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

October 19, 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

L045A - Mon 19 Oct 1998 / Lun 19 Oct 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

FIREARMS CONTROL

DIWALI

HEALTH SERVICES

WINDSOR-ESSEX COUNTY SPORTS HALL OF FAME

AGRICULTURE IN NORFOLK

EMERGENCY SERVICES

PINOCHET ARREST

SMALL BUSINESS IN WELLINGTON

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY 407 ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'AUTOROUTE 407

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SMALL BUSINESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

EMERGENCY SERVICES

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

EMERGENCY SERVICES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

WOMEN'S ISSUES

HEALTH SERVICES

ABORTION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

DEFIBRILLATION EQUIPMENT

HOSPITAL FUNDING

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

PROSTATE CANCER

PALLIATIVE CARE

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

ABORTION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING

DIABETES EDUCATION SERVICES

GERMAN HERITAGE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER AND LOBBYISTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 CONCERNANT LE COMMISSAIRE À L'INTÉGRITÉ ET LES LOBBYISTES

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Mr Speaker, let me tell you and the Minister of Health and everyone here in the House about Evan, a constituent who sustained a serious arm injury at work. The razor cutter Evan was using slipped and cut deeply into his right arm.

Evan was taken to our only emergency department at St Joseph's Health Centre, where he waited over three hours until he finally received the medical attention necessary to close the cut, which required 28 stitches. Evan was placed in an emergency room cubicle which had blood spots and parts of a cast from an earlier patient. It took Evan's mother 40 minutes to find a nurse to help adjust the compress to stop the bleeding from Evan's arm.

I've talked to doctors, I've talked to nurses, I've talked to patients, and they're all saying the same thing: There isn't enough money devoted to emergency care services. It's not the doctors' fault, it's not the nurses' fault, it's not the administrator of the hospital's fault; it's clearly the government's fault.

Mike Harris's policies are causing these disasters. But lo and behold, all of a sudden we hear that the Ministry of Health, the Mike Harris government is going to commit all this money that we've been talking about for months, weeks and days. Is the government telling the people of Ontario the truth? We want that commitment today. We need it and must have it today.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I want to address the issue of the Harris government's policy of handing guns to 12-year-olds. I have tried, on a number of occasions, to get a clear statement of reasons from this government. Please explain to me why it makes sense to give guns to 12-year-olds.

It has been very difficult to get a minister of the crown to stand up and give a straightforward explanation to the members of this House and to the public. I wanted to talk to the Solicitor General, the chief police officer, about Chief Nagle from the North Bay police force and how he said that 12-year-olds were just too young and how he doesn't support this policy and how the chiefs of police don't support this policy. I wanted him to say, as chief police officer, why the government supported it. He wouldn't answer the question. He referred it.

I asked the minister responsible for children's issues. After she gave a very incorrect answer, blaming the federal government - I'm assuming she didn't know the right answer; I'm making that assumption, because any other assumption would be unparliamentary - she referred the question.

The Deputy Premier stood up and hid behind the tragedy of a case, when that wasn't even the central part of the question. The Minister of Natural Resources, who has I guess been left out to hang with this policy, in his arrogant way said I don't understand. I understand, the public understands: 12-year-olds are just too young to have guns. Please change your policy.

DIWALI

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): Today Hindu Canadians and Hindus the world over mark the festival of Diwali or Deepawali. This occasion marks the beginning of the Hindu new year. Symbolizing light and the victory of righteousness, Diwali marks the lifting of spiritual darkness in our lives.

Diwali literally means rows of deeyas, or small clay lamps. In Trinidad, these lamps are made on the beach and are then left out in the hot sun to harden. These twinkling oil lamps light up every Hindu home. They are often floated in the sacred Ganges River as a prayer.

Gods which symbolize wealth and prosperity, or lakshmi, and wisdom, or ganesh, are honoured. Diwali also commemorates the return of Lord Rama to his kingdom after a 14-year exile.

In preparation for this holiday, the home is cleaned thoroughly and is often whitewashed. Designs called rangolis are painted on floors and walls. Family members and relatives gather to offer prayer, light up their homes and share quiet festive moments together.

In India, Mother Teresa inaugurated the celebration of Diwali for Indian Christians.

India, Guyana, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, Malaysia and now Ontario all celebrate Diwali. I wish all Hindu Ontarians a most happy new year and a warm "Namaste."

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I stand here today on a matter of life and death. My constituent Donald Letourneau is fighting aggressive lung cancer. Last week I hand-delivered a letter to the Minister of Health urging her to intercede in the bureaucratic process required to get the Ontario drug benefit plan to give an exemption for the drug Neupogen. This drug would give Mr Letourneau's frail 98-pound body help to withstand the assault of chemotherapy. A form 8 exemption marked "Urgent" by Mr Letourneau's doctor was faxed to the minister last week. We received a call from the minister's office on Friday to say that further clinical evidence was required before a decision can be made.

Donald Letourneau needs that drug now. He cannot wait for more bureaucratic wrangling. The minister's office promised to respond on Monday morning, but we have heard nothing. If there's no decision in his favour today, I will be turning to the citizens of my community to show compassion to Mr Letourneau. He is not wealthy. He cannot afford to pay for Neupogen as many people can.

I fear that we are already living in a province that has a two-tier health care system: one for the rich and one for the poor. I will be seeking donations from my community today, because this government has an abysmal record in ensuring that health services are available to people who need them, whether that is non-formulary drugs or emergency care. We cannot trust the wheels of the Harris government to turn fast enough for Donald Letourneau.

WINDSOR-ESSEX COUNTY SPORTS HALL OF FAME

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): On Saturday night I attended the annual Windsor-Essex County Sports Hall of Fame induction dinner. It was a special pleasure as I knew four of the six inductees.

Jim Copeland, a constituent, played in the Canadian Football League for nine seasons and shares the record for most punt returns in a game - 14.

Jerry Slavik organized the first running club in Windsor in 1970 and continues to be involved in organizing events with Walkers and Runners Around the County of Essex, a club that I've been an active member in for over 10 years. WRACE has raised tens of thousands of dollars for local charities.

Kelly-Ann Way wore the jersey of the Windsor Bicycle Club during most of her career, a club that I had the pleasure of being the secretary for. But it's the famous yellow jersey in the Tour de France in 1989 for which we remember her most.

Tim Kerr played 11 seasons with the Philadelphia Flyers and had four consecutive 50-goal seasons. He played in two Stanley Cup final games and holds several NHL records. Tim lived down the street from my house in Tecumseh, and I remember that we wouldn't let him play in our road hockey games on St Pierre Street unless we were really desperate. It's obvious that his brother Darryl and I underestimated his abilities.

I'd like to congratulate as well Willie Greenwood and Ray Truant.

You make our community proud and set a good example for good athletes to follow.

AGRICULTURE IN NORFOLK

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): Each year about this time we start hearing about Halloween and the old Charlie Brown tale of the Great Pumpkin. I'm proud to report to all MPPs today that the Great Pumpkin is alive and well and was grown in my riding.

Gary Burke, a man from the tiny hamlet of Jericho, has recently grown the heaviest pumpkin in history. I'm sure all members watched the Regis and Kathie Lee show with interest last week, when the Guinness Book of Records presented Mr Burke with official recognition of his accomplishment.

The great Norfolk pumpkin, which weighs in at 1,092 pounds, broke the previous record of 1,062 pounds at the Port Elgin Pumpkinfest earlier this month. The pumpkin was also an attraction for over 130,000 people attending the Norfolk County Fair the week before Thanksgiving.

In Norfolk there are many fruit and vegetable festivals over the course of our area's long growing season, culminating in the Waterford Pumpkinfest just before Halloween. In Norfolk we not only grow great pumpkins, our farmers grow delicious fruit and vegetables of all shapes and sizes. I suppose I'll have to consult with my local women's institute to see how many pies can be baked from a half-ton pumpkin. I congratulate Mr Burke on his world record, another in a long list of impressive accomplishments for area farmers.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): It's with great interest that we watch the Premier and the Minister of Health battle it out as to who is responsible for emergency care in Ontario and why hospitals in communities like Windsor are continuing to be denied access to appropriate emergency care.

In October 1997, the Ministry of Health document that was created by the Ministry of Health said very specifically that care is fragmented and delayed, said specifically that there is a gridlock there, outlined by the ministry itself. Lead responsibility for this: Ministry of Health. What they said specifically is that there's no reason to delay, that service delivery is hampered, and time will not improve the situation. We have made many requests to fix the situation with health care in Windsor, to no avail.

In the middle of August of this year, we asked the Minister of Long-Term Care specifically to release an internal audit that was done the year before on our home care. Still, to this day, after we have been promised this audit, we have not received it. We want to know why. Is the Minister of Long-Term Care in charge of that ministry? Can he say that in his own ministry he cannot get access to an internal audit that was done the year before? There is no reason for delay unless there is something very fishy going on within that ministry and the Ministry of Health. We deserve an answer to this.

PINOCHET ARREST

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Today I wanted to honour Heike Jende and Mary Fernandez from schools St Peter, St Raymond, St David for wanting to keep their local schools alive.

But I wanted to make an equally important announcement today, and that is to honour the Chilean community for the recent events that have been going on that hopefully will bring Augusto Pinochet to justice.

As you know, he was arrested over the weekend in England, and I have to tell you that I celebrate that moment with a great deal of happiness. He, of course, was the man who in a coup in 1973 brought down the duly elected president, Salvador Allende. During that regime, thousands of people have gone missing, thousands were tortured, thousands were killed by that military dictator. Many have waited for a long, long time to savour this sweet moment of justice.

I congratulate the Chilean expatriates who are here in Toronto and those who are in many other parts of the world for the courage and commitment to bring this military dictator to justice. I tell you, only when justice is done can people be genuinely healed, and only when justice is done can people genuinely move on. I congratulate them for their courage.

SMALL BUSINESS IN WELLINGTON

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Small business people are the province's number one job creators, accounting for 80% of the new jobs in Ontario. Today I want to recognize the contributions of small business entrepreneurs who live in and near the area that I'm privileged to represent, people like Ray and Ruth Grose of Alma and Clare Weber of St Jacobs.

The Groses started Husky Farm Equipment in Alma 40 years ago. From a small family operation, the business has grown and now employs 38 people. Husky produces farm equipment such as barn stalls, bale elevators, silo unloaders and machines that handle liquid manure. A successful export business, Husky has 50% of its market in the United States.

Weber's Fabricating is another small business success story. Operating out of St Jacobs, the company was started in 1974 by Clare Weber, then 29, as a one-man operation. Weber's now has grown and employs close to 40 people. Clare began by producing turkey loaders, but Weber's has since diversified and expanded, producing steel and aluminum dump truck boxes, recycling trucks and some of the best fire trucks built in North America. Weber's also refurbishes existing fire trucks as well as doing custom manufacturing and welding repairs.

These are but two examples of how small business people have led the way in creating over 400,000 new jobs since the government assumed office in 1995. We salute you and your employees who contribute so much to your success, and pledge to continue to improve the climate that helps small businesses generate the new jobs we need.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY 407 ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'AUTOROUTE 407

Mr Sampson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 70,

An Act to engage the private sector in improving transportation infrastructure, reducing traffic congestion, creating jobs, and stimulating economic activity through the sale of Highway 407 / Projet de loi 70, Loi visant à intéresser le secteur privé à améliorer l'infrastructure des transports, réduire la circulation engorgée, créer des emplois et stimuler l'activité économique par la vente de l'autoroute 407.

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

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): Just a few comments, if I may. This bill, if enacted, would allow the province to engage the private sector in building extensions to the highway and in financing and operating the completed highway. Private sector ownership of the highway will free taxpayers from the financing costs associated with the highway while ensuring an early start to the construction. Subject to approval by the Legislature, Ontarians will benefit from improved transportation infrastructure, more jobs and a competitive advantage for our industries here in Ontario.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on October 19, 20, 21 and 22, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SMALL BUSINESS

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): It is with great pleasure that I rise to inform the House that today we are launching a very special salute to the thousands of men and women who operate and work in small businesses - Ontario's number one job creator.

Small businesses are among the unsung heroes of our communities. As a former small business owner myself, I know that not only do they create new products and services, they create jobs - tens of thousands of them. They are the lifeblood of Main Streets across Ontario. Small businesses create more than 80% of all new jobs, more than any other sector. They have led the way in creating the 366,000 new private sector jobs that Ontario's economy has produced since the throne speech in September 1995.

Ontario has 309,000 registered businesses. The vast majority of these firms, close to 300,000 of them, are small businesses employing fewer than 100 people. Almost 223,000 of them, more than two thirds, employ less than five people. A great many of these businesses give Ontario's young people their very first new jobs.

What we have in Ontario is an army of entrepreneurs. Ask them and they will tell you that running a small business can be exciting and rewarding, but it also takes courage and determination to meet the challenges. Running a small business successfully is a tremendous accomplishment.

Our government is pleased to have been able to help small businesses create these jobs by cutting taxes, eliminating red tape and putting the economy back on track. A thriving small business sector means more jobs and stronger communities.

We have cut provincial income tax by 30%, putting more money in people's pockets. We have cut personal and business taxes 66 times in three years. We have established an ongoing Red Tape Commission to remove regulatory barriers. We reformed the Workers' Compensation Act. We eliminated the employer health tax for 80% of all businesses. We eliminated the self-employment health tax. We put a freeze on hydro rates. We will cut the small business corporate tax rate in half over the next eight years.

Businesses can now access government programs such as business registration renewals and updates through the Internet, by telephone, in person or at workstations across Ontario seven days a week, 24 hours a day. No more waiting in lineups.

At the same time, we have increased access to financing for small businesses through programs like community small business investment funds, small business investment tax credits and the Young Entrepreneurs Program, which is a partnership with the Royal Bank.

Our commitment to helping small business grow and create jobs also means recognizing that our entrepreneurs have special needs.

Ontario's network of small business enterprise centres, launched last October, is designed to help entrepreneurs face the unique challenges of rapid growth. Enterprise centres are public and private sector partnerships. We have joined forces with private sector companies, financial institutions, municipalities and others to provide information and advice to small business owners. It's a great partnership and we're pleased that it is so successful.

By working with small business owners, their communities and the private sector, we are planning today for tomorrow's jobs.

On this special occasion, we salute the accomplishments and the contributions of Ontario's small business sector.

On behalf of all Ontarians, keep up the great work.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I listened with interest to the minister's statement, where he saluted small business and commended them for their contribution to the economy. I think we all agree there's no question that the lifeblood and the base for job increasing, for economic development, takes place in the small business sector.

Having said that, I'd like to quote a couple of comments that were sent to your colleague the Minister of Finance by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They say, and this was just sent recently:

"We are hearing about devastating property tax increases from small and medium-size businesses all over the province. First it was London, then Windsor, then Aurora, and more concerns are streaming in daily....

"We can only reiterate that the province should have imposed the use of the tools to protect small business, rather than relying on municipalities to be responsible....

"Large numbers of small businesses are experiencing outrageous increases....

"There has been no progress on narrowing the unfair business-residential gap."

In conclusion, they ask that you implement the promise that you made to them to ensure that the business tax would not impact negatively on small businesses.

Minister, if there is one issue that has gripped the small business sector, it is the devastating increase in taxes that is making their very survival a problem for them and putting them in great jeopardy.

Adding to that, you also go to lengths to talk about the freeze you put on Hydro. Let me tell you that freeze will expire in the year 2000, which isn't very far away, but all you have to do is see what has happened at the hearings that took place on the new Hydro restructuring, see the concerns that are expressed daily in the media on the issues about funding the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, of how we apportion the stranded debt, and you will find that you're going to have to impose a tax on small businesses that will make them even more non-competitive.

This is an issue that will not go away. This is an issue that will come back to haunt all of us. This is an issue that you, as the minister responsible for economic development, should be participating in in coming to a solution that will make sure that this onerous obligation is not transferred to the small business and medium business sector. This is something that is going to create a terrible problem for us. It's going to make us uncompetitive and, more importantly, it's going to put the very people you are trying to salute today in a perilous situation where they will no longer be able to compete.

I say to you, when it comes to the business realty tax, unless a decision is taken, I have to tell you that just the fact that the appeal period has been postponed is not going to solve the problem. We have businesses that are facing crippling tax increases. There are situations that have been brought to my attention where their realty tax is higher than their rent. Imagine a situation where a businessman finds that the rent he is paying is less than the realty tax. That doesn't make any sense and it doesn't make any opportunity for these people to stay in business.

I suggest to you that rather than the salute you're giving today, most businesses think they've already got that salute. It's the salute on the finger on one hand and that's what they feel you've done to them.

I suggest to you that this is an issue of paramount importance. It's an issue that has to be resolved, because if it isn't, we are going to have a problem that is going to be totally beyond our control to save these businesses. We're going to have a catastrophic situation where the engine you are so proud of, the engine that is going to provide the kind of jobs you need and we all need - you are going to find that they can't do it for reasons that have nothing to do with their economic needs, but have to do with your poorly conceived tax structure, one that is going to come back to create problems for all of us.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On behalf of the NDP caucus, I want to say at the outset that we agree with the minister in his statement in one way, and that is, in saluting small businesses for the work they do in creating more and more jobs. We acknowledge today that great contribution that they will continue to make. But that quite frankly is where our acknowledgement of this statement ends in terms of what it means.

The minister is standing up today rhyming off a number of things the government has done. We know the Premier is out today visiting in Bloor West Village with a number of small businesses, ironically enough, visiting some of the same businesses that would have had to close their doors had the government not come to some of its senses and reversed its position on the property tax mess they've caused. Many of those businesses the Premier is now visiting, as we stand here today, would have been businesses that would have closed down because they would have had huge increases in property taxes.

That is but one of the examples of what this government is doing to small businesses. Let me go back and touch on a couple of other areas before coming back in greater detail to this property tax mess.

The minister talked, and I appreciated his mentioning his government's support for reducing red tape. I wish he would have mentioned the fact that that's not something the Tory government discovered. In our own government, through initiatives called Clearing the Path, we began that process of making it simpler for small businesses to register. Through sector partnership plans we built up the efforts to work with small businesses, and large businesses for that matter, to ensure there was good co-operation between business and government in helping to create jobs.

The minister mentioned their job numbers, which we know at the end of the day will be far, far short of the 725,000 they set for themselves and for the province.

The minister and the government can stand here today and tell us all they want about how supportive they are of small businesses, but the Premier himself acknowledged over the weekend how worried he is about the image that has been building among small businesses vis-à-vis the Tory party. And no wonder. Given the huge increase in property taxes that this government has set about delivering to small businesses, no wonder that many small businesses are worried, and have reason to be worried, about where the Tory government is going.

I remember a time when people thought that the property tax issue was one that only affected Toronto, that it was only a question of resolving, or, from the government's side, having to deal politically with resolving the issue in Toronto. But now you hear that it's a problem all over the province, to the point that such a Common Sense Revolutionary as Mayor Don Cousens of Markham is now going to lead a march to Queen's Park.

If people like Mayor Don Cousens of Markham are realizing what a problem this is, then many other mayors in the GTA and indeed throughout the province are finally realizing that they have had a problem handed to them by the Tory government at Queen's Park, a problem which they cannot resolve municipally because the greatest reason for that increase has to do with the downloading of costs on to the municipal tax base, the property tax base, as well as the centralized control of the education budget that the government has done and which consequently also results in great increases in the property tax system over which municipalities don't have any flexibility.

If the government wants to talk about supporting small business, let them come to grips with that very real problem of what the property tax changes have done and will continue to do for small businesses throughout the area, whether it's here in Toronto, whether it's communities like the minister's own backyard of Kleinburg, whether it's other communities in the GTA or indeed throughout the province.

Let them realize that they cannot continue with this property tax system and let them realize once and for all that the only sensible thing is to put a freeze on this year's property taxes at last year's rate until they resolve this problem for the long term, because resolving it for the long term is going to take more than a week or a month and, in the meantime, time is fast running out.

We have a bill that the government is still playing around with and we don't know, between the Tory party and the Liberal Party, when this bill is going to come forward so that we can deal at least with the extension of the deadline for appeals, which affects many small businesses, a deadline which, particularly when it comes to the small business sector, has already bypassed us. In fact, October 16 was that deadline for people to give notice of their intention to seek the occupancy tax from the operators of the business. Again I say to the government, deal with the property tax issue right now.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On a point of order, Speaker: Yesterday was Persons Day and I'm asking for unanimous consent for an all-party statement to celebrate the day that women became persons in this country. Is that agreed?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member is asking for unanimous consent for an all-party statement for Persons Day. Agreed? No.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for St Catharines is absolutely right.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. This is a copy of a press release issued on April 20, 1998. Minister, you issued this press release. I want to send you a copy to make sure that you recognize it. You're quoted in it. "Health Minister Elizabeth Witmer today announced the government will be acting immediately on recommendations put forward in the final report of the emergency services working group" dealing with hospital emergency rooms, overcrowding and cutbacks that your government has enacted. You said you would act immediately. You had two months before that because the government joined the committee the OHA put forward.

Minister, do you agree that this is what you said on April 20? Because I met some people last night, visiting five hospital emergency rooms in Toronto, who know what it means to act immediately. They are ambulance workers, they are nurses and they're doctors, and they want to know what you meant when you said on April 20, 1998, you would act immediately to fix emergency rooms in Ontario.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): In response to the question from the member, the member knows that emergency room pressures are an issue that is not new to this government. They were part of the NDP and part of the Liberal government. I would indicate that we have been working forward according to our plan. We want to make sure that when we provide the funding, we also ensure there is accountability in the system, and we will be doing exactly that.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, today, as you may know, there are quotes from the Premier. The Premier said, "It's just unacceptable that the money we pledged in April" - and he said "we"; he acknowledged that you said "immediately" in April - "is not available and is not being put to use in the emergency room."

Last week, you tried to tell us you were taking action, that everything was OK. The workers I talked to don't think it's OK. It's not OK for a woman to have to vomit for three hours because a doctor isn't available, because the room is so crowded they can't through-put patients adequately, because you haven't put forward the money you promised on April 20. It's not acceptable to have patients transported to two and three hospitals by stressed emergency crews, as they were all through last week, because you wouldn't put the money forward immediately. Minister, do you agree with the Premier? Has it been unacceptable that there has been no money put forward since you promised it in April?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We always indicated that by October we would be in a position where we could address the recommendations of the emergency room. We want to make sure that when this money does flow, we can be assured that all of the money that is being flowed to the hospitals will indeed be used for emergency rooms and will be used to improve the pressures in emergency rooms.

Mr Kennedy: Here you are again, on October 19, trying to blame the hospitals, trying to blame the workers who are stressed out beyond compare. I actually saw ambulance workers and nurses fighting over whether a patient should come into a particular hospital because of the strain they have. Minister, you're misleading the workers if you say it's their fault. St Michael's -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You can't accuse the minister of misleading. You must withdraw.

Mr Kennedy: I withdraw.

St Michael's emergency room is still waiting for the capital to expand it. Humber River hospital was closed to critical care bypass completely, six or seven people in the hallway, and nothing's been done to expand that emergency room. They have no more beds in the hospital.

Minister, you won't stand up and defend the hospitals. You won't defend the bureaucrats. You made the promise. The Premier is not here. He said he would make the money happen. Will you resign because you haven't done this?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I believe it's somewhat unfair for the member opposite to suggest that anyone is blaming anyone in the hospitals. I believe our government has made it abundantly clear since we were elected that it is our desire to work with all the stakeholders. That's why we became involved in an emergency room task force with the Ontario Hospital Association. That's why we were very pleased to see that when the recommendations were issued, there were not only instructions for the Ministry of Health but also instructions to the hospitals.

The reality is, if we are going to provide a solution that is going to relieve the pressure in the emergency rooms, it is going to take the co-operation of the hospitals and the government and the public to ensure we can provide the solutions that are needed.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): To the Minister of Health: The people who are working to try to make your health system and your cuts work for patients understand what is needed for a partnership: They need a health minister who will be the health minister.

Minister, you've cut $800 million from hospitals. You've taken it away. You've cut back the rooms. You took away the nurses who served those rooms. It's affecting real people in the real world. We've been trying to get you and your predecessor and your Premier to pay attention since February 1996, when a gentleman died in the hallway in Peterborough unattended, found there by his daughter in February 1996.

This report talks about two things. It says it's your responsibility. The problem started in October 1996. It says that these are just Band-Aids that you're waiting on. You have to deal with the real problems: the cuts to the hospitals, to the emergency beds, to home care, the fact that you won't expand home care in areas where the hospitals have been cut. Minister, will you at least stand up today and apologize to the families of people whose health has been compromised by the lack of action by you and your government? Will you at least have the grace to do that today?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Our government, since 1995 when it recognized that the health system was in jeopardy, has moved forward to ensure that many positive changes have been made to strengthen the health system in this province. We recognized that the needs of the population were changing, that we had a population that was rapidly aging. We realized it was growing.

We have provided now an additional cardiac centre. We are providing three additional cancer centres. We have more dialysis centres than ever before. We have more long-term beds that are going to be made available. We have invested and we have provided an additional $1.2 billion. We were spending $17.4 billion when we were elected. Now we're spending $18.6 billion.

We are not providing a Band-Aid. We are restructuring. We are making sure that the services the people need are going to be there when the people need them, not only now -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary, member for Fort William.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Minister, on July 25, Barry Dunn, a resident of Thunder Bay, died in a hospital in Duluth, Minnesota, following an emergency nine-and-a-half-hour operation. Mr Dunn had been a cancer patient who was doing well enough after his original surgery to undertake a trip to southern Ontario with his wife and his grandson. He became ill while overnighting in Wawa on the North Shore and he went into hospital there. His situation rapidly became critical and the physician in the Wawa emergency room started to look for a hospital bed where Mr Dunn could be admitted for urgently needed surgery.

There was no intensive care bed in Ontario for Barry Dunn. Mr Dunn was sent to Duluth, Minnesota, where the surgery was done.

Mr Dunn's family does not understand why there was no place in an Ontario hospital for this man to get the urgent care he needed. Can you explain to Mrs Dunn why there would be no bed for her husband in this critical situation?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Certainly those situations are always situations that I think do touch us greatly. But let me remind you that under the NDP and Liberal governments we cut 10,000 beds from our health system, but we didn't embark on the restructuring that was so badly needed. We were not providing the additional dialysis services or the additional long-term-care services or the community care services in order that we could ensure that we could start moving people into long-term-care services and that we could free up the emergency room space.

We are now undertaking that restructuring that should have happened five and 10 years ago. I'm very pleased to say that we are moving forward to ensure that people have the services they need.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, Barry Dunn's widow and his daughter are in Thunder Bay listening to your responses today. They believe that the Ontario health care system failed to respond at a time when care was urgently needed. The health care system failed to respond in not having a bed for a critically ill patient, but the health care system also failed to respond in the time it took to get Barry Dunn to hospital once a bed was found in Minnesota.

The air ambulance was called at 3:10 pm, immediately after the Wawa physician consulted with the surgeon in Duluth. The air ambulance service indicated that it would be two and a half hours before they could send a plane to Wawa. It was in fact two hours and 45 minutes later that Barry Dunn, who was critically ill, was airborne. That two-and-a-half-hour delay may or may not have affected Barry Dunn's ability to survive his surgery, but without question a two-and-a-half-hour delay can make a difference between life and death in many situations.

Barry Dunn's family wants to make sure that no one else will face this tragedy. Minister, do you agree that two-and-a-half-hour delays in transporting a critically ill patient are unacceptable, and will you take immediate steps to investigate and ensure that this will not happen again?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Let me assure all members that our government is very concerned about patient services, patient care, reducing the waiting time, providing the appropriate level of service. That's why our government, unlike your government, who said that $17.4 billion was enough, is investing additional dollars. We want to make sure the services can be provided.

We also need to make sure that when money is provided to the stakeholders, there is accountability in the system. We will certainly continue to work with you and we will do everything necessary to ensure that those situations can be eliminated in the future.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. You have been repeatedly asked why the $225 million that you announced last spring to fix the problem that you created in hospital emergency wards hasn't gotten to the hospitals yet. Your answer last week and your answer here today is basically, "We're not done the paperwork yet." So while people suffer, while people can't get the health care they need, the hospital care they need, and while some people are dying, you are doing paperwork.

We need to get to the bottom of this. Minister, can you tell the people of Ontario, has the $225 million that you announced even gone to Management Board yet for approval? Can you tell us that?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I can indicate to you that we will ensure there is a plan in place to flow the money to the hospitals in this province.

Mr Hampton: This illustrates the problem. We all know that government can't flow money until it goes to Management Board for approval. We know this announcement was made six months ago. I asked the minister a pointed question: Has it gone to Management Board for approval? She can't answer it.

Minister, it's your cabinet colleagues who sit on Management Board. It's not bureaucrats; it's not civil servants; it's your cabinet colleagues who haven't approved the $225 million. What are you going to do to get your government, your cabinet colleagues, to put the $225 million in place so people in this province can get the hospital care they need and they deserve?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Let me again remind you that when we were elected, we indicated that we would fix government; we would ensure that the process would be expedited. Let me tell you that by the end of today, our government will be in a position to provide the hospitals with the funds.

Mr Hampton: I want to take this minister up. You and your Premier have been going across this province making phony, empty announcements about health care. Is that what you call "fixing government"?

You announced $225 million for emergency wards six months ago. No one has seen it, and people are dying and people are suffering. The Premier went into Ear Falls and announced $300,000 for the community clinic. People have seen $5,000 of the $300,000 so far, six months later. You announced $36 million to help communities in rural and northern Ontario recruit and retain physicians. No one has seen the money. You announced $5 million to help recruit nurse practitioners in communities that are underserviced. No one has seen the money.

You've made one phony health care announcement after another. Is that what you and your Premier call "fixing government"?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We are very proud of our record. In fact, as I said before, we have actually increased health care spending by $1.2 billion. We have made additional services available. We are providing more cardiac surgery than ever before, more cancer treatment than ever before, more dialysis services than ever before, more hip-and-knee replacements than ever before. Every baby born in this province is now going to be screened according to our new Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program. We are doubling the number of preschoolers who are receiving assistance with speech and language difficulties.

We are going to have an additional cardiac centre and three more cancer centres. I can assure you that we have already spent $1.2 billion more. We have spent more money in restructuring that is on top of the $1.2 billion -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, third party.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is to the minister responsible for children and it's about mental health services for children.

I would say to the Minister of Health you have made about $1.2 billion in empty, phony announcements. While you make those empty, phony announcements, people's health care suffers.

I want to ask the minister responsible for children -

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Is that a question, Howie?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Listen, I understand, and you keep bringing this up. I'm not going to tell the members how to ask the questions, and I'm not going to tell you how to answer them. If the leader wants to spend his time talking about that, he is rightfully able to do so. Don't continue to heckle me while he's doing it.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister, you just heckled me again. I'm asking you not to heckle me. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: To the minister responsible for children, there are a lot of children in this province who need and cannot get mental health services. It's supposed to be your job to mandate mental health services. We know that your colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services wants to collapse mental health services into the rest of her bureaucracy. Can you tell us what you're doing to ensure that children in this province get the mental health services they need and deserve?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): I'm going to refer that question to the minister who is responsible for children's mental health services.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Margaret, you're conducting the review of mental health services.

The Speaker: Member for Beaches-Woodbine, come to order.

Minister, I have no idea who the minister responsible for children's mental health services is. Can you tell me which ministry it is?

Hon Mrs Marland: It is the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I say to the member opposite that I respect that he and his members are very committed to this issue and have a concern about children's mental health issues, but I respectfully request that he get the facts straight. There is no plan to collapse children's mental health services into any other program.

On a community-by-community basis, we have asked the question, "How do we take children's services and provide them in a way that responds better to the needs of families?" We have had some very excellent input from those families. Under our Making Services Work for People, that initiative is actually taking those agencies and programs, and instead of asking families to tie themselves up like a pretzel to meet the rules of agencies, we are taking those programs and adapting them to the needs of families. The honourable member should be aware of that.

We've offered briefings to all the MPPs about what's happening in their community. I would respectfully suggest that he take one of those briefings.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Ms Lankin: Your regional office in North Bay is forcing an amalgamation of three children's mental health centres with children's aid and child protection services in the Timmins district. Those three centres are in Timmins, Kapuskasing and Kirkland Lake. Those families say they don't want those services amalgamated. They say there is no evidence that this forced amalgamation is going to either save money or improve service delivery. In fact, they're worried that families won't go to get the mental health services that they need for their kids if it's under the spectre of child protection services.

They also say, because children's mental health services are not legislatively mandated and child protection services are, that if you collapse the two together, for sure children's mental health services are going to be the ones that will lose out and will be eroded.

The Premier seemed to agree with me. When I put the question to him in the spring about the need for mandated services, he seemed to agree and he directed the minister responsible for children's issues to conduct a review, the minister who won't answer questions. Given that review isn't finished, why is your ministry area office forcing an amalgamation on these services?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, she is aware that the minister responsible for children's issues has been meeting with families and agencies in the children's mental health area to talk about improvements that we can make in the service delivery of the system. Again, that is responding to the needs that those families have articulated to us. Secondly, we are also reviewing the needs of special-needs children who have multi-needs in many areas that may well include mental health.

In terms of the member's specific question on the North Bay area office, as she again should be aware, what we have done is gone to the community and said, "Here are the important principles that you as families have said we need to meet in children's services." Those recommendations have come forward from the community. We are in the process of looking at them. There have been many suggestions that have come forward from children's aid and children's mental health. We don't believe we should be arbitrarily setting up different agencies if there are ways to take services and provide them in a better fashion.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mrs Ecker: We don't believe in arbitrarily putting out a structure if it's not meeting the needs of those families. There has been no attempt to somehow put agencies in the position where they're making -

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: The point is this: The communities do not want this forced amalgamation. They do not want mental health services to be collapsed under your ministry, because they know it will mean the loss of mental health services for those children who badly need them.

The example I want to give you is one from my own part of the province, in the northwest. Kenora-Patricia Child and Family Services, the child protection agency in the northwest, wrote to you about children in the Dryden area who are at risk because they can't get the mental health services they need. One is a nine-year-old boy from Dryden who has had to be sent to Winnipeg to get those mental health services because they are not available west of Thunder Bay. People's fear is that when you collapse mental health services which are not mandated, which are not required by law or legislation, under children's aid, a whole lot of children are going to lose mental health services.

Minister, the question comes back to you. What are you and your colleague the minister for children, who never answers a question, going to do to ensure children get the mental health services they need?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Again I would say to the honourable member that if he had taken the briefing that was offered to members, he would know that we are not collapsing children's mental health services. What we are doing is responding to what families said they -

Ms Lankin: That's what's happening in the North Bay regional office.

The Speaker: Member for Beaches-Woodbine, come to order.

Hon Mrs Ecker: One of the things families said they did not like was that when they had a child who had many needs, they had to knock on a whole bunch of agencies' doors and everyone wanted to assess them and everyone had different needs and everyone had different funding processes. They said loudly and clearly that it wasn't working. We went to the community. We said, "How do we take these services and provide them in a better way that meets those families' needs?"

We are not slashing funding. As a matter of fact, we have been finding areas where we can save on admin costs and we've been reinvesting and increasing money in other areas, responding to the needs of those families. There is no policy decision that has been made or will be made to somehow collapse funding. The funding is there. The question is, instead, as parents have kept saying, "Please give it to us in a way that has those agencies meet our needs."

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): We'll once again attempt to get an answer from the Minister of Health. Minister, in the hallways of Toronto hospitals there are patients who are being cared for inadequately. There is an incredible amount of effort being made by the nurses, but they can't give the same care when people lie on cots in the hallway. Those are Mike Harris cots; many of them weren't there before.

For people who are wondering what they'll be facing when the emergency happens, a key indicator is the statistics kept on redirects, when ambulances can't go, and critical care bypasses, when they can't go even if there's a crisis, an emergency, a heart attack on the doorstep of the hospital.

Minister, six months ago we asked you for those statistics. Again in July we met with your officials. They said they would provide them. What are you trying to cover up from the people of Ontario? They need to know what the status has been. You have waited, delayed, six months to do anything. Why are you also covering up the situation in the emergency rooms? Will you release the critical care bypass and redirect statistics today?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): What we are endeavouring to do is make sure this problem is handled in a way that we fix it, we fix the problem in government that we've had, and we fix the problem in a way that we can ensure that the emergency room pressures do not continue to occur time and time and time again. That's why we embarked on health services restructuring. We wanted to ensure that we found solutions to these long-standing problems, problems that were there under your government.

Even your federal transport minister, David Collenette, when he was pressed on whether the recent backups in emergency rooms were due to the $6 billion in cuts the federal government has made to health and social programs over the last five years or whether they are due to Harris -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - and the provincial government's restructuring, said, "It really isn't anyone's fault." It isn't. But together we need to work and we need to make sure -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Kennedy: Let's just quickly review what you've done to fix the problem. In February you said it was the flu. You were forced to join a task force when the Premier had to go to the emergency room. That task force said it's your responsibility, that problems of this nature started in October 1996. They said it wasn't the flu. They said it's hospital beds; it's the cutbacks.

Minister, you had that report on April 20 and you did nothing. In Hamilton the situation was just as bad in June as it was in January, just as bad in July as it was in August. The redirect statistics show that. Why are you ignoring the situation? You won't fix it and you won't even show us, the people who need the service in Ontario, how bad it is. Will you stop the cover-up? Will you release the statistics on what's happening in Ontario communities today as you're blocking the beds for the patients in those ambulances?

Hon Mrs Witmer: What we are not doing is attempting to fearmonger and cause panic in the community, as has been suggested at several points in time. We are trying to find constructive solutions to what we believe are real issues and real problems facing people in this province. We have never heard any plan from you or your colleagues. We have a plan. We did work with the Ontario hospitals to establish the emergency services working group. We are acting now on their recommendations, recommendations that also take into consideration the fact that it's up to the hospitals to make sure they can improve the traffic flow through the emergency rooms.

We, with our partners -

The Speaker: Answer.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. Two weeks ago I read a letter that was addressed to the member for Simcoe West from one of his constituents, a parent at Duntroon Central School, thanking him for his commitment to save their school. That parent, Jackie Knisley, thanked the minister because he had said, "Oh, I won't let them close your school." Then, a few days later, we read in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record two more of the minister's colleagues from the backbench making similar promises.

The members for Grey-Owen Sound and Wellington told the Record there is reason to believe that you may be backing off your funding formula in order to prevent the closure of rural schools.

Do these three members of the government caucus have some insider information about school closing, or is this just wishful thinking on their part?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm glad to see that the members of the government are getting involved with the schools in their communities and I would encourage all members to get involved with their schools. Indeed, it's my view and it's the government's view that these community schools are very important. They involve many walks of life, recreation activities, social activities and that sort of thing. I encourage, and hope that each and every member will get involved and see how schools are going to work.

For my part, through the Ministry of Education, we've laid out a fair funding formula, fair for all the 72 boards across Ontario, a funding formula that respects the enrolment at each and every school, a funding formula that provides additional monies for remote and rural schools on a fair and equitable basis, a funding formula that provides money to each board for the small schools they have on a fair and equitable basis, and then it's up to the school boards to take that money and determine what's best for their students.

Mr Wildman: In the October 8 edition of the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, these two members are quoted as saying that there's a rural-urban split in your caucus around these school closures and the funding formula. They also indicate that the minister may be getting ready to change the funding formula. Will the minister guarantee that any change he makes in the education funding formula that will allow more schools to remain open will apply equally to schools right across the province, both urban and rural?

Hon David Johnson: As our funding formula has been constructed, I will guarantee that it will be fair and equitable to all of the students, to all of the school boards across Ontario. That is the basis for the funding formula. It doesn't pick and choose favourites or winners or losers; it establishes funding on the basis of need, and it does so fairly and equitably. That's the way the funding formula is set up and that's what I would insist on.

Having done that, then it is the job of the school boards, as it has been during an NDP government, as it was during a Liberal government, to determine what is the best possible accommodation for their particular students, in conjunction, I might say, with speaking with their parents and their community, on which we insist.

WOMEN'S ISSUES

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): My question today is for the minister responsible for women's issues. Recently a very successful event was held in my riding where a number of distinguished women from Guelph, Wellington county and beyond had an opportunity to present themselves as role models to young women in Guelph. I understand this came about as part of the Partners for Change program. I know you've spoken to the House before about Partners for Change, an initiative to bring forward the issues of women's economic dependence and prevention of violence against women projects.

Minister, I wish today that you would share with the House information about various activities that Partners for Change has been undertaking across the province.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): The Partners for Change Network began at the Ontario Women's Directorate about three years ago and it has become quite a successful informal and formal network of women who come together, first of all, to provide each other with information and raise their concerns about influencing young women about the choices they can make for life with regard to their education courses or preparing them for the world of work and their careers.

We are expanding - I've raised this point in the House before - and if any of you have members of your community who are interested in becoming active in networking, please let me know directly or send letters and information to the Ontario Women's Directorate.

Mrs Elliott: We're busy celebrating Small Business Week, starting today. I know that more small businesses are being established by women in Ontario and across Canada than by men. I'm curious, as we're thinking about this topic, if Partners for Change has new initiatives being developed that would further address the issue of economic independence for women, particularly in small business.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Actually a couple of weeks ago we launched a program called Fast Forward. This is a resource about women entrepreneurs in Canada. The president, of course, is Andrina Lever.

For many of you who have worked with us in this House and across Canada - Mr Speaker, you might be interested to know - more than 700,000 businesses led by women provide 1.7 million jobs. It's even more impressive when you think that Canadian businesses' top 100 companies would provide about 1.5 million jobs. So women in their businesses are the producers of the fastest-growing and the most jobs in Canada today.

This Fast Forward resource certainly is made available from the women entrepreneurs of Canada and we would be proud to pass this resource on to those of you who would like to share it with many of the young women in your communities.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Health. She'll be familiar with this case because I wrote a letter to her a year ago on it. There was a woman in the area I represent who was eight months pregnant, went to our fine local hospital and developed a brain hemorrhage. The hospital desperately tried to get her brain surgery here in Toronto and made 21 phone calls to four different hospitals over a two-hour period begging them to take her in for brain surgery. None of them would accommodate her or could accommodate her.

Finally, Hamilton General agreed to deal with her problem. Air ambulance was phoned and was unavailable. She was transported by land and, as you know, tragically she passed away, although fortunately the baby was saved.

I sent you a letter on this over a year ago. You said that I must wait for a coroner's report before you would tell what was going to be done to make certain this never happened again. I've now been told by the coroner's office that they won't even begin this inquiry until next year. That will be over 18 months. My question is this: Is it satisfactory to you that 18 months will go by before we find out what happened, and what can be done to prevent it happening in the future?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I would be pleased to follow up on this situation.

Mr Phillips: This is the problem. I twice have sent you letters, Minister. I did not raise this publicly, as you know, for many months, hoping that you would deal with it sensitively and confidentially. The family has gone through unbearable pain. I have now sent you two letters on this. I have begged you to give us an answer on what you are going to do about it, and today you tell me, "Well, you'll have to wait," before I'll hear an answer back from you. It is, dare I say, not unlike the emergency ward situation where you promised action.

Frankly, any minister on a daily basis would have said about the emergency: "Where does that stand now? Is it fixed? Tell me that we're fixing it." Similarly on this.

Two letters on one of the most tragic cases ever seen. It is unbelievable; 21 desperate calls from my local hospital, the Scarborough Grace Hospital - by the way, a terrific hospital - and they couldn't get her accommodated here in Toronto; forced to send her by land. I might also add that when she arrived there they had to get a doctor from another hospital to perform the surgery to save the baby.

It is unsatisfactory, Minister, that you will look into this. Tell us today, is it acceptable that we will have to wait 18 months before we find out what happened and what will be done to fix it and make sure it never happens again?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member opposite is well aware of the fact that in this province it is the coroner who looks into these situations. He is also very aware that, depending on what the recommendations are, it is then up to the Ministry of Health to follow the coroner's recommendation. I can assure you that as soon as the coroner has completed the review, our ministry is prepared to follow up on those recommendations, and we are anxious to see those.

ABORTION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. Earlier this year St Michael's Hospital took over Wellesley Hospital as a result of your government's hospital restructuring, and promptly announced it was discontinuing Wellesley's abortion services. St Mike's announced that it would require women to go through a committee process already deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, which has ruled that abortion is a medical service chosen by a woman on the advice of her physician.

Minister, as a result, women in this community continue to lack access to the 1,000 to 1,500 abortion procedures which used to be performed at Wellesley every year. At the time, the Minister of Health assured this Legislature that those services would be not be lost, but to date there has been absolutely no sign that her promise has been kept.

Minister, you are responsible for women's issues. What are you doing to ensure the right of women to have access to safe, legal abortion services in Ontario?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I think that would be more appropriately addressed by the Minister of Health.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): The member knows that when the transfer was made - St Michael's Hospital, like any other hospital, doesn't interfere in the confidential provider-patient relationship. Also, the transfer was planned by the head of obstetrics and gynecology at St Michael's and Wellesley Central Hospital as part of an overall process, and certainly there is an opportunity for the services to be provided in the other hospitals within this city. We all know that within the city of Toronto, not all hospitals provide every type of service. This service is available to women throughout the entire city of Toronto.

Mrs Boyd: I'm sorry that the minister responsible for women's issues didn't answer, since clearly the Premier has decided that women are an important target for the Tories in the next election.

But in response to the Minister of Health, this isn't the only problem that women have in getting abortion services in this province. Fewer than 40% of Ontario's hospitals are providing abortion services, physicians are intimidated and threatened when they perform these services, and now you, your government, have agreed with the OMA to limit the billing of physicians who perform abortions, thus creating a huge disincentive for physicians to perform these services.

Minister, if you really think it's important for your party to appeal to the women of this province, it's pretty important for you to stand up today and commit to supporting women's legally entrenched right to choose. Will you remove abortion procedures from the cap on doctors' billings, or will you remain captive to the anti-woman sentiment often advanced by your colleagues in the backbench?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We will continue to ensure that patient access to needed services is provided, certainly not compromised. In fact, when you refer to the fact that there were some changes made to the threshold, I would just like to indicate to you that the specialist retention initiative allows specialists to apply for exemption from the threshold. This initiative allows us to address any possible access issues, and specialists' services will certainly continue to be provided.

I think it is important to know that the specialist threshold is $380,000. Billings in excess of the threshold then will be reduced. But it's our understanding that most physicians had not reached their threshold when the exemptions took effect -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - and I can assure you that access to services is not in any way going to be compromised. There will be an opportunity -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): My question today is for the Minister of Labour. The minister recently came to my riding and spoke to some people there. One of the things he discussed of interest to the people of my riding and across the province was the question of workplace health and safety. I wonder if the minister could inform us of what things the ministry has done to ensure that there is workplace safety.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): My number one priority as Minister of Labour is the health and safety of our workplaces in Ontario. I'm proud of the ministry's accomplishments -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I'm proud of the efforts of our inspectors and our workers in the Ministry of Labour in occupational health and safety. The facts speak for themselves when I compare the record of the former government and the former ministry and the record today. The number of safety inspections was just over 28,000 in 1995, and this year, over 47,000 safety inspections. That's a 58% increase from 1995 to the present. The number of field visits as well - as I say, the facts speak for themselves here - over 44,000 in 1995 and over 63,000 in 1998, which is a 41% increase.

We are committed to safe workplaces in Ontario and this is a government that keeps its commitments.

Mr Doyle: I'd like to ask the minister, what effect have these increased inspections had on occurrences of workplace accidents in the province?

Hon Mr Flaherty: When we first took office in 1995 we made a commitment, and that was to reduce the lost-time injury rate resulting from workplace accidents in Ontario by 30% by the year 2000. We are measuring our compliance with that commitment. There has been a 17% reduction in the rate of lost-time injuries since 1995. That puts us on target to reach our overall goal of a 30% reduction by the year 2000. So we're on track on that commitment and we're measuring our performance on that commitment.

This government is ensuring that Ontario workplaces are among the safest in the world. We're working with municipalities and we're working with the private sector and the Safe Communities Foundation, a concept initiated by Paul Kells after he lost his 19-year-old son in an industrial accident. Over 12 communities in Ontario are now participating in the Safe Communities Foundation, most recently in Owen Sound and district. I was pleased to be there for the opening of that initiative. The Safe Communities Foundation is an outstanding, successful initiative, just one part of our efforts to make sure our workplaces are the safest in the world.

DEFIBRILLATION EQUIPMENT

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. I'm going to ask you about another area where your lack of action has caused a serious concern and crisis in health care in Ontario, and that is the issue of implantable cardiac defibrillators. These life-saving devices were rationed to hospitals across Ontario. You chose to give the Hamilton General funding for 50 of these defibrillators. These are life-saving machines which detect and treat life-threatening irregular heartbeats. These are essential, they work and they're very effective.

Minister, as of Thursday, Hamilton General Hospital ran out of these machines. They no longer have within the budget you allotted them these machines which save people's lives. You were notified in May that this crisis was coming and you were notified again in July. You have let it get to the stage where once again hospitals now have to choose between stopping this life-saving procedure for people or adding to their $38-million debt. Can you tell us today why, since you've know since May that this was going to be a problem, you have failed to act with the proper money and funding to carry out the surgery?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I've had an opportunity to meet with the hospital and they have certainly recognized, as have the other providers of cardiac care in the province, that this government has reinvested an additional $65 million into cardiac care since 1995. This has enabled us to significantly reduce the waiting lists.

Also, if we talk particularly about the issue of the cardiac defibrillators, I can show you here that Hamilton received 29 in 1993-94, 32 the next year, 33 the next year, 35 in 1996-97. But let me say that in 1997-98 we provided 50 and we have indicated that we will continue to make those available.

Mr Agostino: You know this is fairly new technology, you know it's effective and that clearly the need is there. Fifty simply weren't enough; they need 100 to 110. You were told that in May. You were told that again in July. It's not limited to Hamilton. As of now, St Michael's Hospital in Toronto has run out of disks, and Toronto Hospital and the London Health Sciences Centre have run out as well. So you can't send patients to other hospitals, because they don't have the equipment either.

Minister, it sounds wonderful to talk about how much you've reinvested and how much you've put back into health care, but the reality is that as of today, you have basically denied patients in Ontario this life-saving device as a result of your lack of action. You can talk about the $65 million or the $100 million, but it doesn't help the person who walks into or is brought by ambulance to St Michael's or to the Hamilton General and needs this life-saving procedure today.

Again I ask you, will you stand up today and guarantee that you will immediately free up all the necessary funds to ensure that anybody who needs one of these heart-saving and life-saving devices in Ontario will get one? Will you make that commitment today and send the money out today so hospitals can get on with the job?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I don't think the member heard my response. I indicated that we had provided 50 already this year to Hamilton; that was up from 35 last year. In the province in 1996-97 there were 183 provided; this year 273. I also indicated to you that we will be providing the additional.

Let me just remind you that our $65 million has enabled us to provide 16,000 life-saving procedures this year, for a total of 60,000. That's what our $65 million is doing for us in this province. If you people had been in office, you weren't prepared to reinvest, and we wouldn't have seen those additional 16,000 life-saving procedures.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): My question is for the Minister of Health as well. On June 15, you were in Windsor making an announcement about capital funding for the hospitals in our area. We've been waiting ever since for an announcement with respect to operating funds and we're still waiting - no announcement.

This past summer, 230 times ambulances couldn't discharge patients into emergency rooms because of gridlock. Hospitals are operating at a deficit. When can we expect an announcement about operating funds for Windsor hospitals?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): The member knows full well that we did provide additional money to the Windsor hospitals to help them with the emergency room situation. We continue to meet with the hospitals, and I can certainly give you my assurance that we will continue to work co-operatively with the hospitals. We need to continue to ensure that if money is provided to the hospitals, provided to support the emergency room services, indeed the money is being used effectively. So we will continue, as we have in the past, to provide the money to Windsor and elsewhere.

As I say, we already provided you with additional money ahead of time, because we recognized the urgency of the situation.

Mr Lessard: Minister, meetings are not good enough. Funding for emergency rooms and for bricks and mortar is not going to improve health care in Windsor without funds for operating, without funds for nurses in our hospitals, without funds to operate the equipment in our hospitals. Once again, when are you going to announce operating funding for Windsor hospitals?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have invested a considerable amount of money already in the Windsor-Essex community. In fact, spending has increased by $131.9 million. We are restructuring the system to ensure that your constituents in the Windsor-Essex community receive the money that is needed.

Let me just tell you about the investments we've made: to priority programs - cardiac, trauma - over $6 million; in eating disorders programs, $281,000; in hospital transitional funding, $4.5 million -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - in Healthy Babies, almost $600,000; diabetes complications prevention strategy, $170,000; in additional Ontario drug benefit spending, $3,620 million; in additional OHIP payments to physicians in your community -

The Speaker: Thank you.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is to the minister responsible for children's issues. I know you're a parent and a grandparent and I know just how important children are in your life. You also know that I'm the parent of five children. We know the options for caring for young children today.

In my riding of Durham, some young families are choosing to send their children to junior kindergarten and others are choosing community-based programs such as local nursery schools. I know that junior kindergarten is not offered by all boards across the province. Are there other government-funded programs available to replace these programs?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): I'm very happy to answer the question from the member for Durham East. All children need an opportunity to learn and grow, and parents like to encourage this desire to learn.

This government will guarantee funding for early learning programs, including junior kindergarten, to make sure that all children can have a successful start in their schools.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I asked you last week and you refused to answer.

Hon Mrs Marland: All boards have the opportunity to offer junior kindergarten to their families, which is what I told the member for Algoma last week, and the majority of boards have chosen to make this program available. While some boards have opted not to offer junior kindergarten, they are receiving an equivalent amount of funding in an early learning grant. This will enable them to offer other early learning programs for students in senior kindergarten through grade 3.

Mr O'Toole: I'm pleased to hear that you are very supportive of a variety of government-funded programs to promote early learning. That's very reassuring from you, as the minister for children.

All parents want to ensure that they're making the best possible choices for their children and their children's future. Clearly your answer reassures me that there is information out there that parents need to know. How do today's parents know that their children are learning in kindergarten, and what is their government doing to provide them with all the information they need to know about kindergarten programs?

Hon Mrs Marland: You're right; parents want ample information before they decide on the best course for their children. I'm happy to say that this government has made some important enhancements to kindergarten that will provide parents with the information they need to make smart choices for their families.

For the first time in over 50 years, the Ministry of Education has introduced a program specifically designed for kindergarten students. This program sets out clear and specific learning expectations so that parents know what their child should be learning and can keep track of their progress. While it sets out guidelines in language, mathematics, art, personal and social development and science and technology, teachers will still have the flexibility to cater the program to the individual needs of their young students.

We want to ensure that all children have access to a program that stimulates their mind and enhances their enthusiasm, and our new kindergarten program helps get children off to a great lifetime of learning.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'd like to express my dissatisfaction with the answers given today by the Minister of Health concerning the unconscionable delays in funding emergencies and to deal with the government cutbacks, and I'd like to request a late show.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): File the appropriate papers.

PETITIONS

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas prostate cancer is the fourth-leading cause of fatal cancer in Ontario;

"Whereas prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of fatal cancer for males;

"Whereas early detection is one of the best tools for being victorious in our battle against cancer; and

"Whereas the early detection blood test known as PSA, which is prostate-specific antigen, is one of the most effective tests at diagnosing early prostate cancer;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to encourage the Minister of Health to have this test added to the list of services covered by OHIP and that this be done immediately in order for us to save lives and to beat prostate cancer."

Of course I affix my signature to this petition.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 50 people.

"Whereas most Ontario residents do not have adequate access to effective palliative care in time of need;

"Whereas meeting the needs of Ontarians of all ages for relief of preventable pain and suffering, as well as the provision of emotional and spiritual support, should be a priority to our health care system;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that a task force be appointed to develop a palliative care bill of rights that would ensure the best possible treatment, care, protection and support for Ontario citizens and their families in time of need.

"The task force should include palliative care experts in pain management, community palliative care and ethics in order to determine effective safeguards for the right to life and care of individuals who cannot or who can no longer decide issues of medical care for themselves.

"The appointed task force would provide interim reports to the government and the public and continue in existence to review the implementation of its recommendations."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the hospital restructuring commission established by the Mike Harris government is deliberating in secret about the future of hospitals in the Niagara region and is expected to report in the autumn of this year;

"Whereas the St Catharines General Hospital, the Hotel Dieu Hospital and the Shaver Hospital, along with the Niagara rehabilitation centre, have in the past provided excellent medical care for the people of St Catharines;

"Whereas the Niagara-on-the-Lake hospital, the Douglas Memorial Hospital in Fort Erie, the Port Colborne hospital and the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby have been key centres of health care in the Niagara Peninsula;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to maintain existing medical services provided at these hospitals, restore the proposed $43-million cut from operating funds for the Niagara hospitals; and

"That the Ontario Ministry of Health provide additional funding to expand health care services available in the Niagara region for residents in the Niagara Peninsula."

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

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm pleased to present a petition on behalf of the Honourable Janet Ecker, as she is unable to present a petition. The petition is from the Knights of Columbus, council 6161, in Pickering, Ontario. It's signed by Barry Macmillan. I will read it for the record. It's very short.

"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'm going to sign my name to this.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition here that reads:

"The Health Services Restructuring Commission, HSRC, has given notice that it intends to direct the Hotel Dieu Hospital to close and to require that the Sisters of St Joseph cease to govern. If the proposed direction is made and implemented, then access to high-quality health care will be seriously undermined in Kingston and region.

"The sisters are recognized for their leadership in the health care community. They have developed the plan for and operated an efficient outpatient teaching hospital and have provided a high quality of patient care for 123 years from the same location. Their distinct values and philosophy, coupled with the sisters' tradition of compassionate care, must not disappear.

"The HSRC's proposed direction calls for the dismissal of the sisters from their role in the governance in outpatient health care at the Hotel Dieu Hospital. This is not in the best interests of the patients and families in this city and region. The people of Kingston deserve to have access to the kind of quality health care for which the sisters are well recognized.

"Those who must use public transportation to get to outpatient clinics will be seriously affected. Taxpayers should not have to shoulder any extra burden in paying for a new outpatient facility, when the Hotel Dieu site can accommodate the needs of the people of Kingston. Many downtown businesses will suffer greatly should the site be closed.

"The sisters of Hotel Dieu Hospital are asking you to help them in their response to the commission," by signing this petition.

I affix my signature to this petition.

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): These are petitions gathered at the Norfolk County Fair asking for legislation to freeze taxes and eliminate regional government in Haldimand-Norfolk. The signatures are from Simcoe, Port Dover, Turkey Point, Port Ryerse, Waterford and elsewhere.

"Whereas the Haldimand-Norfolk region has downloaded a 17% tax hike on residents, without attempting to cut its own costs; and

"Whereas for the past 25 years, there have been meetings, petitions, referenda, and studies calling for a restructuring of regional government; and

"Whereas 80% of the residents did not want regional government in the first place, and in recent referenda, 75% of the residents of the city of Nanticoke and 60% of the residents of the town of Simcoe voted against retaining regional government; and

"Whereas residents in the region do not want and clearly cannot afford two levels of municipal government;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that provincial legislation be passed to freeze taxes and eliminate regional government in Haldimand-Norfolk, and institute a form of restructured local government in keeping with the wishes and the financial means of the local residents."

I sign this petition.

DIABETES EDUCATION SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Harris government has refused to provide long-term funding for the program 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 attached my name to that petition as well.

GERMAN HERITAGE

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the people of German descent have been a part of Ontario's history since the days of pre-Confederation; and

"Whereas the German culture has always been an integral component of the cultural mosaic of Ontario; and

"Whereas we wish to demonstrate official recognition of the positive contribution of German heritage in the province of Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to pass the bill entitled the German Pioneers Day Act and we respectfully petition the government of Ontario to designate the day following Thanksgiving Day as the date of the annual German Pioneers Day."

This is a petition that has been signed by citizens from all around Ontario as well as a visitor from Germany, and I am pleased to add my signature.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The member for St Catharines-Brock and I support this petition, I believe. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has announced its intention of dumping the financing for ambulances, social housing and public health care services on to the backs of municipalities; and

"Whereas this irresponsible action will create a shortfall of more than $18 million for local governments in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and

"Whereas local representatives in St Catharines and the Niagara region will be forced to either raise property taxes by as much as $200 per household or cut services; and

"Whereas Mike Harris called municipal representatives `whiners' when they tried to explain to him that his proposal was unfair and would create gaps in important services such as the delivery of public health care; and

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing accused local representatives of being opportunistic simply because they attempted to point out that the Mike Harris proposal was unfair and primarily designed to fund his ill-advised tax scheme; and

"Whereas the Harris government refuses to listen to the representatives who work most closely with their constituents"; that is, the municipal representatives;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Mike Harris government to scrap its downloading plan, which will cause either an increase in property taxes or an unacceptable cut to important local services."

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

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): "Whereas the Mike Harris government is placing a greater emphasis on community-based health services in order to better care for an aging population; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is eliminating waste and duplication in the health care sector and reinvesting every penny" we find "into quality services; and

"Whereas this has resulted in reinvestments of over $3 billion; and

"Whereas seniors will benefit from the government's $1.2-billion investment to increase seniors' beds by 35%, including 2,200 new beds in Toronto alone; and

"Whereas $75 million is being invested over the next two years to open hospital beds during peak demand periods in order to handle emergency patients; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government created Cancer Care Ontario to coordinate and integrate cancer treatment services province-wide; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has pledged $24.3 million to dramatically expand breast cancer screening; and

"Whereas 140,000 additional low-income earners are eligible to receive help with their drug costs through the expansion of the Trillium drug plan; and

"Whereas over 520 prescription drugs have been added to the Ontario drug plan formulary, giving seniors and others who rely on the ODB program a wider range of products to serve their health care needs; and

"Whereas the increase in senior care beds is expected to create 27,500 new jobs in the health care industry; and

"Whereas residents of over 20 Ontario communities have received new or expanded life-saving kidney dialysis service through investments by the Mike Harris government; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has provided a $12-million increase in funding so that people being treated in the United States for Ontario-based acquired brain injury treatment can be brought home; and

"Whereas patients in 23 communities have received funding for magnetic resonance imaging units from the Mike Harris government; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has established one-window community care access centres so that one phone call will get clients and their families the information, referral and personal service they need for Ontario's long-term-care system; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has committed $7.3 million over five years for a nurse practitioner university program that will bring about more jobs for nurses and improve access to primary care services; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government established the women's health council to advise the government on how to improve health care services and standards for women; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has become the first in Canada to implement a province-wide measles vaccination program for school-aged kids; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has restored the $400-per-day OHIP rate for out-of-country emergency in-patient hospital services, which had been reduced by the NDP government; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is cutting waste and duplication in the education system and refocusing education resources back into the classroom where they belong; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has set up a new student-focused funding formula which defines and protects classroom spending; and

"Whereas the new formula will result in a $583-million increase in spending in classrooms by the year 2000; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has committed to maintaining spending for the next three years on supply teachers, classroom supplies, computers, professionals, paraprofessionals and staff development for the Toronto District School Board. There will be no cuts in the classroom except for those made by the board's trustees themselves; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is increasing spending on classroom teachers and library and guidance services to the Toronto District School Board in each of the next three years, by $45 million this year, a further $20 million next year and a further $17 million the year after that; and" -

Interjection.

Mr Gilchrist: It's a petition. I must introduce it.

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has brought equity in education funding so that all students, no matter whether they attend a public or separate school, will be treated equally; and

"Whereas the Toronto Catholic District School Board will have $33 million more to spend this year in the classroom, thanks to the Mike Harris government's new education funding formula; and

"Whereas the Toronto District School Board has already announced it will be hiring 400 new teachers this year; and

"Whereas the Toronto Catholic District School Board has announced it will be hiring 340 new teachers this year; and

"Whereas the other school boards, such as Waterloo Catholic District School Board, have announced they will be hiring new teachers this year; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government's early retirement incentive program for teachers has resulted in the rejuvenation of teaching rosters across the province and created thousands of jobs for new, young teachers in Ontario;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed with fulfilling the commitments made in the Common Sense Revolution and continuing to pursue policies which will make Ontario the best place to live, work, invest and raise a family."

I'm pleased to affix my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER AND LOBBYISTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 CONCERNANT LE COMMISSAIRE À L'INTÉGRITÉ ET LES LOBBYISTES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 69,

An Act to amend the Members' Integrity Act, 1994 and to enact the Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1994 sur l'intégrité des députés et édictant la Loi de 1998 sur l'enregistrement des lobbyistes.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to participate in the debate on Bill 69, which represents, on the part of this government, a very modest attempt to regulate lobbyists here in the province of Ontario. It is a bill which frankly should have been introduced as one of the very first acts of Parliament of this government, especially given what has gone on over the last three years.

But here we are, even though it's late in the day, dealing with a bill that attempts in a small way to assure the public that there will be in place measures to protect the public interest and that the public will have access to information about who is lobbying the government of the day, who they are being paid by and what kind of relationship they are involved in with the government of the day, so the public can have some idea, when deals are made and policies are changed, about just who has been there at the door of the government trying to get those things done and, if someone has benefited, how and by how much and why.

It's really important that we're dealing with this legislation, because as I look at what is happening across the border and the enormous power and influence of lobbyists in the American system, I am extremely concerned about just how well the public interest is being protected. It is certainly a road down which I hope we do not go. I hope this is a first step to guaranteeing that the enormous power, enormous influence and frankly the enormous wealth that is attached to lobbyists in the US doesn't become part and parcel of the democratic process here in this country or this province.

I look, for example, at the tremendous lobby effort by the tobacco industry in the United States, how powerful that has been, how much money has gone into individual campaigns and what American public policy is like around this important issue, and I have to shake my head wondering how the American system could have got into such a state to allow that kind of power and influence.

You look also at the power of the insurance companies, particularly those dealing with health care in the United States, a country where by far, in large measure, most people don't have access to adequate health care or where the access they have is inadequate and the coverage is not adequate to meet their needs, where individuals spend thousands and thousands of dollars when a family member gets hurt or gets sick to pay for coverage which in this country and this province we take for granted.

Again, if you look at who is lobbying, at how much money is going into campaigns and at how much money is going to those people who represent people in the US, you have to wonder if that's a road we really want to go down, to have those kinds of policies in place which do nothing to protect the public interest but do everything to protect corporate interests.

This is an important first step, but there are a number of shortcomings in the legislation which I hope to address.

I want to say that I think more and more the public, not only in this province and in this country, do worry about who is influencing their government; are concerned about the link between money going into campaign coffers and government policies as a result; are very worried about how much money lobbyists are being paid to lobby government officials and to influence decision-making; and are very concerned that they, as the public, have some kind of access to that information so they can see what is happening and they can make decisions about the relationship and the link between lobbyists and changes in government policy or awarding of government contracts.

Therefore, it's incumbent upon this Legislature to make sure that the legislation put into place does protect the public interest and does provide the public with some guarantee that all the concerns they have around lobbyists and money and influence and decision-making are concerns that are going to be met.

The public needs to be assured that the process we put in place to register lobbyists will be a transparent one, that everyone who should be covered will be covered, that the rules will not be different for different categories of lobbyists, that people who lobby by written communication should still be registered and that what they're lobbying about should be a matter for the public record.

It's really important that if we're going to put legislation in place in this province, we use this opportunity in a way in which the public will feel confident that the legislation is transparent, that the legislation is in place to protect the greater public interest, not a corporate interest, and that the public will be able to have access to all the information about who is making deals, what kind of deals are being made, how much people are being paid to make those deals and who benefits.

One would hope that the legislation then, if it would do all those things, would in fact temper the relationship between corporate lobbyists and other lobbyists in government; would ensure, because the system is transparent or the process is transparent, that those attempts at impropriety are going to be curbed; will make sure there will be much and greater accountability between government decision-making and the awarding of government contracts or changes in government policy which influence certain groups.

We need to be sure that not only do we put in place a process that is very public and very transparent, but that all the concerns the public has around what is happening, who is being lobbied for what, and why, and for how much money, are clearly made available to the public. That's why I have a couple of concerns about what the bill doesn't do.

If you look in clause 3(2)(c), it says very clearly that written and oral submissions that are requested by the government will not be covered. Specifically, it says that this doesn't apply with respect to "any oral or written submission made to a public office holder by an individual on behalf of a person, partnership or organization, in direct response to a written request from a public office holder...."

The question I have is, why not? Why would we treat information that comes in, even in oral or written form, at the request of a public office holder as information that's not worthy of being registered? That information would be very important to determine what kind of requests are being made of government office holders, and why. Who would benefit? How would they benefit? That kind of information, regardless of the fact that it is being requested orally or in written form, should not be information that is not available to the public, that is not registered.

We cannot have different categories of information that will be registered or different forms of registration for lobbyists. If we're going to guarantee that this is a process that is disclosed, that can undergo public scrutiny, that kind of information has to be registered too.

Second, in subsection 4(1) the government allows a lobbyist some 10 days to file as a lobbyist after he or she begins to lobby. I don't think that makes any sense at all. If we have someone who comes to this place who is paid to lobby, whose business it is to influence government and government decision-making, then from the very first day that individual starts as a lobbyist, that should be filed, the public should know.

There is no reason that we would allow a waiting period or a cooling-off period or any kind of period at all before that person has to be registered and before we know what their relationship, what their link to the government is and what kinds of activities they're involved in.

Frankly, depending on what that lobbyist is about and depending on the legislation in hand or the contract in hand, someone's business could be done 10 days before they would actually have to file. I think there should be no waiting period whatsoever. If you are coming here with a specific intent to be a lobbyist, if you are paid to do that, then from day one, the moment you take on that position, the moment you start to be paid to do that, you should have to be registered and everyone should know that is in place.

Third, subsection 18(

a) exempts any persons who have been appointed from the definition of "public office holder." This is in the regulation

section and it allows the Lieutenant Governor to, after the legislation is put in place, exempt any person who has been appointed from that particular definition of public office holder. I don't know why we want to get ourselves into a position of allowing that kind of discretion to be held in the hands of, obviously, cabinet. It seems to me that we want to have in place the broadest, widest possible definition of public office holder and we should not be allowing exemptions from same.

For example, there are any number of government agencies, boards and commissions that either deal with dealing out quite large sums of public money or deal with information or policy or make rules or make changes that are very important to the public. If you look at the Ontario Energy Board, for example, they will have a major role to play with the deregulation of Ontario Hydro in terms of their role involved in the setting of fees, setting of licences etc. Surely we don't want to find ourselves in a position of exempting an agency of the government that will have this kind of power, under a change being made by this government, from this legislation.

Surely we want to be clear. We want to be very clear that not only cabinet ministers, public office holders and bureaucrats but those who are attached to the agencies, boards and commissions of this government have the same rule apply to them. They cannot at any point be exempt, because in doing that we could allow for any number of people who could benefit from any great amount of money that some of these agencies, boards and commissions deal with or from the power to set rules and regulations they have. People could benefit by that and the public wouldn't know. I don't think we want to be in a position where we allow that loophole to remain unchanged or unclosed.

In broader terms, the government has already said that the legislation is patterned on the federal legislation that was passed by Brian Mulroney. In that regard, it's interesting to note that in the 10 years that the legislation has been in place, there has never been a violation.

You can take two things from that: One, that the legislation itself is so effective that it has curbed any attempt at impropriety - one would hope that would be the case; or on the other hand, you could worry that this proves that the legislation has not been tough enough and that there are loopholes that continue to exist which allow for the kind of benefit to be granted to lobbyists that we are trying to work against.

In that regard, I note that an Ottawa-based group called Democracy Watch in June 1996 made a number of recommendations regarding the federal legislation. In fact, they did a report card on the federal government with respect to their lobbyist legislation and a number of other pieces of legislation that deal with ethics and integrity. Specifically, though, with respect to the federal government legislation on lobbying reform, the feds were given a grade of F.

Democracy Watch said the following: "After one and a half years, the government passed legislation requiring lobbyists to disclose more detailed information about their activities, but failed to require key information to be disclosed and created a huge loophole for lobbyists to escape registration. One year later, the ethics councillor has yet to release his draft lobbyist code of ethics."

The group Democracy Watch made a number of recommendations, which the federal government has yet to put in place, to try and restore some integrity in the system and to be clear that those loopholes that are in place could be closed. I worry that if this government is patterning its legislation after flawed federal legislation, you should use the opportunity now, as we develop this bill, to make sure that we put in place those items around disclosure which will truly capture those people who have to be captured and defined as lobbyists, and will capture elements around disclosure and public access to information that obviously are not in place at the federal level.

Specifically, Democracy Watch has urged the following:

First, that the government repeal the sections of Bill C-43 that treat lobbyists differently in terms of disclosure requirements and replace them with requirements applicable equally to all lobbyists, as in all lobby disclosure laws in the US.

Second, that we repeal the provision that does not require registration if a lobbyist receives a written invitation from a public official to attend a meeting or make a submission.

I referred earlier in my remarks to that very clause in this legislation that allows a similar problem in the Ontario legislation. This is exactly what this group has urged the federal government to close. It is the same loophole that now appears in this legislation. It makes no sense to not cover written or oral submissions under the registration for lobbyists.

Third, under the lobbyist's code of conduct, require lobbyists to disclose how much they spend on lobbying campaigns and require lobbyists to disclose past, paid and volunteer work with any government or political party and put all of this information in the registry of lobbyists.

That makes good sense. It's important for the public to understand how much money some people might be paid to do the job of lobbying government, influencing government's decisions or trying to get government awards. I think it's a critical part of this legislation. I suspect there's very big money involved in some of what goes on and the public should have every opportunity to know that kind of information, particularly how much someone is being paid so they can make judgments about how open the process is and whether the decision-making and the awarding of contracts are above-board or whether someone is influencing and benefiting enormously from that influence.

Fourth, require ministers and senior public officials to disclose their contacts with lobbyists and put this information in the registry of lobbyists.

Again that would work to give the public some comfort that the people whom they elect to make decisions on their behalf in fact are being open, up front, above-board about who they are meeting with, what they are meeting about and what the consequences are of those meetings, particularly with respect to changes in government policy, particularly with respect to the awarding of contracts. Those are some of the changes this government should make with this legislation if you're going to put in place any kind of bill that actually deals with people's concerns about who is lobbying, what for, how much they're being paid and what benefit they're getting back.

It's interesting that the timing of this legislation comes now, three years after this government has been in this place. It seems to me it has given this government the opportunity over the last three years, because no legislation has been in place, to ensure that any number of friends of this government have benefited in a way that the public might not be aware of and that the public is probably terribly concerned about.

It's interesting to note that the government has gone and allowed any number of its friends to do quite well with respect to government contracts, and yet there has been no legislation in place to have that registered, to have that put in the public domain. People should ask, should we have had this in place before someone like Tom Long, for example, received a contract for US$250,000 to find a new CEO for Ontario Hydro? Should it have been in place before Leslie Noble, Conservative insider, sold some of her lobbying services to Ontario Hydro for $84,000?

Should it have been in place before a number of consultants who were involved in this government then were involved with some of those bidders who were bidding on the Niagara casino and actually got it?

Should these rules have been in place before those kinds of things happened? I suggest to you that they should have, because any bill that's going to work has to be a bill that has as its uppermost concern to protect the public interest, to make sure that what people are most concerned about, services and their money, is being protected.

I think it's regrettable that we seem to be putting in place a bill that's a little late, given what's gone on in the last three years with this government as it has moved to privatize services, whether they be highway transport services, privatized jails, develop new casinos etc. We should have had something like this in place long ago so that the public could have seen very clearly what was happening as this government moved to privatize services and who was benefiting by those very moves of this very government.

It's high time that the bill has been put in place now. It requires many changes so that the public can be sure they will know who is lobbying, it will be clear how much they're being paid and it will be clear how much they're benefiting.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments and questions?

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased to provide some comments on the speech just given by the member for Sudbury East. I certainly thought she was very thoughtful in her comments and clearly has an interest in the subject and has read the legislation very carefully. I found her remarks quite helpful.

I also noticed quite a distinct flavour in her comments which was different from the earlier comments in this second reading debate given by her colleagues in the New Democratic Party, particularly the member for Cochrane South and the member for Windsor-Riverside, both of whom seemed to indicate a lack of enthusiasm for including in the registry some of the categories that are in the bill.

I want to point out to the member for Sudbury East that in fact the federal legislation is not entirely as was first drafted by the Mulroney government in 1988. There have been some significant changes to the federal legislation. In 1996 it was amended and tightened up. The number of categories of lobbyists was changed from two to three and our legislation is a reflection of the tougher, more comprehensive federal legislation.

I thought I would make a comment on one of the concerns the member raised, the issue of the 10-day period to comply. The member has been a minister and no doubt is probably more familiar with lobbying at that level than I am, but my understanding is that the federal legislation and our legislation have the 10-day period to reflect the possibility that there could be some spontaneous lobbying take place, and we should be giving those people the opportunity to register after it occurs because in some cases they don't know when they're going to come in contact with a public official.

Interjection.

Mr Grimmett: The member for Fort York can laugh, but that is a distinct possibility and it's in the federal legislation.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): That's one of the biggest loopholes that exists in this legislation, a loophole you could drive a bus or a truck through. I would say to the government party that they should look more closely at the federal legislation, where there are standards that I think should be adhered to when it comes to legislation such as this.

One of the big problems we've seen with this government is assistants to ministers and assistants to the Premier who have worked on a first-hand basis on different briefs, different cases, different issues with the private sector. All of a sudden, you find an announcement and they're gone to the very company they were advising from the government standpoint, and now they're working for that company. I think that should be absolutely outlawed.

We should be making sure the public is safeguarded so that people in government service, whether on the political end or the bureaucratic end, have a long breathing space before they can jump ship, if you will, and go right into the very companies that were dealing with the government, because they bring with them very sensitive and secretive information in some cases that could be a tremendous benefit for those companies. I think you'd have to question the motivation of those companies in hiring those officials.

It's because of that very sensitive knowledge they have of what's going on in government that they have become so valuable. I think that's an advantage they have over others, and that practice should be stopped.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I just wanted to compliment my colleague the member for Sudbury East for the fairly detailed analysis that she provided of this piece of legislation. In a short 20 minutes, she was able to go through the salient points, with example after example, that while certainly she sees and we see some merit in this legislation, it is a case of too little, too late.

What we've got here is a piece of legislation that tries to give the impression that we're toughening up the provisions around lobbyists, that there's going to be a provision now for lobbyists to register and for everybody to know who is influencing the government behind closed doors in terms of decisions they are making. We know, as the member for Sudbury East has pointed out, that if this legislation had been in place earlier, perhaps that might have been of some help in terms of giving the public a better insight as to the kind of people who have been influencing decisions of this government.

She went on to point out, and I would want to concur with her, that while again this is better than not having any legislation, it's interesting that when you look at the parallel legislation, which is the federal legislation, in the 10 years that has been in place, there has not been anyone found to have been in violation of that legislation. That speaks some volume towards the fact that that legislatio