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

October 7, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L104 - Mon 7 Oct 1996 / Lun 7 Oct 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION FINANCING

LISTOWEL TECHNOLOGY INC

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

LABOUR DISPUTE

FOOT HEALTH WEEK

AMATEUR SPORT

HOMELESSNESS

NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

NURSING STAFF

VISITORS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

GO TRANSIT

FRANCHISE BUSINESSES

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

AMATEUR SPORT / SPORT AMATEUR

GO TRANSIT

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ABORTION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

HEALTH CARE

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

BEAR HUNTING

DRINKING AND DRIVING

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

RENT REGULATION

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

HEALTH CARE

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

RENT REGULATION

HEALTH CARE

RENT REGULATION

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COURTS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES TRIBUNAUX

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Three days ago the Health Services Restructuring Commission returned to Thunder Bay to swing its axe and render its final verdict on hospital closures in our region. The result?

Shattered dreams, certainly for those of us who believed that a new acute care hospital was vital for our area to lead us into the future; anger at a commission clearly following orders from the health minister, whose main goal was to remove $40 million annually from health care in our community regardless of the consequences; fear for those of us who know that our hospitals, already working at full capacity, must remove half of their acute care beds within three years; and further anxiety because of the commission's virtual dismissal of the long-term-care needs in our community.

Now we have learned that the health minister will not be gracing us with his presence today. Clearly he's avoiding us because of the fact that his restructuring commission's only job is to skip across the province and take $1.3 billion our of our hospitals, all this motivated by the need to find $5 billion for a tax cut nobody wants any more.

Nothing is more important to the people in Thunder Bay and our region than health care. The decision last week was flawed in many respects and will not look after the health care needs of our citizens. I promise you that we will fight this government for more than it has left us. All of us on all sides of the House cannot rest until this government's senseless destruction of our future is stopped.

I ask the Premier to answer one question I was asked this past weekend: When you finish this process, where will the sick people go?

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): This government has shut the two and a quarter million people of Metro Toronto out of a critical decision-making process that involves the future of education for their children. Alarmingly, the Minister of Education's subpanel on education financing includes no one from Metro Toronto. This is the group that may well recommend raiding Metro's coffers to fund other school boards across the province. Why has Ann Vanstone, chair of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, not been included on this panel? Is it because she might say something the government doesn't want to hear?

Among the many who have concerns with this government's direction in education are the many active members of the parent-staff association of Frankland Community School in my riding of Riverdale. They're deeply concerned, as I am, not only about the lack of Metro representation, but also about the mandate and time line this government has given the subpanel to come up with recommendations on overhauling education finance.

The minister also released, on September 19, a discussion paper entitled Meeting Students' Needs. The deadline for the response is today. This paper speaks of massive changes to the way we fund our education, including funding for children with special needs. His lack of meaningful consultation with parents and leaders in the education field makes a mockery of our democratic system.

The minister muses about creating a crisis. Let me assure him he's on the right track here. He's creating more crises than he can shake a stick at and no amount of public relations jargon will be able to save him.

LISTOWEL TECHNOLOGY INC

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): As the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism mentioned at the opening of this session, there has been more good news for the riding of Perth. I'd like to take this opportunity to share it with you.

On Monday, September 23, the town of Listowel and the province of Ontario were pleased to announce that Moriroku Co Ltd of Japan will invest $16 million in a 125,000-square-foot injection moulding plant that will employ 80 people. Construction of the new plant will begin in October of this year and is scheduled for completion in May 1997. It's projected that by the year 2001, the plant will employ 140 workers. The new plant will be called Listowel Technology Inc and will initially manufacture parts for Honda of Canada.

This is not the first good news announcement that I have made on behalf of the people of the county of Perth, and I do not see it as being the last. This government's policies and practices are showing the world that Ontario is once again becoming a prosperous place. For the people of Ontario, that means the government is doing what it promised: returning jobs, hope and opportunity to Ontario.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I rise today to share with the House, and more specifically the Minister of Health, the results of a public opinion poll conducted in Sudbury by the Sudbury Star on health services restructuring in Sudbury.

The results of this survey are not surprising. An overwhelming majority of Sudburians are fearful of the government-controlled Health Services Restructuring Commission's ill-fated decision to remove two of our three acute care hospitals from our community.

I want to tell the Minister of Health that the survey found that an astonishing 83% of respondents believe the one-hospital plan will result in a deterioration of health care services. Only 5% believe that this new system will be an improvement. Reactions from those surveyed ranged from disbelief to sadness to anger, all aimed at the Big Blue Tory bulldozer that ransacked our entire community.

Here are just some of the comments of residents surveyed in our community: "Emergency services will deteriorate"; "Service will decline"; "The community will suffer"; "Too far too fast"; "We'd better not get sick."

Sudburians and I understand that the hospital system needed some adjusting. The local district health council recommended a two-hospital site. The Minister of Health agreed to support the DHC's recommendation and then, in an about-face, Tory-like move, reneged on his written commitment.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Speaker, the joy about your election down in Niagara was overcome with shadow by a crisis that's looming there, a crisis that quite frankly has its origins right here in Mike Harris's Tory Queen's Park.

CUPE Local 1287 members have been on strike since September 3. These are the 650 regional workers down in Niagara who provide public services like water treatment and sewage treatment and day care and home care and social services and road maintenance.

The strike hasn't been about money. It's been about preserving valuable quality and affordable public services. I tell you, the taxpayers of regional Niagara are paying, because right now the cost is higher to keep these people out on their picket lines than it would have been had the region accepted their last offer. In fact, the support for this dispute and this work stoppage on the part of those CUPE workers is overwhelming: 97% rejection of the last regional Niagara offer.

Its origins are in Queen's Park because, rather than a made-in-Niagara solution that the workers in CUPE 1287 are eager to participate in, the administration at regional Niagara is insisting on imposing a made-at-Queen's Park, a Harris Tory resolution, which means more privatization, more job loss, lower quality and more paying for taxpayers. It's time to put an end to that.

FOOT HEALTH WEEK

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I'd like to inform my honourable colleagues in this chamber today about Ontario Foot Health Week which takes place this week, from October 7 to 12, 1996.

This annual event, aimed at educating the public and promoting better foot health, is sponsored by the Ontario Society of Chiropodists. This is an association of foot care professionals, many of whom are trained right here in Ontario, as opposed to podiatrists, who are trained in the United States.

Chiropodists provide consultative, orthotic and soft tissue surgical care to many thousands of Ontarians each year. They number over 200 all across the province and can be found in nearly every village and town, from Kenora to Prescott to Pelee. They are our neighbours and friends, yet it is a relatively unknown profession.

Chiropodists practise in hospital clinics, where they are partially funded by OHIP, and in private practice on a pay-as-you-go basis. The principal difference between chiropodists and podiatrists in Ontario, which is the only jurisdiction in North America to make the distinction, is that chiropodists may only perform minor surgical operations.

I know my honourable colleagues will join me in congratulating these foot care professionals on a job well done during Foot Health Week.

AMATEUR SPORT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The Conservative government of Mike Harris has dealt a major blow to the amateur sports community in Ontario with yet another drastic cut in funding to all sports and the complete abandonment of 26 sports organizations.

It was apparent last week, when I asked the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation to disassociate herself from the comments of her parliamentary assistant, Tony Clement, MPP for Brampton South, who had said, "Amateur sports groups in Ontario are welfare recipients who have to be taken off the dole," that her so-called new strategy would amount to a virtual end to significant support for amateur sports groups in our province.

Yet another segment of our society has been sacrificed to finance a 30% income tax cut that will benefit the most wealthy to the greatest extent.

Thousands of youngsters who participate in healthy, constructive athletic activities previously supported by the recreation ministry, along with thousands of volunteers who willingly assist amateur athletes, have been abandoned by the Harris government. If the present trend continues under the unfair and unwise sports policy of the Conservative Harris government, only children of the rich and influential will be in a financial position to participate in athletic activities, with the implications for health and social wellbeing of the people of Ontario now obvious.

HOMELESSNESS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): "Homelessness" is a word we will be hearing a lot of in the coming months. This word is also synonymous with "hopelessness."

Last week the Toronto Coalition Against Homelessness held a press conference here at Queen's Park. It is estimated that there are between 25,000 to 50,000 homeless people living on the streets of Metropolitan Toronto. This figure in my view, and it should be the view of many, is a shocking statistic.

In July this year a coroner's jury investigating the deaths of three homeless men recommended that an advisory committee be struck to identify successful models of affordable and supportive housing and develop a plan of action to ensure that the homeless, in particular those with substance abuse and mental illness, have access to appropriate housing and support services, and that funding should be provided by the appropriate government ministries to carry out this plan.

Sadly to date, these recommendations have not been acted upon. The days are getting colder, and I urge the Minister of Housing in particular, as well as many other ministers, to study those recommendations and deal with the problem now before more people die of hypothermia on the streets this fall and this winter.

NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise in the House to recognize and honour National Family Week, which begins today and runs until October 13.

This year's National Family Week theme urges us to celebrate the strengths and importance of family and what they mean to each of us. The family unit is pivotal to a strong and developing community. This week we are encouraged to rediscover the many ways that families support and help their members. We should all be encouraged to stop and reflect on what families are all about. Families are about caring, families are about nurturing, and families are about supporting and developing the potentials of all of their members. Families are the backbone of our lives and of our communities.

Let me congratulate and honour all of my constituents who are celebrating National Family Week. I encourage all members to participate and celebrate the many strengths and benefits that families bring to our lives not only during this recognized week but every day of the year.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wanted to make a point of order under standing order 33(a). You'll be aware of course that standing order 33(

a) falls under the rules of orders that are set out in the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly which require question period to be entered into at a particular time in the afternoon. The purpose of question period, as stated under

section 33(a), is that "Questions on matters of urgent public importance may be addressed to ministers of the crown...." It seems quite evident that if questions on matters of urgent importance are to be addressed to ministers, the ministers have to be present for the questions to be placed to them.

With that in mind, I ask you in all seriousness about the sustained absence of the Minister of Health. Mr Speaker, I want you to be aware that on Wednesday last the Minister of Health was in the building and was present at health estimates, but did not --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I understand. I heard your point of order, to the Leader of the Opposition, and I appreciate the concern that you bring to the place with respect to your point of order, but it is not a point of order with respect to the ministers being in their place at the time. It's something that you may want to address through your House leaders' meetings, and address it there you should. But to ask the Speaker to rule as to the whereabouts of certain ministers and when and how they should be in this place you know is not a point of order. I appreciate that.

Mrs McLeod: With respect, I do believe that has a direct bearing on the carrying out of democratic responsibility of the Legislative Assembly. I would ask whether or not the Speaker has any role in determining whether an avoidable absence over consecutive days is in fact a deliberate violation of the standing orders of this House.

The Speaker: I appreciate that and it's not within the Speaker's purview. It's not within the standing orders and the orders that govern this House. Frankly, it's something the Speaker literally has no control over. I would ask again that if you would like to take this up with the government, you may do so through the appropriate channels, but clearly this is not an appropriate channel. I appreciate the input.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question was indeed for the minister responsible for closing hospitals, but since he doesn't feel it's important for him to be here --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I would caution the member. We have ministers, they have responsibilities, and I know not of one who has that responsibility. I would ask you who you're going to put the question to and to name them properly, if you would. Thank you.

Mrs McLeod: It's difficult because we have a Minister of Health who doesn't feel that he's responsible for anything related to health care in this province. But in his absence, I will go to the minister whose responsibility is quite clear and whose fiscal agenda is really driving the destruction of health care in this province --

The Speaker: The question is to?

Mrs McLeod: -- and that's the Minister of Finance.

Minister, having devastated health care in Sudbury, last Friday the Big Blue Tory bulldozer rammed its way back through Thunder Bay. They ignored all of the concerns that were expressed in our community over a period of months and they just simply bulldozed three of our five hospitals to the ground. The result and what they left us with was 50% fewer hospital beds, $41 million slashed from health care in our region and literally hundreds of nurses and lab technicians and health care providers facing the elimination of their jobs. What they've done is taken all of the hope out of our community and left only discouragement and very real fear.

The people of Thunder Bay now know the cost of your tax cut in all-too-real terms. I ask you, do you really believe that your tax cut is worth destroying health care, not only in Thunder Bay and in Sudbury but in every community across this province?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The honourable Leader of the Opposition knows full well that there is absolutely no correlation between the tax cut and hospital closures. She also knows full well that the current hospital restructuring exercise was commenced by the previous government. I give them credit for that. They may not want to take it today, now that they're sitting on the other side of the House, but that is indeed where this process started.

I say to the honourable Leader of the Opposition that she knows full well that the final recommendation as announced by the Health Services Restructuring Commission on Friday is very consistent with the Thunder Bay District Health Council hospital services review report. She knows that very well. She knows that full well. She knows they're consistent. The ultimate goal in this exercise is the care of the patient and delivering better patient care to people in the province of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: This is not some kind of abstract academic exercise; this is about the destruction of health care in my community. What I know full well is that this is not about patient care in my community. This is not even -- you've been badly briefed and maybe the Minister of Health is equally badly briefed -- about agreeing with the community direction. The community direction was ignored, as was the joint submission of our district health council and four of our five community hospitals. The Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital couldn't participate because it was forbidden to give its input by the ministry itself.

This has everything to do with the cuts that you and Mike Harris and Jim Wilson have made to hospital budgets, it has everything to do with starving community hospitals to the point where they have to close, and if they don't do it voluntarily, your minister's hatchet men come in and do it to them. We know full well that taking $40 million out of health care in Thunder Bay and another $40 million out of health care in Sudbury has nothing to do with improving quality or improving access to health care in our communities. It has only to do with your $1.3-billion cut.

If you are really concerned about quality and access to health care, you should repeal your $1.3-billion cut. Will you do this? Will you take away the financial crisis that you have created for health care in this province and allow patient care, not your cuts, to determine the future of health care in Ontario?

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member knows full well that the two previous governments eliminated some 8,600 beds from the health care system in the province of Ontario without doing the proper administrative thing and didn't close one single medium-sized hospital in the entire province, although they had no problems eliminating 8,600 beds, which would be the equivalent of 33 medium-sized hospitals in Ontario.

I say to the honourable member again that the hospital restructuring committee is independent. It is not part of the government.

Laughter.

Hon Mr Eves: You people can laugh if you want over there. Some important decisions have to be made about the future of health care, not only in Thunder Bay and Sudbury, but in virtually every single community in this province.

I advise the honourable member to take the advice of the editorial page in her own Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal on October 5: "The bottom line for most people should be this: If we had a new hospital it would offer exactly the same services that the refurbished and enlarged general hospital will, but it would cost more than twice as much money. If the prospect of raising $13 million locally and regionally seems daunting, try $90 million for emphasis on the size."

Why don't you understand what the editorial board of your very own home-town newspaper has understood? It is time to restructure, do things more cost-effectively and provide better services to the patients of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: If the Minister of Health had been here he might have been able to tell you in advance that what that editorial is recommending is something that might approach some kind of semi-decent facility being left in our community after you shut down three of our five hospitals. You would be aware that because your hospital commission is not independent in any way, shape or form, what that editorial suggests is needed as a minimum is much more than a fractional little bit of what your commission is leaving in Thunder Bay, either in terms of beds or of dollars to have a decent facility for people to get care in.

It is your cuts, and I come back to that, that are driving this. It is not some independent decision of a commission about what people in my community need. It is the fact that you have taken the dollars out of their budgets and the hospitals have to be shut down as a result of that. I can tell you what you must know full well, that not only are people scared in my community, but they are scared in communities right across the province.

In my own community, they are afraid they won't get health care and they're going to be put on planes and sent to Toronto. People in Toronto are scared because they know you're going to shut down health care in this city too. People in Kincardine, 3,000 of them, came out last week to say they are afraid of what you and Jim Wilson and Mike Harris are going to do when you get into Bruce county. There are 3,000 more people in Wiarton who are also frightened. They are pleading with you to stop your cuts and save their hospital services. Will you listen, will you stop the cuts and will you acknowledge that a second-rate health care system is too high a price to pay for your tax cut?

Hon Mr Eves: Does anybody really believe that the amount of our tax reduction on July 1 has absolutely anything to do with the hospital restructuring exercise?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: There are 35 chirping people on the other side of the floor. Talk about playing politics with an issue, talk about fearmongering for your own political benefit -- I think you've hit rock bottom today. You know this government has pledged to reinvest savings we find in the health care system in the health care system. You know we pledged for well over a year that the health care budget would not go below $17.4 billion, despite the fact that your pledge was $17 billion, $400 million lower, I say directly to you, ma'am, who made that commitment of $17 billion.

Our health care budget this year will approach $17.7 billion, some $300 million more than we pledged and some $700 million more than you thought was appropriate for health care in the province of Ontario. If you want to talk about who is cutting health care funding, pick up the phone, phone your honourable federal cousins and talk about reductions in transfer payments to this province and --

The Speaker: The question's been answered.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the minister's response to the Leader of the Opposition he used a term that I don't think is appropriate. We have to address members by their titles, not by gender basis. I would ask you to ask him to withdraw that.

Hon Mr Eves: I'll be happy to withdraw that. Please don't refer to me as "sir," especially coming from you.

The Speaker: I ask the Minister of Finance to withdraw the last comment. I don't think it's particularly helpful.

Hon Mr Eves: I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

NURSING STAFF

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Minister of Finance. I'll say to the minister that I know and believe full well that your need to find the $5 billion for your tax cut is what's driving you to take $1.3 billion out of the budgets of our hospitals before you have any idea what the impact is going to be on the health care of people in the communities across this province.

If you suggest that I am playing partisan politics by telling you how frightened the people in my community are that they are not going to get health care, I suggest that you have hit rock bottom and I dare you to come to my community and tell them they have no reason to be worried. Your commission didn't have the courage to do that publicly.

I want to raise a question of a second impact of taking $1.3 billion out of the hospital budgets, another impact the Minister of Health has not been here to defend or to attempt to explain, because last week the Toronto Hospital fired 322 nurses. I suppose you're going to try to tell us that had nothing to do with your cuts to hospital budgets. The fact is that patients at that hospital are going to lose a half a million hours of nursing care and the hospital clearly says it is because you chopped $32 million from its budget as part of that $1.3-billion cut.

I ask you to tell me, Minister, how will firing 322 nurses at Toronto Hospital and 15,000 nurses across Ontario improve health care quality, access for patients, waiting time for surgery being reduced or getting faster treatment in emergencies?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The province of Ontario, as the member full knows, doesn't fire anybody in the nursing community. Various hospitals in every single community across Ontario have been asked to deal with smaller budgets and transfer payments from the province, just as we have been asked by the federal government to deal with smaller transfer payments from them. We accept our responsibility and we deal with our responsibility, just as they are doing at the local level.

Mrs McLeod: The minister's friend Jim Wilson stands up in this House, when he's here, and says, "Don't worry about closing hospitals, because bricks and mortar don't cure people; it's people who cure people," and that is our point exactly, because nurses are on the front lines curing people. When you cut hospital budgets you leave hospitals with no choice, so they have to cut nursing staff.

There are consequences because when you cut nursing staff, patients don't get care, nurses aren't there to give the morphine injection that patients need when they're in pain and they're not there to give the intravenous or antibiotics that patients need. You can't solve the problem of cutting nurses by taking a six-week crash training course and giving it to cafeteria workers.

Minister, we believe that nurses matter, so I ask you: Why are you and Mike Harris and Jim Wilson so determined to turn our hospitals into Third World institutions where families practically have to move into the hospitals to make sure their loved ones are going to get the care they need?

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member knows full well that the ultimate objective of this is better patient care for everybody. Everybody would agree that the health care system has to be changed and restructured. Even the Ontario Nurses' Association understands that. They are having a town hall meeting on October 8, which is tomorrow, in North Bay, Ontario. I read to you from the notice about their own meeting. They understand that the health care system in Ontario has to be restructured and reformed because for too many years we've gone on the old base, the old system.

For too many years we've invested our dollars in bricks and mortar as opposed to investing it in people who provide patient care and new technologies. That is what the restructuring exercise is all about.

I do understand that in the short term, and in terms of people having some concerns about what may be happening in their particular community, they have those concerns. But I would also suggest to the honourable member that she is doing nothing to assist the situation if she's out there fearmongering without approaching this in a constructive manner.

Mrs McLeod: My community approached it in a constructive manner. They made a joint submission. It was ignored by the commission. The nurses of Ontario are approaching this in a constructive manner. I've been at two of the town hall meetings, and they say loudly and clearly that you cannot start to provide plans for health care by slashing $1.3 billion from hospital budgets, by shutting down hospitals, by carrying out behind-closed-door meetings and by slashing nursing staff in hospitals right across this province. They're telling you that you can't do it.

People in Kincardine and Wiarton and Toronto and Sudbury and Thunder Bay are telling you that you can't do it. Hospitals are telling you they can't manage with your cuts.

All you're leaving them with in terms of some sort of local option is a choice between a guillotine and an electric chair. That's all you've left our communities when it comes to providing health care. You are taking, with your $1.3-billion cut, and it is a direct impact, 13 million nursing hours out of our hospitals. It is hard to believe. It's not just nursing care, it's also the technologists, the janitors, the cleaners and all the people who are an integral part of providing good health care.

Minister, stand up today and admit that your government's health restructuring is a sham, that it's in total shambles and at the end of the day all you'll have accomplished is having chopped your $1.3 billion from our hospital budgets and hurt patients in the process.

Hon Mr Eves: I'll say to the honourable member very directly, at the end of the day we will stand by our commitment of $17.4 billion to health care and in fact we will exceed that figure by substantial amounts. She knows that, I think.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): What about all those nurses?

Hon Mr Eves: Speaking of nurses, we all understand, I think, that nurses are a very important component of the health care system in the province of Ontario, that they provide front-line services to patients.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Why are you getting rid of them?

Hon Mr Eves: We aren't getting rid of any of them, I say to the honourable member. The hospitals are dealing individually with their situations as they see fit. The Ministry of Health has committed $17.3 million for the first five years of the nurse practitioner education program. The Ministry of Health has committed $170 million in long-term-care community services. That is going to create some 4,400 jobs in the long-term-care sector, and the member knows full well a great many of those jobs are going to be for registered nurses and registered nurse practitioners, RNAs.

The member knows full well that the ministry is providing $1 million for the province-wide nursing project to create centres of excellence, to demonstrate effective improvement in patient-client outcomes through the use of best knowledge, skills and technology.

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

Hon Mr Eves: So the Ministry of Health is making these reinvestments. At the end of the day there will be more money, not less, being spent in the health care system in the province of Ontario, but we will have a system that is better equipped to deal with patients' needs on a front-line basis.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I think you'd like to welcome a couple of delegations that are here today. The introduction of guests --

Interjection: Stop the clock.

The Speaker: The clock is stopped. You can tell because the numbers stop moving.

I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a South African delegation attending a parliamentary cooperation program hosted by the Legislative Assembly. They're up in the Speaker's gallery, if they'd like to rise.

On my left, if you would also please welcome the delegates attending the 12th biennial conference of the Association of Parliamentary Librarians in Canada. Welcome.

The Speaker: Third party questions? You can start the clock too.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): In the absence of the Minister of Health again today, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. I'll read from the headline of the Toronto Globe and Mail. It says the Mike Harris government has cut $30 million for the Ontario treasury by confirming yesterday the closure of two of Thunder Bay's five hospitals. It's the Minister of Finance, I gather, who gets the $30 million, not the people of Thunder Bay and the region, who lose out in terms of $30 million in health care.

Let me ask the Minister of Finance this: The Minister of Health has already cut hospital budgets in the province by $343 million this year. You took $42 million out of Sudbury annually and you're taking, by our estimates, about $38 million annually out of Thunder Bay. We think, if we start adding up the numbers, that this year you're going to take far in excess of $343 million out of hospital budgets. If you add the closures to the budget cuts, you're going to take quite a lot in excess of $343 million.

Since you're taking all this money, $343 million in across-the-board cuts and $40 million at a whack annually out of towns and cities like Thunder Bay and Sudbury, what are you doing with the rest of the money, other than giving it away in a tax break to the wealthy?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, I'm sure the honourable member appreciates the fact that any hospital restructuring that is done, be it in Thunder Bay, Sudbury or elsewhere, is not going to happen overnight. So those cost savings, if that's what you want to refer to them as, are not going to be found the next day at 9 o'clock after the story appears in the Globe and Mail the previous day. These things take time. There are not going to be patients displaced. People are going to do this in a thoughtful and organized and rational manner. That's the first statement I'd like to make.

The second statement I would like to make to him, as I've said to the Leader of the Opposition, is that at the end of the day moneys are going to be reinvested in the health care system in the province of Ontario. This can't happen overnight either. Some of the moneys, quite frankly, are already being reinvested in the health care system before any restructuring even starts to take place. That will be a continuous, ongoing process over the next few months and years.

Mr Hampton: I note that the Minister of Finance did not disagree with my assessment. The fact is that the government is taking far more out of hospitals than it has so far admitted; it admits to taking $343 million. But simply add up the numbers out of Sudbury and Thunder Bay and it's very clear that the government is taking far more money.

If this is what the Minister of Finance refers to as reinvestment, let me tell you what the commission said in Thunder Bay. "The health services review commission has requested that the Minister of Health ask the Thunder Bay District Health Council to lead a process for developing a plan to build an integrated system of delivery of health care services, including the feasibility of moving towards the establishment of an integrated governance structure for health services."

This is all that is being offered to the people of Thunder Bay: You are going to be requested to ask for a process that hopefully leads to a plan. Is this the Conservative government's definition of reinvestment in the health care system for Thunder Bay, that you have to request someone to ask to lead a plan that might lead somewhere? Is that your definition of reinvestment?

Hon Mr Eves: To the leader of the third party, do you not want us to consult the local community when we're taking these decisions? I've gone through saying to the leader of the third party that we are doing these things in a thoughtful, rational, organized process; they're not going to be accomplished overnight, nor are hospitals going to be closed overnight, nor are hospitals going to be merged or their services rationalized overnight. This is a long and ongoing process that is merely starting now.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Starvation is a slow process, but it's happening faster.

Hon Mr Eves: Despite the interjections of the Leader of the Opposition, she had her opportunity to ask two questions; she'll have an opportunity to ask some more if she wants in a few minutes. However, I say to the leader of the third party that these things are long overdue. We've talked about the 8,600 beds that have come out of the system under the two previous administrations, that your ministers of health extracted from the system.

I'm not necessarily critical of the fact that those beds were reduced, except that they didn't do the other component of that, and that is to reduce the administrative side of the equation at the same time so that at the end of the day we can invest our health care dollars that we have committed to spend, and then some, in a more patient-delivery-mode system of health care in the province of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: The Minister of Finance tries to give soothing words, but the fact of the matter is that health care services are going to be lost in communities like Thunder Bay and like Sudbury when those hospitals are closed, and this government has no upfront alternative services either in place now or planned for those communities.

I can tell the Minister of Health what people think in those communities. They believe that they aren't going to see a full portfolio of alternative community services like home care, like community care, like health education and like the kind of disease prevention strategies you need.

What they're seeing is that you walked into Sudbury and you announced cuts of $42 million a year to health care and you've got no alternative to present to Sudbury; you walked into Thunder Bay and you're taking $38 million a year out of health care and you've got nothing concrete to offer the people of Thunder Bay in terms of alternative services. They know that what you're really doing is you're taking money out of health care and you're transferring it into a tax break for the wealthiest people in this province.

Let me ask you here, what are the alternative services for Thunder Bay? What are the alternative services for Sudbury? What are they, where are they and when are we going to see them?

Hon Mr Eves: Those are going to be developed over a period of time, as I've explained to the honourable member, nor are the hospitals closing tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. Maybe that's what you envision will happen, but that is not the way the process is going to work. You know very well that the Minister of Health has already invested substantial moneys in northern Ontario and elsewhere in the province of Ontario -- $170 million that I talked about earlier in question period about long-term care reinvestment, employing 4,400 more people. Do you not want those 4,400 more people employed, I say to the leader of the third party?

Mr Hampton: That's actually a cut, Ernie, with what's supposed to be spent. That is a cut, Ernie; do you understand that? That's not an alternative, that's a cut.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Leader of the third party, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Eves: Expanded kidney dialysis services province-wide: $25 million. Cardiac surgery reinvestment: $15.5 million. Cardiac stents in a lot of cardiovascular units, including Sudbury -- are you opposed to that? Restored out-of-province coverage. Expanded diabetes care: $5.8 million. A $70-an-hour sessional fee to northern and rural Ontario that your government wouldn't commit to, our government did: $13 million. Community-sponsored contracts, 21 northern communities --

The Speaker: Answer, please, Minister of Finance.

Hon Mr Eves: -- $6.7 million. Do you not want that to go into northern Ontario? Expansion of psychiatric care services in Timmins: $194,000. What have you got against Timmins? Do you not want that money reinvested? I can go on and on and on. The member knows that we are reinvesting money in the health care system --

The Speaker: Minister of Finance, order. The question's been answered. Leader of the third party, second question.

Mr Hampton: Speaker, you're very good with numbers. If you add up everything that the Minister of Finance has mentioned, it still comes to less than what is being taken out of the health care system and much less than what is being taken out of Sudbury and Thunder Bay.

The Speaker: The question, third party? Who's your question to?

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My second question is to the Minister of Labour, who has now taken over the task of gutting the Workers' Compensation Board. The minister wasn't here on Thursday when we asked about a leaked cabinet submission proposing a sweeping attack on injured workers, but fortunately today we've got another leaked document. This is the mother of all documents in terms of the destruction of the Workers' Compensation Board, about 58 pages detailing all of the cuts that are going to happen at the Workers' Compensation Board.

The document includes a communication strategy which anticipates the following worst-case newspaper headlines on the government's proposal. The first one is, "WCB Overhaul Attack on Workers." The second one is --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Leader of the third party, order. You know full well that signs are not allowed in this place. It's your time and as long as you hold them up I can't allow question period to continue. You can either choose to hold them up and I'll stand here as long as it takes, or you can put them away and we'll continue.

Mr Hampton: Well, Speaker, I seem to remember someone holding up "Call Police" signs in this House all the time, but I guess that was then and this is now.

My point is simply this: When you read this cabinet document, it becomes very, very clear that the government's agenda is to take literally billions of dollars from injured workers and to redistribute that money to employers, to some of the bad bosses we've been hearing about.

The Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr Hampton: There is a question.

The Speaker: May we get to it, please.

Mr Hampton: Since you got headlines over the weekend such as, "Proposed Changes to WCB Assailed" and "WCB to Hurt Workers," my question to the minister is, when you're giving $6 billion to employers and taking $15 billion from injured workers, don't you understand that no amount of communications planning, no amount of spin-doctoring will distract people from understanding the real Conservative agenda, to take from working people and to give to those who are already wealthy? Don't you understand that?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I just want to assure you that there has been recognition in this province now for several years that the WCB is in need of an extensive overhaul. It is not appropriately focused, as you well know. In fact, your Minister of Labour, Bob Mackenzie, said the following: "There is a growing feeling that the WCB is becoming a drain on Ontario's economy, on our ability to attract investment and jobs and spark business confidence.

Never has there been such unanimous agreement that the board is in critical need of reform and renewal." This was Bob Mackenzie at committee hearings on Bill 165, and how we agree: There is a need for reform. There is a need to ensure that injured workers will always have the appropriate protection. However, we are changing the focus at the WCB. Our focus is going to be to develop a coordinated strategy that will focus attention on prevention in order that we won't have the disability and won't be required to provide the compensation and will avoid the human cost of the injury.

Mr Hampton: I guess I have to remind the Minister of Labour that the Workers' Compensation Board had a surplus and has a surplus. In fact, the Workers' Compensation Board liability over the longer term has actually been dropping. So an attempt to cook up another phony crisis isn't going to work here. The Workers' Compensation Board is actually in a better financial position now than it was three years ago, so don't try to cook up some phony crisis.

I want to go directly, though, to this prevention business that the minister is talking about, because if you turn to page 11 of the cabinet submission you find that what the government intends to do is take away $1.4 billion from older injured workers; that is, people who are older. They're not back in the workplace; they're retired. That's got nothing to do with prevention. That's taking money, $1.4 billion, from somebody who's been seriously injured and is living on a limited income. It's got absolutely nothing to do with prevention.

It's called taking money from those who are not well off, it's called taking money from those who are living on a fixed income and it's called transferring it to your wealthy friends. So don't try to mix in any prevention when it comes to page 11.

Let me ask you this: How are you going to explain to older injured workers that you want to take $1.4 billion from their pensions and make that part of the $6 billion you're going to give to your wealthy bad bosses? How do you explain that? How do you justify taking $1.4 billion from older injured workers so that you can give $6 billion to employers?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'm extremely surprised that you are not concerned for the future security of benefits for the injured workers whether they be older or younger. I would indicate to you that it is that massive unfunded liability we have today, which presently stands at $10.9 billion, that is seriously jeopardizing the ability of the WCB to pay out benefits to injured workers.

Did you realize, despite what you're saying today, that between the years 1991 and 1995 over $1.65 billion was transferred from the investment portfolio to cover the yearly benefit costs? So there is less and less money available to cover the costs for the future. This is the problem we are trying to address. We are trying to make sure there are benefits available in the future, but at the same time we want to change the focus to prevention. We want to make sure that the workplaces are as safe and healthy as they possibly can be. I would encourage you and the members of your party to work with us in that endeavour.

Mr Hampton: Let me go right back to the minister. Why is the minister taking $1.5 billion from injured workers and billions of dollars from elsewhere in the system, and why is the minister giving $6 billion away to employers?

While I'm at it, your document reveals that you plan to change the name of the Workers' Compensation Board. The document reveals that changing the name is going to cost $1 million. If you're so interested in the financial health of the board, why spend $1 million merely for a name change? Why give $6 billion away to employers? It would seem to me that the smart thing to do would be to care for those financial resources, to make sure they stay in the system and, above all, not to waste $1 million on a name change. Why give away all this money if you're worried about the financial health of the board?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just remind the leader opposite that it was your own Minister of Labour, Mr Mackenzie, who recognized that there was a need to overhaul the WCB, it was your government that embarked on the program of de-indexation of pensions and it was your government that first started to reduce the level of benefits. Obviously, if we're going to continue to have a viable system, we are going to have to ensure that we make the changes that are going to ensure that benefits are available for the future.

GO TRANSIT

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): A question for the Minister of Transportation: Earlier this year you falsely accused GO Transit of running 2,000-seat trains with only 20 passengers. Do you remember that? Then last week you stood up in the House and praised GO Transit for the Casino Rama express train, yet the next day you scrapped that train to Casino Rama. Most recent is your announcement that GO Transit will be privatized, yet the Minister of Finance is saying that is not the case. What is going on? Do you know what is going on in your ministry? Have you got your signals crossed again?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): Sometimes I wonder if the honourable member really knows what he asks. This government has said all along that we want to do better for less. We've been saying it. We've also been saying that we feel public transit is a major entity in moving people around. I'm also on record saying many times that I'm a big supporter of GO. As a matter of fact, I would like to see GO expanded even further to deliver better services. All we want to do is deliver better services for the people in the GTA, and we're committed to doing that. Nothing has changed, and we are going to do better for less, as we've been saying all along.

Mr Colle: The general manager of GO Transit, Rick Ducharme, is saying that you don't know what you're talking about, since many of those operations are already contracted out, from train maintenance to operations. Even the trains themselves, if you don't know, have been sold off to some offshore holding company in Germany. Isn't this just a smokescreen?

It's got little to do with privatization, but rather, this is about more cutbacks to GO service and this is about provincial offloading of the running costs of GO on to the backs of local property taxpayers in cities like Oshawa, Whitby, Oakville, Richmond Hill, Milton, Georgetown, Mississauga, Bradford, Barrie, Stouffville and Markham. Isn't this what this is all about? It's not about privatization; it's about you making property taxpayers pay for your responsibility, which is running the GO system.

Hon Mr Palladini: I don't know whether there was a question in that, but the province has no intention of getting rid of GO. In fact, I'm hoping we can expand and increase ridership with GO.

Commercialization is just one option, and we are going to take a look at other options as well. I can assure the honourable member and the people in the GTA that we are not going to get out of the GO business.

FRANCHISE BUSINESSES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In the gallery today there are dozens of Loeb franchisees who have travelled a long way and brought literally thousands of petitions calling for this government to introduce franchise legislation. I introduced a private member's bill over a year ago that went nowhere. Since then 45 franchisees have lost their stores. The 22 here today stand to lose theirs on November 2.

Your government received the report of the franchise working group over a year ago and you've done absolutely nothing. My colleague and I are afraid for the future of small business in this province. Dreams are being destroyed. Your own parliamentary assistant said in the debate on my bill, "There is a need to address the problems associated with the franchise sector."

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Yes, but he voted against the bill.

Mr Martin: Yes. But still the government has done nothing.

Will you commit today to franchise legislation before November 2? On this day, when we celebrate the week of the family, will you bring in legislation that will protect these families before they lose their ability to make a living?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I am aware that there are some problems right now between franchisees and franchisers. I believe it is important for franchisers and franchisees to work together to resolve this because it's a very important working sector in the province.

I know that franchisees are looking right now to get a more even playing field, a level playing field in terms of their businesses. I'm quite aware of this fact and I've asked my staff to restart their efforts to get moving on the franchise legislation. I think it's very important.

A number of things have come out from franchisees, as my colleague Mr Martin knows. Certainly part of what they're asking for is some sort of alternative dispute mechanism to resolve cases before going to court. This is very important, I believe. We're looking at disclosure requirements to make sure, before franchisees enter into these agreements, they have some awareness of the business commitments they will be entering into. There are a number of issues that franchisees have brought up, and yes, this government is interested in looking after their interests.

Mr Kormos: The minister is, among other things, minister of consumer protection. We've got victims sitting right here in the Legislature who have come to this chamber for help. They're under attack by Loeb and its parent company Provigo, one of Canada's most profitable companies that has abandoned good faith in its franchise agreements and has forced these people, who could ill afford the cost and time of litigation, to litigate.

Time is of the essence, Minister. They can't wait for you to draft your legislation and let it stand in order before it gets passed through this House. They need your help now. They're on the verge of losing their businesses, their life savings and their families' futures. You've got to deal with them today.

It's your job as minister of consumer protection. Tell us when you're going to introduce legislation providing a regulatory scheme to protect these franchisees and please tell us that you will use your office to mediate in this dispute between them and Loeb/Provigo. These are victims, and if you aren't helping them you're against them, and by God, if you're against them you're destroying families and small business in this province.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The member across the way will know that I'm meeting today with a delegation of Loeb franchisees. In fact, prior to that meeting my colleague Mr Lalonde has asked me to meet with a number of other members who were not part of that delegation, and I'm accommodating that request as well to meet with these stakeholders.

I'm quite surprised that the member is accusing us of dragging our heels. I might refer him to the Hansard back on October 13, 1993, when the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Marilyn Churley, was indicating that if, when the Liberals were in power -- and insert "NDP" in there if you like -- they had moved ahead with legislation, possibly the problem we're looking at now wouldn't be happening. The issue is that even if we passed legislation today, it wouldn't resolve the specific problems.

Mr Kormos: These people are here today. They need your help now. Will you help them?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Welland-Thorold, you're out of order.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The minister then went on to say that she will be making a commitment to making sure the process is kept in place and there is a resolution of the problem.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): What are you going to do? You are the government.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I must say I'm quite surprised at the member across the way as well, because if they had such a commitment, perhaps when their colleague Mr Jim Wiseman in 1994 -- after that kind speech by the then minister, he provided a private member's bill to actually address this, which was not supported by their party.

So we will be moving ahead. We will be meeting with the stakeholders.

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines. As we enter another hunting season in Ontario, it has come to my attention --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a copy of that question.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. The member for Cochrane-South, would you please come to order.

Mr Stewart: Do I get to start over again, Mr Speaker, so that everybody will know what I'm asking?

The Speaker: It might make it a little easier if you start where you left off.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, sir. As we enter another hunting season in Ontario, it has come to my attention that a new fish and wildlife board is advising the minister on fish and wildlife issues. Conservation and wildlife preservation is very important to a number of my constituents. We must ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy the fish and wildlife in this province.

Could the minister please update my constituents on the status of the board's first meeting and what has been accomplished to ensure that conservation of fish and wildlife remains a priority?

Interjections.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I had a little difficulty hearing the question and there's a bit of disturbance here, but I'll answer the best I can the gist of it.

The member is absolutely correct that this government is following through on its commitment to dedicate all licence fees, fines and royalties to a special account for hunting and fishing opportunities for Ontarians. Consistent with that promise was a commitment we would create an advisory board of those who pay the user fee, if you like, for fishing licences or hunting licences.

The inaugural meeting was an orientation session. It was held on September 7. The board consists of 11 members from different parts of Ontario and it's led by a biologist and lodge owner, Mr Phil Morlock. The board will give advice to the minister. The advice, along with an account of where the money is spent, will be tabled in this Legislature on a yearly basis.

Mr Stewart: The Peterson government at one time stated that all revenues collected for hunting and fishing fees would go back into the resource, but unfortunately -- surprise -- it never happened. Our government made a serious commitment to ensure that the money collected from fees and licences would be put back into preservation of fish and wildlife. I believe that approach is welcomed by many.

Minister, can you please advise the House what action has been taken on the issue of allocating revenues obtained through fees and licences, and will they be put back into fish and wildlife conservation?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I thank the member for the question. I'd like to remind the House that Bill 26 fulfilled our commitment to dedicate all the revenue from fishing licences and hunting licences. As this House will know, back in the late 1980s, when they brought in the residential fishing licence, we were promised that money would go into a special account, not thrown into the consolidated revenue fund and spent other than in areas that would enhance fish and wildlife management in this province.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Where's the other $20 million?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The NDP minister, Mr Wildman, is interjecting here. He said it couldn't be done. I'm here to tell you that we followed through on a campaign commitment that we made in the spring of 1994. It's another promise that's been kept by this government.

AMATEUR SPORT / SPORT AMATEUR

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, the Honourable Marilyn Mushinski. Minister, last Friday I attended your press conference at York University where you announced your government's so-called strategy for provincial sports organization funding.

Pas une personne parmi tous les représentants d'organisations sportives que j'ai rencontrés affirme être en accord avec la façon de faire du gouvernement et la façon de laquelle ce dossier est traitée.

I did not meet one single person who was actually consulted on this. I met some people who received a letter saying they would be consulted but were never consulted.

So my question is this: Before cutting funds to 26 of the 81 provincial sports organizations, how many of them were actually consulted, and can you tell us the names of these organizations?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Mr Speaker, let me start off by congratulating you on your appointment as Speaker of the House.

To the honourable member, as I suggested last week, we have had an 11-month consultation process with provincial sports organizations. I will be happy to provide the list since it is too long to read it today.

Mr Lalonde: The minister just said through 11 months of consultation. As I said in my previous question, no one has been consulted on this issue, no one. What you have announced on Friday, Madam Minister, is the reduction of the amateur sports budget from $11.8 million to $8.1 million for 1996-97, which in turn means that at least 26 sports organizations will no longer qualify to receive government funding.

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

M. Lalonde : C'est ça, votre stratégie. C'est clair que cette stratégie est de réduire le financement et non de promouvoir le sport amateur en Ontario.

How can this government hold a straight face and say that it is committed to amateur sport, that it wants to develop coaches, athletes and volunteers and increase participation among children and youth with such a strategy?

With the introduction of your so-called strategy, this government implies that sports organizations have spent Ontario taxpayers' money unwisely, that they are welfare cases and a burden for our society. Besides reducing the amount of money dedicated to amateur sports and changing the way the money is distributed, what did this government do to improve sports organizations in Ontario?

Hon Ms Mushinski: Let's be absolutely clear. As I said last week and as I have said on a number of occasions, a sports system without a strategy is no system at all. Clearly the new strategy that I announced last week was intended to spend taxpayers' dollars a little more wisely.

Let me tell you what has happened in the last 20 years of a system that was supported by the previous government and the government before that. It grew from 55 provincial sports organizations to 81, and let me read to you what some of those funds went towards.

Why, for example, were we funding 10-pin bowling? Do you think taxpayers want to spend money on bureaucrats subsidizing 10-pin bowling? Why were we paying administrative dollars for horseshoes? Why were we paying administrative dollars for baton twirling? Why were we paying for equity in synchronized swimming, since I haven't yet seen one male synchronized swimmer?

GO TRANSIT

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I would image, Speaker, there are many interested parties in the response they just got from the minister.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation, the minister who is quoted as always saying he can do more for less. On the weekend there were a number of reports in the paper where you and others were commenting on possible future plans that you have for GO Transit. You talked about everything from privatization of GO Transit to cutting subsidies to GO Transit. You even went so far as to suggest that you were prepared to offload, download on to the municipalities of the province of Ontario that are serviced by GO 25% of the operating cost.

I want to remind you that in the last election you ran on a document called The Common Sense Revolution. In that Common Sense Revolution you said two things. Number one, you said there was only one taxpayer. Clearly, offloading 25% of the cost of GO Transit on to municipalities is going to mean either there's going to be a cut in service or -- guess what? -- there's going to be an increase in taxes in those municipalities. You failed on that promise.

The second thing you said was that you'd work closely with municipalities. I've taken the time to speak to a number of people within the transportation industry. Nobody's been talked to about passing 25% of the cost on to municipalities. What do you attempt to gain by passing 25% of the cost of GO Transit on to municipalities, other than increasing municipal taxes?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I want to reiterate again that we are taking a look at everything this government does to see how much involvement there should be with government in the delivering of services. GO is just one of them. We want to maximize the dollars that we put into GO -- this is what I've been saying all along -- and work with the municipalities to see how we can get a better return on the dollars we put in.

As far as the honourable member's question about the municipalities is concerned, it's clear that the municipalities benefit from GO Transit, so there are some things that maybe we've got to talk to them about. The 25% participation could be one of them. Again, I want to emphasize that these are just thoughts.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): A supplementary to the minister: You've clearly said, today if not on the weekend, that you intend to proceed with your 24% downloading on to property taxpayers in the GTA. But what is really puzzling is that I don't understand where the common sense is in asking those same property taxpayers not to fund a system that they're going to benefit from, but to fund in effect your privatization of the system, so that 25% is going to go not into paying for service, but into paying for the profits that your wealthy friends are going to make through the privatization of GO Transit. Where is the common sense in that?

Hon Mr Palladini: Every day over 100,000 people are going to take the GO train. That's not going to change. If anything, we have intentions to see how we can increase ridership.

As for the honourable member's assumption that we are going to sell off our GO assets, again, that is not the intent of this government. We have the intention to see how we can better deliver the services and be more efficient in delivering those services. The possibility of commercializing it could increase services and make it cheaper for Ontario taxpayers, for the taxpayers in the GTA, to take benefit from that. I want to say commercialization is only one option we are considering. However, we are going to be willing to take a look at other possibilities.

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): My question is to the minister without portfolio with responsibility for privatization. Over the last several months we have seen the unions at the LCBO and TVO run extensive advertising campaigns in support of maintaining these organizations in their present state. We can all appreciate the fact that there may be some apprehension among the employees of both these agencies with respect to their future, given the government's commitment to looking at both the LCBO and TVO as possible privatization candidates.

Would the minister indicate to us when the employees of the LCBO and TVO and other government agencies might have a better idea of the government's plans and, thus, their individual futures?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): Mr Speaker, I want to start off by congratulating you on your victory. Given the flavour of the discussion and the debate in this House, I know you will do a great job.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): That's not what you said down at this end

Hon Mr Sampson: Oh, yes it is.

I want to thank the member for the question.

I understand the concerns of the people in Ontario, the workers of the public service, the workers of the various agencies and boards and commissions of this province as we as a government review the way in which we are currently doing business in this province, but I think it's important for those people to understand that while change is certainly difficult to initiate sometimes, it's important for us as a government to continue to deliver on our plan to try to do better for less, to try to take a look at what government is doing and see if there are better ways to do it, see if there are more efficient ways to do it, see if there are more economical ways to do it.

That is something we are doing, and we'll be coming forward shortly with a plan that will allow this government --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for St Catharines, come to order.

Hon Mr Sampson: -- to exercise that plan to deliver on our commitment to try to make sure that this government is doing what it's supposed to be doing efficiently and effectively and fairly.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise on a point of order related to your ruling earlier. I didn't want to interrupt question period, and I know you would agree that it would be better to raise it now.

I want to draw to your attention Hansard of October 23, 1991, when a member then from Durham rose in the House on a point of order with the then Speaker. He said he noticed that the member for Etobicoke West was displaying a sign that said, "Call the police." He raised objections to this, saying he believed it was out of order. The Speaker then ruled. The Speaker said:

"To the member for Durham East, the question about signs in the chamber has been raised on occasion both during this Parliament and previous parliaments. There is no standing order with respect to signs in the chamber." Then further, "If a rule change is sought, members will have to approach the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly with their request to have something put in the standing orders, but without anything specifically in the standing orders, it makes it very awkward for the Speaker to make" a ruling with regard to the display of signs in the Legislature.

Mr Speaker, I know you would want to deal with this. Perhaps, then, you would consider whether this matter should indeed be referred to the Legislative Assembly committee, because obviously, according to the Speaker in 1991, it was not out of order to display signs by the member for Etobicoke West.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): That was quick work, as a matter of fact, member for Algoma. What I will do is take that under advisement. I think that's probably a wise decision at this time.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I move that Mr Pouliot and Mr Kormos exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business; and that the House will commence at 11 am on Thursday, October 10, to discuss ballot item number 40 only.

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

PETITIONS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I recognize the member for -- it'll be easy, because it's the one I can remember -- Scarborough North.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me commend you for the excellent job you're doing so far.

A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government plans to sell public housing;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to privatize public housing and to allow for public hearings."

I affix my signature along with those of the many people who are extremely concerned about this thing.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Mr Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of workers from your own community of Etobicoke, Mississauga and Toronto, all members of the United Steelworkers of America. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

I agree with this petition and am affixing my signature to it as well.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I am pleased to present a petition that has some 500 signatures from my riding of Durham East.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness;

"Whereas abortion is not therapeutic;

"Whereas abortion is never medically necessary;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require `elective procedures' to be funded;

"Whereas there is no right to publicly funded abortion;

"Whereas it is the responsibility and the authority of the provinces exclusively to determine what services will be insured;

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

"Whereas the availability of abortion at public expense leads to the use of abortion as a means of birth control;

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded 45,014 abortions in 1993, at an estimated cost of $25 million;

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

"That the Ontario provincial government remove abortion as a service or procedure covered under the provincial health insurance plan."

I affix my name.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to rescind the Health Services Restructuring Commission's recommendation to close two acute care Sudbury hospitals and return to the DHC model of a two-site hospital system."

HEALTH CARE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I have a petition from Cobourg. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Leave our health care system alone. No cuts; no caps to our doctors' wages."

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my signature.

BEAR HUNTING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas bears are hunted in the spring after they have come out of hibernation; and

"Whereas about 30% of the bears killed in the spring are female, some with cubs; and

"Whereas 80% of the orphaned cubs do not survive the first year; and

"Whereas 95.3% of the bears killed by non-resident hunters and 54% killed by resident hunters are killed over bait; and

"Whereas Ontario still allows the limited use of dogs in bear hunting; and

"Whereas bears are the only large mammals hunted in the spring; and

"Whereas bears are the only mammals that are hunted over bait; and

"Whereas there are only six states in the United States which still allow a spring hunt;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to amend the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the hunting of bears in the spring and to prohibit the use of baiting and dogs in all bear hunting activities."

This is signed by hundreds of people from all over the province of Ontario, and I'm happy to affix my signature.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a petition from my constituency of Nepean which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas drinking and driving is the largest criminal cause of death and injury in Canada;

"Whereas every 45 minutes in Ontario a driver is involved in an alcohol-related crash;

"Whereas most alcohol-related accidents are caused by repeat offenders;

"Whereas lengthy licence suspensions for impaired driving have been shown to greatly reduce repeat offences;

"Whereas the victims of impaired drivers often pay with their lives while only 22% of convicted impaired drivers go to jail and even then only for an average of 21 days;

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

"We urge the provincial government to pass legislation that will strengthen measures against impaired drivers in Ontario."

I'm pleased to affix my own signature thereto.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas the current rate of unemployment in the construction industry in the Ottawa-Carleton area is at a record level of 48%;

"Whereas Ontario-based construction workers and contractors encounter a great many regulations that effectively prohibit them from working in Quebec while construction workers and contractors based in Quebec encounter no such restrictions in Ontario;

"Whereas negotiations over the last number of years between various governments from Ontario and Quebec that were dedicated to eliminating barriers to labour mobility have failed to level the playing field for Ontario and Quebec workers;

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

"That the proposed Construction Workforce from Quebec Act tabled by Jean-Marc Lalonde, MPP for Prescott and Russell, on June 4, 1996, to protect Ontario workers and contractors in the construction industry be adopted."

I sign my signature to the petition.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a further petition signed by residents of my area concerning the intended removal of rent control. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has announced its intention to remove rent control from apartments that become vacant so that landlords can charge whatever they want for rent; and

"Whereas the government's proposed law will eliminate rent control on new buildings, and allow landlords to pass on repair bills and other costs to tenants; and

"Whereas the government's proposal will make it easier for landlords to demolish buildings and easier to convert apartments to condominiums; and

"Whereas due to the zero vacancy rate in Metro Toronto the removal of rent control will cause extreme hardship for seniors and tenants on fixed incomes and others who cannot afford homes;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to keep the existing system of rent control."

I concur with the content of the petition and I will affix my signature to it.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the government of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario appears to be moving towards the privatization of retail liquor and spirits sales in the province; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides a safe, secure and controlled way of retailing alcoholic beverages; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides the best method of restricting the sale of liquor to minors in Ontario; and

"Whereas the LCBO has an excellent program of quality control of the products sold in its stores; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides a wide selection of product to its customers in modern, convenient stores; and

"Whereas the LCBO has moved forward with the times, sensitive to the needs of its customers and its clients; and

"Whereas the LCBO is an important instrument for the promotion and sale of Ontario wine and thereby contributes immensely to the grape growing and wine producing industry;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario abandon its plan to turn over the sale of liquor and spirits to private liquor stores and instead retain the LCBO for this purpose."

I affix my signature to this petition as I'm in full agreement with its contents.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, in particular to Premier Harris and Minister Wilson.

"We, the undersigned, will not accept any cuts to health care that would restrict our access to family doctors. It is important that a family doctor is allotted the funds to continue providing obstetrical services, hospital care, surgical assistance, hospital visits and after-hour emergency care. Please do not touch access to our family doctor."

I agree with that and sign my name to the petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris has closed three out of five hospitals in Thunder Bay and two out of the three hospitals in Sudbury; and

"Whereas drastic funding cuts to hospitals across Ontario are intimidating hospital boards, district health councils and local hospital restructuring commissions into considering the closing of local hospitals; and

"Whereas hospitals in the Niagara region have provided an outstanding essential service to patients and have been important facilities for medical staff to treat the residents of the Niagara Peninsula and will be required for people in Niagara for years to come; and

"Whereas the population of Niagara is on average older than that in most areas of the province;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Minister of Health to restore adequate funding to hospitals in the Niagara region and guarantee that his government will not close any hospitals in the Niagara Peninsula."

I affix my signature as I'm in full agreement with this petition.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition on behalf of some 1,000-plus people who have signed this petition on rent control from the area of northern Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"To Premier Mike Harris, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Al Leach and members of the provincial Legislature:

"Whereas to abolish rent control in favour of a market system would be disastrous for tenants and give further power and allow unnecessary profit for landlords,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to support universal and mandatory rent controls which reflect a fair balance between the ability of tenants to pay and the necessary costs of supplying well-maintained and secure buildings."

I affix my signature to that petition.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Common Sense Revolution states that a Conservative government `will not cut health care'; and

"Whereas during the 1995 election campaign, the Conservatives clearly promised to defend the health care system by protecting ministry funding, stating in a campaign backgrounder, `There will be no cuts to health care funding by a Harris government,' and calling this their first and most important commitment;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, call on the Minister of Health to reject all recommendations that would close any Hamilton area hospitals."

I support that fully and sign my signature to it.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here yet another petition on rent control, this time from the good people of the city of Toronto in around the Riverdale area. There seems to be some 500, 600 signatures here, and it reads as follows:

"To Premier Mike Harris, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Al Leach and members of the provincial Legislature:

"Whereas to abolish rent control in favour of a market system would be disastrous for tenants and give further powers and allow unnecessary profit for landlords,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to support universal and mandatory rent controls which reflect a fair balance between the ability of tenants to pay and the necessary costs of supplying well-maintained and secure housing."

I affix my signature to that petition as well.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition addressed to the government of Ontario.

"Since video lottery terminals will contribute to gambling addiction in Ontario and the resulting breakup of families, spousal and child abuse and crimes such as embezzlement and robbery;

"Since the introduction of video lottery terminals across Ontario will provide those addicted to gambling with widespread temptation, will attract young people to a vice which will adversely affect their lives for many years to come;

"Since the introduction of these gambling machines across our province is designed to gain revenue for the government at the expense of the poor, the vulnerable and the desperate in order that the government can cut income taxes, to the greatest benefit of those with the highest income;

"Since the placement of video lottery terminals in bars in Ontario and in permanent casinos in various locations across the province represents an escalation of gambling opportunities; and

"Since Premier Mike Harris and Finance Minister Ernie Eves were so critical of the provincial government becoming involved in further gambling ventures and making the government more dependent on gambling revenues to maintain government operations;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Mike Harris and the government of Ontario to reconsider its announced decision to introduce the most insidious form of gambling, video lottery terminals, to restaurants and bars in the province."

I affix my signature to this petition, as I'm in full agreement with its contents.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COURTS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES TRIBUNAUX

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 79,

An Act to improve Ontario's court system, to respond to concerns raised by charities and their volunteers and to improve various statutes relating to the administration of justice / Projet de loi 79, Loi visant à améliorer le système judiciaire de l'Ontario, à répondre aux préoccupations exprimées par les oeuvres de bienfaisance et leurs bénévoles, et à améliorer diverses lois relatives à l'administration de la justice.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Dufferin-Peel had the floor.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): He's not here.

The Speaker: Further debate, the member for Downsview.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Mr Speaker, may I first of all take this opportunity, since it's my first opportunity, to congratulate you as Speaker. I'm sure you will do a formidable job, and we're all looking forward to it. With your indulgence, I'll be splitting my time with the member for St Catharines.

The Speaker: Is there permission from the government side?

Ms Castrilli: Do we have permission?

The Speaker: Yes.

Mr Bisson: It's called "unanimous consent."

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to split the leadoff time between the two? Agreed.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): That's a better question than "Is there permission from the government side?"

The Speaker: I'm sorry. That was probably inappropriate. I apologize. The member for Downsview.

Ms Castrilli: Calling Bill 79 the Courts Improvement Act is a sham. The stated purposes of the bill, as set out, are to amend the Courts of Justice Act to permit the appointment of case management; to change the names of Ontario courts from Ontario Court (General Division) to Superior Court of Justice and from Ontario Court (Provincial Division) to Ontario Court of Justice; to give power to make regulations under the Charities Accounting Act to the Attorney General; and to make housekeeping and minor amendments to the Courts of Justice Act and the Children's Law Reform Act.

Let me say at the beginning that I'm very much in favour of the simplified rules for charities. The kinds of provisions under this act dealing with charities certainly will be welcomed by the charities themselves, that have had to deal with a lot of bureaucratic delays in doing what is very routine activity such as purchasing insurance for directors. Certainly, with respect to that portion of the bill,

part II, I am in agreement.

I look forward to assessing further the effectiveness of case managers, who are introduced under

part I of the act. As you know, there have been some pilot projects with respect to case managers, and the results are still quite mixed. Whether they will be effective remains to be seen.

The real problem with the bill is that it fails miserably in addressing the fundamental and most serious problems with the justice system as we now have it. This is only a thinly veiled agenda to change the names of the courts. This is not substantive, it is not meaningful, nor is changing the names of justices meaningful or substantive.

The first thing I'd like to address is the cost of some of these changes. The member for Dufferin-Peel said yesterday that this was to avoid public confusion. If that's the case I guess we're going to have to make some changes to the courts, to the names of the courts. It's interesting to note what this will actually cost us.

In fact, if you take into account that we have 160 courthouses in the province and the Toronto Star in July this year indicated that it would cost an estimated $160,000 to $800,000 to change the signs on those courthouses, one wonders why we're going to that trouble when we have such a serious crisis in the justice system and the minister is cutting quite significantly in his own portfolio.

The minister well knows that there are some very serious problems. Offenders are now being released on to our streets and the justice system is clearly grinding to a halt, according to some of the people who are most directly involved in the justice system, not just as politicians

I will remind the Speaker that we've had several cases this year that have been tossed out because of the crisis in the justice system, because of the lack of crown attorneys, because of the lack of facilities. These include cases that go all the way to rape. I remind the Speaker that the Toronto Sun reported on January 20 that a rape charge had been tossed out, and it wasn't the only one that was tossed out. We had several that were tossed out. It's really unbelievable to think that we would not be safe in our own homes. It's unconscionable to think that we would have to worry about our safety on the streets because of the lack of foresight and planning of this government.

There are now 461 crown attorneys in this province, down from 481 earlier this year, and they are grappling with a caseload that is staggering -- something in excess of 500,000 cases for 461 people to handle per year, and that caseload is growing. Lest people should not be aware of this, our crown attorneys are funded at the very lowest level in the country. This is what we think of our justice system. Yet we continue to cut crown attorneys; the government continues to cut court staff; the government continues to reduce funding. In total, 606 jobs and $60 million have been yanked out of the ministry, and I'm sure very much is still to come.

You'll be interested to know that we are even facing a shortage of judges. There are some interesting statistics which you should be aware of with respect to the number of judges we have per population.

In a case that came before the courts recently, September of this year as a matter of fact, the following statistics were cited: In Essex, with a population of 339,230 people, they had nine judges; in Middlesex, with a slightly higher population, 14; in Hamilton-Wentworth, almost 465,000 people, only 17 justices; in Ottawa-Carleton, with 730,000, only 15 judges; in Simcoe, with 312,000, seven judges; in Brampton, with almost a million people, 10 judges this year.

This makes for some really difficult decisions for the justice system in trying to balance time, in trying to find time to try those very serious criminal cases that come before them.

Province-wide, nearly one third of all criminal cases are now on red alert. In the greater Toronto area nearly half of all the criminal cases in the Ontario Court (General Division), which deals with the most serious criminal offences, are now on red alert. Other regions are becoming equally dangerous. I refer, for instance, to a Toronto Star story of September 28 of this year which says quite clearly, "Delays Threaten 50% of Criminal Trials." What that means is that if these cases stay in the system longer than eight months, they risk being thrown out.

We cannot afford another Askov crisis, in which more than 100,000 criminal cases were dropped, but that's the direction in which we're heading because we're cutting so dramatically, we're cutting without planning and we're cutting without thinking about the very real damage that will occur in society.

You will remember that last January some of our top judges, Justices Dubin, McMurtry and Linden, wrote to the Attorney General to say that there was a crisis looming, that something needed to be done. I'd like to quote from that letter:

"It is apparent that little, if any, consideration has been given to the impact of the cuts which are being proposed on the ability of the justice system to serve the public, and the right of the public to have access to the courts. We would urge you to seek a moratorium on any cuts to the administration of justice until a proper analysis of the impact of any proposed cuts can be made. Unless this is done, we fear that the result may well be chaotic."

This is from the top judges in the province, some of the most respected legal minds in Ontario. They do not take actions lightly. When they write to the minister to suggest that there is a crisis, we have to believe them. That crisis, frankly, is upon us.

We all remember that this government made an election promise. Their Common Sense Revolution said very clearly that they would guarantee full funding for law enforcement and justice. I wonder how that stands. How do you reconcile a promise which is so clear, which is set out in black and white, with the current actions of this government? How can you possibly reconcile the guarantee of funding vis-à-vis a cut of $60 million and a loss of 600 jobs? That is a question for the government to answer.

I acknowledge that there have been some additional moneys invested into courthouses in several cities, but the fact remains that the system will continue to disintegrate without adequate staffing levels -- without prosecutors, without court staff -- above all, without a plan. All the courthouses in the world will not deal with the problem of the backlog. As I pointed out, that backlog is very real, is very critical and will have a tremendous impact on our society and on our safety.

The minister has repeatedly denied plans to lay off crown attorneys. He has denied plans to scale back prosecutions. He has denied, but all of his actions are to the contrary. The facts are clear: $60 million has been cut, 606 jobs have been lost and the system is in chaos.

I'd like to quote Mr Justice Casey Hill, who just recently threw out a criminal charge due to the intolerable delays, who placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of the government. He said, "To the extent that there exists institutional governmental recklessness arising from insufficient resources, this cannot be condoned by the courts." The courts are being put in an impossible position of having to deal with a situation not of their making, a situation which they consider to be unjust but over which they have no power to act.

We all know that more recently Madam Justice Lang spoke out very strongly on the growing chaos within the courts due to the funding reductions. In a memo she outlines the layoffs of file clerks, useless statistics on numbers and kinds of cases heard by the courts in the Toronto region, long delays, significant delays in issuing and entering judgements of court orders, profound data entry problems, problems of courtroom security. This is as recently as October 1 of this year. Madam Justice Lang attributes the problems to the implementation of budget cutbacks before the implementation of considered efficiencies; in other words, no planning, just cuts.

The minister's failure to act quickly and substantively is contributing to the problem. With his policy of cut now and Band-Aid later, it's a bogged-down criminal justice system that will continue until the real solutions are implemented, and it is the reason this piece of legislation is of no real value.

It has been suggested that the minister will further slash crown prosecutors as soon as caseloads have been reduced. He plans to avoid prosecuting certain crimes, such as break and enter and threats and fraud. Imagine encouraging that kind of behaviour by not prosecuting it any more. At a time when we have increased poverty, at a time when we have increased unemployment, at a time when people are losing their jobs, this is the very time that we decide not to prosecute break and enters. It's giving a licence to people to steal. It's creating tremendous anxiety in the community.

It is creating tremendous anxiety particularly among the most vulnerable, our seniors who still live at home, who face the prospect of not having these crimes prosecuted and therefore encouraged.

A prosecution blitz, I suggest, is no longer a matter of choice, it's a necessity, yet it is still only a temporary solution. But because what we have right now is an unmanageable backlog of cases before us I would call for a halt to all further funding reductions and, from emergency round table discussions between people who understand the system, who are involved in the system, individuals who have already criticized the system from within, suggest that it's time for action, that we cannot just think of the bottom line, that there is a social cost here; that it is also fundamental that we give access to our courts to individuals. The present system simply does not do that.

There are many other issues within the justice sectors that require close attention. In the wake of this government's determination to slash spending within the family support plan, for instance, single parents and children have suffered as their cheques have been delayed in the bureaucratic shuffle.

Community-based solutions have been ignored. Instead, what we have done is institute 1-800 numbers, 1-900 numbers, making it even more difficult for people to find justice and to find solutions and to find an equitable way to deal with the problems they have to face on a daily basis.

The victims' services: There was a good-news announcement a while back, you may remember, about how moneys collected through the victims' justice fund should be returned to local communities, a move that I certainly applaud. Yet earlier this year the government withdrew $10.2 million from the fund and failed to assure victims that this assistance will continue beyond two years; nor has it explained what it intends to do with the remaining millions.

Victims have been asking for an explanation. In spite of the assurances that were given that these moneys would be there to assist them, they have been worried that they will not be there. I think it's time that the government makes it clear what it intends to do with that fund and makes it clear to victims that they should not be victimized once again by the government, having been victimized before by criminals.

For a month the Attorney General sat on the sidelines while the legal aid system was brought to the brink of collapse.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The topics being raised by the opposition at this particular point in time are dealing with her role as a critic of the Attorney General's office. She's going through a whole slew of topics which have absolutely nothing to do with this bill. It may be with respect to a general critique of the Attorney General's office, but not with respect to this bill. I would hope that she would stick to the topic.

Ms Castrilli: Mr Speaker, I think the comments I am making are exactly the point. We have a justice system that is in shambles and what we've got from the government is nothing more than platitudes, and that's what this bill is all about. I think it's entirely appropriate to show the shortcomings of a government that does not really take seriously the justice system and the crisis that it faces.

As I was saying, for months the Attorney General sat on the sidelines while the legal aid system was brought to the brink of collapse, an essential component of the justice system that ensures access to justice by ordinary Ontarians. That has created tremendous difficulty for people as they have tried to access the courts. Let us remember that the courts are not just for the rich, they're not just for the wealthy; they're for all of us. Justice is supposed to be blind and it's supposed to be blind also to our bank accounts.

The kind of system that we have now does not make it possible for ordinary people to access the system fairly. We have in fact very few lawyers who are willing to take legal aid cases, and those numbers decrease daily.

I'd also like to remind the members that following the Galligan report into Karla Homolka's plea bargain agreement, I asked for the commitment of the minister to develop plea bargain guidelines, because that's another area where there has been significant concern on the part of the public not only in Ontario but throughout Canada. People have been very concerned that criminals can bargain their way to freedom without any kind of guidelines, without any kind of rules, without any kind of public accountability.

I asked for the minister's commitment to develop plea bargaining guidelines and in fact I was given that commitment on at least one occasion in this House. But up till now, we have seen nothing. I think that's very serious. I think we need to ask that there be very clear rules for that aspect of the justice system and that there be a time frame for implementation, because the wounds that have followed the consequences of the Karla Homolka and Bernardo tragedies remain with us and remain with the Ontario public, and it's up to us to make sure that those kinds of things do not happen again.

We've seen other cuts which have included reduced funding for partners in community safety programs, and certainly in halfway houses and the Ontario Provincial Police. Particularly in the area of halfway houses I'd like to focus just a moment of your attention. The justice committee of this House investigated the whole issue of the abolition of halfway houses. Every expert who came before us said: "You cannot abolish them. They are a necessary component of the justice system. They're a necessary component of the rehabilitation process.

They're a necessary part of a continuum of justice if we are to have a successful system." Yet the alternative, as far as the government is concerned, would be electronic monitoring, which is not a deterrent, as we found out from some of the expert witnesses who came before us. It isn't even a deterrent, because 50% of people who are on electronic monitoring offend while they're on electronic monitoring. The whole point of halfway houses was to provide a bridge between the justice system and the community.

Not to mention the cuts in the provincial police: Again, I remind you that the Common Sense Revolution said very clearly, "There will be no cuts to law enforcement and to justice." I had occasion to ask the chief of the police union about this, and I asked him, "What do you think that meant?" He said, "I thought it meant no cuts." Well, of course we've had cuts. Those cuts threatened severely our justice system and our ability to have a safe and secure province.

In short, what we have here is a bill that is misnamed. It is not

an act to improve Ontario's court system. It isn't that at all. It's

an act to change the names of the courts, it's

an act to change the names of the justices, it's

an act to provide some assistance to charities, but it by no means is

an act to improve Ontario's court system.

For all of the reasons I've outlined, this act is deficient, and I wish the Attorney General and the government had the courage to bring in legislation that truly dealt with the problems and truly dealt with reforming our court system, which, as I've indicated, is in desperate need of reform.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): For anybody who didn't hear the ruling on the point, the point of order is that a person must speak towards the subject involved, and the Speaker saw nothing the matter with the comments being made.

The Chair recognizes the member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I recognize your wisdom in this regard. Your flexibility has to be commended by all members of the Legislature who recognize that in dealing with these bills there are many peripheral issues that we like to bring into it, because it's all part of the justice system. I appreciate your ruling in that particular case. I think it's a very wise one.

I look at this bill, as my colleague from Downsview has, as essentially an excuse to change the name of the courts. Its effect on really streamlining the system so that it can be more effective is minimal, if I may have a somewhat objective look at it. It's objective because I'm not a lawyer and I have no job in the judicial system, nor do I ever intend to have a job in the judicial system.

But I want to look at what has essentially happened that has slowed down the process. First of all, I think you, Mr Speaker, as all of us who represent constituents across the province, convey to the House or to whomever we can the feeling that people are frustrated at a court system that allows some people to go free. In this particular case, they were allowed to go free because of decisions that are made by the court that it is taking too long to bring a person to justice.

Perhaps I can be accused of erring on the side of wanting to see those who are potentially guilty brought to justice, as opposed to the strict legal

interpretations that lawyers may be preoccupied with. I happen to be very concerned when I see that cases are dropped solely because the case has not been brought to court in sufficient time to satisfy certain of the judges. That means that people who have been charged with a crime, who have had police departments working on a case, who have had the crown attorneys, or as most would know them, the prosecutors, working on a case have those cases abandoned.

So the time, in essence, spent on a case already has been somewhat of a waste of time, and we're not even going to see the case come to fruition; that is, a decision by the court on whether the accused is guilty or not guilty and what penalty shall be meted out if the person is guilty. That's frustrating to the average person who doesn't follow the court system carefully.

I've been in a court only once and that was representing the province of Ontario in a court in Detroit against the authority which was building the new incinerator in the city of Detroit. They wanted to have that incinerator constructed with only electrostatic precipitators instead of the scrubber baghouse technology which was required.

I found it a fascinating experience, you'll be interested to know, Mr Speaker, because you have to make judgements in this regard. One actually had to answer the questions when the lawyers put questions to an individual on the stand. Having been a minister in years gone by, I had to be reminded several times by the judge in the Detroit court to answer the question instead of dealing with some other matters, as ministers are wont to do in this House, and it was a rather shocking experience.

But I digress. I want to go back to the legislation itself. I want to address myself to that.

I know there has been some courthouse construction, and I think that's important enough. It's important because we need the facilities. There are some planned in Windsor, Hamilton and Cornwall, for instance, and there's a consideration of new facilities in Peel, and some renovations have taken place at 361 University Avenue in Toronto. I want to say that some of that has been good and positive, and I think that will be helpful. I don't think you'll get any objection from members of the opposition there.

Where I'm concerned is when I see the government foisting upon the Attorney General, who surely could not want this to happen, considerable cuts in the number of people available to deal with the cases in the court. I become concerned. I side with the Attorney General when in private he has to go to cabinet to describe this, then come to the House and nod his head in a sideways motion when he must defend the government policies.

It is clear that a shortage of personnel is the most serious problem that we have in Ontario at this time. There are, as of September 23, 1996, only 461 prosecutors in Ontario. That's down from 481 earlier this year. The government has not replaced 20 crown attorneys lost through attrition this year, and indications are that this trend will continue. The crowns that remain on staff face ever-increasing caseloads.

A former colleague of mine in the Legislature, on the governing side at that time, a former Attorney General of this province, the Honourable Roy McMurtry, Chief Justice in Ontario at this time, "has called for more judges and staff for the Ontario Court of Appeal, saying it will be unable to resolve cases within the case management framework recommended by the Civil Justice Review.

Chief Justice McMurtry has stated that US appeal courts have at least four to five times the number of judges, law clerks and lawyers for the same caseload, and that Ontario also has fewer appellate judges per capita than other Canadian provinces." Who am I to second-guess the former Attorney General of the province of Ontario, I think a former member for Eglinton and a man well respected in the judicial community and in the law community for his many years of service in this House and now on the bench?

"These problems will not be solved or addressed by the creation of new court facilities, though they are helpful, or by changing the names of courts or by spending public funds on new signs, letterheads and official forms. One study commissioned by the Association of Law Officers of the Crown has shown that if the government is forced by the staffing cuts to look to outside counsel for legal advice and representation in civil matters, it will end up costing the province tens of millions of dollars, as outside lawyers working on government contracts tend to bill at about $169 per hour, as opposed to the $110 per hour effectively paid to government lawyers."

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: I heard the interjection from the Attorney General, who said that they are going to, on contract, hire individuals for this purpose. We see, in this particular case, Justice McMurtry suggesting that the costs will be excessive. Again, I would ever hate to doubt or question Chief Justice McMurtry in matters of this kind, with his knowledge, background and experience in this field. The Attorney General smiles.

As far as the charities regulation is concerned, there are some good things in this, I think. "The action to be taken in this bill will avoid the need for charities to obtain court approval for technical issues involving no serious dispute, such as using funds to purchase insurance." I think some would want to help out the charities in that regard.

I noticed in the World's Biggest Bookstore in Toronto that there was a book on sale by Walter Stewart, apparently on charities in Ontario. I must read that. I think it's Walter Stewart, who has written several books. This one is new. I think it's about $29, so I might be able to afford this one, even on the meagre salary that is paid in this House. I intend to read that because it may have some effect on the ramifications of this bill.

It's clear that this so-called Courts Improvement Act is a thin disguise for the government's true agenda; that is, to change the name of Ontario courts for the second time -- I know the member for Etobicoke-Humber must be shocked at this, and Etobicoke-Rexdale as well -- in five years. Both these individuals are people who have said that they want to see a halt in unnecessary government expenditures. Here we have an example of it.

I would hate to think what the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore would have to say, having read some of his comments on other matters before the House, comments with which I find myself in full agreement. I hope he does write more op ed pieces for the Toronto Star, because they are very informative for the general public.

"This needless and costly change does nothing to address the real and serious problems confronting our justice system at this time. This pointless exercise will not deal with the fictional public confusion about the courts. In fact, by changing the name of the courts for the second time in five years, this bill is likely to worsen, not reduce, public confusion."

I would suggest that most members of this assembly who are not lawyers couldn't tell you one court from another court, in any event. Just when we get used to calling them by one name, Mr Speaker, you and I will now have to find out what the new name is and read all the signs that go with it.

"Perhaps this change" -- no, I'd better not read that part because it suggests something about Superior Court justices that I cannot prove.

"Whatever the reason, there's no justification for the waste of what could amount to be $2.5 million of taxpayers' moneys on new signs and letterhead for the 160 courthouses across Ontario."

If there was one thing this government wanted to be certain about, it was to eliminate these kind of unnecessary expenditures. No doubt, tomorrow morning, when the government caucus meets with the cabinet in full caucus, the members of the back bench of the government will be raising this issue and asking why they could possibly want to waste $2.5 million in taxpayers' money on new signs and letterhead for the 160 courthouses across Ontario. They will no doubt challenge this, and I encourage them to do so. After they have finished challenging the Minister of Health over the hospitals he's closing, they'll want to get on to this issue.

"It is absolutely inexcusable for this government to be fiddling about with name changes, spending taxpayers' money on new courthouse signs and letterhead, while a court backlog crisis threatens 50% of criminal cases on the books in Metro, while the government continues to allow the number of prosecutors to dwindle, while even Ontario's Chief Justice is calling for more judges and staff to handle the existing caseload."

This must concern the member from Rexdale, who is a fiscal conservative.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): More than you'd ever know.

Mr Bradley: That's probably true.

"The resurrection of case management masters may be helpful in speeding up the resolution of civil court cases in Ontario." We welcome any measures that might achieve that goal, so I want to be positive; I don't want to be negative throughout this. I find some good things in the bill and I find some bad things. Sometimes they come back: They're removed by one government, then another government has a look at them and they will do it. I'm prepared to be positive and constructive in my comments where I feel the government is doing the right thing and I'll be negative when they are not.

"However, this measure will do nothing to resolve the serious problem unless the government plans to invest proper resources and planning and appoints sufficient masters to handle the vast volume of work. The government has already failed to show its commitment to ensuring there's a sufficient number of judges or prosecutors."

Let's see why the government is doing some of these things. It's obvious, as my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has said on many occasions, that the tax cut is part of this. There is a debate in the United States as well, and a debate nationally here. The federal Progressive Conservative Party thought it would be attractive.

Despite the caution of John Crosbie, an eminent and wise individual in the former government of Prime Minister Mulroney, who cautioned that at this time they cannot afford a tax cut, the YPCs -- there are other names that members use for them here; they are more extreme in their opinions than regular members of the Conservative caucus, I'm told -- persuaded the government they should move in this direction.