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

October 10, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L107 - Thu 10 Oct 1996 / Jeu 10 Oct 1996

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

NATIONAL HIGHWAY NETWORK

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD CARE CENTRES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ST ALBAN'S BOYS' AND GIRLS' CLUB

OKTOBERFEST

HOSPITAL SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

LABOUR DISPUTES

MEMBER FOR OTTAWA CENTRE

SPECIAL REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO-QUEBEC CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AGREEMENT

SPEAKER'S RULING

CORRECTION

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

WORKFARE

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

AIR QUALITY

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SALE OF AMMUNITION

RENT REGULATION

BEAR HUNTING

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

BEAR HUNTING

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

RENT REGULATION

ABORTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEWER POLITICIANS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE DÉPUTÉS

The House met at 1103.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

NATIONAL HIGHWAY NETWORK

Mr Hudak moved private member's notice of motion number 26:

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): This resolution comes about from some experiences over the past year and a half in government, through my work in the Niagara Peninsula, my riding of Niagara South. It also follows more recently on a meeting that Minister Palladini and I had with the federal committee on transportation, trade and tourism. The meeting took place in Hamilton. The minister and I were trying to get the federal government to contribute what we would call its fair share to a national highway system through Ontario.

I believe my constituents will strongly support me in this: that the federal government should recognize Ontario's key role in any federal trade and transportation strategy. In other words, Ontario is a linchpin of the highway network we have through Canada. A considerable amount of trade and tourism already comes through Ontario, especially through the Niagara Peninsula and Windsor, and any formulation of a federal policy in trade and tourism should definitely recognize Ontario's key role.

At the same time, we wanted to stress in that meeting on Monday with the federal committee that there are also some extraordinary economic opportunities presented by a national highway system through Ontario, in terms of tourism development, trade development and, of course, job creation from that point; key also, which has motivated me to present this resolution, to the Niagara Peninsula and economic development in the Niagara Peninsula.

Canada is the only major industrialized nation without some kind of national highway program. Having spent some time travelling across Canada and the States, you can see a very consistent and strong national highway system of interstates through the USA. The federal government's share of the national highway system in Canada is only a 6% contribution rate, which in my opinion, and I hope in the opinion of this House, is a dismal rating when compared to Australia, for example, similar in mass and similar in government, where they have a 50% contribution from the feds; Germany, 36%; and as I said, the United States, with a very strong interstate network, around 30%.

In the federal context and how it breaks down in Ontario, if you look at how our NAFTA partners are doing, the US is very strong. It has a very strong interstate network. They've devoted US$121 billion to the interstate routes throughout the United States and to their border crossings, the major cities and the capitals.

Mexico, which doesn't have the economic strength of Canada or the strong democracy we have in Canada, and certainly not anywhere near the size of the economy we have in Canada, even Mexico -- some members of the House may not be aware of this and they should be -- has committed 7,000 kilometres of new highways to their own national highway system to help them benefit from trade through NAFTA and tourism. That works out to a $10-billion investment. They expect to have huge economic opportunities here.

I fear that without a similar national strategy in Canada, with Ontario as its linchpin, Canada may become the poor partner in NAFTA. I feel it's clear that the federal government should establish a national highway program, because it's critical to the future growth of trade and tourism throughout Canada, throughout Ontario and, most importantly for me, throughout the Niagara Peninsula. It helps us get the goods to market on time; efficient and dependable delivery of goods. Especially with some 90% of the goods for export using transport trucks, you cut down travel time significantly.

Most importantly, over 50 cents of any tourist dollar is spent on transportation. Again, considering what I see as a large influx of tourism into the Niagara Peninsula due to Casino Niagara coming into the Niagara Peninsula, the improvements at the Fort Erie Race Track and some improvements we're working on in Port Colborne in my riding, we need a very strong national highway system, especially through southern Ontario, to take advantage of these opportunities.

Let me give you some numbers; for example, 64% of the $150 billion in land trade between Canada and the States goes through the Niagara Peninsula or Windsor. My riding has the QEW and Highway 3 through it. In fact, 30,000 vehicles a day in this most recent August came across the Peace Bridge and went up the QEW or up Highway 3 along Lake Erie.

The Peace Bridge is scheduled to twin beginning in 1999. It's a $200-million private sector investment. It's the second busiest border crossing in Canada, as a matter of fact, and it's going to get even busier with twin spans. What that sets up is a six-lane crossing into the States and a six-lane bridge at Burlington. I would like to see some money devoted into the peninsula for a six-lane QEW all the way from the foot of the Peace Bridge through Burlington towards Toronto.

In the States, they're moving towards the expansion of Highway 219, which will start out in Buffalo, move down into the major northeastern corridor, which consists of Boston, Washington, Baltimore, New York City and then further down to Atlanta, Georgia, a massive trade and tourism market that we could connect from Toronto, down the QEW, through Niagara, across the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie to Buffalo, to this massive market.

You could also envision a mid-peninsula corridor -- the CAA is talking about this, and some major industries -- that's going to take the traffic up through Highway 403, also through Windsor and into the States to Michigan and possibly down to Mexico for trade routes.

You can envision a very strong national highway system which would be the NAFTA highway of prosperity. We have a very strong interest locally in it and a very strong interest provincially, and I guess I would just like to see the feds contribute a fair share. I'm not asking for a pot of gold. That's what I said to the committee: It's not a pot of gold.

They have a 10-cents-per-litre fuel tax, as the members well know. It's in the resolution. I'm asking for a minimum, and I think it's a rather modest request, of two cents out of the 10 cents that they take from Ontario motorists through the fuel tax, to put that back into the Ontario highway system. Some $2 billion a year that Ontario motorists shell out at the pump goes to the federal coffers, but barely a dime, metaphorically, goes back into Ontario highways. It goes to the east coast, some interprovincial transfers and maybe some to Quebec, but not nearly enough, not close to enough back into Ontario's highways.

I understand and support the federal government's movement towards a balanced budget. They're making some progress on that and I encourage them to proceed and to complete balancing the budget. But at the same time, I'd like to see a redirection of existing funds. It's $2 billion that comes out of the Ontario motorists' pockets; let's put it back into the highways. Let's put it back for the benefit of the motorists, and then trade and tourism and some job growth once more. That's what I feel about recognizing Ontario's fair share. How much does Ontario put into the federal coffers through the gas tax? Let's get some of that back.

Due to time constraints, I'll leave some of the spending items to Jerry Ouellette, the hardworking parliamentary assistant for transportation. I know Jerry's going to talk about what his work with Minister Palladini has been in repairing the highways in Ontario.

From my perspective in Niagara, it was rather a rough spring because due to the thaws in the wintertime, the QEW was in rough shape. There were a lot of calls to my office, and for every call to my office, a similar call went to Minister Palladini from the Tim Hudak action centre in Stevensville directly to the Minister of Transportation. Al said he was working on it, "You're going to get the money." He had to finish that highway he was working on.

Then Bart Maves from Niagara Falls, a very hardworking member for the Falls, also has the QEW through his riding; similar calls. Tom Froese, also here today, I'm sure was working to get some highway money put in our area, and Frank Sheehan. I'm fully confident --

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): And Ron Johnson of Brantford.

Mr Hudak: You know the QEW then. I'm fully confident that Peter Kormos and Jim Bradley also were very positive in working with the Minister of Transportation to get the money in that area, and we were successful.

Minister Palladini freed up $160 million from the budget. It's tough to do with Finance Minister Ernie Eves, but Minister Palladini, with our support in Niagara, got that $160 million extra. He pumped $50 million into Niagara, and in fact 30% of that money into the riding of Niagara South, and we're certainly grateful for that.

So the Queen E is coming along well now. We've got a traffic light in Port Colborne at 140 and 3. But my feeling certainly is that we have to go farther with that. I think it's high time the federal government started contributing its share of the federal gas tax back into Ontario, back into Niagara, with the long-term goal of job creation, tourism, transportation strategy. That's certainly why I'm putting forward this resolution, and I hope that my fellow members today in the House will offer their strong support in this measure, which we will then take to the federal government and pressure them for their fair share back to Ontario's highway network.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): It's interesting to hear the member for Niagara South, who basically is saying it's now the federal government's responsibility to take care of the disastrous highways in this province.

If you look at the resolution here, they're asking for federal taxes that are collected for gasoline to be dedicated towards Ontario roads. The member does not indicate he supports a fixed portion of the gasoline taxes collected by the province to go towards road maintenance. So here it is: Whether he likes it or not, the provincial highways are primarily a provincial responsibility. If you're asking the federal government to take a portion of the gas tax for highway reconstruction, why is your member not asking for a fixed portion of the Ontario taxes collected to go towards road reconstruction? Here we have a double standard, when it's a purely provincial responsibility.

I supported and put forth a resolution earlier this year that said there should be a highway investment fund that would go towards repair and reconstruction of roads. The members on the government side voted against it, yet now they're asking for the federal government to do what they should be doing. The roads in this province are your responsibility. Don't try and get it off your agenda. You should be supporting a fixed amount of the $1 billion that you collect. The Ministry of Transportation, your Ministry of Finance, collects $1 billion a year in gasoline tax, in licensing.

What does it do with that $1 billion? A portion of that $1 billion should be dedicated in a highway trust fund for repairing and maintaining your highways.

As the Auditor General told you, 60% of the highways in this province are substandard, and if you drive across this province you'll see that they're in pathetic shape. What did your minister do? As soon as you were elected, you cut about $400 million from the transportation budget. The Auditor General told you 60% of the roads were in substandard condition. What did you do? You cut $400 million from the roads -- no wonder you have potholes all over this province; no wonder there was no road maintenance -- when you had that warning from the Auditor General.

In terms of what you're doing, you're telling the federal government to take care of your roads, when what you've done is you've offloaded about 2,000 kilometres of roads on to the local municipalities, which have had a 40% cut in their transfer payments. If you're so serious about roads, why would you be dumping all these roads on local municipalities, which don't have the money to do it?

It sure is easy to point your finger at the federal government and say, "Oh, you should be paying for our road reconstruction," when what you're doing is cutting your budget, what you're doing is basically offloading your responsibility on to local municipalities and local property taxpayers.

Then what are you doing to the whole long-term vision of transportation? No matter how many roads you build, you have to have an integrated, balanced transportation system. What this government has been doing over the last year and a half is systematically gutting part of the transportation system. Not only what they've done to the roads budgets; look what they've done to public transportation. They've cut GO Transit by about 25%, they've cut municipal transit in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in cities and towns across Ontario.

No wonder the QEW is a parking lot, no wonder the 401 is a gridlock continually, it's because of what you've done. By cutting back subsidies on public transportation you've pushed more people into the cars. There are more cars on the highways, more congestion, more gridlock.

Part of the reason our roads are in such bad shape is you're pushing more and more cars and trucks on to the roads as you abandon public transportation. You can't just treat this problem of our highways and our transportation problems by a literal tunnel vision approach; it's got to be an integrated, comprehensive approach which gets people to use public transportation plus road transportation. You can't shirk this responsibility on to the feds. Before you know it, you'll be saying GO Transit should be subsidized by the federal government.

As you know, your minister announced last Thursday he is going to sell off GO Transit because he thinks the local municipalities should be picking up 25% of the cost. He thinks the private sector should be picking up the rest. So how is selling off GO Transit going to make it easier for commuters, business people and truckers to use our highways? It's going to push more of our commuters on to our highways because when you privatize GO Transit for sure there's going to be a cutback in service. You saw the proof of that in the disappearance of the Casino Rama express, the one the minister stood up here and praised the same day he was pulling the plug on it.

That is why you just can't blame the federal government for what is clearly a provincial responsibility. Before you know it, you'll also be asking the federal government to invest in local hospitals and schools. It's your responsibility primarily. You are in government, you took over the roads, don't whine about the federal government.

I have no problem with the federal government investing in a national transportation strategy, but what this resolution does is basically just whines and blames the feds. You have a responsibility, I tell the member for Niagara South. If you think it's so important, why don't you support the establishment of a fixed amount of money out of existing dollars collected by your government towards highway reconstruction and rehabilitation?

Your government refuses to do that. What's good enough for the feds is not good enough for you when the highways are your responsibility. If you want the feds to cooperate, you should be clear and say you support a fixed amount of money that goes into highway reconstruction maintenance. This is something that is done in all states except New Jersey. There's nothing wrong with doing that. That is the only way you're ever going to deal with the problem of our roads.

This is not something you can fix overnight or you can fix by blaming the federal government; you need a 10-year reinvestment plan. You just can't do it by blaming Ottawa. You have to have a highway trust fund where you get the money that is already collected, as I said, through the gasoline tax, through the transportation taxes and licensing. You have $1 billion you collect every year. Put some of that $1 billion in a fixed amount towards our highways.

Also invest in transportation. If you look at the congestion that exists in southern Ontario specifically, that congestion costs us $1 billion a year because companies delivering goods and services are delayed in traffic tie-ups. They have to buy more fuel because of traffic tie-ups. Sales people lose all kinds of time and money because of congestion. I ask any of you to say that we don't have a massive congestion and gridlock problem in the GTA in southern Ontario. We do. You're not going to solve that problem by just whining at Ottawa.

You have to put in a comprehensive investment strategy in road reconstruction from existing moneys you collect. I have nothing to say that is negative to saying Ottawa should maybe kick in too, but don't just say Ottawa should be doing it. You should have the same commitment that you asked Ottawa to have. You don't have it.

You've been cutting transportation budgets since you got into office and our roads show it. You know what they do on the 401? They've got so many potholes, all they do is mill the road, so it becomes like a roller-coaster effect on the highways. They think they're hiding the potholes. Wait till this winter when there are going to be more potholes, more snow-covered, ice-covered roads, because you still don't understand that you can't do more for less when you cut back on essential services like transportation. That's what you're seeing in the Niagara region.

You're seeing it in Cornwall, you're seeing it in Kenora and Sudbury. They see the byproduct of your tax cut. You're taking money out of transportation to pay for that tax cut. You're taking money out of hospitals to pay for the tax cut.

You may be able to hide some of the soft services and those cuts; you can't hide the fact you've cut the roads budget because Ontarians drive those roads every day and no matter how much the whiz kids try to spin it and how much you blame the feds, people are blaming you for the state of our roads. Our roads and the congestion is a byproduct of your misguided, massive cuts to essential services like road maintenance and safety.

So if you really want to do something that will perhaps get cooperation from the federal government, stand up and say that you will put aside a fixed amount of money every year out of the existing taxes that you collect. Put it into road reconstruction. Put it into a trust fund that won't go into general revenue.

As I say, 49 states do this. It works very well in the United States because you can't three years from now take from the fund and then pay for some hot political item. A 10-year fixed transit trust fund, that is what is needed. You can't have an ad hoc, every-three-months change in direction, "Oh, we're going to cut $600 million, we're going to cut $400 million, we're going to put $100 million back because the heat's on." You've got to have a comprehensive investment in roads because the Auditor General told you guys when you came to office the roads are in a disastrous state. What did you do?

You cut the budget severely and that is not showing that you are serious about keeping our roads in good shape.

I want to make sure that the people of Ontario understand that the responsibility for highways is provincial and this government is either blaming Ottawa or blaming the municipalities now, because they've offloaded the roads on to them. Municipalities have been cut 40% in their grants from this government. How are they going to repair the roads they're offloading? How are they going to do it? They're going to say, "Oh, no, it was your local municipality's fault."

What we do need is an understanding that if we're going to have a cohesive transportation network in this province, you have to have a balanced approach. You can't sell off GO Transit and say, "Oh, we're going to now be serious about transportation." You need an investment strategy that says people should have a choice. If they don't want to use a car they should have a reasonable choice in public transportation. You are not giving them that choice because you've basically put the investment of public transportation on the back burner.

You've cut back severely there and that is not going to solve your road congestion problem. Because the more people you can get on to GO -- you can imagine GO Transit, for instance; 140,000 people use it every day. If those 140,000 people got on the roads with cars, you can see the effect. In Metro alone there are about a million riders every day on public transportation. If those million riders weren't on public transportation, you can imagine the state of our roads.

So if you want good roads, and I think we all do want good roads, we have to invest in them, sure, but you can build highways till the cows come home and you won't solve the congestion problems. You have to have good highways, good roads and you have to have good subways, good buses and good trains.

This government has said, "We're going to blame Ottawa, we're going to offload the roads and we're going to cut public transportation." That is a miserable approach to solving the congestion gridlock that exists in southern Ontario. If this government is serious, let them support a highway trust fund that they would also put money aside for every year, and not fudge it and blame Ottawa.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): We encourage all the members of the House to support Mr Hudak's resolution regarding federal funding for our national highway system. I have to discuss a couple of comments the member opposite just made in that he was the one passing the blame to Ottawa and the federal government. There isn't any blame being passed here. All we're asking for is a fair share.

Also, why then do the feds collect gas taxes in the province of Ontario? To spend on the east coast? Maybe the member would support that, but we don't.

The member stated that the province collects $1 billion in gas taxes as well. Funny, the MTO budget is well over double that amount already.

In not addressing traffic tie-ups -- what do you call the 407? Those are some of the main concerns in this area, to deal with the traffic issues.

The member for Niagara South's concerns are valid. I'd like to explain why by providing the members with some background on the issue. Many of you may not realize that the federal government stopped funding the Trans-Canada national highway system back in 1970. Since then the only federal funding for provincial highways has been through temporary or regional cost-sharing agreements. These agreements, however, do not take into consideration the national significance of the highways in question, such as whether they carry interprovincial or international trade.

To address these concerns the federal, provincial and territorial governments cooperated to identify highways they considered significant to the entire country. They came up with some 25,000 kilometres of highways from coast to coast, what we now refer to as a national highway system. While what we know as a national highway system is only 3% of Canada's roads, it carries 80% of all traffic. These are the highways that promote business and help create jobs in our great country.

Within Ontario, our portion of the national highway system consists of some 5,000 kilometres of highways. That's one fifth of the entire network. Some of these are Highways 7, 11, 17 and 69.

Because the national highway system excludes existing highways with four or more lanes, some of Ontario's most important routes do not meet the criteria for federal funding. Those include highways 400, 401, 402 and the Queen Elizabeth Way.

It should be no surprise to you that our highways are among the most heavily used for trade and tourism in Canada. In fact, Ontario's highways carry one third of Canada's exports and almost half of all imports.

Any national highway system should include Ontario's major highways and allow them to become eligible for funding. It is obvious that a healthy and efficient provincial highway network is not only critical to Ontario's economy but to all of Canada's.

Mr Hudak was saying Ontario's highways could really use an overhaul. This government is doing something about that. We're fixing frost heaves, sealing cracks and patching holes. You may have seen my colleague the Honourable Al Palladini fixing a highway in your riding. The point is that we're spending our limited resources on preserving, not expanding our investments in roads and bridges.

Ontario pays for all its highway construction and upgrading with virtually no support from the federal government, and that investment goes towards highways that are significant to all of Canada. Let me give you an idea of how much an investment that is.

The member opposite stated that we cut the budget for roads. Here's the reality of the situation. This year we invested some $630 million in our highways alone. That includes an extra $140 million that we pulled together. In all we spent more on highway rehabilitation than any other Ontario government in the last six years, but that's still not enough. We could use the federal support.

Last year the Canadian government collected close to $1 billion to $2 billion in gas and diesel fuel taxes from Ontario, yet it did not invest one cent in our existing highway network. Mr Hudak's resolution is not asking Ottawa to increase taxes; it only asks that Ottawa commit money it already collects from road users. Ontario has the right to expect fair treatment from the federal government. Ontario is the hub of Canada's economy, and Canada simply can't afford to let any part of that national transportation system deteriorate.

I urge the members to support Mr Hudak's resolution. Our highways are the backbone of trade, tourism and safe travel in this province but they are also important to the rest of Canada.

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): I stand today to support the resolution put forward by the member for Niagara South. Obviously we need to protect and preserve our national highway system.

Many years ago both the provincial governments and the federal government implemented taking taxes from gasoline purchases. These taxes were to be used, obviously, for the maintenance and expansion of our national highways. Instead, this source of revenue has been put back into the general revenue accounts, disbursed nationally and not locally in Ontario. The federal government, in partnership with the provinces and territories, should establish some very clear and objective guidelines to the allocation of funding and use revenues from existing fuel taxes to fund the federal portion of the national highway program.

Canada, with its vast network of highways, is a country that needs a safe and seamless road infrastructure, both for the purposes of trade and in particular tourism. Tourism is a vital industry not only in Ontario but in Canada. Transportation in general is the largest single source of tourism expenditure in Canada. It accounts for about 50% of the total tourism expenditures in this country. Transportation is vital to tourism: Transportation is tourism. Leisure travel in Canada accounts for almost 75% of the intercity trips, making tourism the largest user of passenger transportation services.

Transportation is vital to the tourism industry, which depends on convenient, affordable and easy access of tourists to destinations. The quality of the transportation infrastructure of a destination is an important determinant of the strength of the tourism industry.

Tourism is an important sector of Canada's economy, not just Ontario's, contributing in 1990 an estimated $26 billion in revenue, $7.4 billion in foreign exchange earnings and directly employing over 600,000 Canadians.

While tourism depends on transportation, transportation is also a major beneficiary of tourism. About 45% of the total revenues generated by Canada's tourism industry is in the transportation sector.

I focus on tourism. For example, this Friday at noon in the communities of Kitchener-Waterloo, in the riding which I represent of Kitchener-Wilmot, is the official opening of the second-largest festival in Canada, Oktoberfest, the true spirit of gemütlichkeit, of friendship, of hospitality. It will be a major destination point for probably, depending on who is counting, up to one million visitors who will descend upon Kitchener-Waterloo and the region of Waterloo to celebrate Oktoberfest, a great Bavarian festival. It opens this Friday. It will continue for 10 days in our community.

That's one of the prime examples of tourism. That's one of the vital components towards making the fabric of this great country. I emphasize Oktoberfest primarily because it occurs -- the opening, this Friday, as I've said -- and is a vital link in the tourism industry in my community and in the province of Ontario and in Canada.

We need leadership, not confrontation, as my learned colleague from across the floor has alluded to. We need leadership and cooperation at the federal level to ensure the future of our national highway system. I would encourage all members of the House to endorse this resolution.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further debate? The Chair recognizes the member for Niagara South.

Mr Hudak: Thank you to my fellow members on this side of the floor for giving me a bit more time. I had a few things I wanted to share about my riding that I didn't get a chance to talk about enough and to answer some criticism from the member for Oakwood.

The Acting Speaker: Will you just take your seat for a minute.

Mr Hudak: If the third party wants to go ahead and speak -- I apologize for jumping in -- I'll reserve my time for the end.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Cochrane South.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the member across the way.

Generally, I don't have difficulty with the member's resolution. He's asking that the federal government take its responsibility towards the maintenance and construction of our highway infrastructure as a national program. The parliamentary assistant is quite right: The federal government has been quite remiss in its duties when it comes to national transportation over the years. They've pulled out of highway transportation and now with the Chrétien government they're also pulling out of rail transportation, which is another issue altogether.

I agree with the member across the way who says we need to urge the federal government, Mr Chrétien and his government, to come forward and play a vital role in making sure that the highway infrastructure in this province and across this country is to the standard that it needs to be, because we all recognize, as members of this assembly, that highway infrastructure is very important to the economic survival of our economy. On that part, I do agree that the federal government does have to take its role.

The other example is that the federal government has removed itself from the transportation industry -- from rail, which I think is a disaster, especially for the western provinces, with the removal of the Crow rate. There's the whole issue of what they have done in regard to the selling off of our national railway. They have moved themselves out of the airline industry. I think in the long run -- we've had this debate in the House before -- those things cumulatively are not going to bode well for the province of Ontario as the economic engine that drives Canada. With a weaker infrastructure of transportation and telecommunications, I don't see that as being particularly advantageous.

Where I

part company with the member, though, is on a designated tax. We've had these kinds of resolutions before in the House, where members have asked to designate a particular tax towards a particular function the provincial government has a responsibility for. Individually, if you look at this resolution as one resolution that stands alone, it makes some sense. You say, "We'll designate some tax dollars from the federal government and we'll designate some tax dollars from the provincial government, from the retail sales tax through to the excise tax, to maintain our highways."

I guess individually it makes some sense, but the problem is that once you enter into this it's a slippery road, because then what you do is send a message out to the public of Ontario that, "If your priority as you see it is important enough for this Legislature to support by a designated tax, you will get dollars to support that particular initiative."

Things such as highways I imagine would get the nod from the public in regard to funding. I imagine many of the services in health care would probably get the nod. But I think there are a lot of other services that government offers, that need to be offered, that may not get the nod, and we would be very caught up in this House in playing politics of taxation as they relate to programs.

On that point, I have a problem. I'm a little torn as to how to vote on this thing because on the one hand I want the federal government to take its responsibility -- I think the member is right, the federal government has to pay its fair share -- when it comes to transportation, but I have a problem when it comes to designating taxes.

We'll listen to the rest of the wrapup on the part of the member across the way in regard to the final vote, but I just want the member to know -- voting for or against, no matter what -- the federal government needs to take its responsibility.

I do, however, have a bit of a problem with a Conservative member coming before this House and yelling the fair share of the federal government argument. We as a government under Bob Rae made that argument for four to five years. We said the federal government was not taking its responsibility when it came to Ontario. The federal government has abandoned the province of Ontario; I agree with the member. But where I have a bit of a problem, although I do support what he's trying to do here, is that when your party was in opposition you ran against us on that.

You were saying all we were doing was whining at the feds, trying to offload our responsibility to the federal government. You asked us to take our responsibility and stop blaming Ottawa. You played that game in opposition, and now that you've come to government you've finally come the way of the New Democrats, which is, "We need to get the federal government to take its responsibility."

The federal government, when it comes to everything from highway transportation to social services to health care, has really let the province of Ontario down. They're playing less and less of a role when it comes to funding. It is putting many of the services in this province at jeopardy. When I see what's happening in Ontario to the health care system, I say yes, the Minister of Health, the Honourable Jim Wilson, and the government of Ontario have a huge responsibility because they make the decisions about where the dollars go.

Obviously I think his decisions are having a negative effect on health care, but we can't let the federal government off the hook. They have to take some responsibility. They're the ones who are cutting the funding and they're the ones who are going to block funding, and with the result of that our health care system and our transportation system are really left in a bit of a situation.

In the last bit of time I have to present, though, I want to go over some of the numbers that we spent on transportation, because I've heard the Minister of Transportation on a number of occasions going across the province of Ontario and talking about how much money he's spending on highway transportation capital budgets. He goes to great length to talk about how much money he's spending and how he's doing more than any other government has ever done in highway transportation.

In defence of the Honourable Gilles Pouliot, the former Minister of Transportation, you guys had better compare apples to apples and not oranges to apples. The work that Mr Pouliot did as Minister of Transportation was far more than what this government is now doing with capital infrastructure on highways.

What we did was fund highway construction from two different pots. One pot was the capital budget of the Ministry of Transportation, which was around $750 million a year in 1994-95, the last year of our government. But in addition to that, and what the member and the cabinet minister forget to mention, is that there was a Jobs Ontario component to the capital budget, which was about another $700 million.

I'm going by memory, but it seems to me that the capital budget of the Ministry of Transportation -- dollars in the construction of new roads, reconstruction of existing roads, resurfacing -- was somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $1.4 billion total in 1994-95, the last year of our government. This year, 1996-97, it's less than it was before. Your estimates show that you actually are going to spend about $1.2 billion overall.

Where is that dollar going? Some of that money is going where it needs to go in regard to the reconstruction of many needed roads, but if we were to go around Ontario this summer and think back to what was being done, most of what we saw was resurfacing; it was black-topping.

If I were the Minister of Transportation and I were looking at a way to spend money and to spread it around really thin so that everybody thought something was going on in Ontario, I would spend my money on resurfacing, because you can spend, depending on which kind of highway it is, a little amount of money to do a lot of resurfacing in a whole bunch of places and it looks like there's a lot of activity. Was it needed? Of course, it was needed. I don't suggest for one second that the Minister of Transportation resurfaced parts of highways that didn't need to be done. Quite the opposite: They needed to be done.

But it wasn't a question where the government was actually spending money on new road construction to the point that the previous NDP government was doing, and it's not a question of rebuilding roads.

There were a number of projects that were cancelled under the Conservative government. I can think of some of them in northern Ontario. The four-laning between Huntsville and North Bay was something we were going to go forward with and we were going to do it at an accelerated pace. The government has cut that back. I think they're going to be doing about 10 kilometres per year. There are about 100 kilometres to go, so that's a fairly long-term project. It's cut back from where we were going to go. I think that stretch of highway, quite frankly, is significant. It needs to be done.

I would have thought with the Premier living in North Bay that that stretch of highway would have got some kind of support on the part of the Premier, to say we need the four-lane Huntsville up to Powassan. Quite frankly, the traffic on that highway is too heavy for a two-lane highway and we need to move to four lanes.

I think of the road in Sultan. Highway 144 over to Sultan needed to be done in order to collect into Chapleau. It was something again that our government was going forward with that was cancelled by the Conservative government.

We all remember last winter the effect of highway conditions as they related to the expenditures of the Ministry of Transportation when it came to winter road maintenance. As I was talking earlier to my friend the member from Renfrew, Mr Conway, I drive a significant amount of time from Timmins to Toronto return. I probably do somewhere in the neighbourhood of about 20 or 25 trips a year by my own vehicle as I come to Queen's Park to represent the people of Cochrane South. I'll tell you, there's no way in heck you're going to get me on that highway again in the middle of winter if you guys are going to do what you did last year.

In trips that I did up to Timmins, I can remember in some circumstances finding as many as 15 cars in the ditch because roads were not properly salted, roads were not properly plowed. Rather than having a road that should be bare at the given point in time, roads a day and two days after a storm or after a snow-up had not been properly cleared and the roads were just treacherous. People were complaining in northern Ontario, and we brought those cases here to Queen's Park on many occasions. North of North Bay, driving on Highway 11, and north of Sudbury, driving on 144, those roads, quite frankly, you were white-knuckle driving.

I own a Ranger pickup truck, and you would think with a pickup you'd be in better shape than most people. You couldn't hold the highway at reduced speeds. If the speed limit was 100 kilometres an hour, you could drive that highway at 70 kilometres an hour and you were lucky if you held on to the highway. Like I say, I don't how many times I travelled that highway where I would count 10 and 15 cars that went into the ditch, not because they were speeding, not because they were not paying attention to their driving situation, but because, quite frankly, the highways were in an atrocious state.

I say to the Minister of Transportation, I will be watching that situation quite closely this winter, as will every other person who lives in northern Ontario, because we in northern Ontario will not stand for one more winter of bad highway maintenance. We need our highways not only for our economy. We need the highways for ourselves, to be able to traverse across northern Ontario for every other reason, from travelling for medical appointments to travel in order to get around to see people and to do business. If we don't have good highways, we can't do much of that.

I don't know how many times, I say again, I saw trucks and cars in the ditch last winter. I talked to people who were in sales who were not able to travel in order to keep appointments for the sale of the goods they were doing because the highways were not properly maintained. So I will be watching out on that.

The other thing is, I just want to point out to the member across the way that he talks about the commitment on the part of the provincial government towards our system of highways. I think if you look at the expenditure estimates, you'll notice that in many cases there's a lot of money that has been cut back on transportation, especially how it affects municipalities. As an example, in 1995-96, the municipal road subsidies were $706 million. What was it this year? It was $119 million.

That means all of those roads that municipalities are responsible for maintaining have been cut significantly, and with that cut they are less able to respond to keeping those highways up to the standard they need to.

On top of that, the government is offloading its responsibility for many provincial highways that go through municipalities on to the municipalities. In Timmins, we're being offloaded with a number of highways. Our mayor and council in the city of Timmins, Mr Power and his council, are saying, "You transfer those roads over, you're telling us we're going to get one-time funding, but after a couple of years it's going to be directly out of the assessment base of the people of the city of Timmins."

I would say that's the argument of most mayors and councils out there. You hand those highways over, all it means to say is that it looks awful good on the books of the province of Ontario. Mr Palladini and Mr Wilson -- or I should say Mr Eves and Mr Harris -- can crow about how smart they are and how they've managed to reduce the expenditures of the Ministry of Transportation, but what really they've done is they have quite frankly offloaded their responsibilities from their level of government on to the municipal taxpayers.

What's going to happen? I would imagine after the next municipal election, municipalities across this province are going to get hit with municipal tax increases on the basis of not only this cut that you've done to municipalities but a number of other cuts that you've done. I say that's not the way that we need to work. If you guys are serious about trying to get your house in order, you need to sit down with your municipal partners and figure out how that's going to happen in some kind of equitable way.

You can't just offload it to the municipalities, then sit there and crow and say how smart you are that you've managed to balance your books, because you may have cleaned off your books but you've dirtied somebody else's quite significantly.

So I say to the member across the way, the resolution is not a bad one. We're asking the federal government to take its fair share. I applaud you; I think that is right. I only wish that the Conservatives in opposition under Mr Harris would have agreed with us when we were in government and were saying to the Chrétien and Mulroney governments that they weren't paying their fair share, that Harris would have come on side. It took him going into government to come up with this concept. I guess that says something about how long it takes him to figure out what's going on. Better late than never. We support you on that point.

On the question of designating taxes towards a specific function of the provincial government, I think that's a slippery slope, as I said before. You start designating taxes to specific services and I think a whole bunch of services that are crucial out there to many people will not get funding because it will not be politically saleable in some cases in this Legislature. I think women and other people out there would be the ones who would be negatively affected.

I thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to make comment on behalf of my party.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): To be very clear about something as the debate winds down and we go to the vote, the fact is that the backdrop for this debate is a debt of $100 billion for the province of Ontario, debt servicing costs annually in the order of $10 billion. Let's keep that in the background. We have a government that is committed to expenditure controls and a deliberate attempt to get a handle on the affairs of this province.

As it does that, it finds itself still committed to a number of expenditures that it must make, not least of which, as we've heard from the parliamentary assistant, are expenditures in the area of road repairs and maintenance in excess of anything spent by this province in the past six years. So we see good management; we're doing better with less. But at the same time we find ourselves being squeezed increasingly by the robber barons in Ottawa.

We find the Liberal Party taking more and more money from us and we find a federal minister standing yesterday in the House crowing about the new balance statements for the federal government without saying on whose back that new balance has been found.

Let me suggest that we find ourselves with a federal government that is taking more and more out of this province, and the $2-billion theft from the taxpayers of Ontario is only a small part of that dollar that's flowing out to Ottawa and no money coming back in for the taxpayers of Ontario. Let me suggest that $2 billion goes out of Ontario and nothing comes back in. No, perhaps I'm a little wrong. I remember that the Honourable Art Eggleton did turn up in Toronto a few days ago and offered a couple of million dollars for the TTC subway. Now, that's not bad out of $2 billion to give back to the people of Ontario. Frankly, I find that an insult.

More than that, we find all kinds of money being taken out of the provincial economy as we find ways to restructure the welfare rolls. The federal government pays 50 cents of every dollar paid and yet we've heard nothing from the finance minister of what has happened to that 50 cents or the millions and millions of dollars the federal government has saved in that area. So we find in that area alone more savings that allow Mr Martin to crow about a new balance statement, but on the backs of the Ontario taxpayers, and frankly that has to stop. The gasoline tax alone: 10 cents of every litre flowing to Ottawa, nothing flowing back into Ontario. That has to stop.

We talked about downloading. My good friend from Cochrane talks about downloading. He knows as well as I know: $3.7 billion cut by the federal government to Ontario in transfer payments. Can we really put up with that?

Mr Colle: Whine, whine, whine.

Mr Shea: My colleague, the apologist for the Liberal government in Ottawa who represents the riding of Oakwood, suggests that we're whining, suggests that's the same kind of a phrase the owner of the poorhouse used to poor Oliver Twist when he said, "Please, sir, may I have more porridge?" The fact is, I think it's a shameful thing that he would even say that in this House.

The Ontario taxpayers have a right to be treated better than they're being treated now, and this motion at least begins to try to address that imbalance.

Mr Hudak: Thanks to my colleague from High Park-Swansea: an excellent endorsement of my resolution. Thanks also to the member for Cochrane South for his constructive comments, and I anticipate that he will be supporting the resolution as well.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how the transportation critic from Oakwood feels about this issue. From time to time here in the back benches we like to muse about the parties opposite, who's running for the leadership and that sort of thing. Some of us thought the member for Oakwood might possibly run for the leadership. From the transportation critic's point of view, he's a hardworking member with some experience in the Metro area. He's a good-looking guy. He looks good on camera, very pleasant, and some very strong policies on transportation, some very strong transportation policies like the squeegee issue. So you certainly see a lot of leadership in that area.

But we truly see where he stands in the provincial scene with that stalwart defence of the federal government. He doesn't want the federal government to help out in transportation. He doesn't want them to participate. In fact, the federal government was way more receptive to this idea on Monday than the member opposite. It's not part of his strategy. Perhaps the reason he's objecting to this resolution is because maybe he wants to run federally next time. He doesn't want to help out in Ontario, obviously; he wants to help out in Ottawa.

I'm more optimistic than the member opposite. I think the federal government, in the context of the infrastructure program, is very much in tune with this issue. I would anticipate and I look for the support of my members in Niagara, like John Maloney, the hardworking MP for the riding of Erie, who I think shows a bit more sense, a bit more commitment to this issue than the transportation critic opposite. I think in the context of the federal infrastructure program this is the best use of the money. City halls and lawn bowling courts and such are one thing. They maybe create some short-term jobs, they're good for the community culturally, but they don't create long-term jobs.

In terms of putting money into highways for a smoother, seamless transportation system for tourism and trade, that's long-term job creation. That's what this government was elected for, long-term job creation. To ask for just 20% of what the feds currently take out of Ontario motorists' pockets to be put back into the national highway system is not asking for a lot. In fact, from Ontario's point of view, the transportation critic said $1 billion is coming in. He's the transportation critic and I'll take his word that he knows his figures as transportation critic.

MTO's budget, as the hardworking PA Jerry Ouellette said, is $2 billion. So we're way past that. I'm just asking for two pennies out of the 10 cents they take out of the fuel tax for long-term job creation in Canada, in Ontario, and most importantly in the Niagara Peninsula.

The hardworking member for Brantford, Mr Ron Johnson, I know is trying to help build the 403 to his city. I'm visiting there tonight. I'm looking forward to it and I know he's going to back me on the bill as well.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Hudak has moved private member's resolution number 26. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

It now being 12 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1204 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I wish to raise a very serious issue of the Parkdale Beach Child Care Centre. The Toronto Board of Education is in the process of replacing or renovating four elementary schools: Island Public School/Island Outdoor Natural Science School, Lord Dufferin Public School, Eglinton Junior Public School, Spectrum Alternative Senior School and the Queen Victoria Public School.

Budgets approved for school renovations do not include financing to replace the space currently being used for the school-based child care centres. The Toronto Board of Education does not have the financial capacity or the authority in policy to fund the child care facilities. If no funds are found, 214 child care spaces may be eliminated in these schools.

In the past, when new replacement schools were constructed to include child care, financing for these child care facilities came from other sources, in almost all cases from the province of Ontario. These child care centres have requested funding from the province. However, the response by the Minister of Community and Social Services is, "My ministry will no longer provide funding for child care centres in new schools."

Two days ago I attended a briefing session at Queen Victoria Junior Public School and I saw how the Parkdale Beach Child Care Centre cares for the children. With a school enrolment currently at 850, we expect that these children will have a future.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): The city of London and the community around it have been concerned for a number of years about PCBs in our community. Today I have both good news and bad news for this Legislature in terms of the cleanup of those PCBs. The good news is that London Hydro has just about cleaned up all the PCBs they were responsible for, and that was about two thirds of the PCBs that were being stored within the confines of London and city.

It's extremely important for us to understand that this involved a $5-million commitment, and the last contracts in that $5-million allocation have now been awarded and we can expect that the process with London Hydro will be completed. But our city still has one third of the PCBs that were stored in our confines there.

I call today upon this Legislature, particularly upon the Minister of Environment to use his influence and to use the facilities that the province has, to encourage the governments at all three levels to push for the elimination of PCBs that are stored within London. We still have health concerns around the numbers that are still there, and it needs the political will of the provincial government as well as the municipal and federal levels to accomplish a cleanup.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I rise today to congratulate the boards of directors of two hospitals in Chatham, the Public General and St Joseph's, for following up on a recent decision to form the Chatham-Kent Health Alliance. The two boards have now unanimously agreed to pursue the preferred option recommended by their consultant to close one facility and merge all services at one location. As with most communities, the people of Chatham are struggling to maintain two facilities, each operating at a fraction of its bed capacity.

This decision will see the historical integrity of the two 100-year-old institutions maintained while hospital-based health care moves forward with an affordable, efficient model. The process will take three years to complete and the estimated savings are 11 million taxpayer dollars per year.

It should be noted that the Kent County Medical Society is in strong support of the plan to consolidate hospital-based services.

The board members of the hospitals have recognized the need for change and have made a very difficult decision.

I invite all my colleagues to please join me in congratulating the people of Chatham and Kent county for their wisdom and foresight.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): All of us in Thunder Bay are still reeling from the decision handed down by the Health Services Restructuring Commission last week. Many of us believe that what the commission and the Minister of Health have ordered us to accept is, and will be, woefully inadequate in the years to come.

On top of the decision to cut our beds in half and to close three of our hospitals, another shocking decision was made by the minister, rather quietly, may I say, which dramatically affects the capital funding area.

On June 27, the very day the commission brought down its initial report in Thunder Bay, the minister decided to slash the provincial contribution for capital funding from two thirds to 50%. What that means in Thunder Bay terms is that not only is the minister imposing a decision on us that may not nearly meet our health care needs in Thunder Bay and that doesn't respond to the clear wishes of our community, but now we're expected to find $45 million of our own money to implement this order, with no regard for whether or not we can, as a community, raise those funds.

We now learn that the minister and the cabinet are talking about how to deal with the funding issues. Well, they certainly should. When you remove a net amount of $31 million annually from a community for its health care and then you tell the community that they must also raise $45 million to build what may be inadequate facilities, you are no longer operating in a just or democratic fashion.

The Minister of Health must change his decision on capital funding, not just to its previous level, but a level that would allow us to ensure that whatever funds we can raise on our own will guarantee us the health care services we need and are entitled to.

ST ALBAN'S BOYS' AND GIRLS' CLUB

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm delighted today to pay tribute to two young women who are active at St Alban's Boys' and Girls' Club in my riding who are among the recipients this year of the scholarships established through the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario.

The first recipient is Paulina Arruda, who has volunteered at St Alban's for five years in programs like summer camp, children's services, administration, and recently she obtained a part-time receptionist position. Paulina has applied to a three-year business administration co-op program at Humber College where she hopes to become an administrative assistant.

As part of her other involvement with the club, she serves as a liaison person to the Christie-Ossington community centre as well as being the editor and graphic designer of St Alban's quarterly newspaper.

She has demonstrated tremendous organizational abilities by organizing a picnic for 700 and a Spook-tacular Halloween event that boasted 200 children.

The second recipient is Rosaria Zompanti, who is continuing in accounting at Brock University. As part of her involvement with St Alban's club she has volunteered extensively for five years. She's been the president of the Keystone Club, a youth representative on the board of directors and a supervisor of the games room. Presently, at the Niagara Club she spends Monday evenings helping out with the bingo for the Niagara Keystone Club while attending university full-time.

Academically, Rosaria has taken

part in the volunteer tax clinic, which helped other students file their taxes free of charge. She was also a Brock business ambassador to local high schools.

To them, my congratulations as well.

OKTOBERFEST

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): I would like to inform all members of the House and the people of Ontario that starting this Friday, tomorrow, at noonhour is the official keg tapping at the beautiful downtown city of Kitchener city hall and it will conclude the following Saturday. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the annual Kitchener-Waterloo Oktoberfest celebration.

Every year, over a million visitors converge on Kitchener-Waterloo to enjoy the sights and sounds of the world's second-largest Bavarian festival. Oktoberfest has been a tradition in the K-W area for over 28 years and contributes millions of dollars to the local economy and to the various charities.

I encourage everyone to experience this traditional festival in Kitchener-Waterloo. "Das Oktoberfest ist wunderbar," as we say in Kitchener-Waterloo; "Gemütlichkeit," which is "hospitality."

HOSPITAL SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Health an issue with regard to hospital CEOs, mergers and payouts in the region of Hamilton-Wentworth. As a result of the merger between Chedoke-McMaster and Hamilton Civic, there's been a $1.3-million severance package given to two CEOs over the last couple of months.

The Hamilton Civic Hospitals had the courtesy to do it openly and to publicly reveal the information. The Chedoke-McMaster board chose not to. As a result, a severance package of almost $1 million to a CEO had to be leaked and given out in bits and pieces.

Minister, at a time of fiscal restraint, at a time of cutbacks, at a time of hospital closures, a $1-million severance package is obscene. It is gross. It is disgraceful behaviour by a responsible board.

The time has come for you to act. This is going to continue to happen across Ontario. I am asking the minister today to amend the Public Disclosures Act to ensure that any severance package in excess of $100,000 is publicly revealed when it is given. Secondly, I am asking the minister to ensure that there is a cap placed on severance packages, that they cannot equal more than one year's salary of the CEO.

If we're willing to put a cap on doctors' salaries, if we're willing to cap service across Ontario, Minister, you must be willing to cap these outrageous settlements that are happening across Ontario. I ask the minister to act now because this is critical not only for Hamilton but for the province. If you fail to do that, I will bring in a private member's bill to hopefully bring that along.

LABOUR DISPUTES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I want to address my remarks to all those who might be watching today who care at all about the environment, child care, seniors, health care, housing, education or jobs.

I particularly want to address those who are non-union workers. I want to draw their attention to the strike that's taking place right now with tens of thousands of workers between the Canadian Auto Workers and General Motors, and also Steelworkers who are on strike with S.A. Armstrong, as examples of the kinds of people who are out on the forefront of taking this government on.

The labour movement is far from perfect and they never pretend to be, but in terms of fighting for things that matter in this province and putting it on the line and being out there for things like the environment and housing and children and women's rights, the labour movement is lock-step in partnership with everybody who cares about those issues.

It's now time for the other partners out there to recognize that these strikes need to be supported. If this government, in partnership and in cahoots with General Motors -- because you're all buddies coming from the same direction -- can take on the CAW and take on the Steelworkers, what chance have you got out there on your own? Be very, very clear. If we don't hang together, surely this government will hang us all separately.

MEMBER FOR OTTAWA CENTRE

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I was astonished, as the member for Ottawa Centre can appreciate, by his attempt to demonstrate some political acumen here yesterday with the help of a 17-year-old student from my riding. The member waved around a video produced by the student from Carleton Place High School depicting the alleged disrepair of that building.

I spoke to the director of education in Lanark county and I gathered two things about what the member did. One, the member for Ottawa Centre has less than a passing acquaintance with the facts of my riding. That video was filmed before the roof was installed. Second, he is more interested in scoring political points by using students from another riding than he is concerned about improving education.

This tactic is unbecoming of colleagues of this House. The member, some school principals and some students are buying into a fearmongering campaign by the teachers' union, which will use anyone or any means to defend the status quo. The status quo will not work. As stated by the minister, we will lift the freeze on capital projects in a way that makes the best possible use of taxpayers' dollars.

SPECIAL REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table a special report from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO-QUEBEC CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AGREEMENT

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I'm pleased to inform members of the Legislature that earlier today, in a speech to the Ottawa Construction Association, my colleague the Minister of Labour, the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, announced that an agreement in principle was reached last night with the government of Quebec on construction mobility between our two provinces.

This government believes that open borders, free trade and the unimpeded flow of labour, goods and services are vital to the economic growth of this province and the rest of Canada. Ontario's goal throughout these long and difficult negotiations has been to achieve a more level playing field for Ontario contractors and workers, meaning faster, easier and equal access to construction work in Quebec. We have been committed to doing this by removing the major obstacles to access as identified by those in the construction industry. I am pleased to say that we have achieved our objective.

Under the agreement Quebec will permanently exempt qualified Ontario contractors from Quebec exams and provide them with building contractors' licences within 24 hours of application so they may bid immediately on Quebec projects; eliminate the need for Ontario workers to obtain duplicate certification in Quebec; grant face-value recognition of Ontario's certificates of qualification and apprentice ID cards; and give broader recognition to workers with certificates of apprenticeship and provisional certificates. The Quebec government has agreed to put the necessary legislation in place this fall and is firmly committed to full implementation of the agreement by the end of the year.

I'd like to acknowledge the leadership of Premier Harris in pressing this issue with the government of Quebec during his meeting with Premier Bouchard this past May. We are grateful for the cooperation of Premier Bouchard and the Quebec Minister of Labour, M. Rioux, in working with us to resolve these issues. The support and active involvement of the MPPs from eastern Ontario has been invaluable in setting the ground work for the agreement and I thank them for their efforts. I congratulate Minister Witmer on her achievement this past week and I am sure all members of the Legislature will join me in this acknowledgement.

We have all shared the frustrations and concerns of the construction workers and contractors of Ontario, who will now have greatly improved access to work in Quebec. True labour mobility between Ontario and Quebec will lead to a healthier construction industry and a stronger economy on both sides of the border.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On behalf of my colleagues, I want to respond to Ms Cunningham's statement on behalf of the government with respect to interprovincial labour mobility between Ontario and Quebec. We have, apparently, an agreement in principle. Obviously my colleagues and I will look very carefully at what this agreement in principle produces on the ground, because I must say we have been here before. We have had agreements in principle before. My friend the former minister, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, might want to comment about that.

We have an agreement in principle that is apparently going to ameliorate some of the extraordinary irritants that exist in my part of eastern Ontario and elsewhere across the Ontario-Quebec frontier. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate not just the minister and her colleagues in council, but particularly my colleague Jean-Marc Lalonde, the member for Prescott and Russell, for his leadership in this assembly over the last few months in bringing the concerns to the government and to the assembly at large. Mr Lalonde is today in his home county.

I have spoken to him and he tells me that this agreement in principle still leaves a lot of unresolved business. His first reflection suggests that, for example, this agreement in principle is still going to mean that Ontario workers, in doing business in Quebec, are apparently going to have to belong to a Quebec trade union or worker association. That apparently is not going to be a reciprocal condition on Quebec workers in Ontario.

I want to say that the proof of this agreement will be in the eating of the pudding. We will all applaud progress. It is a scandal for our Canadian federation that we've got these kinds of interprovincial barriers to trade and the mobility of our labour force. As a Canadian living in Ontario, I want to believe that to the greatest extent possible there is going to be the free movement of capital and labour across all aspects of the Dominion. We have not had that in our part of eastern Ontario and northeastern Ontario.

The situation, notwithstanding the good work and the good intentions of the Rae-Lankin agreement of two years ago, did not improve. My colleagues from the east and from elsewhere in the region, and that includes northeastern Ontario, are hopeful that this recalcitrance from our friends in Quebec is going to change, not just in word but in agreement in principle, because it didn't change the last time.

I repeat that my colleague Mr Lalonde is not able to be here today, because like the Minister of Labour he too is in the national capital region. His initial response is that this is not as much progress as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would have us believe. Any progress, and I want to be fair, is going to be appreciated, but in the current environment we have been told, and it has been told to me by several people, that Quebec contractors are manipulating the Ontario retail sales to their particular advantage on Ontario government contracts in communities like Hawkesbury and Ottawa and Gloucester and Mattawa and Tri-town. I'm fully expecting that this is going to change.

We will see what we shall see. I applaud particularly my colleague Mr Lalonde for the excellent work he has done and continues to do, and his vigilance will continue with this agreement in principle.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I say on behalf of our party that we're pleased when progress is made on this issue. We're pleased to see the issue becoming more clearly defined and steps being taken to build on the agreement that was in place.

But I found it passing strange -- well, perhaps that's not true; I found it quite typical of this government -- to hear a good-news announcement in which they congratulated their minister, their Premier and their eastern Ontario members and made no reference to the fact that the first ground-breaking agreement that started this process, on which they are building, was conducted by the previous government. From my own point of view, I felt a little disappointed personally because I played a fairly meaningful role in making progress on this issue, with the help of the current Minister of Environment and Energy.

I think we worked very effectively on behalf of the residents of eastern Ontario.

The agreement that was arrived at by the previous government had three or four areas, which you see listed here, in which ongoing work was to begin. What I think is a shame is that we're a year and a half into the mandate of this new government and it is only now -- and I'll give credit to the Minister of Labour since she's taken a hold of this file -- that we've seen progress and seen new agreements being arrived at. Unfortunately, the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism has dropped the ball completely with respect to the issue of internal trade and interprovincial trade.

It is a shame because there are issues beyond Quebec and Ontario that need to be dealt with in this Dominion, issues that relate to the free movement of goods and labour and service, and there is progress yet to be made there.

It's been very clear from the editorials and from the comments of writers like Shawn McCarthy in the Toronto Star that the federal government places the blame for the lack of progress in interprovincial trade agreements squarely on the shoulders of the current Ontario Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism and his lack of interest in that particular part of his portfolio.

May I say, with respect to this particular agreement, there are questions I have outstanding and that I think that the people of eastern Ontario should have with respect to what we're actually hearing here today. The question of membership in trade unions, membership in Ontario versus membership in Quebec, is still a very big unresolved issue. I don't see it answered here. It was one of the remaining issues to be negotiated, and it appears that progress hasn't been made on that.

With respect to health and safety certification, we see trade certification and we see apprenticeship mentioned in these achievements, but what about the health and safety certification requirements that Quebec has and was insisting on placing on Ontario workers coming across the border? It's not referred to here. If that's still in place, that's a barrier, and a barrier which will prevent Ontario workers from crossing the border.

One of the things that gives me the most cause for concern is the last bullet point, which says the agreement gives "broader recognition to workers with certificates of apprenticeship and provisional certificates." In fact, we were far down the road in having equivalency recognized for trades and trade certificates; the large area of disagreement was with respect to what Quebec refers to in the Ontario workforce as the unskilled worker, the unskilled labourer, which is by far the vast majority of the Ontario workers on construction sites by Quebec standards.

If that issue hasn't been dealt with, again Ontario contractors and Ontario workers will not be able to meet the requirements of Quebec and will not be able to bid on those jobs. That's a very important issue, and it is not addressed here.

We see nothing in terms of progress on the issue of Quebec regions and access to what regions. I think we made significant progress on that. Perhaps this government has in fact accepted the work that the previous government had done and feels there is no need to improve upon that. It would have been nice to have that reflected in the minister's statement. It would be nice to know what their opinion is on that, the issue of Quebec regions and what regions Ontario contractors and workers have access to, because you know there are no regions in Ontario. We have a free open market in which Quebec is able to bid on jobs. I'd like an answer to that as well.

In closing, let me just say that the outstanding issues with respect to Quebec-Ontario remain very important. We need clarity on them. I congratulate the government if progress has indeed been made. If there are outstanding issues, I'd like a report of that so we can monitor the effect of this for the construction industry, those contractors and workers in Quebec.

May I say to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, get on with it with respect to the interprovincial trade negotiations. It is crucial to this country's economy. It is crucial to fair play for Ontario employers and Ontario workers and Ontario contractors that they have access to those other markets as they have access to Ontario.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'll stand before the House to comment on the question put by the member for Dovercourt yesterday. I spent some time reviewing the previous decisions and the standing orders of the Legislature. The matter was dealt with at committee yesterday, or the day before, now. The matter that was raised by the member for Dovercourt is one which falls within the authority of the government agencies committee.

The Speaker does not intervene in a matter that is before a duly constituted standing or select committee unless that matter is appealed to the Speaker by a majority of members of the committee. It's very straightforward and very simple. Further to that, the position of the Chair of all standing committees duly constituted would be untenable if members could come to this House and appeal decisions made by the Chair.

As I said yesterday, I listened carefully, I reviewed the situation, and to the member for Dovercourt and the House, there is clear delineation in the standing orders that the Chair's decisions stand unless a majority of members wish to have it appealed to the Legislature. I don't see that majority; therefore, I cannot hear it.

CORRECTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise to correct the record of my comments as they appear in Hansard on October 8 on page 4407. It's with respect to a question placed to the Minister of Community and Social Services on child care centres. The statement refers to $40 million in capital budgets in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, $10.5 million in the Ministry of Education and Training, both of which have been cut.

I said, "That was a $50-million budget line between the two ministries that's been cut to $83,000." It appears in Hansard as "$15 million." I'd like to correct that to $50 million. It appears at two different places within the question.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. It's noted and will stand corrected.

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): My question is for the Solicitor General. For the past three days we have heard the Premier, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations deny any knowledge of the secret report on organized crime and gambling. The Solicitor General refused to release the report, claiming that he knew nothing about it and hadn't even read it. Today we learn in an

article by Richard Brennan in the Windsor Star that the Premier's office was given a briefing on the secret report. Will you admit that your government was briefed on this report in the spring of this year? Will you admit that the Premier knew about this report and that you knew about this report?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The answer is clearly no, the Premier was not given a briefing. There was an article, I gather, in the Windsor Star. A one-page issue note outlining the general concerns of policing was provided to the Premier's office. But I have not seen the report. It would be inappropriate for me or any member of government to see the report. As I indicated earlier, this is an internal policing document, an intelligence report which was circulated within the policing community.

Mr Cordiano: It seems to me that the minister and the Premier have stretched this orchestrated charade of plausible denial beyond any sense of credibility. We're calling on the Solicitor General to come clean.

I have in my possession a copy of the briefing note that was prepared by the police officer -- here it is -- and the ministry and given to the Premier's office. I want to note the date of this briefing note, March 18, 1996. The briefing note says very clearly, "The analysis shows that illegal gambling flourishes in Ontario and there is potential for abuse in the legal gaming sector." Will the Solicitor General tell this House when he received a copy of this report? When did he receive a copy of the briefing note on this report?

Hon Mr Runciman: This is bordering on the ridiculous with respect to the opposition's position on this. Chief Fantino, who's the chair of the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario, said last night: "The report was never intended for political or public consumption.

It is an operational report." This is Chief Fantino of the city of London police service: "It is an operational report" -- think about that word "operational" -- "not a political report." Also, my ministry, at my request, provided a legal opinion and indicated that if the Solicitor General was to read a CISO intelligence report, that could raise a perception of and concern about the Solicitor General's interference in policing matters.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Nonsense.

Hon Mr Runciman: Do you want to listen to this? "We are not aware of any Solicitor General ever requesting or reviewing such an intelligence report."

Mr Cordiano: What nonsense, total and utter nonsense. Let's call this what this is: This is nothing but a coverup. It's a concealment of fact. You attempt to deny that there was ever a report, you attempt to deny that you ever got a briefing note and you do not want to share this with the rest of us. You expect this House to believe that neither you nor the Premier nor anyone in his office ever knew of the contents of this report. I cannot believe that the minister would stand up here today and hope that we would understand that he didn't have the contents of this report. How could he stand up today? How could he think that we're going to believe him today?

Hon Mr Runciman: I can say that, apparently unlike the Liberals of the past, this government believes in playing by the rules, and the rules are that we do not interfere in the operational matters of police. We do not stick our nose into private intelligence reports that are supposed to remain within the policing community. We don't want to know who the police are targeting. We don't want to know those kinds of things because they are not within the purview of the political arm.

There's that separation between policing and the government, as I've indicated in this House on a number of occasions when they accuse us, they accuse me, they accuse the government of interfering in operational matters. We hear this on a regular basis. Now they're saying, "Interfere." They should get their house in order. We're playing by the rules.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, the member for Lawrence.

Mr Cordiano: This is incredible. The Premier, the minister and their government have had --

The Speaker: Who is your question to?

Mr Cordiano: It's to the same minister. They've had in their possession since the spring a police report linking organized crime to legalized gambling. Are you so desperate to fund your tax cut that you would ignore the police report and cover up the fact that you've even seen it? How could you possibly do this to the people of this province?

Hon Mr Runciman: As I understand it from the press reports, this study was commissioned when the former government, the NDP government, was moving towards a casino in Windsor. The concerns were related to the infiltration of organized crime into casino gambling. I think that was primarily the focus. I'm basing this on press reports. We know that despite a report commissioned by the now leader of the NDP which in effect substantiated those concerns or agreed with those kinds of concerns, the NDP went ahead. They indicated to us at the time that they were taking the appropriate steps to ensure that organized crime would not be allowed to infiltrate casino gambling in this province.

We've indicated quite clearly, when the policing community has expressed concerns related to VLTs or whatever other operation with respect to organized gambling, that we would put in the necessary resources. The Treasurer is quoted as saying -- this is from an Ottawa Citizen story of May 9 -- "As soon as government-approved machines are in place at racetracks and charity casinos, police will be given more resources to hunt for illegal machines." Our position is quite clear.

Mr Cordiano: Total nonsense. The report -- and I want to quote from it again -- clearly indicates, "Legalized gambling has never replaced illegal gambling, which has increased with interest shown in bookies and wagering on sporting events, video gambling machines and gaming houses." That is what your report says. That's what's in the briefing note. How can you possibly move forward with the introduction of 20,000 slot machines? How can you ignore the reports that are warning you of the infiltration of organized crime into the province? You're the top cop of this province.

Is it your belief that as long as the government gets its take from gambling you will be prepared to look the other way on organized crime? That's what you're doing.

Hon Mr Runciman: That's really not worthy of a response. Essentially, the policing community has indicated to us, as it indicated to the previous government, that going into this area would perhaps, based on some other jurisdictions, open opportunities for organized crime. The previous government indicated that it was undertaking initiatives to ensure that didn't occur. We have indicated to the policing community as well that we are going to devote the necessary resources to ensure that this doesn't happen.

Plus, unlike the previous government, we are also going to devote the resources to go after all of the illegal machines in this province, estimated to be about 25,000 illegal machines operating in the province under the two previous governments, and we are going to take action against them.

Mr Cordiano: One questions the competence of this minister after an answer like that. The report, which I have right in front of me, clearly indicates there is a danger of organized crime infiltrating legalized gambling.

The Windsor Star reports that you ordered the OPP commissioner "to carry out an investigation to get to the bottom of the breach of confidentiality." You're more interested in damage control than in fighting organized crime. That's what you've said today. Will the minister now come clean and admit that you made a mistake in deceiving this House, admit that the report you've had since the spring --

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): That's unparliamentary.

Mr Cordiano: That's what the minister has done.

The Speaker: Accusing the --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): But he did. That's exactly what --

The Speaker: Please, the member for Oriole. You cannot accuse a minister of deceiving the House. I ask the member to withdraw.

Mr Cordiano: I withdraw, Mr Speaker, and I will say that the minister has contradicted himself, at the very least. Admit that you had the report this spring --

The Speaker: Come up with a question, please.

Mr Cordiano: -- and that you made a mistake in keeping it from this House. Minister, will you come to your senses and withdraw your video slot machine bill?

Hon Mr Runciman: I've indicated that I did not have the report. This is an internal policing document. I don't know how many times I have to say that.

With respect to the other allegation the member made, that I ordered some police investigation, that's a complete fabrication, a complete, utter fabrication. I did in no way order a police investigation. As I understand it, Chief Fantino, and I believe quite rightfully, has indicated his concerns about an internal operational intelligence document within the policing community being leaked to the media, and he has asked the OPP to investigate how that occurred. That's quite justifiable. But to suggest that I have somehow interfered is a complete and utter fabrication.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also for the Solicitor General and minister of corrections and, surprise, surprise, Speaker, I too have a briefing note. It seems that the opposition is now able to get their hands on briefing notes but the minister denies that they either exist or that they're important.

I want to ask the minister this. This briefing note was prepared on March 15. It was obviously prepared in response to an

article that appeared in the London Free Press the day before. The March 14, 1996, London Free Press quoted from the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario document stating, and this is what the report states: "Until the government provides meaningful enforcement, legal gaming will continue under a façade of honesty and integrity. There seems to be an acceptance that gambling is not a problem."

The Speaker: The question, please.

Mr Hampton: You said you didn't read this report, despite the fact that this briefing note was in your hands. So when these issues are raised even in the briefing note --

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Hampton: -- did you not read the report? Did you not ask for the report because you didn't think it's important, because you don't think this issue matters? Why didn't you ask for the report?

The Speaker: The question's been asked.

Hon Mr Runciman: No. The opposition can't have it both ways. I've said this on a number of occasions. They want to criticize me, they want to criticize the government, if there's any perception of interference in operational matters. I've just been accused here today of directing the OPP to conduct an investigation, which is a complete falsehood. Now they're saying, "Why don't you get your fingers into the pie?"

The Speaker: Order. I ask the Solicitor General to withdraw that, accusing them of falsehoods. That again is out of order.

Hon Mr Runciman: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. The point I'm trying to make is that this is clearly an operational matter and I am not and no Solicitor General in the past, I've been advised, has ever requested or gained access to these confidential intelligence reports provided through the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario. These are not government reports. There was a news report. We asked for a

summary of the concerns. They were provided to the government and provided to the Premier's office. That is the end of it.

Mr Hampton: This is incredible. The briefing note raises a number of issues. The briefing note itself says, "The purpose of the report is to identify the areas within the gaming industry that are susceptible to abuse by organized crime." Then it lists some of them, and it lists video gambling machines, something the government of the day is considering. This minister, the Solicitor General, says, "Well, I'm not going to look at it." He says it would be improper.

Duncan Brown, the executive director of the Gaming Control Commission, took it upon himself to request a copy of the report and was in fact allowed to read it. And get this. This is Duncan Brown. This person is acting responsibly. He says he needed to know the contents of the report in order to respond to questions and concerns. He was going to be responsible.

Minister, how do you explain this? The report is available to the executive director of the gaming commission. He cares about this issue. He cares about the infiltration of organized crime into video lottery terminals. He read the report, he had access to it, and you want to say, "Oh, I can't read this report." How do you explain that?

Hon Mr Runciman: It's always dangerous to make assumptions, but I would assume that the director of the gaming commission would have law officer, peace officer status so that it is appropriate, I would think, given the mandate of the gaming commission, to have access to this kind of document. It would seem to me that that would be most appropriate. It is totally inappropriate --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Solicitor General.

Hon Mr Runciman: I think it's quite appropriate that that individual would have access to that kind of information, but totally inappropriate for a politician and member of government.

I'll once again say it. Chief Julian Fantino, who's the head of Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario, says this was an internal document, a confidential document, never intended to be released to the government.

Mrs Caplan: You're the minister. You're responsible.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Oriole, come to order.

Hon Mr Runciman: That's the head of the Criminal Intelligence Service saying it was a document never intended to be released to government.

Mr Hampton: The Solicitor General wants to confuse the public and hopes that by doing that, he can slide by.

What was under consideration by the government was a policy decision, a policy decision whether or not to proceed with video slot machines, not a decision about whether to prosecute, not a decision about whether or not to investigate an individual. It would have been perfectly acceptable for this minister to ask for names and dates to be excluded from the report, to receive that report for the purposes of the policy consideration, to then take that and provide advice to his other cabinet colleagues. This minister has been derelict in his duties. That is the long and the short of it.

But let me ask the final question. Solicitor General, since the briefing note itself raises serious issues, did you notify your cabinet colleagues of the affiliation of organized crime and gambling in Ontario and did you caution them on the introduction of video slot machines to Ontario? Did you do that?

Hon Mr Runciman: I suppose I could ask the member when he commissioned a report if he put it into his --

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): No, we rejected VLTs.

Hon Mr Runciman: No, that was talking about casino gambling, if memory --

The Speaker: The member for Algoma, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Runciman: I have the opportunity to meet with Chief Fantino on a fairly regular basis to talk about policing concerns across the province and certainly the chief has indicated to me on a number of occasions that his concern primarily is that we devote adequate resources to deal with this, not only the challenges with respect to legalization of VLTs but that we can focus as well on all of the illegal machines that have been operating in this province for some time, which that government refused to take action against, did not do anything about. We are going to do something about it.

The Treasurer has indicated that once we move on the VLT question and the legislation is passed, we are going to devote additional resources to this area so that we can deal with it in a meaningful way.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Well, Speaker --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Your question is to?

Mr Hampton: Actually my question is to the Minister of Health. We'll see if we can get some answers from him.

Minister, today, October 10, the Ontario Medical Association has released a press notice whose headline is, "Government Underfunding Threatens to Further Reduce Access to Quality Medical Care for Patients." In this release they say, "Ontario's 10,000 general practitioners and family doctors say they are being compelled to further adjust their practices in response to continued government underfunding of medical services. The doctors say they may be forced to stop accepting new, non-emergency patients on November 1, 1996." The doctors are very specific. They say that your underfunding of health care is stopping them from accepting new non-emergency patients.

Minister, what do you have to say in response to all those family physicians out there who are providing health care to Ontario citizens?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The honourable member is well aware that the Ontario Medical Association and the Ministry of Health are having negotiations at this time, with an eye to resolving some of the frustrations that doctors have in this province. Those frustrations go back 10 to 15 years and I would remind the honourable member that this government is not cutting health care; Ottawa is cutting health care by $2.1 billion over the next two years.

Mr Hampton: This is the Minister of Health for Ontario, and it's always been the case in Ontario that the Minister of Health took responsibility for the health care system. I didn't know suddenly that that had now passed to Ottawa. I don't think the doctors accept that, so let me try again. The doctors are saying, "While doctors are seeing a big increase in the number of patients, many of whom are older and require extra care, the government has frozen its funding for patient care at a level that's less than was spent four years ago." To me, that sounds like a cut.

I want to ask the minister again, what is your response to those 10,000 family physicians who provide important health care to the citizens of Ontario?

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member is terribly misinformed. The $3.8-billion cap on the fee-for-service component, we spend more than that on doctors in this province, and physician services; that's just the fee-for-service doctors in the province. That cap was put in place by law up till March 31 this year by the previous government, as a holdover from the social contract. Since that time, this government has acknowledged that yes, the population is getting older and it's growing, and we're negotiating with the doctors' association right now to address all of the issues, including the $3.8-billion issue, which is a figure that was imposed on the doctors by the previous government.

Mr Hampton: The social contract containment expired on March 31. We too have met with the OMA and the OMA is very clear that this minister has created the crisis; they're very clear that this minister has pressed down the cap more than ever before; they're very clear that this minister, through his irrational measures and unrealistic measures in Bill 26 in terms of funding medical services, in terms of refusing to recognize growing populations, in terms of his refusal to recognize an aging population, is the source of the problem.

Minister, this is what the doctors say, what the OMA says. They say, "We recommend that as of November 1, 1996, Ontario's family doctors stop seeing new non-emergency patients as a further adjustment to the government's underfunding of health care."

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Hampton: They're very clear. So I want to ask you again, what is your answer to those family physicians, who provide health care for the citizens of Ontario? What are you going to do to address their concerns about a growing population and about a population that is growing older and therefore uses more health care services? What is your response?

Hon Mr Wilson: This government has invested significantly in doctors' services since coming to office. We brought in the $70-an-hour on-call emergency fee which is keeping 70 emergency rooms open, and that's direct dollars to doctors to allow them to work in emergency during the low-volume times of the day and night. We've introduced direct contracts for 21 communities, with significant salaries and benefits. We've converted a number of doctors in the province from fee for service to an APP, an alternative payment plan. We've invested in cardiac services and dialysis, reducing waiting lists.

Doctors say, "I don't benefit directly from those investments." They do, because it reduces utilization. People aren't using hospital beds unnecessarily when they can get into dialysis right away, when they can have their heart surgeries as quickly as possible. That cuts down utilization, that helps doctors and that helps with pressures on the $3.8 billion fee-for-service pool.

This government's record is better than any government's in the last 10 years. We're paying the doctors' malpractice insurance, and we've had Justice Dubin, along with the federal government and the malpractice insurance association, doing an investigation on that. So we've made significant headway on doctors' issues and we intend to make more headway through the negotiating process.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I would like to return to the Solicitor General. What we know today is that in March of this year you were informed through this briefing note of this criminal intelligence report. That should have alerted you, by reading this, that there is grave danger in this province with the proliferation of gambling activities. This was occurring at the same time a bill was being developed by your government that was introduced in June of this year -- so simultaneously this was being developed; you knew about that -- that would start to expand VLTs right across this province in uncontrolled environments.

Minister, why would you not, upon reading this, have had alarm bells go off in your mind and said: "Hey, we might have a problem here. I'd like to see this report and just see how bad a problem it is and what I maybe need to do about it if we're going to do this VLT thing." Why weren't you on the job and doing your job and asking for this report so that you could bring proper law enforcement to gambling in this province?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I indicated earlier in response to a question of the same nature that it would have been an unprecedented request by a Solicitor General to request a personal review of an intelligence report developed for the policing community, unprecedented and perceived as interference in operational policing matters. I indicated --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Runciman: They simply do not want to hear this answer, Mr Speaker. But I do meet with Chief Fantino and we speak on the phone on a number of occasions. If he felt that I did not have adequate information or that the government did not have adequate information with respect to this, he would have advised me. His indication has been all along --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, please.

Hon Mr Runciman: -- urging the government to ensure that adequate resources go into policing this and dealing with illegal gambling in a more effective manner than has been the case in the past. We have given him those assurances; I have, as has the Treasurer.

Mr Ramsay: Minister, you're about the only person in this province who doesn't care to read this report. We're all very concerned about this. I always thought that when you are in government and you're there to design public policy, you want to gather all the pertinent information to make sure that it's good public policy, that it's beneficial to the people of the province.

You knew there were some concerns about this and you decided to ignore it, just like you ignored the alleged beatings of young offenders. Every time there's been a problem in your ministry, it's either you didn't care to know, you didn't want to know, you just didn't know. You're not doing your job. It's not interfering to design good public policy, to take all the very best information you have so that when you bring forward public policy, it's for the benefit of everybody here.

Minister, you just don't get it. Introducing VLTs into restaurants and bars is the first time we've had a major proliferation of gambling machines outside a controlled environment.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Ramsay: They're controlled in the casinos, they're controlled in racetracks -- it's coming in -- but they're not going to be controlled any longer. Why don't you put the police resources in place to do a proper job, to make sure that gambling doesn't get into the wrong hands of people here in Ontario?

Hon Mr Runciman: We intend to do that and we've made those commitments. I can recite

chapter and verse --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Runciman: -- whether it deals with young offenders, whether it deals with ordering the OPP to conduct investigations, whether we're accused of ordering the OPP into all sorts of things, political interference, which they raise on a very regular basis, making those kinds of accusations, that this minister and this government are directing police services across this province, which is totally false and I've indicated that on numerous occasions.

Now, again, they're encouraging me, they're encouraging this government to get involved in operational matters, confidential reports within the policing community, and saying: "You should be getting into this. You should be interfering in operational matters of policing." Well, folks, you're not going to have it both ways. I am not going to get involved in operational matters of policing. This Solicitor General will not do it. I'm telling you that and that's the way it's going to stand.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is again for the Solicitor General. I want to quote from the briefing note which was prepared March 15, 1996, because it actually provides a

summary of the Criminal Intelligence Service report. This is what the

summary says. It says, "Analysis shows that illegal gambling flourishes in Ontario," and it also says, "Legalized gambling has never replaced illegal gambling, which has increased with interest shown in video gambling machines and gaming houses."

Solicitor General, when you saw that, didn't it jump out at you that your government strategy about bringing in VLTs might not work, that in fact legal gambling might not do anything to replace illegal gambling with VLTs? Did that not rise to your mind when you saw that in this briefing note?

Hon Mr Runciman: I've talked to police officers across the province with respect to VLTs, and they do have concerns. They are related to ensuring that adequate resources go into dealing with it.

With respect to the suggestion the leader of the third party is making that this will encourage a further proliferation of illegal gambling, there is a difference of opinion within the policing community on that issue as well. I indicated yesterday that a former deputy commissioner of the OPP has quite the opposite view with respect to this matter and indicates that this will in fact allow the government to have a real impact on removing illegal machines from the province of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: Once again the Solicitor General is trying to confuse the issue. The Solicitor General is a member of cabinet. He is supposed to take

part in cabinet policy discussions about whether video slot machines would be good for Ontario or bad for Ontario. He has a report in front of him that says legalizing video slot machines will not work.

Further, he has a report, and this is what the briefing note says: "The two major gambling activities of sport bookmaking and video gambling machines annually earn an estimated $1 billion and $500 million respectively for the criminal elements."

When you saw those two things, Minister, the one point that video slot machines earn organized crime $500 million a year --

The Speaker: Put your question, please.

Mr Hampton: -- and the other part of the briefing note saying if you introduce legal slot machines, the problem is simply going to multiply, did the thought cross your head to maybe talk to the Premier or to maybe talk to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations --

The Speaker: Put the question, please.

Mr Hampton: -- and say to them, "Hey, we've got a problem here"? The thought occurred to the executive director of the gaming commission. He took it seriously. Did you?

Hon Mr Runciman: I indeed take the question of illegal gambling in this province very seriously. If we're losing in the neighbourhood of $1 billion to $1.5 billion to organized crime and to illegal activities, certainly we want to cope with that in an effective way. To suggest that legalizing VLTs is not going to help us in that sense --

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): That's what it says in your own briefing notes.

Hon Mr Runciman: No, they don't say that. They do not say that in the sense that if we can devote additional resources, we're going to be able to do that. You get differing opinions as you talk to law enforcement officers in this area, but the one thing they do agree on is that we can focus additional resources so we can deal in a very effective way with illegal gambling operations in this province. That's what we intend to do. To put on blinkers, as has been in the case in the past -- they're trying to suggest that all of a sudden this is something new.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Answer the question.

Hon Mr Runciman: Illegal gambling revenues have been out there and we are going to come to grips with that. We are going to deal with it in an effective way.

The Speaker: New question, the member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Solicitor General. You had a report come to your government, a report that was out there from a very reputable and knowledgeable organization, the experts in the field, in other words, which expressed the greatest of concerns about gambling in the province of Ontario and the criminal element that would be permeating that gambling activity.

When your government was deciding whether or not to go into the dark, murky waters of video lottery terminals in every bar and every restaurant in Ontario, did you not believe that you had an obligation to inform your colleagues in the cabinet of these genuine and great concerns by this organization, by this police report, before you made a decision to embark upon placing video lottery terminals in bars and in restaurants in every neighbourhood in Ontario?

Hon Mr Runciman: I think these concerns were raised related to the introduction of casino gambling in the province of Ontario and initiatives were undertaken by the previous government to ensure that they were dealt with appropriately.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Oriole, come to order.

Hon Mr Runciman: That's this government's intention with respect to the introduction of VLTs across this province. It's not being done in isolation. We are going to ensure that adequate resources are put in place so that this whole area is policed in a much more effective way and that we're going to deal with illegal gambling in a much more effective way than has been the case in the past. We recognize the concerns and we are addressing them.

Mr Bradley: There isn't anybody in this province who's going to believe that the Solicitor General would not have the responsibility to inform his cabinet colleagues before embarking upon a major policy change, something that was totally contradictory to what the Treasurer of this province and the Premier of this province let people in this Ontario of ours know would be their stand on a major issue -- that is, putting electronic slot machines in bars and restaurants.

Do you not believe that you had a responsibility to share that information, to apprise yourself of the report? Not necessarily direct them to do anything; to apprise yourself of the problem and inform your colleagues. If you didn't, wouldn't you believe that people in this province could conclude that the only reason you're embarking upon 20,000 video lottery terminals, electronic slot machines, is to make up for the tax cut loss? In other words, you're so greedy for this money, so desperate for this money, that you're ignoring criminal activity in this field.

Hon Mr Runciman: I've indicated on a number of occasions now that we have responded to the concerns of the policing community with respect to organized crime and legalized gambling, whether it's through casinos or through the introduction of VLTs in this province. We've indicated very clearly to the policing community as well that we are going to devote the required resources to deal with this in a most effective way. So I think we are addressing those concerns in a most responsible manner.

Mr Hampton: Another question for the Solicitor General and just a point that the Solicitor General wants to avoid. The fact is that other governments in this province have been faced with the issue of video slot machines, and other governments in this province -- and I was a member of one -- sat down and looked at the information and said, no, video slot machines are something we should not proceed with. We should not proceed with them for social reasons and we should not proceed with them because there is the issue of organized crime and the involvement of organized crime in slot machines.

So I want to ask you, because you seem to want to avoid this issue -- this isn't a policing issue; this is an issue that you are a member of cabinet. You should be bringing to cabinet relevant information on the issue of video slot machines. You had information in your possession which showed that there was substantial organized crime involvement with video slot machines and information which indicated that the problem would not go away, the problem would get worse if the government brought in more video slot machines.

Did you pass that information on to your cabinet colleagues for discussion? Did you put it to your cabinet colleagues so they could have an informed discussion about this issue? Yes or no.

Hon Mr Runciman: I find it interesting that the member opposite went through this himself with respect to his time in government. He commissioned a report as a backbencher, if I recall, dealing with casino gambling, and it expressed concerns about organized crime infiltration into casino gambling. What happened? Obviously he was convinced within his cabinet circle and within his own government that if we devote adequate and appropriate policing resources, casino gambling will not be a problem; we can control the situation and ensure that organized crime does not infiltrate. What did he do? He supported casino gambling coming into this province.

Now he's saying we can't do the same thing. We take a close look at VLTs, we recognize the policing concerns and we are addressing them in a responsible and appropriate way.

Mr Hampton: I asked the minister a simple question. He was alerted to the information in this briefing note. I asked him if he passed on this information to his cabinet colleagues, like the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, like the Premier, like the Deputy Premier, so they could make an informed decision. I ask him that question again: Did you take this information on the involvement of organized crime in video slot machines and pass it on to your cabinet colleagues so that your government could have an informed discussion about the introduction of more video slot machines into Ontario? Did you do that?

Hon Mr Runciman: I think my colleagues in government are very much apprised of concerns with respect to VLTs. We are addressing those, we're going through this process with respect to the legislation in the House through committee public hearings, and I've certainly conveyed the concerns of the policing community to the Treasurer and other colleagues with respect to ensuring that we have adequate resources into policing to ensure that we can appropriately deal with those concerns. I can say no more. I believe we are dealing with this in an effective and very responsible way.

WORKFARE

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In a news release yesterday the member for Hamilton East accused you of violating the program guidelines for Ontario Works. He claims that the first seven Ontario Works participants in Algoma are displacing municipal workers. I'd like you to respond to that allegation, please.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'd like to thank my colleague from Hamilton Mountain for giving me the opportunity to correct the public record, which was so unfortunately clouded earlier this week by the member for Hamilton East. I expect we can expect more of the same, as our critics opposite continue to demonstrate their opposition to workfare in Ontario.

We have confirmed with the Algoma social services board, and they have indicated to us that these individuals are not replacing paid workers in their community. Secondly, I think it's important to note that this community went out of their way to consult with local union officials in the area to make sure there was agreement with and support for the opportunities they are giving welfare recipients to get back on their feet and back into the workforce.

Mr Pettit: Could you please give the Legislature and the people of Ontario an update as to what progress is being made with the Ontario Works program?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I would certainly like to. Thank you very much. We have recently signed business plans with seven more communities in Peel, Algoma, Kent, Muskoka, Nipissing, North Bay and Brockville, so we are moving ahead with workfare. I had the privilege of speaking to representatives from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario the other day. Many more communities were prepared and asking to be included in the second phase. I look forward to working with them. We're proceeding slowly and surely on workfare.

If mistakes are made we'll remedy them, if there are problems which develop we're going to fix them as we slowly and surely move ahead with workfare in Ontario, a program that my honourable colleague from Hamilton East campaigned on and supported during the election.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr Bruce Cro