Ontario Hansard — 22 June 1998 (36th Parliament, 2nd Session)

1998-06-22

Ontario — Debates (Hansard)

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

June 22, 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

L030a - Mon 22 Jun 1998 / Lun 22 Jun 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

RIVERDALE HOSPITAL

AIR QUALITY

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

EVENTS IN SCARBOROUGH CENTRE

ELECTORAL REFORM

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

EMANCIPATION DAY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WEST LAMBTON ELECTRIC COMMISSION ACT, 1998

EMANCIPATION DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR DE L'ÉMANCIPATION

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ON SCHOOL BUSES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS DANS LES AUTOBUS SCOLAIRES

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ELECTORAL REFORM

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

WASTE DISPOSAL

WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

LABOUR LEGISLATION

TELEMARKETING PRACTICES

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

ABORTION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ABORTION

LAND USE PLANNING

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

CHILD CARE

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS / PROTECTION POUR TRAVAILLEURS DES SOINS DE SANTÉ

PORT DOVER HARBOUR MUSEUM

HIGHWAY SAFETY

GAS WELLS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): This government promised that it would not cut funding to the disabled, I believe because most people feel that persons with special needs should have those needs met, without becoming destitute or suffering family breakdown. No one believes that parents of children with special needs should have to bear the extraordinary financial cost of caring for them alone.

That is why this government's denial of the de facto cutbacks to families receiving special services at home is so galling. The fact of the matter is that more families with disabled children have to compete with each other for a funding pool that remains at inadequate levels.

While he was in opposition, Mike Harris called for the special services at home budget to be doubled. Since becoming Premier, this government's funding to developmental services has been cut by some $50.4 million. By some strange logic, the minister responsible is somehow proud of restoring just $15 million of that funding.

In four years, families needing support have grown from 9,000 to 13,000. Using simple math, it is clear that most families have had their support drastically reduced. What that means is that many families are on a waiting list or have the minimum of respite from the challenging needs of the disabled children, at great cost to their health and the needs of the rest of their family. This is an injustice that must not continue.

RIVERDALE HOSPITAL

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): As a result of the Harris government's decision to close by March 2000 the Riverdale Hospital, which is in my riding, more than 250 front-line staff have left their jobs. Many who remain must deal with new duties, lowered staffing levels and reduced wages. I want to congratulate the workers, none the less, for their continued hard work and dedication to the chronic care patients, some of whom have lived in that facility for a very long time.

The Riverdale Hospital has been a vital part of the east Toronto community since 1893. It was built by the city of Toronto on land that is still owned by the city. The land and building are now up for grabs. It is imperative that the Harris government step in and guarantee that it remain in public hands. One of the ideas out there - a letter has been written to Mayor Lastman by the acting president of Local 79 asking that he put in a proposal to turn the facility into one of the new long-term-care facilities. The government announced that 2,200 new beds will be set up over the years. This would be an ideal location.

I don't agree that the hospital should have been closed in its existing form, but that's water under the bridge; it's too late now. I would urge the government to step in and guarantee that this land and this hospital remain in public hands and that that site isn't turned into some developer's dream for a condo or something.

AIR QUALITY

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): The Ontario government recognizes the important role that a clean environment can play in attracting jobs and investment. I know that this understanding is shared by everyone in the Legislature.

Our government has given top and high priority to combating the increasingly serious problem of smog. It exacts a severe toll on our health. Its effects are most pronounced on those with respiratory ailments, as well as children and the elderly, all of which costs our health care system.

Smog also affects the economic life of Ontario by damaging crops, vegetation and our materials.

In April, I had the opportunity to attend the launching of an innovative new air quality program, Partners in Air, at Monsignor Johnson High School in my riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale. I was very impressed with the understanding the students have about air quality issues, not to mention their enthusiasm for finding solutions.

I want to take this opportunity to remind the honourable members of an important event taking place this week. It's the sixth annual Clean Air Commute Week. Pollution Probe deserves all our thanks for organizing Clean Air Commute Week as the main events of its Clean Air Campaign, which is supported by the Ministry of the Environment.

A friendly competition will be involved, with workplaces getting points for the efforts of employees to keep our air clean.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): This past week Ontarians all over the province received the government's latest piece of propaganda material. This is at least the third time in the past three months that the government has used taxpayers' money to foster its own partisan, purely political propaganda. If it had been paid for by the Tory party, one could totally understand it, but this has been paid for by taxpayers' money.

We already know that the government is going to ram through, by way of unilateral decision, the new election finance expenses legislation, something that for the last 30 years has always been done on a consensus basis among all parties in the province.

This latest piece of partisan propaganda cost the taxpayers of the province $1.27 million. It claims to be delivering quality health care service to Ontario. I would say to the government, tell that to the people of Toronto, who are going to lose $280 million and $1.5 billion in hospital restructuring, or to the people in Ottawa, who are already out $325 million and are going to lose another $62 million next year, or to the London hospitals, which are going to lose $290 million by the year 2006, or how about the Windsor-Essex hospitals, which are going to lose $20 million by the year 2000?

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I was interested to note today the release from the Ontario Alternative Budget Working Group, which shows again the true picture of what the government is doing with respect to spending, with respect to how they are reducing the deficit by reducing expenditures over the last three years. Some $3.5 billion has actually been cut from spending. That's how Mike Harris is paying for his tax cut. That's how Mike Harris is dealing, in effect, with the situation in Ontario.

We are seeing example after example, which has been reiterated again in the budget statement from the Ontario Alternative Budget Working Group, an analysis which shows that, among other things, the government's total education spending for 1998-99 is about $1 billion less than what it was for this time last year.

It shows the kind of camouflaging and doublespeak that the government continues to use, for example, trumpeting a lot about the $120 million going into tourism promotion for the next four years, which is $30 million a year, but of course forgetting to talk about the $67 million in cuts that the tourism budget has taken this year. Similarly with respect to the summer jobs for youth program: The $50 million announced by the government was trumpeted, but of course they forgot to mention that it was actually $5 million less than was allocated two years ago.

Example after example shows the real cuts that are going on in our system, that people are feeling each and every day in their lives.

EVENTS IN SCARBOROUGH CENTRE

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I'm very pleased to rise today to recognize two recent events involving the private sector that raised money for children's charities.

On May 6, I had the privilege to make Big Macs and French fries in my riding of Scarborough Centre for a worthy cause, McDonald's McHappy Day. I participated in McHappy Day events at the McCowan and Eglinton, Lawrence and Midland and Kingston and Ridgemoor locations of McDonald's. These locations helped to raise several thousand dollars for Ronald McDonald children's charities. In all, over $3 million was raised across Canada.

I'd like to congratulate Terry Brazill and John and Louise Clark, the owner-operators of these McDonald's locations, and their staff for their efforts.

On May 27, the Tim Horton Children's Foundation held its annual Tim Horton Children's Camp Day to raise money for monetarily underprivileged children. The money raised from all coffee sales at Tim Horton's locations across Canada on that day went towards sending these children to camp. I had the privilege to participate in this very worthwhile cause at the Lawrence and Brimley location in my riding of Scarborough Centre.

Iqbal Roshd, the owner of three Tim Horton's in the Scarborough area, raised $6,000 on Camp Day. I'd like to congratulate him and his staff for their outstanding efforts in making our community a better place to live.

Whether it's making hamburgers or serving a cup of coffee, these individuals and their customers deserve to be recognized.

I'd also like to recognize the men and women who have chosen Ontario and Canada to live from Polish Immigrant and Community Services in my riding of Scarborough Centre who are in the west public gallery. I'd like to ask all members to join me in welcoming them to the Legislature today.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Today is the day we begin to Americanize our political process. The government is going to force closure on a draconian piece of legislation that will allow them to buy votes. The next election is going to be about money, it's going to be about power; it's going to be about abuse of money and abuse of power. It's about a government that's stacking the deck in its own favour. It's about a government that doesn't believe in debate. It's about a government that puts money ahead of people.

It's about a government that has enough money to spend on health care propaganda but can't afford to hire nurses for our hospitals. It's about a government that has no compunction in hiring pollsters and letting the taxpayers subsidize that but won't provide adequate education funding for our schools and our children.

What's happening in this House today is yet another example of a government that's bound, set and determined to put its own stamp on every aspect of political life in this process, without consideration of the consequences, without consideration of fairness. Its only consideration is money. Money's at the bottom line of this government. It's at the bottom line in Niagara Falls. It's the minister's bottom line. It's about a government that'll spend the taxpayers' money for political purposes. This is nothing but trite political garbage and the taxpayers ought not to be paying for it.

They should be paying for nurses. They should be paying for teachers. They should be paying for a better quality of life, not this nonsense.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My colleague from Hamilton East introduced a bill on June 10 that would have the effect of finally bringing to a conclusion the question of restructuring in Hamilton-Wentworth. We all know what the right thing to do is. The government knows what the right thing is in terms of immediate restructuring. The opposition members know what the proper thing to do is. Even at the risk of taking the Harris government off the hook, the opposition members are prepared to make sure that this gets the priority that it should. But not the government.

The government has said that Hamilton-Wentworth is not important. An outraged Bob Morrow, in reacting to the minister's refusal to act, said that Hamilton taxpayers are being abandoned by the Harris government: "Hamilton is being unfairly penalized because of this inaction at Queen's Park."

What is so important in this place right now that the minister can't deal with the real needs that we have in Hamilton-Wentworth? He's got to ram through a brand-new elections act to make sure they can take care of their corporate pals and set up the next election. He's got to make sure that he rams through anti-labour legislation that will effectively cripple the construction industry in the province of Ontario. Both of these get absolutely no public hearing, and the time we're using in this House is so that he can ram that anti-democratic legislation through.

In the meantime, Hamilton-Wentworth sits unattended to - services to be cut, taxpayers to pay more money. It's your fault, Minister, and it's unacceptable.

EMANCIPATION DAY

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): Today I will be introducing a bill entitled

An Act proclaiming Emancipation Day. Emancipation Day marks the formal destruction of the institution of slavery in the British Empire. It was celebrated by Canadians off and on throughout the 19th century, especially by ex-slaves who arrived in Canada on the Underground Railroad. In 1793, however, about 50 years prior to the British imperial act banning slavery, Ontario's first Lieutenant Governor, John Graves Simcoe, brought in legislation that began the process of dismantling slavery in this country.

Emancipation Day, as Rosemary Sadlier of the Ontario Black History Society will affirm, is a time for all Canadians to reflect on our national heritage in terms of the historical struggle against slavery and racism. It's a time to celebrate the notable achievements of the past, the historic freedoms and protections that we enjoy as citizens of the Dominion of Canada subject to the crown; the triumph of the human spirit which is the underground railroad; the more-than-300-year heritage of Canada's black community; and our unshakeable commitment to the ideals and visions of multiculturalism in contemporary Canadian society.

The Emancipation Day Act, at both the provincial and federal levels, will also celebrate the heroes, both past and present, who fought for human rights such as Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

I hope everyone will support this bill. Let us finally give Emancipation Day royal assent during this, the 30th anniversary of Dr King's martyrdom.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WEST LAMBTON ELECTRIC COMMISSION ACT, 1998

Mr Boushy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr8,

An Act to establish the West Lambton Electric Commission.

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

EMANCIPATION DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR DE L'ÉMANCIPATION

Mr Jim Brown moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 46,

An Act proclaiming Emancipation Day / Projet de loi 46, Loi proclamant le jour de l'émancipation.

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

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): This bill designates August 1 as Emancipation Day to commemorate the abolition of slavery in the British Empire.

Emancipation Day marks the formal destruction of the institution of slavery. It was celebrated by Canadians throughout the 19th century, especially by ex-slaves who arrived in Canada on the underground railroad.

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ON SCHOOL BUSES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS DANS LES AUTOBUS SCOLAIRES

Mr Hoy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 47,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to protect children while on school buses / Projet de loi 47, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en vue de protéger les enfants lorsqu'ils sont dans des autobus scolaires.

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

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): This bill addresses the long-standing need to protect Ontario's school children. It would provide a conviction mechanism for a vehicle that illegally passes a school bus with its red warning lights flashing.

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

To the Lieutenant Governor in Council -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell ): You need consent to move it. Let's get consent.

Is it agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I move than an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of Ann Cavoukian as the Information and Privacy Commissioner for a term of five years, commencing on July 1, 1998, as provided in

section 4 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987,

chapter 25, and

That the address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

I would like to take this opportunity of not only congratulating you, but also introducing you to Ms Cavoukian in the Speaker's gallery right now.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would also like to take this opportunity to introduce to the members of the Legislative Assembly, in the Speaker's gallery, His Excellency Jean Obeo-Coulibaly, ambassador of Côte-d'Ivoire to Canada, accompanied by Mr Peter Dawes, honorary consul general in Toronto, and Rosie, of course.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Today another damning report has been released about your atrocious record as Minister of the Environment and your government's atrocious record in protecting Ontario's environment. The report put out by the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, which is in front of you, which you have seen and which was sent to you on Friday, talks at length about how you have sold out to polluters in this province.

Among the information: Since 1995, when you took office, fines for corporate polluters have gone from over $3 million in 1995 to less than $1 million in 1997. You have said over and over again that the enforcement branch of your ministry has not been cut. Again you were wrong. This report makes it clear that 27 staff members have been cut from the enforcement branch since 1995, so either you're telling us the truth or they have been sucked up into some big black hole inside your ministry, because they're not out there enforcing the environmental standards in this province.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Agostino: Minister, you're playing footsie with polluters in this province. Can you tell us today what you're going to do to improve enforcement in Ontario, to beef up the standards and to go after polluters -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I think it's realistic to expect that certain environmental groups are uncomfortable with the changes that our government is making. However, we believe that those changes are for the good.

Of some of the issues which the member opposite has raised, I would point out to him that yes, the total amount of fines has declined in this province, but that's because we have changed the method of doing business in Ontario, the method of complying with environmental laws. We are preventing offences from occurring by issuing firms which are undertaking various matters in this province; we're issuing them orders before the offence takes place. We believe that's much more progressive, in terms of preventing the pollution before it starts, rather than fining and taking somebody to court after it has taken place.

Mr Agostino: What an absolutely ridiculous response from the minister who's in charge of taking care of the environment in this province. Forget the environmental groups. Christina Blizzard, who is not part of an environmental group, who has been kind to your government, said on the weekend that you basically should step aside and that you have a dunce cap as a result of your performance as Minister of the Environment. She is not aligned with any environmental groups. It goes on and on.

Minister, you have cut more regulations than anyone else before you. You have cut more staff than anyone else before you. Clearly, having you as Minister of the Environment is like putting Colonel Sanders in charge of the chicken coop. No one in Ontario can any longer trust you or trust your role as the chief guardian of Ontario's environment.

Since you seem incapable of committing to any kind of improvement in regulations or enforcement, will you, again, today commit to beef up the enforcement branch to send out a clear message to your ministry that they are responsible and should go after polluters, or will you continue to stand aside and allow polluters to run the day in Ontario and destroy the health and safety of Ontarians through your lack of action?

Hon Mr Sterling: As I mentioned in my previous response, our government is targeting industries to prevent pollution incidents before they occur or start.

I also want to indicate to the members opposite, notwithstanding that the amount of money we have collected from going through court procedures has fallen, the number of convictions has increased under this government. In other words, notwithstanding the fact that we have become more efficient in our process, the number of convictions has gone up while we have been able to do our processes much more effectively. That is not mentioned in this particular environmental report, but it is the truth.

Mr Agostino: I find the contradiction in your answers amazing. Earlier you said, "While we're working with them to prevent them from causing a problem, we'll lay charges," and that was the excuse why the amount of money has gone down. Now you're saying the number of charges has increased. You can't have it both ways here.

It gets worse. On June 2 you posted on the environmental registry notice of future deregulations of the waste industry in Ontario. You did not learn from the Plastimet fire. What was clear this morning was that your proposed deregulations of June 2 are going to make it easier for storage or movement of PCBs, for storage of hazardous waste, for storage of plastics.

As it continues, you are now proposing regulations that would weaken what is already there, and what caused Plastimet and will cause other similar disasters across Ontario. You have destroyed the work done by governments before you. You have destroyed the foundation that was set by Premier Davis and his government in regard to environmental protection.

Minister, you don't give a damn about the environment in this province. You've abandoned all of your responsibilities. Will you today do the responsible thing, hand in the keys to the limo and allow a minister to take your place who cares about the environment and is committed to environmental protection?

Hon Mr Sterling: It's hard to know where to start in response to such a vacuous question which stabs out in about a thousand different directions but makes little sense.

This government has done more with regard to revamping our regulatory regime -

Interjections.

Hon Mr Sterling: We have nothing to be shy about with regard to our environmental record. As I mentioned before, the convictions have gone up, with less administrative staff but the same number of inspectors.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, members. I want to hear the minister's response.

Hon Mr Sterling: It's unfortunate the opposition doesn't want to hear what the real truth is about this.

Perhaps I should read what this same organization said about the Liberal government in 1990. They stated that the Liberal Ontario government "has spent more than $40 million but has done little to keep a four-year-old promise that would clean up the province's water." That's what they said about you. What they say about me is perhaps relevant, perhaps irrelevant.

We have done a great deal in this province to improve the environmental laws. We have brought forward laws and regulations which needed revamping, which were 20 years out of date because of the inaction of previous governments. We're proud of what we have done.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Health and it concerns hospital and related health expenditures in various communities across Ontario. Minister, I paid particular attention in recent days to the dialogue between yourself and my colleague Mr Kennedy, the member for York South. I want to pursue his line of questioning with you today.

When I look at my home city of Pembroke, it is very clear from your own data - ministry data and data from the Health Services Restructuring Commission - that after all the restructuring and reinvestments have been made, we in the city of Pembroke will lose on an annual basis about $6.5 million to $7 million in terms of health budget. That's the reality in Pembroke according to your data. Will you confirm that cities like Toronto, London, Hamilton, Ottawa and Windsor, to name but a half dozen other cities, will from this day well into the first decade of the next century have fewer health and hospital dollars to spend on services than they had when you took office but three years ago?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As the member knows, this government has indicated that health care is a priority. It's a priority for people in the province of Ontario. When we were elected we said that we would not decrease health care funding. We were spending $17.4 billion, and today we have indicated, and certainly the budget figures confirm, that we are presently spending $1.2 billion more. We will be spending $18.6 billion. We are doing this despite the fact that the federal government reduced our transfer payments by almost $2 billion.

So certainly people in the province of Ontario are continuing to receive excellent health care. We are reforming the system and we are providing a continuum of care for people in this province.

Mr Conway: Minister, accepting that you will spend $18.6 billion - but God knows, given the accounting of the dollars - but accepting that this is what you're going to spend this year, and noting that you'll make substantially increased investments and health spending in the Metro belt, the so-called 905 area, accepting those two realities, will you stand in your place today and confirm that cities like Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, London, Windsor, and yes, my home city of Pembroke, will for years to come be receiving substantially fewer hospital- and health-related dollars than was the case when you took office three years ago?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member knows that last week his own hospital, Pembroke General Hospital, received an additional $1 million from the Ministry of Health.

I think what we all need to keep in mind is that as we restructure the health system in Ontario we're talking about providing a continuum of care. That starts, obviously, with prevention, it starts with primary care, it includes the hospital sector and, most important, there is the additional focus now on providing the community supports. That includes the long-term-care facilities and the community care services.

Recently we indicated that over the next eight years we would be investing an additional $1.2 billion into long-term-care facilities and services, simply because there had been no awarding of new long-term beds since 1988.

Mr Conway: The minister is right. On Friday her colleague Mr Jordan delivered a $1-million cheque to the Pembroke General Hospital.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Mr Conway: However, Saturday's Pembroke Observer notes on the front page that the Pembroke General Hospital is now only $3 million in debt. The Pembroke General Hospital, in the one community where a hospital has actually closed, is in the worst financial shape in its 100-year history, largely because of restructuring.

My final question is this: Given the dire straits in which so many hospitals outside of the 905 area find themselves, how is it possible that you and your colleagues in the Harris government would find $1.25 million to print and distribute this pamphlet, representing one of the most shamelessly transparent bits of partisan politics I've ever seen? How is it that you've got $1.25 million worth of government money to invest in this kind of propaganda and you've got no money to assist with hospitals that are crying out for help as they sink under the weight of multimillion-dollar deficits?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I've said on many occasions, and as most members of this House know, for the public the number one issue of interest is health. This householder, which was distributed to the people in Ontario, is an opportunity for the public to be informed about the health initiatives that have been undertaken. It also serves as a reminder to make sure that you have a health card. It allows an opportunity for the public to respond with input and it also asks for additional information. The public has been saying to us: "We need to know. We want to know what's going on.

We want to have an opportunity to provide, and get involved in, a dialogue." We believe this householder is a means of sharing information with the public and receiving good input.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, another week goes by and there is yet another report condemning you and your government's destruction of environmental protection in this province. You had the gall to stand there last week, and again today, and say that your government has the most progressive environmental record in 10 years. Just because you say it over and over again doesn't mean that it reflects reality. Believe me, you're the only one who thinks this.

Yesterday was another bad-air-quality day. There were elevated levels all over the province. Scarborough's air-quality index was 59; Mississauga, 55; Etobicoke South, 49; downtown Toronto, 51; and London, 50. Up to 32 is acceptable and above 50 is considered poor. Minister, it's going to be a very long, hot summer and your government has done absolutely nothing to protect our air. When somebody dies from a smog-related illness, does anybody in your government give a damn?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): It's unfortunate that the member opposite has taken this approach. We are very concerned with the air quality of the greater Toronto area. We have taken some steps with regard to cleaning up the air in Ontario. Unfortunately, high-air-quality-index days are caused by a combination of weather factors from south of us. I must say that during our period of time in government, we have done more about addressing air quality problems than has been done in the previous 20 years, as was pointed out to us early in our term by the Provincial Auditor.

Ms Churley: I would like to know what substance you're abusing, because I sure would like to have some of it. You're out of touch with reality. It's a free ride for corporate polluters in Mike Harris's Ontario. We've learned in your recent ministry -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): That's very unparliamentary and I ask the member to withdraw it.

Ms Churley: I withdraw that.

We've learned in your recent ministry reorganization that you've eliminated the conservation and prevention division. It's clear that prevention isn't a priority with this government. We've just learned this. You've slashed enforcement of environmental regulations. It's no wonder that fines for breaking environmental laws in Ontario are at their lowest level in 10 years. Since 1995, the fine total has dropped by two thirds, and you're not involved in any prevention. You're going after small-time offenders and you're letting off the biggest corporate polluters. Why?

Because you don't have the technical expertise any more to prosecute serious offences against the environment that affect our health.

Minister, your idea of environmental protection is to simply ask corporate polluters to stop dumping toxic waste into our air and our water. This is unacceptable. When are you going to get it? The public wants clean air, clean land and clean water.

Hon Mr Sterling: We have been doing a great deal with regard to the issues mentioned by the member opposite. As members in this Assembly know, we are in the throes of implementing a vehicle emissions testing program for the province which will include more cars, more trucks and more buses than any other jurisdiction in North America. This is a program which is going to be introduced in a careful manner, because it's very difficult to ensure that it's done fairly and without fraud and gets the reductions we are aiming for in order to improve our air quality.

We started from a great deficit with regard to air quality in this province when we took over the government, and we are doing everything we can to catch up with what we should have been doing maybe five or 10 years ago with regard to air quality in Ontario.

The Speaker: Final supplementary. The member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Minister, time and time again we have persisted in demanding, on behalf of the people of Hamilton, that you call a public inquiry into the Hamilton Plastimet fire. Now we learn that just 20 days ago, on June 2, you placed on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry a draft regulation that will repeat and expand the very mistakes that led to the Plastimet fire; not only that, but your draft legislation goes against the Plastimet recommendations of the Ontario fire marshal.

This broadens the exemption for recycling and hazardous waste sites that helped to create the whole Plastimet situation. Recycling facilities like Plastimet will now have even weaker controls under your new regulations, and you have the nerve to say you're strengthening environmental protections? The public wants you to strengthen, not weaken regulations so situations like Plastimet won't happen.

When are you going to get it? When are you going to at least follow the recommendations of your own fire marshal? When will you ensure that no other innocent community like Hamilton faces a Plastimet fire and call a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Sterling: There's a clear distinction between the responsibilities of the fire code and the ministry's responsibilities for environmental problems. I believe my ministry has reacted in an exemplary way with regard to the Plastimet fire. I have, however, said to the city of Hamilton and the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth that if they want to inquire into a matter which is primarily a matter dealing with why this particular fire started, they have every right to call a public inquiry.

I have offered my assistance to them with regard to carrying this through, because I know, because of all the stories and all of the outcome with regard to this, that there have been a lot of questions by the people.

We have concentrated our efforts on providing information to the public about what happened at the fire and also cleaning up the site. We have taken full responsibility for that, notwithstanding the city of Hamilton's reluctance to do so, long before this incident ever happened.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. Last Thursday, my leader and I held a news conference that proved once and for all that your attempt to buy the next election wasn't a product of the all-party process; it was dreamed up by the whiz kids in the Premier's office. We found 23 major changes that were not recommended by the election finances commission.

Your increase in central spending by $1.3 million wasn't recommended by the commission, your shortening of the campaign period from 37 to 28 days wasn't recommended by the commission, your massive increase in corporate tax breaks for political donations wasn't recommended by the commission, and yet you persist in telling everyone that these recommendations did come from the commission when we know they didn't.

At the very least, as a sign of good faith, will you accept our amendments that remove at least those recommendations that were not part of the election finances commission recommendations?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The member of the third party knows full well that this is an issue that has been around for a number of years. There have been two all-party agreements dating back to 1991 and 1994. The act itself hasn't been updated in 12 years.

He's right that the election finances commission, which had as its chair your past party president, and two representatives from your party, two from the Liberals and two from the Conservatives, recommended that total spending, both riding and the party, be $1.80. We took the Liberal written position that said they wanted the same as the federal, which brings it down to $1.56. As far as leader and tour expenses and polling go, those are the present rules. They were recommended by the commission to be excluded. The only time they have been included was during the 1995 period. Prior to that they were excluded, and after 1996, they have been excluded. That was part of their report.

You're right that we didn't take some of the recommendations. We decided to have a blackout period at the beginning of the campaign because we thought that sounded fairer than what was recommended.

Mr Christopherson: Let's just take a look at one small change that's included in those 23 recommendations that aren't part of the commission's recommendations. Sections 17.1 and 17.3 let a political party pay for a special revision of the voters' list and then get exclusive use of that list. We always thought here in terms of fairness that election officials should provide the same level of service to all the parties, and not special service to those who have rich friends. You're creating a two-tier election process.

If you have more money, the commission will give you a better list; if you don't have that money, you get to use the old list. Minister, how does having a more up-to-date list for the rich and an older list for everybody else possibly help democracy?

Hon Mr Hodgson: First, I'd like to correct your

preamble. The recommendations from the election finances commission - you're right - did not recommend the abolishment of their commission, but the chief election officer made a recommendation and said we should be consistent with other provinces and not have a commission, which is a saving to the taxpayers of $1 million a year.

The permanent voters' list and access to those lists are part of the chief election officer's report that you can abolish the commission, you can go to a permanent electors' list.

Mr Christopherson: I don't recall asking anything about abolishing the commission. My question was about sections 17.1 and 17.3.

Let's talk about what's going on here. You're attempting to buy the next election. That's what is going on. You've now introduced a motion that shuts down debate - no public hearings, no amendments, no discussion; just you and the Tories deciding what the rules are going to be for the next election.

Your Premier has said in the past that there won't be an election this year. There's no excuse at all why you can't put this bill out for summer hearings. It doesn't take effect until January 1, 1999. There's not going to be an election this fall. Why, then, are you not allowing the public to have a say over the summer months and then bring the bill back in the fall to debate? Minister, stand up and defend such anti-democratic actions.

Hon Mr Hodgson: First, the last time I checked, I believe it's the Premier who calls the election, not the third party, and it's been the same in the history of Ontario. Second, your past president, as chair of the all-party finances committee, said that you should give lots of time for these changes so that all those involved in elections have ample notice and know the rules on the level playing field.

Mr Christopherson: You can't answer my question.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton Centre, come to order. Minister?

Hon Mr Hodgson: It would have been nice to have all-party agreement. They've had it twice since 1991. Your parties have rejected that. You set up an all-party committee to be at arm's length to report back. The Liberals went out and had a press conference prior to their report even being discussed by the parties in the Legislature presently, disowned their representative, but they did say they wanted the federal rules. We have the same number of ridings because we're reducing the number of MPPs to the federal riding limit, and we took the Liberal recommendation that we go to the federal spending rules.

We couldn't take their recommendation - I don't know whether, by inference, you would go to the federal rules entirely, because you know that at the federal level there's no limit on donations. We feel that you should have limits on donations.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Health.

At a time when your government has closed 35 hospitals in the province, despite Mike Harris's promise that he wouldn't close any, when you've fired thousands of nurses out the doors of hospitals across Ontario; when there are long waiting lists to get access to home care and long-term care; when patients are still experiencing long waits at hospital emergency departments; when the level of care in hospitals has deteriorated seriously as a direct result of your enormous cuts to hospital operating funding; when you are dumping responsibility for public health and preventive health care programs on to cash-strapped municipalities; when you've dumped financial responsibility for ambulance service, sticking this cost with local government; at this very time you have over $1 million of taxpayers' money to squander on a partisan political propaganda pamphlet to send to all residents of Ontario.

Minister, when you and Mike Harris have inflicted so much damage on our health care system in Ontario, how can you justify the Ministry of Health throwing away $1.27 million in Conservative propaganda pamphlets such as this?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Our government is reforming the health care system in Ontario. That's why we have increased our health spending.

I know mention was just made of the fact that there have been some emergency room overcrowding problems. As members of this House well know, in response to the task force on the emergency room situation, our government did respond and indicate that once and for all we were prepared to deal with the issue of the emergency room situation. We did announce that we would be investing $225 million to ensure that all people coming into emergency rooms could be treated as quickly as possible.

In fact, contained within that announcement was our response that we would temporarily ensure that 1,700 long-term-care beds would be available to deal with people who were in acute care beds and should be accommodated elsewhere.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: It's exactly as a result of the fact that we have made changes to the health care system that we are distributing this -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Bradley: It seems that Mike Harris is Mr Scrooge when it comes to spending money on hospital operating budgets and he's Santa when it comes to spending money on political propaganda pamphlets. The people of this province want money spent on health care services, not on partisan propaganda. I suspect the civil servants within the Ministry of Health must have had a difficult time stomaching the fact that they would have to allocate $1.270 million on political propaganda when they know the pressures there are for genuine health care services in this province.

Minister, at a time when you have all kinds of money to spend on these propaganda pamphlets, you are making cuts in very significant areas of service. Will you now ask the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario to reimburse your ministry, the Ministry of Health, for $1.270 million that this propaganda pamphlet cost? Will you reimburse your Ministry of Health and will you direct that funding to health care services for the people of this province?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I say, all governments, regardless of political stripe, have always tried to ensure that people in this province have access to information about new services, new initiatives. The Liberals, in 1989 to 1990, spent a total amount of $43.5 million in advertising, and the NDP when they were in office, February 1995, actually spent $6.6 million to advertise their new Smile Ontario health cards.

This householder, which is being distributed to communities and people across this province, is again an effort to keep the public informed, to make them aware of the changes that are taking place in health care, to introduce them to the new services. It also gives them an opportunity to provide input and also to ask for additional information. So this is another means of communicating with the public in this province.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Last week we learned that Notre Developments corporation has been given conditional approval to use the old Adams mine as a giant dump for Toronto's garbage.

The Environmental Assessment Board decision doesn't cut it, Minister. Your government has compromised the assessment process to such an extent that the board didn't even consider alternatives to the dump. On top of that, you've taken away intervenor funding so that the voices of the community, people who might object to this proposal, can't be heard. You've tried to silence any opposition.

Many concerns have been raised about 3Rs activities if Toronto's garbage goes to the pit in northern Ontario. Unfortunately, your flawed EA didn't even consider the alternatives, such as waste reduction. Will you overturn this flawed decision or will you allow the Premier's friend from North Bay to be permitted to dump Toronto's garbage in northern Ontario?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I have just received the Environmental Assessment Board's decision, where they approved the proposed leachate collection and containment system for the Adams mine landfill site. It's subject to a number of specific conditions that the undertaker would have to abide by. I'm in no position to comment further on the matter until my ministry has the opportunity to review it, and then I will be making my decision as to whether or not I would recommend the approval, in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Board's decision, to the cabinet.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Northerners care about the environment and they are not convinced that there will not be leachate leaking into local groundwater. That was also the reason one of the panel members dissented from the decision.

Northerners also want jobs, and you know full well there is no recycling attached to this. The only thing that happens here is northern Ontario becomes a dumping ground for Toronto's garbage. That's the beginning and the end of job creation.

We want you to urge your cabinet colleagues to turn this proposal down because it's bad for the environment, it does nothing for northern jobs, it does nothing for the northern Ontario economy. Will you commit today that you will turn down this proposal because it does nothing to deal with Toronto's garbage, it only makes northern Ontario a dumping ground for all of Toronto's garbage?

Hon Mr Sterling: As I said in my answer to the first question, I will consider this in light of the laws we have in the province. I will consider it carefully from the point of view of the Environmental Assessment Board's decision and take the very learned advice of my technical staff as to whether this undertaking should be approved.

WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. From time to time in this House you've referred to a group known as Partners for Change. I'm wondering if you could provide a little bit more information on this particular program.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Thank you for the question. Partners for Change is a model for partnership in Ontario. As we know, as we try to focus on the government's priorities for women - that is, safe communities, stopping the violence and women's economic independence - it's incumbent upon all of us to reach out to people who are volunteering, who are showing leadership in their own communities, who are dedicated to solving problems and creating solutions. We look to them for their ideas and their encouragement and their help.

Basically, we're looking at mentors, we're looking at role models for young women, especially those women who want to become economically independent and be responsible, as far as possible, for their own lives. We're very grateful to those who have come forward in communities across the province to partner with us, to help us create an environment for finding solutions.

Ms Mushinski: Minister, in your answer you referred to joint partnership projects which Partners for Change hoped to use to promote women's issues that specifically relate to safe communities and women's economic independence. I have a number of women's groups in my riding of Scarborough-Ellesmere that are particularly interested in these two issues. I wonder if you could give us an example of some of the projects that this particular group is working on.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: This evening we will be launching one of our partnership projects which has already won major awards across our province. It's an unofficial release. Some weeks ago we learned about Women Entrepreneurs: Making a Difference. It's a 24-minute video that all of us will be able to use, and others in our communities in education in particular, which produces a positive impact on young people as they seek to become entrepreneurs. It focuses on the unique challenges faced by four women entrepreneurs.

It's basically with the spirit and leadership of Pixie Bigelow that we have this talent. She will go on, we hope, to produce even more videos that can be helpful to us as resources as we look for mentors and role models. Her next effort, I hope, will be to focus on young Canadian women entrepreneurs, and we're looking forward to ongoing support with our partners to create these opportunities.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I want to pursue with the Minister of Health some information that we published last week with respect to hospital communities throughout Ontario. In Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo, London, Ottawa, Toronto, and my home of Windsor, the government's total announcements to date in terms of hospital closures, emergency room closures and its so-called reinvestments have meant net cuts to all those communities in the tens of millions of dollars. In my own community the net cut has been $46 million from operating budgets.

Just so the minister understands, that means waiting in emergency rooms, that means delay in care, that means lack of home service, that means lack of long-term-care beds.

What will you do to address the shortfall in operating funding in my community that will cost us $46 million every year? What will you do to assure my community that those hospitals will continue to be able to offer the type of care that the people of my community deserve and ought to be able to expect?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I see that there's a little bit of confusion. Sometimes we're using figures that are relating just to hospitals and other times we're bringing in community care services and long-term-care services. It's important that we recognize the fact that as we reform the system of health in Ontario, obviously we are going to be designating the dollars that are spent on health - which, I have said before, is more than a $1.2 billion increase since we took office - to the appropriate service so that people in this province can have access to the services they most need.

I think we need to recognize too, when we talk about hospitals, we know that today, for example, there is a need for fewer beds in hospitals because 70% of surgery is day surgery.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: To the member opposite, when we talk about Windsor, our government has invested in your community, Essex county -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Duncan: Your numbers are an absolute phoney disgrace. You're using propaganda instead of reality. By your own numbers, you are cutting -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Order. Member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr Duncan: You are cutting $46 million net, and that's after all your so-called reinvestments. That means our hospitals cannot provide the level of service they need to, even under your projections for the future. All the while you have time to spend $1.2 million on useless propaganda that has nothing to do with informing the public. The people in my community know. They know because their emergency rooms are a disaster, they know because they can't access coronary care, they know because there are not enough home care services, they know because there are not enough long-term-care beds and there won't be until well into the next century.

What are you going to do? Instead of hiding and using propaganda and false statistics, will you commit to reinvesting that $46 million not 10 years from now, but now, to ensure that the people -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mrs Witmer: One of the things that we're not quite sure of is where some of these numbers that are being used from the party opposite are even coming from. I think it's absolutely essential, when we use information, that we at least base it on some fact. I have an example here of some of the information. Mr Kennedy says, for example, in the GTA-905 area the government gave $29,212 in -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I said before, in terms of some of the numbers that are being thrown about, we're not quite sure where they're coming from. I would just refer to the fact that Mr Kennedy made a couple of comments, and the reality of what was said and what actually happened are quite different.

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: GTA: He said government gave $29,212. The reality is that the ministry invested $3 million -

The Speaker: Thank you.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, it's bad enough that your Bill 31 takes the Mike Harris attack on unions and workers to a new level, but it's absolutely unbelievable that you're doing this without any opportunity for anyone to have a say in what that law will be. You just introduced it 18 days ago, and with no public hearings and no amendments you're going to ram it through tomorrow night. In part of the bill, you pretended to negotiate with the construction trades, but then you betrayed them; on the rest of it, you met in secret with your corporate pals and didn't even meet with the people who represent the workers.

Last Thursday we saw 500 workers drop their tools in Sarnia because they were protesting, in the only way left, the legislation that's damning their livelihoods, Bill 31. Minister, why shouldn't workers respond to what happened in Sarnia all across the province, in light of what you're doing to workers' rights?

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Clear the galleries. All of you, you've got to go, everybody in the gallery. You're all going, folks. Everybody in the gallery has got to be cleared.

Minister?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Bill 31, if passed, would ensure that Ontario is competitive in the industrial sector in construction prices.

We have experienced a situation, particularly in Sarnia-Lambton, where unanimity has been required pursuant to the province-wide construction agreement, that 10 out of 12 trades have agreed and yet a project has not gone forward because of the absence of unanimity. This bill is designed to create a framework where 60% of the building trade unions could agree on a specific project, which would result in that project going ahead. That's good news for skilled workers in Ontario.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, you can take some small comfort from the fact that your colleagues and you were saved from the wrath of workers because they have been tossed out of this Legislature, but let me tell you, you get out on that election trail and you're not going to be able to run away from them. You're going to have to answer to these workers as to why you rammed through Bill 31, taking away their rights, lowering their wages, and you didn't give them one minute of opportunity to have a public say.

In responding to a question last week, your Deputy Premier bragged about the fact that 92% of all construction jobs created in Canada were created right here in Ontario, yet you want us to believe -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock.

Member for Hamilton Centre?

Mr Christopherson: My point in raising that is that the government can't have it both ways. You can't stand up and say you've got 92% of the construction jobs coming to this province, and then, on the other hand, say there's such a crisis in the construction industry that you've got no choice but to take away people's democratic rights and ram through legislation without giving them a say. It doesn't work that way, and you're not going to be able to put through this phoney crisis as a shield.

Make no mistake. Our party, if we form a government, will scrap Bill 31 in a heartbeat. Will you do the right thing and withdraw that bill now?

Hon Mr Flaherty: It should be noted that the government relations director of the building trades council made it clear on June 5, "In principle, we've agreed with helping to attract investment to Ontario through project agreements." That's for a very good reason, because this legislation has the potential, according to the Canadian Chemical Producers Association, to attract more than 42,500 jobs to this province. I have no reason to apologize to the workers or to the New Democratic Party for helping to create good union jobs in the province of Ontario.

The Timmins Daily Press reviewed the legislation and reported, "We would applaud the decision of the Progressive Conservatives to balance the rights of business with those of labour to ensure that the province will attract more business and more jobs."

The Sarnia Observer said, "A new provincial bill introduced Thursday is good news for Sarnia-Lambton."

All around the province they understand that this means good union jobs for the skilled workers of Ontario.

TELEMARKETING PRACTICES

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. One of my constituents recently received a bingo card in the mail. It seemed to offer the opportunity of winning up to $5,000. The only problem was that on the back, in the fine print, the person had to dial a 1-900 number that was going to cost $4 a minute. That would mean that person would be spending $24 to find out that they probably didn't win anything. Minister, what is your ministry doing to prevent these types of scratch-and-win scams from victimizing Ontario residents?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'd like to thank the member for Scarborough West for the question. This is an issue of concern to me and our ministry. I have to tell you that we've seen several of these so-called contests crop up over the last year or so, and we are monitoring the situation very closely. In fact, just two months ago, last April, we issued a consumer advisory to make sure that people were aware of the scratch-and-win cards.

I'd also like to repeat that you can't win a contest you didn't enter. That's quite the norm with these things. What happens is that they send you a card. These are unsolicited cards. People must read the fine print on these just to make sure.

As the member indicated, most of these cards are marked as "winner," which is designed to induce the person to call the 1-900 number and get them to pay all kinds of money in phone charges, which goes right into the operator's pocket.

If it's something that's too good be true, it is. Consumers who believe that some sort of prize is misleading should contact the ministry and certainly local law enforcement agencies.

Mr Jim Brown: I agree that consumer alerts and educational campaigns are a good start, but what stronger measures can your ministry put in place to stop this?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: We have worked on a very important initiative, along with the minister responsible for seniors issues. We've worked together on an initiative called Phonebusters. Phonebusters is really the brainchild of Sergeant Barry Elliott of the OPP.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's interesting that they don't like the name Phonebusters. I should tell you who came up with this: Sergeant Barry Elliott of the OPP, who has taken the lead against fraud against seniors in this country through telemarketing. It's his initiative. I'm very proud to support this initiative. The OPP, along with Sergeant Elliott, have taken a lead across the country to try to do something about seniors fraud in telemarketing. About 60% of the time seniors are targeted by these groups. But I must tell you that over the last year or so, because of Phonebusters, because of this great initiative, we've reduced the telemarketing fraud in this province by over 40%.

It can't stop here. We've had discussions with my colleagues across this country, with other provinces, who are interested in our initiative. We are assisting them and we are also going forward with talks with some of the states in the United States.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is to the Minister of Health. A few days ago, Thunder Bay residents packed a town hall meeting that was called to discuss mental health services. They came to express their concerns and they came to make sure that those with mental illness don't get shoved on to a back burner when your restructuring commission finishes issuing its orders to close our psychiatric hospitals. People remember the last time a Conservative government shut down psychiatric beds.

That was in 1973, and 25 years later, we still have psychiatric patients on the streets of our community who are seeking a bed in an emergency shelter. We don't want that to happen again. Minister, will you act immediately to establish a mental health agency, community-based, that will listen and respond to the needs of our community?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Yes, I did actually communicate to people in your community, through your colleague in the neighbouring riding, when the meeting was held just recently. I certainly am aware of the concerns they have. As you know, we have gone through changes in this province relating to mental health.

Unfortunately, all previous governments had not put in place the appropriate community supports, so we have put a moratorium on the closing of psychiatric beds until such time as we can be assured that we have the appropriate community services in place to support the individuals who require the 24-hour care. Certainly I would say to you that we will move ahead in your community and ensure that the appropriate care is there for all the people who need it.

Mrs McLeod: We understand that the minister is not going to shut down beds until community support services are in place. I didn't get an answer to the question about how we're going to decide what community supports are needed. I can tell you that the answer that they're not going to shut down the hospital until supports are in place doesn't ease people's concerns about what's going to be left when the psychiatric hospital is gone or the beds are shut down.

Community services is too easy a catch-all and too many real people can fall through the cracks. One of the groups of people in our community that is falling through the cracks right now are people with acquired brain injuries. They are one of the groups mentioned in your $1.2-million propaganda piece that went out across the province this week. Those people in our community are in psychiatric hospitals now in many cases because there's no place else for them, or they are in homes for the aged even though they are young, or they are in home settings where they're being cared for by stressed family members.

There are only three individuals who are getting community-based support now in care settings; there are 47 people on the list.

Will you give me an assurance today, a guarantee, that there will be community placements available for all 47 people who are now on that waiting list with acquired brain injuries and for any others who need support in the future?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As you know, my predecessor, the Honourable Jim Wilson, undertook to bring all the acquired brain injury patients back to this province, because previous governments had determined that treatment would be provided in the States. We are going to be providing the appropriate level of services, not only to bring people back but to ensure that these people that are presently in Ontario get and receive the level of treatment they need as well.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature regarding the privatization of health care.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we are concerned about the quality of health care in Ontario;

"Whereas we do not believe health care should be for sale;

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is taking steps to allow profit-driven companies to provide health care services in Ontario;

"Whereas we won't stand for profits over people;

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

"Do not privatize our health care services."

I concur and I will affix my signature to it.

ABORTION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 175 people.

"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."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): This petition and similar petitions have some 70,000 names on them. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it deals with:

"Save the Hotel Dieu Hospital in Kingston, Ontario.

"The Health Services Restructuring Commission is recommending to the Ministry of Health that the Hotel Dieu Hospital be closed and that the Sisters of the Religious Hospitalers of St Joseph cease to govern and manage their hospital. If the ministry acts upon this recommendation, access to high-quality health care will be seriously undermined in Kingston and region.

"The sisters are recognized for their leadership in the health care community. They have developed the plan for and operated an efficient outpatient teaching hospital and have provided the high quality of patient care for 153 years. Their distinct values and philosophy, coupled with the sisters' tradition of compassionate care, must not disappear.

"The HSRC recommendations, which call for the dismissal of the sisters from their role in the governance and management of outpatient health care at the Hotel Dieu Hospital, are not in the best interests of the patients and families in this city and region. The people of Kingston deserve to have access to the kind of quality health care for which the sisters are recognized across Canada.

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

It therefore recommends that users of the Hotel Dieu Hospital are asked to help them in the response to the commission by signing this petition so that the hospital will not be closed.

I proudly sign my name to this petition as well.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is signed by a great number of my constituents and was taken up by the Christian Reformed Church.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): " To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proper mental health care is essential to all Ontarians; and

"Whereas mental health care is severely underfunded in northwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has called for the closure of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital with no replacement services in its place; and

"Whereas appropriate community mental health treatment is so lacking in northwestern Ontario that those who need treatment, support and rehabilitation are incarcerated in district jails; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has not delivered on its commitment to set up the Northwestern Ontario Mental Health Agency over one year after it promised to do so; and

"Whereas there is a dramatic shortage of psychiatrists in northwestern Ontario, to the point where the doctors are severely overworked; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health promised a 12-bed adolescent treatment centre and has failed to deliver on that promise;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to commit those funds necessary to provide full and proper mental health care to those in need in northwestern Ontario and call on the Minister of Health to cancel the closure of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital."

I'm pleased to sign that petition.

ABORTION

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I am presenting on behalf of my colleague the member for Carleton and on behalf of my constituent Deborah LaRiccia from St John the Apostle Church, and collected from St John the Evangelist and St Hyacinthe, a petition which reads as follows: