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

December 9, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L258a - Tue 9 Dec 1997 / Mar 9 Déc 1997

ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LABOUR DISPUTE

JOHN SEWELL

ETOBICOKE ECONOMY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

WINDSOR WOMEN OF THE YEAR AWARDS

CASINO NIAGARA

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

EDUCATION REFORM

LANARK-RENFREW ECONOMY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED JUDAIC STUDIES ACT, 1997

FUEL AND GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LES CARBURANTS ET LA / LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE

DEFERRED VOTES

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU NORD ET DES MINES

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHARITABLE GAMING

SPECIAL EDUCATION

EDUCATION REFORM

WATER HEATER RENTAL RATES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

CARDIAC CARE

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

TVONTARIO

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

MILK TESTING

PETITIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

ABORTION

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

BEAR HUNTING

HOSPITAL FINANCING

BEAR HUNTING

EDUCATION REFORM

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION REFORM

EDUCATION FINANCING

ABORTION

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

ABORTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, I have a message from the administrator of the government signed by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The administrator of the government transmits estimates of the certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1998, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. It is dated December 9, 1997.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't see a quorum.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is there a quorum?

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

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Speaker: Members' statements, member for Kenora.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I am making an appeal to the new Minister of Labour today. The new Minister of Labour will be well aware that the Goldcorp mine in Red Lake - actually in Balmertown in my riding - has now been on strike for well over 18 months. I am receiving calls personally to my offices, many calls on many occasions, asking for the new Minister of Labour, now that we know we have a new Minister of Labour in this government, to become personally involved in this labour dispute, the longest strike in the province at the present time.

It's a strike that the new minister must become aware of and must get involved in. Today what I'm asking is for the minister, once we get into the break in January, to personally travel to Balmertown to meet with the miners at Goldcorp to find out what the problems are.

We have many families suffering. We've had teachers tell us that children are showing up at school hungry: "showing up with a tomato for lunch" was the statement that one teacher made in the past. What I'm asking this government to do and what I'm asking the present Minister of Labour to do is take a keen interest, take an interest in what is the longest strike in the province of Ontario today, one that is happening in Golden today at the Goldcorp mine. I plead with the minister to take a personal involvement in this issue.

JOHN SEWELL

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I rise today to congratulate John Sewell on his receipt of the Civic Award of Merit from the city of Toronto. Others have commented on the irony of John Sewell receiving the highest award of the city of Toronto in the same week that he was threatened with being barred from the legislative precinct.

On this occasion I would like to read some of his acceptance speech on his behalf. These are direct quotes:

"The role of the informed citizen in a democracy is critical. Reasonable sharing of financial resources is surely a cornerstone of a strong democratic society. But democracy in Ontario is under a fierce attack." I agree with him on this.

"First, no longer is our society one where every individual is valued and supported, and second, we know that democracy is under attack because the opinion of citizens is no longer valued" by this government. "The provincial government scorns such opinions. It refuses to explain its proposals or allow reasonable opportunities for public input. It is deceitful in its statements. It proposes to ban from its buildings those who complain."

Sewell concludes: "Our calling is to pursue the vision of the humane and democratic society in which everyone can feel at home. May we engage in this work together...."

ETOBICOKE ECONOMY

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): As recently noted by our government's Minister of Finance, the Ontario economy is showing many signs of improvement. Indication of that was evident today in my own riding. Building on the success of its first two locations, the newest Koo Koo Roo restaurant has now opened at Humbertown Shopping Centre. This morning I attended the opening celebrations, and I am pleased to report to the Legislature that this latest venture will result in 52 new full- and part-time jobs, and an investment of more that $1.5 million to Etobicoke.

This is indicative of what is happening across the province. Ontario continues to lead the country in job creation. In fact, 204,000 new private sector jobs have been created in Ontario over the last nine months. This represents 63% of the total private sector jobs created in Canada. Beneficiaries of this endeavour in Etobicoke will be the youth, and this in turn will assist with their future. Evidence of that is also province-wide. Youth employment was up by 4,300 jobs in November. Over the last seven months, youth employment has increased by 43,000.

The partners in Koo Koo Roo Canada have a history of experienced management in operations, with a positive role in the community. I am pleased they chose Etobicoke for this new location, and I know the residents of the community are as well.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Yesterday, the Hamilton fire department moved to take control and seize a warehouse on Gage Avenue North that was storing dangerous materials and chemicals. The department has done this as a result of extensive work that they have done since May to try to bring this company in line.

After the Plastimet fire, the fire marshal's office brought forward a report with a number of recommendations. Today as we sit here six months later, this government and the Solicitor General who spoke so highly of this report six months ago have not taken one step to implement one simple recommendation in this fire marshal's report. It is an absolute disgrace. It has taken the fire department six months.

They have done a great job, a commendable job, but that is without the help of this government, without the help of the Solicitor General, who refuses to give local municipalities and fire departments the tools to deal with a dangerous industrial site such as we've had in Hamilton. This company was operating illegally. They had no sprinkler system. It sounds like the same old story.

I urge this minister to move on the priority here in ensuring the tools that municipalities need to go after companies that operate illegally, that pose a threat to the environment, pose a threat to neighbourhoods, and to do this - the minister has sat on his butt for six months with this report. People in our community and in our province will have to pay a price. I ask the Solicitor General to get on with it. Implement the fire marshal's recommendations and give us the power we need -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hold on.

WINDSOR WOMEN OF THE YEAR AWARDS

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I'm pleased to announce the recipients of the Windsor Women of the Year Award for 1998: Shirley Ann Durocher, Usha Jacob and Maureen Rudall. They will be honoured for their community work at the 16th annual Women of the Year Award banquet sponsored by the Women's Incentive Centre -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Members for Brant-Haldimand and Hamilton East, come to order. I know you want to continue this discussion and we have lobbies for that.

Mr Lessard: Speaker, I wonder if I could have the clock back to the original time so I could start over.

Shirley Ann Durocher has been a parliamentarian with the Beta Sigma Phi Sorority for 48 years. She is the vice-president of the local council of women, a board member of the Citizens' Advocacy Association of Windsor and Essex and an organizer for the Special Olympics.

Usha Jacob has been a volunteer, leader and role model for the South Asian community women in Windsor through her work over the past 20 years. She's been a member of the South Asian Centre, the Cultures of India Association, the Red Cross Society, the Victorian Order of Nurses, the La Salle Police Services Board, and many other organizations.

Constable Maureen Rudall was nominated by CAW Locals 1973 and 200 women's committees. She helped develop the Windsor Police Service domestic violence unit and now is a coordinator with the Windsor Police Service family violence unit. She volunteers at Hiatus House and the Women's Incentive Centre and has worked hard to make the Windsor area a safe and caring community.

I congratulate Shirley Ann Durocher, Usha Jacob and Maureen Rudall and thank them for the work they've done in our community.

CASINO NIAGARA

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It's an honour for me to stand up in this Legislature and commemorate the first anniversary of the opening of Casino Niagara. One year ago today Casino Niagara opened its doors to the public and turned a dream into a reality for many of my constituents.

One of the key promises I made to my constituents during the 1995 provincial election was to work to bring a casino to Niagara Falls. I was proud to be part of a local team of citizens who worked diligently to convince our government that a casino in Niagara would be good for the local and provincial economy. There are 3,600 people directly employed in Casino Niagara, 3,000 more in the Niagara region also have jobs because of Casino Niagara, and another 3,000 throughout the province are employed through Casino Niagara's presence.

Since opening, Casino Niagara has been unrivalled in its success. Based on October 1997 figures, 10 million patrons have visited Casino Niagara, spending a total of $453 million in the area.

Today I was delighted to be present at a ceremony marking the first anniversary at which Casino Niagara gave $500,000 to the MRI campaign in the Niagara region. It was a tremendous announcement and that's on top of a more recent announcement where Casino Niagara associates gave $100,000 to the United Way campaign.

Many thanks and happy birthday to Casino Niagara.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Today marks the two-year anniversary of the day and night in December 1995 that my colleagues and I stayed in the Legislature to stop the omnibus Bill 26 from proceeding.

Bill 26 marked a watershed where this government started to show that it's all about bulldozing through with its agenda set out by the backroom whiz kids at all costs to democracy. The government's handling of Bill 26 sent the clear signal that Mike Harris's regime was going to govern with an iron fist and rule this province in a new, undemocratic way.

Then what did Mike Harris's Tories do? They made unprecedented changes to the rules of this Legislature to limit the opposition in the House. They set more time allocation motions than we have ever seen to limit debate over major provincial issues. Is this what democracy means for Mike Harris's Ontario?

In the words of Jefferson about 200 years ago, "The tyranny of the Legislature is really the danger the most to be feared." What Jefferson was warning us against was governments that use their majorities to bulldoze their way over the will of the people, warning us about the arrogance that even an elected majority government can have.

Mike Harris is the politician leading that kind of arrogant government. Demonstrators have ranged from ordinary citizens, union members, civil servants and firefighters. This fall we saw 126,000 teachers in the province walk off the job in protest against Bill 160. Teachers gave up two weeks' salary -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

EDUCATION REFORM

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Despite the passage of Bill 160, public concern about the bill and this government's destructive education agenda is growing. Students, parents and teachers do not believe the government listened to their concerns with respect to the bill and are looking for a way to hold the Conservatives accountable for ramming it through.

That's why there is widespread support for the petition campaign. Parents' groups in particular want to compel this Conservative government to hold a referendum on Bill 160. If the bill is so good, then this government should not be afraid to stand by its own rules on referendums and let the people have their say.

My colleague from Nickel Belt and I launched the start of our local campaign to collect signatures three weeks ago. The response in the Sudbury area has been overwhelming. Last Thursday, students at Laurentian University held a press conference to announce they have gathered 1,000 signatures already. The Steelworkers, CUPE, OPSEU, CAW, the Labourers all have petitions in their workplaces and petitions for available for signing at their offices. OSSTF has petitions at its office and all the teachers' affiliates have distributed copies to their members.

Many school council presidents have already picked up their petitions. All presidents will receive a package on the campaign and their petitions by the end of the week. Local legions and seniors' groups have obtained their copies too.

My office and the office of the member for Nickel Belt have been flooded by calls asking where to sign or obtain the petition. On Saturday alone, 160 people stopped by at our booth to sign.

I encourage people who are concerned to continue with this important work and this campaign -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

LANARK-RENFREW ECONOMY

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I take this opportunity to report on expansions and initiatives that have and will lead to job creation and prosperity in Lanark county.

Hershey chocolate in Smiths Falls is expanding its production line to include Mr Freeze and Jolly Rancher Freeze Pops which will create 40 new full-time jobs. Perth Soap increased its full-time employment from 40 to 65 employees and has created work for 50 full-time contractors.

On the electronic highway front, the Lanark Communications Network, with substantial support from this government and partners in Lanark county, has leveraged $3.7 million to build an integrated telecommunications system for the county. This regional initiative will develop the electronic infrastructure that creates jobs, provides better access to social and educational services and ultimately breaks down the barriers of distance to draw Lanark even closer to the global economy.

Finally, I want to thank all those who have made Lanark a better place for taxpayers by reducing the number of governments from 30 to 16, and especially former warden Gordon Patterson, acting warden Ormond Giles, Chris Tyson and -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED JUDAIC STUDIES ACT, 1997

Mr Cordiano moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr95,

An Act respecting Institute for Advanced Judaic Studies.

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

FUEL AND GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LES CARBURANTS ET LA / LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE

Mr Hodgson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 173,

An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act / Projet de loi 173, Loi modifiant la Loi de la taxe sur les carburants et la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence.

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

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The Fuel and Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, 1997, delivers on the 1997 budget commitment to make fuel and gasoline tax rules fairer and more efficient, cut red tape and preserve tax revenues.

Responding to the fuel and gasoline industry concerns, the bill will require a consistent system for measuring the volume of fuel for both billing for tax and product sale purposes. This is to ensure changes in volume due to chemistry are taken into account in the same way for both calculations.

This bill will remove barriers to marketing special products such as diesel and heating fuel refined from waste oil. To improve tax fairness, this bill will enhance the objections in the appeals process and ensure Ontario has the same priority as other jurisdictions to collect taxes held in trust.

The Fuel and Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, 1997, will make the tax system fairer for this important industry that plays a key role in keeping Ontario's economy moving.

DEFERRED VOTES

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU NORD ET DES MINES

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 120,

An Act to reduce red tape by amending the Mining Act / Projet de loi 120, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives au ministère du Développement du Nord et des Mines.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1351 to 1357.

The Speaker: All those in favour please stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Brown, Michael A.

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Christopherson, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Clement, Tony

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Duncan, Dwight

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gravelle, Michael

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Jordan, Leo

Kells, Morley

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Laughren, Floyd

Leach, Al

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Maves, Bart

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Patten, Richard

Pettit, Trevor

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Preston, Peter

Ramsay, David

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Silipo, Tony

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Wildman, Bud

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Len

Young, Terence H.

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

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 99; the nays are 0.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, I want to talk to you today about the subject of gambling and your mad, reckless rush to expand it in Ontario. Before we get into this in some detail, I want to take you back to some of the things that your leader and the deputy leader said in the past.

The Premier once said in this Legislature: "Gaming doesn't come cheap. I have to agree with a lot of the critics on that. It brings crime. It brings prostitution. It brings a lot of the things that maybe areas didn't have before. There is a big cost to pay."

During the course of the election, when questioned about the potential revenues from expanded gambling, he said: "I don't want the money. I don't want the Ontario government to have it."

Your deputy leader once said, "Sure the income comes, the money comes, but there are some side effects that aren't so wonderful: drug trafficking, increased petty crimes of all kinds, increased prostitution...policing needs, societal costs, gambling addiction."

My simple question is, what happened?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I think we need to revisit, as we've been doing on a fairly constant basis in the House, what we're trying to do with respect to the charity gaming clubs. We've clearly been told by the police and we've clearly been told by charities that the current system, which was introduced under the Liberal Peterson government, was not working, for several reasons.

First, let's look at the police perspective. Currently, I think anyone who reads the paper, whether in the Toronto Sun or the Toronto Star, can see there have been a number of armed robberies taking place at the roving casinos that have been held because there's a lack of security. There's a lack of knowledge by the police in fact where all these things are popping up all over the province.

There have been a number of charges as well which have been laid against a number of operators in this area for a variety of cheating offences. We've been told by Detective Staff Sergeant Fotia of the OPP there's a real need to do something about this system because it's not working. Clearly we're listening to the police in trying to replace a system that's not working with one that has some integrity.

Mr McGuinty: Look, just stand up and say you flip-flopped on it. At one time you said it was a bad thing, but now apparently it's a good thing.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Mr McGuinty: The minister can try to couch it as being something that's going to benefit Ontario charities, but the fact of the matter is that this minister is going to ensure that an additional $1 billion in gambling revenue is going to be poured into provincial coffers. That's what this is about. This is a money grab by this government through gambling.

What I want the minister to understand is that some of this money is money that would have been dedicated to groceries or to rent or to children's clothing. I want the minister to understand that gambling hurts Ontario families. I want him to understand and to admit that the real reason they're after another $1 billion is to deliver on this foolish, ill-considered tax cut promise that's going to cost us $5 billion. They need $1 billion from gambling revenues to put towards the tax cut. That's what this is all about.

What I want to ask the minister is quite simply this: Is it really worth the cost to Ontario families to take another $1 billion from them through gambling revenue?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, your numbers are wrong.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): What are your numbers?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You know, your research department I think needs a little work. I think what we need to look at here -

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think we need to look at very closely the reasons why this is happening. The old system, which was introduced under the Liberal government, clearly lacked the enforcement, it lacked the accountability, it lacked the integrity needed to really be accountable to charities.

What's really laughable about this is that under the old system, last year there were 4,900 of these events across the province, which resulted in over 15,000 gaming days. Open up the Toronto Sun every morning and you can see the number of events that are happening just in this general area.

To police 4,900 events and 15,000 gaming days, the previous government had six police officers. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that six police officers cannot police 4,900 events. This is what the police have been telling us. This is what the police have been saying. They need the tools to deal with this. That's clearly what we're giving them right now.

Mr McGuinty: I think the minister is afraid to admit that he's expanding gambling in Ontario. That's what you're doing. Just admit to that. You're introducing 6,600 video lottery terminals into Ontario that weren't here before. You're introducing those. They're the crack cocaine equivalent for gambling. That's what that's all about. You're going to introduce 44 new casinos.

The public has clearly spoken on this. They understand what gambling does to Ontarians. They don't want anything more to do with it. For some reason now you're trying to skirt around that and continue this expansion.

I think there are a number of questions we've got to answer before we go any further down that road. How much gambling money is coming from grocery money? How much is coming from rent money? How much is coming from children's clothing money? How much damage is gambling causing in terms of depression, violence and abuse in the family home? You've got to answer those questions.

Minister, before we have the answers to those questions, would it not make sense to declare a moratorium? Isn't that the right and responsible thing to do in Ontario today?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think we need to talk about some accountability here. When the Peterson government introduced the three-day roving casinos in Ontario, it did not give one penny -

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You're the one expanding. That Jan Dymond answer doesn't work any more. Why are you hiding those contracts? What's secret in those contracts?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I hear the member for St Catharines screaming about addiction. Let's talk about that for a second. When the Peterson government introduced the roving casinos, it did not give -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: As I was saying, when the Liberal government of Peterson introduced the roving casinos, it didn't give one penny to gaming addictions. To the credit of the NDP government, when it introduced commercial casinos, it allocated $1 million to deal with this problem.

Under this new plan, we're able to allocate around $9 million to gaming addictions. This is money that's been clearly welcomed by many of the organizations out there, that say it's very important for them to have these kind of tools.

I'll also remind the Leader of the Opposition that yours was the party that wanted to introduce the lottery for the environment. I believe the member for St Catharines, who is screaming at me right now, was the one who wanted to introduce this lottery, so he's no stranger to introducing gaming to this province.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Minister of Education. I want to bring to your attention a crisis at the Ottawa Board of Education right now with respect to a particular program for students over the age of 21. There are 72 students involved in this program. They are developmentally delayed. Their funding is at risk next year. What the parents are looking for is some commitment from you, some solemn assurance that they need not worry.

That program has been funded to date for 72 young adults who are having difficulty learning, to learn basic kinds of skills at school - job skills, how to read signs, how to handle money, possibly get some kind of basic entry-level job. They want your assurance, Minister, since you now have all responsibility for all education, including funding in Ontario, that this program will not be lost and that their children will be able to continue attending school in those programs in the coming years.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): This situation arose because of one particular individual maybe in a specific way, but it certainly involves a number of other people. The individual, as the leader of the official opposition has mentioned in the past, is, as I understand it, currently enrolled and is participating in the classroom.

In terms of the future, the funding model will certainly allocate moneys for various circumstances in terms of learning opportunities: special education grants for other paraprofessionals, for example, who may be available in a supportive sense. The moneys will be made available to each board on a fair and consistent basis across the province, and the boards will have the opportunity to provide the programs that their students need in their jurisdictions.

Mr McGuinty: I don't think the parents watching this today can take much comfort from what you said, so I'm going to give you another opportunity. There are 72 students enrolled in this post-21 program. They are developmentally delayed. They're following programs like life skills, job skills, literacy, which means essentially learning how to read signs and labels, and basic numeracy skills, which means learning how to handle money.

All they want to know is that you are going to guarantee them that this program is going to survive under the Mike Harris education regime. That's the question in its most simple form. Can you provide them with the assurance that this program is going to survive under the Mike Harris education regime?

Hon David Johnson: I can certainly provide the assurance that in terms of the consideration of the formula, all these kinds of programs have been brought in and considered under the umbrella of the full formula and all the moneys that are being spent today by the various boards across the province of Ontario, including the money spent on this particular program and all the other special education programs, will indeed be part of that funding formula. The boards will be allocated fair and equitable funding right across the province: the Ottawa board, the Metro Toronto board, all the boards across the province.

They should have every opportunity to provide these sorts of programs to the children who need them.

Mr McGuinty: You're still not giving me a yes. The Ottawa Board of Education has scrimped, scrounged and saved and pulled this program together to meet the needs of 72 developmentally delayed adults over the age of 21. Their parents aren't asking for a heck of a lot. Some of their kids are never, ever going to leave home. All they're asking for from you is that the program that their children are benefiting from today will survive in the future.

You wanted control of education; you've got it. Here's where the rubber hits the road. This is an important program. It serves an important social need; it's meeting an important social objective. The question is very simple: Will you guarantee that this program is going to survive under the Mike Harris education regime in Ontario?

Hon David Johnson: What I will guarantee, unlike the leader of the third party, who wants to roll back the clock, who wants to turn back the education system, who has indicated he's prepared to turn back Bill 160 and the other improvements that have been brought into the education system, is that not just one board, not just the board in Ottawa, but each and every board across Ontario will have fair and equitable funding which will take into account all the needs: the special education needs, the early learning opportunity needs, the adult continuing education needs.

Then that money will be made available to the boards on the basis of their particular situation and it will be up to the boards, as it is at the present time, to deliver those services to their students.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training. I have a letter from the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations. It's a letter directed to you. The federation says in this letter:

"The 18,000 members of the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations believe that education is a partnership between students, parents, teachers, communities, school boards and the provincial government. Bill 160 represents a breaking of that partnership. Despite the objections of tens of thousands of people, your government is prepared to push forward with its agenda."

Minister, can you tell us why you ignored the advice, and you continue to ignore the advice, of such a grass-roots parents' organization like the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations; why you ignore their heartfelt advice and continue to ram ahead your negative education agenda?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Unlike the leader of the third party, and the third party in general, this government is intent on listening to the message that the people of Ontario have conveyed over the last many years that there needs to be reform in education.

We need to do two things in particular. The two most notable things are, first, to improve the quality in the education system, which is part of Bill 160 and part of the overall reforms that are associated with the education system in general, and second, we need to make sure that there is efficiency and a value in the education system; that we can do better for less in the education system and give quality to the students and value to the taxpayer. This government said it would do that and this government is going to do that.

Mr Hampton: I didn't have an answer to my question, so I'll ask it again. The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations is one of those grass-roots parents' organizations that supports schools all across this province. They are the people who go to the meetings before school starts in the morning, at lunchtime, after school and in the evenings. They are truly a grass-roots organization. This is what they say about your educational agenda:

They then go on to say in their letter: "We have strongly demonstrated a desire to work with all stakeholders to enhance the education of students. The government's actions around Bill 160 have alienated many."

Minister, how can you override the advice of these people who do the grass-roots parents' work in our schools? How can you ignore them?

Hon David Johnson: For many years now - decades, I would say - the people of Ontario have been saying, "We need to improve the education system in the province." When your government was in place you commissioned various reports - the Sweeney report, the Royal Commission on Learning - and these bodies brought forward recommendations for improvements in education. Unfortunately, your government did not take specific actions to address the concerns of the parents and the people of Ontario.

If you're talking about people writing in, I have a letter from a gentleman in Ontario. It says: "I fully support the contents of Bill 160. I urge the government to be firm."

I have another letter from another lady who says: "As a person who worked for years in the public school system, I would like to send my support to you."

I have a resident of Mississauga who says: "I just wanted you to know that I support your position 100%. Do not back down."

There are many people out there who are behind the government, who want to see a better quality and efficiency within the educational system.

Mr Hampton: The minister's staff should give him some new letters. Those are the same letters you read two weeks ago. I will refer people to Hansard because they are direct quotes of what you read two weeks ago. The minister has a stack of three letters and he reads them over and over again. You've missed the point.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Member for Hamilton East, it would be helpful if you went back to your seat.

Government members, please come to order. I want to hear the question. Thank you. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: At least the minister's staff can perhaps scramble the order of the three letters so they won't come up in the same order all the time.

Minister, here is the point: The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations represents the grass roots. They represent the people who do a lot of the fund-raising for our schools. They represent the parents who are actually out there involved in education. You have totally ignored them. You have totally denied them any credibility, any currency on the issue of education.

Let me tell you what they are doing. They are among the groups out there who are going to get 700,000 signatures on a petition demanding a referendum on Bill 160. They are not taking this lying down. Minister, when you receive those 700,000 signatures from eligible voters across this province, will you then do the right thing? Will you honour their request for a referendum?

Hon David Johnson : I don't know why the words of Winston Churchill come to me at this point, when he said, "The member is never fortunate in the coincidence of his facts with the truth." I don't know why I think of the -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: I gather they finally understood us.

I will say that, over the years, surely the leader of the third party has talked to parents through the years, the people of Ontario, who have said that the education system is not satisfactory. We are spending a lot of money in the education system. We are not getting the value. Our students are not having the same opportunities as students in other provinces. Our students in national and international competitions are not performing to the level that we expect.

We want the quality improvement, the report card, the testing, the longer school year, for example, that they have in other jurisdictions. We have listened to that, we have acted upon that. We are introducing the quality, we are giving value. These are the things that the people of Ontario want to see and this government, for one, is prepared to deliver.

WATER HEATER RENTAL RATES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the minister who is responsible for protecting consumers in the province; I think his title is Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I'm reading from a Pollution Probe press release: "Hundreds of thousands of Ontario natural gas consumers stand to be charged 40% more to rent the same water heaters that are already in their basements if an Ontario Energy Board decision is allowed to stand."

You're supposed to be protecting consumers. Are you going to stand up for consumers on this? Are you, in your position in cabinet, going to ask that this Ontario Energy Board decision be reviewed? Are you going to protect consumers from being gouged $35 million more while at the same time receiving no additional service?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The response I've got for the leader of the third party is that apparently there has been an application to the Ontario Energy Board for approval to transfer their water heater rental business to an affiliate and not, as he suggests, to increase the rental rates. I think that's something he should certainly check out.

Mr Hampton: We can see how interested this Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is in protecting consumers. If you look at the fine print of the OEB decision, you will find that implicit in this is, as I say, an increase of over $35 million, and they've admitted it.

Under sections 13 and 26 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, your colleague the Minister of Energy can force the Ontario Energy Board to hold a hearing and can force them to consider whether the gas companies' 40% rate hike is in the public interest; in other words, you can force them to look at the public interest. If you don't force them to do this, then people are going to be ripped off to the tune of $35 million. Will you do your job for consumers? Will you ask your colleague to use his powers under the Ontario Energy Board Act and force a hearing on the public interest?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The leader of the third party will know that water heater rental rates are not regulated by the board. They're not currently and they weren't when you were the government either, and I assume that when you were in cabinet you would have known that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary, member for Riverdale.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): What a terrible message Ontario is sending out right now while a major international conference is going on on global warming, because if this goes ahead, fewer people will switch from electricity to gas, and that means more pollutants which contribute to global warming.

Your government has cut the budget of the Ontario Energy Board by 15%. The gas companies have suggested to the OEB that these cuts are a good reason for less regulation, and the board seems to agree with that. As a result partially of your cuts, the environment will suffer and consumers will pay more, so I'm asking you today: Come on, give us a straight answer here unequivocally. Condemn this price gouging by the gas companies. Will you demand that the energy minister order a hearing in the public interest? You are the minister responsible for consumers. You can do something about it. Stand up today and say you will. Protect the consumer.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I guess there are two members of the third party who were in the former cabinet when they were in power under Premier Rae, who should know that in fact it is the same as when they were in government, that the OEB does not regulate the water heater rental rates. Clearly not only do they not regulate them, but with respect to the hearing they're referring to, it's only for approval to transfer their rental business to an affiliate. It has absolutely nothing to do with rental rates.

The Speaker: New question, official opposition.

Ms Churley: You should not be reading that briefing note. You are going to be in big trouble over this. You should have stood up for consumers today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Riverdale, thank you, and the member for Perth.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the same minister on the same issue. The proponents, Union and Centra, have made it plain that they intend to take their energy services business, which is currently regulated, out from underneath the regulatory framework and off to an unregulated energy services business. They have also advanced material - the Wood Gundy study, to be specific - that makes plain that the 870,000 Ontarians who currently rent hot water units from those two companies can expect upwards of a 40% increase in their annual rentals.

Minister, what are you going to do, as the minister responsible for consumer protection, to protect the nearly 900,000 Ontarians who are going to be liable for stiff increases because of this particular move?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, the water heater rental rates are not regulated, so that's incorrect. They weren't regulated under the Liberal government or the NDP government. They never were regulated. In fact, if we can refer once again to the reality of what we're dealing with, this hearing has got nothing to do with water heater rental rates; it has to do with the transfer part of the business. Clearly, both opposition parties should know that it has nothing to do with rates.

If we're going to speculate on what's happening as opposed to the realities -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Oakwood, please come to order. Minister.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Clearly, if there is a point in time at which there is some sort of danger of immense rate hikes, we will certainly be there to support the consumer.

Ms Churley: It's now. It's happening now.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You're clearly wrong; it is not now. We're talking about the transfer of services; we're not talking about rental rates, nor, once again, were they regulated under your government or under the Liberal government.

Mr Conway: Just a few weeks ago, Premier Mike Harris mounted a white stallion and rode around this Legislature and this province saying that he was going to protect Ontario consumers against the gouging oil companies. Remember that? It was just a few months ago.

My question remains. Groups as divergent as Pollution Probe and Wood Gundy have agreed that this proposal from Union Gas and Centra Gas will almost certainly expose nearly a million consumers of hot water unit rentals in southern Ontario to annual increases in the order of 40%, because under the proposal, Union and Centra plan to take their energy services business, including hot water unit rentals, out of the existing regulated environment, aside into an unregulated business. The Wood Gundy study makes it plain that if that is allowed, there will be increases of a substantial kind.

Minister, what are you going to do, as the minister responsible for consumer protection, to intervene at the board hearing to protect the nearly one million consumers who are at risk?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: There are more twists and turns to that particular question than on the road to Pali. You probably don't know where that is.

First of all, as you should know, water heater rates are not regulated.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: If we could deal with realities first of all, and then we'll deal with something else, once again, this is not regulated. It wasn't regulated under you, nor was it regulated under the NDP. Clearly this is not a hearing to deal with this; that's real.

Now, dealing with the consumer, if there is any danger that there are going to be huge price hikes to the consumers of this province, we'll stand up for the consumer, we'll intervene and we'll make sure that doesn't happen.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the new Minister of Labour. As tradition dictates, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his elevation to cabinet and wish him well.

I want to raise an issue that I know was of concern to the previous labour minister, so it's likely that you've been briefed on this also. I want to know if you believe it to be appropriate for a government backbencher to simultaneously (1) act as a lawyer for employers in employment standards cases, (2) work to change existing legislation to make it more favourable for his employer clients, and (3) also take an active role as a lawyer and MPP to prevent some of his constituents from being paid money that your own ministry officials have concluded they are legally entitled to. What do you think about that kind of conduct, Minister?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): I thank the honourable member for the question. I am pleased to have the opportunity to answer my first question in the House.

On the day I was sworn in I made it a priority to call some of the union leaders in the province and I was lucky to reach Sid Ryan of CUPE, and also Gord Wilson, the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. I was pleased subsequently to have an opportunity to congratulate Wayne Samuelson on his election as the new president of the Ontario Federation of Labour.

As you know, our party and our government remain committed to effective collective bargaining in Ontario and to using the best solutions always as the negotiated solutions between the parties.

If you have some particulars with respect to the matter you've raised, I'd be happy to answer your question, but I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Mr Christopherson: Obviously, we haven't got to that briefing yet. Let me see if I can help out. There are two workers in the gallery today who worked for a company that went bankrupt in the Barrie area. They went to the Ministry of Labour and your ministry officials agreed they should be paid severance and back wages.

They are amazed and angry, however, that one of your government backbenchers, MPP Joe Tascona, has been working for two years now to stop them from getting their money. This is the same Joe Tascona, member for Simcoe Centre, who worked hard as a committee member, and speaking in this House, to get the Employment Standards Act changed in ways that benefit his employer clients.

They believe this is a clear conflict of interest. I and my caucus believe this is a clear conflict of interest. Minister, do you believe this is a clear conflict of interest?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The honourable member has raised a question that he views, I gather, as a conflict-of-interest matter. As the honourable member knows, those matters are governed by the Integrity Commissioner in the province. I'm sure if there is genuine concern on the part of the member, he'll raise the matter in the appropriate forum with the Integrity Commissioner.

Mr Christopherson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Anticipating that answer, because I knew he wouldn't take responsibility, in accordance with

section 30 of the Members' Integrity Act I am now providing you, Speaker, in writing, with a copy of my request that the Integrity Commissioner investigate this matter and provide an opinion as to whether or not -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton Centre, that is not a point of order. You may file that at any time.

LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): My question is also to the Minister of Labour. My constituents would like to know what we as a government are doing to ensure that Ontario has a system of labour relations that is both fair and balanced and which reflects the needs of both working families and employers in Ontario.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): I thank the member for Mississauga East for the question. As I emphasized to the labour leaders with whom I've been pleased to meet since being appointed minister, we remain committed to the collective bargaining process. We believe that the best solutions are the solutions reached by the parties in a self-reliant way. Our government is committed to a fair and balanced system, a system that reflects the needs of employers and employees. We believe in a stable labour relations environment that promotes growth and confidence and we're prepared to make the tough decisions to maintain a stable labour relations -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Welland-Thorold and member for Hamilton Centre, please come to order.

Hon Mr Flaherty: By cutting red tape, by eliminating waste and duplication, by making the government more accountable to the taxpayer, by creating an environment that creates jobs, attracts investment, by keeping our promises to the working families of Ontario, we are now, more than ever before, able to improve the service taxpayers are entitled to expect for their hard-earned tax dollars. A stable, fair, balanced labour relations system is an essential cornerstone of our plan for Ontario families. We made our promise in the Common Sense Revolution and we have kept it.

Mr DeFaria: As you stated, in the last election we promised in the Common Sense Revolution to restore balance to labour relations. I know we have kept that promise.

My follow-up question is in the area of employment standards. What is the government doing to ensure that working conditions in Ontario are among the best in the world?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The question raises the important issue of the relationship between employers and employees in the province relating to employment standards. Our government is committed to a comprehensive review of the Employment Standards Act which will result in a system that better serves employers and employees.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm not going to warn the member for Welland-Thorold again, nor the member for Cochrane South, and the member for Lake Nipigon as well. I'm warning you to come to order. If I have to get up again I will name you.

Hon Mr Flaherty: This comprehensive review will not be about deregulation or lowering standards. It will be about ensuring that vulnerable workers are protected, giving employers and employees the flexibility they need while maintaining a set of basic standards, strengthening workplace self-reliance, focusing protection and enforcement where it is most needed and providing clear

definitions in understandable language for the benefit of both employers and employees. This statute has not been revised since about 1974. It is anticipated that we will be in a position to release a discussion paper later this winter, which will be followed by extensive consultation.

CARDIAC CARE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I'm speaking today on behalf of patients with heart problems in this province. They heard your answer the other day, and many of the people treating them did. The system we have in cardiac care is falling behind the rest of the world. We simply are not keeping pace.

You tried to tell us the other day that we were dealing with things, but in fact we've got longer waiting lists. You may not know this because your ministry doesn't keep track, but people are dying on some of those waiting lists. There's a 26% increase in the number of people waiting for cardiac tests and there has only been, despite the efforts that have been made by some of the hospitals, a 6% increase in procedures.

A simple thing is needed here: a commitment on your part to meet the target set by your own ministry, which is going to require more money to get to the end of the year and take some desperate, worried people out of the hospital beds to get the tests that they need. Will you make that commitment to us today?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I certainly understand the concern. As I have indicated to you since becoming Minister of Health and as my predecessor indicated to you, certainly cardiac care is a priority for our government. In fact, I've indicated that we've already spent well in excess of $50 million to ensure that we can reduce the waiting lists. We now have the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario, which is providing us with the best advice possible.

Surgeries are up this year across the province by at least 13%, and we are continuing to do everything we can - the recent announcement of another $5.2 million that I made, and that was for capital renovations in eight centres throughout this province. We continue to move ahead very aggressively and we are doing what the previous government was not able to do: We are responding to the needs of patients in this province.

Mr Kennedy: I don't think, to heart patients in this province, that counting on money and not counting in terms of people is acceptable. There's a 28% increase in the number of people on the waiting lists and you chose not to address that at all.

There are some other people I want you to be aware of. There are 100 people between now and the end of the fiscal year who need a new lifesaving device. It's called an implantable cardiac defibrillator. You personally, Minister - your ministry rations these devices. We are way behind the rest of the world in availability of this device. There are studies out now that show this can increase the survival rate of heart attack victims by 44% over other methods, and already hospitals are having to send people away to other hospitals, spend money out of the budgets they don't have.

Minister, there are 100 people affected here, people with severe heart problems and people who need your response. Will you provide additional funding to ensure they can receive the treatment they need this year?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just like to share with you some information regarding how the $58 million has been invested into cardiac care. Since our investment was made, there are 14,000 procedures that have meant a difference in the lives of people in this province. Also, you refer to the ICD. They were included in the $35 million that we announced earlier this year, in March, and there are over 200 that have been put in place in the last year.

We continue to move forward. We are responding to the needs. We realize this is a priority area for people in this province and, as I've indicated, $58 million since we were elected. We will continue to respond to the needs of the patients in this province.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Yesterday in the House, our leader raised a question of unemployment and older workers. I've met in Sault Ste Marie with around a dozen older workers over the last couple of months who have lost their jobs at Sears. None of them was given a legitimate reason for their termination except that the company was restructuring. All have been replaced primarily by younger part-time workers. Most of these people were but a few years away from qualifying for their pensions.

Is this kind of behaviour okay with you? Is this what the new economy is about and what older workers in the Harris Ontario are to expect?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): I'm not familiar with the particular issue that my friend the member raises concerning Sears. I'd be happy to look into the Sears issue if he wishes.

As the member knows, employment in Ontario is up more than 250,000 jobs since our government was elected in 1995, and welfare rolls have been reduced by about 250,000. In terms of job creation, it is good in Ontario and additional jobs continue to be created.

Mr Martin: Minister, Sears is but one example of this phenomenon that is happening across the province. I suggest to you that it's probably becoming somewhat epidemic, as older workers are laid off so that you can hire more younger workers and add them to your employment statistics. Will you, as a responsible minister of the crown, work within your cabinet to tighten up employment standards so that companies like Sears can no longer abuse older workers in this way?

Hon Mr Flaherty: As I've already indicated this afternoon here, we are committed to embarking on a review of the Employment Standards Act. It is a statute that has not been revised since 1974. Most users find it quite cumbersome and awkward to use. I have made that commitment. We intend to release the discussion paper during this winter.

TVONTARIO

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for privatization. My question relates to the review of TVOntario presently being undertaken by his ministry, and specifically the public meetings which have recently taken place across the province.

I received a call from a constituent in my riding, a Mr Dave Austin, who attended the TVOntario community forum here in Toronto on November 19. Mr Austin was pleased with the opportunity he had to express his views at the meeting and he indicated to me that there was a very large turnout at that event.

Minister, he asked me whether he'll be able to get a copy of the report of the community forum panel. You indicated that you're committed to a fair and open process, and I would ask you to provide assurance to my constituent that the report will indeed be made public.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I want to thank the honourable member for his question. Let me say at the outset that he is indeed correct, or his constituent is correct, that the public forums were well attended not only here in Toronto but throughout the province. I'd also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the panel for their hard work and effort in doing the forum for us and travelling throughout Ontario to listen to the views of Ontarians as we ask them how they value and what they see as important in TVO.

As for the next step, the chair of the panel has indicated to me that he is looking towards the end of the month in providing me his report, and of course those findings will be public.

Mr Gilchrist: I understand that the series of public meetings that took place across the province - Thunder Bay, London, Toronto and Ottawa - have just concluded. I wonder if the minister could provide an explanation to the chamber on how the panel's report will fit into the overall review of TVOntario by the Office of Privatization.

Hon Mr Sampson: As we stated when we announced the privatization framework, we believe Ontarians have a role to play when we assess the various government businesses that are under review. The panel that conducted a number of hearings throughout Ontario is just part and parcel of how Ontarians will have that role to play.

We in the secretariat are receiving phone calls, letters, e-mail, from a number of Ontarians who either were not able to participate in the particular forums or have elected to communicate to us directly. That information, in addition to the information we received from our business consultants, will be put together, and based upon that collective information we will be able to make the decision on TVO and other matters.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Minister of Health. Last Thursday afternoon, a very tragic event happened in the city of Kingston. Without any advance warning, your officials abruptly closed two Kingston centres providing services for those with mental illness: the Community Crisis Centre and the Kingston Clubhouse Activity Centre. You dismissed the staff on only four hours' notice, changed the locks in the centres and hired security guards to stand watch. According to your officials, a drawn-out closing would "provoke anxiety among the centres' clients."

The crisis centre serves hundreds of people in the community. The clubhouse centre has operated for 16 years and has served more than 150 of the most vulnerable in our society. This is their second home, a place where they feel accepted, where they are working on their self-confidence and self-esteem.

What are you going to do to reopen those centres, to give the community a chance to find another sponsor so that those people can once again regain their home? I demand something from you, Minister.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I think it's important to know that this was a decision that was made by the board of Kingston Friendship Homes, as there was some overlap in the types of programs that were being offered at that time. However, I will tell you what I have done. I have asked for some information regarding the way in which the situation was handled on Friday. I would agree with you: I need an explanation and you deserve an explanation as well, as do the people in the Kingston community.

Mr Gerretsen: The people who have used these centres for the last 15 years need more than an explanation. I'm not concerned about some kind of turf war between competing organizations. What I'm concerned about are some of the issues that are addressed in letters to the editor and in an editorial today. One of the persons who uses the centre, a Phyllis Sparks, states - this is directly from a letter - "`You take so much abuse. They help me to open up,'" said Phyllis, choking back tears. `Without them I'd be gone from this earth.'"

There are other quotes here as well that I could be using from other people who have used this centre for the last 10 years. Why don't you do something immediately so that at least the centre can stay open for this Christmas, so that the people can have their Christmas party, so that they can have their Christmas concert, so that they can exchange gifts? This is the only home for these people. This is not something to look into. This is something to do something about and to do it today.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I need to stress one more time that this was a decision that was made by the board of Kingston Friendship Homes.

Interjection.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The Ministry of Health is still providing the same amount of funding to the Kingston Friendship Homes. In fact the organization received an additional $200,000 through our community investment fund.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Durham East, your help is not needed and you're in the wrong seat again. Member for Kingston and The Islands, you must come to order. You must give the minister an opportunity to answer the question.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The role of the Ministry of Health is to ensure that the appropriate services are provided to the community. We are confident that this is the case and in this situation it was the board that made the decision because they felt there was an overlap in the services being provided in the community.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the Chair of the Management Board. You will know that in Sault Ste Marie the Ontario Lottery Corp is one of the major industrial foundation blocks upon which the economy of our whole area thrives, and that it's under attack at the moment by your government and your wont to privatize everything that moves.

Your colleague the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism has a report on his table that would give you and me and others who have responsibility for giving leadership around economic stability for communities like Sault Ste Marie in the north the information we need to make some decisions about where we go and what we do, and whether the decision to privatize the lottery corporation is a good one in the first place.

Would you ask your colleague to give you that report so you and I can share it, or to table it here so those who are responsible in Sault Ste Marie for the future of all the people who call Sault Ste Marie home would have access to that and be able to make appropriate decisions and plan for their future?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I appreciate the question from the member of the third party. As he is well aware, I believe the mayor of Sault Ste Marie has had discussions with the Minister of Economic Development and his staff. I appreciate the openness of his offer, that he concedes there might be some good news in privatization and allowing the private sector to get involved with the Ontario Lottery Corp. I appreciate his concern for the future of Sault Ste Marie. I can assure him I've been talking to the minister and also to the mayor and to the local officials.

Mr Martin: We have never refused to be partner in any exercise that would concern the future of our community. The only thing is, we are short of the information we need. You've got an advantage. You've got some information that obviously indicates what's in the best interest of the corporation and your government and hopefully our community. All we want is access to that information so we can work with you to do what's in the best interests of the people who work at the lottery corporation, who work in Sault Ste Marie and who work throughout Algoma.

As I said before, the lottery corporation was seen when it was moved to the Sault as our first opportunity to get into the new economy, the new telecommunications industry that's unfolding out there. If you take it away, if you diminish it in any serious way, you take that away from us. Will you get that report and share it with us so that together we can make decisions that are in the best interests of Sault Ste Marie and Algoma?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I appreciate the question from the member of the third party. It's our intention as a government to work with the city of Sault Ste Marie, to work with the people of Sault Ste Marie, to work with the Ontario Lottery Corp, not only to improve the lottery corporation itself but also to improve Sault Ste Marie and the economic opportunities there.

Just recently, the heritage board met there and we announced a number of exciting projects for Sault Ste Marie. So our past history shows that we are very interested in and concerned about the economic vitality of the city and the region and we will continue to do that.

MILK TESTING

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): My question today is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Last week you introduced proposed legislation to transfer the raw milk quality program to the dairy farmers of Ontario. The constituents in Guelph and across this province are concerned about the health quality issues of raw milk testing and they're also concerned about the ongoing issues of giving a non-governmental organization a responsibility like this. I would like some further information on this and assurances about how the quality of milk will be protected for our consumers.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I am pleased to answer my honourable friend from Guelph. Yes, last week I was very pleased to introduce Bill 170,

An Act to amend the Milk Act, in order to meet the needs and to meet the deal that had been done between the dairy farmers of Ontario and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. OMAFRA will be supporting the dairy farmers of Ontario to the tune of $300,000 a year for the next four years to assist them in transferring the responsibilities.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Why did it take until last week when it was announced last spring? You introduced it.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I am always concerned when I hear the third party. Do you know what they did in 1993? They cut by two thirds the inspectors in the raw milk area and now they're trying to preach to us. Ladies and gentlemen of the third party, please look at your record before you look at ours.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): "Whereas the government of Ontario has not listened to the public with respect to Bill 160; and

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

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

"We, the undersigned electors of Ontario, petition the Lieutenant Governor to dissolve the Legislature and call a general election."

ABORTION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 34 people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently strengthened its reputation as the Ministry of Medicine through its $1.7-billion, three-year agreement with the OMA; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is restricting access to alternative cost-saving treatments for patients of the province; and

"Whereas two recent reports commissioned by the Ministry of Health called for increased OHIP funding to improve patient access to chiropractic services on the grounds of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and

"Whereas over one million Ontario adults now use chiropractic services annually, increasingly those with higher incomes, because of the cost barrier caused by government underfunding; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has shown blatant disregard for the needs of the citizens of Ontario in restricting funding for chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize the contribution made by chiropractors to the good health of the people of Ontario, to recognize the taxpayer dollars saved by the use of low-cost preventive care such as that provided by chiropractors and to recognize that to restrict funding for chiropractic health care only serves to limit access to a needed health care service."

I affix my signature.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): To the Parliament of Ontario, a petition from members of the Kent Conservation Club:

"Whereas black bear populations in Ontario are healthy with between 75,000 and 100,000 animals and their numbers are stable or increasing in many areas of the province; and

"Whereas black bear hunting is enjoyed by over 20,000 hunters annually in Ontario and black bears are a well-managed renewable resource; and

"Whereas bear hunting replaces natural mortality and reduces cannibalism among bears; and

"Whereas hunting regulations are based on sustained yield principles and all forms of hunting are needed to optimize the socioeconomic benefits associated with hunting; and

"Whereas the value of the spring bear hunt to tourist operators in northern Ontario is $30 million annually, generating about 500 person-years of employment; and

"Whereas animal rights activists have launched a campaign of misinformation and emotional rhetoric to ban bear hunting and to end our hunting heritage in Ontario, ignoring the enormous impact this would have on the people of Ontario;

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

"That the Ontario government protect our hunting heritage and continue to support all current forms of black bear hunting."

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I mention that this is an ongoing petition.

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

"Whereas Ontarians feel that health services are suffering; and

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

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

I am very pleased to sign this petition.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas black bears are hunted in the spring just after emerging from hibernation; and

"Whereas some of the bears are females with nursing young; and

"Whereas it is extremely difficult to differentiate between a female and a male bear; and

"Whereas the black bear has the lowest reproduction rate of any land mammal on the continent; and

"Whereas the survival rate of bear cubs in the wild is less than 50%; and

"Whereas 27% of black bears killed in the spring are females; and

"Whereas the population of black bears is extrapolated and may be very inaccurate; and

"Whereas the reporting of black bears killed is voluntary for residents; and

"Whereas the reporting of nuisance bears killed is not required; and

"Whereas 61% of Ontarians want the spring hunt stopped or restricted;

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

"That the Ontario government, in its efforts to protect and preserve the present black bear population, introduce a complete ban on hunting, trapping and killing of black bears during the spring season."

There are about 150 signatures from my riding. I affix my signature to it.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): "Whereas Bill 160 originally maintained principals and vice-principals would remain as members of the teachers' federations; and

"Whereas the proposed amendments were introduced after the hearings had been completed; and

"Whereas the proposed amendments will seriously destabilize the education system, causing unnecessary stress on our established school teams;

"We, the undersigned electors of Ontario, petition the Lieutenant Governor to withdraw those sections of Bill 160 which will impact the current status of principals and vice-principals as members of the teachers' federations."

I affix my signature.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I have a petition here which is with respect to the withdrawal or repeal of Bill 160. There are only a couple of people from my own riding, but I'd be happy to present it on their behalf. I'm still puzzled as to why I got this because it clearly states on the bottom that the original is to be presented to the East End Parent Network, care of Howard Hampton, leader of the Ontario NDP. Some of these people must have thought that I switched parties, so I will present -

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Brampton North, you have to read the petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Thunder Bay and district are suffering from serious deterioration in our health care system because of the closing of hospital beds before community services and long-term-care facilities are available;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make it an urgent priority to provide more long-term-care services in the home and to provide a sufficient number of long-term-care institutional beds and staff in order to restore the standards of health care to an acceptable level."

This is signed by a number of people very concerned about that situation in our region and sent to me by the Patients' Rights Association. I'm very pleased to sign my name to this petition.

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have been receiving thousands of signatures on petitions from hospitals that serve people in the eastern portion of my riding. This petition is from the Haldimand War Memorial Hospital in Dunnville.

"We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the recommendations made by the district health council July 1997 report about health care in our community.

"We object to less acute care beds at Haldimand War Memorial Hospital; a limit of three days for patients at Haldimand War Memorial Hospital; possible downgrading of the emergency department at Haldimand War Memorial Hospital; the district health council's involvement in selecting hospital board members; one regional corporation for the three Haldimand-Norfolk hospitals; and unequal budget reductions for all three Haldimand-Norfolk hospitals."

I hereby affix my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a petition of non-confidence.

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned electors of Ontario, petition the Lieutenant Governor to dissolve the Legislature and call a general election forthwith."

This sentiment has been shared by several hundred constituents across Ontario, and I affix my signature in agreement.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to present a petition to the House today.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to take up to an additional billion dollars out of the educational system this year and every year; and

"Whereas the Ontario government will remove up to 10,000 teachers from classrooms across the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government will have unbridled regulatory powers over public education; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wishes to remove the right to negotiate student learning conditions; and

"Whereas the Ontario government proposes to undermine shared decision-making among students, parents, educators, trustees and taxpayers,

"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 160."

I'm presenting this on behalf of Bonnie Tennant and Jessica Ferguson and a number of other constituents, in full knowledge that the bill has passed.

ABORTION

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have received further petitions concerning the rights of tobacco farmers and retailers, close to 10,000 signatures now.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, draw attention of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to the following:

"Whereas the freedom of choice regarding tobacco smoking in a privately owned business, as previously allowed, is being unfairly curtailed by the strict and unnecessary enforcement of the regulatory tobacco act, as passed by the previous provincial government, in the counties of Brant, Elgin, Oxford and the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request that the province of Ontario amend or revise the regulatory tobacco act in the following ways:

"That within the tobacco-producing counties of Brant, Elgin, Oxford, and the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, the policing of the regulated no-smoking protocols be left up to the municipalities to enforce as they see fit and that this also apply to any municipality, county or riding within Ontario where tobacco production or processing is an economic factor;

"That privately owned businesses who produce or process tobacco and/or whose businesses service or supply the tobacco industry and reside within the designated regions be exempt from the posting of the regulated no-smoking signs and be allowed proprietary discretion on tobacco use within their establishment; and

"That the use of legal tobacco products, as used by adults, be allowed in businesses who produce or process tobacco and/or whose business services or supplies the tobacco industry within the designated regions without the fear of penalty or fines to their clients or staff."

I have signed these petitions.

ABORTION

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have a petition that's signed by literally hundreds of people from communities like Merlin, Tilbury, Charing Cross and all across the riding.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my name to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I'm seeking unanimous consent to call orders 44 to 53 inclusively and to have them debated together.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is there unanimous consent?

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Before we give unanimous consent to that, we also understand that there was some discussion about having the time remaining split three ways.

The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed to as well? Agreed.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I move concurrence in supply for the following ministries and offices:

Ministry of Health

Office of the Premier

Ministry of Natural Resources

Ministry of the Attorney General

Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs

Ministry of Education and Training

Ministry of Transportation

Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation

Ministry of Environment and Energy

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Following my comments, the government will be splitting its time between the member for Northumberland, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay and the member for Brampton North.

The orders for concurrence give us an excellent opportunity to highlight the significant achievements made by ministries this fiscal year. As all members know, we did not inherit an $11.2-billion deficit in 1995 because we didn't tax enough; we inherited an $11.2-billion deficit because we spent significantly more than we should have been spending. The estimates illustrate the work ministries have done to rein in uncontrolled spending and to focus on the core businesses of government, to reduce red tape and overregulation, to improve the business climate in Ontario and to encourage investment.

The policies of this government have helped to create over 270,000 private sector jobs since June 1995. Three quarters of all the private sector jobs in Canada over that period of time have been created in Ontario.

In the second quarter of 1997, the Ontario GDP rose by 7.2%; that's 2.3% higher than the Canadian average and, I believe, the highest growth rate in terms of that quarter in North America.

Over 250,000 Ontarians, a quarter of a million, have broken the cycle of welfare dependency since this government assumed office in June 1995.

Total health care spending: The commitment by this government for 1997 will be $18.5 billion, the highest spending in health care in this province's history. I'm sure my colleagues will have further examples of the great work being done by ministries in this government.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm certainly pleased today to join in the debate on the concurrences in supply, which of course involve the estimates of the province of Ontario. In doing so, I wish to highlight a number of ministries that were spoken about and also reflect on my experience on the estimates committee, which I certainly enjoyed and which, as the minister has said, was a reflection in many cases of a change in the management style in Ontario which has occurred since we were elected as the government.

The estimates of our government reflect the efforts of the different departments in this government to bring themselves in line with our ambitious and critical plan to restore fiscal balance and fiscal prudence to the government of Ontario. I think throughout the estimates process we saw, as the ministers were defending the estimates and speaking to the questions that were presented to them, that we have a very prudent approach to planning in each of the ministries and there is a strong discipline within those ministries that is reflected in the estimates and in the planning of the fiscal policies for each ministry.

In commenting on that fiscal prudence, I thought I'd go back to the document with which we planned the approach of each ministry and with which we planned the overall approach to fiscal prudence, and that was the Common Sense Revolution on which we ran in the 1995 election.

I thought I'd deal first with page 7, where we talked about "Protecting Priority Services." This is particularly important when you look at the estimates for the Ministry of Health. We said during the introduction of the Common Sense Revolution and during the election when we ran on this platform that we would be protecting the budget of the health ministry, that it was the number one priority of the people of Ontario.

When the minister came to the standing committee on estimates, it was very clear that not only had we protected the budget of the health ministry but in fact we have enhanced that budget. We have enhanced that budget by increasing the overall expenditures in the health ministry from around $17.3 billion, as I recall, at the time of the 1995 election to in excess of $18 billion when you take into account the capital moneys being invested in the hospital restructuring process.

Also, in the Ministry of Education, when I reflect back on our campaign, right from the outset we indicated quite clearly that we felt - and I have been very consistent in my discussions with my constituents in the riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay - when we talk about education spending, in trying to restore fiscal balance and a balanced budget to Ontario, that aside from health, all of the other ministries had to be looked at, that there were savings to be found through efficiencies, that there were savings to be found in the Ministry of Education, that we would be very careful in finding savings within that ministry and that we would not endanger the classroom, which is critical to the health of the Ontario economy and to the future of all the young people in this province.

As I reflect back on the questions that came up in the estimates committee to the Minister of Education, he was very thorough in explaining that in the ministry's estimates great care has been taken to protect the classroom while still keeping the ministry in line with the general fiscal plan of the government to balance the budget by the year 2000.

I think it is also worth stating that because we are keeping in line with our fiscal plan, and in fact, as the Minister of Finance has stated on a number of occasions, it appears that we may be ahead of our fiscal plan even for this year, that allows us to take on some projects in all these ministries that are very important to Ontarians, and I think it also has restored a feeling of confidence to the economy of Ontario. I'd just like to highlight some of the areas in which the economy appears to be doing well.

In the second quarter for 1997, the April to June period, Ontario recorded another strong quarter of economic growth, with real gross domestic product increasing by 7.2% in annualized rates. This followed a 6.8% increase in GDP in the first quarter. Growth was stronger than the national gain of 4.9% in that second quarter, and that is yet another indication that the Ontario economy is leading the Canadian economy, and that is of great benefit not only to Ontario but to the whole national economy.

For that reason and for other reasons, I'm sure, that relate to the federal government's fiscal prudence as well, the whole Canadian economy showed very strong growth in the third quarter, with real gross domestic product at factor cost rising 4.8%, at annual rates, following a gain of 5.1% in the second quarter and 3.8% in the first quarter. Nearly half of the rise in gross domestic product in the third quarter in the national economy was concentrated in manufacturing and wholesale trade, very important aspects of the Ontario economy. The output also rose in mining, construction, transportation, storage and communications, retail trade and financial services.

For the Ontario economy, the forecasts in the private sector are very strong for the balance of 1997 and for next year. Private sector economists are becoming increasingly optimistic that the Ontario economy will accelerate in 1997 and remain strong throughout 1998. The average private sector forecast for Ontario real GDP growth is 4.4% in 1997 and 4.2% in 1998. All private sector forecasters expect Ontario to grow faster than the Canadian average in 1997 and 1998. Most private forecasters expect Ontario and Alberta to have the fastest growing economies in 1997.

As a couple of examples, the Bank of Montreal has said, "Ontario's economy became red hot in 1997 and is likely to remain so through 1998, growing at a 5% pace in both years." Scotiabank has said: "Ontario's economic engine is moving into higher gear. While exports will benefit from solid US activity, the domestic economy also is revving up." The International Monetary Fund has forecast that Canada will lead all industrialized nations in economic growth, with real output rising 3.7% in 1997 and 3.5% in 1998.

Much of the growth in the economy has to do with the creation of new jobs and new spending that's generated from those jobs. In November, Ontario's private sector employment continued to do well and we saw 13,000 jobs generated in November. Ontario youth employment was up by 4,300 jobs in the month of November.

The help wanted index, which records the newspaper ads for jobs throughout the province continued to climb. It was up by 0.8% in November, and that's up 24.3%, reaching its highest level since October 1990.

Another important indicator that there is more confidence in the economy has to do with the intentions of employing firms to hire more employees. A Manpower Temporary Services employment survey showed that 14% of firms were expecting to raise employment levels in the first quarter of 1998. That certainly is a very welcome result from a survey and one that is of great importance to the families and especially the young people who are eligible for employment in my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

Further indicating optimism in the economy, a recent Angus Reid poll showed that 51% of Ontario residents fully expect the Ontario economy to improve in the coming year. Confidence has been rising steadily in Ontario since mid-1996, and this survey marks the highest level of Ontario optimism since Angus Reid began tracking this economic indicator.

Ontario retail sales rose 2.8% in the third quarter of 1997, a very important indicator, especially in central Ontario where I reside, where retail sales certainly needed to increase. I'm sure the retailers in my riding will be very pleased to see that information. Department store sales are up 12.5% for the month of October 1997.

A very important indicator for the Golden Horseshoe in Ontario is auto sales and how that spinoff affects the rest of the economy in Ontario. Bolstered by rising consumer confidence and low interest rates, Ontario unit auto sales rose 18.3% in September from the same month a year earlier, so there has been tremendous growth on the already strong auto sales that were in place in 1996.

The Ontario housing market is a major indicator of economic confidence and growth because of the tremendous number of people who are affected in an employment way by the housing market. The 1997 Ontario housing market remains very robust. Over the first 10 months of 1997, all area starts in Ontario are running 29% ahead of last year's pace, which is even stronger than the 20.4% gain that was recorded in Canada as a whole.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp has issued a statement that they feel the strong housing market performance in Ontario will continue. I'll just quote from that recent statement: "Ontario's economy has shifted gears from job recovery mode to job growth. Jobs are a key ingredient in boosting housing demand, but combine jobs with affordable mortgage carrying costs, strengthened home resales and moderate inventories of newly completed and unoccupied homes," and they suggest that housing starts should grow further.

Another indicator of the strong housing market is the residential building permit index, which rose tremendously in 1997. Over the first 10 months of this year, the value of residential building permits issued in Ontario rose 36.5% compared to a year ago. Scotiabank has predicted that this strong rise will amount to 32.6% for the whole year, and they have indicated that strong economic tailwinds are boosting activity, especially in Toronto, and housing starts will account for almost 25% of the Canadian total.

The Ontario social assistance caseload fell again in November, 4,411 fewer cases of social assistance in Ontario, so we continue to reduce the number of people dependent on social assistance. Since June 1995, the number of people depending on social assistance has fallen by almost 250,000. That's a decline of 18.6% in people in Ontario dependent on social assistance.

Business investment is also rising. According to Statistics Canada's recent investment intentions survey, Ontario business plans to raise plant and equipment spending by 11.8% in 1997. This follows a 10.2% rise in 1996.

Non-residential building permits are also up. There is a building boom forecast for the Toronto area. Ontario manufacturing shipments are up strongly in 1997, Ontario exports are up strongly in 1997, and Ontario wholesale trade continues the upward trend for the year 1997.

In concluding my remarks, I'll just quote quickly from the well-known firm Dun and Bradstreet on the Ontario economy:

"Ontario businesses are more optimistic than other regions as they enter the fourth quarter of 1997. As our nation's major economic catalyst, Ontario should lead the country into a good close in 1997, particularly for retailers, which in turn will position us well for the new year. Ontario reported sharp gains in sales optimism, significantly above the national figure."

To some extent there are international and national reasons that our economy is doing well, but I think it's also an indication that our fiscal plan and our discipline, which now is throughout our government, is working well. I'll conclude my remarks now and turn it over to other speakers.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I want to make my remarks with regard to transportation here in Ontario and specifically school bus safety. Members of the House would know that last year, on November 28, this House, by unanimous consent, deemed that my private member's Bill 78 should be referred to the resources development committee. That is over a year ago now, and as yet that bill has not come forward at that committee.

We continue in my office to receive calls and letters of concern about people who pass school buses when the red lights are flashing. The government did increase the fines for that offence, but as was the case before they increased those fines, people continue to pass school buses with reckless abandon and are jeopardizing the lives of our young people. Over the last 10 years, 11 children have been killed and over 80 injured.

My bill, Bill 78, would have given bus drivers the opportunity to use what is known as vehicle liability, because the current law states, and always has stated, that the bus driver must identify the driver in the offending vehicle. It's almost impossible to identify those drivers.

There was a letter to the Ottawa Citizen in July of this year. The headline is "Bus Safety Law a Farce." Mr Frank Periard of Alexandria, Ontario, wrote:

"I would like to comment on the increased fines, under the new Comprehensive Road Safety Act, for passing a school bus with red lights flashing.

"First I must relate a most hair-raising experience I had while conducting my school run on a main highway.

"As I was approaching to let two students off the bus, I looked in my rear-view mirror to check for any traffic following me. I observed a car coming up at 100 to 200 feet behind me. I also checked for oncoming traffic.

"After making sure it was clear, I then activated the top red flashing lights to warn the car following me that I intended to stop to let students off the bus. After completing my stop, I activated the flashing stop arm. Before opening the doors I once again looked in my rear-view mirrors to make sure everything was clear.

"As I opened the doors to let the students off, the nitwit zoomed past on the right soft shoulder. If the students had stepped out a second earlier, both would have been killed on the spot. I just had time to stop the kids and take the licence number of the car.

"I was so stunned that I was nervous just thinking of what would have happened to those two young people.

"I went to the first OPP detachment to report this incident. The officer was very understanding of what could have been a tragic and unfortunate situation, but said nothing could be done unless I could identify the driver. Under these terrifying circumstances, I did not see the driver; I simply did not have the time.

"Ontario Transportation Minister Al Palladini makes a big issue of raising the fines for offenders and it looks good to the voters.

"But I say to the minister that the new law is not worth the paper it's written on. You can raise the fines up to $100,000 if you want, but you cannot make it stick.

"You can give parking tickets without identifying the driver by photo-radar but you can't convict serious offenders as described in my incident.

"In the next school term, drivers will be issued a form to fill out when an infraction is committed against a school bus. One question on the form will be: `Can you identify the driver?' Think of the money that will be spent on making up these reports, and for what purpose?

"It's a real farce and a real shame to think that people we elect to protect us and our children make stupid laws, such as this one.

"I certainly hope that the transportation minister reconsiders his new law and takes this question out of the report form, because every student who is killed and the driver gets away scot-free, I and thousands of bus driver all over Ontario will hold him totally responsible for their deaths.

"Maybe parents, after reading this letter, will do something about this senseless law."

It's exactly what Bill 78 would do. It would answer the question of identifying a vehicle in those cases when we cannot identify the driver of the same vehicle. Bill 78 would not ticket both the driver and the vehicle. It's either one or the other. Clearly, the law is flawed. There is no mechanism for conviction.

As well, from the Guelph Mercury there's a headline banner: "School Bus Driver Sees Red."

"Pat Sanvido is on a bit of a crusade.

"The Ariss woman drives a school bus, and she's tired of motorists disregarding the law and passing her bus when the lights are flashing and the stop bar on the side of the bus is extended.

"`I'm going to make the public aware of this, no matter what it takes,' she said.

"This past week, Sanvido contacted various media outlets, and the Guelph police service also issued a reminder after Sanvido contacted them."

We know from other press stories that the police have gone out and said to the public that this is a dangerous circumstance. You're putting the lives of very young children all the way up through secondary school age at risk when you pass school buses. Continually, my office hears from school bus drivers who say that the driving public is not terribly influenced by the government's increase in fines. It is a moot point if one cannot make convictions.

There was also an editorial in the Guelph Mercury headlined, "Drivers Who Pass School Buses Illegally Should Lose Licences." I'm not advocating that, but this is what some people think should be brought about to stop people from passing illegally. It goes on to say, "Yesterday we asked: Should people lose licences for passing school buses illegally?"

One gentleman said, "Yes, of course they should.... I've been driving for over 60 years, from vehicles with tracks on them to 34-wheelers. And if people are on the road that don't know the rules, get them off, permanently. They are potential killers."

Another response was, "Yes, I believe people who pass school buses illegally should lose their licences."

I remind the House that that is not what Bill 78 would do and it's not what I advocate, but some people think the law should go even further than what either the minister has suggested by raising fines or by what I am saying, which is, let's have a mechanism to attach those fines under what is known as vehicle liability if we cannot identify the driver.

I urge the government to keep Bill 78 alive. We're nearing the end of this session. It has been over a year since it was deemed to go to the resources development committee. There are many people who would like to come forward and speak to the bill and show the soundness of that very same bill.

I'd also like to address the new Minister of Health, Elizabeth Witmer, from a letter I wrote to her:

"Dear Minister:

"I wrote to your predecessor on September 10, 1997, requesting reconsideration of the decision to amalgamate Ontario's 33 district health councils to only 16 large councils. To date, I have not had a reply from Mr Wilson, but in view of the reallocation of responsibilities, I'm enclosing a copy for your response.

"I would also like to take this opportunity to raise other urgent issues. Health services are a major concern in my riding. In addition to a serious problem of medical underservicing, citizens are facing the extreme turmoil of a restructured district health council, the closure of one of Chatham's two hospitals and the downloading of the responsibility for public health units to municipalities.

"Physicians and residents are also concerned about the lack of support services in the community for patients who are being released from hospital earlier and sicker because of government cuts to hospital spending.

"In Kent county the mortality rate from heart and stroke is 64% above the provincial average, while Essex county is 20% above the average. Kent county has the highest rate of suicide in Ontario. Cancer rates are also high. Smog blown in from the United States and heated in the warm sun of southwestern Ontario is a serious problem in Essex and Kent counties.

"In the heart of Kent agricultural land, it has been reported that the village of Merlin records 932 hours of smog above 50 parts per billion. Merlin's top reading last year was 125 ppb, one of the highest in Ontario. Ozone values from 50 to 80 parts per billion represent moderate air quality and are considered a risk to people with heart or lung disorders. Readings higher than 80 cause greater irritation and warnings are issued for the people at that level.

"These factors contribute to a greater health risk for residents of Essex-Kent and puts greater stress on available health care resources. Specialized public health programs are required to deal with these unique circumstances. Indeed, we see public health programs downloaded to municipalities, along with ambulance services, social housing and transportation, without any guarantee there will be enough local dollars available to continue funding for public health programs. This could be of grave circumstances to Essex-Kent."

That, in part, is what I've written to the minister. Clearly the people of Essex-Kent deserve answers to some of these situations. We have a unique situation perhaps in regard to the fact that some of our health-related statistics are very high.

If public health programs have to compete with other services for local funding, it will certainly decrease the availability of crucial public health and health promotion programs. Undermining prevention, protection and promotion programs for short-term savings will result in increased health care costs in the long run. "You can pay me now or pay me later," as they say.

Now we're starting to see the results of a wrong-headed approach. I met with the Kent-Chatham Health Unit personnel this week and I was disturbed to learn about recent decisions of the Chatham-Kent transition team pertaining to public health. There are plans to change the makeup of the board, downsize the health unit and reduce the role of the medical health officer.

Potable water is a problem in some areas.

The list of concerns about public health is great in Kent and great across Ontario, and I urge the government to respond to these very serious questions put forth by constituents through myself and here in the Legislature.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm glad to have the opportunity to join in this debate, a debate which, as I understand it, is on concurrence and supply of various ministries, including the Office of the Premier. I say that because people who may be watching this debate might wonder what exactly it is that we are debating this afternoon. Listening to the member for Essex-Kent, he chose to focus the majority of his comments in the area of transportation, although he touched on health care and some other concerns, and those are both ministries that of course are dealt with in the motion that's in front of us.

I was a bit puzzled, in listening to the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, who is one of the members from the government side who spoke so far on this debate, that he spent virtually all of his time talking about the economic record of the Mike Harris government. I went back and forth just to make sure I had this correct. It sounded more like a budget speech that he was engaged in, and I looked to see whether the Minister of Finance was here - no, he's not there; whether the Minister of Economic Development was here, given that he talked about jobs and the economy - no, he's not here.

So the only conclusion I could come to in listening to him, because I understand the wide-ranging nature of the debate on concurrences, is that he was making the point that all of these things are linked.

I found that interesting because we on this side of the House get up from time to time and we'll talk about the link a particular bill has to the overall agenda of the Mike Harris government, and members opposite, from the government side, will harangue us and say: "What are you talking about that for? Why aren't you talking about Bill so-and-so?" I found it really interesting to listen to the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, particularly as he recounted today his view of the wonders that have come to this province as a result of the Mike Harris government.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): He's a lawyer.

Mr Silipo: " He's a lawyer," one of the members opposite says, and I suppose I'm supposed to read in that, "So am I," and therefore there's somehow some link.

Interjection.

Mr Silipo: No, I was quite happy and I didn't object to his doing that. I just wanted for the record to make that notation, because I'm always happy to hear government members try to defend what they're doing. In fact, the more they are willing to make the connections for us and for the people of the province between one area of policy and another, the easier it will be for people across the province to understand what the Mike Harris revolution is all about.

We have in front of us concurrences for some very important ministries which represent some very important policy directions this government has chosen to take. Look at the very first one that's in front of us: concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Health. Do we agree or do we not agree with what is happening through the Ministry of Health and what the government is doing?

Obviously we in the New Democratic Party have on more than one occasion said very clearly, "No, we don't agree with what the government is doing in the area of health care." We don't agree with simply, holus-bolus, shutting down hospital after hospital without any kind of sensible plan for what is going to replace those hospitals, without any kind of sensible plan for how you develop a whole series of services, from community-based services right through and including hospital services, before you start shutting down hospitals. We don't agree with that kind of holus-bolus approach.

It's been interesting to see the government on that issue try to come in and out of the debate at times when it suited them to say, "We're not the ones making decisions about the closing of hospitals," and then when it suited their political agenda to step right in, both feet first, and say, "Yes, we will take responsibility here or there for what is going on," especially when they were able to come in and intervene and actually change some of the decisions around what the Health Services Restructuring Commission was looking at doing or had originally recommended.

All that is to say, when we look at this whole question of health care, which obviously has to be and continues to be one of the fundamental, important issues for the people of this province, that yes, it's important that we make some changes in the way health care is provided; and yes, that very well will mean in certain parts of the province that you need to look at whether we have the right mix of hospitals and other community kinds of care available. But you do that in a planned way. You do that in a way that involves taking into account first and foremost the interests of the local communities.

You don't do it by simply coming in and saying, "How many hospitals can we close today?" before you've got any sense of what the alternative plan is.

Similarly, one of the other ministries here in front of us today is the Ministry of Education and Training. How could we have a debate on concurrences without touching upon the kind of devastation we have seen so far and are likely to continue to see by the Mike Harris government in the area of education?

The whole debate we've had on Bill 160, which I know, as far as the Minister of Education is concerned, he would like very much to forget or put behind him, is going to continue. Let me say very clearly to members opposite that it is going to continue, and in spades, not because we in the New Democratic Party caucus have to stir things up but simply because we are reflecting and bringing to the floor of this Legislature the very strong feelings that we know exist.

You know as well as I, Madam Speaker, that they exist right across this province, whether it's here in ridings like mine and yours in the city of Toronto or whether it's in ridings across the province, whether it's communities like Riverdale or Dovercourt or the Premier's own home base of North Bay and many, many others across the province.

What parents and citizens are saying to us is: "We are not prepared to see our education system gutted. We are not prepared to see our school system destroyed simply so that Mike Harris can find the money to maintain the one overarching promise he seems to be intent on maintaining, and that is the 30% income tax cut."

When you ask people, "Do you want to have a tax cut?" of course most people, I think, would like to have a tax cut. But when you talk to people about what that means in real terms, I am certainly finding more and more people who are saying, "The $3 or $4 a week that I get in my pocket isn't worth at the end of the day the price of destroying our school system."

That's what is going to happen. That's what we know is going to take place. We've seen it already as a result of the impact of the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been cut by this government from the budgets of school boards across the province. We will see it in spades with the cuts that are yet to come, unless the Premier reverses the position he finally had to admit to when our leader, Howard Hampton, released the draft copy of the Deputy Minister of Education's contract, which showed that part of the task, part of the direction she was being given for the next year, was to come up with a plan to take out of the system of education another $667 million.

I remember the debate on Bill 160 back at second reading stage when we would make that point and say, "The real agenda of the Mike Harris government is to cut another $1 billion out of the system," and government members would stand up and say or holler from their seats, "Where do you get that idea?" and we would point out that it was exactly on the basis of statements made by the former Minister of Education about a year and a half ago now, a year and some months ago. They would say: "No, no. That's not true. We're not going to do that."

I can only imagine the look on the faces of many of the backbench members of the Tory caucus when they saw in the evening news the Premier of the province having to admit that yes, the cutting of another $600 million or $700 million was really very much part of the government's plan. I can just imagine the looks on their faces and the sense of fear in their stomachs as they said: "My God, they didn't tell us that. My God, they didn't tell us that this was what we were going to be doing. We've been saying to people all along that we're not going to do that."

Why is that the case? It's because we have in this government, to a degree we have never seen before, an incredible concentration of power in the hands of the Premier and the Premier's office. I note with great interest that the Premier's office is one of the items before us in terms of voting concurrence. So we don't agree that the Premier's office should continue to spend more money now than was spent there in recent memory, because that's what the numbers show.

That is very much in keeping with the approach Mike Harris and the handful of people around him have taken, which is that they are going to centrally and masterfully try to control not only the public agenda but they are going to try to control the Tory caucus as they try to drive through their revolution, as they try to drive through an agenda which is based on cuts to our health care system, on gutting our school system, on not putting a real emphasis on creating jobs in this province.

I hear the members opposite talk about how things have improved. Of course, things have improved and we're happy that things have improved. But when you have the high level of unemploy