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

May 4, 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

L006a - Mon 4 May 1998 / Lun 4 Mai 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION WEEK

WATER EXTRACTION PERMIT

PETERBOROUGH ECONOMY

EMERGENCY SERVICES

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

MURRAY PORTEOUS

LONG-TERM CARE

ST CATHARINES DAYS OF ACTION

JESSE'S JOURNEY

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ICE STORM DISASTER RELIEF WEEK

EDUCATION WEEK

ICE STORM DISASTER RELIEF WEEK

EDUCATION WEEK

ICE STORM DISASTER RELIEF WEEK

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

DEFERRED VOTES

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER EXTRACTION PERMIT

TUITION FEES

WATER EXTRACTION PERMIT

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

CASINO NIAGARA

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

WOMEN'S ISSUES

RURAL AND NORTHERN PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY

ONTARIO HYDRO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

RURAL AND NORTHERN PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

GASOLINE PRICES

PETITIONS

ABORTION

TUITION FEES

ABORTION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SCHOOL SAFETY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

ABORTION

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

PAY EQUITY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

CHARITABLE GAMING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION WEEK

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): This is Education Week in Ontario. It is a time to celebrate the goals and the strengths and the achievements of public education.

But it's hard to remember to celebrate our achievements when we see the chaos the Mike Harris government has brought to education in the past year. After last week, with announcement after announcement of job losses and the knowledge that adult education would be gutted in Toronto and the recognition that dozens and dozens of schools are going to be closed and that special-needs kids and our youngest children are going to lose the support they need, there is more of a sense of shock across the province than there is a sense of celebration.

There is a new challenge to education week this year. It is the challenge of saying loudly and clearly what those of us who are concerned about public education value and how our values are threatened as never before, and why all of us who care will fight to protect public education in the months to come. We want to be able to celebrate Education Week next year -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statement, member for Algoma.

WATER EXTRACTION PERMIT

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): As of May 1, the Ministry of Environment has issued a permit to the Nova Group of Sault Ste Marie to take 600 million litres of water from Lake Superior to be bottled and exported into the Asian market. The Ministry of Environment did not even follow its own government's procedures in considering this application. The ministry is required to consult with the sister ministry, the Ministry of Natural Resources, and this was not done, with no explanation why from the minister.

Since 1985, Ontario has been required to consult with neighbouring jurisdictions about any suggestions of taking water from the Great Lakes. This government did not consult with any of those jurisdictions - no explanation why. Also, this provincial government has ignored, in giving this permit, the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, in which the federal governments of Canada and the United States set up the International Joint Commission with responsibility for protecting boundary waters such as the Great Lakes Basin. It may be that this permit is in violation of that treaty.

Also, under NAFTA, once an export permit is issued and the business begins, it may be impossible to prevent the expansion of the export of this very important natural resource that we should be protecting.

The government should resign on this matter immediately.

PETERBOROUGH ECONOMY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise today in the House to talk about an increase in employment in the great city of Peterborough. The city of Peterborough has been advised that it rates second in all of Canada in job creation.

It was a proud moment for me to stand today and congratulate the many companies and resourceful people of Peterborough in attaining such an outstanding record. A Statistics Canada labour force survey has reported an increase of 12.7% in job growth between 1995 and 1997. This is more than twice the pace of growth in the rest of the country. This growth rate is indicative of over 4,000 jobs being created in this period of time.

Although Medicine Hat was ranked number one, they have done so due to major increases in natural gas production. We in Peterborough can credit a portion of our increase to far more diversification. This increase in jobs is done because of many small companies that build such items as kitchen cabinets and sophisticated electronic measuring instruments, companies like Peterborough Home Hardware Building Centre, Harco Enterprises Ltd, Swish Maintenance and Strano-Cysco Foodservice. Through their diligent and entrepreneurial spirit, these employees have built their companies in extremely successful businesses.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to sincerely congratulate all the companies in Peterborough that have contributed to this great honour.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My statement today regards emergency services at Windsor hospitals. Yet again the emergency rooms in Essex county are overburdened, and what concerns Windsorites greatly is that despite all the announcements that are now fanning out across Ontario, what Windsor people realize is that all they are is just announcements. What Windsor people need today is action. What we need is relief in our emergency rooms.

On April 18 we called again, on the first-year anniversary of the closure of the Windsor Western ER, for special intervention. We asked for a tactical unit from the Ministry of Health to swoop down on Windsor and fix our situation right away. Even our hospital administrators are saying that while these announcements are fine, we're talking eight years down the road. What Windsor needs today is immediate relief.

We ask for an announcement that makes a difference. We ask to actually have more nurses in the ER to take care of people. I'd like to ask the members of this House what difference it makes to have more room around a bed when you make a capital announcement when we have the same level of nurses, and that is not enough nurses.

If I may say to the members of this House, you are aware of the health line that we launched in Windsor. You know we've had hundreds of Windsorites call. What difference does it make to Windsor to have announcements when what we really need from this government is action? I implore the Minister of Health to come down with real action for Windsor emergencies.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Many members of this Legislature may not know that only moments ago the Premier made a very extraordinary and important announcement for hepatitis C victims in the province of Ontario. I have often said in this House that when a government does the right thing, I'll be the first one to stand and say they've done the right thing. In deciding to extend compensation to those hepatitis C victims who were infected through our blood system prior to 1986, the government has done the right thing.

But let me say on this one that my plaudits go only so far, because I am absolutely disgusted by the way in which we got to this point.

A year ago, the then Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, refused to sit down and talk about compensation.

Originally the position taken by the current minister was, "No compensation." Last week, in answer to one of our questions, she said: "No. No more compensation." The next day on CFRB she said, "We call on the federal government to pay for more compensation." The next thing, she was on a phone call to the other health ministers and she said: "Okay, we agree to the original deal. There will be no more compensation." Then the Premier said: "Oh, no. There's got to be more compensation, but those feds are going to pay for it."

The public doesn't buy any of that. They don't buy this nonsense about legal liability, which is why the Premier now has had to cave in. But you know, it's the right thing that he caved in. We applaud him for that.

MURRAY PORTEOUS

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I'm very proud to acknowledge a gentleman from my riding, Murray Porteous, who has recently been named Ontario's Outstanding Young Farmer.

Murray Porteous, along with his father, his uncle and his brother-in-law, is a partner in the 500-acre Lingwood Farms, a cherry, pear and apple operation. Their operation uses current technology such as leaf sampling and soil mapping to keep pesticide use to a minimum and to achieve a consistency in their crops.

Like any successful activity, farming takes teamwork and creativity. The Porteous farm is no exception, with great teamwork between all partners, family members and seasonal Jamaican workers.

I have known the family for years and worked on their farm during my university days.

Murray is also active in a number of organizations off the farm - the Norfolk Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association and the Agricultural Adaptation Council - and through his work is known by a number of MPPs in the House. He is also on the board of the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair and active in the Full Gospel Fellowship in Simcoe.

I congratulate Murray Porteous on being named Ontario's Outstanding Young Farmer and wish him good luck when competing for Canada's Outstanding Young Farmer as well.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): My statement is addressed to the Minister of Health, Elizabeth Witmer.

Your health restructuring commission, Minister, removed more than $120 million in services from the Ottawa-Carleton area. On Friday, with great fanfare, you reinvested $45.4 million to create 1,300 long-term-care beds over eight years. To make matters worse, the first 300 beds won't be in place before December 1999.

Don't you realize that we have at the present time a waiting list of more than 1,400 people, seniors? Our senior citizens are the fastest-growing population in all of Ontario.

My colleagues in Ottawa-Carleton, including the district health council, are disappointed with your announcement. Would you not agree with your colleague the member for Ottawa-Rideau, Mr Guzzo, that 1,300 beds is inadequate for Ottawa-Carleton?

LTC has been neglected for too long. The last time a provincial government funded new beds in the Ottawa-Carleton area was under a Liberal government. Minister, will you do the right thing and provide us with more beds?

ST CATHARINES DAYS OF ACTION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): It has been an interesting few days in Ontario when we look at where the Premier of the province has been and what he said and where the leader of the Ontario New Democrats, Howard Hampton, has been and what he said.

Let's start with the Premier. He spoke, of course, to his good friends at the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. What did he have to say to them? "You had the courage to stand by our party in a tough election fight and stay with us through some challenging times. I want to assure you that we will not forget the support you've shown us." As we all know, as the government's fiscal agenda unfolds, tomorrow is another payday for the Premier's friends at the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

But what also happened in the province over the same few days? Thousands of people from all walks of life - not just one segment of society, those who are already doing quite well, thank you very much, but from all walks of life - showed up in St Catharines to protest those very policies that the chamber of commerce is so happy to see.

What did the labour leaders say? Well, Maureen McCarthy, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers provincial council, said: "Mike Harris - Ontario is not yours to destroy. It's ours and we're taking it back."

What did Howard Hampton say? Howard said, "We will never support a society where people are measured by the size of their bank accounts."

If ever we needed to see where there's a province of "us" and "them," as the Tories have created, this is it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member, will you come to order. I don't find that the least bit amusing, not the least bit amusing.

JESSE'S JOURNEY

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I rise today to tell the House about a very special Ontarian and to ask all Ontarians to take the opportunity to meet him and support his cause.

John Davidson is a resident of London whose son Jesse has Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In 1995, John pushed Jesse in his wheelchair more than 3,300 kilometres across Ontario in an awareness and fund-raising endeavour. Thanks to the support of generous Ontario residents, Jesse's Journey raised $1.3 million to fund genetic research.

Although Jesse is now physically unable to participate in such an arduous endeavour, the 1998 event, entitled Jesse's Journey - A Father's Tribute, continues the work of the original journey. It was launched on April 10 and involves John's cross-country trek from St John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, BC. John will enter Ontario at Cornwall on July 11 and exit the province to Manitoba via Kenora on October 12.

The financial goal is to generate $10 million to create an endowment fund which will continue to direct $1 million a year towards research to defeat a host of genetic diseases, including Duchenne muscular dystrophy. It is a formidable goal, and I hope all Ontarians will come out to support John when he passes through your community this summer.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on May 4 and May 6, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ICE STORM DISASTER RELIEF WEEK

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): It gives me great pleasure to announce that today, May 4, is the first day of Ice Storm Disaster Relief Week across Ontario.

In early January, eastern Ontario was crippled by a horrific ice storm. Many residents in the area were left without heat or electricity. Property, power lines and trees suffered severe damage.

This storm brought out Ontario's true strength: the ability of neighbours, friends and complete strangers to come together quickly and compassionately to help each other at a time of need. Local councils and their staff were invaluable in getting their communities through these very difficult days. Ministers Snobelen, Villeneuve and Sterling as well as Mr Runciman all worked cooperatively through their respect ministries, along with mine, to ensure that public health, safety and security were all maintained. The staff from each of these ministries and Ontario Hydro deserve our highest praise for the countless hours they put in to get the job done.

Our government reacted quickly to financially assist the devastated communities. We provided eastern Ontario with millions of dollars in emergency assistance. Working with the federal government, we have established various programs providing millions of dollars for disaster recovery to help individuals, businesses and farmers get back on their feet again.

But we've gone even further than that. Under the Ontario disaster relief program, for other disasters, the government has typically matched every fund-raised dollar with $1. Due to the devastation of the ice storm, this government has agreed to match every fund-raised dollar at the generous level of up to $4.

This ice storm has been called the worst natural disaster in Canadian history. The Premier, myself and local MPPs Baird, Fox, Guzzo, Jordan, Runciman and Vankoughnet as well as Ministers Villeneuve and Sterling spent a great deal of time in eastern Ontario, surveying the damage and speaking to the people affected by the storm. We were all struck by how the communities came together to help each other, and I know the Premier was proud to tour the area during the local hero's tour in March and personally thank many of the volunteers.

I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of each of the eight local disaster relief committees, as well as the umbrella committee under the direction of Jim Bennett. The people involved have voluntarily devoted hours of time to fund-raising and setting up fair claims processes, and they've done an excellent job.

We all completely support the actions of the Eastern Ontario Disaster Relief Committee, this week in particular, and fully back them in their fund-raising efforts.

We ask citizens in all parts of the province to help those in eastern Ontario, to open their hearts and their wallets, remembering that for every cent they donate, the province kicks in up to four.

Many fund-raising events are planned across Ontario this week and in the following weeks. I hope everyone can get out, participate and support the recovery effort in eastern Ontario.

EDUCATION WEEK

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Today marks the start of Education Week across the province and I encourage everyone to join me in celebrating Education: Passport to Hope, Opportunities, Jobs and Growth. This theme was chosen for celebrations because the government understands how fundamental a solid and excellent education is to individual success.

Education Week 1998 marks a milestone for every individual involved in education in Ontario. The sector has experienced its most significant change in three decades. No government has taken on the scope of change that we have to raise the standard of education in this province. We have implemented province-wide testing, standard report cards, class-size limitations, new and more rigorous curricula, more class time, a new high school program, and a funding formula that focuses resources in the classroom, on students and teachers.

These reforms have been put in place as part of our commitment to improve the quality of education in the province of Ontario. They will help shape an education system known for excellence, discipline and accountability.

Our students stand at the brink of a new millennium. Their education - an Ontario education - must prepare them for the future. It must provide them with the skills and knowledge they will need to succeed in this new century. It must serve as a passport to hope, opportunity, jobs and growth.

Education Week is the time to highlight the accomplishments and successes of all our students. School boards throughout the province are sponsoring an estimated 1,000 events to showcase the work of students. There will be open houses, art displays, technology demonstrations, science fairs, fund-raising activities for local charities, grandparent and volunteer days, and activities to clean up and enhance the environment.

The Ministry of Education and Training has published an extensive list of Education Week events on its Web site. I urge all members of this House to get involved in these activities, perhaps by attending an open house, a school council meeting or planting trees with kids.

This government is committed to providing each of its students with not only the highest-quality education ever delivered in the province of Ontario but also the best-quality education in Canada. Guided by parents, we will focus on measurable results benchmarked against the world.

Education Week allows everyone involved in and dedicated to education in Ontario to celebrate achievements and look forward to even greater accomplishments.

ICE STORM DISASTER RELIEF WEEK

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to respond on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party to the statement read a moment ago by the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to that vicious ice storm which ravaged eastern Ontario this past January.

I want to join with the minister in paying tribute particularly to all of those who worked so hard and volunteered so much through what was an exceptionally difficult time. I live in the city of Pembroke and we were on the edge of the storm, though many of my constituents in the southern part of the county of Renfrew were hit very hard indeed. The electrical workers, other emergency workers, municipal officials, everyone, people by the score from Vankleek Hill to Bancroft and from Cobden down to Bainsville worked, and worked very hard.

We want first and foremost, I think, to congratulate those people who worked under those conditions to make a very difficult situation bearable. There was much good to acknowledge and there is much positive to reinforce.

But all was not good. I will not myself forget that afternoon in the second week - I think it was Tuesday, January 13 - at a transformer station in Nepean where Bill Farlinger, the chair of Ontario Hydro, with the Minister of Energy at his elbow, was seen by the thousands of people in the region - the chairman of Ontario Hydro - pounding the desk and saying, "I can't get the information, so I can appreciate the frustration of farmers," and rural folk particularly, who were desperate to know what the hell was going on and couldn't find out.

I think if we've learned one thing in this, we've learned that Ontario Hydro did not have an emergency or a contingency plan that they could quickly put into place. To give the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton credit, they appeared to have a plan and they activated it very quickly. Ontario Hydro may have had a plan, but I've got to tell you that people I know and am related to, for example, down in Glengarry county, wondered if they would ever hear from Ontario Hydro as to if, as and when the hydro would ever come back in Lochiel township.

I know the Minister of Agriculture and my colleagues from Cornwall, Prescott and Russell and Kingston, to name but four, were desperately trying to get the information and get it out to the nearly 80,000 people who were out of power for days and weeks and could not get the information from Ontario Hydro.

I want to say to this House, and most especially to my urban colleagues on all sides, can you imagine being out in South Renfrew or North Frontenac or in Prescott and Russell, in 20-below temperatures, having been without power for two weeks, phoning into Ontario Hydro to find out when you might get your power back and being told to call somebody in Markham, where they wouldn't know Cobden from Kalamazoo, where they wouldn't know Moose Creek from Moosonee. To be fair to those people, how could they?

People were mad as hell, and they had a right to be mad. They saw the chair of Ontario Hydro pounding the table on day eight of the ice storm, Farlinger saying, "I can't get the information." Farmers and rural folks by the thousands were equally distressed when they couldn't get the information and they waited days and weeks before they got the information.

I say to the Minister of Agriculture, we've got and he's got scores of resolutions from rural municipalities across the region begging Ontario Hydro to put in place a communications system so that if you're a rural customer, especially in rural eastern Ontario, there will be a better communications network, not just for this kind of emergency but for routine business. The ice storm -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Stop the clock for a minute, please.

Interjections.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Gilles is waiting for his turn.

The Speaker: Order, Minister. Folks, if you want to meet, can you go into the lobby? Thanks.

Mr Conway: So I say to the House, and to the Minister of Energy especially, those rural municipalities and, more important, those 80,000 rural customers want to know, and they want to know soon: Are we going to see an end to the call centre in Markham? Are we going to have what everybody wants, which is a better, more responsive, regionally based communications network so that in the event of this kind of difficulty in the past, friends from Moose Creek and Calabogie will not have to sit and freeze in the dark and wonder, like Bill Farlinger, will anybody ever tell them when the power is coming back on?

EDUCATION WEEK

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I would just like to say to the Minister of Education that we'd all love to be able to join in celebrating education in Ontario this week, because there has always been much to celebrate. Unfortunately, we know that this government doesn't want to celebrate public education; they want to destroy public education in this province. If you want proof of that, just look at what happened last week, with hundreds and hundreds of job layoffs, school closing plans, early education disasters and the loss of special education and adult education. We'll be grieving for public education next year.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'd like to respond to the vacuous statement of the Minister of Education regarding Education Week. The minister says that he has limited class size, that he has a more rigorous curriculum and that there will be more class time for students. In fact they have an average class size; they haven't put limits on the class size. The more rigorous curriculum requires 7.2 credits per year for four years, which doesn't work out to the 30 credits required for a student to graduate from secondary education. How does that work?

And more class time simply means fewer teachers with more students, which means less individual time per student with the teacher. It's not more class time.

The new funding formula has meant enormous cuts right across Ontario. Just some examples: the Limestone district school board in Kingston and area - 40 support staff already laid off; 88 secondary and 35 elementary teachers to go. Ottawa-Carleton issued 605 layoff notices last Friday, mostly to custodians, school office staff and central office staff, but also to social workers, psychologists and teaching assistants as part of a $4-million cut to special education. This is a government that says that it wants to help students.

Peel has issued 400 layoff notices to teachers. Halton last week issued 272 notices to instructional assistants in elementary and secondary schools. Schools are being closed right across Ontario: 35 schools proposed for closure in Niagara; 120 schools proposed for closure in Toronto; 20 schools proposed for closure in Ottawa.

This funding formula means cuts to things like libraries in many school boards.

This is a government that says they've maintained classroom expenditures. The Durham District School Board is cut by $5.6 million, the Halton district school board by $3.5 million, the Niagara district school board cut by more than $1 million and the Peel District School Board by $3.7 million, which is increased to $6.3 million by the year 2000-01. The Sudbury district school board is cut by more than $800,000, the Toronto Catholic district school board cut by more than $200,000, and at the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, instead of teacher-librarians, each school will now only have a half-time library technician.

This is a government that said it was going to protect classroom expenditures and protect education. In fact they've already cut almost $1 billion and the cuts continue. This funding formula means there are going to be fewer teachers, despite the fact that the average class size says there are supposed to be more teachers. How is a board supposed to square that circle? Virtually every school board we talked to mentioned how difficult it is to get a grasp on what their funding really is going to be for the coming school year. The ministry's numbers keep changing. They do not coincide with board numbers.

Just today, newspapers reported that the Durham Catholic District School Board will be getting a 2.7% increase, or $4 million to $5 million next year, not the 4.54% or $13 million announced by the ministry. Which one is right? Nobody knows what the figures actually are and they apparently now won't know until almost the end of this month. How is a board supposed to plan for September if it doesn't know what its figures are, even by the end of May?

These boards are having to cut programs for students, they're having to cut classroom education. This funding formula, along with the passage of Bill 160 and Bill 104, puts the lie to the government's position about protecting classroom education in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Algoma, you must withdraw that comment.

Mr Wildman: I withdraw, although - well, I withdraw.

ICE STORM DISASTER RELIEF WEEK

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I rise to respond to the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs around the aftermath of the ice storm. Let me just say to him and to the government that while we share the concerns expressed by many around the problems Hydro found itself in with the lack of information, among other things, I want to say today in a very non-partisan way that we generally appreciate and accept the way in which the government has handled the situation in the aftermath of the ice storm, in acting in a way that responded to the concerns that were out there.

I want to raise quickly one concern which is around the matching dollars. I would just say to the minister and to the government that I hope that their door is open to the communities that are not able to raise all the funds they need, that they will still be there to provide the support that's necessary.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand the government has just tabled a resolution calling for compensation for victims of hepatitis C. I'm asking for unanimous consent that we have an emergency debate on this resolution immediately following routine proceedings today.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The leader of the third party is seeking unanimous consent for an emergency debate following routine proceedings today. Agreed? Agreed.

DEFERRED VOTES

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Deferred vote on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): We have a deferred vote. A five-minute bell. Call in the members, please.

The division bells rang from 1404 to 1409.

The Speaker: Voting on the amendment by Mr Hampton:

This House regrets that the Harris government has implemented a phoney income tax scheme which, unless it is reversed by the next government of Ontario, will entrench permanently the cuts which are causing hardship for our youngest, our oldest, our sickest and our least fortunate in society.

The first question to be decided is Mr Hampton's amendment to the amendment to the motion.

All those in favour, please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Boyd, Marion

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Hampton, Howard

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Pouliot, Gilles

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Jim

Castrilli, Annamarie

Clement, Tony

Conway, Sean G.

Cullen, Alex

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Patten, Richard

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Phillips, Gerry

Preston, Peter

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 10; the nays are 78.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

We will now deal with Mr McGuinty's amendment to the motion.

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1413 to 1418.

The Speaker: All those in favour of Mr McGuinty's motion, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Kennedy, Gerard

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 27; the nays are 62.

The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.

Mrs Elliott moves the adoption of the throne speech.

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1422 to 1427.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time to be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time to be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 62; the nays are 28.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

It is therefore resolved that an humble address be presented to Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

To the Honourable Hilary M. Weston, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us.

Just a note. The motion that will be debated following routine proceedings will be delivered before we actually get into the debate, so you should be receiving it between now and when the debate takes place.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): That would be helpful.

The Speaker: That's why we're going to do it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER EXTRACTION PERMIT

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Your ministry has signed an agreement with the Nova Group in Sault Ste Marie to sell 600 million litres of water per year to Asia. This is the first agreement of its type signed by any jurisdiction in North America. This agreement has been slammed by the US State Department, the Canadian Minister of External Affairs and the Minister of the Environment, among others. We understand that this also may breach a number of national and international treaties, according to the Great Lakes commission.

Most Ontarians believe it is fundamentally wrong for you to sell our water, one of our most basic resources, one of the most essential resources of this province. We do not think the future of this province should be up for sale for private profit and greed as a result of the incompetence, in agreeing to this deal, of your ministry.

I want to ask you simply, Minister, were you aware of this deal before it was signed, and do you agree with it?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I'm very concerned with the export of Ontario's water resources and any diversion from the Great Lakes. I want to make it clear that my ministry does not issue permits to export and sell water. My ministry does issue permits to take water. Clearly the matter of the exporting of water is a matter of federal jurisdiction.

Mr Agostino: Minister, you have given a permit to a company to take this water and export it. It's that simple. Do not try to pass the buck. It was your ministry that you're responsible for and you did this without any consultation.

I have the application that was submitted by the ministry. Here's what some of the answers were.

Question: "Pre-application consultation with the Ministry of the Environment?" The answer: "No."

"Environmental study report?" The answer: "No."

"Preliminary report?" The answer: "No."

"Design report?" The answer: "No."

"Final plans and specifications?" The answer again: "No."

This was the application that your ministry approved. You didn't ask for the information, you did no background, you did no environmental assessment on this.

This is a sweetheart deal. It has been negotiated in the back rooms by your ministry. You were not even aware of it, according to what you said publicly. I find it absolutely amazing that such a precedent-setting deal that could put this province and this country at stake could be signed.

Minister, will you do the right thing today and eliminate this agreement, get out of it and get Ontario, with some credibility, out of this whole mess that you've gotten us into?

Hon Mr Sterling: Notification of this application for permit appeared on the environmental registry for a period of 30 days. There was notice to the public. There was notice to everyone in the province of Ontario through the environmental registry. There was notice to anyone who viewed the registry that in fact it was there.

Under our Ontario law, the director must consider the environmental consequences of issuing a permit. His particular evaluation of it was that the removal of this water did not have dire environmental or any environmental consequences on the people of Ontario, and therefore the permit was issued.

Mr Agostino: I find it amazing that you would stand up and actually say what you just said, that there was no environmental impact. You didn't ask the questions, Minister. Your own report says that there was no environmental study report submitted, that there was no preliminary report, that there was no water quality report. How can you stand there as the minister responsible for the environment and suggest that this has gone through some process of assessing the environmental damage and impact when very clearly in your own document there's no such thing done? The answer was no.

Minister, you've crossed the line here. Is there anything sacred left that your ministry and your government are not willing to sell for the sake of a buck here? Is there anything at all that Ontarians can feel secure about that you're not willing to give away?

Again, this is the report; this is the application you have signed. I ask you, for the sake of Ontarians and for the sake of the future of our credibility, and not to open the floodgates to basically selling off our greatest asset. Will you do the right thing today, Minister? Follow my lead. This is the document. Rip it up, as I have now, on behalf of the people of Ontario. Fail to do that and you have shown the greatest level of neglect of any minister in the history of the province.

Hon Mr Sterling: My director followed the policies, regulations and laws of this province, the laws as they were in the previous government and in the government previous to that. This is the first instance that I have knowledge of where there has been an effort on the part of an individual to sell or export -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question? Sorry, go ahead.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, come to order. Member for Ottawa West, you're not in your seat.

Hon Mr Sterling: My ministry and the director of my ministry acted in accordance with the law. It is clear that this province does not have the jurisdiction to control the export of water. In fact, that very government the member represents tried to bring in

an act to prevent that. Their lawyers advised them not proclaim that act, nor did that government proclaim that act, because the province does not have the jurisdiction to do that.

TUITION FEES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the minister of education. Ontario university students were here this morning to raise their growing concerns about tuition fee increases. They're concerned about the 20% across-the-board increases you're allowing and they're concerned about the sky is the limit increases that are going to come with your deregulation of many programs.

I have here the proposed tuition increases for Queen's University and they are absolutely shocking. If these proposals go ahead, nursing students will be paying 32% more to take their training, education students will face an increase of 55%, almost $1,800 more, and in medicine, anyone admitted to Queen's will pay $5,000 more, an increase of 124%. How can you possibly justify these kind of fee increases?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): The universities and colleges set the tuitions and many of them have not yet set tuition fees for the coming fall, so to a large degree any of the tuition fees the member's talking about would be speculation.

You are also making university and college generally unaffordable. Every college and university is feeling cash-strapped because of your cuts, and your answer is to tell them to make the students pay more. Don't tell us that the 20% you're allowing across the board is permissive, because every university is looking at having to raise those fees. Trent, Windsor, Waterloo, McMaster, Wilfrid Laurier, Queen's, Carleton, St Clair College, Mohawk College have already decided they're going to have to raise their undergraduate fees next year and that is just the beginning.

When your fee increases are fully in place, you will have raised - just your government - tuition fees by over 60%. Students are already experiencing sticker shock. They are afraid that university and college are financially out of reach. Will you stop the skyrocketing fees and freeze tuition now?

Hon David Johnson: Again, the member opposite is speculating on what universities and colleges will or will not do this fall. Some have actually set the tuition fees and some have set them well below the kind of figures the member opposite is speculating on.

I can tell you, though, some facts in this whole situation about what this particular government has done, in an unparalleled fashion, to help post-secondary students in Ontario. We have increased the direct student assistance from $400 million when we took office to over $535 million today, direct financial assistance to help post-secondary students in Ontario. We have instituted the student opportunity trust fund, a matching fund between the private sector and the government of Ontario, almost $600 million in funds to help our post-secondary students across Ontario.

We have insisted that 30% of all tuition fee increases go to assist students in need, and in 1998-99 that will represent $80 million. We have increased assistance right across the board.

Mrs McLeod: The reason you're putting any more dollars at all into student assistance, and it is into student loans, is because your tuition increases are forcing students to take out more loans. This is all part of the escalating student debt, and you haven't helped with that debt load. You have cut away the student assistance that would help to reduce the debt. You've even replaced the loan forgiveness program with a capped offering to students that just allows you to meet your bottom line and the students to be left with more and more debt.

I'm asking you to focus on the debt load. Surely you have some concern about the fact that your tuition increases and your reduction in support for students that would keep the debt down is going to leave us with a generation of debt-ridden graduates. Your answer to that in the past has simply been, "Don't worry. We'll allow you to repay your massive debt at a rate that your income allows," and even the banks are now saying to you that your plan won't work, because the debt load is simply too high.

Minister, I ask you again, in the name of reducing debt loads for students, will you stop the deregulation, freeze tuition fees and work with students to make debt loads manageable?

Hon David Johnson: What we will continue to do is make sure that students have access to post-secondary programs. Over 40% of our students have access today, the highest across this planet. We will continue to ensure that our students have excellence in programs in post-secondary institutions and we will continue to ensure that our students have opportunity in the classes that are oversubscribed today, that there will be opportunities for students to excel.

All of the money I have talked about is in the form of grants, direct assistance to the students of Ontario. Never before has there been such assistance to students in Ontario.

Finally, I make note that under the Liberal regime between 1985 and 1990 tuition increases were 35% in our universities in Ontario.

WATER EXTRACTION PERMIT

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment regarding his decision to put a For Sale sign on Ontario's water. Minister, on the weekend your Premier told Ontario's corporate leaders that they had been there for your government and now you're going to be there for them. I guess your sale of Ontario's water is just another indication that with your government everything in Ontario is for sale, including our water.

You've been quoted as saying that you are concerned about the cumulative effect of these kinds of things going on, so I'm going to give you another chance. It's your government that has given the approval, so here's your chance. Stand up today and tell the people of Ontario that you will revoke the permit, that Ontario's water is not for sale to the highest corporate bidder.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): As I said before, we're very concerned about this particular fact and the cumulative effect of water-taking out of the Great Lakes. That is why I have called upon Lloyd Axworthy of the federal government to relook at the Great Lakes charter and consider the cumulative effect of taking water out of the Great Lakes, to consider this new issue of exporting water out of the Great Lakes to countries other than the United States and Canada.

Before Ottawa, Ontario has been involved in this debate as a neighbouring state to the other Great Lakes states. However, when we get to the export and sale of water outside of this country, that is clearly within the federal government's mandate.

Mr Hampton: Never have I seen such a shuffle as this. Look, Minister, it is your ministry, your government that grants the permits for the taking of water - no one else. Your ministry, your government has granted a permit allowing a corporation to take 600 million litres of water out of Lake Superior each year for export. Your government is the government that's putting Ontario's water up for sale - no one else.

My point to you is simply this: You could today take the public interest into consideration. You could take the interest of all of Ontario's citizens into consideration and you could say: "I'm revoking this permit. This permit is dead." Will you do that?

Hon Mr Sterling: The permit which we have given to citizens of the province of Ontario allows them to take water from Lake Superior. It does not allow them to sell it, it does not allow them to export it. In fact it limits them -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Sterling: We're very concerned about this. That's why we're asking the federal government to come to grips with this problem. They are involved with the export of water, the export of any product from this country. If they want to limit it, they should; in fact we will encourage them to do so.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Minister, let me say to you, you don't have to rely on a weak-kneed Liberal government. It is up to you to take responsibility for this issue now. What do you think they're going to be doing with that water?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): How many Liberal members in Ontario?

Ms Churley: It's that Liberal government in Ottawa that's about to sell this country out to the MAI agreement. Don't count on them. You take responsibility. What do you think that company wants to do with the water when they take it out, Minister?

There is the Great Lakes charter and, yes, there is a trigger level of 19 million litres a day and this is only 10 million, but there is the spirit of that charter. The United States at least on three occasions when they've wanted to divert water has consulted with both Ontario and Quebec when they didn't have to. It is the spirit of the agreement. You didn't even consult with your Minister of Natural Resources. This is setting a precedent that bodes very badly for us down the road. You take responsibility today, Minister, and revoke that permit. Our water is not to be given away to your corporate friends.

Hon Mr Sterling: I agree that perhaps in the future we need better consultation among all parties with regard to these kinds of matters. That is why I'm recommending to the federal minister that he convene a meeting between the various interested parties under the Great Lakes charter to set forth a more comprehensive policy to deal with these new intrusions into our very valuable resource of water in our Great Lakes. We are most concerned about this and we will take every step that we possibly can to protect this valuable resource.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question to the Premier - and I guess the answer to the last question is that this government will rely on a federal Liberal government that's busy negotiating MAI agreements to give away everything else.

Premier, we are a bit puzzled. Last week, we asked your government -

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: Premier, last week we asked your Minister of Health why your government had sided with the federal Liberal government in signing a so-called compensation package for tainted blood that left up to 30,000 Ontario victims without compensation. Her reply was something to the effect that there were consultations and that in the end Ontario decided that a package was acceptable and Ontario agreed to sign. That's the gist of her comment in Hansard.

Can you tell us why last week your position was that the agreement with the federal Liberal government was okay even though it left 30,000 victims uncompensated and now you've changed your position? Can you tell us the change in mood that you've undergone here?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The agreement to cover that 1986 to 1990 period of time is acceptable to this government. It was in response to the federal lawyers who had presented that proposal to us, and we found, for that 1986 to 1990 period, that agreement acceptable. However, I think as you have pointed out, while that agreement deals with a segment of those affected with hepatitis C, others were left out of that particular agreement, which can stand quite nicely on its own to deal with that.

On the other hand, I think a number, including our Minister of Health and ministers of health across the country, have expressed concern about two things: ongoing health care costs for all of those infected pre-1986 with hepatitis C and, secondly, compensation costs as well. So while the lawyers can argue the differentiation, we quite frankly think a victim in Ontario is a victim, and we're there to help them all.

Mr Hampton: I wish your government had taken that position 10 days ago. I wish your Minister of Health had taken that position 10 days ago. All of those victims who have been excluded by your agreement with the federal Liberal government would have been much further ahead now and we all would have been much further ahead if you'd taken that position originally.

But I want to be very clear: The Krever commission recommended that without delay the provinces and territories devise statutory no-fault schemes for compensating persons who suffer serious, adverse consequences as a result of the administration of blood components or blood products. You've changed your position, so I want to be clear on your position. Are you giving us your word today that this package is going to be based on compassion? Can we have your word that this is not about legal liability or narrow rules of legal liability, but that it will be compensation to the victims of a public health disaster based on compassion and understanding? Could we have your word on that?

Hon Mr Harris: I don't know why you're talking about legal liability. If all I did was listen to the lawyers, I wouldn't have made the statement and the announcement that I made today. Of course it is on compassionate grounds of people who through no fault of their own, as pointed out by Mr Justice Krever, have been infected with hepatitis C. There will be other legal challenges, and the lawyers can fight that out. There will be intergovernmental battles between our government in the provinces and the federal government.

In the meantime, we have come forward so that victims, I think as was Krever's wish, do not have to wait for that intergovernmental wrangling which undoubtedly will go on and the discussions among the lawyers which will undoubtedly go on.

Mr Hampton: Premier, there are a couple of words I didn't hear, though. The words I wanted to hear were the words that I quoted you from Mr Justice Krever, and those words are, "...devise a statutory no-fault scheme for compensating persons who suffer serious, adverse consequences as a result of the administration of blood components or blood products." I didn't hear "statutory no-fault," so let me try again.

I want to be assured that any compensation your government would be in favour of would not at the same time or in some other way take away benefits that victims might otherwise receive. For example, I want to be assured that someone who receives compensation wouldn't at another end of the scale lose Trillium drug benefits or wouldn't at the other end of the scale lose social assistance benefits.

I want to be assured by you, Premier, that we're talking here about compensation for tainted blood, and that compensation for tainted blood will not be offset by taking away Trillium drug benefits or taking away social assistance benefits or other benefits that these people who have suffered a great deal might be entitled to. Can you give us that assurance?

Hon Mr Harris: You lawyers can argue all the technicalities you want. We have put our money on the table in a compassionate way to all victims of hepatitis C. I see nothing in our offer that takes away from any of the other provincial programs, including the ones you mentioned.

CASINO NIAGARA

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Premier, the politician who didn't want to have anything to do with gambling revenues during the last election campaign. Your government awarded a $500-million casino contract in Niagara Falls without first conducting a rigorous and comprehensive background check on the principals chosen for the consortium. Your chief casino regulator, Duncan Brown, is reported to have said that while preliminary background checks were conducted, no in-depth checks are done until the contract is signed.

A half-million-dollar contract involving the operation of a casino which will make hundreds of millions of dollars a year in profits must have a squeaky-clean, extremely thorough, above-the-board process. Premier, why did your government select a preferred proponent for the Niagara Falls casino amid so much fanfare before conducting a meticulous and thorough background check of all partners in the chosen consortium?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations can respond.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): First of all, Ontario has the toughest gaming regulations of almost any jurisdiction in the world. Clearly, what the member is referring to is an

article from the Star. I must say that yes, preliminary background checks have been done by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission. I might refer the member to the same

article which he's really getting his information from, which indicates - and I don't usually like quoting from the Star, but I will - "The Star has interviewed two of the three other bidders in the Niagara Falls contest.

"Both said they felt they were put under a microscope by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission during the bidding process and did not at the time feel that the checks were preliminary."

Those were preliminary checks. The process which has been in place is that once contracts have been signed, a far more extensive, more comprehensive check will take place. The assurance is that if any of the people who applied for any particular position whatsoever in the gaming field don't pass the litmus test, they will not participate.

Mr Bradley: I remember my friend Al Palladini being at the official announcement, my pal Al, and the member for Niagara Falls. There was a lot of fanfare and there was supposed to be a lot of good news, and now we find out that some of the people involved in the consortium may not have the best possible background. I don't know that, but a thorough check hasn't been made on these individuals.

That gets me to worry about your new Mike Harris gambling halls, the so-called charity casinos that you want to force on communities across the province to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to draw all the discretionary funds out of the community, preying upon the most vulnerable people, the most desperate people and the addicted people in those communities with your new gambling initiatives.

Minister, will you not now admit that the process you have in place is simply inadequate and that you're so busy rushing ahead to get these new gambling revenues to make up for the loss of revenue from the tax cut that you gave for the rich that you've done a bad job of this particular process?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Let me speak a moment about process here. To the credit of the NDP government when they brought in the casino at Windsor -

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No, listen to this. They at least brought in a process to screen people.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Unfortunately, during that interval, the member for Ottawa West was saying sarcastically, "Why don't you give credit to the socialists for doing something right?" Well, I am. They did. At least when they brought in the casinos in Windsor they brought in a regulatory function that screened people properly. The Liberal government of Peterson brought in the three-day roving casinos at which there was absolutely no screening available at all. At least something has been done.

The reason for this, and in fact you alluded to the charity gaming clubs, is that the police have said they need the ability to regulate these properly. This is all part of regulation monitoring. This is our function, to assure the people of Ontario of integrity in the gaming area in Ontario. This is what this is all about. I assure you, anyone who doesn't pass this litmus test of integrity will not participate whatsoever.

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is also for the Premier. Premier, you and your government talk a good line about jobs, and I expect you'll do that tomorrow in the budget. But when it comes to what your government actually does, we see something quite different. For example, last week we found that your government had purchased some hats in China and then out of embarrassment you tried to rip the labels out. You were quoted: "Harris said he wasn't ashamed the hats came from China. He said the best quality at the best price is what free enterprise is all about."

Premier, we've done some research. We've discovered you could have had the hats purchased here in Ontario for a better price. In fact, the hats that we found are made by CCM. Maybe you've heard of CCM? Canadian Cycle and Motor Co. You could have had them produced here in Ontario for a lower price. I'm going to hand out one of these hats to each of the members of your caucus today, Premier.

My question to you is simply this: Would you please explain to the workers in Ontario why competitive Ontario products are not good enough for your government? Would you please explain that?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister wants to respond and I'll give him an opportunity on the supplementary. The minister will respond I'm sure with how proud we are of Ontario industry and business and how much value added Ontario component there is to the initial order of hats that were available for the launch.

But let me say this: Your former leader and Premier of this province went to China to promote trade with China, and now you're telling me we should never buy anything from China. There was Bob Rae in China saying: "It's time to open up to free trade with the globe. That's how we'll benefit. That's the jobs. That's the growth. That's the prosperity." Now you come to us and say, "Oh, but don't ever buy anything that might come from China."

We need to know, are you in favour of global free trade, are you in favour of your Premier and your former leader going to China, or did he just go over there at taxpayers' expense to have a good trip?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'll be very interested in hearing the reaction to the Premier's response by the company that's located in Mr Arnott's riding that produced these hats, because I don't think they're going to be very pleased with your answer, Premier.

The reality is that this comes back down to the way in which you are going about creating jobs and the impact your tax cut is having or not having on job creation. Every day we are not only hearing from ordinary Ontarians that they don't see the benefits of the tax cuts, but we also continue to hear from economists that there's little or no effect on jobs as a result of your tax cut.

The headline in the Toronto Sun today quoting the Bank of Montreal economist says, "Tax Cut Bad Move, Banker Says." Today's Globe and Mail quotes Paul Darby, director of forecasting at the Conference Board of Canada, and he says, "I find the whole argument specious...," that is, the whole argument about the link between tax cuts and job creation.

Your tax scheme has taken billions out of health care, education and other social services and you haven't fooled anyone into thinking it's creating jobs. There's still time to stop the presses and admit your phoney tax scheme isn't working. Will you do that, Premier?

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): What do you suggest? What does the mayor of Buffalo say?

The Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau, would you come to order, please? Thank you very much. If you'd sit up straighter too, I could see you while you're heckling, as well.

Hon Mr Harris: I was very interested on Friday to hear your leader and Sid Ryan saying that the only jobs being created in Ontario were $6-an-hour jobs, as I was on my way to Chrysler where 1,000 new jobs, well-paying jobs, were being created in this province of Ontario. Nortel is announcing new jobs, Babcock and Wilcox is announcing new jobs, all of them full-time, permanent, high-paying and I might add tax-paying jobs as well in Ontario.

I want to tell you this: Absolutely every economist, including some of those academic, left-wing economists, has said that the economy in Ontario, as a result of the government actions - they may credit other things too, but this government's actions: tax cuts to create jobs, regulations to streamline the process, investor confidence, that that is why in just under three years Ontario went from the brink of bankruptcy under you and the Liberals to leading this nation and in fact leading North America.

Mr Hampton: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I think the Bank of Montreal will be offended to learn that they are left-wing economists.

WOMEN'S ISSUES

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. As a member of the Legislature concerned with women's issues, I wondered if you could provide me and the members of this House with information on the program Partners for Change and its role in the community.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): To the member for Durham-York and to members in the House, the Partners for Change program began almost immediately after we became the government.

From time to time, I think all of us are giving names or people come to us to want to make changes. At the Ontario women's directorate, we invited people to become part of this group. We are still doing that. At this point in time, there are 73 women who are active to advise the government on two issues that are important to us, more so I suppose than others, and that is stopping the violence and women's economic independence.

I should say that for very small amounts of government money, these members, and women in particular, have levered millions of dollars in advertising. For instance, two of the projects we most recently made announcement on here in this House were the Peace Break ads to support us and help us as we try to get information out during Sexual Assault Prevention Month, the You Oughta Know program and another one called Women Entrepreneurs: Making a Difference. Both of these are just some of the projects these partners assist us with in getting the message out and being full partners, not only in their advice but in their money.

Mrs Munro: I received an invitation recently regarding their recognition and I wonder if you could give us information about that.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think this is for all members of the Legislative Assembly in that I don't think we celebrate success enough in Ontario, and we certainly don't celebrate the advancement of women in business enough. This last question was a good indication. Women account for more than 50% of the startups in business and create more jobs. In fact, they're responsible in Canada for 1.6 million jobs, new jobs of women entrepreneurs who stay in business for a long time.

Some of our partners will be having a reception to help celebrate. It's on May 12 from 5:30 to 7:30 in room 230 of this Legislative Building. Many of the members, from all parties, attended last year. I hope you will write this down and help us celebrate some of these successes in Ontario on behalf of women who are helping us in our work.

RURAL AND NORTHERN PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Health. Last week, in response to a question from my colleague the member for Port Arthur about the $36.4 million your government is supposed to be using for recruiting and retaining physicians in undersupplied areas, you said, "The money is there, it's ready to go; we're simply waiting for people to take us up on the offer."

The real problem with getting this program going lies with you. It lies in the way you've crafted the virtually impossible terms and criteria for doctors to buy into. Instead of providing a critical mass of doctors in a community to maximize access to physicians' services and minimize physician stress, you insist on the bare minimum. Instead of setting a salary for rural and northern physicians above the provincial average, you decreed that it has to be the average.

It's not working. My question to you is: Will you please commit to the House today that you will change the criteria and meet with representatives from the chamber -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, member for Sudbury, please. Minister.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I would just repeat part of what I said last week. As you know, there is $36.4 million available per year to deal with the issue of underfunding and the shortage of doctors. Our government has taken more steps than any other government in an attempt to address this issue. I would say to you that if people are not satisfied with the complement as it has been determined, they have the opportunity to present the Ministry of Health with additional information. The money is there.

If they feel the complement is too low, they can provide us with additional information in order to increase that complement of physicians. Presently there are 29 areas that are eligible for this funding. Only one has signed, five have indicated an interest and we haven't heard from the rest.

Mr Bartolucci: That should tell you that your criteria are impossible. People in underserviced and understaffed areas would be flocking to your ministry if the criteria were acceptable. I have two points. Will you commit today, first, to ensure that the $36.4 million per year for each year of three years will be committed by your government to this? Second, we have representatives in the gallery, both inside and outside the House today, who want to meet with you, representatives from the chamber, representatives from municipalities, representatives from FONOM and NOMA, and representatives of family physicians.

Will you meet with them today, and will you guarantee that $36.4 million is committed, not for one year, not for two years, but for three years?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As you know, I have met with many of these groups already. I am quite prepared to meet with them again. I had personally made a commitment to them that we would continue to resolve any of the issues that were creating some difficulties for them. But I would again remind you that we are quite prepared to look at extenuating circumstances. We would encourage them to provide us with additional information if they feel the complement is not appropriate.

I would also indicate that of the 69 doctors who were recruited last year, we were able to ensure that 62 went to northern Ontario. This government has done more than any other government to address the shortage of the doctors in the north, and we will continue to work with all the stakeholders in order to ensure that the appropriate complement is there.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have another question for the Premier. Last week you acknowledged that Bob Runciman did the right thing in stepping aside pending a police investigation. A criminal investigation is now under way, and we understand that that investigation will also focus on the conduct of your staff. We understand, for example, that Guy Giorno and Deb Hutton told people in the media that they wrote the throne speech, so this investigation will be of people on your staff.

I have really two questions: Why is Bob Runciman the only one taking the fall here, and when will you do the right thing and insist that your own staff, the people who wrote the throne speech, take unpaid leave while this investigation is under way?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the government's position has been pretty clear. I appreciate the member's advice.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you might want simply to cast this aside, but I don't think that happens. I want to quote Mr Runciman himself, when he said in the Legislature on November 23, 1992:

"I'd like to think that if my executive assistant, for example, was accused of criminal activity, I would secure my office. I wouldn't allow my executive assistant to go in and rifle the files a few hours before the police launch their official investigation."

Can you tell us what you've done to secure the files in your office and to secure any other information in your office that the RCMP might be interested in in connection with this investigation?

Hon Mr Harris: The RCMP is satisfied.

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. A group of citizens from my riding in Huron county have formed an organization which focuses on issues of water quality along Lake Huron. This partnership includes the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority, local citizens, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and municipal governments. The preliminary studies indicate that although there was minimal bacteria during the testing months, there was E coli with antibiotic immunities in the lake, coming from a variety of sources.

Can you please inform individuals in my riding who are concerned about this issue what your ministry is doing to help clean up Lake Huron and the Great Lakes as a whole?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I'd like to thank the honourable member for her question. She has, of course, relayed the concerns of many of the people in her riding with regard to this very serious problem. That is why this particular group, I understand, was formed last year, and they particularly pointed at the agricultural community for creating these water quality problems.

A multi-stakeholder group called SOLVE, Save Our Lake Value Environment, which includes my ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, local Huron county municipalities, conservation authorities, the Huron county health unit and Huron's Edge, was formed last fall and commissioned to study a design to quantify where these bacterial sources were coming from. The final report of this study is expected to be released very soon, May 12, and we hope to learn from those results.

Mrs Johns: Minister, I know that this problem is not exclusive to Lake Huron. In fact, all the Great Lakes should be concerned about this issue. As a result of our concerns, my community will be approaching the Great Lakes Commission on Wednesday of this week. Will you please inform us what the ministry is doing to promote good environmental management practices and how the Ministry of the Environment agenda and activities coordinate with our partners in the municipal and federal governments, the environment organizations, conservation authorities and agricultural communities to achieve better water quality in our Great Lakes?

Hon Mr Sterling: Governments at all levels are trying to balance the environmental concerns and the existence of agricultural operations that are key to the economy of our rural municipalities. That is why my ministry is supportive of the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition, and I'm pleased to say that more and more farmers are signing on to this coalition.

The coalition has been working on the development of a provincially applied nutrient management planning strategy. My ministry is working along with a number of other government agencies to assist this nutrient management committee. My ministry continues to observe, as well as working on the general problem, a number of significant water quality impacts from things like manure spills. As in the past, we are continuing with enforcement activities, including laying of charges, pursuing abatement approaches as appropriate.

I would like to point out that the Great Lakes are healthier now than they ever have been in the last 25 years, but there is more work to do and we're going to be there doing it.

ONTARIO HYDRO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Energy. In the darkest hours of that horrific ice storm in January of this past winter, both you, as Minister of Energy, and senior officials at Ontario Hydro promised the people of eastern Ontario that Ontario Hydro would be conducting a post-mortem to look at, among other things, Ontario Hydro's emergency preparedness and its communication policy.

Can you tell the people of eastern Ontario today, four months after the ice storm, if you have seen or received a copy of the Ontario Hydro post-mortem, and if you have, can you indicate what it says, particularly on those abovementioned subjects?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I appreciate the question from the honourable member and would say that I have not seen a final copy of a post-mortem that Ontario Hydro and the government of Ontario have promised to the people of eastern Ontario and to all of us.

I lived through, as a political assistant, the horrendous 1985 tornado we had through the Barrie area and through my part of the province in Simcoe county. A post-mortem was done by a number of agencies, including Emergency Measures Ontario, Ontario Hydro, the Solicitor General's office, the health ministry, local health departments, municipal policing etc. That is the process we're going through at this time. Ontario Hydro is one part of that process.

We have had a number of discussions along the way, and as soon as the document is available, it will be fed into the emergency measures process, their post-mortem that's under way. I have had a few discussions today with Dr Young, the province's chief coroner, and all of this will come together in the fullness of time. We're eager to get these documents out when they are produced, just as soon as they are produced.

Mr Conway: A post-mortem was promised to the people of eastern Ontario; 80,000 or more of those people literally froze in the dark through the rural counties, and they expect that you and the chair of Hydro are going to be as good as your word and that they are going to see a copy of that post-mortem.

Specifically, they want me to ask you this: If nothing else changes, are you, the minister responsible for Ontario Hydro, prepared to promise the rural people of eastern Ontario that we will soon see an end to the communications policy that Ontario Hydro employed through the ice storm and otherwise, leaving everyone calling an emergency centre in Markham, which, as I said earlier, was shown to be completely satisfactory? Will you commit that Ontario Hydro will be forced to change its communications strategy and that there will be a much more local regional base so that Hydro customers in eastern Ontario won't ever again be forced to do what they were forced to do during that ice storm?

Hon Mr Wilson: I appreciate, in the honourable member's answer, his appreciation of the hard work and in fact the human miracle that occurred over a three-week period of time to get the lights back on in eastern Ontario, where 40% of the power grid was on the ground.

Hydro lines in North America, the big 500-kilovolt lines, are built to withstand 15 centimetres of ice. There were 75 centimetres of ice. It indeed was the storm of the century and perhaps the storm of several lifetimes, and we owe a great deal to all of those workers - local utility workers and hydro workers from Ontario Hydro - working with the army and all levels of government and service agencies to get the lights back on.

When I was there for a number of days during the ice storm, we were all very concerned about local communications. I agree with the honourable member that that's something that can be improved. We're looking to improve and I know Ontario Hydro is looking to improve local communications. People were extremely generous. No one was selfish. All they simply wanted to know was when the power would be restored in their area. It's a reasonable request and we're going to do our best -

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

RURAL AND NORTHERN PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Minister of Health. I want to go back to the $36.4 million that remained unspent in last year's budget and which we still have no assurance of spending in the next two years.

Minister, you said in your answer to my colleague's question earlier that you would be happy to listen to a presentation from those who are concerned: those who are representing municipalities but also the physicians. I'd like to call your attention to a letter that was sent to you on January 9 from Dr Michael Sylvester on behalf of the group, entitled "Towards a New Vision for Globally Funded Group Practice Agreements," which details exactly what the problems are with the proposed agreements that your ministry keeps trying to force on people.

My question to you is, don't you read your mail or don't you get your mail? The reality is that you have a very thorough presentation on what is wrong with those agreements and there is no excuse for you and your ministry not to get that $36.4 million out the door.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As I indicated before, we are anxious to work with the individuals who are experiencing difficulties, but I think I need to again stress the fact that out of the 29 communities that are entitled to money from this funding, only one has completed a contract with the ministry up until this time. Five are in discussion.

Again, if there is some concern about some of the terms, we have indicated our willingness to work with them and they have an opportunity to present us with additional information.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, that isn't good enough. It isn't good enough for those communities that remain underserviced. It isn't good enough for the physicians who have told you exactly what the problem is with your template and why there are not more agreements being signed. It's no satisfaction to the 32 northern communities that are underserviced or the 43 underserviced communities in southern Ontario, all of which are looking to you for leadership in dealing with this issue.

We know that the fee-for-service system does not work in terms of attracting and maintaining physicians in underserviced areas. You have stood up here and told us how proud you are of the progress you've made, yet you also tell us you've only succeeded in negotiating one contract.

Minister, that's not leadership. It's about time you started paying attention to the people who know what is going to work. When are you going to do that? When are you going to actually provide the funding that will ensure that these communities are not underserviced?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would again remind the member opposite that we have made tremendous progress recently. We have proceeded further along in this area of underserviced communities than any other government. I would remind you that 62 of 69 doctors recruited have gone to the north.

I would also indicate to you that I can appreciate what it is you're saying. I am advised that my staff have already spoken to Dr Sylvester, and we will continue to work with these individuals in order that we can assure that the appropriate services are provided to people in these underserviced areas.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, you know it is getting to the holiday season; you know it's about gasoline. I think there are a lot of people in Ontario who worry about the price of gasoline, particularly on long weekends.

I know the prices are very volatile and I know you have had some discussion with this before. What are you doing to monitor that on behalf of the province of Ontario this summer?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): As you know, last year I tabled a resolution calling on the federal Liberals to take some steps to investigate gas pricing. Sadly, the Liberals in this House chose not to vote for this resolution, and unfortunately I had to go to the conference without having the resolution of this House. However, at last year's conference that the concerned ministers attended, we were able to force the federal Liberal government to create a working group made up of consumers, government officials and also representatives to address the issues surrounding this issue.

I also met with both the independent gas dealers and industry members and indicated our concern for the Ontario consumer with respect to the volatility of gas prices. Once again, on April 21, I met with the industry and I indicated to them at that time that the volatility of gas prices will not be tolerated. I made it very clear that our government will closely monitor what happens in the industry.

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

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That's it. That's the answer.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Rollins: The small independent gasoline stations throughout the province have taken a bad beating in the last little while. A lot of them have been closing. Is that a concern of you and your ministry, to make sure that those small retailers still stay in business?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's always been our contention, and has been the contention both of the previous NDP government and also the Liberal government when they formed the government in the province, that this was a federal issue and that the Liberals in Ottawa should certainly take the lead. Sadly, that has not been the case.

The small independent dealers in the province are feeling the pinch. Clearly this new policy of the federal Liberal government in which they are indicating they're going to impose another tax upon the people of Ontario for oil spillage, and making this retroactive, is going to have an end result of about 3,000 of these independent dealers either filing for bankruptcy or laying off people. This is clearly another tax on the economy of the province of Ontario.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There was a din of noise around when the minister was trying to speak, and I was wondering whether he said he was bringing in a provincial predatory pricing bill to prevent the gouging of these poor independents in Ontario. Did you hear that or didn't you?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): That is not a point of order.

PETITIONS

ABORTION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a petition from 91 constituents in my riding. The petition reads:

"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."

TUITION FEES

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I have a petition that is signed by 15,000 university and college students in the province of Ontario, demanding a tuition fee freeze. It was provided to me by Wayne Poirier of the Canadian Federation of Students this morning. It says as follows:

"Whereas tuition fees have risen by more than 140% over the past 10 years; and

"Whereas the increases in the cost of living have stayed at 2% per year or less since 1986, while tuition has increased anywhere from 7% to 20% per year; and

"Whereas high tuition fees are a barrier to accessing post-secondary education, especially among students from low-income backgrounds, students with parental responsibilities and students with special needs; and

"Whereas students are now paying in excess of 40% of the operating costs of universities and colleges; and

"Whereas the quality of education, due in part to the erosion of facilities and the increasing of class sizes, has deteriorated;

"We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to implement an immediate tuition freeze."

I'm happy to sign my name in agreement to this petition.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I have a petition from Knights of Columbus council 6361 in Bowmanville, such members as Corry Van Lith, Ken Boone, Frank Lee and others, 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, illness or injury and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

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

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to affix my name to this petition.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have a petition that's signed by a number of residents from Belle River, Woodslee and Essex.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my signature to this.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions forwarded to me by Cathy Walker, who's the national health and safety director of CAW Canada, signed by a members of that union from diverse communities such as Windsor, Brampton, Hamilton, Cambridge - virtually right across the province. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas each year in Ontario approximately 300 workers are killed on the job, several thousand die of occupational diseases and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas during the past decade the Workers' Health and Safety Centre proved to be the most cost-effective WCB-funded prevention organization dedicated to worker health and safety concerns; and

"Whereas the WCB provides over 80% of its legislated prevention funding to several employer-controlled safety associations and less than 20% to the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre recently lost several million dollars in funding and course revenue due to government changes to legislated training requirements; and

"Whereas 30% of Workers' Health and Safety Centre staff were laid off due to these lost training funds; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre now faces an additional 25% cut to its 1998 budget, which will be used to augment new funding for employer safety associations in the health, education and services sector; and

"Whereas the WCB's 1998 planned baseline budget cuts for safety associations and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre will be disproportionately against the workers' centre and reduce its 1998 budget allocation to less than 15% of the WCB prevention funding;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the WCB's proposed cuts and direct the WCB to increase the Workers' Health and Safety Centre's funding to at least 50% of the WCB's legislated prevention funding; and

"Further we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the WCB to significantly increase its legislated prevention funding in order to eliminate workplace illness, injury and death."

I proudly add my name to those of these workers.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition here signed by a number of Ontarians. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas all schools in Ontario should be safe learning and working environments; and

"Whereas all Ontarians should be assured that safe school programs are in place in all Ontario schools; and

"Whereas a private member's bill has been drafted entitled

An Act to Promote Safety in Ontario Schools and Create Positive Learning Environments for Ontario Students, 1998; and

"Whereas this bill will:

"Require all boards in Ontario to design and implement school safety programs, school codes of conduct and anti-vandalism policies;

"Provide for effective early intervention strategies by requiring boards to design and implement anti-bullying policies and by providing boards with the ability to direct psychological assessments of students that they believe are at risk;

"Provide a provincial violence and weapons-free schools policy and allow boards the ability to exclude violent students from regular classroom settings;

"Give police the tools they need by creating a new provincial offence for trespassing on school property and backing it up with real consequences;

"Direct all boards in Ontario to design and implement alternative education programs for suspended and excluded students;

"Require parents to be liable for any damage done to school property by their children; and

"Protect teachers and staff from civil liability;

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

"To pass into law the Safe Schools Act, 1998, as quickly as possible."

I have signed my name to the petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition signed by hundreds of constituents who are very concerned about the provision of long-term-care services in Thunder Bay, northwestern Ontario and the province. They're still very concerned because of the announcement last week which was woefully inadequate in terms of the provision of long-term beds in the next eight years. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Thunder Bay and district are suffering from serious deterioration in our health care system because of the closing of hospital beds before community services and long-term-care facilities are available,

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make it an urgent priority to provide more long-term-care services in the home and to provide a sufficient number of long-term-care institutional beds and staff in order to restore the standards of health care to an acceptable level."

I'm very pleased to sign my name to that petition.

ABORTION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition that's signed by a number of residents who live in the regional municipality of Sudbury. It reads as follows:

"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."

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I have a petition that is signed by many people in York region. It relates to chiropractic services. It reads in part:

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

I'm pleased to add my name to this petition.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"We are very concerned about the Red Cross pay equity issue. We are asking the three party leaders to put people before politics and come together in a non-partisan effort to resolve the homemakers' services pay equity problem.

"The legislation affects Red Cross differently than any other provider of homemaker services in Ontario and makes it impossible for the society to compete on a level playing field."

I've attached my name to that petition as well.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas approximately 300 workers are killed on the job each year and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario continues to allow a massive erosion of WCB prevention funding; and

"Whereas Ontario workers are fearful that the government of Ontario, through its recent initiatives, is threatening to dismantle workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have consistently provided a meaningful role for labour within the health and safety prevention system; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have proven to be the most cost-effective prevention organizations funded by the WCB;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately cease the assault on the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Further we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre remain labour-driven organizations with full and equitable WCB funding and that the WCB provide adequate prevention funding to eliminate workplace illness and injury."

That's signed by workers from all over the province of Ontario - Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): My petition today is from the people of North York, Don Mills and Thornhill. What it's talking about is health care workers and ethical standards. Part of the petition urges us:

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

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is trying to impose so-called charity casinos on 44 communities across Ontario as a vehicle to make profits from gambling for government coffers; and

"Whereas these gambling halls will bleed from the communities on which they are imposed the discretionary dollars which might otherwise be spent on goods and services; and

"Whereas the Harris government is attempting to bribe cash-strapped municipalities to accept the new gambling halls by promising to pay a so-called administration fee to operate slot machines in the casinos; and

"Whereas the Harris government is attempting to coerce municipalities into accepting the new 24-hour-a-day, seven-days-a-week gambling halls by suggesting that charities may not receive funding;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the Mike Harris government to halt the imposition of new gambling halls, so-called charity casinos, on communities across Ontario."

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

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I want to correct my own record. I was just outside talking to someone, and apparently in my question this afternoon to the Minister of Energy - I believe I said that the call centre at Markham was completely unsatisfactory. That's certainly what I meant; I meant unsatisfactory. If it was heard to be "satisfactory," I want to correct the record, because certainly my view and that of my constituents is that the Markham call centre was unsatisfactory, and that's the word I want to make clear is in Hansard.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): With regard to this afternoon's proceedings, I believe we have unanimous consent of all parties to follow this procedure: (1) that the Premier be permitted to move the motion without notice with respect to the hepatitis C compensation; (2) that the time available this afternoon for debate be divided equally among the parties; and (3) that at 5:55 pm the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put the question without further debate, and that if a recorded vote is requested, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes. I believe I would ask unanimous consent for that to be agreed upon.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it agreed? It is agreed.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I would like to move the following resolution:

That the Legislative Assembly support the Ontario government's call for a compensation package for Ontarians who were infected with the hepatitis C virus through the blood system prior to 1986, and that pending a resolution of federal liability for the contaminated blood problem, Ontario agree in the interim that such new package be funded by Ontario and the federal government on the same basis as the federal-provincial agreement covering 1986 to 1990.

I'll speak briefly, because I think a number of members from all parties will want to speak today. I think the motion is pretty straightforward and stands on its own. We have also communicated this motion by way of press release today, and I think there is an understanding across the province among other legislatures and indeed the federal government that through the cooperation of this Legislature this motion is being facilitated to be debated and voted upon today.

I want to say that following Mr Justice Krever's report, a thorough examination, I think, over the period of a few years - it was day after day; I don't think anybody felt that his examination was anything less than thorough and exhaustive - he made some recommendations to the Red Cross, to the federal government and to the provincial governments as to how, in his view, given all the evidence he had heard, hepatitis C victims ought to be treated within Canada, both from a health care point of view and from a compensation point of view.

It was his hope and his wish and his desire and his recommendation that the issue of compensation would be one that could be dealt with without the courts and having to go through the legal system.

I think the federal government and the provincial governments, through their ministers of health across the country, with the very best of intentions, began to tackle this issue. I might add that this is not a simple issue; it is complicated. I respect that. I respect the fact that lawyers will have given a substantial amount of advice on the implications of 1986 and pre-1986 and will have provided lots of legal opinions and lots of cautions. I can tell you, were I to follow all those, I would not be introducing this motion today and we would not be debating it.

This is an issue that goes beyond lawyers and legal obligations and Krever's recommendations. This is an issue of people who, through no fault of their own, are facing a great deal of difficulty, of hardship, of uncertainty, and we have been asked to respond to this by Krever. We have been asked by our constituents and we have been asked, of course, by the victims to do the right thing.

When the ministers came together, the decision they reached post-1986 really was a collective offer to be made to those victims of hepatitis C who contracted it post-1986 for that 1986-90 period. The issue was not closed. It had not been formally accepted. It may not have been accepted by anybody or it may have been accepted by some and not others. This notion that somehow or other the issue was closed is simply not true. Even for that period of time, to those people who contracted hepatitis C, it was an offer made in genuine good faith by the provinces and by the federal government.

We do not believe, and it's not integral to this motion and this resolution because I think the matter of federal and provincial governments arguing about who should pay - this is a debate that goes on ad infinitum: health care costs; the sharing of it; taxes; who has the ability to pay for what, who doesn't; who has responsibility, who doesn't; who has jurisdiction, who doesn't. Clearly what I have found from talking to Ontarians is that they don't care - that's between governments. It's all their money.

They're taxpayers, they are citizens here in Ontario, and they want the federal and provincial governments to work together on these issues. They don't like the arguing back and forth, one government to another.

None the less, clearly there is a fundamental disagreement here among the provincial ministers of health, the provincial ministers of finance and the provincial Premiers, and the federal Minister of Health and the federal Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister of Canada. There is a fundamental disagreement on who is funding health care at what level and who needs to be held accountable.

There is also a fundamental disagreement on pre-1986 compensation. This is not something that's new, this isn't a new announcement by this government. When the previous deal was arrived at that dealt with post-1986 which we were asked to respond to by the federal lawyers and the federal government and the federal Minister of Health, immediately the issue became, "All right, what about this group that was left out of that deal?" That has been on the table, certainly for the hepatitis C victims across Canada, certainly for those in Ontario, certainly for our Minister of Health and for our government.

Here is where we had a difference, and it was very clear to us over the weekend that there was a marked difference: One government felt the file was closed - "Thank you very much, we've satisfied the lawyers and the legal obligation" - and yet across the country, the government of Quebec, ourselves in Ontario, and British Columbia, and certainly representatives of various governments all across the country said: "Wait a second, this file's not closed. There is a group who was referenced, certainly in Krever's report and in Krever's study, and there is a group who through no fault of their own are not covered by that existing agreement."

I was asked today, and I do not for a minute believe we will end up in this position: "What happens if we're all alone? What happens if there is no federal government?" Our offer will stand. The offer that we've put on the table, if matched by the federal government, will parallel the previous agreement for 1986-90. Those who will know, by way of compensation it works out to about 30% of the compensation money. You will also be aware that the provinces are picking up 100% of the health care dollars when there is liability or fault. In the case of WCB or insurance companies, we expect to recover those costs, if there is somebody that is liable.

Clearly we have been named as potentially liable for part. The Red Cross, as I indicated at the start, is liable. Unfortunately for victims there is not a substantial amount of compensation available there. So it does fall quite practically, if not legally, on the federal government and on the provincial government.

We will, perish the thought, if we go alone, make that offer. We will proceed with what will amount to about 30% of the compensation as Ontario's share. We will do everything we can, both through legal action and otherwise, to recover on behalf of the hepatitis C victims the other 70% that we believe is theirs.

The package to date in estimated costs is $2.7 billion - $1.9 billion from the provinces. That's made up of $1.6 billion in health care costs and $300 million in compensation, and $800 million from the federal government - $1.9 billion from the provinces, $800 million from the federal government.

I say to the federal government, if you look at the evidence that is before us, and the lawyers can argue - I'm not supposed to get into the legal arguments, but if you look at the evidence that has been presented, clearly there is a liability on the federal government at least equal to the liability among the provinces. That is my own view, that is not a legal view, from the evidence that has been presented and from what I believe Mr Justice Krever has put forward.

I call on the federal government and I call on the other provinces. I'm prepared to say this: Even with, pre-tomorrow anyway, a $5-billion deficit in the province of Ontario - there may be some other provinces that would find this monetarily beyond their reach and I say that is up to the federal government to respond to. This is a Canadian problem. The federal government has the lead there. We have responded to their lead. They have failed to move forward with a second, equally as important, part of this package for those victims with hepatitis C.

I am confident that unanimous action and resolution of this in a non-partisan way from all in this House can assist in, as I say, breaking that logjam and bringing the federal government to accept its responsibility. I close with this: I invite and welcome assistance from all members of the Legislature, from all sides of the House, in helping us with this effort.

But I have to say, if it is legal action, we are prepared to proceed legally with any means we can find at our disposal - we have lawyers both inside and outside of government looking at that now - if that is required, particularly if it's required to get the assistance that should come as well from the federal government to those victims of hepatitis C, not only in the province of Ontario but indeed across this country.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It is indeed a pleasure, on behalf of the Ontario Liberal Party, to rise and support the idea and the concept that we believe are the core of the resolution here today, which is very simply, without the legalese to be found in the resolution itself, that the people who were infected, who were poisoned by the official blood system in this country, deserve, in the words of Horace Krever, "compensation without distinction"; whether it be AIDS or HIV infection or whether it be hepatitis C, that there is no legal, moral or other basis to make a distinction between them.

We also see in this resolution, at the core, a very important principle, one raised in this House last week by Dalton McGuinty, the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, that it certainly would not be sufficient for this Legislature to simply recognize the need for full and fair compensation but that there had to be action on the part of this Legislature, and particularly on the part of the government, to put forward the funds necessary to enable a response. So we welcome that distinction, I think, which is in this resolution today and which makes it the basis possible for our support.

It is extremely important that we try, on behalf of blood victims in Ontario and indeed across the country, not to make this look like a political football that has been tossed from partisan politician to partisan politician, which I'm afraid it already has the aspect of. Meanwhile, people who suffer from the blood-tainted transfusions, whichever disease, have been waiting. They have waited three years for the Krever inquiry. They have waited as many as 12 years since the point of their infection.

So it is with a very, very strong sense that this is an issue which we're called upon, in our duty as elected officials - not so much as party members and not so much as people with conspicuous axes to grind - to do right by the people who have been affected in that fashion.

We look forward to this not being a wrinkle in the ongoing ping-pong game between various versions of "He said," and "She said," but rather, instead, something that will stay true to that basic principle that it is time the victims became front and centre to this debate. It's time that the people, the Jeremy Beatys, the other people who find themselves through no fault of their own unable to depend upon the system that anyone in this Legislature, indeed anyone in the province, could come to depend on: the blood system, the transfusions you receive in hospital and the other emergency medical services we have in this province.

It is vital, I think, that we keep that in front of us, that in the spirit of this resolution we not concern ourselves overly much with words like "pending resolution of federal liability." We know in this House the Ontario government is named on every lawsuit, in every legal action concerning these matters. There is liability in this House and on the part of us as representatives, on the part of the government and the people of Ontario.

We choose not to focus on, to dwell on what singling out the federal government in this resolution may mean, because we believe that the government, in changing its position today, has taken a step that public opinion will not permit any of us to get out from under, and that is that the victims will come first.

Similarly, when we look at words like "interim assistance" or "in the interim" that the funding be provided, we don't think that will be used in a fashion to change the nature of the spirit of this resolution and it won't be used to delay or hold back or get in the way of any potential resolution that could be forthcoming in the days ahead.

It is extremely important for the people of Ontario and indeed for the members of this Legislature that we recognize that certain developments have occurred. What we hear - and I again wish to congratulate the Premier today - are words that the people of Ontario want to hear from their Premier when it comes to a matter such as this. These are the words: that there will be action taken, that the government will support its outlook with responsibility, taking action.

That is extremely important, what we take as the thrust the action which is being taken today. Certainly, to those members of the Ontario public who are infected by hepatitis C, we make that pledge to ensure that this resolution becomes the basis for a solution, that we will engage ourselves vigorously to make sure this is taken up by all levels of government in the spirit we've talked about and that we don't bog down in some of the points which could be taken to be expressly political.

We recognize that the position coming in here was one at least of significant confusion. There were letters written on April 28 where the provincial government expressed its clear satisfaction with what it called a fair and just arrangement. It's very important just to know that what we are talking about today is different; it's talking about a larger arrangement. The Premier calls it a separate arrangement, but it is a substantia