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

October 28, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L115 - Mon 28 Oct 1996 / Lun 28 Oct 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

THOMAS IDE

METRO DAYS OF ACTION

GREEK CELEBRATIONS

METRO DAYS OF ACTION

BICYCLING SAFETY

VOLUNTEERS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

CHILD CARE

AUTISM AWARENESS MONTH

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION FINANCING

METRO DAYS OF ACTION

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

ONTARIO HYDRO

OMA AGREEMENT

FIREARMS CONTROL

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

LONG-TERM CARE

HAZARDOUS WASTE

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

SCHOOL FACILITIES

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

USER FEES

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

TENANT PROTECTION

FIREARMS CONTROL

MANDATORY INQUESTS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

THOMAS IDE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I rise today to pay tribute to a man who had an extraordinary influence on many of us in Thunder Bay, but who will always be remembered province-wide as the father of educational television in the province of Ontario; in fact, the visionary who created TVO some 30 years ago. Last week, Mr T.R. "Ran" Ide passed away at the age of 77.

Born Thomas Ranald Ide in 1919 in Ottawa, he attended high school in St John, New Brunswick, and went on to earn a degree in economics and serve in the air force during the Second World War. After the war, he became a high school teacher in Port Arthur and eventually became principal of Port Arthur Collegiate Institute which, to my good fortune, included my first year in high school.

But it was what he accomplished after that period in his life that had such a positive impact on almost everyone in Ontario. Responding to a call from then-education minister Bill Davis, he set about creating TVOntario, turning it into the internationally recognized symbol of educational and cultural excellence that it is today. By the time he retired from his position as head of the network in 1979, TVO was a truly province-wide network and the world's largest producer of educational television.

All of us in Ontario owe a great debt of gratitude to Mr Ide, but it would be remiss of me not to tell you of the personal qualities that defined this fine man. His charm, warmth and sense of optimism were treasured and will be remembered by all who came in touch with him. All of us in the Ontario Legislature today pay tribute to Ran Ide and pass our condolences on to his wife and family. He will not be forgotten.

METRO DAYS OF ACTION

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): It was one heck of a special interest group on the streets of Toronto on Saturday. Whether it was 100,000, 150,000 or 200,000, the fact is that it filled the streets of Toronto all the way from the Exhibition grounds through to here at Queen's Park.

I was proud to be among them, along with a whole lot of other folks from Welland-Thorold. Let me tell you, the Golden Horseshoe Social Action Committee, trade unionists, other workers, senior citizens, students, their children, their parents, a complete cross-section of communities across this province, and Welland-Thorold was as representative as any of them.

What was most notable -- the Tories had better take heed -- were the large numbers of teachers and health care workers, tens and tens of thousands of front-line teaching professionals, front-line health care workers, all of whom had a very single message, and that was that any claim by this government that there haven't been deep and serious cuts to both education and health care is nothing but absolute and utmost hogwash.

The fact is that this government simply cannot carry on as it has without expecting escalating actions like we saw here in the city of Toronto. The fact is that working people, people who receive their services, are simply not going to tolerate the Harris cutting and slashing, are not going to tolerate the cuts, which we know are all in the name of and for the sake of tax breaks for the richest in this province. There will be a province-wide general strike in this province, mark my words.

GREEK CELEBRATIONS

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I rise today to bring to the attention of all members of this House that today is a special day for the Canadian Greek community, a day to commemorate the heroism of Greek soldiers and to mourn those who lost their lives fighting for their native land.

In 1940, Greece was forced into the Second World War by an invasion by the armed forces of Mussolini's Italy. The Greek army was successful in holding off the invaders until April 1941 when the Nazis also invaded. The occupation lasted until October 1944 and was marked by great heroism on the part of the Greek people. The day on which freedom was regained is known as Oxi Day. Oxi means no, signifying that the Greek people said no to their fascist invaders.

We are thankful today for an independent and vital Greece, a proud member of the international community. We celebrate also the indelible contributions made to this province by Ontarians of Greek descent. On behalf of the government of Premier Mike Harris, I take this opportunity to join with all Greek Ontarians in paying tribute to those brave men and women who fought to protect their country's freedom.

METRO DAYS OF ACTION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I stand today to speak to the Days of Action that took place last Friday and Saturday. The cynicism and the arrogance of the Premier and his government are quite astounding. He was quoted as saying this weekend, "If you took away all the government employees, the other four or five had a point to make." The Premier thinks that he can dismiss the tens of thousands of people who gathered at Queen's Park as special interest groups. I was there on Friday and Saturday, and I have a message for the Premier: You cannot dismiss them so easily. This was not just a labour rally; this was a people's rally.

The crowd was not made up of just union leaders and special interest group leaders; it was made up of people of all ages, of concerned people.

It was made up of parents who had seen their youngsters lose professional teachers from their schools, children who had lost their opportunity to go to junior kindergarten, child care workers, high school students, college and university students, co-op groups, seniors worried about their housing and medical services, coalitions of food banks, the homeless, the disabled, nurses worried about the future of quality health care -- in short, the people who work and contribute to this province every day in attendance. These people came from all parts of the province, not just the immediate area.

Some travelled for hours, some for a day, on their own time, at their own expense, to send a message of caution to this government.

Take note that the largest number of people at the rally were there because they were deeply concerned about the future of education under this government. To dismiss this rally out of hand is to dismiss the people you claim to represent.

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Last Tuesday, at 8 am, cyclists gathered for the fourth time in as many months at the site of yet another fatal cycling accident. The mourners gathered together to share their sorrow and to again draw attention to the lack of safety for cyclists on Ontario roads.

Nineteen ninety-six has seen the following cycling deaths in the city of Toronto: February 13, Keefe MacLaverty in a car collision; July 22, Erin Krauser crushed by a truck; July 31, Martha Kennedy crushed by a truck; August 15, Nick Scollozzi in a hit-and-run by an impaired driver; October 15, Karen McGibbon sideswiped into a lamppost by a van. All of these accidents were preventable.

I congratulate the efforts of Advocacy for Respect for Cyclists and the many others who have been requesting a coroner's inquest into these tragic deaths since July. The memorial events are making sure that these unnecessary deaths do not go unreported or unnoticed.

I ask you, and cyclists in the east gallery ask you, what possible excuse can there be for not proceeding with an inquest after so many unnecessary deaths?

VOLUNTEERS

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I welcome this opportunity to update my colleagues on the Premier's initiative aimed at promoting, encouraging, supporting and nurturing the spirit of voluntarism in Ontario.

As parliamentary assistant to the Premier, I have worked with a volunteer advisory board to create a multiphase investigative and consultative process. The first step involved a one-day session to help define some of the challenges and issues affecting the future of voluntary action. The second step was a three-day search conference to define a desirable future for voluntary action in Ontario.

The results of this conference were recently discussed by approximately 350 participants representing a cross-section of the public in 10 communities across the province. This consultation process on voluntary action in the province was guided by an expert facilitator, but the results were defined by the participants in a series of round table discussions and workshops covering the issues, challenges, strategies and recommendations from the earlier search conference.

I want to thank the staff of the voluntary sector projects, the volunteer members of the advisory board on the voluntary sector and the hundreds of people who participated in the recent consultation process on voluntary action. I look forward to receiving the final report and the recommendations on what various stakeholders and our government can do.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This weekend the province of Ontario witnessed an unprecedented protest. Saturday, tens of thousands of Ontarians gathered in front of this Legislature to protest the slash-and-burn policies of the Mike Harris government. One of the main reasons people gathered in Toronto was to protest the continued attack which Mike Harris and Jim Wilson have launched against Ontario's health care.

All Ontarians -- seniors, adults and children -- have begun to feel the effects of the Tory bulldozer as it plows through health services in Ontario. We have seen this government impose new user fees for drugs; slash over $1 billion from our hospitals, laying off 15,000 nurses; appoint an unelected hospital restructuring commission mandated to close hospitals in communities across this province. Unfortunately, these cuts are only the beginning as the government implements its harmful 30% income tax cut.

People came to protest and tell Mike Harris how his cuts are hurting people across this province. Although he does not want to hear how these cuts are hurting everyday people, the Premier cannot refuse to listen to his employers, the taxpayers of Ontario. I say to the Premier, you do not have all the answers. Listen to the people you represent. You cannot dismiss their concerns. Stop the harmful cuts to health care and make meaningful changes to create a real health care system.

CHILD CARE

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Child care is at stake in Ontario. Today I want to direct my statement to Community and Social Services Minister Janet Ecker. Since your government does not want to consult with the people who have the most at stake in quality child care, I would like to share with you concerns from child care workers and families in my riding concerning your government's child care review, which recommends lowering standards of child care in Ontario.

People in my riding are strongly against your gradual reductions in funding for non-profit child care. You plan to eliminate payments made to child care workers and reinvest part of this money in subsidized child care spaces. What does this really mean? It means that workers who earn on average less than $20,000 a year will have their wages cut by almost $5,000. Your government's reforms are nothing more than an attempt to drive down wages at the expense of children and child care workers.

I strongly support the initiative of the directors of the Centre de garde d'enfants de Hearst for their information campaign held last week to fully educate the public about the negative impacts of your child care review recommendations.

The Ontario New Democratic Party is holding hearings across the province on this issue because we recognize the hard work of child care workers, because we want to give parents a say and because we care about our children and their future.

AUTISM AWARENESS MONTH

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): Imagine a 13-year-old boy who every day at precisely 8:30 pm puts his pajamas on, brushes his teeth at 8:45 and is in bed at 9 o'clock; not a minute before, not a minute after. This kind of routine or insistence on sameness is quite common in autism, and if the routine is changed slightly it can affect his life and make him upset.

October is Autism Awareness Month. Autism is a developmental disability that typically appears during the first three years of life. Autism and its associated behaviours occur in 15 out of every 10,000 individuals and are more prevalent in boys than girls. It interferes with normal development of the brain in the area of reasoning, social interaction and communication skills. The disorder makes it hard for them to communicate with others and relate to the world outside.

Autism is a very complex disorder and the needs of individuals vary greatly. Traditional and contemporary approaches are enabling us to understand and treat these individuals. Parents and professionals are beginning to realize that the symptoms of autism are treatable. There are many interventions that can make a significant difference.

The logo for the national parent support group is a picture of a child embedded in a puzzle. Most of the pieces of the puzzle are on the table, but we are still trying to figure out how they all fit together.

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I wonder if it really is a point of privilege, but I just wanted, on behalf of all members of the assembly, to congratulate you and the staff for the sense of equity that you demonstrated in dealing with the protesters and the people who participated in the Days of Action at this Legislature. We appreciate the effort that was made to accommodate everyone concerned.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'll consider that a point of privilege today.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to take this time to introduce and have you welcome the seventh group of pages to serve in the 36th Parliament of Ontario: Jacqueline Bucker, Durham East; Jennifer Bond, Frontenac-Addington; Matthew Campbell, Hamilton West; Dillon Charron, Fort York; Sarah De Bruyn, Etobicoke-Rexdale; Sarah Donnelly, Simcoe West; Kevin Dorgan, Scarborough-Ellesmere; Martin Fox, High Park-Swansea; David Homuth, Mississauga West; Sarah Hugh, Mississauga North; Karishma Kabani, Don Mills; Lauren Kennedy, St Catharines; Tara Lounsbury, Essex South; Jonathan Mar, York Centre; Andrew J.D.

McGuire, Elgin; Joshua McNorton, Windsor-Walkerville; Aidan Morton, Lanark-Renfrew; Kathryn Mouriopoulos, Hamilton Mountain; Curtis Pinnegar, Muskoka-Georgian Bay; Salsabil Rabbani, Scarborough Centre; Sabrina Ramnarine, St George-St David; Daphne Townsend, Wellington; Michael Vanzandwyk, Hastings-Peterborough; and Mark Wilson, Niagara South.

We'd like to welcome you all and hope you enjoy your stay.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of the Premier, I'll place my first question to the Minister of Health.

Minister, on Saturday some tens of thousands of Ontarians, and some would say as many as 200,000, marched on Queen's Park to send your government the message that you are on the wrong track. The Premier, when he isn't busy making jokes about people's legitimate right to protest, has said that no one should be upset because you are just doing what you promised you would do.

So I ask you, where in the Common Sense Revolution -- on which page, which paragraph, which line, which sentence; show me -- did it say that you would cut hospital funding by $1.3 billion? Where does it say that you would close up to 50 hospitals and take 13 million nursing hours of care a year away from patients? Where does it say any of these things?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): We made it clear, I say to the honourable member, certainly in anything I've said in the last six years, much of that time as Health critic and now as Minister of Health, that restructuring is long overdue. In fact, the Liberal Party has made those statements in this House and so have members of the NDP. The previous two governments launched 60 restructuring studies across the province and spent $26 million, and local communities have developed those plans. Now it's time to implement those plans, and that's what the Health Services Restructuring Commission is doing.

Mrs McLeod: Nice try, Minister, but the fact is we all remember the Premier very clearly saying, when asked if he was planning to close hospitals, "I have no plans to close hospitals." So he is now doing what he promised he would not do, because hospitals are closing across this province as a direct result of the cuts to the hospital budgets. We're seeing the true face of the Common Sense Revolution now.

People in Owen Sound saw the true face of the Common Sense Revolution when it comes to hospital closures late last week when they found out that they were, in Grey-Bruce Regional Health Centre, going to be losing yet another ward in their hospital. This time it is an entire medical-surgical ward. They found out that some 80 to 90 jobs are going to be taken out of their small community. The hospital does not say, contrary to all of your pronouncements, that they're taking this drastic measure to improve service or to streamline surgeries. They say they are doing it for one reason and one reason only, and it is because of your $4-million cut to their hospital.

So I ask you again, when did the people of Owen Sound and the Grey-Bruce region give you and your government a mandate to rip the heart out of their community hospital? When did they say: "Go ahead. Jeopardize our health so that you can have more money for your tax cuts"?

Hon Mr Wilson: I remind the honourable member of two facts that will face the test of time and be well known perhaps in the future, but will be well recorded in the annals of history in this country.

It's the federal Liberal government that is cutting health care, that has cut $2.1 billion and ripped the heart from health care funding in the province of Ontario. The Prime Minister was saying on the weekend, "Medicare `Squeeze' Needed," and admitting that he's cut several billion dollars out of the territories and provinces; $2.1 billion in the province of Ontario.

I remind the people of Ontario that the Liberals promised on five or six occasions in their red book a $17-billion health care budget. I'm proud that this government didn't cut the $400 million they campaigned on. We've increased the health care budget by $300 million so that today it's $17.7 billion.

Mrs McLeod: Nice try again, Minister, but there are a few things that you're missing in your historical accounting. One is the fact that the now Premier knew full well what the federal transfers would be when he made his commitments during the election campaign. In fact, he cheered them on and he still said, "I have no plans to close hospitals in the province of Ontario." Now we are seeing hospitals closed right across this province, and they are closing because of your $1.3-billion starvation budget cuts to our hospitals.

I think it comes back to what you're doing. We keep wanting to take you back to the reality of the impact of the cuts you're making and the closures of hospital beds, and in the case of Grey-Bruce the closure of a medical-surgical unit, because when you cut the surgical beds, which is what they are now forced to do, you cut the number of surgeries they can do in that hospital. That means the people of Owen Sound are going to have to wait longer for their surgery or they're going to have to drive someplace else while they are sick in order to go on a waiting list to get their surgery somewhere else.

It's also true that when you shut down 90 jobs in a town the size of Owen Sound, you have a devastating effect on the economy with some 40 cents more, for every dollar that you've taken out, coming from small businesses.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mrs McLeod: I ask you again, when did the people of Owen Sound or of any community in the province of Ontario give you a mandate to rip $1.3 billion out of their hospitals and to jeopardize patient care by shutting down surgical beds at --

The Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Wilson: My understanding of what's happening in Owen Sound is that they're developing a three-to-four-year plan to deal with the federal Liberals' health care cuts. I can understand that it's incumbent upon that community to have a three-to-four-year plan to deal with your party's cuts to health care, because we've not cut health care.

Secondly, to ensure that somebody is watching and ensuring that quality will be maintained and that the fearmongering that the honourable member is suggesting about gaps in services and greater lineups for surgery -- to ensure all of that won't happen, we have to approve the operating plans. I've not seen an operating plan or a whisper of an operating plan from Owen Sound that would indicate such bad things are going to happen as the honourable member says. I know, because I live up there, that the people of Owen Sound are far more responsible.

They won't create the gaps in services and they'll make sure that the people of Grey-Bruce have the services they need in spite of the federal Liberals' cuts.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Minister of Education and Training, and again it has to do with this government not doing what it said it would do.

Minister, you promised not to cut classroom education. What we have seen when you broke that promise is cuts that have resulted in larger class sizes, in fewer teachers, in school closures, in librarians being laid off, and in some cases new user fees for students. Will you have the decency to do what neither the Premier nor the Minister of Health today have been prepared to do: Will you at least acknowledge the presence and the very real concerns of the tens of thousands of parents and students and teachers who have felt first hand your broken promise on classroom education and were out on Saturday to ask you to listen?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I think we have said on many, many occasions that we believe there needs to be more accountability in our school system in Ontario, that there needs to be a higher quality in terms of student achievement in the province of Ontario, and that it also must be a more affordable system.

Yes, in some cases we have been disappointed in the response of school boards in the province to a 1.8% reduction in funding last year. We have been disappointed in some of the responses by some of the boards. Not only have there been a few instances where classroom education may have been affected and should not have been, but there also have been tax increases at the local level that are not acceptable to this government. So we are now reviewing our funding model and our governance model to provide a better system for the people of Ontario. That is what this government is doing. It's what previous governments should have done.

Mrs McLeod: I'm trying to get the minister to address the very real concerns of thousands of parents, of students and of teachers. If the minister thinks that the crowd of thousands outside Queen's Park on Saturday was some kind of illusion or some vast special interest group, I want to tell him about some of the other people who are raising the same concerns in other communities across the province.

One of the groups that was out at a rally in Thunder Bay was a group called Mothers for Education. I think it's important to know that these are just ordinary parents who are concerned about their children, who have never been politically active before but who feel they must get a message to you. They had some very specific questions for you, Minister. They want to know how the so-called 1.8% budget cut that you've talked about again today actually became a 17.89% budget cut in Thunder Bay. They want to know why their children's class sizes are so large.

They want to know why they are losing over 50% of their special education classes and why JK has been eliminated in so many areas. Can you tell the Mothers for Education why classroom education has been cut when you said it would not be?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I've had the pleasure of talking to parents right across this province, including in Thunder Bay, on a couple of different occasions and to talk about their concerns for making sure that we have an education system that meets the needs of students today and is affordable and responsible so that we can meet the needs of those students when they join the workforce. We are meeting those very critical areas.

In response to the question, we have made a reduction that province-wide is 1.8%. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about why there may have been more or less reductions as a percentage basis in the funding available to school boards across the province, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should look at the general legislative grant process, a process your government two governments ago had an opportunity to change, to make more fair, to provide a system where there aren't second-class students in the province. There are now because the funding mechanism is improper, and it was a funding mechanism you had under your government.

Mrs McLeod: I have here about 200 letters from others who share the concerns of the Mothers for Education group in Thunder Bay. I'm going to send them over to you, Minister, because these are real people. They have names and addresses and they would like a direct response from you to their questions about why their children are in classrooms that are larger, why they aren't getting the kind of education they believe their children should have. The Mothers for Education are concerned because, they say, "We feel our government is being less than honest," because you will not see the impact of your cuts.

Let me tell you about one more very specific, very real class. It's a grade 4 class in northeastern Ontario. It's a class that has 34 students and in that class of 34 there are 10 students with special needs, 10 students who have disabilities that range from spina bifida to cerebral palsy and others who have learning and behavioural difficulties, some of them with multiple disabilities. Surely you recognize this is too large a class even in Mike Harris's Ontario for either quality education or to meet the special needs of those 10 students. Minister, will you admit that you are not doing what you said you would do and that your cuts are affecting classroom education?

Hon Mr Snobelen: To the Leader of the Opposition, I will respond to letters, as we always do. I know how I'll respond. I'll respond with some pride in the initiatives that this government has taken in education, in improving education in Ontario, in having it be more accountable, be of higher quality and be more affordable. I make no apologies at all for our efforts in the past, over the past 15 months, or our efforts in the future; they will be focused on that.

I hope the Leader of the Opposition when she responds to these mothers can explain why so much spending over the last decade has happened outside the classroom, can explain why you didn't change the structural system of education in the province so that students get a better deal and so that taxpayers get a better deal. Why didn't you make those changes? Because you didn't, we have to.

METRO DAYS OF ACTION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): In the absence of the Premier, I have a question for the Deputy Premier. I'm quite disappointed that in the wake of the Days of Action activities that took place this weekend, the Premier's not here today to account for his actions and his positions with respect to those days.

I want to say to you, Deputy Premier, that your government's refusal to listen as it cuts services to pay for its tax scheme has provoked one of the largest protests Canada and Ontario have ever seen, and yet the Premier categorized the weekend's events this way: He said, "If you took away all the government employees, the other four or five had a point to make." That kind of smugness and arrogance is what I want to ask you about.

I want to ask you very clearly, is this attitude that we saw from the Premier over the weekend representative of the entire government, or is it just the Premier who is wallowing in his own smug contempt for the thousands of people who were out there on the weekend?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the honourable member, I would just like to tell you, as the Premier and every member of this government has said on numerous occasions over the last several days, this government believes in the people's right to protest. People are permitted to do that, obviously, in our democratic society provided they do not do things unlawfully and do not interfere with the rights of others. We are constantly listening to what the people of the province have to say on many important issues in Ontario.

Mr Silipo: If the Premier felt, as the Deputy Premier is now telling us, that people have the democratic right to protest, that would have been helpful if that's what he had said, but what he said instead was to attack civil servants, to attack the people who were out there. He could have said it was an enormous protest, peaceful, imaginative, forceful, inventive.

Instead he said, "...the banners going by from some of the Communist parties, as I saw, and I guess the Iraqi group (and) Iranian group." It's that kind of attitude that just continues to compound the problem, that paints everyone into narrow interest groups, when instead, what the Premier of this province should have been recognizing was that what we saw this weekend was the greatest interest group of all, and that is the people of the province speaking out.

You have divided Ontario between the haves and the have-nots and you are continuing to cause suffering upon suffering. What will it take, Minister, for your government to finally listen to the people who spoke so clearly this weekend?

Hon Mr Eves: There were many groups in society, some Ontarian, some not, represented in the protest over the weekend.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Well, that is a fact. However, what the honourable member didn't go on to say --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Eves: What the honourable member did not point out was that the Premier also went on to say in the course of the weekend and in the course of his remarks that the overwhelming majority of people present in the protest were representatives from the labour movement in the province of Ontario and that he respected their right to protest. I've already said that, as indeed have many members of this government, in the last few days.

Mr Silipo: Let me be very clear: The vast majority of people who were out there on the streets on Friday and Saturday were the people of the province from all walks of life.

I want to suggest to the Deputy Premier one very concrete step at least that he can take to show that he has listened to a small extent at least to what we heard on the weekend.

I want to salute, Mr Speaker, the comments that you made in response to the events this weekend. When you were asked if you would try to bill the demonstrators for the costs of the Queen's Park security, your response was: "It's the price of doing business, of running Queen's Park in a democracy.

Frankly, anyone who would suggest that the tab should go to those people demonstrating is completely unfair." I want to applaud that attitude and I want to ask the Deputy Premier if he would take from that attitude and join me and join you in endorsing your words and join me in urging Alan Tonks and other Metro politicians to take exactly that kind of wise approach to supporting democracy, rather than to be looking at launching wild-goose chase lawsuits against the organizers of the Days of Action. Would you do that, Deputy Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: The individuals he is referring to are at a different level of government, they have their own responsibilities and they will make their own appropriate decisions on what they choose to do.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, there are many people who were out in the streets this weekend whom your Premier dismisses as special interest groups. One of those special interest groups, with a real special interest, are persons with disabilities. We heard a lot from your government about how you're going to stay the course and implement the Common Sense Revolution, but one of your promises was that aid to seniors and the disabled will not be cut.

Here with us today in the House is Mrs Pearl Miller. She's 79, she's got osteoporosis, she has collapsed vertebrae and serious asthma. She can't take regular transit. She has been using Wheel-Trans for over 10 years to go to necessary doctors' appointments and to get her groceries. As a result of your cuts, she has been informed that she is being cut off Wheel-Trans.

Minister, will you tell Mrs Miller directly today -- because she is here -- how you are keeping your promise to ensure that aid to seniors and persons with disabilities will not be cut?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): This government has been saying all along that we have to look for efficiencies and the municipalities are our partners in finding these efficiencies. But we also said we are very strongly committed towards Wheel-Trans. Wheel-Trans is something that this government did not cut, not one dollar. We basically said to the municipalities to go out and look for efficiencies in the conventional transit. I believe that we said right from the word "go" that we wouldn't cut Wheel-Trans.

That was one of the reasons why this year we actually gave them the same budget they had last year. We didn't cut. The 1996 budget was not cut by one dollar. As for the people of the province of Ontario, they are looking for a government to deliver the services in the most cost-efficient way, and that is our commitment. I believe we are going to do that, and with a strong commitment to Wheel-Trans and disabled transit throughout the province of Ontario.

Ms Lankin: She's heard all of that before. She wrote to Mike Harris, and Mike Harris, just as you did then and have before, blamed it on the TTC. She wrote the TTC. They blamed it on Mike Harris. She's caught in the middle of political finger-pointing.

Mrs Miller took Wheel-Trans here today. This could be her last ride. She wants to know why you don't step in and make sure these moneys are restored to the Wheel-Trans budget, the $1.8 million you cut in the first place. As she put it this morning in her own words, and no one could say it better, "There's more to being the Minister of Transportation than fixing potholes."

You have a responsibility. You have a responsibility to seniors and persons with disabilities to live up to your promise. Will you step in and ensure that the TTC completely restores the Wheel-Trans budget?

Hon Mr Palladini: I'm somewhat disappointed that the member's attitude is always making references to the Harris government. The Harris government is doing what Ontarians want us to do: maintain the services that these people at Wheel-Trans require. The TTC, not the Harris government, runs Wheel-Trans. It's the TTC, from the initial go, that was spending money very foolishly, giving services that were well above what the cost should have been and not paying attention to operational costs.

It's this government that's going to make sure that when we spend dollars we're going to spend them wisely so everybody in the province of Ontario who is disabled will get that service. We're going to keep protecting that.

Ms Lankin: You have an opportunity today to make sure that Mrs Miller gets her Wheel-Trans. What are you going to do about it? You just said you're going to make sure that happens. Your tax scheme, which is the reason why you have to make all these cuts, isn't helping her or the thousands of others who are being cut off; quite the opposite. Mrs Miller wants to talk to you. That's why she took Wheel-Trans down here today.

Her Wheel-Trans is coming back for her at 3 o'clock, so she's going to leave the gallery here today at 2:30 and she's going to be waiting for you outside the west lobby doors because she wants to speak to you directly. Be prepared because she is angry, and rightly so. If she loses her Wheel-Trans, she will be completely housebound, and she thinks you and Mike Harris and your government are to blame. She wants you to take responsibility, just as you said, to ensure that this essential service for seniors and the disabled is maintained. Will you do that?

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Energy. Can you explain how in recent weeks utilities like the Lincoln Hydro-Electric Commission down in the Niagara Peninsula have had to spend hundreds of thousands of ratepayers' dollars to fend off the incursions of Ontario Hydro into the mandate of the local utility? Lincoln Hydro, to name but one example, was given the authority by this Legislature a couple of years ago to fill out its municipal mandate.

Now Ontario Hydro is contesting the very thing this Legislature said we should be approving in a good and competitive way in the interests of local ratepayers. Why is Ontario Hydro down in the peninsula causing so much difficulty to a local electrical utility trying to provide good, efficient retail service to its customers?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'm aware that there is some conflict between Hydro and the Lincoln local utility. I will do everything I can to endeavour to mediate between the two. Ontario Hydro, as you know, is an individual corporation which has its interests, and the local utility has its interests. I believe they will be resolved with regard to this particular conflict as time goes on.

Mr Conway: Whatever happened to that tough, "I'm in charge" Normie Sterling? Now he's just that diffident, wimpish Norm who has no --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): -- parliamentary language, and "wimpish" is not one of the words.

Mr Conway: I apologize, Mr Speaker. If "wimpish" is unparliamentary, let me be the first to withdraw it.

Ontario Hydro is around and about the province behaving in an obviously unfair and discriminatory way. It's not just Lincoln Hydro, but it's Pembroke Hydro, London Hydro and scores of others. Where does Ontario Hydro get this mandate to be so aggressive in expanding its retail mandate at the very time the government of Ontario has a major report telling it that Hydro should be retreating from, not expanding into, the area of retail and distribution of electricity?

Hon Mr Sterling: The member well knows that Ontario Hydro gets its mandate from this Legislature, from this government, which has not touched the Power Corporation Act; from the previous government, which made some minor amendments to the Power Corporation Act; and from your former government, which did nothing with regard to the Power Corporation Act or the control of Ontario Hydro, even though you talked a big storm before you got there.

The fact of the matter is that this government is going to restructure Hydro. We're going to do that in a relatively short period of time, when these kinds of issues will be addressed head on, unlike any previous government has ever ventured to do.

OMA AGREEMENT

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): My question is to the Minister of Health. Towards the end of last week, on Friday, you said with regard to the doctors' ratification process that you didn't have a lot to say, that the process should proceed and that if the doctors rejected the agreement you'd get back to the bargaining table. You were very conciliatory and took the appropriate approach. On the weekend, you decided to call in reporters. You threatened the doctors, you said you'd act unilaterally, and now what you have done is put the agreement at even more risk that the doctors will reject it.

Can you explain this bizarre behaviour, which at the end is putting patients at risk in this province?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The honourable member should know a lot more about negotiations than he's just demonstrated in his question. On Friday, I thought the question from the media during the scrum was, "If the vote is extremely close, what would you do?" We would have to meet with the OMA.

If this agreement, which I remind all members is not the full-blown agreement with the government -- this is the first step in a process -- essentially doctors would be saying to negotiating teams, "Go back and talk about the other issues that are to be dealt with in the time frame set in the joint statement." I want to make it clear that if doctors in the province think there's a better deal from the government at this time, there isn't. This is a very fair and reasonable deal which is the gateway to future negotiations. I make that clear again to you today, Mr Cooke.

Mr Cooke: Maybe I don't know a lot about negotiations, but I know that when Chrysler or GM or any of the big corporations signs an agreement, a tentative deal, with their membership and their union they shut up and let the union, the membership, decide. You are interfering to the point where you have put this agreement at risk. It likely will be rejected and it'll be on your head, and patients will be put at risk because of your incompetence. Why are you doing this?

Hon Mr Wilson: Over the last two months this honourable member and other honourable members across the way have done more to frustrate doctors than anyone on this side of the House. Every time --

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): He's not the minister. You are.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): He's blaming everybody else again.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): He wants us to be the government.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Heaven forbid.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): You've botched this from day one.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Health.

Hon Mr Wilson: Every time the opposition does all the "what ifs" -- "What if this happens? What if that happens?" -- my phone rings off the wall because they send out confusing messages. I've clarified, during a period where clarification was obviously needed from the types of calls --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Mr Cooke: Let him answer. Just let him answer.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm waiting to be able to hear the minister. Minister of Health.

Hon Mr Wilson: I have clarified on behalf of the government what the intent is. It's not helpful of the honourable members who have done every "what if" there is to possibly do a "what if" about over the last two months. Stirring the pot doesn't help the patients in your ridings. That's all I can tell you, and the proof is in the pudding as the phones ring off the wall every time the opposition stirs the pot. Doctors and patients don't deserve this.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Solicitor General. Minister, last Wednesday's Toronto Star stated that the federal government has invented 107 new bureaucratic positions in the Canadian Firearms Centre. The

article says that these new bureaucrats will be busy licensing gun owners and registering their legally owned guns.

I fail to see how a bunch of bureaucrats licensing law-abiding gun owners are going to stop crime in Ontario. Can the minister clarify for this House the status of the constitutional challenge that Ontario and Alberta have launched against the ridiculous registration provisions of Bill C-68?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The member makes an important point which needs to be addressed. It's the government's view that the imposition of universal registration of firearms in Bill C-68 is beyond the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government. That's why we've joined with the province of Alberta in a constitutional challenge to the wrongheaded parts of this legislation.

This government supports real gun control. We support front-line police officers, not laws that force police officers off the front lines into pushing more paper. The announcement that was in the media last week indicated 107 additional bureaucrats -- millions of tax dollars to further interfere with law-abiding citizens. This is another bureaucratic boondoggle that Liberals are famous for instead of policing and putting additional dollars into police front lines where they will have a real impact.

Mr Ouellette: Hunters, sportsmen, legitimate gun owners, want to know what the government has done to make some progress in speeding up the FAC process and what we are doing to process FACs faster so that law-abiding gun owners and hunters aren't delayed any longer than necessary in obtaining an FAC.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Members will recall when we assumed office that we kept a promise made in opposition by the Honourable Chris Hodgson with respect to grandfathering. The grandfathering period, following completion, we had about 149,000 applications. The backlog has been a chronic problem. When we assumed office, we were processing approximately 100 FACs per day. We have now increased that to 650. The backlog has been cut substantially, and we will continue to do everything we can to alleviate the backlog.

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Minister of Health.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton Centre, I'm finding it difficult to hear the question. I ask that you come to order.

Mrs Pupatello: Mr Minister, what if you finally received all of the documentation that you required to designate the Windsor and Essex county area underserviced? Would you finally make that designation?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): We're reviewing the matter in ongoing discussions, and if all the documentations are in -- there's a pretty good chance that they are in -- we will make the determination as fast as possible.

Mrs Pupatello: I'd like to remind the minister that in fact he did receive all of the documentation at least two weeks ago, and at that time he received a letter from our district health council, which read, "I trust you do now have sufficient information to make that designation."

Several months ago -- in fact, last fall -- we asked you if you would move that along quickly, because you are well aware of the dire need that we have, not just for obstetricians but family practitioners as well as other key specialty areas.

Mr Minister, with all of the chaos that you've created in the system, we would dearly love to have that designation now. You've been quoted in Hansard, as late as October 21, as saying that in fact the real savings will be in the area of the underserviced area program. Will you please confirm today that you will allow the underserviced program to continue and that it will in fact benefit our area?

Hon Mr Wilson: With respect to the application, it always takes more than two weeks, and we are working on it as quickly as possible.

But isn't that the case that was just made? A program that was designed years ago under a Conservative government for the extreme north and really underserviced area, now we have applications from across the 401 corridor right down to Windsor-Essex. Doesn't that tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that the status quo with respect to distribution in physician and doctor resources in this province can't hold up when a program that was made for northern Ontario is being requested through application by the people of Windsor-Essex at the extreme south of the province?

The status quo is not an option, and this government, with the Ontario Medical Association, is trying to find more permanent solutions than the grant program called the underserviced area program.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): To the Attorney General: The whole province has listened to the Attorney General's feckless defence of his mismanagement of the family support plan for day after day and week after week now, so we'd better be clear, and that is that women and their children who were receiving regular payments are no longer receiving them as a result of this Attorney General and this government closing regional offices and laying off almost 300 staff in FSP. The Attorney General hasn't fixed any of the old problems, but he has certainly created some new ones.

Let me tell you about Diane Ecker from Welland-Thorold. She received $19.20 on October 1, 1996 -- you see, she should have received $175 -- and two days before receiving that $19.20, she received a letter from FSP saying that there would be no interruption in payment.

Cut me some slack, Speaker. I don't get up to ask questions very often.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Kormos: But there has been an interruption, because, you see, the payor, the father of the child, has been making his payments regularly to the FSP, and he's calling complaining that his paycheque isn't being forwarded on to his child. This woman's on family benefits and needs that money to buy groceries. What have you done with the money that Diane Ecker and her five-year-old child should be receiving?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I can tell you that the family support plan is issuing cheques as they come in. The cheques are being sent to those who are the recipients of the cheques. I can't comment and won't comment on the individual case that the member has brought to me, but if he wishes to discuss it with me and provide me with the details I am prepared to look into it.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Minister, in fact that information is wrong. Let me tell you about a constituent in my riding, Deborah Matheson, and her child, who have been receiving regular payments for the last four years, $700 a month like clockwork, until you closed the regional offices and laid off 290 staff. Last month her September payment was two weeks late and she still hasn't received her October payment. In fact she was told by one of your staff she may not get her October payment until some time in November.

Her ex-husband has been making the payments and has kept the family support plan completely aware of all his employment information. There aren't enough staff there to process it and to pass the cheques on. She's had to borrow money from her family in order to get by. She's written postdated cheques that are dated according to when her money should be received from the family support plan, so she's going to incur financial penalties when those cheques are returned NSF.

Minister, how much longer are women and children in this province expected to do without money for food and for lodgings and for necessary living expenses because of the mismanagement and the precipitous cost-cutting measures you have taken?

Hon Mr Harnick: The measures we have taken are measures that have been taken to repair long-standing difficulties with this plan. This plan has not been working for 10 years. This plan has been grossly in arrears in paying women and children. It has been a plan without any enforcement tools, and we are correcting that. We are creating a plan where people can have access and get the information they need when they need it, and we are working towards that in the restructuring of the plan that we're doing.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I understand you recently attended a Wines of Ontario official launch. I know you are aware of the importance of the wine industry in my riding. I understand that Ontario wines sales are doing very well here in Canada. Do you have any statistics detailing the growth of the Ontario wine industry?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'd like to thank the member for St Catharines-Brock for the question. Yes, I was very pleased to join the LCBO, the Wine Council of Ontario and the Vintners Quality Alliance to officially launch the Wines of Ontario promotion.

As the members of the House already know, the 1995 Ontario vintage has been held by many as the best ever and there's every reason to believe this deserved reputation will continue to soar. Ontario's wine sales are soaring. Last year the LCBO sales of Ontario wines grew by 9%, and in the first six months of 1996 the sales increased by another 16%.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): This is a minister's statement.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I say to the members of the opposition, you may consider this a minister's statement. It matters not. The question's put. It needs to be answered, and I prefer to hear it. Minister.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon, if you have a point of order I ask you stand and raise it. Otherwise, I ask you allow the minister to answer the question.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I'm sure the wine industry of Ontario considers this important as well. The Ontario red wines were up a significant 27%. Ontario wines, I understand, are the top-selling wines in the LCBOs. This growth is led by the premium-quality products. The LCBO sales of Ontario VQA wines have jumped by more than 46% in the last six months compared to the same time last year. We hope and expect Ontario wines will continue to enjoy their success both here and abroad.

Mr Froese: That's certainly good news for Ontario wine sales, grape growers in particular, and for tourism in the Niagara Peninsula, and I'm sure the member for Welland-Thorold appreciates that. The Ontario wine industry and grape growers are strong in exporting their product. Can you elaborate on how export products of Ontario wines are faring so far?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The member is absolutely correct in saying the growing reputation and popularity of Ontario wines are bringing more and more visitors to the Niagara region in particular. This has shown a lot of initiative for a lot of the wineries in the area. They are now trying to bring more tourism in by creating inns on their property, on the estate properties, and also restaurants. It's great. Not only that, but the wine industry provides additional employment for the bottling industry and transportation industry.

Ontario wines are exporting more, over $2 million, primarily to the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan. Frankly, we, the government of Ontario, recognize and applaud the hard work and the dedication of the Ontario winemakers for their skilled achievements and competitive spirit. They're an example to all Canadians that they can compete in the world market and succeed.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. This morning my office spoke to Miss Pat Morris of Burlington. Miss Morris's mother, 93-year-old Mrs Catherine Duffy, received a bill of $9,000 from Joe Brant hospital as the result of a stay as a result of a complication of pneumonia. Mrs Duffy was forced into Joe Brant as a result of a chronic shortage of nursing home beds in Halton. The choice had to be either a nursing home outside of the region, away from her daughter, or to be stuck with this $9,000 bill.

Minister, can you tell us how, as a result of your cuts and the decisions that your ministry has made, Mrs Duffy is going to have to pay this $9,000 bill that she's been handed by your ministry?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): My ministry didn't hand her the bill; the hospital did in accordance with the laws that were in place at the time the Liberal government was in office and at the time the NDP government was in office. I can't comment on the specifics of this case, obviously, but to say that people who are in chronic care beds past the time period provided by the law are offered placements in the community. If those placements are refused, they pay the copayment as per the law of all three politically striped governments in this province.

Mr Agostino: I appreciate the minister's lack of response. Frankly, it was not a Liberal policy at that point, but that is not the issue.

The issue, Minister, is this. Let me explain to you. If you're not sure what has happened or why, let me tell you what the hospital president has told us is the reason this has happened. Let me quote Mr Don Scott, president and CEO of Joe Brant: "Until we get more beds, it's not going to happen." The hospital decided to divest itself of nursing home patients as a result of provincial government funding cuts last spring.

It has reduced the number of nursing home patients to 40, and it was at 60 a few months ago, so very clearly it is as a result of your cuts. I'm not saying this. The CEO of Joe Brant hospital is telling us that as a result of your cuts they had to reduce nursing home beds. As a result of that, this 93-year-old woman is now stuck with a $9,000 bill.

Minister, can you commit today to reviewing the situation and look at waiving this bill? If the minister in charge of seniors maybe wants to stand up and answer it as one of his constituents, we'll ask the minister --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Member for Hamilton East, come to order. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: It's at the discretion of the hospital to waive the bill. It's their bill. If they want to waive it, it's up to the public members of that hospital board and I wouldn't stand in their way of waiving that bill.

I will say, though, on behalf of the government that we are looking at the bed situation. There are three projects under way in the Halton area. We are well aware, and I'm personally well aware, that out in that area of the province it's considered an underbedded area. There have to be more long-term-care beds. We're in the process of completing the overall plan that will be implemented later this year, and as part of future reinvestments we'll be looking at the number of beds.

I will say, though, that beds are available. They are being offered to patients, and patients are to avail themselves of those beds as they're offered.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Has he left for the day?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I don't know the whereabouts of the Minister of Environment and Energy. If you want to stand your question down, you can stand it down; otherwise, ask someone else. I can only assume that you knew you were going to ask the Minister of Environment and Energy before.

Here is the Minister of Environment and Energy.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): The wimp is back. Don't let him try to run out of the House.

The Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon, I ask that you withdraw that. That's totally unparliamentary.

Mr Pouliot: -- government of wimps. Could I call one of them a Conservative? I'll withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Where are you getting this list?

The Speaker: The member for Windsor-Riverside, if you'd come to order too I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

Ms Churley: Minister, my question is to you on the environment. Today there is great concern about the dangerous chemicals found when the abandoned Canada Malting Co laboratory on Lakeshore Boulevard in the east end caught fire. I understand that the property has changed hands several times and there may be difficulties in forcing the current owners to undertake and pay for a proper cleanup.

After all the damage your government has done to the environment through deregulation and laying off of staff, here's an opportunity for the minister to show some leadership. Will the minister commit today that he will get these chemicals off the site within 48 hours and follow up by making sure the property owner responsible for these toxic substances is made to pay for the cleanup?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): We are not deregulating; we are reregulating. We are making better regulations. We are putting together regulations which grew topsy-turvy over 30 years into a more logical and reasonable pattern. We've had consultations for over a year with regard to these. We've put out a green paper which people have had an opportunity to respond to. We are now going along on further consultations to deal with those regulations. Therefore we are going to have better regulations -- not relaxed regulations but better regulations -- to deal with in the future. We have always had a policy of "polluter pays," and we will continue to have that policy.

Ms Churley: The minister spent the whole time saying that he's improving environmental regulation in Ontario, which is totally ridiculous, but he still hasn't answered my question about an immediate problem near my riding and, may I add, in the riding of his colleague from St George-St David, and I'm sure his constituents may have concerns about this.

I want a commitment today that those chemicals will be taken off-site within 48 hours so people can feel safe and that the minister will go after the polluters. We want that commitment today, because in Riverdale already you let Canada Metal off the hook and the taxpayers are paying the full costs of the cleanup of lead in Riverdale. You've already set that precedent. I want a commitment today from you that those chemicals will be taken off the site within 48 hours by you.

Hon Mr Sterling: My intent, of course, is to look into this particular situation, but I want to say this to you. Why should we, the government, representing the taxpayers, pay for the removal of these particular chemicals when we can have these people pay for those particular matters? I presume these problems with these chemicals did not happen yesterday or last year or the year before. They've been there for some period of time. Therefore, I am pleased to promise the member that I will look into this particular situation to find a resolution of it, a resolution which has not been found over a long period of time.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is for the Attorney General and it concerns the SIU, the special investigations unit, which has been on the mind of a number of people in Ottawa-Carleton recently for a couple of reasons. The first, of course, is a positive one, the appointment of Mr Marin from the prosecuting attorney's office, but also as a result of a couple of decisions that have come down from the SIU recently concerning police officers in the Ottawa-Carleton area, decisions which have taken a considerable period of time.

I'm asking the Attorney General today if he would advise us with regard to the backlog that gave rise to the delays in those decisions and whether that backlog continues.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I'm pleased to report that the SIU no longer has a backlog of cases. As of September 1996, the total number of active cases in the unit was 28. From January 1996 to the end of September 1996, the SIU has taken on 117 new cases. Of these, only five are outside the 90-day goal set by the SIU as an administrative guide to complete a case. We're doing a lot better than we did in the days of the former government.

Mr Guzzo: My supplementary -- and let me just say I'm not surprised to learn such facts when you tap into the market in Ottawa-Carleton for the type of help that you're using, sir. With regard now to the process, is the 90-day administrative deadline still in effect?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Harnick: It's interesting to note by the reaction of the opposition that they obviously are not in favour of the SIU. But, Mr Speaker, I can tell you that both the public and the police deserve quick investigations and timely responses to incidents.

On October 24, 1996, the new director of the SIU, Mr Marin, announced a 30-day target project. All incoming investigations will be subject to a new 30-day turnaround. This will be achieved by streamlining the internal operations of the SIU, such as briefing and reporting processes. We have to recognize that there has to be some allowance for some issues pertaining to forensic testing, but Mr Marin assures us that the quality of investigations will not be compromised and that we will be doing the vast majority of them in 30 days.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): In the absence of the Premier, I'd like to go to the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Finance. As you know, Minister, it seems that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, or Mr Crombie, the phantom minister, is about to dissolve the six local city governments in Metro. I wonder whether there is any reference to that dissolution in the Common Sense Revolution. Where does it say that local governments are going to be abolished? Second, what do you think of the comments made by a Toronto columnist, Colin Vaughan, who says:

"Whatever happened to the Conservative opposition to big, faceless government? Not only is there the threat of amalgamation, but a parallel rumour suggests the province is about to be divided into just nine regional school boards.

"All more akin to a centralized Soviet form of government where bureaucratic convenience and control are paramount...." In other words, does this --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I hear that, the member for Oakwood. The question's been put.

Interjection.

The Speaker: No, member for Oakwood, the question's been put.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, I refer this question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for Oakwood for his question. He's certainly changed his position since he was on Metro council and since he was on York council, when he wanted to dissolve the municipalities.

The member asked whether this was in the Common Sense Revolution. It certainly was. We stated in that document that we wanted to get rid of waste and duplication and lower the cost of public administration to the taxpayer, and that's exactly what we intend to do.

Mr Colle: We all agree that there should be changes and there should be some adjustments, but this drastic eradication of local government for one centralized government with one bureaucracy controlled by Queen's Park -- how can this serve the local taxpayer? Is this not just basically a tax grab, to take $500 million out of Metro and spread it throughout the provincial treasury? Is this not just a smokescreen for a tax grab out of Metro?

Hon Mr Leach: Obviously there's absolutely no credibility to that question whatsoever. What we're looking at -- and by the way, Mr Speaker, no decisions have been made as yet. There are a number of options on that table that we're looking at. We're going to review them all. The one that the member mentioned is only one of them.

By the way, if he wants to quote a columnist on the merits of this proposal, I suggest that he look at David Lewis Stein's column in the Toronto Star today.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item number 45.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is the motion carried? Agreed.

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee has recommended that North York Branson Hospital merge with York-Finch hospital; and

"Whereas this recommendation will remove emergency and inpatient services currently provided by North York Branson Hospital, which will seriously jeopardize medical care and the quality of health for the growing population which the hospital serves, many being elderly people who in numerous cases require treatment for life-threatening medical conditions;

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the recommendation contained within the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee as it pertains to North York Branson Hospital, so that it retains, at minimum, emergency and inpatient services."

I have affixed my signature.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I continue to receive petitions from workers outraged at this government's continuing attack on WCB and health and safety. Today I have further petitions from the United Food and Commercial Workers, Locals 175 and 63, forwarded to me by their president, Mike Fraser; their secretary-treasurer, Wayne Hanley; and their benefits coordinator, Herb MacDonald. The petition reads as follows:

"To save workers' compensation:

"We, the undersigned, oppose your government's plan to dismantle the workers' compensation system, including reducing benefits; excluding claims for repetitive strain injuries, muscle injuries, strains, sprains, stress, harassment and most occupational diseases; eliminating pension supplements; handing over control of our claims to our employers for the first four to six weeks after injury; privatizing WCB to large insurance companies; integrating sick benefits into WCB; eliminating or restricting the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, WCAT; including eliminating worker representation on the board and eliminating the bipartite WCB board of directors.

"We therefore demand a safe workplace, compensation if we are injured, no reduction in benefits, improved re-employment and vocational rehabilitation, an independent appeal structure with worker representation, that the WCAT be left intact and that the WCB bipartite board of directors be reinstated."

On behalf of my caucus, I add my name to theirs.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a petition sent to me by a group of students in my constituency of Nepean. It reads as follows:

"At St Elizabeth Ann Seton, Mrs Pentney's grade 4 class really would like a high school in Barrhaven. We are students who will be affected soon, so we are asking for your help now."

It's signed by Kyle Windle, Jeremy Walsh and a group of grade 4 students in my constituency, and I agree.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

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

"Whereas motorists are not obeying the highway traffic law regarding stopping for school buses which are loading and unloading school children on the streets and highways of Ontario; and

"Whereas the children who ride the school buses of Ontario are at risk and their safety is in jeopardy; and

"Whereas the current school bus law is difficult to enforce since not only is a licence plate number required but positive identification of the driver and vehicle as well, which makes it extremely difficult to obtain a conviction;

"Therefore,

be it resolved, that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That private member's Bill 78,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, which will be presented by Pat Hoy, MPP, Essex-Kent, as ballot item number 51 in the next legislative session, be passed at third reading.

"Bill 78 imposes liability on the owner of a vehicle that fails to stop for a school bus that has its overhead red signal lights flashing and increases the fines for drivers identified breaking the school bus law to a range from $500 to $1,000 on first conviction and $1,000 to $2,000 on a subsequent conviction. It establishes a fine for identified vehicles breaking the school bus law of $1,000 to $2,000 on first conviction, and $2,000 to $3,000 on a subsequent conviction.

"The petitioners ask for the support of all members of the Legislature."

I affix my name to this.

USER FEES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have yet other petitions that were signed by the citizens of the community of Timmins when Mr Harris came visiting our fine community. The petition reads as follows:

"We, the following undersigned citizens, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Harris government had an election promise not to impose user fees; and

"Whereas the Harris government has imposed user fees in the name of copayments for medication; and

"Whereas we believe these user fees are to assist the government in funding its tax cut for the rich; and

"Whereas many seniors and disabled people cannot afford this user fee, resulting in non-compliance with prescriptions and the possibility of more serious illness as a result of non-compliance;

"We therefore demand that the Premier stop this attack on the elderly and the disabled by cancelling the copayment user fee charge to seniors."

I've affixed my signature to that petition.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I've yet another petition concerning driver exams for seniors in Port Colborne signed by people like Betsy Davis and Jean Winters. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and to the Minister of Transportation:

"Whereas the driver examination centre in the city of Welland is slated to close later in October; and

"Whereas these changes represent an undue hardship in that they will require Port Colborne and Wainfleet senior citizens to drive up to an hour away to take their annual road test on the unfamiliar roads of St Catharines; and

"Whereas the fact that a very high proportion of seniors eventually pass their road test has led the Minister of Transportation to state that he will re-examine the requirements for issuing drivers' licences for seniors,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Minister of Transportation to develop a system of licensing that is less onerous on the senior citizens of Port Colborne and Wainfleet and that recognizes that when tests are required, familiar local roads are the fairest places to assess driver ability."

I affix my name to the petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have another 2,626 signatures regarding the restructuring commission's report on Sudbury.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my name to the petition as I agree with the 10,304 people who have signed this petition.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by many of the tenants at the apartment building at 179 George Street in Hamilton. It is headed "Petition Against Changes to Tenants' Rights."

"We, the tenants of rental apartment units, completely disagree with any proposed changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act, the Rent Control Act, the Residents' Rights Act, the Rental Housing Protection Act, the land lease act and the vital services act, and the introduction of any new legislation where tenants' rights could be denied or reduced and leave us open to potential landlord harassment or discrimination."

Since I'm in support of this position, I add my signature to theirs.

FIREARMS CONTROL

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed this petition.

MANDATORY INQUESTS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The following petition is to the Honourable Solicitor General and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario has decided to scrap mandatory inquests as a result of fatalities in the mining and construction industry; and

"Whereas this unprecedented and callous decision sets workplace safety back 20 years;

"We, the undersigned, request that Solicitor General Bob Runciman and the Legislative Assembly, on behalf of all workers in the mining and construction industry, reverse his decision to remove mandatory inquests from the Coroners Act of Ontario."

I affix my name to the petition as I am in full agreement with it.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here yet another petition from the people of Cochrane South expressing their concerns about the Mike Harris government. It goes on as follows:

"We, the following undersigned citizens, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has already cut substantial dollars and staff from the Ministry of Environment; and

"Whereas the cuts have already placed a burden on remaining staff, making it difficult, if not impossible, for them to do their jobs adequately and protect the safety of citizens of the province; and

"Whereas the likelihood of further cuts will leave us wondering if we are breathing clean air and drinking clean water; and

"Whereas the auditor's report confirms our fears;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario restore funding to this much-needed ministry to maintain safe levels of air and water."

It's signed by some 400 people in the community of Cochrane South.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I have another petition concerning drivers' exams for seniors, this one from some seniors in Fort Erie, Ontario. I'll be visiting a group tomorrow so I'm pleased to present the petition in the House today. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and to the Minister of Transportation:

"Whereas the driver examination centre in the town of Fort Erie has been closed as of September 24 and the centre in Niagara Falls will close later in October; and

"Whereas these changes represent an undue hardship in that they will require Fort Erie senior citizens to drive up to an hour away to take their annual road test on the unfamiliar roads of St Catharines; and

"Whereas the fact that a very high proportion of seniors eventually pass their road test has led the Minister of Transportation to state that he will re-examine the requirements for issuing drivers' licences to seniors;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Minister of Transportation to develop a system of licensing that is less onerous on the senior citizens of Fort Erie and that recognizes that when tests are required, familiar local roads are the fairest place to assess driver ability."

Since I'm in agreement with the petition, I will sign my name to it.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have a petition signed by a number of people from the Essex county area.

"Whereas motorists are not obeying the highway traffic law regarding stopping for school buses which are loading and unloading school children on the streets and highways of Ontario; and

"Whereas the children who ride the school buses of Ontario are at risk and their safety is in jeopardy; and

"Whereas the current school bus law is difficult to enforce since not only is a licence plate number required but positive identification of the driver and vehicle as well, which makes it extremely difficult to obtain a conviction;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That private member's Bill 78,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, which will be presented by Pat Hoy, MPP, Essex-Kent, as ballot item number 51 in the next legislative session, be passed at third reading.

"Bill 78 imposes liability on the owner of a vehicle that fails to stop for a school bus that has its overhead red signal lights flashing and increases the fines for drivers identified breaking the school bus law to a range from $500 to $1,000 on first conviction and $1,000 to $2,000 on a subsequent conviction. It establishes a fine for identified vehicles breaking the school bus law of $1,000 to $2,000 on first conviction and $2,000 to $3,000 on a subsequent conviction.

"We ask for the support of all members of the Legislature."

I will sign my name to this.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition organized by Rita Gasslein on Erie Avenue in my riding of Hamilton Centre. It reads as follows:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the clinics and the centre have made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre in the province of Ontario;

"Further, we, the undersigned, request that education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that the professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

I add my name to theirs.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Carroll from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 52,

An Act to promote resource development, conservation and environmental protection through the streamlining of regulatory processes and the enhancement of compliance measures in the aggregate and petroleum industries / Projet de loi 52, Loi visant à promouvoir la mise en valeur des ressources, la conservation ainsi que la protection de l'environnement en simplifiant les processus de réglementation et en renforçant les mesures de conformité dans l'industrie pétrolière et l'industrie des agrégats.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 52 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

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

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): First of all, let me speak to the title of the bill. Oh, please. This has happened so often during the course of the last year and months. There's this weird, Orwellian kind of Newspeak, where there's a distortion -- and it goes beyond distortion -- to the point of dishonesty. To talk about this being designed to fund charities and to talk about it as

an act to regulate alcohol and gaming in the public interest is not just naïve but outright dishonest.

It obscures the reality of what this bill is going to do to what used to be our Ontario. It's no longer ours. Ontario has been hijacked, it's under siege, it's being held to ransom by Harris and his gang and their rich Bay Street buddies. Let's make it clear: This bill is all about introducing hi-tech, very sophisticated slot machines, one-armed bandits, to every bar, every restaurant, every tavern in every corner of every neighbourhood of every community in this province.

I know the minister and the minister before him have been briefed and all pumped up with the little briefing notes and the clips and the sort of things they are supposed to say, or at least told to say, and I'm not sure they believe half of them, in response to the criticisms.

One of the things they like to point out is that there are fewer slots going to be here in Ontario per capita than any other province. Well, look, let's talk about Ontario. The fact is 20,000 slots. You want to know how many are going to be in your town, in your community? The calculation's not difficult at all; it's a ratio of one for every 550 population. That's what 20,000 slots here in Ontario amounts to.

Take the population of your community, divide it by 550, that's how many one-armed bandits are going to be proliferating throughout the city you live in. That means -- let me tell you, I did the simple calculation for the folks in the city of Welland. With a population of 48,000, we're talking about 87 slot machines: 87 slots in the city of Welland alone on the basis of the proposal by this government.

So this isn't

an act to regulate alcohol and gaming in the public interest. "Public interest" -- please, give me a break. When have slot machines ever been in the public interest? Does the mob that runs them in any number of jurisdictions have the public interest at heart? Never have, never will. "To fund charities" -- give me a break. The slots are going to make it impossible for volunteer organizations in the communities where I come from, Welland and Thorold, and in similar communities. I'm insistent that Welland and Thorold are as representative of the real Ontario as any community is in this province.

Here we've got slot machines that are going to take away the opportunity for organizations like the ones that make my community a far better place to live in, and it becomes all that much more important when you see this government with its attack on supporting these types of agencies. Are Big Brothers and Big Sisters down in Welland-Thorold going to be impacted? You bet your boots. Yes, they're going to be badly hurt. Any number of organizations now that -- I understand the bingo phenomenon.

Welland, some 20 miles from the Buffalo border, with its, and I'm proud, fair share of Catholic churches has been a bingo haven for a long time. I'm telling you 20,000 slots, 20,000 one-armed bandits are a far cry from the bingo games seniors are playing over in Slovak Hall on Hagar Street, where it's small stakes and you win small prizes and it is truly a social activity two or three hours in the afternoon when people get together.

A whole lot of charitable organizations and societies like Slovak Hall and the Casa Dante and the Hungarian Hall are going to be badly hurt. This isn't about funding those charities; it's about taking away from them the opportunity they've had through their hard work, through volunteer participation, to raise modest funds, sustain their own activities, all very important to the community, as often as not participation in other fund-raising events where they give of their money.

Before we get into the whole issue of slots, the one-armed bandits this government wants to see proliferating throughout every town in this province, please let me speak for just a minute about one aspect of this legislation that is certainly as insidious but has been so rarely spoken of during the course of the debate about Bill 75: the abolition of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, because that's what this bill does.

It abolishes the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario without there having been any meaningful consultation, notwithstanding the rather pathetic claims of the previous minister and, as far as I'm aware, the silence of the present minister, without any meaningful consultation with the Ontario Liquor Board Employees' Union, those hardworking people who work for the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario now, including the liquor inspectors who have served this province well, I tell you, for a long time with some pretty scarce resources. That's what Bill 75 is all about, the abolition of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario and the abolition of the Gaming Control Commission.

What do we find in their stead? By God, an arm's-length, non-profit corporation that incorporates or purports to incorporate the two regulatory bodies, the so-called Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, which will have no direct responsibility or accountability to any minister, as if any ministers of Mike Harris were accountable or responsible -- but one can hope -- and a scheme that's designed to lead ultimately towards the privatization of the regulation of, among other things, first the sale, distribution and marketing of alcohol.

My God, the immorality -- think about it -- of abandoning, abdicating one's responsibility, as this government is doing, the regulation of the sale, distribution and advertising of alcohol, a highly addictive substance which continues to wreak havoc on individuals, families and communities across this province, a drug which carries with it a huge social and personal cost. This government is prepared to surrender its regulation and control to what at the end of the day are going to be private interests.

It's the height of immorality and it betrays the real agenda of this government, which is to sell off everything that working people and their families have built and paid for in this province to private interests so you can maximize profits at the expense of people's lives.

The same is true in terms of the regulation of gaming itself, because the Gaming Control Commission, part of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, is now wiped off the map and is part and parcel of this arm's-length Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, a non-profit corporation with no direct accountability to any government.

Indeed, amendments that were raised during the course of committee hearings -- and I hope I've got enough time to speak about those committee hearings, because they warrant being spoken about here in this chamber; a pathetic mockery of the committee process, as repressive and oppressive and undemocratic an exercise as has ever been engaged in here at Queen's Park, and one that doesn't bode well for the future.

Notwithstanding a whole lot of concerns raised about -- catch this one. All of the directors of this non-profit corporation are going to be appointed by the government with no guidelines, no criteria for their appointment to ensure there's some balance on this board of directors. Who's going to end up there? We know. We've looked at the people who have been appointed by this government over the course of the last year and a few months. We're talking about the most ideological political hacks who could ever be --

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Hirelings.

Mr Kormos: Someone said "hirelings"; I say quislings -- appointed by this government to boards that have great responsibility but which have ultimately one goal, and that is to maximize profits for the private sector interests, the big corporate interests that are inevitably going to be involved. I'll talk about the mob later because we can't discuss this without talking about the inevitable involvement of the mob either -- organized crime.

We can't talk about this without talking about the invitation that Bill 75 is, a blank cheque for organized crime to walk into this province and involve itself in an activity that's not just been endorsed but is being sponsored by this government and that victimizes. It doesn't provide a service. Come on. I'm not talking about providing a service, though some have tried to characterize this as entertainment. That's like the heroin dealer trying to characterize the use of heroin by his or her clientele as mere entertainment.

Slot machines are certainly the crack cocaine of gambling, the most addictive form of gambling and one that has as its target market youngsters, young people, our children, Speaker, your children, and the children of the folks I know so well down in Welland-Thorold. Again, they're so alike, other hardworking folks, people who have hopes and aspirations for their children across this province.

The video slot machine industry hasn't been sitting idle over the course of the last 10, 15, 20 years. They certainly didn't sit idle when this government came into power because they saw an entry point. Gangs like that led by Marshall Pollock were at this government's doorstep quick as a boo, saying, "By God, here's our entry point."

I know the last government introduced casino gambling in specific venues. I recall the debate. I recall my concerns that I expressed, yes, about casino gambling. I recall how they were shared by Mike Harris, now the Premier, and Ernie Eves, now the Minister of Finance. I recall how Ernie Eves spoke out against slot machines, reminding this House and the public about the inherent dangers that accompany slot machines when they're imposed on a community. We're talking about something far greater here than a casino in Windsor, Niagara Falls or Orillia.

We're talking about a proliferation of slot machines, the crack cocaine of gambling, slot machines that are far more sophisticated than any person in this province has ever seen before and slot machines that have as their target market our children, and not without design and not without intent.

Gangs led by the likes of Marshall Pollock have been eager to impose themselves on -- not impose themselves; they're merely getting the payback, the grease. They're collecting their debts. They're collecting the vigorish from this government. They're saying: "It's our turn. We helped you guys get elected." They did. "Now it's time to pay up, Mike Harris and gang. Some of our members may not be the most savoury types, some of our interests may certainly not be in the public interest, but it's time to pay up. Let us get our slot machines out there in small-town Ontario so we can pick the pocket" --

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold questioned the integrity of some of the members when he said some of our members may be less than savoury.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Speaker. So here we are. We've got gangs approaching this government saying: "It's our turn. We've waited too long. The New Democrats wouldn't let us put these slot machines in neighbourhoods of small-town Ontario, but we can count on you, Mike, because you're indebted to us. It's time for you to pay back corporate Ontario for having gotten you elected." By God, the payback's going to be one that comes out of the pockets of each and every member of each and every community in this province.

During the committee hearings, as we travelled about -- and I know that there were advocates of slots, of course there were, the people who make the things. With 20,000 slots, we're talking about a whole lot of profit to be made on the manufacture of them. We're talking about the spin doctors who accompany these. Do you know who got hoodwinked? Do you know who's been had here? Do you know who got the shaft? The Tory caucus did. I appreciate this may be uncomfortable to some of the people from the Tory caucus who spoke to me about it, but when this matter was presented to the Tory caucus, among other things, they were called video lottery terminals.

What a benign name, the image of somehow somebody sitting down and playing Pac-Man for a quarter a shot. We're not talking about Pac-Man machines here. We're not talking about pinball any more. The stakes have gone up considerably. We're talking about the crack cocaine of gambling, the most addictive form of gambling ever created and one that has as its target market the youngsters, children, youth, adolescents and young adults of this province. Tory backbenchers got hoodwinked, because the spin doctors came in with the flip-charts and the overhead projectors, the whole nine yards, telling this caucus about what an easy sell this was going to be.

One has to consider the government's motive here. Why does the government want this cash grab? Why would this government even consider it? From the data from other provinces, other jurisdictions that have been so foolish and naïve and corrupt as to permit slots in their jurisdictions, we know who the players are. They're not the high stakes gamblers. They're not the jokers who were over at Woodbine for the Breeders' Cup at the $1,000 window. They're little people who play a nickel, a quarter, a loonie at a time. They are. They're the unsophisticated gamblers, because the slots are an easy game.

You don't have to know any rules. You don't have to handicap a racing form. You don't have to handicap a race. You don't have to worry about the rules of the game of blackjack or poker. You just empty your pocket and keep pumping them in. Let me tell you, these machines are designed, and going to be increasingly so, to take a loonie every second and a half, with bells and whistles you've never dreamed of.

We're talking here about stuff that's akin to virtual reality; we heard that during the course of committee hearings. We're talking about stuff here that's going to turn you on and get you going and get that wrist just a-pumping and get those loonies flowing to the point where it empties your pockets far faster than any other game of chance ever could.

You walk away at the end of the day pulling out your pockets like rabbit ears, saying: "By God, what happened? What happened to the paycheque? What happened to the baby bonus cheque? What happened to the mother's allowance cheque? What happened to the money I was supposed to take to the landlord? What happened to the food money that I was walking over to the IGA, the Dominion store or the Commissos down in Welland or the Friendly Food Mart?" You walk away saying, "I don't know what's just been done to me.

I've been razzle-dazzled; I've been taken; I've been hoodwinked; I've been held up by the ankles and had every last nickel and dime shaken out of me," by these guys, by this government, with the collaborators in the slot machine industry who have no conscience.

This government knows it needs the money. It's talking about millions, I tell you, billions of dollars being sucked out of the pockets, out of the paycheques, out of the bank accounts of hardworking folks -- and some who wish they could be working; more than a few -- in this province, who deserve far better treatment from a government in these hard and desperate and tough times.

We're talking about people here who are going to be victimized by the government; not the wealthy, make no mistake about it. Conrad Black and Babs Amiel, it's not them that these machines are designed for. Connie Black and Babs, why, they've got their own places of recreation. I don't know if they were over at the Breeders' Cup or not, over at that $500 window. I don't know if there is a $1,000 window. This isn't who these slot machines are designed for.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Fort York, if you want to speak to the member for Lake Nipigon, do so in a quiet way.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate your intervening on my behalf, because this is important stuff. I know there are some folks here who aren't particularly interested. By God, David Tsubouchi wasn't. We asked him to come to the committee hearings. He was a no-show. We said: "Please, you're the new minister. Perhaps you could tell us what in your sense of morality, of fairness, permits you to endorse this type of scheme. Perhaps you could respond to the plethora of research that's available from this province, from the United States, from Quebec, from the western provinces, from Great Britain."

The government members didn't want to hear about it, didn't want to read -- they didn't, Speaker -- the remarkable evidence that contrasts with what I understand has been a consistent level of gambling addiction in the general population of somewhere between 2% and 4%, although even I say that's serious enough to warrant this government paying some heed; the research that shows levels of gambling addiction in multiples of two and three times that among adolescents, especially with respect to electronic slot machines.

Mr Marchese: But they say it's a choice, Peter. That's what they say.

Mr Kormos: This government says, "Nobody forces you to put that loonie or that toonie into that machine." That's what the cigarette industry, those bastards of death, have to say. That's what they've got to say about cigarettes.

The Deputy Speaker: The language is left to be desired. It's the type of language which I don't like to hear in the House. I find it insulting. I would ask you to withdraw that remark.

Mr Kormos: I withdraw, but I tell you, it's hard to be kind to a tobacco industry that has preyed upon generations and generations of people, slaughtering hundreds of thousands and millions on this continent with the height of dishonesty, with the height of disdain, with the height of corruption, and who now, when there are enhanced levels of awareness of the intense addictiveness of tobacco, moves on to Third World countries to market their evil, deadly product there. "Bastards" may not have been appropriate, Speaker, and I acknowledge that.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold, please withdraw that remark again, and don't use it again.

Mr Kormos: I withdraw it. It's the B word. I don't know how kindly the Speaker wants me to treat the tobacco industry, but I tell you this: I view them no more kindly than I view the slot machine industry, because they're similar industries that have the intent to prey, with a highly addictive phenomenon, on the most vulnerable people in our community, and this government is prepared to join arms with them. This government is prepared to write a blank cheque to the mob, to open the doors. It knows.

Police reports, which this government denied and then ignored, refused -- this government was Gethsemanic about police reports that were available in this province and elsewhere in the country -- indicate that, one, Mike Harris's legal electronic slots are not going to eliminate the illegal ones. We know that; the police know that. This government wants to argue that the slot machines are all about eliminating the illegals. Hogwash. BS, as they say down in Welland.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold is too intelligent a man and will understand the procedures after all the years that he's spent here. I would ask you to refrain from using that type of language.

Mr Kormos: I withdraw. Down in Welland-Thorold they call it BF, bull feathers.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold, let me not repeat it again.

Mr Kormos: They don't think highly of that down in Welland-Thorold. Let me tell you, the language that they're inclined to use to describe it is far more graphic than what the Speaker's letting me use now. Even "feathers." Feathers, Speaker; feathers of a bull. That's what they'd be inclined to say to those arguments, in far more graphic language than you're permitting me to use now.

It's hard to remain conservatively calm about this when we know this is being inflicted upon our communities and eventually our children. Why? Because this government promised a tax break to the richest people in this province, a tax break for the rich.

And this government has every intention of fulfilling that promise, just like it has every intention of taking care of its rich corporate buddies, be they the slot machine industry, notwithstanding that the slot machine industry is inevitably infiltrated and corrupted in one way or another by organized crime and the mob, be it them or be it simply their rich friends, the Mercedes-Benz crowd, the Jaguar crowd. You know the kind, you know the ilk, with their six- and seven-digit incomes and for whom a 30% tax break is going to mean big money in the bank.

The 30% tax break -- you know what the folks, the hardworking people in Welland-Thorold, say about the tax break? You know what they say to Mike Harris about his tax break? Why, they tell him, "Mike Harris, you can put that tax break where the moon don't shine." Because at the end of the day, if you're going to put children out of their classrooms and sick people out of hospitals, and if you're going to have to introduce slot machines into our community and bring the spectre of organized crime into law-abiding, peaceful communities, we don't want it.

The stakes are much higher for the very rich. First of all, there's no conscience there. There's no conscience. Big corporations have never been moral. They've been quite accustomed and quite attuned to victimizing anything that the law permits them, and on occasion, from time to time, things that the law doesn't permit them. Tell me about the morality of the tobacco industry. Demonstrate to me one iota of morality in the tobacco industry. I tell you this: You'll find no more morality among the slot machine industry. There's no money-back guarantees.

There's no assistance for the destitute and the devastated who have had every last nickel and dime sucked out of them. There's no quick fix for communities which have been corrupted by the crime that inevitably accompanies the introduction of slot machines.

The horse racing industry has been using it as an argument, as well as the prospect of employment, but what we learned is that the labour component of slots is minimal. That's why they're so darned -- may I, "darned"? -- profitable, because the labour component is minimal.

The province of Quebec, with its thousands and thousands of slot machines, ended up hiring a couple of hundred people at the end of the day across the whole province. It didn't create employment. It emptied a whole lot of people's pockets, though.

The horse racing industry said, "By God, we need slots," and they held as hostage horse breeders and the agricultural component of the horse racing industry. Let me tell you something, Speaker, and I know I haven't got a whole lot of time left. I dearly regret having breached the parliamentary rules because I know that forced you to your feet in your successful efforts to correct me. The horse racing industry has talked about slots being essential to the survival of this industry. We learned from Windsor Raceway management that they've got slot machines ready that will show you a tote board.

You sit at your slot machine and it's picture in picture, just like on your RCA Victor television set at home, where you can watch the legislative channel in the lower right-hand corner and Laverne and Shirley on the main screen, as you do from time to time while you're waiting to see whether there's a call for the new Speaker. You can bet on your horse, switch from picture to picture, watch your horse run down in the lower right-hand corner and then play the slots, one every second and a half while that horse is running, then you switch it over and bet your horse again.

I'll tell you something I've talked to a lot of people about, including computer people. I predict that this slot machine industry and the virtual reality component of it will kill horse racing in this province because within our lifetimes there will be simulated horse racing. The Ontario Jockey Club has no interest in maintaining its range of tracks across the province. With this type of machinery they will be able to create lineages, horses, histories, jockeys, races and racetracks, which exist only in computer programmers' imaginations, that will generate as much, if not more, betting activity than the remaining racetracks in this province do now.

I warn the people in the agricultural industry and aficionados of horse breeding and horse racing that this slot machine proposal has nothing to do with saving the horse race industry; it has everything to do with eliminating the horse race industry and replacing it with a far more profitable component of gambling.

Needless to say I'm not going to be supporting this bill. It's an evil, insidious bill. It reflects evil intention on the part of the government that presents it to this House. The committee process lacked democracy in any sense of the word and showed nothing but disdain for presenters who dared to contradict government members who themselves were prepared with only the most meagre of propaganda and spin from a pathetic Premier's office.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I had the pleasure of participating in the committee hearings on Bill 75. I spent a lot of time with the member for Welland-Thorold and continue to disagree on some areas of the bill. It could reflect the different views of our constituents. People in Welland-Thorold may differ from those of Niagara South. But in terms of the benefits to charities of Bill 75 and in terms of the benefits in job creation of Bill 75, I feel strongly that those people in Niagara South are behind the bill for these benefits.

For example, the benefits to charities from the permanent charity event sites, the VLTs at racetracks and VLTs in general, is up to $180 million more. That's money I hope will go to good community groups like Wainfleet minor hockey that I've talked about or the Port Colborne Optimists or the Head Injury Association of Fort Erie, good groups that stand to benefit from a permanent charity event site, instead of these roving casinos where part of the gamble is trying to figure out where the game is going to be on a particular night. Put them in a permanent place so that the money will be flowed to the charities and benefit associations like that.

The member for Welland-Thorold mentioned Big Sisters. I remember Eileen Moore of the Big Sisters of Peel region was very much in favour of firming up permanent charity event sites because they find it very difficult to gauge how things are going to be from one month to the next. They can't advertise effectively and the players don't know where they're going to be, so they lose a great opportunity. So let's go with Bill 75. Let's go with permanent event sites.

Certainly in the hearings in Fort Erie we heard very strongly from places like Joe's Place, which has blues music in the Niagara Peninsula, Sherkston Shores, the Dog House in Fort Erie. They all talk about the benefits of job creation from Bill 75.

Finally, on behalf of those 4,500 people from my riding, from Welland-Thorold, from throughout the Niagara Peninsula who work at the Fort Erie Race Track or are associated with it, they are strongly behind this bill because they've seen this kind of mixture, the VLTs at the racetrack, work in any number of jurisdictions: Delaware, Rhode Island, Manitoba, California. It's a proven benefit to charities, to the racing industry and a long-term job creator.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It's my privilege to reply to the comments made by the member for Welland-Thorold. I think throughout the hearings too, as was referred to, we heard from various areas of interest, including the racetracks. We've commented on those many times, that they are controlled environments. They're environments in which it is understandable that the introduction of video lottery terminals may help the industry and at the same time may be well controlled within that industry.

The concern we've shown time and time again, along with those who have presented, is in the area of addiction and also that organized crime will be given the opportunity to infiltrate these machines. I ask the government if it will just consider this: that there is out there a reasonable amount of doubt surrounding the introduction of these machines, ie, in the area of their addictiveness and how these insidious little machines on occasion can just take your life away.

I just ask the government to consider: Where there's doubt, don't. If there are areas of this bill, like the proliferation of them across the province in every licensed establishment and bar, look at that very carefully, and if you have some doubt -- and I think there are members across who do, because I've talked to members of the government who have expressed some concern -- don't just look at the bucks. If there's some doubt, let's not. Let's put them only where they can be well controlled.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): One more time the House has had the privilege to listen to the member for Welland-Thorold in his unique and compassionate fashion issue a warning, an ultimatum to the government, telling them that they have become insatiable, that they're going too far. Oh, sure, they will start slowly, with the proliferation of 6,000 of those unarmed bandits, and then you watch them go quickly, step by step, to 20,000. Consequently you'll find one in every bar, one in every restaurant and, if they had their way, one in every school.

What is being done here with this proliferation is sapping the opportunity of charity casinos. We're not talking about, at night and evenings, an establishment where we could play a little baccarat. We're talking about the extreme, about the addiction, about the vile display of what is the crack cocaine of gambling -- nothing short of that. This is the worst kind of demon. It borders on the obscene and on the porcine. There's not one ounce of human dimension attached to it as long as the money keeps rolling in.

People of the cloth, churches, community organizations: We don't listen to them because they stand in the way. See, Speaker, they take time. There will be no consultation. Municipalities are saying, "We don't want your junk inside our boundaries." But they're saying, "We're going to force it down your throat because we wish to have the money."

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I think for the member for Lac-Nipigon to suggest that somehow it's a provincial government priority, to suggest that there is any public policy motivation to put some sort of gambling activity in schools is absolutely obscene and he knows it. He knows that's not the case.

I indicate to the member for Welland-Thorold -- he was the only one opposite who was prepared to stand up and speak his mind when they voted on the social contract, voted to override collective agreements. He's the only one opposite who would vote against it. So I was interested to know what he --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I wish it was only Peter.

Mr Baird: Well, I read Hansard and he was the only one. All the rest of you voted for it, voted to override collective agreements. So I wondered what the member for Welland-Thorold thought then. He thought casinos were an opportunity in gambling. Any downside to gambling was only a perception. In fact, the member for Riverdale, in Hansard, July 12, 1993, said VLTs would be allowed within the confines of the casino. VLTs obviously weren't that bad when the previous government was in power because that's what it says in Hansard.

What did they say in Welland-Thorold? I have a quote here from the Windsor Star, dated November 11, 1994:

"`Ontario should take its casino winnings and bet them on the red, the debt, that is,' MPP Peter Kormos says. The maverick New Democratic MPP for Welland-Thorold said that the NDP government is raking in the dough from the Windsor casino and thinking about building more. `It should seriously consider paying down the almost $90-billion provincial debt with its newfound cash'" -- the member for Welland-Thorold -- "`It's a missed opportunity,' he said.

Kormos said it would be a good marketing tool for the government to put its casino windfall down towards the provincial debt. `If Ontarians had a sense that casino profits would be dedicated to its debt, it would be far easier to sell and would go a long way to offset the perceived down side of casinos.'"

When we know his Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was saying at the same time VLTs would be allowed, that's what he was saying about what the proceeds should go to.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold, you have two minutes.

Mr Kormos: