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

November 7, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L122 - Thu 7 Nov 1996 / Jeu 7 Nov 1996

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

POLISH INDEPENDENCE DAY

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

CHILD CARE

FIRE SAFETY AWARDS

STUDENT PROGRAM / STAGE POUR ÉTUDIANTS

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

ELAINE POMAJBA

ASSISTANCE TO NORTHERN ONTARIO

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

TVONTARIO

REMEMBRANCE DAY / JOUR DU SOUVENIR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TRUCKING SAFETY

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

TRUCKING SAFETY

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMENTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

VISITOR

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMENTS

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

PARENT-SCHOOL ASSOCIATION

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HIGHWAY 416

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMENTS

EDUCATION REFORM

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

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 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): It's a great privilege to stand today in the House as a private member and introduce this bill, which I have brought forward for a variety of reasons, particularly because my friends opposite in the governing party have said quite clearly in their Common Sense Revolution that they wish to respect the principles of the Canada Health Act and the principles that are entrenched in federal legislation.

In looking at their record in the health care field, it's our desire to ensure and to see that they are serious in their approach to this and that they're prepared to entrench in statute what has been done in other provinces; that is, entrenching those principles of the Canada Health Act that I think all of us support in our own provincial legislation. Let's review for a moment what those principles are, lest anybody forget.

Portability: that this system be accessible not only across the province but across our country.

Comprehensiveness: that a full range of medically necessary hospital and physician services ought to be available.

Finally, that it be publicly administered and publicly funded.

The bill I've presented today will ensure through our own legislation and our own statutes in Ontario that these principles be entrenched. The act ensures that we use the resources that are transferred to us in a way that is consistent with the principles outlined in the Canada Health Act. We have established a

preamble into the Health Insurance Act to incorporate these ideas.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I'm sorry to interrupt you.

Please respect the person who is addressing the House and you'll have a chance to voice your opinion. In the meantime, I would ask you to refrain from heckling.

Mr Duncan: That government doesn't care about health care. They don't care about people. They don't care about seniors. They've implemented user fees, and they said they wouldn't implement user fees. We won't have obstetrical services in this province. Just today the doctors are sitting down to negotiate with a government that they have no trust in, a government that will not be able to guarantee services. We said this would happen when you introduced Bill 26 and you took away the doctors' rights to negotiate a fee schedule. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. This government will pay a heavy price.

They are at the point now where they're confident, unlike Mr O'Toole, who says when he goes home, he gets it all the time from his constituents. He was well reported; doesn't even want to run again. Why? Because the people of this province are speaking up. They're speaking up in Durham and they're speaking up in Toronto. They're speaking up in Red Lake and they're speaking up everywhere. They're saying: "Enough of this nonsense. Enough of this neo-Conservative garbage that's undermining our health care system." They've undermined it, and we are prepared on this side to stand up for those principles and stand firmly and squarely.

It will be interesting to see if they'll vote for this bill. It will be interesting to see if they're prepared to put their legislative authority where their rhetoric is, because they've talked a good game about it right across Ontario and right in their own election documents. What this bill will do is ensure that no single minister, no single government, by regulation, can further undermine public health care in this country.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): We need this.

Mr Duncan: We need this bill because this government won't do that. This government is prepared to step on little people. This government is prepared to implement user fees on seniors, even though they said they wouldn't do it. Remember? "No user fees," page 7 of the Common Sense Revolution. What do we have? We have user fees. That's what this government has done and that's where this government's head is.

This government doesn't understand the concept of public health care. They're not prepared to defend it and we don't trust them to defend it because they've not kept their word and they won't keep their word. Their agenda is driven by the corporate interests and by the interests of the wealthy. They'd rather give a tax cut to the president of a bank than prescription drugs to a poor senior. We say that's wrong, and we'll stand up to them right across this province.

This government, which said in the election that it anticipated the cuts in federal transfers, this government that said that in all of its documents, in all of its propaganda, now says, "Well, we didn't expect these cuts."

This government has no vision of health care. This government has no vision of a future for this province. The people of this province will give them a loud and clear message, just as they did in York South, just as they will in 1999, that this lack of vision, this singular inability to understand what's important, not only to health care but to the psyche of this country and the people of this province, is not good enough. It's not good enough. We in the Liberal Party and we on this side of the House demand that this government fulfil its obligations and protect that system.

I know there are many thoughtful members opposite who support it. I know and believe that they'll have the courage to say: "We can accept these amendments. They're consistent with our own election promises, and they're consistent with what our ministry has been saying." They campaigned on it. They ought not to be afraid to put this into law.

This isn't the first province that would do it if we adopt this. British Columbia has done it. We think that's a good model and that's why we've introduced this bill.

This government, the current government, campaigned on preserving the medicare system we've come to appreciate and cherish in this country. We challenge them today to take this bill and pass it. It's simple, it involves the expenditure of not one cent of government money and in fact it calls upon the federal government to continue transfers to make the system work.

Interjections.

Mr Duncan: They laugh and they joke.

Mr Gravelle: They don't care.

They're a disgrace. They laugh and they joke. Well, the joke is going to be on you in 1999, because the people of this province will chase you so far out of office you won't know what hit you. Stand up for public health care in this country; stand up for the proper funding of it.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. Further debate.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I certainly intend to support the bill, although I would that it's unclear in that it basically is a motherhood or parenthood statement that we should be following the Canada Health Act. I certainly agree that we should be following the Canada Health Act.

I would prefer that we had a federal government that continued to have national standards. I would prefer that we had a federal government that maintained its transfer payments and didn't just try to win national elections by going around and telling everybody they're going to defend medicare while Paul Martin is pulling billions of dollars out of the health care system and our post-secondary education system, although I certainly agree with the member for Windsor-Walkerville that when the campaign was on in 1995, Mr Harris said very clearly: "No one should complain about the cutbacks in federal transfers.

We've accounted for all of this in the Common Sense Revolution. We can deal with all of those cuts. We can still balance the budget. We can still accommodate the tax reduction. We can do all of these things without touching our health care system, without touching classroom education, without bringing in user fees."

The fact of the matter is the Conservative Party, and I emphasize the "Conservative Party," knowing the rules of this place lied to the people of the province, and there's no doubt at all that they did. Look what they have done since they have come to office: They have cut $1.3 billion out of our health care system, out of hospitals.

The minister has made it pretty clear about what is to happen very soon. He made a statement at the Ontario Hospital Association the other day that he guaranteed that the $17.4 billion would be spent on health care.

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am a member of the Conservative Party, and if there is a lie attributed to the Conservative Party, he's attributing it to me and my colleagues. I don't believe that --

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. I heard very clearly what was said. He did not accuse any individual. Please keep on with the debate.

Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, what I would say is that the member has obviously made the connection. If he wants to speak again to make the connection, I would appreciate that.

Let's go back to what the government had said about things like user fees.

Mr Preston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

Mr Cooke: Come on, Mr Speaker. Stop the clock and take it out of the Conservatives' time.

Mr Preston: He has now said that this member has made the connection, so he has identified me right here with the lie.

The Deputy Speaker: Please. You are pushing it a bit too far.

Mr Cooke: They're very sensitive over there, aren't they, Mr Speaker, very, very sensitive about these things? Can you imagine how sensitive they're going to be after they come back after the one week in their constituencies and they start hearing from their constituents about the cuts to health care, the hospitals that are closing from one end of this province to the other end, the user fees they've brought in for seniors and low-income Ontarians when the Conservative Party promised they would not bring in any user fees?

It's very clear, and I say it again, that by making the promise that there would be no new user fees, the Conservative Party lied to the people of this province and won the election on that basis.

Interjection.

Mr Cooke: I said the "Conservative Party."

Mr Cooke: I wouldn't want to hold the Conservatives clearly accountable; I would just say that the people of this province know what kind of line they were given in the last election and they're beginning to realize very clearly that the government was not very honest with them in the last election. The Conservative Party went out of its way to try to reassure people that there would be no cuts to classroom education, no cuts to health care, and that's not what has happened: $1.3 billion worth of cuts to hospitals.

The Ontario drug benefit program is obviously the clearest example. The government and the Conservative Party played very fast and loose with their words in that campaign. They said there were going to be no new user fees, and everybody who read that promise understood that they meant no new user fees, period, when it came to health. Then they form a government. They bring in the copayments, they bring in some other basic fees to the drug benefit program, and they say, "What we meant to say was that there are no user fees where the Canada Health Act applies, and the Canada Health Act does not apply to the Ontario drug benefit program."

The ordinary person, the senior, who read that commitment that there would be no user fees feels absolutely betrayed by this government. There is no piece of legislation that we can pass in this House amending the Health Insurance Act to overcome that problem and that betrayal of the public trust that the government has implemented since the 1995 election, but I think it's important for us to go on record here today, all of us, to say that we still believe, we have a common belief in this Legislature, in a universal health care plan and that no government should betray that common belief that everyone in this province shares.

In fact, Mr Speaker, I think you would agree that the people of this province have two basic services that there is a complete consensus need to be protected because they're what make this province a great place to live: our public education system and our public health system.

Both of those systems that we are all so proud of, that were built by red Tories and now that we have Reformers in power are being torn about, we have all paid dearly over the years, and people say in poll after poll: "We would rather protect public education and protect our universal health insurance and our hospitals and community-based programs. We'd rather maintain higher levels of taxation than see those services eroded."

I think that's one of the reasons we now see a decrease in support for the Conservative Party, because people are seeing that those two fundamental services in this province are being eroded in a very substantial way. Ministers can get up day after day in question period and think they're being cute, that they're getting away with it, by saying: "No, you're wrong.

There's no impact on classroom education, and if there is an impact on classroom education, it's the fault of the chair of the public board in Peel, Beryl Ford," -- card-carrying Conservative, who believed that there wouldn't be any cuts in classroom education -- "it's her fault. The fact that there's been $400 million at this point cut out of the public education system, which is 8% of the provincial funding, has nothing to do with it. It has to do with those incompetent trustees, and if they speak out, we'll get even with them. We'll get rid of them all."

That's what the government is up to now. They're looking at options to eliminate school boards, when I remember when I was Minister of Education and we talked about a reduction in the number of school boards, the folks over here in the Conservative Party were saying: "That's all wrong. You shouldn't be reducing them. These are things that should be decided at the local level, not by some big central government in Toronto."

Boy, how things have changed. I give the spin doctors in the Conservative Party full marks. This government has been able to break promise after promise when it comes to health and education. They've been able to break promise after promise, and the spin doctors have been able to give the impression, when they're doing these things, that there has been no change in policy, no change in direction, that they're delivering on everything.

I think the fundamental mistake backbenchers in the Conservative Party caucus are going to make is to honestly believe the debates that take place in this place in question period, the answers their ministers give. They all applaud and they all show enthusiasm for those answers, they actually believe that's a reflection of public opinion and that if they do well in question period they're doing well across the province.

As a former cabinet minister, let me assure the Conservatives that we learned the hard way and they're about to learn the hard way as well. What happens in this place is almost irrelevant -- I'm talking in terms of debate -- to what is happening out there. People out there are worried about their health care system.

I am appalled to hear that the Minister of Health -- he made an absolute commitment to the people of my home community that the restructuring proposals that have gone through in our hospital system, the work that the community has put into that, and the workers in the hospital system, the boards at the hospitals, the labour community, the business community and consumers, seniors and others, all were part of that, we were told that when the restructuring commission was set up Windsor was exempt because we had gone through the restructuring process, that we were at the point of implementation.

Now we're told in the scrum yesterday by Dr Sinclair, the head of the restructuring commission, that they're going to go back into Windsor. They're going to go back and do the whole thing all over again.

If I was a CEO of a hospital or if I was a hospital board chair today, after reading that in the paper, I'd say: "We're stopping implementation today. We're reversing the implementation. We're not going to be part of this sham that we worked so hard to develop a consensus on and then we're going to have the Conservative government come back in and say, `No, we're going to cut even more beds out; we're going to cut even more dollars out of your system,' and somehow say that the community has bought into it." They've turned it into a complete farce and the commitment of the minister is meaningless. It's not worth the paper that it was written on.

I think more and more communities and individuals are understanding that the Conservative Party never bought into a universal health insurance program. Let us remember that when the federal government brought in universal health, following the lead from Saskatchewan and Tommy Douglas, the Conservative government here in Ontario resisted. They did not want to be part of the universal health insurance plan. Premier Robarts at the time said he didn't want any part of it, that he didn't believe in a universal health insurance program.

They were brought in kicking and screaming because the people of the province believe in a universal health insurance program. They believe in it absolutely. Any government that betrays them on that commitment is going to pay a dear price, and they should.

Sure, we hear from the Conservatives that taxes are too high in Ontario, although if you actually look at real comparisons between the cost of doing business, we're not out of line with other jurisdictions. But I know Michigan rather well and I know that when an auto worker in Michigan or in Dearborn takes a look at what their take-home pay is, and the worker in Windsor takes a look at his, the worker in Michigan may not have as much taken off for tax but he's got a big deduction for health insurance and the company's got a big expenditure for health insurance. Over here it's a universal plan.

We all care about one another. We all take care of one another. That's the difference in our society. Over there it's survival of the fittest, it's individualism. Over here we have a philosophy of social responsibility, of community.

The people of this province will not allow Premier Mike Harris and the Conservative government, the Reform government of this province, to destroy that community, destroy what we have fought for for many, many years.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I'm pleased to enter the debate today because I find the topic just a little ironic. First of all, we're talking about the Canada Health Act and I intend to go into the details of the Canada Health Act so everyone will know exactly what it says. But I want to start by reminding you that the federal government and the cohorts of the people who are bringing this bill forward today -- their federal cousins, if you will -- continue to cut dollars to health care in Ontario --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nepean, it's your own member who's talking.

Mrs Johns: -- to such a substantial point that the taxpayers of Ontario continue to pay more. We listen to the NDP, who talk about this Canada Health Act and how important it is, and they of course broke the Canada Health Act in their time by taking away the portability requirement within the Canada Health Act. So the irony of this situation today amazes me.

Let me talk about the Canada Health Act. What happened initially was the federal government believed that there should be health care throughout Canada, that we needed to have a health care system that allowed everyone in Canada to be able to have health care. At that time, lo and behold, the federal government said, "We'll pay half of it." Because they didn't have the ability to implement the system, because it was not part of their initial regulations or abilities, the province had to implement the system and carry it forward.

Initially the federal government started to pay half of all the health care in Ontario and in all provinces. Then the pot got just a little too dear for them so they moved to an established program funding system which allowed them to make transfer payments to us. When that happened, a number of the provinces said: "Wait a minute. This doesn't make sense. Why are they telling us what to do and not putting the money forward for the system?" So provinces such as Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC said, "No way we're going to follow this system," and here starts the beginning of the Canada Health Act.

With the Canada Health Act what was required was that we believe and we follow through with five different criteria. The first one is there has to be public administration. Really what that means and what is happening with our government is there has to be management of the system because there are considerable dollars tied up in health care systems in all of the provinces. So there has to be a managed system.

Secondly, the plan has to be comprehensive. The health insurance plan must ensure that all services that are medically necessary are provided. It refers to a minimum basket of services. When we talk about the minimum basket of services, I think it's very important to know what they talked about as these medically necessary services. Services are defined in a broad way:

(1) Hospital services that are medically necessary for the purpose of maintaining health, preventing disease or diagnosing or treating an injury, illness or disability, including accommodations and meals, physicians' and nursing services, drugs, all medical surgical equipment and supplies;

(2) Any medically required services rendered by a medical practitioner; and

(3) Any medically required surgical dental procedures which can only be properly carried out in a hospital.

Those were the services that the Canada Health Act said had to be provided.

The third thing they were talking about was universality, that all residents must have access to health care.

The fourth one is portability, and here's where the NDP decided that they would fall. Here's what they said: "We're not going to provide coverage for people who are outside of the province or outside of the country." They reduced that. When the Conservatives ran for power in the last election, we said there's no way we're going to be in violation of the Canada Health Act. Since that time, this government has restored Ontario's position within the Canada Health Act, a very important segment, as the NDP has stood here today sanctimoniously and said, "We believe in the Canada Health Act," and they were the people who moved us out of the Canada Health Act --

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): How did we do that?

Mrs Johns: By not allowing coverage outside of Canada.

The Liberals over here are saying to us that we have to tie into the Canada Health Act, and we're saying we are doing everything within the Canada Health Act and we're doing more. We want you to know that we're the government who's doing more.

Let's look at the federal Liberal track record. As a result of successive federal reductions in the established program financing, the federal contributions to Ontario's health care expenditures declined from a high of 52% in 1979-80 to 32% in 1995-96. Those are your federal cousins who are cutting the money and the people in Ontario are having to make that up through their tax dollars. That's why we're at one third of our tax dollars going to pay for health right now. So it's outrageous to listen to these people try and tell us that we're not taking care of the Canada Health Act, that we're undermining the system. That's just not true and it's outrageous behaviour.

I've told you about the Canada Health Act and I've told you about how the transfers from the federal government have been cut. I also want to suggest one more important item that I think the people watching the TV need to know today, because obviously the members on the other side aren't interested: When the Liberals ran in the last election what they said was they would maintain health spending at $17 billion.

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): They would have cut health care.

Mrs Johns: They would have cut it to $17 billion -- thank you very much. What we have said is we would maintain it at the same level as when we came into power, which was $17.4 billion, and at the end of the first year --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I have difficulty understanding how you can respond to a speech when you don't even listen to it. I ask you to refrain from heckling and give a chance to the member for Huron.

Mrs Johns: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. At the end of the first year in office we've spent $17.7 billion, $700,000 more than the Liberals would have spent if they were in power, $300,000 more than the previous government had spent, and everybody's saying that we're not making reinvestments into health care. Maybe nobody knows how to add and subtract in this House.

Let me tell you about the reinvestments that are happening with this government: $170 million more into long-term health care. That's not even part of the Canada Health Act. We don't have to do that as a province. We do that because we believe that health care is important, and this side has made a strong financial commitment to ensure that's happened.

We have changed the way that long-term health care is delivered within the province of Ontario. We believe it will be better through our community care access centres. We've increased the dialysis in the communities. We've reduced the cardiac waiting list. All of these things take money. They just don't happen over there. You have to put more staff on, you have to have more rooms available. All of these things take money, and this government is reinvesting.

The Canada Health Act is safe with the Tories in power in Ontario. It's getting stronger, health care's getting stronger. It's a better system than it ever was and will continue to be a better system because of the way we're reinvesting in health care, the way we're helping to make sure that health care is available to every citizen, and to ensure that the Canada Health Act stays strong.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on what I suspect will be one of the pivotal issues in the next three to four years.

The first thing I'd say is that I remember when the federal budget came out and the federal government announced its spending plans to the provinces. Mike Harris said: "We applaud the cuts. We like the cuts. We are in favour of the cuts that the federal government made." That's what Mike Harris said. He loved the cuts. In fact, he's told the federal government they didn't go far enough.

I just make that point because you are on record. You, Mike Harris, are on record saying the cuts are just great and that you frankly wished they had been deeper. So Ontario lost its moral authority at that time to argue against them.

The points I want to make on health care are that I know where you're heading. What you're heading for is you are going to cut the health services that are provided to the citizens of this province through their taxes, and you are going to increase the number of services that people have to go out and buy themselves. And there is no question that you are in favour of a two-tiered health system.

Mrs Johns: That's just not true.

Mr Phillips: Well, the member says it's not true. The people listening to this should recognize that everything you are doing in health care is designed to get people to pay for it out of their own pockets and not fund it through general revenues. The problem is that the people in this province who can't afford to buy out of their own pockets are going to suffer -- and the member says it's not true.

Firstly, what did you do on the drug benefit plan? What you did on the drug benefit plan is you said when you ran you would not have user fees. The first thing you did on the drug benefit plan was to put user fees on drugs for the seniors of this province. You promised you wouldn't do that. So what we find are the seniors in this province, instead of their drug benefits being paid out of the taxes that they've paid for over these years, now they've got to reach in their own pockets and they've got to pay for it out of their own pockets.

What did we find when we saw the Ontario Medical Association agreement that the Minister of Health is negotiating on behalf of the people of this province? What we see is that the government says to the doctors: "We are not going to put any more money in there. That money is frozen because we've got to fund our tax cut." So the doctors of this province don't expect a penny more for five years from the taxpayers of this province. That money is frozen. "We are not going to put a penny more into that fund. Now, however, doctors, we're prepared to find ways that we can make people pay directly, and that is called delisting services."

In other words, we have an insurance plan right now that provides medical services for the people of this province out of that insurance plan. It's paid for from tax revenue. That's OHIP, that insurance plan. What Jim Wilson did on behalf of all the people who own that insurance plan was to say to the doctors, "We are going to find a way that you can get some more revenue, because what we'll do is, things that used to be paid out of that insurance plan we'll make people pay for out of their own pockets.

For the doctors -- and I understand this -- they say: "You're only going to provide $3.8 billion. How can we get more money? We'll get more money by letting you charge people directly for services." So there's another level of second tier.

The third one is -- and make no mistake, the hospitals in this province are in a crisis situation. Why? Because they are being forced to restructure with one key ingredient, and that is, the government has said, "We are going to cut 20% of our spending from hospitals." That's the starting point. The health restructuring commission was told that. That's what's driving this: not what's in the best interests of the patients of this province, but they're told, "The hospitals of this province are going to get 20% less money from the insurance plan of this province."

As my colleague said, why is that? Well, it is because you want to give the wealthiest people in this province a huge tax break. So the seniors and all of those people who for years and years have paid their taxes to build a system of health care that they expected would be available, you are now dismantling. Why? To fund the $5-billion tax cut.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: The member over there says the federal government. Mike Harris told the federal government he loves the cuts, "Cut deeper."

What you're going to find is that as this proceeds, people are going to realize that you are gutting the health system in this province to fund your tax cut.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I certainly appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak on the bill that's been put forward by our colleague from Windsor-Walkerville. It's certainly an important opportunity to talk about our party's support for the Canada Health Act.

As my colleague from Huron capably stated earlier, we are indeed committed to ensuring that the principles of the Canada Health Act are not violated. As one of the few provinces in the country in full compliance with the act, this fact is obvious, and we've made the correction of non-compliance brought in by the previous government.

However, I would like to address some of our concerns with this particular bill.

Section 2 of the bill presents some difficulty for our government. It would not allow Ontario to determine services that are deemed medically necessary. This determination would be made by the federal government, and with their reduction to us under the Canada health and social transfer of more than $2 billion, I do not believe they have a right to dictate which services are medically necessary. It is imperative that we retain this determination.

This proposal would suggest that there are unlimited quantities of money out there to be spent, as the Liberals have in the past. You and your party have accused us of reducing health care spending when in fact it went from $17.4 billion to $17.7 billion. I think you can understand that's a $300-million increase. I suggest you talk to your friends in Ottawa, your Liberal cousins, the 98 or 99, about the reduction of that $2 billion.

Sections 3 and 4 of the bill would prevent our government from setting the fee code at nil. This indeed is an important concept for quality patient care in Ontario. Having a zero fee code allows us to monitor the types of services being provided to patients while physicians are being paid under an alternative payment plan.

For example, there are some 70 rural and small hospitals that qualify for the $70-per-hour sessional fee to cover emergency rooms during the evenings and on weekends. Allowing us to set the fee code at zero for those shifts allows us to monitor the types of out-of-hours services that physicians are providing, allowing them to be paid on the flat fee of $70 per hour. This is an important element in our drive to modernize the health care system. If we did not have this ability, we would be prevented from implementing new and innovative plans for physicians.

As we've said time and again, the status quo is not acceptable. The Toronto Star, your paper, in a recent edition said that over the last 10 years the actual costs of health care have gone up 45%, corrected for inflation and corrected for population increase. What we're headed for is a cabinet of one, being the Minister of Health, who would be the Premier.

We need flexibility to ensure quality patient care in all parts of the province. Setting the fee for a service at nil is also important for small communities that need to offer incentive programs to entice physicians to their communities. For example, we have announced community-sponsored contracts where the physician is paid a base salary of up to $194,000 to provide a continuum of care. The program also allows completion bonuses of $10,000 and 37 paid days off for vacation and continuing medical education programs. This is an innovative program to entice physicians to small northern communities. It almost makes one consider going back to medical school, with that kind of an offer.

Section 5 of the bill stipulates that regulations passed under the Health Insurance Act must be in compliance with the Canada Health Act. The Health Insurance Act already has a requirement that regulations passed relating to the definition of "medically necessary" and the payment for those medically necessary services must not contravene the Canada Health Act. It's already being done.

Our party is a firm believer in local people making local decisions. What is good for the people of Toronto may not be good for the people of Northumberland or Ottawa or northern Ontario. The same is true for the different levels of government. We do not need the federal government deciding what is appropriate for the people of Ontario.

There have been many comments made about copayment fees here this morning. You don't seem to understand that the Ontario drug benefit program is separate from the Canada Health Act, and therefore copayment is very much in order, and our fees for pharmaceuticals are far lower than those in any other province in Canada.

You don't seem to understand in spending that the cost of the Ontario drug benefit program went up three times since 1985, from $400 million to $1.2 billion. It would seem that cost is no objective whatsoever.

I'm really quite disappointed in the member for Windsor-Walkerville that he wouldn't stay in the House during the debate. He had to leave the House and come back in. He has paid no attention to the debate whatsoever. I really don't know if he's going to get anything -- maybe he'll read Hansard afterwards.

I'm really disappointed that this individual would take this opportunity as a leadership candidate and use this forum to extend his bid to flaunt his far-left ideology. Seriously, I wish you well in your bid, but I sympathize with the NDP, because once you win the leadership, there will be no room left whatsoever for the NDP. You'll be so far left you'll wipe the NDP right out. The poor member for Windsor-Riverside won't have a hope in running, because you will be so far left there will be no NDP left whatsoever. But I do wish you well in your bid.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Time has expired. The member for Sudbury, I ask you to refrain from heckling and give an opportunity to the members who are interested in delivering a speech to do so in the proper way.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to my colleague's bill that he is introducing today. The members opposite will know that the number designated for when your private member's bill comes up was assigned right after June 8, the election, clearly nothing to do with the leadership campaign. You should take the opportunity today, when you have a chance to discuss and ensure that the Canada Health Act will remain intact in the province of Ontario, to discuss the issue at hand, and I would like to address that.

What this government has done is created the biggest joke on the Ontarian people that we have ever seen since this government came into power, and especially in the area of health care. I will tell you, coming from a community of Windsor and Essex county, I have seen the havoc this government has wreaked on my community.

We want to talk about ensuring that the Canada Health Act remains intact in Ontario, and you today have the power to do this. Very simply put, if you have a look at Bill 87, we want to see today how you will vote, the parliamentary assistant to the minister, and I want to see how the Minister of Health is going to vote on this bill today, because there is not one item in this bill that any Conservative member could possibly complain about. In fact, it enshrines the Canada Health Act in legislation in the Parliament of Ontario. That should be of concern to you all.

If you choose to do the political thing and simply vote against this bill for the politics of it, I can tell you, you are dead wrong. I would suggest that you seriously consider the contents of this bill, which will not cost Ontario taxpayers a dime and simply ensures that what you say will in fact happen as we prepare health care for the future of Ontarians.

I must tell you that from the beginning when you came into power, you said one thing but you did another, and health care was the biggest of all. In my community, we had been well on our way in a restructuring plan for years. In fact, the Minister of Health stood in this House and said that we must use Windsor as the example in restructuring, that we must look to Windsor and show the rest of Ontario how to restructure with local decision-making. Instead, yesterday the head of the restructuring commission said that the commission is coming to Windsor.

All I have to say to the Minister of Health is, get out of my town. My town went through restructuring once before. My town has already had significant cuts in health care. We are already suffering. As you well know, we don't have doctors available to deliver babies. What are you doing to the people of Essex county?

I will say once again, I expect you to fully support this bill when we go to a vote, and I would like to say to the people involved with the Ministry of Health, stay out of my town.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to commend the member on bringing forward this timely initiative this morning. I think it's extremely important when the issue of health care is being discussed that we ensure we have a health care system which we can be justifiably proud of and which will continue to serve us well.

Americans look to us, except those on the extreme right in the United States, as having a very good health care system. Canadians, regardless of their political background, have traditionally spoken favourably of our system. The reason is that all of the political parties have had a chance over the years to establish and to build upon this system, a system that is fair to all in our society.

No Conservative candidate that I can recall during the election campaign talked about closing any hospitals. I listened carefully, as I do, and I heard nobody talk about closing any hospitals, and yet I hear today that this government is going around the province closing hospitals: three out of five in Thunder Bay, two out of three in Sudbury, and they're on the march across the province.

I can tell you that if they want to close hospitals in St Catharines, they'll have no acquiesence from me on this. I believe the General Hospital, the Hotel Dieu Hospital and the Shaver Hospital, along with the Niagara Peninsula Rehabilitation Centre, provide an outstanding service to the people in our community and are essential, particularly in a community where the average age is higher than it is in other municipalities. If one reads the book Boom, Bust and Echo, which is top on the list now, you will see that the author is talking about the need for these facilities as our population ages, as those people who were part of the baby boom need more and more of those services.

What's happening, unfortunately, is that the government is using intimidation, and so you've got crackpot realism, as I would refer to it, setting in. That is, there are people there who believe if the government is going to do something more drastic, I guess we at the local level better do something. In other words, they'd better amputate their foot because if the government comes along, they'll amputate the whole leg. The government has been successful in this intimidation. People who know better are being silent and are making statements that simply cannot be substantiated.

You can't lay off hundreds of workers in the hospitals and tell people you're going to provide the same kind of service you did before. Just ask people who have been in the hospital recently and have been in the hospital, say, 10 years ago what the difference is in service provided. You simply don't have the staff today to be able to look after people the way you once did. That's not what the people of this province want. Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats and those with no political affiliation don't want that to happen.

That's why I think it's important for the backbenchers in the government to remind the Minister of Health and the person who is ultimately responsible, the Premier of this province, who really runs the province, of that.

We are already seeing an erosion of the system. We have seen user fees. Despite the fact that the Conservative Party said there would be no user fees, there are hundreds and thousands of people now paying user fees with the drug plan. We're seeing a delisting of service. That is, you remove certain services and people have to pay for them themselves. That's okay if you're rich, that's okay if you're in the privileged classes, but for people who are struggling to make it out there, people who have other obligations or senior citizens on a fixed income, that's mighty difficult.

Why are you doing it? It's being done because of the tax break. I know that was part of the platform and I know that you would have to borrow about $13 billion -- in other words, borrow money to give people a tax break. That message was getting through, and so the government said: "We can't do that. I guess that message is getting through; it's true. Let's cut even deeper into the services we provide, including health care services." As a result, we're seeing the consequences for our health care system.

So keep in mind that it is not Jim Wilson, it is not John Snobelen, it is not David Tsubouchi; it is Mike Harris, the Premier of this province, who is ultimately responsible. The others can be scapegoated -- they have to say what they have to say -- but ultimately it is the Premier who makes these decisions.

We need standards that are national standards only because there are provincial governments which will erode them. There are provincial governments which will delist. There are provincial governments which will allow privatization. None in my view are acceptable to the majority of people of this province. I know the Reform Party -- and the leader is here today in Toronto -- has advocated this and there may be many people in the Conservative caucus at Queen's Park who are admirers of the Reform Party leader.

But I'm telling you, if you want to look at one issue where regardless of the person's political background they believe we should have a strong and a good system, I think you'll find that it is the issue of medical care in this province. Individual members of the caucus know that and individual citizens know that and the Conservative Party of years gone by can be proud that it was in power when the Ontario hospital insurance plan was put into effect. Liberals and New Democrats who have governed since then have been part of that system and improved that system from time to time.

So I urge the members of this House to vote for this particular initiative this morning. If you do not vote for it, it's a clear signal that you're simply taking orders from the Premier and the Premier's staff rather than from the constituents you represent.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Duncan: It's been a good opportunity, I think, to discuss a very important principle, and that is the principle of our universal health care system.

One of the members raised the question, is this all about leadership? You're darn right it's all about leadership. It's about leadership to provide the kind of health care we've come to know in this province, a system not without problems and a system that needs reform, but one that we have to be prepared to accept and endorse the principles of.

A number of government members have raised some substantive issues around sections of the bill and how they impact, and suffice it to say we in the opposition would be happy to discuss those sections in committee if we pass this bill on second reading.

It's the intention of the opposition to see if the members in the government support those principles. It's a very clear bill. It's a very simple bill. It enshrines in Ontario statutes those principles which are present in the Canada Health Act.

I urge the members of the government to vote in favour of this and I urge them to incorporate into our statutes those principles, because the people of this province don't trust you in health care. They're worried about it. They see a diminution of their services. They see hospitals closing. They see a commission that's going across the province and there's a great deal of anxiety and nervousness. I suggest to the government that if you're serious about protecting our health care system you'll vote in favour of this bill and enshrine those principles in the Health Insurance Act.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for the first ballot item has expired.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr Bob Wood moved private member's notice of motion number 31:

That in the opinion of this House, the Legislature supports the principle of the people being able to vote on provincial and municipal issues at every municipal election, with questions, in the case of provincial issues, being placed on a province-wide ballot by petition of the people or by resolution of the Legislature and with questions, in the case of municipal issues, being placed on a municipality-wide ballot by petition of the people or by resolution of the municipal council.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Bob Wood (London South): As members will note, this resolution provides for non-binding provincial and municipal referendums at municipal elections. The questions can come from the Legislature itself in the case of provincial issues, from the municipal council in the case of municipal issues, or by petition of the people.

I would like to note that there is no extra cost to the taxpayer in this proposal as the municipal elections are of course going to be held every three years. I'd also like to note that I believe our Constitution requires that the Legislature cannot be bound by these resolutions or by proposed laws that are put on the ballot. I think our Constitution is right on that. I think the Legislature has to make the final decisions but it's important that the people have direct input to what we're doing.

I'd like to suggest to you that in this day and age the people are ready to do this. We have never had people who are more informed about provincial and municipal issues and we've never had a group of people who are more anxious to have a direct say.

It's a practice that is used by many other jurisdictions, by other provinces, by our friends to the south, by many countries in Europe and elsewhere. Good ideas come from the people. Where laws are enacted directly by the people, they are rarely changed by legislatures later. The idea of referendums is not new in Ontario. It has provided a successful policy with respect to liquor for 30 or 40 years and also on many other municipal issues.

Equally importantly, perhaps, direct democracy provides a check on arbitrary government. The parliamentary system, in my opinion, is as good a democratic system as there is in the world, but it's also important that there be democratic checks on any democratically elected government.

In our system we have parliamentary checks, we have the media, we have interest groups, we have the civil service, we have the courts, but I would suggest to you that it's also important that the people themselves have an opportunity to send their message directly to their government.

I invite all MPPs to support this resolution. I think it will involve more people and more ideas in our democratic process, and it will achieve a better result for all. This is an idea whose time has come. It will give us a better democratic system. We can indeed trust the people on this issue.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I'm somewhat confused by this resolution, because it's my understanding that municipalities at municipal elections certainly have this power already to do this, and, as a matter of fact, many have done so in the past. They've dealt not only with provincial and local issues but quite often they've dealt with international issues as well. I can remember back in the 1980s there were a number of municipalities that had resolutions that dealt with nuclear-free zones and things along that line.

I don't know exactly where this is coming from other than the fact that it must be related somehow to the discussion paper that was put out by the government a couple of months ago that dealt with the whole referendum process.

There are a couple of comments I'd like to make on this, though. Number one is this notion that there are no extra costs involved. I think any municipal clerk will tell you that whenever you put an extra ballot on at election time, it will cost money. To simply say that there are no extra costs involved is not correct. It's obviously not going to be as costly as if you set up a separate election just to deal with a specific referendum item, but there are extra costs involved.

It's got to be clearly set out that if it's a provincial question that's being asked on a provincial issue, then the province ought to pick up the costs and not the local municipalities. I'm sure that can be confirmed by just asking the local clerks about that.

Number two is that if a government is responsive, then it should already be reacting to the various petitions that are presented on almost a daily basis in the House here. Some 15 minutes a day are being spent each and every day that the Legislature sits with petitions being presented to the House on a wide variety of issues, provincial issues mainly, issues that affect people on a direct basis, on a day-to-day basis. What happens to these petitions?

From a practical viewpoint, usually about three or four months later a form letter comes out from the ministry involved saying that it is already doing this, that or the other thing. I think that to a certain extent these petitions are being totally ignored.

Why doesn't the government come out with a statement on a monthly basis as to precisely what it's doing about the petitions or whether or not it agrees with the issues of those petitions? That's certainly not being done.

The other issue I'd like to raise is this whole principle that people are able to vote on provincial- and municipal-wide issues. This is already the case now, so I don't quite understand why this is being brought forward here today. One of the reasons may be that sometimes these referendums are used in order to bring more people out at local elections. We all know that the turnout for local elections in Ontario is anywhere between about 30% to 50%. There's always this feeling that if you put a question on the ballot that people are interested in, you will get greater participation.

I think studies have shown, certainly over the last 10 or 15 years, that this is not always the case, that the turnout doesn't improve as a result of the kind of questions that are being asked.

It's very interesting that in the letter this member has sent along with his resolution he talks about the fact that it would be a powerful tool for groups opposed to government policies, where they could muster the support of the majority of the people. I suggest to you that this is already happening in a number of different areas. I suppose one could say that in the education area right now the educators in Ontario by and large, the various teacher groups etc, would certainly not like what the province is doing with respect to education and the quality of education in this province currently. Is this not a case where they should be able to bring forward a resolution or a referendum?

The other area, I suppose, where it's hurting people on a day-to-day basis deals with the hospital closures that are taking place in the various communities right now. Is this member suggesting that a local community could still do something about it, even though municipal elections are not to be held until October or November of next year when, in a lot of cases, the various hospitals in the various communities, such as Thunder Bay and Sudbury and some of the other communities that the restructuring commission is going through, have already been closed? It's kind of after the fact.

The other thing I find interesting is that this resolution flies in the face of what we have often heard here over the last year and a half or so. We have heard over and over again, whenever one of these major issues has arisen, that a referendum has already been held, and that referendum took place on June 8 last year. The government was elected on a certain platform. It regards it as a referendum to do a whole bunch of things that it has actually done and which have affected public services in Ontario over the last 16 to 18 months or so, and no referendum is required. A referendum has already taken place; it takes place once every four years when a provincial election is being held.

Well, I say you can't have it both ways. You can't on some issues say, "The people of Ontario have decided at provincial election time how they feel about certain issues," and yet come up with a bill or a resolution like this that we somehow allow people to state their choice again at referendums during municipal election times.

If we want to be consistent on referendums, if we want to be consistent on the whole notion of democratic representation, we cannot on some issues say the people somehow gave us that authority and power to do it during the last election when they elected a majority government and on the other hand say, if they don't like what's going on, let them bring a referendum forward at municipal election times.

The other thing, of course, that's very interesting and that's a problem we have here in Ontario is that the last three majority governments that we've had in the province have basically been elected by a minority of the people in the province of Ontario. I think the popular vote for the three parties that were elected into power over the last three governments has ranged anywhere from 36% to 45%, well below the 50% minimum that is required for a pure majority government.

It would be a lot more meaningful if we started taking a look at representational government in this province whereby the will of the majority of the people, whereby the will on a proportional basis of the people out there is represented here in the Legislature so that we don't get these vast swings from one extreme to the other on the minority opinion that is being expressed at any provincial election.

I don't think this resolution adds anything at all to the process, and certainly before I as an individual member can support this, I would like the member to explain the whole purpose of this resolution better than he's done so far.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I'm pleased to join the debate on this resolution. In speaking directly to what is contained in this resolution, I want to raise some questions and points as well.

First, the resolution speaks about the fact that the Legislature supports the principle of the people being able to vote. There's obviously no force to this kind of resolution other than we as a group here or as legislators support the principle of the idea that's being put forth.

Second, the member mentioned there is no extra cost to this, and by that presumably he means there is no extra cost to the province, but as the previous speaker indicated, there are definite costs attached to this when municipalities are engaged in putting a resolution on a ballot, which they then have to administratively deal with.

The third point that is a bit unclear to me is that it speaks about a "ballot by petition of the people." I'm not clear what that means. A petition of 20 people? Is it a petition of 50, 100 or more? That's not quite clear, so the member might want to speak to that when he has an opportunity to speak to this again.

I don't disagree when he says that there are many people who are well informed in society. I happen to agree with that. I also don't disagree that there are many good ideas that come from people, as indeed there are many good ideas that come from legislators here in this place. But to simply say that everyone out there is very well informed and to simply say, in a reductionist way as he does, that good ideas come from the people, and therefore if that is the case, we are almost redundant here and we simply need to go to them for everything, that is a problem. To make that the basis for a referendum is in my view not a very reasonable position to take.

I happen to agree with the previous member when he speaks about the government proposing many different things. When it suits them, they say, "We have had the best referendum in the province when they elected us so we can do basically what we want," which is the way they're dealing with the public of Ontario. There is a great deal of tyranny that comes with governing, and when they say this, when they say, "We've had our referendum and people have elected us," they're saying, "We now have carte blanche to do what we want." On the other hand they then say referendum is also good.

I think what they mean by this is: "We will do polling, we will find out what the majority of the public wants on a particular issue, and then we'll give them the referendum." If the polling reveals on a particular matter that the government is not going to be looked upon very favourably, it won't have the referendum. That's the way I think they will govern on this issue of referendum.

This resolution has very little effect, in fact. I think it alludes to the white paper on referendums, and we'll be dealing with that, I suspect, in the near future. That's basically what this resolution does here today.

But I find, generally speaking, on this resolution, on referendum in general -- I find referendum in general a problem. I'm not sure it deals with democracy in the way that we would all be pleased by democracy. Is democracy achieved when 51% of the population says, "This is what we want." If that's the case, we're just going to do it, in spite of the fact that 49% of the public says, "That's not what we want"?

What we accomplish by this type of referendum where we encourage people to say yes or no -- because I'm not sure people are genuinely engaged in the debate, so when they simply say yes or no to a particular question, is this the kind of democracy you want to achieve? I'm not certain that's what you want, because what you're encouraging in that particular instance through that kind of referendum is a tyranny of the majority with very little protection for the minority.

Democracy is not achieved in that way where there is no genuine debate. I'm one who supports a great deal of genuine debate happening in society. I like a public that is highly politicized, but I'm not convinced we have a public that is highly politicized out there. I'm not convinced that we have politicians in here who are very well informed on many of the issues, and so I am worried about our legislators as much as I'm worried about many of the public not being well-informed of the issues.

But if we really want to achieve a greater deal of politicization of the public and having them more informed, we might begin with the educational system and encourage greater critical thinking and encourage that by making sure the funding is there and not cutting it as you, government, are doing. I would encourage greater funding of literacy programs and continuing education for all people, for adults in particular, because that might lead to greater literacy levels and being better informed in society. I wouldn't cut back on those types of programs.

But generally speaking, you're not achieving democracy, as it is being suggested certainly through this resolution or generally through referendum, so I won't be supporting the resolution.

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this very important discussion of a very important issue, and I commend the member for London South for bringing this to the attention of the House.

As you know, I am a member of the Legislative Assembly committee reviewing a government publication called Your Ontario, Your Choice: A Preliminary Look at the Referendum Alternative. I will be supporting the honourable member's motion because I think it is an additional step along the way to a resolution by this Legislature of this most important issue.

For at least 200 years of the history of elected legislatures, the principle has been that the representatives who are elected in the Legislature have better power, better authority, better knowledge, better expertise to make decisions on behalf of the people. That is the essence of representative democracy. Sometimes that hasn't been the case. I'm reminded of a former Lieutenant Governor in the colony of Upper Canada who referred to members of the Upper Canadian Legislature as knights of the cross.

He referred to them that way because none of them could sign their names, they always had to use an X to sign their names; they were not very literate people in those days, so they only knew how to sign their name as a cross, hence the epithet "knights of the cross."

I would be so bold as to suggest that we've come a long way since the knights of the cross, that members of this place are highly literate and highly numerate and are able to conduct the affairs of the province in a better way. Having said that, though, the essence and the truth of the matter is that -- may I be so bold as to suggest that we are no smarter, no more numerate and no more literate than the constituents we purport to represent. That is a great change in the history of representative democracy. It is a sea change in the principle of representation of the people.

There is no good reason why people who are concerned enough about issues as to cast ballots on those issues and who certainly do so with regularity in municipal and provincial elections -- why those very same enfranchised people should not have more of a direct say in certain prescribed circumstances on the affairs that affect them directly. That is the principle of the referendum.

The idea is not, as the honourable member for Fort York suggests, to trample on minority rights. As the honourable member should know, any referendum that we seek to make binding on the Legislature of Ontario is subject to the same laws as every other law of this chamber. That means it is subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Dominion of Canada and it is subject to the Human Rights Code of Ontario, which affects Ontarians in this province.

I would be so bold as to suggest that this idea that there's going to be a tyranny of the majority through referendums is no greater, and I would argue is less of a possibility, if people have a direct say. We have had times in this place where all three parties have agreed on a contentious public policy issue. There has been not one dissenter on a number of very important issues in the history of this place. While the idea of unanimity sometimes is comforting, it does not allow persons who might not be of the view of every member of this Legislature to have their opportunity to have a say.

The referendum is not here to replace this institution. It will be here to act as a further check, a further balance, a further opportunity for persons who are as knowledgeable as everyone in this chamber to have their say on an issue of public importance.

I think that strengthens this place. I think one of the problems that we face as legislators -- and I'm trying to speak as non-partisan as I can possibly be -- is an issue of credibility and legitimacy that governments over the past 10 to 15 years representing the government of Ontario have tried to grapple with. I commend all parties for trying to grapple with this issue. How can we be a legitimate democratic place that represents the will of the people? No easy answers.

I suggest to the members who are present that perhaps if people had more of a direct say and it is understood that their views are going to count, number one, that increases the legitimacy and credibility of the political system and, number two, those people who have a direct say are going to take that very seriously. I have every faith and confidence in the people of Ontario that if they are assured of a direct say, of a meaningful say, they will take that say very, very seriously. As exhibit A, I would point to the Charlottetown referendum on the Charlottetown accord in 1992, where millions of Canadians read the accord, took

part in the referendum process, read all of the material that was available to them, or a lot of it, had very interesting questions that they asked community leaders and asked members of legislatures and parliaments. I'm sure those who were in this place in 1992 had a lot of learned discussions with their constituents about the ins and outs of the Charlottetown accord. There was a prime example that when the people had a direct say, they took that say very seriously. That was a ballot that was cast in a very serious manner by the people of Ontario and the people of Canada.

In summing up, I would say this. In Canada there is a history of referendums -- national, provincial and municipal -- although as my friend from Kingston and The Islands mentioned, there have been municipal referendums but they have only been binding in very specific cases to do with temperance matters, for instance, or Hydro matters or fluoridation of water matters. So there are only very limited cases where they have been binding. All the rest has been more in the form of a plebescite, which is to gain some idea of what the public thinks of an issue.

We have had experiences at all three levels of government with referendums. This is not an alien concept. But what I would suggest to you, in supporting this particular resolution, is that we have an opportunity as a chamber to push that further along, to say it is not only governments who decide what the issue is before the people of Ontario or the people in a particular region or municipality, that through citizen-initiated referendums -- and my friend from Fort York was wondering why there was that reference. It was a reference to citizens initiating through a well-defined process, I would expect, a referendum question on a ballot.

Through that mechanism, we can have a further check and balance on this Legislature and we can allow the people a direct say on issues that they feel are important -- not what the political class thinks is important, not what the media think is important, maybe not even what your neighbour thinks is important, but what you as a collectivity on a petition of a certain minimum number of people in Ontario think is an important public policy issue. You can ensure that is an issue that is discussed very seriously by the people of Ontario and put on either a municipal or provincial ballot.

I think that is a very exciting proposal. I commend the member for London South for bringing it to our attention, just as we have discussed it at the Legislative Assembly committee over the last few months. Quite apart from some of the concerns that are raised by representatives in this Legislature, it will make Ontario a stronger democracy, a more accountable democracy, and ultimately allow for government for the people of Ontario. And that, I thought, was what this chamber was all about.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I want to commend the member for London South for putting this resolution before the House. I should just read it to remind members what we're talking about.

It says, "...the Legislature supports the principle of the people being able to vote on provincial and municipal issues at every municipal election, with questions, in the case of provincial issues, being placed on a province-wide ballot by petition of the people or by resolution of the Legislature and with questions, in the case of municipal issues, being placed on a municipality-wide ballot by petition of the people or by resolution of the municipal council."

This is a very interesting one. I think quite frankly most of this could be done right today. I'm not really clear why it's necessary to be bringing this resolution forward. Consulting the people can never be wrong, so referenda can't be a wrong thing to do.

But I have some cautions. I look south of the border, the home of the referendum, and I look at all the referenda that we saw voted upon just this last Tuesday. In the home of the free and the brave, what did we find?

We found that in the United States in a presidential election, where you had the opportunity to vote for President, in most states you had the opportunity to vote for Governor, in a third of the states you had the opportunity to vote for a senator, you had your House of Representatives, you were voting for local assembly men or Congress, whatever you call your state government level, you were voting for dogcatcher, you were voting for virtually every office you could conceivably think of, and on top of that we had referenda questions, a whole slew, depending on states, and many of them were quite interesting, out of all that effort to get the people to vote, less than 50% of the people of the United States who were qualified to vote actually came out to vote.

What I'm suggesting here is that the questions on the ballot do not necessarily provoke interest in an election. What provokes interest in an election is electors being able to believe that their vote means something, that their vote makes a difference.

We look at our experience in this Legislature, and our voter turnouts just for a provincial election run around 65% to 70% if my memory is correct, and in a federal election we're higher than that. In other words, the Canadian electorate, the electorate of Ontario, is far more engaged in the process than we see south of the border. I would suggest to you that one of the reasons for that is that our parliamentary system reflects what people think at least slightly better than the republican system of the United States.

So when you look at referenda questions which can be placed, and are placed, on municipal ballots, you would say to yourself, that's interesting, but I'm not sure, with in some places municipal turnouts of 30% or 35%, extremely low turnouts, whether when you looked at the result you would think that was a result that reflected the people's point of view, merely because the number of electors who have shown interest is a remarkably small percentage of the people of this province or municipality who choose to vote.

We have to think about this. I have no opposition to the idea of having referenda, but in terms of gauging the public mood, they are not necessarily something that will do that and reflect the view of the public entirely. It might be a useful tool, and in that case, why not? I don't have a problem with that. But the idea that is implicit in this resolution is that we politicians, whether we're federal politicians, provincial, municipal or at the school board level, don't know what's going on out there. I suggest to you that's not the case.

I suggest to you that the parliamentary system we have had in this nation works extremely well vis-à-vis what happens in republican organizations of government, and that while advice is always helpful, it is not necessarily a great thing all the time.

The second thing I think we all know -- we're sophisticated or supposed to be sophisticated politicians or at least public servants, and we know that you can get the answer you want to almost any question depending on how it's written. Witness the Quebec situation. It was not a clear-cut question. It was framed by a province which wanted a particular answer. They framed the question so they could do everything in their power to get a particular answer, and they came within 1% or 2% of getting the answer they required.

So my question would be, who in the final analysis gets to decide the question that's asked about a particular issue and how it's framed? I think that's an important concern. Do we go down to Mr Gallup or Insight Canada or Environics and get them to frame a neutral question? Even they, the experts in the field, don't necessarily get it right all the time.

We have questions on influencing votes in referenda by the way the question is framed. We have questions about whether the electorate actually cares enough about a particular issue to come and vote on it. We have a number of questions. That doesn't mean we're opposed; it just means they're not the be-all and end-all.

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for providing me with this opportunity to speak to this matter.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'm going to just speak for a couple of minutes on this resolution and let my colleague from Hamilton Centre say a few words as well.

I have very mixed feelings about referendum, for some of the reasons my colleague from Fort York mentioned earlier. It has its upsides and it's certainly got its downsides, and my colleague from Fort York mentioned some of the downsides.

What I want to speak specifically to here and now is that I frankly am concerned about and question the sincerity, not necessarily of this member but of this government when it talks about referendum, and I'll tell you why. I am the critic for environment and energy and for women's issues. Particularly around the Ontario Hydro issue, this government talked for quite some time about the possibility of privatizing Hydro. Granted, they seem to have backed off that for the time being, because polls show actually that people across the province do not support the privatization of Hydro.

In the early days when this issue became public, we asked the government, and the Power Workers' Union asked the government, if it would consider a referendum on this question of privatization of Hydro. We could not get an affirmative answer to that. I would say, if I were to support referendum, that is certainly one issue that I would wholeheartedly support it on, because the public Hydro as we know it today was actually brought in by a public referendum. I find it extremely peculiar that this government, on such a huge issue and one that could have such a big impact on the people of Ontario, would not agree to a referendum around that very important issue.

The same thing is happening now, possibly, with the privatization of our water, which is very worrisome. We have not even been given an affirmative answer on public hearings should the government proceed on privatizing water in Ontario. I find that a government that is talking about making massive changes to the province of Ontario and won't even hold public hearings on it -- I am very suspicious of a government, then, that says it would like to do referendum. That just gets me to believing that there would be picking and choosing about what would be on a referendum. If it's something they want to do and they think they will put it out and lose it, they won't do it.

I would like to see this government open up its process more before I would trust it and its actual reasoning behind referendum. I would like to see more decisions being made in the public, not in secret, behind closed doors, as I see happening with changes in the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Even the Environmental Commissioner came out and said she was very concerned about a lot of decisions being made in secret. You hear that time and time again from my colleague from Hamilton Centre, the critic for labour: too many decisions being made behind closed doors.

We had the firefighters down here yesterday saying they weren't consulted properly about that bill. You could talk about practically any bill. Go back to the infamous Bill 26, the omnibus bill. It just goes on and on. It seems as though we're at odds here.

I don't question the sincerity of the member on his resolution today. I'm talking about the Mike Harris government and the decisions cabinet is making. Frankly, I believe and I see that the backbenchers don't have a lot of say in those decisions either.

I am not going to support this resolution today, not only because I question the implications and the sincerity overall from this cabinet, this government, but also, if I were to support a resolution on referendum, I would like a lot more details today on what it means, how it would be conducted, who and how the decisions for a referendum would be made and how many signatures you'd need on a petition. There are lots of things that I would be very worried about showing up on a petition when it comes to protecting the minorities in our communities.

On that note, I will have to say to the member, with regret, today that I have too many problems with this resolution in its present form and with the whole concept of referendum in general and in particular coming from this government.

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I rise in the House today as a supporter of direct democracy in this resolution. I believe voters in this province should have more control over the legislative process and have the right to offer referendum questions and have the right to vote on these questions.

Our political system is built on the premise of "one person, one vote," yet somehow over the years voters feel more and more distant from the process. Their voice is heard at election time, and then they are silenced for three or four years. How could we have let this happen? What we have to do is make government accountable again. We must rescue policymaking from the lobbyists, special interest groups and bureaucrats and give it back to the voters. Taxpayers must have a stake in the process rather than simply being the ones who pay the bills.

I strongly believe there is a direct relation between the alienation voters feel and the rise in the size and strength of the bureaucracy of this province. There are costs in holding a referendum, but they are cheap compared to the costs of an uncontrolled bureaucracy.

Our government is here to serve, to be responsive, not to coerce and control. Taxpayers believe their politicians control everything, but that's not always the case. In Ontario, 130 politicians representing the people are pitted against 70,000 or 80,000 bureaucrats. It's an unfair fight. If we had more referenda, the 70,000 or 80,000 bureaucrats would have no chance against the desires of 10 million Ontarians. That's a much fairer fight. Taxpayers blame politicians, but the bureaucrats set up the politicians, withhold information, control the agenda, define the problem, the options and oftentimes the solution.

I believe the time has come to let the taxpayers, the men and women who pay our salaries, define the problem, control the agenda, give us options and the solutions.

The bureaucrats don't want this system changed. Versed in years of experience in controlling elected representatives, the last thing the bureaucrat wants is accountability. The last thing they want is to face the daunting task of trying to control the wishes of 10 million people.

While direct democracy may be a foreign concept in Ontario, the principle of "one person, one vote" governs the free enterprise system that most of us in this House hold dear. The market economy has an almost instantaneous voting system. The market economy is a dynamic system that changes each moment. It is a summation of all the votes of the participants expressed in dollars. The market system allows the merits, needs and beliefs of those who choose to participate to be expressed. Ultimately, no one controls the market for long. All are equal, and all who participate live by the results.

The marketplace is the purest form of democracy. Consumers purchase the products and services they want from the company that offers the best quality and price. The company that has a clear vision and accommodates its customers will thrive. Governments should be no different.

Just as I believe in the wisdom of the consumer to make their own decisions in the marketplace, so too do I believe in the intelligence of voters to make the important decisions about how they should be governed. Direct democracy referenda are attempts to allow voters, the little guy, to control the money he entrusts to governmental bureaucracy; the little guy, who wants a handle on his hard-earned tax dollar, wants to vote on how it's spent all the time.

Governmental bureaucracy does not want private sector voting mechanisms. They prefer to focus on their own brand of accounting. They use their own language. Lobbyists talk to them. They focus blame on politicians. They carry out their own agendas. Why would they want voting on a more regular basis? Why would they want intervention into their vested interest world?

The private sector works out how votes are recorded through devices such as the stock market or the small businessman's bank balance. The private sector is accountable through standardized accounting procedures and the ultimate that cash in exceeds cash out.

We must remove regulations and strip away the veneer that limits the democratic market system in government. We must then communicate simply, effectively and in a timely manner so that taxpayers can vote for issues and expenditures. There must be a philosophical underpinning, and that is that the little guy who pays his taxes must have a say.

None of us should ever lose sight of the fact that we are only here in this chamber because our constituents put us here. They want their voices to be heard. I urge you all to join me in giving them that voice. I urge more referenda and more participatory democracy in this technological world where direct democracy is not only possible but practical.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to join the debate. The first thing I would like to point out is that I don't think it's at all coincidence that the parties in this province, certainly in this Legislature, and across the country that are promoting the idea of more and more referenda happen to be the more right-wing ideological parties in Canada. Reform thinks this is a terrific idea; Manning has embraced it as best he can. Now, of course, the Harris Reform-a-Tories have embraced it strongly.

If you listen to Newt Gingrich and those of the right wing down in the States, they're pushing for it. I don't think that's a coincidence and so I would suggest to people who are reviewing in their own mind whether this is a good thing or not, take a look at where it's coming from first and ask yourselves whether or not those parties reflect the important priorities you and your family have.

To that degree I would also suggest, with respect but I'm making a point, that the author of this resolution tends to be known in many circles as one of even the more right-wing among that whole right-wing crowd, so I'm not surprised that he would want to be seen championing this issue.

Let's also take a look at the birth of modern-day referenda. Proposition 13 is the one that comes to mind in California, quite a while ago now. That was really the beginning of the idea of populist referenda around government decision-making taking over and replacing representational government. We know the disaster that's caused, quite frankly. I don't remember the exact wording, but it was a simplistic referendum that talked about slashing taxes and putting caps on how much increase there could be, with no consideration for the impact.

One of the resulting impacts was that Orange county down there in California recently had to declare bankruptcy as a direct result of the kind of handcuffs that a simplistic one- or two-statement resolution can have if it's adopted and implemented in its very form.

I want to comment briefly on the comments of the member for Brampton South in the minute-plus I have left, because I found his remarks to be very thoughtful. I listened very carefully and I appreciated the type of debate you offered up. My only concern, I would suggest to you, is that again it's a standalone idea. Recognizing that there are problems with the form of democracy we now have, given the amount of information that's out there, that changes the nature of decision-making.

My concern with embracing this particular mode as the be-all and end-all is that you're not taking into account what's going on in the States where they're having 10, 15, 20, 30 different resolutions on the ballot. People are now being handed practically a phone book when they walk in and vote in the United States. It lends itself, in my opinion, to those who have the money. Some of the best special interest groups in this country are the ones that have a lot of money. They can buy the advertising and convince people, with rather simplistic bumper-sticker slogans, that something's a good idea, and meanwhile behind it is something that's not necessarily good for the community.

I respond in a non-partisan way as you offer up your thoughts because I think they have merit in outlining the problem. We could also talk about the fact that the Internet provides a unique opportunity for democratic expression, but I have grave concerns about embracing this as the be-all and end-all. I hope we have something other than that down the road, but we do need some changes; I would agree with that.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I have just a moment and I'll add my comments very quickly. When we began the debate I wondered who on earth would oppose this extension of power to the people. It is very clear now that members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party are opposing this extension. I find it astonishing. Perhaps they find access to special interest groups and unions more appropriate than giving the people a chance to have initiatives on the ballot. I find that really strange and very curious. I suspect that will come back to haunt them in the next election.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for London South has two minutes.

Mr Bob Wood: I'd like to respond very briefly to some of the points that have been raised. The change proposed in this resolution is of course that there can be province-wide questions put on the ballot and they can be put on, not by the politicians, but by the people themselves.

To the members who have very rightly raised the question of what questions are going to go on the ballot, the answer is, what the people want is going to go on the ballot. The government is not going to define the question; the people are going to do that.

The cost is going to be minimal and it's going to be well worth it. Whether the province should pay for a province-wide vote is certainly open to discussion.

I've brought this forward as a resolution for the express purpose of giving guidance to the legislative committee which is now studying this and with the hope it will work out the details. I suggest, however, that this Legislature should give some guidance today to the committee. Either you believe in the people having a direct say or you don't. Today's the day when members can go on record whether or not they think that's the right way to do business in this province.

The question of how many signatures you need to get a question on the ballot is a very good one. The range tends to be from 3% to 10% of the people who voted in the last election. I personally would lean towards the higher number.

When we hear the concerns expressed, what they basically are is that the people would do stupid things, and I don't think they would. The history in other jurisdictions and in this jurisdiction is that the people are quite sensible when they vote on things on a ballot, and I think that's what we would get here.

As a government member, I have absolutely no fear of public scrutiny through direct voice of the people and I would urge all members to support that form of democratic initiative.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private ballot items has expired.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 47, standing in the name of Mr Duncan. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We'll now place the second question. We'll now deal with ballot item number 48, standing in the name of Mr Wood. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; there will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1154 to 1159.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Duncan has moved second reading of Bill 87.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Crozier, Bruce

O'Toole, John

Arnott, Ted

Duncan, Dwight

Patten, Richard

Baird, John R.

Grandmaître, Bernard

Phillips, Gerry

Bartolucci, Rick

Gravelle, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Bradley, James J.

Kormos, Peter

Ramsay, David

Brown, Michael A.

Kwinter, Monte

Ruprecht, Tony

Christopherson, David

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Sergio, Mario

Churley, Marilyn

Marchese, Rosario

Shea, Derwyn

Colle, Mike

Martin, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Conway, Sean G.

McGuinty, Dalton

Wood, Len

Cooke, David S.

McLeod, Lyn

Cordiano, Joseph

Murdoch, Bill

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will rise and remain standing.

Nays

Bassett, Isabel

Gilchrist, Steve

Munro, Julia

Brown, Jim

Grimmett, Bill

Parker, John L.

Carroll, Jack

Guzzo, Garry J.

Pettit, Trevor

Chudleigh, Ted

Hardeman, Ernie

Preston, Peter

Clement, Tony

Hastings, John

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Danford, Harry

Hudak, Tim

Ross, Lillian

DeFaria, Carl

Johns, Helen

Sheehan, Frank

Doyle, Ed

Johnson, Bert

Smith, Bruce

Fisher, Barbara

Johnson, Ron

Turnbull, David

Flaherty, Jim

Jordan, W. Leo

Vankoughnet, Bill

Ford, Douglas B.

Klees, Frank

Wood, Bob

Fox, Gary

Leadston, Gary L.

Young, Terence H.

Galt, Doug

Martiniuk, Gerry

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 34; the nays are 38.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

The doors will be open for 30 seconds.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Wood has moved private member's notice of motion number 31.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Flaherty, Jim

Murdoch, Bill

Baird, John R.

Ford, Douglas B.

O'Toole, John

Bartolucci, Rick

Fox, Gary

Parker, John L.

Bassett, Isabel

Galt, Doug

Patten, Richard

Bradley, James J.

Gilchrist, Steve

Pettit, Trevor

Brown, Jim

Grandmaître, Bernard

Phillips, Gerry

Brown, Michael A.

Gravelle, Michael

Preston, Peter

Carroll, Jack

Grimmett, Bill

Ramsay, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Guzzo, Garry J.

Ross, Lillian

Clement, Tony

Hardeman, Ernie

Ruprecht, Tony

Colle, Mike

Hastings, John

Sergio, Mario

Conway, Sean G.

Hudak, Tim

Shea, Derwyn

Cooke, David S.

Johns, Helen

Sheehan, Frank

Cordiano, Joseph

Johnson, Ron

Smith, Bruce

Crozier, Bruce

Jordan, W. Leo

Turnbull, David

Danford, Harry

Klees, Frank

Vankoughnet, Bill

DeFaria, Carl

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Wood, Bob

Doyle, Ed

Leadston, Gary L.

Young, Terence H.

Duncan, Dwight

Martiniuk, Gerry

Fisher, Barbara

Munro, Julia

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Kormos, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Christopherson, David

Marchese, Rosario

Wildman, Bud

Churley, Marilyn

Martin, Tony

Wood, Len

Johnson, Bert

Pupatello, Sandra

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 58; the nays are 11.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

All matters relating to private members' business having been completed, I will now leave the Chair and House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1207 to 1332.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

POLISH INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): For Canadians of Polish heritage, November 11 is Polish Independence Day. After the occupation forces were expelled from the Republic of Poland in 1918, a free and reunited, independent Poland was established on November 11.

For Polish Canadians, November 11 means freedom: the freedom to continue Poland's own destiny. Today we are reminded by the anniversary of Polish Independence Day that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, in that true peace must be built on the principles of freedom, liberty and democracy for all.

Today we take pride in the accomplishments of Polish Canadians and we wish them Godspeed as they celebrate Polish Independence Day.

I would like to recognize the presence of Mrs Hanna Sokolski, the president of the Polish Canadian Congress, Toronto branch, who is in the gallery. She's inviting all members of this Legislature to Polonia's celebrations on the weekend. Please contact the Canadian Polish Congress for details of the weekend.

Remarks in Polish.

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to be the first today to recognize the presence in the gallery of the Canadian Legion, and to thank them, particularly the branch in Sault Ste Marie, for the fine work they continue to do on behalf of veterans in our province and in so many other ways in our community.

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I also want to bring to the attention of the House a concern that's been raised in my community by those people who are charged with looking after young children under the guise of child care.

I met last week with a very dedicated, hardworking and sincere group of child care providers at the Prince Township Parent Child Resource Centre, and they spoke to me of their very real concern about and interest in the paper that was presented to this House by the Minister of Community and Social Services, Mrs Ecker. They are worried, to say the least. Mind you, they're being very fair, I believe, and reasonable in raising their concerns.

They know that change needs to happen. They know the child care situation in the province is not the best and can always be improved, and they meet regularly to talk about that. But in this instance, they wanted to share with me their concern that the standards that have been built up and arrived at by them and governments over the last few years not be diminished in any way.

They're concerned about the safety of children. They're concerned that there be universal access by all families across the province to first-class day care and that it be available in all communities across the province.

I raise that today, bring it to your attention, and hopefully Mrs Ecker will be listening.

FIRE SAFETY AWARDS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): It's a great honour for me, on behalf of the government of Ontario, to congratulate this year's winners of the fire marshal's Public Fire Safety Council's fire safety awards.

Today the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services presented awards to 15 groups and individuals in recognition of their outstanding contributions to fire safety and fire safety education. These award recipients included Ontario residents of all ages from many communities, including five children who received a Fire Safety Action Award because their response to fire emergencies reduced injuries and in some cases even saved lives.

To highlight just one award winner, eight-year-old Katie McCann of Brampton alerted her mother and father when she awoke to the smell of smoke and led her little sister and brother to safety, then ran next door to dial 911.

Other winners, some of whom are in the gallery today, include nine-year-old Robert Blenkarn and eight-year-old Jackie Blenkarn of Mallorytown; nine-year-old David D'Silva of Kitchener; eight-year-old Holly Guppy of Temagami; Dennis Chippa of North Bay; John Sinkowski and Tom Myerscough of Nanticoke; the Windsor Professional Fire Fighters Association; Loeb Princess Street and GTO 960 Radio, both of Kingston; the Orleans Lions Club; the Oshawa Motor City Kinsmen; Abbotsford Moving and Storage of Kanata; and the Original Bay News of Pickering.

I ask all members of the House to join me in showing their appreciation for the leadership shown by all these award winners.

STUDENT PROGRAM / STAGE POUR ÉTUDIANTS

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): This week I am introducing a new educational program for grade 8 students of my riding. Students will have the opportunity to come and spend three days here in Toronto with me and my staff to learn more about the Legislative Assembly and Ontario politics.

Because my riding is more than 500 kilometres northeast of Toronto, this is the first visit to Toronto for many students. Therefore we incorporated a leisure component for after work hours, and the students will get an opportunity to visit some of the main tourist attractions here in Toronto.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Yesterday the Premier suggested that women should be at home in the kitchen. His comments are typical of a government that has undertaken a systematic attack on Ontario women. The latest front is agencies, boards and commissions. Let's look at the facts.

Last year the Ontario Municipal Board was chaired by Ms Helen Cooper. Now it's chaired by Mr Doug Colbourne. Last year the Ontario Human Rights Commission was chaired by Ms Rosemary Brown. Today it's chaired by Mr Keith Norton. It's the same at the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board, the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal, the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. Capable women are being shoved aside to make room for Mike Harris's patronage appointments.

In the last year there has been a turnover of about 11 positions in the Circle of Chairs, a group of about 50 board chairs who meet monthly. In 1995 those 11 positions were held by three men and eight women. Now, in 1996, these positions are held by nine men and two women.

This is just a snapshot. This is just the tip of the iceberg. It's being played out under our noses. Welcome to the Mike Harris boys' club.

ELAINE POMAJBA

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I would like to ask all members to join with me today in paying tribute to a young woman from my riding of Chatham-Kent.

In early February, Elaine Pomajba of Chatham was diagnosed as having Wilson disease, a rare genetic disorder that causes the body to produce an overabundance of copper, which then attacks the liver. Days later she received her transplant. Now a student at the University of Guelph, Elaine attended the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair's steer auction and offered her steer for sale, notifying the bidders that she intended to donate the proceeds to the University Hospital in London. She had named her steer Wilson, after her disease, but he's better known as Wide Willy due to his immense girth.

Thanks to the generosity of the bidders who kept buying and returning Wide Willy for further auction, Elaine was able to raise $14,000 for the transplant service. This 21-year-old, in gratitude for what she had received, found a novel way to give something back to those who helped save her life. She has earned our applause for her wonderful gesture.

ASSISTANCE TO NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I want to direct my statement today to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, who, as the alleged voice for the north in the Harris government, must publicly tell those of us who live in the north where he stands on an extremely important issue.

Minister, we know that you participated in the cabinet retreat last week where the Minister of Finance announced he'd make another $3 billion in cuts to be delivered in his forthcoming economic statement. An area of funding that I fear may be on the chopping block as a part of these cuts is the northern support payment that is a crucial need for all our northern municipalities.

Mr Speaker, as you know, these payments are not a handout or a subsidy. They are equalization payments that recognize that a large proportion of the revenues gathered in the north in mining, forestry and other related businesses go directly into the provincial treasury without being subjected to municipal taxation. The location of these activities in unorganized areas -- a phenomenon, I may say, that's not seen in all of southern Ontario -- requires that these funds must be returned to the north in order for our communities to maintain the level of services we require.

Minister, as the official northern voice in cabinet, I trust you fought to maintain the northern support payments and that you in fact will announce to the mayors and reeves gathering in Thunder Bay tomorrow that in the face of potentially huge transfer cuts our northern support payments will remain. Our municipalities cannot withstand the threatened 40% cut in transfer payments from the province, certainly not without this support. Minister, you're either with us or you're against us. Which is it?

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Last Monday evening I had the privilege of attending the founding meeting of SOS, Securing Ongoing Support, which was held in Sudbury. The event was organized by a group of very courageous women who are concerned about the large numbers of families experiencing financial hardship as a direct result of the cuts to the family support plan.

In mid-August, this government laid off 290 staff and closed the regional offices. Women and children who used to receive regular support payments are now not. Payors who are making regular payments are discovering their money has not reached their families. They're having more money deducted from their paycheques to cover alleged arrears, even though the necessary payments have been remitted by employers to the family support plan.

About 50 people attended this meeting. The overwhelming majority of them were women who are experiencing tremendous difficulties in obtaining support payments. Again and again, I heard how these families have been receiving money regularly and then began to have problems after the cuts. Women are unable to pay their rent, their heat, their hydro bills, buy clothes for their children or put food on the table. These women can't come to Queen's Park and tell Charles Harnick directly about the impact of cuts on their lives, but they did agree to relate their stories on video and I want to give that tape to the Attorney General today.

These are moving and powerful accounts of what is really happening to women and children right now in Ontario. No one in viewing it could possibly deny that this Conservative government is responsible for creating the misery felt by these people. It's unacceptable that the government is financing the tax cut on the backs of these women and children.

An alarm clock was heard to ring.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I do want to give --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Beaches-Woodbine, I would prefer just to finish the last member's statement and I'll come back to your point of privilege.

TVONTARIO

During its 26-year history, TVO has produced such critically acclaimed series as Bookmice, Join In!, Math Patrol, Readalong and Polka Dot Door. More recently, the network has produced and broadcast the hit shows TVOKids, Off the Hook --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Members, this is a member's statement. Let's allow the member to finish it, please.

Mr Clement: Thank you, Mr Speaker. They have produced and broadcast the hit shows TVOKids, Off the Hook, Kratt's Creatures, and of course Polka Dot Shorts.

A lot has changed since TVO was first created 26 years ago. The broadcast industry has grown, matured and become more diversified, yet Ontarians should be pleased to note that as TVO changes in response to the evolution of the broadcast environment, it can compete and succeed. Let us celebrate TVO's successes, recognizing that continued success can only be achieved by adapting to Ontario's ever-changing broadcasting and educational environment.

I would like to invite all of my colleagues in this House to join me in congratulating TVO for earning this special achievement award. I would direct your attention to the visitors' gallery in offering a warm round of applause for our special guests Patty and Jo from TVOKids, and everyone's dear friend Polkaroo.

The Speaker: As you know, the member for Brampton South, it's out of order to actually introduce people through members' statements, but considering the eventful notice of the day, welcome to Polkaroo.

To the member for Beaches-Woodbine, before your point of privilege, the clock is a prop. It must go before I can hear your point of privilege. That's fine, thank you. If you could give it to the Sergeant at Arms. Now, member for Beaches-Woodbine, point of privilege?

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Speaker, I actually want to offer my apologies to you and to the chamber. My clock was supposed to go off at 5 o'clock this morning so I had time to get up and cook a hot breakfast. I don't know why it didn't go off at the right time, but my apologies.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As whip for my party on the standing committee on general government this morning, I tried to get the Chair and also the members of all three parties to permit the presentation of MPPs who would like to address Bill 81, the redistribution legislation, and I was turned down. I find this horrible on the part of the government, to deny not only voters but MPPs --

The Speaker: Order. I trust that you took your point of order up with the Chair of the committee and I can only assume that the Chair ruled on your point of order. Having assumed that, making that assumption -- if I'm wrong, you may correct me -- that is a ruling made by a Chair of a committee and it's not appealable in the chamber.

I have a point of privilege, I think, from the leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Mr Speaker, I scanned the government's list of ministerial statements. Is someone for the government going to apologize on behalf of the Premier for the insulting comments he made yesterday to working women?

The Speaker: Point of order, the member for Parkdale.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Mr Speaker, I have a question for you, actually, because I understand that from today on, you apparently said it's quite permissible to have clocks ticking, animals in the Legislature. What kind of place has this become? I'm asking you, Mr Speaker, is this now permitted, that we can have signs, demonstrations and applause?

The Speaker: That was a really interesting point of order, but there's nothing I can say. I ruled the clock out of order, signs are out of order, and that wasn't a real animal, to the member for Parkdale.

REMEMBRANCE DAY / JOUR DU SOUVENIR

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, on a more serious note, I think we would all in this House agree and I believe we have unanimous consent to have one speaker from each party caucus stand and pay tribute for Remembrance Day.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do we have unanimous consent to pay tribute for Remembrance Day? Agreed.

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): It is indeed a great privilege for me to rise before this House today and help pay tribute to those who so valiantly fought for our country. I see many of them up in the galleries and I welcome them here today.

I would like to pay tribute to those Canadians who lost their lives, to those who lost a part of themselves. We honour their spirit and their sacrifice on this upcoming Remembrance Day.

On Monday, November 11, everyone in this chamber will be at a cenotaph, school or park remembering the more than 100,000 Canadians who lost their lives in battle for the freedom of our country and in fighting for other countries as well. We also honour those who escaped death and survived. Many of them unfortunately suffered in that process.

Many here today, I suspect, were probably either too young to remember or were not yet born when the Great War happened and when Korea came and went. However, there are a few who remember what it was like. The memories are still vivid for those people and for the people in the galleries today, I'm sure.

However, as time has passed, too many in our society have become disconnected from the events that took place. They are images depicted in movies and books, isolated events and, to some, almost fiction. The knowledge that our children and grandchildren have comes from what they read in their history books or what they see on television.

Like everyone here, I pray that they will never know what it is like to experience the horrors of war, but they must understand that history is not merely a story. It is a series of emotions and events experienced, individual by individual, that could never be captured or accurately portrayed. They must also understand that war is never glamorous nor romantic. Friends indeed were lost and families were disconnected.

On Remembrance Day we gather to try to remember, to learn and to listen, and I mean listen, to those individual stories. It is only by doing this that we will understand the importance of not repeating history's mistakes.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I'm honoured to have this opportunity to say a few words as we mark this day as Remembrance Day in the Legislature.

C'est un honneur pour moi, an nom de mon caucus, d'adresser la parole à tous mes collègues à l'occasion du jour du Souvenir.

Most of us only know about war from books and movies, and that's something to be thankful for. But to understand the real experience of war, we should listen to the voices of those who were there. We can learn so much from them about the meaning of honour, comradeship, sacrifice and the waste and devastation of war.

Charles Cromwell Martin is one of those voices. As company sergeant-major of Company A of the Queen's Own Rifles, Charlie was one of the first men on the beach at Normandy on D-Day. In his book, Battle Diary, Charlie remembers:

"There was just us and an awful lot of ocean.... All that remained within sight was our own fleet of ten assault craft, moving abreast in the early-morning silence in a gradually extending line facing the shore.... We had never felt so alone in our lives."

As Charlie said at our interview: "The boats don't reach shore all at once, only about two at a time. So this major invasion force really looks like just a few flies scattered around. The next boat over is maybe 750 yards away and may touch shore a few minutes later.

"Once you hit the beach, you don't stop for anything. Those who do pay a terrible price. You must keep moving, because if the enemy knows where you are, they bring artillery and mortar fire down and you suffer heavy casualties.

"Some of the fellows didn't want to go. But as long as you were going, they would go too. If you, as the first man, go down, then so does everyone else. Of course, then you have to get up again. That's the trick. But it's like slow motion. You don't see the enemy, or any big shells going over, not one battleship, although there were hundreds of them out in the Channel. Unlike in the movies, there was only one plane offering us air support."

Facing death creates an incredible bond between those who go through the experience together. As Charlie says, "Soldiers in combat are even closer than brothers, living and training together every day for four years, added to the knowledge that you must depend absolutely on each other."

As Charlie explains, "Men go into battle with the attitude, `If you can do it, I can do it, and I'm not going to let you down.' That's why I say there is no purer love than among comrades in battle."

Charlie continues: "The hardest thing to take during the war is that in every battle someone you know very well is always killed. At Boulogne, we had a very tough objective: capturing the church of St Martin's on the Hill. I was in the action with Jimmy and Steve, whom I had known at Camp Borden in 1940. Jimmy Young came from Toronto and Steve de Blois from Cochrane, Ontario. They were as different as chalk and cheese. Jimmy was a really smooth soldier, tall and good-looking, and he could handle his weapons well. Steve was a farmer and somewhat out of his element. But Jimmy was always there to help him.

They were always together. Steve was killed on the road just at the top of the hill and Jimmy five feet away from him. It was so hard not to give in to despair, to move forward, to take up the banner and to get the job done."

In the years since the end of the war, Charlie has supported his family and has been an active member of his community. But he also spends a lot of his time in safeguarding the memory of his old friends. His memory is a treasure house for those families who have lost a father or husband or had a grandfather they never knew. Their gratitude for his stories is boundless. Because of him, the legacy of these men, gone too soon, will not be lost.

During the 50th anniversary celebrations of the end of the war, Charlie met many young people who were attending the ceremonies. He was struck by how much they reminded him of his comrades. He sees it in young people's eyes today, their desire to serve a common cause in battles that really matter in arenas where they can make a difference. Although we hope that the drive for war has receded into history, that spirit prevails and gives us cause to be proud to be Canadians.

Every morning on my way to Queen's Park I pass the soldiers' tower on the University of Toronto campus. Under the archway are inscribed the names of the students who died in the First and Second World Wars and one who died in the Korean conflict. I see their names and wonder what their stories are. These young men rose above their individual frailties to make the ultimate sacrifice, something most of us will never understand. Through our pride in them we can be proud of ourselves as Canadians and of our dreams for Canada and its place in the free world.

This year, as we give honour to those who served our country in the interest of peace, we might remember that today's soldiers carry the ideal in their own service. As time passes and fewer veterans are alive to give testament to the horror and waste of war, it