 5% to 16%." An

article by George Boyne in the journal Public Administration says, "Based on US experience, a one-tier system may not lead to greater efficiency and the advantages of two-tier systems have been underestimated." Minister, can you name any credible study that you have read that would prove one big government is the way to go?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for his question. Yes, I could name a number of studies that indicate single tiers work. Single tiers work in a number of jurisdictions. I suppose the member would suggest under his scenario that we should take the Metropolitan Toronto Police and divide them into six communities. Would that make any sense? I don't think so. Perhaps you would like to take the ambulance services and divide them into six communities. Would that make any sense?

Obviously there are services that can be provided at one level, at one tier, and I think most of the services that are currently being delivered by six duplicated, overlapping communities could best be delivered by one tier, and there are many studies to show that.

Mr Marchese: Minister, that's why I asked you if you've read some studies and can you name them. All you say is yes, you've seen some. I haven't seen any, but I would like to see them. You argue that there are savings but you make the case for one big government without proving it. What we want to be able to do is to have you quote similar sources, as I'm doing now. Harry Kitchen, professor of economics at Trent University in Peterborough, says, "Not all services get cheaper with amalgamation."

You are charging ahead with no public hearings, no public input and no public debate. There is an obvious need in my mind for public hearings. Will you hold public hearings on this very important issue?

Hon Mr Leach: Again I thank you for the questions. There are studies that have been done, very recent studies, specifically for Metropolitan Toronto. This has probably been the most overstudied issue in the history of Ontario. Since 1969, when I think the first referendum was held, a referendum by all the people in this area that said, yes, amalgamation is the way to go, studies have been done since that time to now, all reaching the same conclusion. The most recent study was done by an independent consultant for Metropolitan Toronto, which proved the same thing.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): My question is to the minister without portfolio who is responsible for Bill 59, the Automobile Insurance Rate Stability Act.

Far too many people in my constituency have been very concerned with skyrocketing auto insurance rates. They've seen rates go up under the two previous governments year after year after year. Could the minister please tell this House just how much auto insurance rates will drop for the good drivers of the province of Ontario?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I know the honourable member's quite concerned about this issue because he comes from an area of this province where in fact a consumer group organized in order to complain and try to encourage a government to listen to Ontarians, to try to create a product that was for the consumer of this province, and I know the honourable member will be quite pleased to hear that as a result of the work that we did, as a result of the work of the steering committee, the consultation process, average rates in this province will be going down 4.4% effective November 1 of this year.

Clearly, the honourable members across the floor did not want to see a rate reduction because they did not vote in support of this particular bill. We believed Ontario drivers deserved a break, and they've gotten it with Bill 59.

Mr Baird: Regrettably, in the last two rounds of auto insurance reform, nothing in those rounds led to greater consumer understanding of what has become an increasingly complex system or dealt with the growing problem of fraud in the province of Ontario.

Auto insurance fraud has been one of the major causes of skyrocketing auto insurance rates for people and families in my riding. Could the minister give the House some details on how the new measures contained in Bill 59 to deal with consumer understanding and fraud will help keep rates low?

Hon Mr Sampson: Yes, indeed, fraud was a serious concern. As we went through the auto insurance review, it was quite clear that there was a tremendous amount of fraud that was driving up rates, and we chose to attack that in Bill 59.

One of the largest areas was the high percentage of uninsured drivers in this province. Somewhere between 10% and 20% of the driving population under the previous governments -- I guess they thought it was acceptable -- were not buying auto insurance, were not contributing to the pool. We dealt with that. We dealt with that by increasing the fines not two times, three times, but 10 times the amount of the previous legislation, because driving without insurance in this province is against the law, and we're going to stop it.

CLOSURE OF CAMPGROUNDS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism on an issue I've questioned him on many times. I'm referring to the minister's broken promises to have the parks currently closed in the St Lawrence Parks Commission opened for 1996. Investors have forwarded their proposals directly to the minister and to myself, investors have been lined up trying to operate those parks, investors the minister has let slip through his fingers the past tourism season.

Minister, time and time again since you came into power I have read your quotes back to you. It is very clear you promised the parks would be open in the summer of 1996 and equally clear that you did not deliver on your promise. I would like to ask you today, will you commit to allowing these parks to open next summer? A simple yes or no would suffice, and don't give me your old rigmarole that you gave me before.

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): Mr Speaker, I'm pleased to respond to the question. The very simple explanation is that the proposals he is referring to were just not satisfactory, and in this era of financial responsibility on the part of this government it was not the time to accept such proposals. It's as simple as that.

As a matter of fact, I think they were closed when you were in power, and they're not going to be open until we have a proper financial plan.

Mr Cleary: The minister is wrong again.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Who shut them down, John?

Mr Cleary: No, but you know -- anyway, we won't get into that here. As you know, you have stood idly by since you came to power and lost tourism dollars in eastern Ontario, lost jobs in our area, lost economic spinoff. Now that the parks have been allowed to fall into a state of disarray, maybe private investors are not as anxious as they used to be, but I still think they're out there. Six years of neglect have heaped problems on these parks and now that the new government is in place, they have to be an accomplice to this.

On behalf of the people of my riding and the municipal councils, which you did not meet with, I request a detailed report on how you intend to open these parks, or do you simply not care any more?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I heard the honourable member say that I was wrong again. Well, he's wrong again. It was his party that closed the parks. Let me say to the member that I was in the Kingston region two weeks ago, approximately, to take a look at the St Lawrence Parks Commission and I had good chats with the people at Fort Henry and with the members of the commission. I spoke to them and I said that we are in a time of fiscal restraint and when we can get the private sector to work with us, then perhaps those parks will be open again. But we are not going to do it until we have a proper plan.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Transportation, if I could get his attention. Thank you very much. I won't get a chance for a supplementary so I'm going to make this very simple.

You remember Pearl Miller, the 79-year-old who has been cut off Wheel-Trans and who came down here to meet you? I'm sure you do; she's kind of hard to forget. Minister, you promised her to set up a meeting with Paul Christie and you were going to go with her to that meeting. ARCH, the advocacy group on behalf of the disabled, has been pushing your office to get that meeting set up. We find out just today that Paul Christie has now decided that he refuses to meet with Mrs Miller. He will, however, meet with you.

Minister, the proposition of two Tories meeting behind closed doors is something we see all too often with this government, and it's not good enough. It's not good enough for Mrs Miller and it's not good enough for the 10,000 other disabled people who are being cut off Wheel-Trans. My simple question: Will you commit to us here today that you will take someone from ARCH, the advocacy group on behalf of the disabled, with you to that meeting so we can have some openness and some accountability and not backroom Tory dealing?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I thank the honourable member for the question. Certainly I can understand Mr Christie's position in not meeting with Mrs Miller. There is an appeal in process, and I do understand the situation. However, my office has been in touch with Mrs Miller and she is in agreement that she does not have to participate in that meeting and she has agreed for the ministry staff to discuss that with myself and Mr Christie. I really have that assurance from Mrs Miller that she does not want to participate in that particular meeting.

I want to say to the honourable member that a meeting has been established and will take place with Mr Christie and myself on November 21.

PETITIONS

TVONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My petition reads:

"We, the undersigned, strongly protest any plans to privatize TVOntario. The privatization of TVOntario would jeopardize the excellent educational and information programming provided by TVOntario. The sale of TVO would also jeopardize Wawatay radio network's native language programming and Wahsa distance education services because both depend on TVO's distribution system."

This is signed by many of my constituents from Port Severn, Hudson, Sioux Lookout and throughout the region. I too attach my name to this petition.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a petition with about 100 names of residents from 145 St George Street, 151 St George Street and 153 St George Street. This is what the petition says:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to take away the protections of the Rent Control Act;

"Whereas the government is proposing to allow a landlord to charge a tenant who moves into an apartment whatever the landlord can get away with;

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to raise the limit of how high rents can increase for all tenants;

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to make it easier to demolish or convert existing affordable rental housing;

"Whereas the government is proposing to take away the rent freeze which has been successful in forcing some landlords to repair their buildings;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to keep the existing rent laws, which provide true protection for tenants, in place."

I affix my signature to this.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the administration of Families Against Deadbeats, Renate Diorio, Heinz Paul and Danielle McIsaac, are in total support of Bill 82, presented by the Honourable Charles Harnick to the Legislative Assembly on October 2, 1996, outlining the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, to replace the Family Support Plan Act, 1992;

"Whereas the changes will relieve the taxpayers of Ontario and provide proper enforcement required to collect and administer child support payments and orders;

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

"We support and agree with all of the changes outlined in the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, set forth by the Honourable Charles Harnick as Bill 82, and urge the Legislature to pass this bill into law as soon as possible."

I have signed this petition.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): There are too many people standing up. It's confusing for me; I don't know who to call. There's also too much noise.

ACCESS TO RECREATION AREAS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition forwarded to me Mr James Gerow of Thunder Bay and signed by over 250 hunters and fishermen in the Thunder Bay area who are very concerned about the closure of an access road by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The petition reads as follows:

"We are concerned Canadian citizens worried about the controls over crown land by private interest groups. On September 14, 1998, a culvert will be removed from the Garden Lake Road at Otter Toot crossing. This closure will eliminate access to a great number of lakes and 100 kilometres of road for hunting and fishing. We are worried that the private citizen no longer has input or control of our outdoors and recreation areas. On behalf of the people using this area for hunting and fishing, we hope the use of this road and area will continue not only for the personal use of privately owned businesses but for all taxpaying Canadians."

I sign my name to that petition.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition here signed by residents of the Waterloo-Kitchener area. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the provincial government is planning to make significant changes to the delivery and governance of education in this province; and

"Whereas we as parents believe that school councils should play an important role in education, with clearly defined responsibilities limited to their particular school communities; and

"Whereas we as ratepayers are extremely disturbed that consideration is being given to abolish school boards and eliminate decision-making by locally elected representatives;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that the present structure of school boards within the province of Ontario continue to have a major role in governance of schools to deal with board policies as advocates for the students in their community, to provide cost-efficient educational services and to be directly accountable to the parents and local ratepayers."

I am signing the petition.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): I have a petition on behalf of many of the residents of Hastings-Peterborough.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we believe that provincial interest in public libraries in Ontario is fundamental to the rights of all Ontarians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to maintain the provincial interest in public libraries by ensuring the continuance of the following:

(1) grants to ensure that all Ontarians have equalized access to library materials and services;

(2) coordination of resource-sharing programs such as interlibrary loan and Internet access;

(3) policy to ensure the future of the network of Ontario public libraries;

(4) provincial assistance directly to libraries at the service level, for example, through Southern Ontario Library Service and Ontario Library Service-North;

(5) legislation that maintains the autonomy of public library boards."

I affix my signature.

APPAREILS DE LOTERIE VIDÉO

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai une pétition de l'abbé Jacques Poirier de la paroisse Sainte-Euphémie de Casselman :

«À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que le projet de loi 75 aura un effet négatif sur les organismes de charité ;

«Attendu que le projet de loi 75 provoquera une augmentation des cas de dépendance au jeu et causera des dommages irréparables à des familles de toutes les régions de la province ;

«Attendu que le gouvernement n'a pas spécifié quelles organisations de charité bénéficieront des revenus des loteries vidéo,

«Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

«Nous demandons à tous les partis représentés à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario de s'opposer au projet de loi 75.»

J'y ajoute ma signature.

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have a petition here from literally hundreds of my constituents and constituents of the member for Algoma regarding day care and child care. It's to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas child care is an essential service and children should not be used to make money; and

"Whereas reducing current standards to minimal building codes compromises the safety of children; and

"Whereas providing funding to the private sector will lead to reduced accountability for tax dollars; and

"Whereas children's growth and development could be in serious jeopardy without trained professionals caring for them; and

"Whereas reducing monitoring inspections and increasing staff-child ratios will result in poor-quality child care programs; and

"Whereas staff wages are a major indicator of quality, proposed reductions and wage subsidies will have a negative impact on child care; and

"Whereas the need for parental choice in child care is recognized;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to reconsider the directions proposed in Improving Ontario's Child Care System, the report released by Janet Ecker, as we feel it will have a negative impact on the families of Ontario."

I sign my name to this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I have petitions here from greater Grand Bend:

"We, the undersigned, support the following:

"

(1) That the community commonly referred to as Grand Bend, which includes the areas of Bosanquet north of the Greenway Road, and the Pinery Provincial Park, as well as the areas of Stephen township, which are adjacent to the existing village of Grand Bend, be brought together as one single community, retaining the name Grand Bend;

"

(2) When a newly amalgamated municipality is created, that this unified greater Grand Bend area not be divided by municipal boundaries;

"

(3) That the amalgamated municipality that includes the greater Grand Bend community provide the best economic alternatives for supply of services and utilities and fair representation for our area; and

"

(4) That the individual residential areas and subdivisions situated within greater Grand Bend retain their identity and characteristics and continue to operate with their community associations."

I have a number of petitions here with approximately 100 signatures on them.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has recommended the closure of two acute care hospitals in Sudbury; and

"Whereas the overall number of available beds will be reduced by approximately 35%; and

"Whereas the reduction in beds will affect Sudbury's ability to remain the referral centre for health care in northeastern Ontario; and

"Whereas there will be a large number of layoffs in the health profession, impacting the quality of local health care and our Sudbury economy; and

"Whereas the global annual budget for Sudbury health care will be reduced by 25%;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to rescind the Health Services Restructuring Commission's recommendation to close two acute care Sudbury hospitals."

There are 1,000 names in this petition to add to the 12,304 we already have.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have further petitions from the OFL joint health and safety conference entitled "It's Your Life, Don't Leave Work Without It," where over 1,000 delegates considered the WCB intention of this government and denounced it thoroughly.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is attacking workers' compensation benefits and the rights of injured workers; and

"Whereas Tory plans include taking $15 billion from injured workers and giving $6 billion to employers, including the government's rich corporate friends; and

"Whereas Cam Jackson, the former Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for gutting the WCB, refused to hold public hearings, choosing to meet secretly with business and insurance industry representatives; and

"Whereas the WCB has about $7.6 billion in assets and its unfunded liability has been steadily shrinking; and

"Whereas the Jackson report and WCB legislation are just part of a coordinated attack on occupational health and safety protections for working families in Ontario; and

"Whereas Tory plans also include abolition of the internationally respected Occupational Disease Panel; and

"Whereas the government needs to hear the message that taking money from injured workers and lowering incentives for employers to make workplaces safer is not the way to make Ontario a better place to live;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold full, province-wide public hearings on WCB reform; to listen to the voice of the people calling for improved occupational health and safety protection; and to tell the Tory government to call off its attack on the dignity and standard of living of injured workers and their families."

I add my name in support of theirs.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we welcome real gun control and support those portions of Bill C-68 which provide tougher penalties for the criminal use of firearms, new offences related to firearms smuggling and trafficking, and a ban on paramilitary weapons; and

"Whereas existing laws requiring the registration of handguns have done little to reduce the number of crimes committed with handguns or lower the volume of handguns smuggled into Canada; and

"Whereas the national gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will result in a massive misallocation of the limited resources available to law enforcement agencies, with no practical effect on the traffic in illegal firearms or the use of guns by violent criminals; and

"Whereas the gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will take police officers off the streets and involve them in bureaucracy rather than fighting crime and will make the task of real gun control more difficult and dangerous for police officers;

I have placed my signature to this petition.

NURSING STAFF

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health is decreasing the role of registered nurses in Ontario; and

"Whereas decreasing the use of registered nurses is not a cost-effective measure. This data is well determined through comprehensive research in the United States, England and Canada; and

"Whereas a decline or elimination of registered nurses has demonstrated the following undesirable outcomes: a substantial increase in mortality-morbidity rates; an increase in length of hospitalization stays; an increase in the number of complications; an increase in readmission rates to hospitals from long-term care facilities and the community; an increase in the number of patient/resident/family complaints/dissatisfactions; an increase in overall health care costs; and

"Whereas registered nurses, with their in-depth knowledge and assessment skills, actively demonstrate leadership and professional expertise that result in positive clinical outcomes in the hospital setting, long-term care facilities as well as the community; and

"Whereas registered nurses are one of the very few health care and regulated professionals who have in-depth assessment skills that evaluate the status of the whole person 24 hours a day;

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

"The Ministry of Health stop the chaos they are creating in health care and recognize and support the important role of the registered nurse in health delivery in Ontario."

I add my name to this important petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): I have a petition from the parents of Hilltop Middle School on education cutbacks.

"The Ontario provincial government, under Premier Mike Harris and Education Minister John Snobelen, is threatening the future of our children's education and lives with huge cuts in the education budget."

Interjections.

Mr Ford: This is a perceived letter, that these people think this is going to happen.

"This action could result in any or all of the following: larger classes, elimination of buses, elimination of junior kindergarten and senior kindergarten, reduced libraries, elimination of special education programs, French immersion, instrumental music, ESL, alternative education, elementary library, extracurricular sports, developmentally challenged assistance, overcrowded schools, obsolete equipment including computers, reduced maintenance, reduced administration and weaker discipline.

"As concerned parents and citizens of this province, we urge you to sign this petition, which will be presented to the Premier as a reflection of our serious concerns over this agenda. In addition, we urge you to write to your MPP and voice your concerns. Act quickly, as the time of these proposed changes is next month."

This is unsigned.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ALCOHOL, GAMING AND CHARITY FUNDING PUBLIC INTEREST ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉGISSANT LES ALCOOLS, LES JEUX ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES DE BIENFAISANCE DANS L'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 75,

An Act to regulate alcohol and gaming in the public interest, to fund charities through the responsible management of video lotteries and to amend certain statutes related to alcohol and gaming / Projet de loi 75, Loi réglementant les alcools et les jeux dans l'intérêt public, prévoyant le financement des organismes de bienfaisance grâce à la gestion responsable des loteries vidéo et modifiant des lois en ce qui a trait aux alcools et aux jeux.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, before we proceed, I have a point of order. This is a very strong one. It is common practice in this House, outside of the very old days of the Tory government, that the opposition know after question period what bills will be dealt with on a particular day, and here the government has just now announced what bill it's going to deal with. Is this not unusual? Does it not concern you, as Speaker of this House?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): To address the point of order from the member for St Catharines, it matters not how usual it is or concerning to me. It's just a matter of the rules, and as far as I can see, the government hasn't broken or abrogated any of the rules of this Legislature. So I will look to the Liberal member for Algoma-Manitoulin.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm pleased to rise and participate in this debate. One of the issues that is probably of most concern in the province of Ontario today is Bill 75 and the advent of video lottery terminals. That doesn't sound very exciting to the people of Ontario, video lottery terminals, but what video lottery terminals are in effect, what they really are, is video slot machines.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, just on a point of order: I understand that the member for Niagara Falls was to have introduced a bill, and this is the last day, so I would seek unanimous consent -- unfortunately, he didn't understand when this was to be done. I seek unanimous consent.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to introduce a bill from the member for Niagara Falls?

Mr Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: You know what? I --

Mr Michael Brown: I'm just trying to be helpful with this.

The Speaker: It's a point of order, so I would ask the member --

Mr Michael Brown: Mr Speaker, because the government was so tardy in informing the Legislature of what business was to be dealt with this afternoon, Mr Lalonde from our party was hoping that he would be able to speak to this bill at this particular time, and if the government is seeking unanimous consent for this bill, perhaps we could have unanimous consent for --

The Speaker: Member for Algoma-Manitoulin, I think I have a solution to this. I will seek unanimous consent for the member for Niagara Falls to introduce the bill, as well as unanimous consent to go to the member for Prescott-Russell in the order of rotation. Agreed.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Thank you, colleagues, on all sides of the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ACCOUNTABILITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA RESPONSABILISATION

Mr Maves moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Audit Act to improve the accountability of hospitals, school boards, universities and colleges, municipalities and other organizations which receive payments from the government / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la vérification des comptes publics en vue d'améliorer la responsabilisation au sein des hôpitaux, des conseils scolaires, des universités et des collèges, des municipalités et d'autres organisations qui reçoivent des paiements du gouvernement.

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

Any short comments, the member for Niagara Falls?

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Yes, a quick explanation: The purpose of the bill is to enable the Provincial Auditor to conduct audits of organizations and other bodies such as school boards, hospitals, universities in respect of payments received from the consolidated revenue fund or government agencies. It acts primarily on a recommendation from the Provincial Auditor.

ALCOHOL, GAMING AND CHARITY FUNDING PUBLIC INTEREST ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉGISSANT LES ALCOOLS, LES JEUX ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES DE BIENFAISANCE DANS L'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC (CONTINUED)

The Speaker: Now we go back to rotation. The member for Prescott and Russell.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I'm delighted to be able to participate in the debate of this bill, the VLT bill, Bill 75, a bill called by the French people le projet de loi du poison vif. It is a pure poison bill.

La dernière fois que j'ai pris la parole en faveur d'un projet de loi, c'était le projet de loi 60, qui avait pour but de sauvegarder les emplois de nos travailleurs de la construction. Aujourd'hui je veux parler contre le projet de loi 75, qui apportera de la misère et qui va contribuer à l'éclatement de nos nombreuses familles en Ontario.

I know what the casinos are. I know what the VLTs are going to be in our community. As I said, it's pure poison for the community. We have had some data that the people of Ontario oppose this bill by 62%. I hope the government is going to listen to the people of Ontario; 62 % des personnes de l'Ontario s'opposent à ce projet de loi.

C'est quoi, le projet de loi 75 ? Beaucoup de personnes se demandent qu'est-il, le projet de loi VLT ? C'est une loi qui permettra au gouvernement d'installer des machines à loterie vidéo, «slot machines», dans les restaurants, dans les bars et dans les hôtels en Ontario. Il y a quelques instants, un maximum de 30 minutes, le premier ministre de l'Ontario nous a dit ici-même en Chambre qu'on n'aurait pas de vidéo dans nos restaurants et dans nos hôtels. Est-ce qu'on va le croire ? Immédiatement, environ deux minutes après cette déclaration il a dit : «Je n'ai pas dit des loterie-vidéo ; j'ai dit "vidéo".» Qu'est-ce que c'est ?

Depuis in certain temps 32 paroisses de mon comté de Prescott et Russell m'ont fait parvenir des pétitions signées par des milliers de personnes qui sont contre ce projet de loi. Nous connaissons ce qui arrive dans d'autres provinces. Je vais me référer à la Nouvelle-Écosse, où on a décidé de retirer un nombre de ces machines. Pourquoi ? Parce que les personnes dépendent de ces machines. C'est presque impossible. Je peux vous dire que je fréquente assez souvent les casinos et que l'on peut devenir, comme on dit en anglais : You become addicted to video machines.

So are we going to have the sign at the entrance of Ontario: "Welcome to Organized Crime in Ontario"? Ce n'est certainement pas ça qu'on veut. Est-ce que nous voulons souhaiter la bienvenue aux gens d'autres provinces et pays qui nous visitent qui vont nous dire : «Nous rentrons en Ontario avec l'enseigne qui dit, "Bienvenue au crime organisé en Ontario"» ?

Chers amis, chers collègues de l'opposition ou du gouvernement, c'est un très grand danger. J'ai regardé des articles dans le journal Le Droit récemment. On disait que l'héritage de la pauvreté était le casino. Maintenant l'héritage de la pauvreté dans toutes nos petites communautés seront les loteries-vidéo, les machines à sous.

Le curé de la paroisse Sainte-Euphémie de Casselman m'a fait parvenir une pétition qui dit de mettre des pressions sur le gouvernement afin que l'on ne passe pas à la troisième lecture.

J'ai ici une résolution de la corporation du canton de Clarence. On me dit de voter contre le projet de loi.

Chers amis, lorsque nous allons voir ces machines vidéo dans les environs des collèges, des écoles secondaires, des universités, si on pense seulement qu'une personne peut remporter 5000 $, 500 $, 50 $, vous verrez que l'argent qu'on détient, l'argent de poche que les parents donnent aux enfants, aux étudiants pour leur goûter de midi va être dépensé dans les machines.

Pourquoi voulons-nous avoir cet argent, des pauvres surtout ? C'est parce qu'on veut aider à payer le 30 % de réduction d'impôts aux gens de l'Ontario. Les gens les plus riches vont bénéficier. Je me demande si les gens de la province sont au courant de combien ce 30 % de coupures d'impôts va coûter en Ontario. C'est un montant qui va coûter au-delà de 17 milliards de dollars aux payeurs de taxes de l'Ontario, et ça juste pour réduire aux riches le 30 % d'impôts.

J'ai fait des calculs ; j'ai fait des recherches. Dans la région de Hawkesbury, le pourcentage des dames bénéficieront de $1,25 par semaine. C'est ça, la coupure. Mais on doit payer pour les services de bibliothèque, on doit payer pour les services de loisir. On doit avoir une augmentation de la facturation d'eau. On doit avoir une augmentation de la facturation des vidanges. Donc, tout ça pour dire que nous allons remettre aux plus riches de la province un montant de 17 milliards de dollars par l'an 2000. Est-ce que c'est juste, mes chers amis ? Je ne crois pas.

Je voudrais aller un peu plus loin. Dans ma circonscription seulement, une dame a été acquittée de 80 000 $, une séparation de famille ou un divorce, je pourrais dire. Elle bénéficiait de 80 000 $. Qu'est-ce que vous pensez est arrivé à cette somme ? Les 80 000 de dollars ont été dépensés dans les machines illégales que nous avons en Ontario. Si nous voyons actuellement au-delà de 20 000 à 25 000 machines illégales en Ontario, nous n'avons aucune protection. Je crois que le solliciteur général ou le procureur général devrait faire son grand possible actuellement de surveiller ces machines illégales.

Étant donné que nous ne pouvons pas surveiller ces machines illégales, est-ce que nous allons être capables de surveiller les machines lorsqu'elles seront en place légalement ? Je ne crois pas.

Actuellement, nous avons déclaré dans une région ici au Canada que nous avions modifié 130 de ces machines-là afin qu'elles atteignent les normes de l'Ontario qui seront insérées parmi les autres machines dans nos restaurants, et puis là, vous verrez, il sera impossible de voir à ce que ces machines soient légales. Tout ce que nous allons faire, nous allons entrer dans un endroit qui a deux machines. Nous allons y insérer une autre, deux autres, trois autres. Je connais une place où on me dit qu'il y a 17 de ces machines-là et la personne s'en vante dans le moment. Elle dit qu'elle gagne 300 000 $ par année de ces machines.

Mais j'ai une petite nouvelle pour ces gens-là qui veulent continuer. Ils sont fiers peut-être de voir que le gouvernement va permettre ces machines. Mais chers amis qui écoutent à la télévision aujourd'hui, seulement 10 % de vos revenus de ces machines vont demeurer à l'établissement. Dix pour cent s'en vont vers les charités. Quelles organismes charitables vont bénéficier dans les secteurs ruraux ? Nous n'avons qu'apprécier Wintario. Wintario a été mis en place pour aider les organismes sportifs. Aujourd'hui, plus un sou demeure là. On va dire qu'on va prendre 10 % pour être distribué au secteur de la charité. Je n'y crois pas.

Mais le gouvernement a reconnu qu'il y a un très grand danger avec ce projet de loi. Nous avons à l'intérieur de notre projet de loi un montant de 2 % des revenus qui vont être concentrés pour les personnes qui dépendent de ces machines. Donc, nous avons déjà reconnu qu'il y a un danger. Je crois que le gouvernement devrait le reconnaître. Je regarde dans le moment ici un dépliant, une publication que j'ai reçue aujourd'hui. C'est intitulé «Dead Broke». Vous n'avez qu'à regarder à l'intérieur, et a la page couverture nous voyons un cimetière. Pourquoi voyons-nous ça ? C'est la continuité de ce qui existe et ça va même empirer ce que nous voyons dans les casinos.

Je connais un casino où ça fait neuf suicides à l'intérieur. La personne a perdu au-delà de 8 000 $ un soir. Il est rentré dans son appartement et était tout frustré. Il a donné un coup de pied sur un baril, un fusil, et finalement il l'a pris et s'est tué. À un autre endroit on parle de 76 000 $ de dettes. J'ai une coupure du journal Le Droit qui a paru récemment qui dit qu'un couple est devenu dépendant de ces machines au casino et ils ont tout perdu. Rappelez-vous, chers amis, lorsqu'on commence à fréquenter ces endroits, on veut toujours gagner. J'en connais un autre qui a gagné 25 $ mille. Il n'y a rien de tel, parce que là c'est juste l'attrait que nous aurons.

Ces machines, quand on dit qu'on va payer 78 % du temps, est-ce que nous avons déjà fait le calcul de ce que va rapporter les 78 % ? Je demande aux «backbenchers» de l'autre côté surtout de faire l'addition. Je suis convaincu que la majorité des membres élus du gouvernement sont contre ce projet de loi, mais M. Harris et ses collègues désirent aller de l'avant avec ce projet de loi qui va faire des séparations et des divorces additionnels, des suicides vont survenir, des faillites vont survenir. Qu'est-ce qui va survenir, comme j'ai dit au tout début ? Nous allons encourager le crime en Ontario, et c'est ça que je vois venir avec ce projet de loi.

Chers amis, je pourrais vous lire plusieurs lettres. Le journal Le Droit disait :

«Le casino...est un cadeau empoisonné.

«Les restaurateurs ont des maux de ventre, les organismes de charité hurlent de douleur, les entreprises de services sont en mauvaise santé...le "poison" commence à faire son effet, estiment plusieurs...moteurs de l'économie.»

J'ai un autre

article qui nous dit que les gérants de banque maintenant sont allés chercher tous les revenus de certains groupes qui actuellement ont endetté la famille pour venir en bout de gagner leur argent.

J'en ai un autre :

«Rêves et vies brisés.

«La pauvreté au grand jour.

«"Les gens n'ont plus peur de la fin du monde, ils ont peur de la fin du mois."

«Ce sont plutôt les appels du gérant de banque qui provoquent des insomnies.»

Je crois qu'il est très important que ce gouvernement ne vote pas en faveur de ce projet de loi.

J'ai d'autres commentaires ici. Je me rappelle que mon collègue d'Ottawa-Rideau a dit en Chambre un jour : «Nous n'avons qu'arrêter les personnes qui ont des machines illégales.» Pourquoi n'avons-nous pas procédé de même dans le passé ? C'est à ce demander. Les policiers actuellement ont les mains liées et ne peuvent pas les arrêter. J'ai une autre personne qui entrait dans mon bureau l'autre jour pour me dire : «Monsieur le député, je m'en viens vous voir. Heureusement que j'ai une bonne épouse. Mais ce que j'ai vu ce matin est non tolérable. Je suis entré chez un dépanneur qui avait 17 de ces machines.

Un jeune homme est entré et il a commencé à jouer sur ces machines illégales. Après un certain temps son épouse est entrée avec leur bébé dans ses bras et avec leur chèque de bien-être social. Il a encaissé le chèque et a tout joué dans la machine.

«C'est intolérable. Nous avons averti la Sûreté provinciale. C'est elle qui doit faire l'enquête maintenant.» C'est juste pour vous dire que cet homme âgé de 65 ans a réalisé le danger de ces machines.

J'ai souvent été à Las Vegas, à Atlantic City, à la Nouvelle-Écosse, même au Minnesota. J'ai visité tous les endroits où sont les machines -- pas tous les endroits. J'ai même été au Monaco voir les casinos. Savez-vous ce que le chauffeur de taxi m'a dit à Las Vegas ? Il a un gros danger. «Le vendredi soir, lorsque je reçois ma paie, la première chose que je fais, je vais acheter mes "groceries". Sinon, je n'aurai pas d'argent pour faire manger ma famille.»

Donc, chers amis, en Ontario nous avons 33 inspecteurs seulement pour la Régie des alcools. Est-ce que nous avons l'intention d'augmenter le nombre d'inspecteurs ? Sinon il n'y aura aucun, aucun contrôle sur ces machines. Comme j'ai dit tout à l'heure, nous allons avoir une série de machines illégales qui vont être installées dans les restaurants, dans les hôtels, dans les bars, et puis aucune manière par laquelle les gens pourront les détecter, à l'exception d'ouvrir les machines pour voir.

Lorsque je dis que nous avons seulement 33 inspecteurs, si nous sommes intéressés à aller chercher de l'argent en Ontario sans aller aux coupures de 30 % que nous projectons, que les gens vont payer, dont seulement les gros salariés vont bénéficier, je crois qu'il y a beaucoup d'autres manières. J'ai présenté un projet de loi le 4 juin dernier. Je disais qu'en Ontario, nous perdons de 14 000 à 15 000 emplois par année. Qu'avons-nous fait depuis ? Vous allez voir mercredi prochain ce que fera le gouvernement du Québec. Vous allez voir que nous n'avons pas gagné un pouce.

J'ai un bel exemple ici. Si le gouvernement de l'Ontario était si sérieux d'aller recueillir autant de l'argent possible, vous n'avez qu'à regarder l'ambassade des États-Unis qu'on prévoit construire à Ottawa, seulement une taxe. Les dirigeants de l'ambassade nous ont dit que tout entrepreneur était exempt de la taxe. Nous avons appelé revenu Ontario ici. Il y a une perte de 2.718 millions de dollars parce que la compagnie du Québec doit entreprendre les travaux. Je n'ai pas peur de dire que nous avons arrêté la construction. Ce sont des revenus que nous perdons pour la province, et je crois que le gouvernement devrait prendre ça au sérieux.

J'ai une lettre --

Mr Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we need a quorum to hear the words of the member for Prescott and Russell.

The Speaker: Is there a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Speaker: The member for Prescott and Russell.

Mr Lalonde: I was getting to another letter that I received just recently from the Premier's riding, from North Bay itself. A contractor wrote me a letter last week stating that he had just lost a contract to a Quebec firm. When I say we are able to get our money in other places but to go to the VLTs, to the slot machines, this contractor is right in the town of Mike Harris, the Premier. He lost the contract by $60,000.

Do you know how much in taxes we are losing in this? Some $135,000 in retail sales tax, besides the income tax, besides other services. We will have people in North Bay who will be on welfare. I was in North Bay, and when they allow those VLTs in North Bay, what is going to happen in the centre of town? I was down there. They have the most beautiful commercial sector that any small municipality would have, in two and a half blocks. Twenty-two stores are closed right in North Bay. When we say that this is going to affect the economy, I don't know what's going to happen in North Bay.

If you go to Cornwall, it's even worse. If I go to Hawkesbury, it's in poor shape because of the economy. When I look at all those charitable bingos that we have at the present time, we do feel the opening of the casino in our place, and I'm sure in Rama, I'm sure in Windsor, and I'm sure it's going to be happening right in Niagara Falls. People will suffer; the economy will suffer.

Je pourrais vous dire que le gouvernement libéral en 1990 n'a pas eu recours aux revenus illégaux qui allaient briser les familles. Il a fini avec un surplus de 90 $ millions en 1990. Êtes-vous capable de me dire --

L'hon Noble A. Villeneuve (ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales, ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones) : C'était un accident.

M. Lalonde : Le député de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry, l'honorable M. Villeneuve, êtes-vous capable me dire quel autre gouvernement a réussi comme le gouvernement libéral de M. Peterson ? Ce n'est pas un accident.

Le Vice-Président (M. Gilles Morin) : Vous aurez l'occasion de répondre tout à l'heure, si vous voulez attendre patiemment.

M. Lalonde: Je regrette de voir que l'honorable ministre s'objecte aux points que je soulève, mais vous avez certainement reçu des lettres de votre comté, parce que j'en ai reçu ici qui sont contre les VLT, contre ces machines «slot machines».

Espérons que le gouvernement va prendre en considération les problèmes qui peuvent survenir en Ontario. C'est très important que nous analysons tous les points lorsqu'on dit qu'on veut donner l'autorité administrative aux municipalités. Est-ce que nous avons consulté les municipalités pour voir si nous étions en faveur de l'installation des VLTs ? Nous allons voir la redistribution de nos comtés, nous allons voir l'amalgamation des municipalités, mais encore là c'est qu'on veut couper les coûts.

Lorsque nous avons une voix dans notre propre municipalité pour nous adresser à un conseiller ou à un maire, maintenant nous allons faire des distances incroyables afin de contacter notre maire juste pour dire que nous voulons atteindre nos objectifs qui n'ont pas été analysés, le fait de réduire l'impôt de 30 % aux hauts salariés de cette province.

Encore une fois j'espère que nous n'aurons pas l'identification de la province du crime dans un avenir proche. J'espère que nous allons retenir ce projet de loi le plus longtemps possible afin que nos familles, nos organismes de charité peuvent continuer à fonctionner comme on fait dans le moment. Il sera impossible dans les régions où nous allons installer ces machines-là.

J'ai un point que je devrais faire. L'autre jour, jeudi dernier, j'ai eu un appel. On m'a dit, en m'appelant par mon prénom : «Jean-Marc, il y a un hôtel dans Vanier et j'aimerais installer des machines vidéo. On s'attendait à ce qu'on pourrait remplir une salle de machines vidéo, de VLTs.»

J'ai dit : "Monsieur et Madame, ne croyez pas faire de l'argent avec ça. Vous allez avoir 10 %, et lorsque la personne rentre dans le restaurant ou dans l'hôtel avec 10 $, est-ce que le profit sur les repas n'est pas plus haut que 10 % ? Est-ce que le profit sur les bouteilles de bière n'est pas plus haut que 10 % ? L'argent va se dépenser dans ces machines-là, elle va laisser la région où nous allons collectionner ces argents-là auprès des VLTs et elle ne reviendra pas dans la région. Nous allons appauvrir les régions.»

Après ça on va dire : «Mais c'est votre conseil municipal qui a décidé ça. Vous avez complètement oublié de consulter votre conseil municipal.»

For those who didn't understand what I'm saying at the present time, it's funny, the government keeps saying, "We have to give more authority to the municipalities." But in this case, I've never heard the government saying, "We have contacted the municipalities to see if they were in favour." I've received 12 letters from municipalities that are against VLTs.

If the government at this time is not able or capable of supervising the 20,000 to 25,000 illegal VLTs that we have here in Ontario -- that is the number that has been thrown at us by your own government, not us; that was told to us last week right here in the chamber -- I just don't know, gentlemen, how you are going to control those illegal machines.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

M. Gilles Pouliot (Lac-Nipigon) : Je prends plaisir à commenter en bref sur les propos que notre ami, notre collègue de Prescott et Russell, a souligné. Il l'a fait avez passion parce que, comme vous le savez si bien, quand on parle de ce vice, quand on parle de cette séduction, de cet appât, quand on parle d'un gouvernement qui est insatiable, qui a besoin à travers tous les moyens d'aller chercher les derniers cinq sous dans les poches de vos petits-enfants, la situation est une situation grave, une situation de crise.

On parle ici des écoles. Il n'y a plus de lieux sacrés. Le bruit de ses pas, le son de sa voix, mais le citoyen n'y est pas. Le citoyen ne peut pas dire «Non.» L'opium, ces opiats, pour séduire jusqu'aux derniers 10 cents, jusqu'aux derniers cinq cents. Où est parti le moralité ? Où est parti l'autonomie des conseils scolaires ? Où sont allés les qualités, les vertus qui font qu'une société respecte les uns les autres ? C'est la soif du