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

May 25, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L014a - Mon 25 May 1998 / Lun 25 Mai 1998 1

ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

LABOUR DISPUTE

MISSING CHILDREN

WEARING OF RIBBONS

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

LIQUOR CONTROL

MISSING CHILDREN

AMBULANCE SERVICE

JUNIOR HOCKEY

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TUITION FEES

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

CHARITABLE GAMING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

CHARITABLE GAMING

INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

TEMPÊTE DE VERGLAS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

CONSUMER PROTECTION

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

PETITIONS

DIABETES EDUCATION SERVICES

CHILD POVERTY

CHARITABLE GAMING

FRAIS DE SCOLARITÉ

ANIMAL WELFARE

ABORTION

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

ABORTION

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

ABORTION

OPPOSITION DAY

CHARITABLE GAMING

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I have a message from the Administrator of the government.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): The Administrator of the government transmits estimates of certain sums required for the service of the province for the year ending 31 March 1999, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I want to continue to pursue the urgent issue of mental health services in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario, or more accurately the increasingly critical lack of mental health services.

Individuals in Thunder Bay who suffer from mental illness are not able to get the care they need when it is needed. They have to wait for a hospital bed, for outpatient services and for any kind of community support. There are not enough psychiatrists to treat acutely ill patients and not enough community services to keep these individuals functioning outside the hospital setting. The situation is getting worse because of the uncertainty about mental health planning.

The Minister of Health has said there will be no further closure of psychiatric beds in this province until community supports are in place, but the date for closing the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital less than a year from now has not been changed.

There can be no planning for community support services, because the mental health agency that was supposed to be making these plans has never been established. The health restructuring commission, which recommended that the agency be set up, still seems to think it's a good idea, but nothing has been done about it. No plans are being made to provide outpatient services for the 1,300 outpatients that the psychiatric hospital treats every year. No one knows what will happen to the rehabilitation programs that have made an independent life a possibility for many former patients of the hospital.

This is what happens when health care planning and restructuring is all based on theoretical abstraction and the application of arbitrary formulae: The people who need the care simply aren't part of the equation. The reality and the immediacy of their needs just doesn't fit neatly into the planning framework.

Tonight, a group of concerned individuals were to meet to discuss what should be done. I hope the government will listen.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): For the first time in its 107-year history, the editorial staff at the St Catharines Standard have been forced on to the streets in a strike action. It should come as no surprise, in view of the fact that their new corporate owners are led and owned and controlled by none other than Conrad Black, who has no regard for workers' rights, for their welfare and quite frankly for editorial integrity.

These 31 editorial employees have been forced into a strike position. They have engaged in lengthy negotiations with no response from Tubby Black and his gang operating the Standard in St Catharines.

I tell you this: I urge all of those residents of Niagara region, in particular St Catharines, to make it clear to Conrad Black and his bunch that they're not going to tolerate this type of treatment of working people, those trained, skilled, competent staff at the St Catharines Standard. We in Niagara region will not be purchasing the St Catharines Standard.

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: Oh, if you want to take a look at the obits, go down to the corner store, open the paper, read the obits and put it back where you got it from.

The Independent, a weekly newspaper being published by these same workers, is going to be distributed for free come this weekend, May 30 and 31, and weekly thereafter. I urge people to rely on that for their news, sports and editorial comments.

MISSING CHILDREN

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Today, May 25, is National Missing Children's Day. I would like to share with the House some important information about Child Find Ontario and its Green Ribbon of Hope campaign. The idea of wearing a green ribbon as a symbol of hope for missing children began at Holy Cross Secondary School in St Catharines after the tragic disappearance and murder of Kristen French. The campaign continues today so that we can be reminded of the plight of missing children in Ontario and Canada.

RCMP statistics show that each year more than 50,000 children are listed as missing. This is an alarming statistic. Happily, however, with the support of the community, law enforcement officers, customs and immigration officials, more than 90% of these children are successfully recovered. But still about 5,000 children remain missing in this country each year. As a legislator and a parent of five children, this is indeed a serious issue that must be addressed. The Green Ribbon of Hope causes us to reflect today on the missing, runaway and kidnapped children.

One of my local constituents, Gord Levis, is chairperson of Durham Child Find, based in Ajax. This

chapter has been in operation since 1994 and during that time has done valuable work assisting in finding children who have been lost. Durham Child Find is hosting an event this weekend on Saturday, May 30, with a fingerprinting program to be held at the Bowmanville police station from 10 am to 2 pm. I would encourage parents and all people to support Child Find in Ontario.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): The member for Durham East is wearing a ribbon. You haven't received unanimous consent to do so.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I request unanimous consent for the wearing of the Green Ribbon of Hope in honour of National Missing Children's Day.

The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? Agreed.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): My statement is directed at the Premier and the Minister of Health. After three flip-flops, now you both claim unqualified support for hepatitis C victims, at least to the press. You make media statements demanding immediate action to ease the burden of sufferers. What a grandstand performance. You have done nothing to help them. You have not even contacted the hepatitis C society. They know how you can help victims by removing provincial roadblocks and bureaucratic red tape. You're not interested. You prefer instead to stage-manage a kinder, gentler public image.

You're not fooling anyone, Premier; not the hepatitis C society, not the public and certainly not the victims.

My young constituent Trisha Beadle is newly married, but her future is being threatened by hepatitis C. She needs the drug interferon, but OHIP won't pay for it. Cut the hypocrisy, Premier. Put your money where your mouth is. You have a chance to make life easier for Trisha and many other victims immediately. Do it today. Make OHIP responsible for interferon and other drugs for victims. Justice demands it; justice demands it now.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to point out to the House that the new Ministry of Education so-called funding formula, which is really a cutting formula, which will mean a 7.8% cut to the Algoma District School Board over three years, doesn't take into account additional costs that these boards are incurring. The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board is planning to increase administrative charges to

schedule 2 employers, of which this board is one, after the amalgamation. The increase is from 14.5% to 19.5%. This represents an increase of about 34%, which will add directly to the cost of employee benefits at a time the ministry is reducing funding to school boards.

Also, Algoma District School Board - district school board 2 - is the largest geographic board in Ontario. It covers approximately 72,000 square kilometres or approximately two thirds the area of southern Ontario. This has not been recognized in the cutting formula, and as a result there are additional costs required for trustees to travel to Sault Ste Marie, a central location, for meetings. The limit of $5,000 per trustee for travelling expenses doesn't cover it. Right now the board is having to pay approximately $1,400 for trustees from Wawa, Elliot Lake and Bruce Mines to attend meetings each month. This is going to run out very quickly. Why is the government -

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Thank you. Before we continue, could I ask the House to come to order, please. Take your meetings outside. Further statements, the member for Halton Centre.

LIQUOR CONTROL

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): There is a newly popular kind of alcoholic beverage appealing to young people who don't normally consume hard liquor. It masks the bitter taste of alcohol and packs a nasty wallop. They are called coolers and they come in a range of flavours - most of them sweet, fruity and carbonated; basically soda pop - some containing 6.9% alcohol, almost double that of light beer. Having consumed two or three of these quickly, our youth are left staggering drunk.

Coolers are insidiously marketed with names that evoke sexual undertones and images of wild times - the Original Stiff, Mike's Hard Lemonade, Spiked Cherry, UFO and Kaos - and at $2 each they're inexpensive and can fit in a purse or pocket easily.

Another risk is Frozen Dream, a drink disguised as a milk shake that contains 12.5% alcohol, the same as wine. One tall glass could render a young person a dangerous driver or a young girl vulnerable to date rape.

The LCBO manages an excellent program called SMAART - strategies for managing age and alcohol-related trouble. It's designed to prevent those who are under age from purchasing alcohol and it works quite well most of the time.

But there are still some adults who insist on purchasing booze for minors, potentially putting lives in danger. To these people, on behalf of parents, I ask: Stop facilitating under-age drinking. To the manufacturers of coolers, I ask that you think twice about the young demographic group your products are reaching and that you practise responsible marketing.

With summer break around the corner, parents must be on the lookout for bush parties, along with drinking and driving, alcohol-related accidents, alcohol poisoning and date rape. Awareness is the key to preventing these perils.

MISSING CHILDREN

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Today, May 25, is the seventh annual Green Ribbon of Hope campaign, this day being the National Missing Children's Day across this country. This coincides with Child Find Ontario's Green Ribbon of Hope campaign that highlights the plight of missing, runaway, lost, kidnapped and abducted children in Ontario and Canada.

I think it's very important that members of this Legislature make sure that the public is aware of this day and also what Child Find Ontario accomplishes through their various 25 chapters across this province involving 1,100 volunteers across Ontario.

Every day they work with everyone involved in the search for a missing child - parents, law enforcement agencies, lawyers and government agencies - quickly producing and distributing posters with photographs of missing children and getting those distributed right across the province; alerting the public through TV and other media of missing children; and providing emotional support to the parents. They operate a 24-hour toll-free national telephone line to collect tips and reports on missing children.

They undertake preventive measures by providing education on child safety to parents and children and by sponsoring programs like the Kidcheck fingerprinting program and All About Me, the baby ID footprinting program for infants. All these Child Find programs are free of charge and are supported by donations and volunteers.

AMBULANCE SERVICE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): On Wednesday, May 13, Sudbury regional council passed a resolution calling on the Minister of Health to review ambulance response times to ensure that these are equitable and the most efficient they can be throughout the region.

This follows on the heels of a near tragedy that occurred in my home town of Capreol three weeks ago. At 10 in the morning, 20-month-old Travis Trim had a seizure and was pulled out of his crib by his parents, gasping for air and turning blue. His father sought help from the neighbour, Julie Dinsmore, who is a registered nurse. A call for help was also made to 911. Ministry of Health records then show that an ambulance was dispatched from the main Sudbury station versus the substation in Hanmer, which is much closer to our community of Capreol. The ambulance in the substation was on its way to Sudbury as a result of an earlier call. There was no other vehicle in the substation as a backup.

Our first response team was called but they were delayed 15 minutes by a train. An ambulance supervisor was dispatched from the airport to act as a first responder, but he arrived only one minute before our first response team. It took 18 minutes for the ambulance to arrive from Sudbury. In that time Travis Trim had another seizure. Had it not been for Julie Dinsmore carrying out CPR, this child would have died.

The Minister of Health must review what happened here. Important questions need to be answered, including why the air ambulance was not dispatched and why it's not ministry policy to replace an ambulance in a substation when the regular vehicle is off on call. This could have been a tragedy. It has to be avoided in the future.

JUNIOR HOCKEY

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): Hockey is Canada's game and junior hockey is a proud tradition in Ontario and in my riding of Guelph. It's my pleasure to rise today to recognize the Guelph Storm Junior A hockey team as the 1998 Ontario Hockey League champions.

Junior hockey is often described as the purest form of the sport because these young men play with such enthusiasm and intensity. Many representatives here in this House have OHL teams in their communities, such as the Kitchener Rangers or the North Bay Centennials.

Guelph Storm played well all year, never falling below second place and finishing first in the central division three out of the last four years. Coached by George Burnett and Rick Allain, this team of talented players proudly represented Ontario at the Memorial Cup at the Canadian Hockey League championships recently held in Spokane, Washington. They battled their way to the final game, where the Portland Winter Hawks defeated them in overtime, winning the Memorial Cup.

The people of my city have been thrilled by the performance of the Guelph Storm all year. This team brings excitement and pride to our city. It's an honour for me to congratulate general manager Alan Millar, the coaches, the management, the billets, the sponsors, and most of all the players - Guelph Storm, the 1998 Ontario Hockey League champions.

VISITORS

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): I would like to inform members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today councillors from Prince Edward county led by His Worship Mayor James Taylor. Please join me in welcoming our guests.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

Mr Tsubouchi moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 25,

An Act to reduce red tape by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting two new Acts / Projet de loi 25, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives en modifiant ou abrogeant certaines lois et en édictant deux nouvelles lois.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Minister, would you like to make a brief statement?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): To be very brief, this is merely a reintroduction of several matters that appeared before us and were tabled during the last session. I will take the opportunity, though, to congratulate Frank Sheehan and his Red Tape Commission in terms of the good work they've done to reduce red tape in this province that will go on to create jobs and bolster the economy in this province.

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

The Deputy Speaker: Member for St Catharines, you would know that there are no responses to this.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 95(d), Mr Patten, Mr Conway and Ms Castrilli exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business such that Mr Patten assumes ballot item 33, Mr Conway assumes ballot item 64 and Ms Castrilli assumes ballot item 45.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on May 25, 26 and 27, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): No.

The Deputy Speaker: I hear a "no."

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

Those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. The motion is carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TUITION FEES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, Queen's University students are here today to tell you how concerned they are about skyrocketing tuition fees and unmanageable student debt loads. They say that you've broken a promise you made to keep tuition costs at 25% of the total cost of a student's education. We know that you've removed all limits on how high tuition can go in graduate programs and many professional programs, but even in undergraduate programs where you sanction the fee increases, tuition is going up by 60% under your watch.

That means that students will be paying 35% of the costs of education, and in some places students will be paying 50% of the costs of their education, a far cry from the 25% that you said was a fair share.

Minister, the World Bank, in 1994, recommended that students in publicly funded universities should not be charged fees exceeding 30% of the costs of their education. You used to say that a fair share was 25%. What do you now say is a fair share for students to pay?

Second, then we will look at the funding. What sort of assistance is required by our students at post-secondary institutions?

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Ottawa West, come to order.

Hon David Johnson: That may be in the form of a grant or a loan -

The Deputy Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon David Johnson: The province of Ontario has contributed over $500 million a year, plus various other loans that I'll address in the supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: So you aren't prepared to answer the question about what you think a fair share for students is.

Prior to the election campaign you were prepared to talk about a fair share, at least your government and your now Premier were, but now you won't even answer the question because the fact is that your idea of a fair share is whatever the universities think they can get away with charging. You're trying to avoid any responsibility at all for making sure that students pay only a fair share, because fairness for students just isn't part of your agenda.

I suggest to you, Minister, that student debt isn't something that you worry very much about either. You have allowed the student debt load to grow each year. Graduates are now less and less able to make payments because of the size of the debts they're graduating with. I have a freedom of information request, Minister, that tells me that the default rate on Ontario student loans is up to 23.5% this year from 18.6% last year. This isn't because of an unwillingness to pay; it's because graduates can't manage the debt they have now.

Surely, Minister, you realize that increases in tuition and the increasing debt that you have already allowed are crippling our graduates. I ask you how you can be comfortable with the fact that young graduates cannot get out from under the debt load they are facing, and in conscience I ask you, how can you let this get worse?

Hon David Johnson: During the term of government of the Liberal Party from 1985 to 1990, tuition fees in fact did increase by some 35% in the province of Ontario. For that there was no additional assistance to the students. That was something they had to bear themselves.

We have said that no tuition will be increased unless, first of all, there is 30% set aside to assist all students who need assistance at the post-secondary level. That will involve tens of millions of dollars over the next year. We have said that no student will be denied access to our post-secondary institutions. If the universities and the colleges decide to put the tuition fees up - and that's a decision they'll have to make - no student will be denied an opportunity of post-secondary education in the province of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: Please deal with the facts that students are facing: You made a decision that students could have a debt load of $7,000 a year. That was a decision your government made that increased the debt load. You are now saying with deregulation that this debt load can go up by even greater amounts as long as the university or college is prepared to loan the students the difference, so their debt load can go up by whatever amount the universities and colleges feel is bearable. The problem is clearly going to get worse.

Minister, there is only one other province, Nova Scotia, where they have deregulated tuition fees. That province is the only province that has higher tuition fees than Ontario, and very quickly now under deregulation Ontario will have the dubious distinction of having the highest tuition fees in the country. Nova Scotia has also tried your proposed approach to the debt problem: They brought in an income-contingent repayment plan. But guess what? The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce is no longer part of the plan. They found that tuition increases and high debt loads made students very bad risks -

The Deputy Speaker: Question, please.

Mrs McLeod: - so they withdrew from participating. The banks have given you the same message here: They won't be part of your plan because student debt load is too high.

My question to you today is to say that the only responsible way to deal with student debt is to start with a tuition freeze so that you can give answers to the questions about what is a fair share -

The Deputy Speaker: Minister?

Hon David Johnson: The decisions we made with regard to post-secondary education are, number one, for quality. If any institution determines that it needs to put the tuition fees up, then it must come hand in hand with an increase in quality, in the level of education in that particular institution, quality enhancements in the programs for students.

Secondly, the decisions we made are for increased opportunities in terms of more spots in the universities and colleges for students who want to go through various programs but are being denied today. We've said students no longer should be denied; they should have that opportunity.

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is for the Premier. Today, Maclean's magazine exposed yet another of your health care messes. In January, you passed a regulation that changed how privately funded laboratories in this province are paid. What you did was put a cap on individual labs where there used to be one for the industry, and what you did in the same breath was take money away that had been earned in the last two years from small labs and give it to their competitors. This is not only a suspect use of government power, Premier, but it turns out to be anti-competitive and harmful to the health of Ontarians.

Mr Harris, the affected labs, including this one, Alfa Laboratories, which you commended for expanding their business in 1996 and sent this nifty little certificate to, are now facing going out of business because of this bizarre regulation you've passed. Why would you pass a regulation that would take $5 million in fees earned already over the last two years from a number of laboratories and give it to other labs that are their competitors? Why would you do that?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Health can answer.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Referring to the cap and the regulation, since an application for a judicial review of this regulation has been filed, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this time.

Mr Kennedy: Ontarians deserve some answers, and I think the minister who is responsible for making sure that patients get services has to answer some of the questions here today. Not only are you putting labs out of business, you're hurting patients. You know that right now there are problems in many communities. For example, we have letters from Dr Cross and Dr Wilson that say 7,000 patients in Waterdown will be without lab services. This is going to be a significant hardship for seniors in that community.

The question is, why, when the competition bureau of Industry Canada told you specifically that your proposal, your cap, would constitute a violation of the conspiracy provisions of the Competition Act, would you override protection for patients?

Maclean's magazine indicates that the principals of one of the companies that is benefiting has made $41,100 in donations to your party since 1995, 10 times the amount to any other party. Will you at least answer today, why are you giving Ontarians discount health care, and for whose benefit are you working, anyway?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's important to understand that the Ministry of Health has always negotiated and discussed any issues related to lab issues with the Ontario Association of Medical Laboratories. This has been going on since 1970. All previous governments, in any discussions that dealt with issues related to labs, have always dealt with the umbrella group, the Ontario Association of Medical Laboratories.

It's also important to know that other governments have always known there are systemic problems associated with Ontario's public and private sector labs as well. In fact, it was the NDP government that first issued some very formal recommendations on changes that should be made to the laboratory system in Ontario, and they actually did bring in some industry caps on lab billings because they realized they could not go unchecked.

Mr Kennedy: The minister doesn't tell us that she and her ministry were advised, beginning in July 1997, that consumers would be affected by this. She's had letters from doctors telling her exactly the same thing I've raised in the House today. Maybe what those doctors didn't know was that the labs of Ontario, part of the OAML, voted against this proposal 14 to 10 but you imposed it anyway.

You'll put these small labs out of business. Dr Fiorini of Toronto, who has 28 years with one of the firms, Gamma Dynacare, says that as a physician he is simply not equipped with sufficient expertise to obtain timely and relevant tests for his patients, which is an absolute necessity in family practice. He says patient care will suffer. It's like going back in time prior to 1970.

Dr Fiorini and 130 other doctors like him have been dumped by the labs which stand to benefit from this arrangement and they've been picked up by the very labs which you now want to close down. This goes into effect next month. You've put other parts of the health system into chaos - hospitals and home care. Next month there will be patients who won't have access to tests.

It's your regulation. What are you going to do about it?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's important that we remember that the ministry is working with the Ontario Association of Medical Laboratories. They are the group with which the Ministry of Health has always worked when it comes to any issue related to labs. It's the group with which the Liberal government worked when you were in power for five years and the group with which the NDP worked. We are going to continue to work with them in order that we can prepare for the implementation of the provision of the corporate tax regulation, and we are also going to ensure that we protect the access to lab services in this province.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier, and the question is this: You have been very successful in cutting $800 million out of hospital budgets; you have been very successful in cutting a lot of money out of school budgets, out of colleges and universities. Can you explain how, while you're cutting hospitals and schools, colleges and universities, you found the room to increase your own cabinet office budget by 50% this year?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): First of all, with regard to the

preamble, our goal of course is to improve the quality of health care and improve the quality of the education system by taking any waste in bureaucracy - non-classroom spending, for example - and get it into the classroom, any waste in bureaucracy and get it directed to patients in health care.

With regard to the two offices for which estimates are out today, first of all, the Premier's office, I think you'll find a decrease when you compare apples to apples, down a little over 2.3% year over year. In the cabinet office, when you compare apples to apples, it's down as well. However, included in the cabinet office now is the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board and the process for consultation that we undertook with my parliamentary assistant for referendums. But certainly when you compare apples to apples, you'll find our spending down quite significantly.

Mr Hampton: If this weren't so sad, it would be laughable. The Premier describes 10,000 nurses going out of hospitals and nursing homes as getting rid of waste and inefficiency. He describes schools being closed and colleges and universities being underfunded as getting rid of waste and inefficiency. But in his own office, in his cabinet office, when he increases the budget by $4 million this year over last year, he calls it a wonderful thing.

It's very clear from the estimates that it's your good friend, your buddy David Lindsay, your political adviser, who is heading up the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board. It is your good friend, your buddy, who is getting the money. Hospitals are losing, schools are losing, colleges and universities are losing, but your good friend David Lindsay gets a plum job and a $4-million budget. Can you explain how that is?

Hon Mr Harris: I would be surprised that you would not be 100% supportive of the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board. We have used it to replace the NDP Premier's councils, which in 1991 alone spent $7.6 million, double the budget in the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board. I am sure you would want to look at the job creation record when in almost five years in office your administration and all your Premier's councils spending led to net 10,000 fewer jobs in the province. That's your legacy and that's your record.

I would think you would want to say to David Lindsay and to this government: "Thank you very much for record job creation. Keep that Ontario Jobs and Investment Board going."

Mr Hampton: Premier, it's the people of Ontario who want to know something. They want to know where the money for their hospitals is going. They want to know where the money for their children's schools is going. They want to know why their children will be paying $3,000, $4,000 and $5,000 tuition increases. Meanwhile, you've got $4 million to spend on David Lindsay and this political propaganda that he's putting out. You've got no problem finding money for political propaganda but you can't find money for hospitals, for education, for colleges and universities.

Answer to the people of Ontario why your government can find money for this disgusting political propaganda but you can't find money for health care, education and for people who need help.

Hon Mr Harris: It is exactly because we cut your former spending in this area on the Premier's councils in half that we've been able, in the last budget, to make announcements like $546 million more in the health budget, which I think will lead to some 7,400 new nursing jobs in Ontario. It's because of the efficiencies and savings and a whole host of the budgets that we took over from your government that we're able to put so much more money into post-secondary training, so much more money into children and schools, $200 million more in education this year, $150 million more into Canadian safety, $175 million more into roads.

It is because we have precisely, through the leadership of people like David Lindsay, who, yes, is a friend; that's fine. Robin Sears is a friend of mine, good gosh. But I want to tell you this: It is through finding savings -

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order, please. Premier, take your seat.

Hon Mr Harris: - by the former Premier that we're able to put money into these other areas.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is also for the Premier, and let me paraphrase his answer. You're cutting hospitals, you're cutting health care in order to fund your phoney tax scheme and provide money for your corporate friends. That is the essence of my next question.

We find out over the weekend that not only do your friends advise you on how to set up casinos, but after they advise you, they then go over to the other side and they actually head up the operation of the company that wins the casino bid.

For example, you had after the last election someone named Andrzej Kepinski advise you on how to set up casinos across the province. Surprisingly, he is one of the people who's behind the company that has now won the right to operate the Niagara casino. Then Michael French is someone who advised you on how to set up casinos but, not surprisingly, now he is behind the Niagara casino. We could go on.

I want to ask you: Doesn't it strike you as odd, Premier, that your same political friends who advised you on how to set up casinos are now on the other side of the table, running these casinos, and are going to benefit to the tune of millions of dollars from the operation of those casinos? Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Chair of Management Board can answer that. I've never heard of these people.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The process, as the member is well aware, went through David Nash, the president of the Ontario Casino Corp. It's an arm's-length process from the government. It had an internal review and I'm told there's nothing inappropriate about that and that it can stand up to scrutiny.

There have been allegations and there have been rumours and there has been innuendo, but I don't think that's new to governments or to industry. But the facts are that there was an independent process. David Nash went through the proper process.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): I can't hear the answer. Minister, are you finished? Okay, supplementary.

Mr Hampton: The minister introduced David Nash into this. The public needs to know who David Nash is. David Nash was a fund-raiser for Dianne Cunningham, who sits in the Conservative cabinet. He was a fund-raiser for someone who sat in the Mulroney cabinet: Tom Hockin. In fact, he was Tom Hockin's chief of staff.

We have a Conservative political hack deciding that casino operations are going to go to other Conservative political hacks, because it's very clear that Michael French was involved in telling your government how to set up casinos. Now he's involved on the other side in getting the casino franchise

Hon Mr Harris: Never heard of him.

Mr Hampton: Andrzej Kepinski was involved in advising your government on how to set up casinos; now he's on the other side and he's going to benefit from the operation of this.

Hon Mr Harris: Never heard of him.

Mr Hampton: Premier, since you seem to want to comment now, can you explain to us, how is the public interest going to be served when Conservative hacks are advising you how to set up casinos, Conservative hacks are going to benefit from operating those casinos -

The Deputy Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Hampton: - and Conservative hacks are going to make the decisions that other Conservative hacks get to operate the casinos? How is the public interest going to be protected in any way in that kind of process?

Hon Mr Hodgson: It's always interesting when you just want to sling mud and have personal character assassination.

I can tell you this: David Nash went through the proper procedure. He went through the select committee of this Legislature and the Liberals voted for him, feeling confident that he would deliver in a fair and consistent manner. So I don't know where you get off personally attacking people like that. He went through the proper process. The Liberals even voted for him in that process.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The minister is imputing false and unavowed motives to another member, namely, those members of the government agencies committee, and I would ask him to withdraw those statements.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. Second supplementary.

Mr Hampton: I want to be clear. I have not damaged Mr Nash's reputation in any way. He is clearly a Conservative political hack. That's what he is. He self-identifies that way.

My point is this: You've got Conservative advisers telling you how to set up casinos. You've got Conservative advisers selecting who gets the casino, and then if you look at who gets the casino, it's the same Conservative advisers who advised the government in the first place.

I want to ask you about something else. I want to ask you about the Latner family. Now, the Latner family owns companies like Greenwin and Dynacare and they donated $48,000 to the Conservative Party in the last election campaign. They also are part of the Falls Management casino bid. They own about 20% of Falls Management casino. George Boddington, who is a lobbyist for Falls Management casino, is also a lobbyist for Greenwin and Dynacare, the company that gave you $48,000 in the last election.

David McFadden, who advised Falls Management, is another Conservative insider.

The Deputy Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Hampton: With all these Conservative insiders helping other Conservative insiders to the trough, don't you think it's time you opened the books and let the people of Ontario see exactly what's happening here?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The leader of the third party makes a lot of allegations. There have been no contracts made between the bidders and Brian Wood, the president of the Ontario Casino Corp. The Falls Management company was selected because in the opinion of the selection committee it had the highest-quality bid. That's been stated by the president, Brian Wood. If he wants to make these kinds of spurious allegations, I invite him to do so outside the Legislature.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I'm speaking to you on behalf of the thousands of people out there in the local communities who are faced with a hospital being shut down by your hospital destruction commission, but you won't take responsibility for it.

Today it was individuals from the community of Northumberland county who came here to find out if this government could be made to listen that their commission had got it fundamentally wrong, or in the words of Dr John Aldis, who lives in Northumberland and helped to invent medicare in Ontario, the preposterous decision they made in terms of the assessment they made in Northumberland county. They even got the number of beds in the hospital wrong.

What the people of Port Hope, of Cobourg, of Northumberland county want to hear from you is, will you be listening to them when it's proven that their needs are different from what the commission concludes? Will you listen to them and make sure they get quality health care?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Certainly we are aware of the fact that health and hospital services and all health services are very, very important to people in Ontario. Of course the Health Services Restructuring Commission made its interim report, and the community that was here today has had an opportunity to make a response. They've been able to provide information that is now being considered by the commission. At the end of the day, I'm very confident that the commission will make a response. The people will have had an opportunity to provide the input, and we will have, as a result of the recommendations, excellent health services being provided.

Mr Kennedy: I think the people of Port Hope have one benefit going for them. It's not that the member for Northumberland is making anything happen for them and it's not that you're listening; instead, it's that they are further along in the process. They've seen what the people of Thunder Bay have done by standing up, they've seen that in Kitchener-Waterloo some different formulas were applied, and they perhaps understand that you're responsible for this process; in the final analysis, you have the power to change these decisions. It's your job to look after health care, not some phoney-baloney commission that only answers appeals to itself.

Minister, will you assure the residents of Northumberland county that you will stop the cuts that are taking place to their hospital corporation and give them the time to work out a local solution as to what the best health facilities are to serve their area? You know it's the $10 million you've taken away and the $5 million more you want to cut that are causing this chaos. Will you at least guarantee the citizens of Northumberland that your political agenda to close hospitals way in advance of the election won't get in the way of their health care? Will you restore some of the cuts and allow them to make a decision that's good for the people of Northumberland?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's important to remember that what we are endeavouring to do is to deal with the neglect of years and years and a health system that wasn't responding to the needs of people in Ontario.

So the Health Services Restructuring Commission is going to communities, it is taking a look at what the needs of communities are, it is making interim recommendations, it is listening to people, after people have an opportunity to review the interim recommendations, and then it's issuing final recommendations.

What we are seeing is needs being addressed. We're seeing, for example, a new long-term-care system being set up in the province. We're seeing community care enhanced. Recently, we made a $1.2-billion announcement. We're also seeing new investments into priority services - cardiac care, cancer care, dialysis, hip and knee - and we're seeing new investments into primary care. As a result of the initiatives our government is undertaking, we are developing a better health system that is going to be responsive to the needs of all people, not only today, but it's going to provide the health services that take us into the 21st century.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a question to the Chair of Management Board. For years, your experts and experts of previous governments and experts in the Niagara region understood that the development of tourism was crucial to the economic future of the Niagara region, and one of the critical elements was a major convention centre. Falls Management, laden with your and your Premier's friends, was the successful bidder. Falls Management's proposal does not contain any substantial convention facility. That's in contrast to Fallsview, a bidder who proposed a convention facility nine times the size of that contained in the Falls Management proposal.

Your abandonment of a convention centre has betrayed the people of Niagara Falls and Niagara region and has sold out the prospect of tourism in favour of the profits going to the private sector and to government coffers from casino gambling. How could you let that happen?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The original Gateway RFP was changed from just a tourism proposal request to include the permanent casino site. The reason why? Because under the NDP plan there was very little interest generated before the casino site was added to the proposal. The new RFP called for the same tourism initiative as the original, first-class, year-round attractions that will make Niagara region a tourism destination of first choice for the 21st century. That's exactly the same. That was not changed.

We have not abandoned the tourism initiative; in fact we want to enhance it and expand upon it. Just two weeks ago I met with the mayor and the business improvement area of Niagara Falls. This government is very committed to seeing that tourism is enhanced and expanded upon, and that's what we're doing.

Mr Kormos: The problem is that the mayor of Niagara Falls doesn't agree with you. The mayor of Niagara Falls has expressed great concern about how your acceptance of the Falls Management proposal is going to create a mere black hole in Niagara Falls, where everything shifts to the casino, where there is no element of economic development. Now, you know, or you ought to know, that Hyatt, one of the major players in Falls Management, just happens to operate substantial convention facilities across the river in Niagara Falls, New York. It should come as no surprise that they wouldn't be interested in developing a competitive convention facility in Niagara region in Ontario.

This deal stinks; it reeks, it stinks to high heaven. When and how are you going to clean it up?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The member of the third party should know, or ought to know, that there has been no contract signed. We're in the middle of negotiations. The tourism component is a component that was weighted, along with five or six other things, by an independent selection committee. He'll have to wait to see at the conclusion of the negotiations if in fact there is an agreement. At that time, I think he will be pleased, along with the mayor of Niagara Falls and others who are in this spirit of uncertainty while the negotiations take place, that tourism will be enhanced and will be built upon and that this government cares deeply about that and making sure that we continue on.

But unlike the NDP, who just stated that in goodwill terms, where no private sector proponents came forward with any credibility to make it happen, this government will try to ensure that not only do we have a process that talks a good line but also over time will deliver a quality tourism package to the people of Ontario, and Niagara Falls in particular.

INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Minister, as you are aware, the Institute for Management Development recently released its world competitiveness report. This report ranked Canada 10th out of all the countries that were ranked, and in the category of government Canada is ranked seventh. I also noticed in the report that our government's ranking improved dramatically, from 23rd to 10th, in the year after this current provincial government was elected.

Minister, as the largest province in Canada, can you outline what initiatives the government of Ontario has undertaken to improve our international competitiveness?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I certainly would like to thank my colleague for the question. Canada's improved competitiveness obviously is a major contributor, but Ontario has been the driving force as to why we have been doing the job that we have internationally. I think this government has taken the initiative. When you take a look at the approach we've taken to streamline government, overall reduction of taxes, I believe these have contributed to a very positive economy.

The economists predicted that Canada would have one of the best business environments going into the next millennium. I believe that is definitely going to happen. Ontario has been playing a leading role towards Canada's overall performance. We have put money back into consumers' pockets, and I think that has also contributed to an upsurge in the economy. Our initiatives are making Ontario once again the driver of our economy. We are helping Canada become even more competitive.

Just as Ontario has helped boost Canada's position in areas such as government efficiency, I believe we have a major role to play in improving our trade performance, and that is why we're going to continue to find new markets and certainly encourage Ontario businesses to export the great products we manufacture in Ontario.

Mr Ouellette: Canada's ranking in the competitiveness report has been attributed to the strength of our domestic economy. As a nation, we ranked ahead of such economic engines as Japan, Germany and Hong Kong. Canada's domestic economy has been driven by Ontario's economic growth and job creation. For example, in my riding of Oshawa, unemployment has declined from 1997 to March 1998 by 0.2%. This means an estimated over 3,000 people from Oshawa have found jobs so far this year. Minister, what is the province going to do to promote job creation and economic growth in Ontario so that my constituents and all Ontarians have increased employment opportunities?

Hon Mr Palladini: As I said in this House before, I'm willing to get on a bus, a train, a plane, even in a car to promote Ontario investments. Private sector job creation and economic growth have been a priority of this government. The province's economy has expanded by 4.3% in 1997. The average private sector forecast for growth is only 4%. Most predict that Canada is going to lead the G-7 countries in industrial growth.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): You are better at kissing voters than answering questions.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Kingston and The Islands.

Hon Mr Palladini: Ontario's employment has continued to grow. Employment has increased by 32,000 in the month of April, which brings us to approximately 400,000 net new private sector jobs since June 1995. The other accomplishment of this government that I'm very proud of is that 32,000 new young people have gotten a job since February last year. That is why we're going to continue to create the positive environment that we have been creating.

TEMPÊTE DE VERGLAS

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and minister responsible for francophone affairs. Le 29 janvier dernier, lors de votre passage dans la région est-ontarienne, vous avez fait la distribution de chèques, desquels nous avons entendu parler à plusieurs reprises, de 1000 $ et de 2000 $ aux agriculteurs. Vous les avez également assurés qu'il ne s'agissait que d'un début des compensations pour leurs pertes et dépenses encourues durant la tempête de verglas.

Les agriculteurs attendent toujours les compensations promises. La ferme Cayer de St-Albert a dû procéder à des réparations de ses édifices à un coût de plus de 80 000 $. Il doit apporter des changements à son troupeau. La ferme Kaisin de St Isidore a connu des pertes de plus de 75 000 $. M me Campbell de Lefaivre a dû déménager. Les agriculteurs de Cumberland n'ont reçu des avances que de 1000 $ plutôt que 2000 $ tel que promis par votre ministère.

Ma question est celle-ci. Serait-il possible aujourd'hui d'informer les membres de cette Assemblée, et rassurer les agriculteurs de l'est ontarien, quand pourront-ils finalement recevoir le financement complémentaire pour enfin mettre de côté cette fameuse crise écologique?

L'hon. Noble A. Villeneuve (ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales, ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones) : Oui, je suis fier de dire à mes collègues, et à mon collègue principalement de Prescott et Russell, que nous avions le 29 janvier dernier 1000 $ et 2 000 $ comme un paiement de début à ceux qui ont eu des dommages dans la tempête de verglas. Maintenant, nous avons demandé à nos cultivateurs qu'ils fassent affaire avec leur compagnie d'assurances initialement pour obtenir les factures et pour établir exactement leurs pertes.

Je suis fier de dire à mon collègue que nous sommes maintenant à rembourser nos cultivateurs qui en ont fait la demande et qui ont fourni des factures et qui ont réellement fait tout ce qu'ils pouvaient pour essayer de tout obtenir de leur compagnie d'assurances, et maintenant le gouvernement ontarien est en train de combler leurs besoins.

M. Lalonde : Les agriculteurs attendent toujours. Ils doivent procéder à remplir un cinquième formulaire. Toujours suite à cette visite du 29 janvier dernier, un employé de votre ministère faisait une déclaration à RDI rassurant les gens de la région que personne ne sortirait perdant de cette tempête de verglas, et que toutes pertes et dépenses encourues lors de cette crise seraient remboursés à 100 %. Pouvez-vous aujourd'hui-même assurer des agriculteurs qu'ils seront bel et bien remboursés à 100 % pour leurs pertes et dépenses ? Sinon, pouvez-vous nous expliquer sur quel fondement politique la promesse est basée ?

L'hon. M. Villeneuve : Comme vous le savez et comme j'ai mentionné au début, nous avions des chèques en place le 29 janvier, avant même faire aucune entente avec le gouvernement fédéral, et puis nous avons négocié longuement et durement avec le gouvernement fédéral pour assurer que nos cultivateurs seraient bel et bien récompensés. Je peux vous rassurer que pour les dommages qui ont été subis du côté de la distribution d'électricité, nous avons immédiatement agi. Nous avons négocié longuement.

Les pertes de revenus ne sont pas couvertes par le gouvernement fédéral, et il y a certainement un degré de distinction entre ceux qui étaient cultivateurs à plein-temps et ceux qui étaient cultivateurs à temps partiel chez le gouvernement fédéral.

Votre gouvernement provincial ne fait aucune distinction entre nos producteurs agricoles soit à temps partiel ou à plein-temps. Je veux rassurer mon collègue que nous faisons tout ce que nous pouvons. Nous demandons toujours que nos cultivateurs fassent affaire avec leur compagnie d'assurances premièrement, mais le gouvernement provincial est bel et bien là pour les aider.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. I want to go back to the issue of health care restructuring in Northumberland county. I listened very carefully to what you said. You seemed to be giving a bit of a subliminal message: Be happy; everything will be all right in the long run.

But the problem here is that this case demonstrates one of the major problems with this Health Services Restructuring Commission you've got. They clearly had all the wrong information. They said it would cost $23 million to refurbish Port Hope to meet the needs of Northumberland county and only $10 million for Cobourg, yet when the figures are done appropriately, it's about $19.5 million for each. The same hospital board runs both hospitals, and it's quite clear that the hospital board is hoping to have the same success that Thunder Bay had of getting itself a brand new hospital.

Minister, what input did your ministry have to the hospital restructuring commission initially and what response has your ministry made to the preliminary report of the Health Services Restructuring Commission in Northumberland county?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I remind the member that the commission is at arm's length from the government. I know there is information provided through the district health council. As I indicated to you, the interim directions were issued, and there has been an opportunity now for the community to respond and provide the information that can now be reviewed by the commission so they can issue their final directions.

I feel very confident that when the final directions are issued and they have had an opportunity to carefully review all the information, again we're going to be able to see that the response is one that addresses the needs of that particular community, that is going to enable us to provide patients with the best services as close to home as they can possibly be provided.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, you have a situation where the whole community has agreed that there only needs to be one hospital. You don't even have a disagreement in this community about that.

But what you have is the Health Services Restructuring Commission suggesting that the sole hospital in the area should be a hospital that was built around a pre-World War I building that is inaccessible, that has ceilings too low to have air conditioning put in, even into the operating rooms, that has less than three acres of land and no room for expansion and that has to depend on a helicopter pad in a neighbouring school; as opposed to a building that was built by money raised by the people of Northumberland country in 1964, built so it could accommodate a second storey when expansion happened because they knew they had a growing population, that has a site with lots of room for expansion of ancillary or additional direct services, that has a helicopter pad onsite, that has trauma accreditation, that is close to the highway, as opposed to in the centre of the city, where traffic jams occur all the time.

Minister, I can't believe your ministry didn't respond to this preliminary report. You know they have elsewhere. We know your ministry, for example, suggested that forensic patients now at St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital should go to the General Hospital in St Thomas. We know your ministry responds. What did your ministry say to the preliminary report in Northumberland county?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member knows full well that when interim directions are issued I, as Minister of Health, am not in a position to make any comment. However, I do believe that if all the information has been provided to the commission, that will be very carefully considered. It's being very carefully considered right now, and I await the final report.

Again I would indicate to you, I am confident that when the final report is issued we're going to see once again an opportunity for services to be provided to individuals as close as possible to their own homes, within their own communities. It's going to be services that are going to enable us to provide the best health services and take us into the 21st century.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): My question today is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, as you know, spring is the time when home renovators are in the field doing their work. I have had calls from my constituents inquiring how scams can be avoided. In fact, we hear of people who have to pay for their full job up front or, once having paid for the job, are not guaranteed that the work will be done correctly and with the quality of work done which they paid for. Could you please tell me how the ministry helps people avoid situations provided by such scams?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I would like to thank the member for Bruce for the question. It is topical right now because this is the time of year when most people are thinking about doing renovations and it's very important for them to address this possible problem.

Secondly, our ministry does provide valuable information and material with respect to choosing a renovator and on contracts. This covers a number of issues, not only the renovation industry but also driveway paving and any other door-to-door sales. I will just finish this part by saying that they can get further information from my ministry by calling 1-800-268-1142.

Laughter.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Madam Speaker, they might think it's funny in the opposition benches, but I guarantee you that it's the seniors of our communities who are affected by this important issue.

Mrs Fisher: We know that reference checks and business checks are good. However, sometimes people seem to slip through the system and especially find themselves prey, and those being seniors often find themselves being prey. I wondered if there is anything specific under the provisions in the Ontario consumer protection legislation that could help people avoid ending up in this renovation disaster.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Madam Speaker, I know you would appreciate this, having had this portfolio before, that what we're talking about here is consumer protection, and that is important to the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Despite the levity over there -

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me for a moment. Actually, he's quite correct, I do want to hear this answer. Could I have order, please. Minister, go ahead.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The one thing that we do have going for us in Ontario is under the Consumer Protection Act there's a cooling-off period of two days for someone who comes to your house for door-to-door sales. The good thing that we're working on right now is we're trying to harmonize the standard across the country with the other interprovincial ministers. We want to have a standard of 10 days, which will give people a better opportunity to check references and check out things, and if they have second thoughts, to make sure these are addressed.

Also, under the Business Practices Act, it gives the right to consumers to cancel a contract if they believe there has been a false or misleading statement made by the salesperson. That's very important, and there are specific examples. Last year I remember the member for Brant-Haldimand brought to my attention a whole raft of vacuum sales in his area that were actually defrauding seniors. That, of course, was brought to the attention of our ministry and we tried to deal with it.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. It has been three years since the Premier promised in writing that your government would pass an Ontarians with Disabilities Act in your first term. Since then, we have seen nothing but delay, lip-service and evasions. Your Premier has refused to even meet with the ODA committee, the very group he promised to work with to develop this law. For 18 months, you and your predecessor have promised a consultation process to precede the drafting of the law. The budget paid lip-service to an ODA but allocated no money to it. Will you at least make a public announcement of the long-promised public consultation today?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): First of all, I thank you for your question, because this government is committed to the ODA. If you read the finance minister's budget, he committed to an ODA, and this is one of my prime concerns, one of my major priorities, as it is the Premier's.

What we are doing, when you say "as for the delay," there have been, as I'm sure you're aware, 18 studies done on the disabled if you put together those done by the provincial government and the federal government, and members of the disabled community have told me and have made it public that they do not want endless travelling studies, so I have had to take my time to consider what is the best way to achieve a balance for this province between -

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Answer, please.

Hon Ms Bassett: I'm trying to answer, Madam Speaker, if they would calm down a little bit.

We are trying to achieve a balance so that we can move in a manner that takes forward the needs of the disabled and our community as a whole, and I am committed to doing that, as is my government.

Mr Morin: "Commitment" and "action" are two different words. In an

article in the Globe and Mail the Conservative member for Peterborough is quoted as saying that he expects the government will launch a consultation on an ODA with the disabled community this summer, led by a well-known disabled person.

Minister, you know that the disabled community has asked that the consultation be conducted by members of the Legislature, not some outside consultant, and we know the reasons why. MPPs must pass this legislation. MPPs must learn what various disabled people face. Will you agree today to have the consultation conducted by a non-partisan committee of members of this House?

Hon Ms Bassett: I am certainly committing to start our consultations some time in the summer. We are still in the process of working out the final details, and you will be the first to know when they are in the final stage, very soon now.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Premier, on September 6, 1995, Dudley George was shot and killed at Ipperwash Provincial Park. Since then, the facts confirm that the Ontario government told the police to remove the occupiers as soon as possible. The headline in the paper the next day said of the shooting death of George, "Queen's Park to Take a Hard Line" with occupiers. The court trial proved that the first nations had no firearms.

The Premier told his executive assistant prior to the high-level meeting the day of the shooting, "out of the park - nothing else." Last week documents surfaced - Premier, you know it - showing that the OPP riot squad was in fact ordered to enter Ipperwash park.

This absolutely contradicts sworn testimony by OPP officers and even the former OPP commissioner. It smells like a coverup to most of this province, Premier.

When are you going to hold an inquiry? When are you going to do the just, fair, democratic thing? Will you commit today to holding a public inquiry?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'll refer this to the Attorney General.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): As you are aware, there remain a number of cases before courts and it would be most appropriate that those cases be concluded. To discuss any of the allegations the member has made pertaining to evidence that's in argument before those courts would be clearly improper.

Mr Kormos: The Premier, with the complicity of the Attorney General, has been stonewalling this thing over and over and over since September 1995. The government just wishes that the name of Dudley George is somehow going to go away. Well, I tell you, it's not going to go away, because the people of this province will not forget Dudley George.

I will tell you what's going to happen: Today I filed a letter with the clerk of the administration of justice committee. You see, we're going to hold our own inquiry. We're going to call our own witnesses. We're going to find out just what you've been hiding, Premier Harris.

Please, Harris, one more chance: Will you do the right thing? Will you declare your commitment to a full, fair public inquiry?

Hon Mr Harnick: As I've indicated, there is a number of cases before the courts. There is a number of civil cases and there is a number of criminal cases. Evidence is being adduced in all of those cases.

Certainly there is no coverup. The facts are in the public domain. They are being elicited in courts of law, where cases should appropriately be concluded.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. I'm sure we all watched with great interest last week's coverage of the NDP convention. Among the more visible points coming out of the convention was a resolution promising an end to funding cuts imposed on programs to combat violence against women.

Minister, my question for you today is, could you please inform the House exactly what this government is doing to combat violence against women?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): As you well know, our government has taken important steps both to stop the violence against women by improving the safety of women in their communities and to provide opportunities so women can be part of their community and economically independent. We've reduced income tax rates so that poor women can take more money home and spend it on their children and on their families.

We've formed a partnership with the Ontario Women's Directorate so that five ministries work in the north with us to provide opportunities for women in areas where they haven't had those opportunities to become economically independent.

But the most important point is that we did establish the violence-against-women initiative called Agenda for Action, which most members of this House are aware of. We have added to the violence-against-women budget by over $27 million over four years.

To have a resolution, an end to funding cuts imposed on programs to combat violence against women, we would welcome the support of the NDP to provide more -

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order. Minister, wrap up.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We actually spend more money, but we would welcome the support of the New Democratic Party, as well as the Liberals, to work with us so we can become more effective in our communities and make it a non-partisan issue. Violence against women is not to be tolerated.

PETITIONS

DIABETES EDUCATION SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by hundreds of my constituents.

"Whereas the Diabetes Education Service in Kenora is a necessary program; and

"Whereas the Harris government has refused to provide long-term funding for diabetes education in Kenora; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has acknowledged that the program is cost-effective given the volume of clients seen and the degree of specialization required;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, join our MPP, Frank Miclash, in calling upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand that the Harris government provide long-term, stable funding to the Diabetes Education Service in Kenora."

I have signed my name to that petition as well.

CHILD POVERTY

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the federal government signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and passed a resolution to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000; and

"Whereas at the first ministers' meeting in June 1996, the Prime Minister and premiers made tackling child poverty a collective priority; and

"Whereas Campaign 2000 records the province of Ontario as having the highest increase in child poverty since Canada's House of Commons vowed unanimously in November 1989 to eliminate child poverty; and

"Whereas the following signatories declared their intention to support the political parties in the next federal and provincial election which convinced them that they have a plan to promote the wellbeing of all children;

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

"To take immediate steps to eradicate the hunger of poor children by working vigorously with the federal government to reduce the poverty rate among Canadian children, currently the second-worst in the industrialized world."

I attach my signature to the petition.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents of Gloucester and the surrounding area, wish to express our firm opposition to the establishment of a gambling casino in this residential community, in close proximity to two local high schools. We wish to communicate to the Legislature the widespread opposition which this has generated in the community.

"We also wish to communicate our disappointment in the total lack of democratic consultation on the part of our local city council. Decisions were made and voted on prior to any meaningful public input. We are also hereby expressing our concern for those families who will be hurt through gambling addiction, with the resulting problems of suicides, divorce, family violence and impoverishment.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose the establishment of a charity casino in Gloucester, Ontario."

I will also affix my signature.

FRAIS DE SCOLARITÉ

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud): J'ai ici une pétition qui dit :

«Attendu que les frais de scolarité ont augmenté de plus de 40 pour cent durant les trois dernières années ; et

«Attendu que depuis 1986, les augmentations annuelles du coût de la vie n'ont pas dépassé deux pour cent, tandis que les augmentations annuelles des frais de scolarité se situent entre sept pour cent et 20 pour cent chaque année ; et

«Attendu que les frais de scolarité élèvent présentement un obstacle aux étudiants postsecondaires, notamment chez les étudiants et étudiantes de milieu de faible revenu et chez ceux qui ont des responsabilités parentales ou des besoins spéciaux ; et

«Attendu que les étudiants et étudiantes paient maintenant plus de 40 pour cent des coûts de fonction des universités et des collèges ; et

«Attendu que la qualité de l'éducation se détériore, en

partie à cause de la dégradation des installations de classes ;

«Nous, les soussignés, faisons appel au gouvernement de l'Ontario pour la mise en oeuvre immédiate d'un gel des frais de scolarité.»

Je suis fier de signer cette pétition et de la présenter.

ANIMAL WELFARE

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas ownership of a domestic animal is a responsibility, not a right;

"Whereas owners have a responsibility to treat their domestic animal with care and utmost concern for their wellbeing; and

"Whereas cruelty to animals should be punished and sanctioned with fines, penalties and/or bans on animal ownership; and

"Whereas inspectors of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals should not be obstructed from carrying out their duties to investigate abuse and neglect;

"We, the undersigned, support the amendments to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act."

I'm pleased to sign this petition.

ABORTION

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition addressed to the Ontario Legislature and it reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed my petition on the bottom.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral; and

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

I proudly affix my signature.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is from people with disabilities, and it states:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontarians with disabilities are important people;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request the government of Ontario to keep its promise to pass the Ontarians with Disabilities Act which would require the removal of all barriers to full participation within society by persons with disabilities. Specifically, the barriers to employment, public transportation, education, social services, communications, recreational programs and facilities, housing, consumer products and information provided to the public must be eliminated in Ontario."

This was circulated by Earl Black, and I affix my signature to it.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral; and

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

I affix my signature.

ABORTION

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This petition is signed by a number of residents from Essex county, and I affix my signature to it.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I present the petition. It has been signed by many constituents in my riding. It was taken up by the Knights of Columbus.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition is regarding the standing orders reform. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care and quality education; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has passed new legislative rules which have eroded the ability of both the public and the media to closely scrutinize the actions of the Ontario government; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has now reduced the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its rule changes, has diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead has chosen to concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to withdraw his draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I affix my signature as I'm in full agreement.

ABORTION

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I have a petition signed by about 600 people from the Fort Erie area, due to the good work of Arthur Almon, grand knight of the Knights of Columbus, St Michael's church, which is also my church. It deals with defunding abortions.

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

In support of my fellow parishioners, I assign my signature.

OPPOSITION DAY

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I move the following motion:

Whereas Mike Harris promised Ontarians that he would not expand casino gambling, stating: "No new taxes. No new fees. No hidden taxes. My friends, I am committed to these. No photo radar, no casinos"; and

Whereas Mike Harris also said in regard to casino gambling: "I don't want a million dollars a day into the province of Ontario. I don't want the money. I don't want the Ontario government to have it"; and

Whereas Mike Harris said that gambling doesn't come cheap and that "It brings crime, it brings prostitution, it brings a lot of the things that maybe areas didn't have before. There is a big cost to pay"; and

Whereas Mike Harris said that "Every officer and every policing dollar that goes towards casino crime or that kind of criminal activity is a dollar that's taken away from fighting crime that currently exists on our streets"; and

Whereas Mike Harris criticized the former NDP government for not conducting social and economic impact studies before it introduced casino gambling; and

Whereas now the Mike Harris government is expanding gambling without regard to the impact and without regard to its commitments to Ontarians;

Therefore, this House calls upon the Mike Harris government to explain why it has not kept its campaign promises with respect to the expansion of gambling in Ontario; to listen to the communities across the province who have overwhelmingly rejected the Harris plan to establish 44 neighbourhood casinos; and to stop its attempts to force charities, municipalities and citizens into accepting these gambling halls.

The Premier of Ontario has said that, and this is to be debated today. I appreciate the opportunity to raise this once again in the Legislative Assembly because I suspect it's an issue with which many members in this House are uncomfortable because of the fact that we're seeing an expansion in gambling activities, not only in this province, though that's where we have jurisdiction, but across the country and indeed across North America.

We have had gambling in this province sanctioned by government for a number of years, but when it started out it began with a good deal of caution and care. I remember one of my predecessors, the Honourable Robert Welch, who was then Minister of Culture and Recreation, established something called the Wintario lottery. The purpose of the lottery was simply to have some funds which would be available for cultural and recreational activities, funds which would be derived from the Wintario lottery but would be matched by government when various service and volunteer organization were raising funds of their own.

In other words, if you were to raise a dollar, the provincial government was prepared to match that dollar in terms of raising it for a good charitable cause, a volunteer cause, but in this case mostly for culture and recreation.

It started out with a good deal of care and caution. The minister of the day, Mr Welch, indicated that he expected this to be a very small step, that it would not be a major government undertaking. I believe he hoped at that time that we would not see the kind of escalation of gambling we've seen today. But right across this country, regardless of what the political affiliation of the government happens to be, we have seen governments move more and more into the field of gambling. I almost said "organized" gambling; I guess it's organized, in this case, by the government.

I think this is a wrong direction for the government to move in. Governments have really now started to rely more and more on the proceeds of gambling for their ongoing programs. This has got to be a matter of great concern to people in all jurisdictions where gambling has been expanded. We've had casinos out west and we've had video lottery terminals introduced in many jurisdictions. They're in the Maritimes, they're in Quebec, they're in Ontario, they're in western provinces, they're certainly across many states in the United States. I think what has happened, however, is that it has gotten out of hand.

What started out as a small initiative designed to raise a modest amount of money for specific purposes has now become a major way for governments to gather money into their coffers for whatever purposes they deem appropriate.

I think one of the reasons we've seen it is that some people have tried to portray it as a voluntary tax, that nobody is compelled to pay it, that somehow it is a painless tax. I think, however, that those who have studied this field carefully would not agree with that.

I have included a number of comments that the Premier made in days gone by as Leader of the Opposition. We're wont to do that in this House; we certainly do that from time to time. But I genuinely respected the Premier, when he was leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the third party in the House, and the Treasurer of this province today, Ernie Eves, who was then the House leader of the third party, when they stood in this House and in other venues and expressed their genuine concern about the government getting involved more and more in gambling.

I thought that was positive; I thought that was reasonable criticism. I genuinely believed, with the fervour with which they stated their opinions, that we would not see this government move heavily into government gambling. Unfortunately, that has not been the case, even though on many occasions both of them have said they would not want to see gambling expanded.

I thought Premier Harris, in one of the cases he made, which was on October 6, 1992, in a question to the Honourable Marilyn Churley, who was the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations of the day, made a good point when he asked the question this way:

"Wouldn't it make more sense from a sound management point of view, something we haven't seen very much of, to do the social projections and economic studies before you announce the casino? Second, in the absence of having done that, when can we expect to see the economic and social projections and results of those impact studies, even though you've already made the announcement?"

He was obviously expressing the concern that many people in the province have, that we in this province and other provinces and other jurisdictions are moving forward rather rapidly and rather drastically into more and more gambling activities, expanding and escalating those activities without having looked at good data to determine what the impact will be on the province: on the social fabric of the province and indeed on the economy of the province.

Derwyn Shea, who is a man of the cloth, an Anglican minister, said in the Hamilton Spectator on March 5, 1997: "I just don't think that they're the sort of thing we need, should have or want. I feel very strongly about this. Casino gambling panders to the most vulnerable in our society. People who can least afford it tend to get caught up in it." A person who is a man of the cloth, a religious minister, tends to counsel people and encounter people who require counselling for such problems as gambling, and I thought he stated the position well in the Hamilton Spectator.

Mel Lastman, who is, I think everybody would agree, a free enterpriser, a person who's open to a lot of new ideas, said on February 19, 1997, when confronted with this question about charitable casinos: "Gambling is of no advantage to our city, and we don't need it. People go out and they rob and steal to get the money to gamble." That was Mel Lastman, who I think is not a person who is closed-minded to new or different ideas, expressing a genuine concern.

I thought the National Council on Welfare's publication entitled Gambling in Canada - this was in regard to government advertising promoting gambling - stated it very well when it said the following:

"What the advertising carefully sidesteps is the dark side of gambling. Literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians are problem gamblers and their addiction takes a toll on themselves, their friends and families, and society as a whole. Families break up, bills don't get paid and people take time off work because of their obsession with gambling. At its worst, problem gambling degenerates into a world of criminal activities spurred by the gambler's frantic search for money from every possible source."

I think they stated it well when they put that forward.

Methodist minister Tom Grey, head of the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion in the United States, when he spoke to Belleville city council had the following to say - again worth listening to. Here's a person who has made a study of this. He does a pretty objective evaluation and comparison of what gambling was like previously and what the escalation is causing. Reverend Tom Grey had the following to say:

"Your government is addicted to the revenues it's getting from gambling and therefore it's now going after its own citizens through charity casinos. They're using charities as a Trojan horse, as a way to sell what is really a tax. The track record on gambling is that it's not good economics, it's not good public policy and it's not good for the quality of life."

Those are just a few people who have offered observations. I suspect that in the confines of the Conservative caucus, the government caucus, there have been members who have expressed similar concerns about the expansion of gambling opportunities.

I am not trying to roll back the clock. I know we've got a major casino in Windsor and a major casino in Niagara Falls, and we have one in Rama. I'm not saying today that the government or the Premier should close down those casinos and somehow end all gambling activities. It's probably unrealistic to do that today.

What I am pleading with the Legislature, with the Premier and with the government to do is to halt the escalation of gambling opportunities, to call a moratorium, to say: "Enough is enough. Let's not move forward with any more expansion of gambling activities, because they'll have a detrimental effect on our province."

I saw the government moving forward at one time with video lottery terminals - VLTs, as they are known. There was a great movement to move them into every bar and every restaurant in the province, that you would have, from municipality to municipality, people who owned bars and restaurants who would be able to operate video lottery terminals. The excuse was that somehow there were illegal ones operating out there and the only way to solve this problem was to make it legal and have the government run it.

I reject that argument. I don't think we can say the government should get into the business of selling crack cocaine, for instance, simply because someone out there is selling it illegally. The role of the government would be to prosecute in that particular case and end those particular uses. I really and truly believe that a major step forward was taken when we in the opposition and when the public in general finally persuaded the government that it should not permit video lottery terminals in bars and restaurants. I think we have halted that particular escalation.

Then there were the video lottery terminals going into the so-called charity casinos, as I've kiddingly said in this House from time to time, the new Mike Harris gambling halls around the province. I had a great concern about that. The government has put forward a change in policy which says in fact: "Somehow we can do without the video lottery terminals. We'll simply have the good, old-fashioned slot machines, along with other gambling activities, in the charity casinos."

What is happening is that charity casinos represent a major escalation in and of themselves. If you look at Niagara Falls, it's a tourist destination. More than 50% of the people who would come to that casino in Niagara Falls, or indeed to the one in Windsor, would be people from outside the area. Whether that will be the case if they establish casinos on the American side of the border, I don't know, but at the present time, one could say that they are tourist destination sites. So we differentiate those from the charity casinos, which are proposed for various municipalities around the province.

I think it would be devastating for communities which do not have the ability to attract people from hundreds of miles away to come to their community, but rather simply to attract people from the immediate area and from that immediate community to come to do their gambling at a local casino, which could be operating seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

The people who go in there would be, by and large, people who are desperate, people who are pretty vulnerable to the attraction that gambling provides, people who are addicted to gambling. The average person may not be the kind of person who is going to go to a so-called charity casino that's located in places like Timmins or Kirkland Lake or somewhere like that where you're simply going to get people - I think of Guelph, for instance. I don't really see that people are going to be heading from New York City to Guelph to do some gambling in a charity casino.

I suspect what would happen is the people of Guelph themselves and maybe some of the surrounding villages and towns might spend their money there. I really wonder whether it would be new money that's being spent. I think it's discretionary money that's already being spent in a community. Whether it's at local stores, whether it's at local places that provide services or manufacturing centres, you're taking the discretionary dollars that people have and you're placing them into gambling opportunities which, yes, benefit the government rather immensely in terms of the dollars and cents the government derives from them, but really scratches at the fabric of that community.

I don't expect it in this debate or in this House, but I think it's important for non-cabinet government members to speak to those in the cabinet, to speak to the Premier, to speak to the people who advise the Premier, and explain how this escalation is not good for this province. That's one of the standards we must use: Is it going to benefit the province?

It will benefit the coffers of the province to a certain extent. Will it really benefit the social fabric of this province? I suspect that many people in this Legislature on all sides of the House are very worried that it will not; in fact, that it will have a very detrimental effect.

I look at the fact that fund-raising activities that service organizations are already involved in are being impacted by the government moving into new areas. People used to run bingo halls - and yes, bingo is a form of gambling, no question about that - but they would run their bingo halls and small organizations would have their group that would come out each week and have something to say, have a little bit of a social gathering. Then the provincial government started what was called a province-wide bingo.

I don't even know the name of it; that is, I don't know whether it's done by television screen or something like that. Anyway, it is imposed upon the local bingo halls and the province gets a big take out of that. When you talk to the people in service clubs and organizations they say: "Look, we have lost out with some of the activities we had that didn't take in a lot of money, that didn't take a lot of money from individuals in particular. We have lost some of that revenue because the government has in a very big way gotten into gambling and started to hurt our particular businesses."

Now the government moves into charity casinos. Let me say that the charities are simply a front for any government. British Columbia government was caught on this. They were told very firmly by a court in British Columbia, "You're simply using these casinos as a front for the government to derive its revenues."

Why does the government need that revenue? First of all, it is viewed as a painless tax. Everybody out there knows, when you go door to door, when you talk to people in our communities, that nobody likes high taxes. Nobody wants to pay taxes. We would like to get a lot of services, but none of us really wants to pay the taxes. So they see this as a way of making up for tax cuts.

This government has decided it will make a 30% income tax cut before we have a balanced budget, which means the government has to borrow that money in order to give you and me and everyone else in the province a tax cut. Because the government has lost significant potential revenue through that tax cut, the Treasurer and those in the treasury department have said: "We need these funds. We have to derive more funds and the only way it looks like we can get them relatively painlessly is through new gambling initiatives." That's why we're seeing that happen.

I look at the charity casinos, the projected gross revenues including the slot machines at the racetracks: $1.1 billion. That's a lot of money going into gambling. Some $460 million will go to the government. That's 65% of net revenues. If the charity casinos, for instance, are owned and controlled by people outside the province, some of the profits that go to the owners could be going outside the province. I know there are some people in Ontario in the Conservative end of things who are worried about that.

Each charity casino will have 150 slot machines and 40 gambling tables. The government has indicated it will allow more slot machines if there's a local demand. About 5,000 slot machines will be located in provincial racetracks. Charity casinos will accept wagers on tables up to $100. That's an increase from $10 under the so-called Monte Carlo casinos or roving casinos.

The Ontario government will give municipalities $1,500 a year for every slot machine they allow to set up shop. I consider that an incentive, I guess is a nice way of putting it, for local jurisdictions to accept it. They are strapped for funds. I think the government hoped that would be the case. Also, I was very concerned when I saw the government encouraging the casinos to put pressure on local councils and on those who have the powers to approve casinos at the local level.

What we're seeing across this province and across this country and in so many jurisdictions is in fact an escalation in gambling opportunities and the tearing at our fabric.

Donald Trump, who has been involved in casinos before, said in the Miami Herald something rather interesting: "People will spend a tremendous amount of money in casinos, money that they would normally spend on buying a refrigerator or a new car. Local businesses will suffer because they'll lose customer dollars to the casinos." That's a person who is in the business who says that.

Gambling and the Public Interest, a publication that I think is now widely read, says the following:

"Studies suggest higher than average rates of lateness, absenteeism, low productivity and crimes against employers (forgery, embezzlement, fraud etc) among problem gamblers. Community resources are also expended in combating the impact problem gambling has upon family and friends."

It's just study after study, which I think is very, very interesting.

I want to leave some time for some of my colleagues to be able to deal with these, which is why I don't want to get into each one of these studies and quotes. What I want to say to the government through this motion this afternoon is that it's time to call a moratorium on the expansion of gambling opportunities. Where there are problems with existing venues for gambling or existing problems, the government will receive all kinds of support to try to fix those.

We have a situation that exists in Niagara Falls where there were questions in this House today calling into question, even outside of the charity casinos, some problems that have existed. In Niagara Falls I think people wanted to see more tourist activities associated with this tourist casino. It's not a charity casino; it's a tourist destination casino. They wanted to see a lot more of other activities for people to be able to take

part in, in their ridings and in this specific case in Niagara Falls, and we haven't seen that happen.

I think we have a problem on our hands but I think there is the beginning of a solution. That solution is to say, "Enough is enough." That solution is to call a moratorium, a halt on the further expansion of gambling activities. There is an opportunity for this province to assume a position of leadership in doing very comprehensive, extensive studies on the impact of gambling right across Ontario. Indeed, I think we would be doing a service to this whole country, to North America and the world if we were to be the leader in that particular direction. Let's take a breather, I'm saying, a long pause from this gambling expansion.

Remember that we are preying upon the vulnerable, upon the addicted, upon the desperate people of our society. We have a responsibility to those. I know some people like to say everyone is on his own or her own, but I think we have a responsibility to those who are vulnerable, to those who are addicted, to those who are desperate not to put before them the temptations which are related to expansions in gambling.

We may benefit in the short run by the revenues which are derived from gambling, but in the long run, as we continue to expand, we continue to tear at the social fabric of this province. We pay far too great a social price for what is revenue coming into the government to replace revenue which is lost through other tax cuts.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Brenda Elliott): Further debate?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): First, I want to indicate how timely this resolution is and I want to thank its mover. I want to say clearly at the outset that Mr Bradley has been very consistent on his position with regard to casinos and casino gambling. When I speak of the timeliness of it, it's timely among other things because of the revelations about the apparent corruption of the process for the development of this new, much-heralded Niagara Falls casino.

You're supposed to back up a little bit. Please understand. I know that a whole lot of folks in my communities of Welland, Thorold and the Niagara region and communities across the province go to casinos. Yes, they've told me about it. Some are winners; most are losers. They understand that as well. A casino is not about winning money; it's about losing money. You can't have winners or else the casinos don't make the incredible profits that they do. I'm hard-pressed to condemn the person, whoever it might be, who finds entertainment by going to a casino and playing the slot machines or playing the roulette wheel.

As a matter of fact, before somebody says, "Jeez, are you speaking in the dark here?" I'll tell you what - on May 1, as a matter of fact, I was down in Niagara region. You know why I was down there? I was down there because it was the Days of Action in St Catharines. Some of my friends came down to Niagara region to march in the streets. That evening we happened to have some of the other members here who entertained in their offices - not entertained but accommodated the Ukrainian interns who were here, the young students from the Ukraine who were here for the second time.

Eugene Voloshchenko, who was my intern, accompanied me down to Niagara region, and that evening a couple of constituents and myself took him to Niagara Falls.

It was Friday, May 1. I remember it well. It was a very nice spring, warm, quite frankly a very pleasant evening. One could walk around, and people were in shirtsleeves. Here we were on a Friday night, at what is effectively the beginning of the season, a very pleasant, accommodating day in Niagara Falls. The attendance at the Falls themselves was rather sparse, which was unusual for me, because they're usually a major attraction. I'm talking about the Horseshoe Falls. So we walked along the Falls up to Clifton Hill, which is I suppose the heart of tourism, at least at that one level, in Niagara Falls.

I confess I perhaps don't get to Clifton Hill as often as I should, it being right in my backyard. Usually Clifton Hill is teeming with people on a Friday night, mid-spring, beautiful weather like it was back on May 1, just a few weeks ago. But the streets were bare. I took a look in some of the eating establishments. Oh, there were patrons in them, but they were sparse and few and far between, let me tell you. I thought maybe the season really hadn't started yet. Fine.

I enjoy the relaxed comfort, but also I understand that tourists in the streets visiting the restaurants, going to the attractions - this is part of the heart, the lifeline of Niagara Falls tourism. I don't pretend to know about it from a sophisticated point of view. I've never been a tourist operator. I've spoken with lots of them and I've had a number of situations in which I've had occasion to work with them.

I told young Eugene - because he had heard, of course, about the Niagara Falls casino, as a first-time visitor to the province. I said, "Eugene, would you like to visit the casino?" He said, "Sure." Again, I anticipated that just as the streets and the shops and the restaurants were rather sparsely populated, the casino would be a somewhat relaxed atmosphere. Let me tell you, it would have knocked your socks off, because there were bare, empty streets, empty restaurants, empty tourist shops, but there was a lineup at the casino. When you finally made your way in, there wasn't a machine that wasn't being used.

Again, I don't want to condemn by any stretch of the imagination the folks who were in there doing whatever it is you do in a casino. Well, you gamble. As a matter of fact, as I walked around - and at this point I was just amazed - I realized where all the tourists were: They were in the casino. That's why they weren't in the restaurants; that's why they weren't out on the streets of Clifton Hill, walking up and down, as tourists have done for decades, for generations: They were sitting at the slot machines, just pumping the tokens with a steady rhythm.

Again, more than a few folks were neighbours, friends, folks I know from across the region - more than a few. I had occasion to say hello to them, wish them the best of luck. But the casino was packed. There's no two ways about it: Casinos are an incredibly powerful attraction to people in general. And once again, I've got to confess I do not understand - I'm not disputing that people obtain or get some entertainment value from this. Gosh, I suppose I'd rather see a movie or go bowling or any number of -

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): You bowling?

Mr Kormos: Go bowling. Down in Welland there are half a dozen bowling lanes - not quite that many left. Welland is a big bowling city. My neighbour Rob Wightman is an ardent competitive bowler and travels across - he works over at Stelco when he can work. Of course, unemployment is up in the Niagara region since the Tories got elected. You've got to know that.

These are things that I, in my experience growing up in a community like Welland, associate with entertainment. You go to the arena. You watch a hockey game. I appreciate that's a spectator sport, but what do you expect? You watch a hockey game. You go out to the Welland soccer dome up on Rice Road. You watch a soccer game or, if you're more fit than I am, you play soccer.

I appreciate that there are a whole lot of seniors there and I've got to hope that the seniors are sophisticated and experienced enough that they set themselves a budget for the evening and live by it. I would like to hope that was their style, and I suspect most of them do it. I have no hesitation in telling you that.

Why I raised my admitted amazement about how all the tourist population of Niagara Falls appeared to be concentrated in the casino was to acknowledge what an incredibly powerful draw it is. It's clear there's a whole lot of money to be made running casinos. There's no two ways about it.

Interestingly, Windsor, which attracts fewer gross numbers of patrons, has more money bet per patron than does Niagara Falls. That's just the stats that were released recently. I'd be interested in some explanation of that.

We ought to have learned. Look, there were those of us who opposed casino gambling here in Ontario, and I appreciate that war has been lost. I have no hesitation in saying that battle has been lost. One of the things we expressed concern about was the rationale that casino gambling was somehow an integral tool in local economic development.

I regrettably suggest to you that the experience of Windsor and Niagara Falls very much sustains the argument that, no, casinos are not a panacea for an economy that was gutted first by Brian Mulroney's trade deal with Ronald Reagan, and then further by Jean Chrétien's waltz with the Americans, with NAFTA. Casinos certainly aren't the panacea. It's quick jobs; I don't hesitate in acknowledging that.

The government was warned about the corruptibility and corruptiveness of casino gambling. They were told time and time again, and this government assured people who had -

Interjections.

Mr Kormos: Look, if you don't want to hear it from me, there are thousands out there who participated in public hearings, who condemned this government's introduction of electronic slots, video lottery terminals - call them whatever you want. The fact remains that they're the slickest thing since buttered popcorn. The fact remains that these electronic VLTs, yes, are designed very specifically by some very sophisticated operators to be as addictive as any gambling practice ever could be, hence the label "the crack cocaine of gambling."

Remarkably, evidence that was unearthed during the course of this government's committee hearings about high-tech, high-speed electronic slots indicated very clearly that the market - we're not talking about the old one-armed bandit; we're talking about an integration of the fundamental philosophy of the one-armed bandit, but accompanied by all the qualities of the best and fastest and most sophisticated video games, along with an incredibly sophisticated high-tech manipulation of the player - for those types of machines is very much young, and even younger, people.

Some of the same operators who have cultivated a generation of young people whose lives have been Nintendoed are the same people developing these electronic slots that this government, yes, would dearly love to see in every bar, every tavern and every restaurant in every neighbourhood in every municipality in this province. Very sophisticated stuff, scary stuff.

We heard from the racetracks, and one racetrack operator was candid enough - my colleague across the way here would understand - to talk about the level of sophistication of these slots. At racetracks now you can bet your pony without going to a parimutuel person. You put your ticket in the machine, if it's a winning ticket, and you punch in the name or the number of your horse or whatever grey mare happens to be running that day, and you sit there and wait for the results. I think I've got it reasonably correct.

Mr Pouliot: It's always a number.

Mr Kormos: Number of horse and number of race, at a specific track.

The operator of one major racetrack in the province appealed to the committee to implement their VLTs, video lottery terminals, electronic slots, video slots as quickly as possible because the technology is such that they can take horse players, sit them there, let them bet their horse at this video-screened machine, and while the horse is running - you know your little picture-in-picture on the little RCA you've got at home, where you get the second channel down in the lower right-hand corner? From time to time you tire of the parliamentary channel and you might switch on C-SPAN or something.

While the race is running in the lower right-hand corner, you can bet the slots at the very same machine without ever getting up to go.

I tell you, that's the level of sophistication. There are big bucks here, incredibly big bucks; big bucks to the extent that corruption becomes almost inevitable. In the instance of this government's handling of the Niagara Falls casino, it appears that corruption has very much become part and parcel of the process.

Recall what you heard earlier today when the leader of the New Democrats, Howard Hampton, in his question to the Premier made reference to some very fine investigative reporting by the Toronto Star that was published over the course of the weekend, and referred to portions of that

article that named names, left you in a position where you were forced to draw the irresistible conclus