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

June 2, 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

L019a - Tue 2 Jun 1998 / Mar 2 Jun 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

HAMILTON TOWNSHIP FARMERS' MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

LEAHYS OF LAKEFIELD

WEARING OF RIBBONS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHILD CARE SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION COLLECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA COLLECTE DES RENSEIGNEMENTS NÉCESSAIRES À L'OCTROI DU SUPPLÉMENT DE REVENU POUR LES FRAIS DE GARDE D'ENFANTS

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ORDRE DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS DE L'ONTARIO

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR UNE TOLÉRANCE ZÉRO EN MATIÈRE D'ABUS DE SUBSTANCES

MAIMONIDES SCHOOLS FOR JEWISH STUDIES ACT, 1998

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

SENIORS' MONTH

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

SENIORS' MONTH

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

SENIORS' MONTH

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

ELECTORAL REFORM

HOSPITAL FUNDING

VISITOR

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

PROPERTY TAXATION

ABORTION

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

LANDS FOR LIFE

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

PETITIONS

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

ELECTORAL REFORM

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

REZONING

ABORTION

ELECTORAL REFORM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On behalf of my colleagues, I rise for the purpose of recognizing an important event that took place on this day 52 years ago, June 2, 1946, the establishment of the democratic Republic of Italy. June 2 is of great historic significance and sentimental value to our citizens of Italian heritage and indeed to the people living in Italy, a country not only of monumental buildings, famous explorers and noted scientists, but also a trusted friend and ally, a loyal trading partner, and a committed supporter of democratic and civil rights around the world.

We recognize the valuable contribution that Italo-Canadians have made to the cultural and economic development of Ontario and Canada. Our province has become enriched because our Italians friends on coming here have brought with them their love of art, music, architecture and education. More than that, they have strengthened the pillars of our multicultural society by adding their traditional respect for hard work and family life. We have benefited greatly from their participation in sports, business, professions and, more recently, government and law.

To celebrate this day, I am honoured to recognize in the gallery a representative of the Italian government. His name is Deputy Consul General Paolo Scoccimarro. To him I say today, viva Italia and viva Canada.

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Later today I will be introducing a bill to amend the Ontario College of Teachers Act. I am proposing amendments which would give teachers across the province control of the college and make teaching a truly self-governing profession.

I am introducing a private member's bill that would increase the percentage of elected members of the College of Teachers council to 75%. Also, in order for the council or its committees to hold meetings, they would each have to have a quorum of a majority of elected members. If the bill passes, the council would elect one of its members to be the chair of the council. As members know, the elected members of the council are elected by teachers across Ontario and the appointed members are chosen by the provincial government.

My bill would make the Ontario College of Teachers accountable and responsive to the teachers of the province. It would ensure the decisions of the college which affect all teachers could not be made without a majority of elected members of the council or its committees present.

The New Democratic Party recognizes the wider community in Ontario must be represented on the council of the College of Teachers but believes that teachers must provide policy direction for the profession. Questions related to teacher certification and competency and disciplinary cases should not be decided by a college where the council has the majority of non-elected, appointed members. Teachers should be the majority on the council. New Democrats are committed to ensuring the Ontario College of Teachers -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Today I'm very proud to speak on behalf of the Italian members of our caucus, the members for Simcoe Centre, Ottawa-Carleton and York Centre, in celebrating our national day marking the foundation of the modern republic of Italy.

Italian National Day is a time when all Canadians can reflect on the tremendous and varied contributions to Canada made by Italians in this country, who made this their adoptive home as far back as 1497, starting with Giovanni Caboto.

Millions of Italians have come to this country, including my two grandfathers, Giuseppe Spina in 1921, and Giuseppe Sicoli in 1911, my own father, Geniale Spina, in 1929 and my mother, Linda, in 1937.

Besides myself as an MPP, we're proud that other members of our family have also made a contribution to this Parliament in terms of my cousin's two sons, Andrew Carricato, who served as a page in 1995, and currently in the House today, Anthony Carricato, who is a page for this session.

Thanks to Canadians of Italian background, Italian culture and traditions have been ably transplanted here to enrich the lives of all the citizens of our country. On behalf of the government of Premier Mike Harris, I congratulate and thank not only our ancestors who brought us and allowed us to make a contribution to this country, but all of the Italian Canadian community for their contribution to Ontario and Canada.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I want to take the opportunity today to call on the Minister of Health to increase the funding for the northern health travel grant program, a program that is absolutely crucial for people in northwestern Ontario requiring specialized health care in southern Ontario, but a program that no longer meets the needs of many of my constituents.

The problem, as many of my northern colleagues will know, is that the distances between most communities in northwestern Ontario and Toronto are so great that patients needing care must almost always travel by air. But the cost of air fare has increased dramatically in the past three years while the subsidy for travel under the program has remained the same. Minister, is it not fair to at least make adjustments based on that reality? Because the truth is many people can simply not afford the upfront costs required and, as a result, I fear that some are not receiving the treatment they should.

There are other areas in which the system must be changed. A constituent told my office today that she went to Toronto for treatment in October 1997 yet did not get reimbursed until April of this year, a six-month delay. Surely this can be speeded up. As you know, Minister, we do not yet have an MRI in Thunder Bay, although we're hopeful we will have one in place soon.

But until we have an MRI in place, can you not acknowledge the fact that many people in Thunder Bay find travelling to Duluth, Minnesota, for their MRI more convenient and far less stressful? Can you not allow people to use those services a mere three-and-a-half-hour drive from Thunder Bay and make them for the first time eligible for northern health travel grant assistance?

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Today is the second anniversary of the tragic death of Theresa Vince. Theresa Vince had been sexually harassed in her workplace and finally murdered.

Yesterday at a press conference her daughter, Jacquie Carr, said this:

"Sexual harassment belongs on the continuum of sexual violence and should be treated with the utmost seriousness. If it's effectively dealt with, then they can diminish the consequences or divert them altogether."

There was an inquest into the death of Theresa Vince last December and there were several recommendations made as a result of that very sad inquest. What we found out was that she had complained and spoken of her difficulties and nothing was done.

A couple of those recommendations are being made to this government, and this government has refused to act. One of them is to move the complaints process into the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which I personally think is a good idea. The people at the press conference yesterday called for that.

The Solicitor General yesterday said that he wanted to move slowly and carefully. I can appreciate that, but on the other hand this should be done now. Sexual harassment is not a joke - it can lead to very serious consequences - and I ask the government to act immediately.

HAMILTON TOWNSHIP FARMERS' MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): For a corporation to celebrate their 100th anniversary is indeed a very special milestone. On May 16, I attended the 100th anniversary celebration of the Hamilton Township Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

This successful insurance company started in May 1898 as a way to protect farmers from the threat of fire in the small township of Hamilton, located in Northumberland county. One hundred years ago, insurance companies were not interested in taking on farmers as clients. There was no way to assess the value of a farm, and it was a big risk to insurance companies to provide the farmers with coverage.

Now the company is a growing and a thriving business, not only in Hamilton township but right across Ontario. It is run very efficiently by their president, Scott Robinson, and the general manager, Ross Thompson. All of the employees have undoubtedly put in countless hours of dedicated service and have provided immeasurable benefit to the community and to the citizens of Ontario.

I applaud the Hamilton Township Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Co on a wonderful milestone. This demonstrates how successful small business can be in Ontario.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): This morning the London Free Press reported on a survey of school bus drivers who counted 218 vehicles that passed a school bus while red lights were flashing and children were getting on or off the bus. Let me put that in perspective for you. In one city, over a four-day period, there were 218 times that children were at risk, and yet the government will do little to solve the problem.

Last week, with great fanfare, the acting Solicitor General crowed about his initiative to create community safety zones to protect children. The minister said, "There are too many irresponsible drivers who are just not getting the message." I agree. But your government is also not getting the message. Increased fines do nothing to stop these offending drivers. In the words of Mike Murphy, owner of a London area bus company, "Bus drivers were not reporting all the incidents because it happens so often." They also know that without a clear description of the driver they cannot get a conviction.

In the last session, this government refused to pass Bill 78, which would have introduced vehicle liability. We constantly see more evidence that the current law is not working. Increasing fines has not worked. Vehicle liability is the only means of stopping those who show no regard for the safety of the 810,000 children who ride the school buses every day. Introduce vehicle liability.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Today I too rise to commemorate the particular importance of Italian National Day and want to say, with great pride because of my cultural heritage, that I mark this day and that I ask members to join with me in marking this particular day.

As a country, Italy is only 52 years old, but as a culture, it is much older and much deeper than that. Probably the greatest strength that the country has offered has been the strength of its people; the ability to go through incredible change; the fact that it has gone from a constitutional monarchy to a republic today, but more significantly than that, the fact that it has developed into one of the most industrialized countries in the world with a relatively high standard of living paralleled by very few countries across the world, and a country whose people seem to know how to adapt continuously to change.

One of the interesting changes that is going on now is major discussion in Italy about making changes to the electoral system, making changes to the way in which they govern themselves, and particularly, Italy is playing a leading role in the movement towards one European currency and a greater closeness among the European countries.

But it is also important to note, particularly today, the great contributions of Italians throughout the world, because that has been one of the contributions that Italy has made, that is, to send to the four corners of the world Italians so that we too can partake, in this country, in rejoicing in today's event.

LEAHYS OF LAKEFIELD

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): I rise today to bring the attention of this House to the achievements of a remarkable family of performers in my riding of Hastings-Peterborough, the Leahys of Lakefield, Ontario.

Since 1825, six generations of Leahys have called Lakefield home. The present generation numbers 11 children, all of whom are involved with the group. Their parents, Frank, an accomplished fiddle player, and Julie, a champion step dancer, encouraged all the children to sing, dance and learn to play at least one instrument.

The Leahys' unique

interpretations of Celtic and Canadian folk music and French Canadian step dancing, as well as their mastery of traditional instruments such as fiddle, piano, mandolin, guitar, drums, keyboards and saxophone, attest to the many years they have spent developing their talents.

During the 1970s, some of the family members were already performing at weddings and fairs and competing professionally on the fiddler circuit, but it was not until 1996 that nine members of the family decided to present the Leahy style of music, song and dance to a wider audience, first with a self-titled album, Leahy, later picked up, promoted and distributed by Virgin Records, and then a series of television appearances and performances at Irish and Celtic festivals in both the US and Canada.

The Leahys were honoured by the Canadian music industry this past March with two Junos for best new group and instrumental artist of the year. They are the opening act on Shania Twain's North American tour, which kicked off in Sudbury recently, and will be appearing on their own CBC special on Sunday, June 14. I encourage all Ontarians to watch this wonderful family as they bring their host of talents to your homes and communities.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to seek unanimous consent to wear the blue and gold ribbon here in support of the May 30 to June 6 campaign to raise awareness about violence, organized by the Catholic Women's League, Thunder Bay diocese. This campaign hopes that by raising awareness of positive actions and values that promote harmonious communities -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Okay, let me just seek unanimous consent. For today, unanimous consent to wear the ribbon? Agreed? I heard a no.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHILD CARE SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION COLLECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA COLLECTE DES RENSEIGNEMENTS NÉCESSAIRES À L'OCTROI DU SUPPLÉMENT DE REVENU POUR LES FRAIS DE GARDE D'ENFANTS

Mr Eves moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 28,

An Act to permit the Collection of Personal Information for the Payment of the Ontario Child Care Supplement for Working Families / Projet de loi 28, Loi permettant la collecte de renseignements personnels en vue du versement du supplément de revenu de l'Ontario pour les familles travailleuses ayant des frais de garde d'enfants.

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

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Just a very brief comment, Mr Speaker. This bill, if enacted, would permit the collection of sufficient personal information to determine individuals' eligibility for the Ontario child care supplement for working families announced in the 1998 budget. It provides that the information collected must be destroyed if the legislation establishing the supplement has not been enacted by March 31, 1999, and it repeals the authority to collect this information effective April 1, 1999.

The Ontario child care supplement will provide support to some 350,000 young children in working families in the province of Ontario.

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ORDRE DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Wildman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 29,

An Act to increase teacher representation at the Ontario College of Teachers and to make other amendments to the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 29, Loi visant à accroître la représentation des enseignants au sein de l'Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario et apportant d'autres modifications à la Loi de 1996 sur l'Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario.

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

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): This bill amends the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996. The composition of the council of the college is changed, increasing the proportion of elected members of the college so that they will make up 75% of the council. Provisions are added to provide that the council or a committee will not have a quorum unless a majority of the elected council members are present. The council will be required to elect one of its members to be the chair. All committees will be required to have a majority of elected council members.

A provision is added requiring the prescribed requirements for the issuance of a certificate of qualification and registration to include requirements that a one-year teacher education program and a one-year paid internship program be successfully completed.

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR UNE TOLÉRANCE ZÉRO EN MATIÈRE D'ABUS DE SUBSTANCES

Mr Young moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 30,

An Act to promote zero tolerance for substance abuse by children / Projet de loi 30, Loi encourageant une tolérance zéro concernant l'abus de substances par des enfants.

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

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): Recent events in Ontario have demonstrated once again a need for action on substance abuse by our youth. Just last week in my own riding, 14 young people, most of them students, were charged with drug trafficking at a high school. A summer weekend doesn't go by that we don't hear about teenage accidents or deaths related to drugs or alcohol. We've been a society in denial.

My bill addresses this insidious problem by focusing the responsibility for curtailing substance abuse on students and their parents, with support in our schools.

MAIMONIDES SCHOOLS FOR JEWISH STUDIES ACT, 1998

Mrs Ross moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr7,

An Act respecting Maimonides Schools for Jewish Studies.

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

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if I could ask the government member why he opposes the raise-values-about-violence campaign?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order. Member for Port Arthur, you sought unanimous consent and you didn't get it. That's just the way it goes.

Motions?

Mr Gravelle: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Member for Port Arthur, I'll hear a point of order, but I don't want to hear a point of order on the same thing.

Mr Gravelle: I seek unanimous consent to ask for an explanation as to why that is the case.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, I appreciate the fact that you're a dean of the rules, but the fact is, they don't have to give an explanation. It's just a "yes" or a "no."

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Port Arthur, I'm not debating with you.

Motions? No motions?

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm very pleased today to advise members of the Legislature that the Ontario Disability Support Program Act was proclaimed on June 1, yesterday. This government has kept yet another promise. We have created a separate income support program for people with disabilities that meets their unique needs. One more important commitment of the Common Sense Revolution has been realized for the benefit of these Ontarians.

For many years, people with disabilities in Ontario have said that their needs were not being met through the welfare system. They said that it was time for governments to focus on the supports that they required to participate fully in Ontario society. Our government agreed. We decided that people with disabilities and those who worked with them were the best possible advisers we could have in developing this new legislation and the new program. We've consulted over the past two years. We've listened and we've heard their messages.

They said it was unacceptable for them to be in a category that labelled some of them as permanently unemployable. They told us that the new program must be flexible and sensitive, and recognize fully that disabilities are diverse, unique, complex and often changing.

They called for employment supports with a focus on abilities instead of disabilities, on the possibilities instead of the limitations, and on their opportunities instead of impairments.

The heart of the ODSP is a comprehensive and flexible definition of disability. The eligibility criteria recognize substantial mental or physical impairments that are continuous or recurrent and that are expected to last for a year or more.

The criteria also recognize restrictions in the activities of daily living in one or more of three areas: personal care, functioning in the community or in the workplace. This ends the automatic assessments and reassessments of disability that had occurred which were both demeaning to those individuals and also wasteful of scarce resources.

This new program removes people with disabilities from the welfare system, where they should never have been in the first place, and it creates for them an entirely separate system of income support. In addition, all those who were eligible as persons with disabilities or because of age under the old family benefits definition are being grandparented into the new program.

Improved supports for independence are a key feature of the Ontario disability support program. It provides for much more generous rules, for financial assets and for contributions made by families of people with disabilities.

ODSP supports to employment focus solely on the needs of people with disabilities who want to prepare for employment, find work and keep a job. These supports provide people with disabilities with real help in overcoming barriers to seeking, obtaining and keeping employment. When the new system is fully in place, spending on employment supports will almost double, from roughly $18 million today to close to $35 million. And the rules will also allow for the rapid reinstatement of income support if a job doesn't work out - a very distinct and significant improvement.

The members of this government are very proud of the Ontario disability support program. We have begun to phase in its implementation and we're taking the time to do it right.

The Ontario disability support program meets all the criteria we set for public policies and programs in the Common Sense Revolution. ODSP is fair and accountable to the people it is designed to serve: those with disabilities who are in need of income support, those with disabilities who are able and want to work. It also respects taxpayers' dollars.

This is an initiative that has been very well received by the community that serves people with disabilities. Yesterday the president of the Ontario March of Dimes, Mr Duncan Read, said his organization has supported the ODSP and worked with the government throughout its development. He said: "What's positive is the program's recognition that people with disabilities have the desire and the ability to work. The removal of the label `permanently unemployable' and the elimination of a financial penalty if attempts at employment fail are fundamental to persons with disabilities achieving independence."

The proclamation of the Ontario disability support program marks the start of a new era of fairer treatment and more opportunity for people with disabilities.

In closing, I would like to thank the staff at my ministry for their hard and excellent work at bringing this program into being and also to most especially thank those individuals with disabilities and those who act on their behalf for their excellent advice and counsel in bringing this new program into being.

SENIORS' MONTH

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): Earlier today the Premier and I had the pleasure of officially launching the government's Seniors' Month activities in honour of the almost one and a half million Ontarians who built our province and continue to make a meaningful contribution to our society.

We were joined by the members for Essex South and London Centre who participated in this important and joyous occasion. We were also supported by the Burlington Seniors Choir. Their stirring rendition of O Canada, I'm told, caused all three caucuses to rise in this building. That's how loud and how strong and how wonderful they were.

I want to acknowledge as well our country's most recent Order of Canada recipient, Gordie Tapp, who was master of ceremonies and who is with us in the House today; radio personality Earl Warren; and Lieutenant Ted Lancefield, a Second World War veteran who was featured as the senior in our Seniors' Month poster that was unveiled earlier. Could all of them stand up?

The government's efforts to expand and improve the quality of long-term-care health services represent our heartfelt appreciation for the contributions that seniors have made to the quality of life in Ontario.

This government has listened to seniors' suggestions and responded with very important initiatives, such as the 43 new community care access centres. During last year's Seniors' Month we announced an annual funding increase of $100 million to enhance the services in long-term-care facilities.

After an eight-year period in which no new long-term-care beds were added to the system, this government has addressed the waiting list for our seniors. On April 20, my colleague the Minister of Health announced 1,700 temporary long-term-care beds as part of our strategy to make better use of hospital beds. On April 29, the Premier announced $1.2 billion to expand facilities and community long-term-care beds. Twenty thousand new long-term-care beds will be added to the system over the next eight years and tendering has already begun on the first 6,700 new beds. This funding will create 27,500 new front-line health care jobs in Ontario.

As we expand the long-term-care system, there is an opportunity to make life in these facilities more homelike for our seniors. We all recognize how difficult it must be for those seniors who live separately from their spouses for no other reason than because of a waiting list at the facility where one spouse already resides.

Today I am announcing these regulatory changes under the Nursing Homes Act, the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act and the Charitable Institutions Act. Starting June 15, a person applying to join his or her spouse in a long-term-care facility in Ontario will be placed in a higher category for admission. Only persons in crisis circumstances and those who are at risk if they don't get admitted immediately will be given a higher priority.

This change will assist spouses currently living in the community who need facility care, as well as someone who might temporarily have to be admitted to another long-term-care facility before joining his or her spouse in the preferred facility of their choice.

Although this problem occurs relatively infrequently, when it does occur it is a major problem for the couple and for the loved ones around them. As family caregivers continue to support their parents when they move from a community setting to a facility, it is more considerate for our system to recognize the importance and the added convenience for all family members to visit their parents and grandparents together.

In this spirit, we launch Seniors' Month with the first of four weekly themes:

Intergenerational Week is a salute to everyone in Ontario who is working to bring seniors and youth together. United Generations Ontario has done outstanding work in this regard. Supporting, mentoring and grandbuddying programs are all prevalent in our province. Several representatives have been in the House with us today.

Next week is Caregivers' Week, where we pay tribute to the real angels of our health care system: those family members who care for a frail spouse or for another loved one.

During Safety and Security Week we will address difficult issues like elder abuse and fraud.

Finally, during Volunteerism Week we will have a celebration of the outstanding efforts in communities for all of our seniors.

This month's activities will set the stage for 1999. That is the year the United Nations has declared will be the International Year of Older Persons. At this time, I would like to thank the countless seniors' organizations that have offered their suggestions on how to properly celebrate this important year.

Our government has asked Mrs Lois Neely, past chair of the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Aging, to represent Ontario on the Canada coordinating committee for this year's activities. Mrs Neely is also in the gallery with us today.

This government is deeply committed to improving the quality of life for Ontario seniors. Along with our enhancements to long-term care, we've added 525 new products to the Ontario drug benefit plan. We've started the most ambitious pneumonia-prevention vaccination program in North America and reinvested new health care dollars into priority services like cancer care, cardiac care, kidney dialysis and breast cancer screening. We launched an important study to determine the shelter needs of abused older women for the first time in the province.

We redressed the unfair treatment of widows under the workers' compensation system. A safer and simpler driver's licence renewal system is now in place for seniors over 80. We've made retiree discounts on seniors' auto insurance premiums mandatory.

I join all members of the Legislature in paying tribute to Ontario's 1.5-million seniors, not just in June but in every month of the year. It is our way of saying thank you to our seniors who built a province that is the envy of the world.

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): When we learned that the Minister of Community and Social Services was making a statement today relating to people with disabilities, my caucus was expecting the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. We're not getting that today. Again, every individual in Ontario today affiliated with any advocacy group has been asking the government for months on end for some kind of response on the Ontario Disability Act.

The ODSP plan that was proclaimed yesterday and is now in effect in Ontario in essence wants people to move into the workforce, and what better way to help people do that than to advance the Ontario Disability Act. Just two weeks ago, all MPPs in this House received packages from their local groups asking them, begging them to take them back to the Premier to honour his commitment made during the last election that he would be bringing this act forward, yet he has not.

The minister today reaffirmed that the most critical one word in that statement is the word "substantial." Will people be substantially disabled in order to qualify? This is the government that refused the Liberal amendment to allow a medical professional to be the one to make that designation because any supervisor in any office can make that determination under this government's legislation, and this minister continues to operate in a vacuum without realizing what other ministries of this government are now doing to the disabled community in Ontario.

We have to talk about social housing; we have to talk about special services at home. The elderly parents who have helped their adult children and keep them at home are now suffering cuts by this same government that purports to be in favour of those with disabilities.

We cannot let this go by without saying that as late as last week, for those with disabilities, people they deal with to help them get into the workforce, vocational rehab was going to be privatized. Now it's not going to be privatized. These same counsellors had layoff notices. Maybe they won't be laid off. There is complete chaos within this very ministry, constant change so that the employee themselves don't know if they're coming or going, yet this minister today says that they're doing the best they can for the disabled. I want to say on behalf of my party that they are not doing enough, nor are they doing it well.

SENIORS' MONTH

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I want to say in a non-partisan way that we want to join you and everyone in this Legislature in paying tribute to the seniors of Ontario at this, the beginning of Seniors' Month in Ontario. It has been mentioned that this week is Intergenerational Week, where we encourage the younger generation to interact with seniors and vice versa, the seniors to contact those younger people and bring them into their lives so that both can be better enriched and educated about the others' feelings about themselves.

After that we have Caregivers Week. A lot has been said about the care of the frail and the elderly in our province and a lot has been said about those who work in that field. Many of them work for wages and under circumstances that we wouldn't want to, but the bottom line is that they have a dedication, a conscious, compassionate dedication in taking care of the seniors and the frail elderly in our province.

Safety and security, of course, are always on everyone's mind. Yesterday in my statement I raised the ugly question of elder abuse in this province, of abuse by spouses, abuse by family members, both physical and psychological. I think we have to set our direction towards solving that problem and helping those who are less able to help themselves to care for themselves.

Of course the final week of Seniors' Month will be Volunteerism Week. The volunteers who serve our elderly and seniors in this province are invaluable, and we should give all the recognition we can to their efforts.

This will go beyond, I hope, just the month of June, that we will all year think of the seniors in our province, what they have contributed to our past and what they are still able to contribute to our future, that every day we'll be thinking of those thousands of seniors who live on the edge of poverty and will bring them into our hearts and into our consciences.

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I want to respond to the Minister of Community and Social Services on the Ontario disability support plan. The minister and members of the government caucus will know that I and my caucus have supported the implementation of this plan. I have said on a number of occasions how strong our support is, but also where we have some cautionary comments and where we'd like to ensure that implementation goes smoothly.

But I have to say that this is the third or so time the minister has announced this in the House and I'm getting tired of having to stand up and support her. I wish she'd quit it. As I understand it, she told us today that she has proclaimed the bill, but they're phasing in the implementation, so I suspect we're going to have a few more of these announcements. I understand that yesterday they didn't proclaim the employment supports

section of the bill. That is an incredibly important

section of the legislation and of the plan, and I would hope - I'm sure - the ministry is scurrying quickly to bring all the needed regulations and mechanisms into place and that the minister will be moving ahead very quickly with that. I tell her she doesn't need to wait to have another date to come into the House and announce it. She could just go ahead and do that.

I too want to pay tribute to the ministry staff who have worked on this. It's an incredible product. I think they have worked extremely well with members of the disability community. Members of the community, who have long awaited such a plan, have put a lot of time and energy and heart and soul into the development of this plan and they've worked well with the ministry staff, who have produced an excellent product for all of us as legislators. I'm pleased to pay tribute to them.

I want to indicate that there are a couple of things we'll be watching as this is implemented. There remains concern, despite the assurances we heard today from the minister, that all those who are currently receiving disability supports will be grandparented. There are people who are currently on general welfare awaiting family benefits approval for disability, people who are in the stream. Assurances have been made centrally, but at the regional or area office level there is a great concern that those are not being lived up to, and I would ask the minister to keep a close eye on that.

I have to say that we also remain concerned about some of those people who were in the category of permanently unemployable.

While I support what the minister has said, that persons with physical disabilities have wanted to find ways back into the workforce and not to be labelled as permanently unemployable, there are some people who may not even be physically permanently unemployable but who may be socially or economically disabled to the point of being permanently unemployable, or to such a degree that the kinds of supports they require to have a hope or an opportunity of returning to employment are much greater than anything the minister has envisioned or put in place.

Those people are being cut out of the disability system and are being put on to Ontario Works. There is a great concern about what will happen to them, particularly if they are unable to live up to the obligations of the Ontario Works plan.

There is still a remaining concern about the

interpretation of the definition of disability and eligibility requirements. It's not so much in the words; it's in how it is interpreted and how it is applied. There has been an anecdotal sense that there has been a tightening up not just of the purse-strings but of the

interpretation of eligibility. I think the minister will have to watch that closely.

I too think it is very important while praising this, on the other hand to say to the government, you have failed miserably with respect to the issue of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. I know the Minister of Citizenship has said that she is working on a plan, that a proposal will be coming forward. The commitment was within your mandate of office. We are three years into that at this point in time and there has been no plan out there. We need considerable consultation with the community. I am hopeful that we will see that come forward in the very near future.

SENIORS' MONTH

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I am pleased to join with others here to congratulate the seniors of the province as we begin Seniors' Month.

We in the New Democratic Party will be participating in activities in our communities, and one of the things we will be doing is talking with those seniors and bringing their voices here: those seniors who are finding it difficult to manage because of the copayment on drugs; those seniors who are finding it difficult to keep their homes because of the increase in their property taxes; those seniors who are finding it difficult to deal with home care at home with the constant reductions that have occurred because of the cutbacks in hospitals that have resulted in a flood of subacute patients taking over the long-term care.

We also will be there with those families who now will not be able to have their seniors admitted to long-term care at home because of the change the minister has announced today.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the annual report of the Ombudsman for the period of April 1, 1997, to March 31, 1998, and the Ombudsman is in fact in the gallery today.

Is there any chance that the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale is going to be here? I would like to rule on his private member's bill. Then I will hold that ruling. I tell the member for Algoma, I will hold the ruling until tomorrow I think.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Yesterday the member for Scarborough-Agincourt raised a point of privilege relating to the questions asked by him and by the member for Lambton, during oral questions on May 27 and 28, of the Minister of Natural Resources, relating to Ipperwash Provincial Park.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt alleged, in effect, that the member for Lambton and the Minister of Natural Resources combined in the design of a question on the subject of Ipperwash, and the response to it, in a way that would lead listeners to the view that he had misled the House on the previous day or, at the very least, that the essence of his question was based upon inaccurate information and that this incompleteness had the effect of portraying a misleading picture, whether deliberate or not.

By planning this "attack," as the member termed it, and by refusing to respond to his questions, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt asserted that he was being obstructed in his ability to perform his parliamentary duties and therefore his privileges had been breached.

Having been in the chair during these events, I am fully aware of what transpired that causes the member for Scarborough-Agincourt to raise his point.

With respect to his concern that the Minister of Natural Resources has declined to answer his questions during question period but did answer the questions of the member for Lambton, I say that complaints of this type have been commonly raised. The Speaker, however, possesses no authority to compel ministers to answer questions; indeed, the standing orders explicitly allow ministers the discretion to decline to answer questions altogether. Therefore, the member's grievance on this issue enjoys no recourse.

On the issue of the competing views that exist concerning the underlying veracity of the comments of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, the member for Lambton or the Minister of Natural Resources, again the Speaker possesses no ability to address the matter. As the presiding officer, I must assume that all members are honourable members, that all members speak truthfully in this House, and indeed I am bound to call to order, and sanction if necessary, any member who accuses another member otherwise.

I believe that circumstances such as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has brought forward fall into the category of reasonable people having to agree to disagree, and otherwise drawing their own private conclusions beyond that. In the absence of a clearly unparliamentary statement, it is beyond my jurisdiction to select one member's version of accuracy over that of another member. In my role as Speaker, I must assume both views are accurate, each honestly arrived at through different or opposite analysis of the information at hand, each honestly held and each equally valid.

As is often the case when heated and controversial issues are debated in this House, the form of that debate and the conduct of the members may not always cast this Legislature in the noblest light; all of this is in the nature, the culture, of this place, and certainly does not constitute a breach of the members' privileges.

I cannot find that any of the issues complained of by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt impeded his ability to perform his parliamentary duties. I therefore find that a prima facie case of privilege has not been made out.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Chair of Management Board. Minister, I want to return to the issue I raised with you yesterday. You will know that an issue of grave concern to every member in this Legislature is the fact, as alleged, that apparently the man who was given responsibility to run a competition for the winning of a contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars also had a financial connection with one of the bidders, and as it turns out, that same bidder won the competition.

You said yesterday that you hadn't had enough time to look into this matter. Another 24 hours has transpired. I'm asking you today to tell us what you have learned and whether in fact Mr French was indeed in a position of conflict of interest.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): First of all, your

preamble is factually incorrect. Mr French, Coopers and Lybrand, did not run the selection process. They were hired to give advice on this independent process, which was very similar to the NDP process that was set in place, where you have a selection committee, you have expert panels to give advice on different criteria of the request for proposals and then you have a review team.

The allegation that has been raised - unlike other innuendo and muckraking, this innuendo is very, very serious. As a result, I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp to look into the matter and give me a report on that. So far, I have not received their completed report. I will wait until I get that completed report, and when I do, I'll make it public and we can take the appropriate action at that time if it is deemed to be true.

Mr McGuinty: I want to ask you this, then. First of all, the question here is very simple. I don't really understand why it is that you have to ask for a complicated report that takes a lot of time to provide. Did Mr French have a conflict of interest here or not? Did he have a financial connection with one of the bidders at the same time that he was offering advice, as you put it, to the Ontario Casino Corp? That's a very simple issue. Was he in a position of conflict or not? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The Leader of the Opposition must realize that this isn't just a simple little matter. I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp to look into this matter. I know that he and all members in this House would want to have the facts and want to have a completed report from the OCC so they can base their decisions and their opinions not just on rumour and innuendo but on a full report from the Ontario Casino Corp.

Mr McGuinty: I think, Minister, that if you treated this matter with the seriousness it deserves, you would have an answer for us here today on that very issue.

Tell me something else. I understand that your officials are continuing to address this contract, to negotiate the contract and to determine which company is going to get the contract. Do you not feel that under the circumstances here, in light of all the questions that are being raised regarding this contract - is it not appropriate, is it not prudent, is it not responsible to put a freeze on those negotiations until we get to the bottom of this? Will you at least provide us with that assurance, that you have now directed your officials to put a freeze on all of this until the necessary information is put before this House?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The specific innuendo is serious, and it's because it's so serious that we want to take our time. I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp to give me a full report on the specific innuendo. When we get that full report, we'll make our decisions based on the facts. If it weren't so serious we could carry on like the opposition do and just throw all kinds of accusations against the wall regardless of the consequences. It's because it's a serious innuendo that's being raised here that I've asked the OCC and their legal counsel to give me a full report.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question's also for Chair of Management Board. I thought it was appropriate that while we're talking about money and influence, we should talk about your plans to buy the next Ontario election. You have a proposal you are putting forward that is going to double the amount a candidate will need to spend to run in a provincial election. You're going to change the rules and stack the deck so that you can spend piles of dough to buy the next election. On top of all of that, you're going to fire the referee who's in charge of this whole undertaking.

My question for you is very simple. Why are you so intent on exposing Ontario to the kinds of money-style politics that are so prevalent in the United States of America?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I know the Leader of the Opposition likes to throw accusations around and use scare tactics. He knows full well that what's taking place here was directed by the House leaders, the member for St Catharines and the member of the NDP and our House leader, to allow for the parties to get together and discuss the results of the election finances committee report.

That was an all-party report. You had two representatives from your party and the NDP had two members of their party; the chair was Jack Murray, a past provincial secretary of the New Democratic Party, and our party appointed two. So the opposition got five votes out of seven. They issued a report that your House leaders gave responsibility - you delegated a representative from your party to meet with me. We met once last week; we're going to meet again tomorrow night.

If you have no confidence in who you selected to discuss these changes, why don't you tell your representative that you don't want him talking about this? You have no confidence in his ability to take back to caucus what's going on, so you ask these silly questions.

Mr McGuinty: You are talking about bringing about some very dramatic changes to Ontario. You want to change the way we govern ourselves when it comes to campaign rules. You want to change the amounts we can spend and the amounts of money we can raise. I take serious issue with that.

No matter who lends advice to us in this Legislature, ultimately we have to assume responsibility for any rule changes. We have a very good history when it comes to these matters in this province. That history says that none of these proposals can go forward without all-party agreement.

My question to you is very simple: Will you now stand up and provide us with your assurance that no changes of any kind will go forward affecting election rules in election spending unless you have all-party consent?

Hon Mr Hodgson: If you have no confidence in your House leader, tell him so. You instructed your House leader two weeks ago, who gave directions to one of your caucus members, to have meetings on this issue to discuss the report of the Commission on Election Finances. This was an all-party commission that worked on this for five or six years. They recognized that the act hasn't been changed since 1986 and that changes have taken place in the way elections are held, as well as inflation and the GST and other factors. They deliberated on this a long time.

You've publicly stated you have no confidence in your party's representation in that process, and now you're stating before the House that you have no confidence in your representative to our private meeting to discuss this.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Back to the issue at hand: The history in this House and the federal House with respect to election finance reform, with respect to electoral reform, has required unanimous party consent at the time the legislation was brought forward. Last week what you presented was a compendium of changes that have been proposed over the last seven years that were dealt with separately and not together. This is the first time this discussion has ever happened. Indeed, one of your proposals is to do away with one of the commissions, the finances commission, that has recommended some of these changes.

Before we proceed, before you try to put all these seats up for sale to the highest bidder, will you assure this House and the people of this province that there will be unanimity between the current parties in this House today before you bring forward any legislation that attempts to amend any statute governing the fair and responsible electoral process in this province?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm sure we all want to hear the response, and it's very difficult.

Hon Mr Hodgson: If the opposition doesn't want to carry on with their House leaders' directions to have meetings on this to discuss -

Interjections.

The Speaker: The members for Essex South and Windsor-Walkerville, come to order. Ottawa Centre, come to order.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The opposition obviously doesn't want to follow their House leaders' directions to have meetings with party representatives to discuss their recommendations, which have been deliberated on for a number of years by the Commission on Election Finances, or to look at recommendations from the chief electoral officer, who had suggestions on how to streamline the process to do away with duplication and bureaucracy and save the taxpayers money. If they want to make political hay on this -

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Obviously, the opposition, the Liberals in particular, want to get their spin lines out on this. They don't want to do the hard work of meeting to set up a process -

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hodgson: The Liberal Party and the opposition know that the Election Finances Act hasn't been changed since 1986 - 12 years. They know there's been a process, that the election commission has deliberated over this. Now they ask for unanimity. They can't even agree on the process that we were going to set up to discuss this. The member for Renfrew North calls to introduce the act. His House leader calls for a process where we could discuss and consult the recommendations according to the tradition of this House. If they don't want to do that process, they can instruct our House leaders on the process they would like to take.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health and it concerns the announcement of hospital funding for this year.

Minister, we've heard no announcement from you about hospital funding, no statement in the Legislature. Instead, you quietly sent out a letter on May 25 to hospitals across the province in effect telling them that their budget is being cut by another $200 million this year. What it means is that in three years you have now taken $1 billion out of hospital budgets. Can you tell us how it is that your government can afford to give the wealthiest people in Ontario a tax gift, a $5.5-billion tax scheme, but you don't have $200 million to help hospitals with their budgets this year?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): It's important to first of all indicate that the individuals who are getting tax refunds or rebates, however we want to word it, are not those people who are rich. They are the people who earn $25,000 up to about $70,000. I think it's important to at least set the record straight.

Having now established the fact that it is those people who receive the greatest refund, if we take a look at the hospital funding, it's important to also take into consideration the fact that we have been meeting with the Ontario Hospital Association. We've also been meeting with individual hospitals. We are requesting additional information regarding funding and we will be making those announcements. We have certainly been reinvesting in our hospitals in the past two years as well.

Mr Hampton: I find it interesting that the Minister of Health in this province has more to say in defending the government's tax scheme than she has to say about defending the budgets of hospitals.

The letter you sent acknowledges that hospitals are facing $200 million in additional costs. Your letter acknowledges that. But then you tell them that to cover that $200 million they should go inside, that they should in effect cut hospital programs to cover the $200 million in additional costs. That's what you're doing.

I want to read the reply from the president of the Ontario Hospital Association to you. It says:

"Many hospital boards will have no choice except to begin immediately the process of reducing services in order to live within their operating plans. We believe that this process could cause immediate and substantial media and public concern over consumer access and service."

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Hampton: Minister, I ask you again. You've got money to finance a tax scheme that's mainly going to benefit the wealthy. Why can't you help -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have been helping the hospitals. In fact, as you know, originally it was scheduled that there would be a reduction for three years, and we've made it known that there will be no third-year reduction. That money will stay in the hospital budgets. It's also important to know that we have reinvested $350 million into hospital-based programs and services. Recently, when we received a report of the emergency task force, we indicated that we were reinvesting $225 million to ensure that the support was going to be there for hospitals.

I would stress again that we are continuing to meet with the Ontario Hospital Association. We are meeting with individual hospitals. Certainly we are doing more for hospitals than any previous government to ensure that the priorities, services and programs that people need are going to be provided.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): You're certainly doing more to hospitals than any other government. There's no question about that.

Minister, you know this is a cut. You know you announced that you were not going to implement a $500-million cut, but you also know that the new costs that are associated with items like the cap on the OHIP technical fees, which amounts to $120 million, and the recent Ontario Nurses' Association contract award of $76 million - the hospitals have to meet this from within existing budgets. They also have to use those dollars you talked about for emergency procedures to improve their services in that area. This amounts to a cut. There's absolutely no way you can get away with continuing to pretend that your government is not cutting hospitals.

Minister, did you even read the letter from the president of the OHA? What are you going to do to stop the cuts to hospital services that are going to result from this edict which was secretly put out?

Hon Mrs Witmer: If you take a look at the letters that did go out to the hospitals, they indicate that there is absolutely no decrease in the hospital base allocations for 1998-99. It also stresses the fact that we are continuing to meet with the hospitals in order that we can continue to make priority reinvestments into the hospitals.

I think also we need to emphasize the fact that hospitals in this province actually suffered more under both the Liberals and the NDP. In fact, when the Liberals were in power in 1989-90 we had 52 hospitals with deficits; the first year of the NDP we had 61 hospitals; and the last year of the NDP we had 68 hospitals with deficits. That is far more than we are seeing today. In fact, there were greater problems for hospitals.

We're working with hospitals. They are getting additional money and we are targeting the money specifically to the programs that are required for patients in this province today. We are specifically addressing the needs and we've -

The Speaker: Can you stop the clock, please.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): In the members' west gallery is Mr Eric Cunningham, the former member for Wentworth North. Welcome.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): This is a question for the Premier, but in his absence I will ask the Chair of Management Board.

Minister, all last week we raised issues with you regarding the Niagara casino, regarding the fact that the same people who advised your government on setting up casinos and then selected the successful bidder at the Niagara casino were also working for the bidders. For over a week we raised these issues.

When we first raised them you said, "Oh, there's nothing wrong here." Then suddenly, yesterday, your tone changed. You said: "The allegation that you make specifically, that was mentioned in the Toronto Star article, I believe, on Saturday, is a new allegation to me. The first time I saw it was on Saturday. A formal process was in place for all parties to declare potential conflicts of interest. I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp and their lawyers to check their records to see if this is true...."

Minister, this wasn't raised on Saturday; this was raised over a week ago. I can show you the press reports that detail it. Why did it take you a week to respond to this conflict-of-interest situation? What were you doing in the week that you didn't respond and you tried to deny it all?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): There's been a lot of innuendo and a lot of mud-raking around this issue.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Before I was interrupted I was just pointing out that the specific innuendo about Coopers and Lybrand and the conflict of interest in the processes that took place is a new allegation that I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp to look into with their lawyers and give a report back. I haven't received that complete report yet, and when I do I'll make that open to the members and we'll take the appropriate action if it turns out to be true.

If it's just like other innuendoes and rumours that have been floating around this issue - I must remind the member that he was involved in the 1993 process around Windsor; there were innuendoes and allegations at that time, and we followed a similar process.

Any time you have large contracts with winners and with people who aren't successful, you are subject to this kind of innuendo in an environment around muckraking and other forms. Specifically, to answer your question, I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp to look into it and when they give a complete report we'll find out if it's true or not.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you keep trying to miss the point. This issue was raised by me on May 25. It is now June 2. This issue around Michael French and how he lobbied your government to bring in casinos, how he decided who was going to get the Niagara casino, and how he worked for the people who eventually got the casino, was raised on May 25 and you did nothing about it. My question was, what did you do in the week that you denied it?

It gets deeper than that. The person who is the head of the Ontario Casino Corp, David Nash, is equally a Conservative insider. He's a former Mulroney hack. He's a former fund-raiser for the member for London North. And you're going to ask him, somebody who is also involved in this up to his neck, to now conduct an investigation, after you've denied it for a week? Minister, you haven't taken your responsibility, and now trying to fob this off on to Mr Nash, another Conservative hack, won't work. Where is the independent investigation of the conflict of interest?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The leader of the third party knows full well that the first time this allegation was made specifically with facts alleged in it was on the weekend, with certain companies that were alluded to. I've asked the Ontario Casino Corp with their legal counsel to give me a report back on the facts of this issue. When I receive that completed report, we'll make that public so we're all dealing with the same facts and we'll take the appropriate action if it turns out to be true.

Mr Hampton: What the minister's answer reveals is that until you come here with a lead-pipe case, this minister won't do his public duty and protect the public of Ontario. These allegations were raised here and in the media over a week ago. You tried to ignore it. You tried to cover it up and pretend nothing was happening. We know from media reports, and the media reports are also clear, that two insiders have said the decision to have Michael French run the Niagara process came from the highest levels of the Conservative government.

Minister, I want to know from you, who was it in the highest levels? Was it Leslie Noble? Was it Tom Long? Was it the whiz kids in the Premier's office? Who was it who directed that Michael French would decide who gets the Niagara casino after he lobbied your government to bring in casinos and had worked for the bidders who got the casino? Who decided that?

Hon Mr Hodgson: You've been told time and time again that that is wrong, that it's just muckraking, that it's innuendo of the worst kind. If you're so confident in your facts, make it outside the House where you're held accountable for what you say.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is directly to the Minister of Community and Social Services, and it's specifically regarding the Ombudsman's report that was released this morning. Of all the criticism that was layered on the government today by the Ombudsman, your ministry was specifically singled out as having a number of problems in it - never such a huge number of backlog cases with the social assistance tribunal that you say was to be more streamlined and efficient, over 6,000 people waiting just to hear an appeal.

The Ombudsman said over and over again today at her press conference that the government is not accountable. I'd like to know what the minister has to say about this today.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): The whole reason we introduced legislation last year, Bill 142, which contains significant provisions to amend the Social Assistance Review Board, was because we knew the processes that board had been operating under, under the two previous governments, were not working. People were waiting far too long and there was far too much red tape. The Ombudsman has certainly highlighted that in her report today. That's one reason that legislation was passed in this Legislature. Those reforms are taking place this year.

Mrs Pupatello: The Ombudsman reports that this year is the worst she has ever seen it, and your ministry was specifically singled out for its mismanagement, but specifically, the leadership in that ministry chooses to deny a problem even exists. What the Ombudsman said was that the gap between what the government says we're entitled to by way of public service and what the public receives is becoming a gulf, not just a gap. Your response instead is to deny you're having problems there.

The Ombudsman for the first time outlined your government's blatant partisan appointments, the first time an Ombudsman has addressed the issue of patronage. The Ombudsman specifically targeted your ministry for inefficient resources where the public service simply can't do their job for the very people of Ontario your ministry exists to serve: the vulnerable, the disabled.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mrs Pupatello: Instead, under your leadership, you're not accountable and you're just not keeping up. Minister, we'd like to see action -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member across the way would like to see actions today. Where was she last year when we debated Bill 142, which brought -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I repeat, where was she last year when we passed legislation to address the issues that the Ombudsman has pointed out are problems with the old Social Assistance Review Board? The new Social Benefits Tribunal, the new board, with a more streamlined process -

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Ecker: She doesn't want to hear the answer, obviously - that will not take applicants, people on social assistance with appeals, and tie them up in administrative red tape, that legislation for the Social Benefits Tribunal came into effect yesterday.

I don't know where she's been, but the legislation was passed. She had the opportunity to support it. I don't recall her thinking those changes were very important last year. Now she seems to think they are. They came into effect yesterday. We are addressing those concerns that the Ombudsman pointed out, because we agree that there should not be useless red tape and administration, that people should get the answers they need as quickly as possible, and the new Social Benefits Tribunal will do that.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Chair of Management Board again, this whole casino affair reeks of political payola. It reeks of the Patti Starr kind of political influence.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: I want to go back to the beginning of the Niagara casino process. Do you remember Domenic Alfieri? Mr Alfieri was the president of the Ontario Casino Corp. He negotiated the interim casino contract with the Navegante Group and we now learn he is working for a company that is financially connected to the Navegante Group. We asked you to disclose that contract for the interim casino and you refused to do that.

Minister, why have you avoided opening up this process to the public? How is it that Mr Alfieri can work at the Ontario Casino Corp, negotiate with the Navegante Group for the interim casino, and then go work for that company? Doesn't that raise the issue of conflict of interest with you? Why won't you open that up and disclose it to the public?

Interjection.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I see that the Liberals say this sounds like the 407.

I do want to point out to you that the past president of the Ontario Casino Corp was an NDP appointment. He's chosen to leave the Ontario Casino Corp as president. Whatever guidelines were in place under your government, I can assure you that we have the same ones, or maybe even stricter.

Mr Hampton: The Chair of Management Board, in order to avoid accountability, wants to refer back to the NDP government and the Windsor casino. Minister, you ought to check the records, because the contract for the Windsor casino was made public, completely public.

I want to ask you, Minister, why don't you employ the same process here with the contract for the Navegante Group and the interim casino at Niagara Falls, and while you're at it, why don't you open up the selection process for the permanent casino at Niagara to public scrutiny as well? Why don't you just do what we did in Windsor when the operator for that casino was selected? Do the same thing: Open it up to the public.

Hon Mr Hodgson: The key word, I guess, that the leader of the third party wants to talk about is when the contract was signed and when it was selected and the end of the process.

As he's fully aware, the negotiations with the highest-ranked proponent are still under way on the Niagara project. I should maybe go back and get the quotes that their government used to do when they were in negotiations on the 407 on why you can't disclose all the details when you're in negotiations.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): My question is to the Minister of Education. In my riding of Quinte, Loyalist College concluded an extremely successful fund-raising initiative, cash and pledges totalling $3.1 million, including $800,000 pledged to the Ontario student opportunity trust fund. With matching dollars from the province, an endowment fund of $1.6 million will be created.

Minister, my question to you is, how many students could you predict will benefit from this trust fund?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I do thank the member for Quinte for raising this issue. I'm delighted that I was on a campus of Loyalist College in Bancroft just a couple of weeks ago with regard to the opening of a community resource centre, and certainly Loyalist is doing a lot of good work.

This particular fund, the student opportunity trust fund, is one that this government is particularly proud about. The total amount of money is now in excess of $300 million, and that amount will be matched by the government of Ontario, making over $600 million to help our students.

To answer the question directly, our reckoning is that this amount of money will help about 185,000 students over the next 10 years.

Hon David Johnson: There have been a number of other initiatives. Certainly this government has increased the amount of moneys available through the Ontario student assistance program. Since we've taken office, the financial support has gone up by about 33% and there's now over $300 million a year in direct support. That, I might say, doesn't count the interest forgiveness, which would be about $105 million. So there is over $400 million in direct financial support to post-secondary students.

For the first time ever, this government has specified that if the institutions do increase tuition, they must set aside 30% of any increase to assist students. That will amount to about $86 million just this year in terms of direct assistance to students, plus the access to opportunities fund, with $150 million over three years. The participation rate in our post-secondary institutions is the highest it's ever been and we want it to go even higher.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance and it has to do with the property tax situation. The minister will know that a year ago we started with Bill 106. You then introduced a bill to fix Bill 106 called Bill 149. Then there was Bill 164, and now we've got Bill 16.

We were expecting last week that you were going to call the bill to be passed and you decided at the last moment to change that. I gather you actually have a whole bunch of amendments that you're going to propose to the bill tomorrow, although you said last week it didn't need amendments.

The assessment rolls were supposed to go out on Friday and for some reason or another there was a glitch and they didn't go out. We now find that the municipalities are behind the eight ball. They can't get their final property tax bills out until perhaps two to three months late. As you know, Minister, every month that it is delayed costs the municipalities $40 million in interest costs.

My question is this: Seeing as it was the government's responsibility for this delay, are you going to reimburse the municipalities the $40 million a month they have to pay in interest costs?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario were in, talking to the ministry this morning, as the member may well be aware. We are proposing to deal with several suggestions the association raised last week, as he knows. The offer to meet with them actually has been out there for two to three weeks.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): That's not what they're saying.

Hon Mr Eves: The member for Kingston and The Islands can laugh if he wants. The offer to meet with them, I will repeat, has been out there for over two weeks. However, they came in and talked with Finance officials this morning. We gave them a complete briefing on the bill and we also talked to them about several suggestions they made in their 12-page letter and memo of last week, and we hope to address as many of them as we possibly can in committee tomorrow.

Mr Phillips: Of course you forgot the question, which is the $40-million question. I hope you'll consider that answer in the supplementary.

Frankly, the municipalities are laughing at the Legislature. I remember it was last Wednesday Mr Leach said you were meeting at 3 o'clock that day. He said, "...we are meeting...at 3 o'clock, I believe."

We returned to our offices and found there was no such thing. There was mass confusion out there symbolized by - actually the clerks and treasurers perhaps summarized it best. They said: "Surely this illustrates better than anything that this government, in its haste, is making legislation by the seat of its pants without proper thought or planning. Yesterday's bill is amended by today's, which will likely be amended by tomorrow's."

The issue is, this was supposed to simplify property taxes and it has got far more complicated. But I return to the question I asked first. It is going to cost our municipalities, our property taxpayers, the hardworking people of Ontario, $40 million a month in lost interest payments. Will you reimburse those municipalities for that $40-million cost?

Hon Mr Eves: We are indeed talking to municipalities about any cash flow problems they may have in addressing exactly the concerns the member has raised. But I want to point out a couple of measures we have already taken. First of all, we've deferred any realignment responsibilities of municipalities. They have not had to pay for any of them. That totals a deferment of $590 million to date province-wide.

Despite the fact we are not asking municipalities to come up with this money, we have advanced the community reinvestment fund to them in the amount of $335 million, so they are $590 million plus $335 million ahead. I think that will more than cover your $40 million a month. Despite that, we will still address the very problem the member for Scarborough-Agincourt raises.

You've now got the answer, of almost $1 billion of adjustments that we've already made this year to date for municipalities, and we will make sure that municipalities do not lose money in this process.

ABORTION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, you stood in this House yesterday and said that doctors who performed abortions at Wellesley Hospital have now got privileges to do those procedures at other Toronto hospitals. You said: "All of the physicians who performed the abortion procedures had their privileges transferred to another hospital. That has taken place and is in the course of taking place."

Would you tell us what processes you've put in place to facilitate this? You see, no one we've talked to knows anything about this. Rather than question your honesty, I ask you this: How many doctors from Wellesley Hospital have now got privileges at other hospitals to perform abortions, and at which hospitals do they now practise?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): When hospitals go through the process of restructuring, obviously there are decisions that are made within communities. Hospitals have joint executive committees that are struck in order to facilitate the transfer of services and to transfer also the physicians. Physicians then have the opportunity to get privileges elsewhere. As we go through the process of restructuring, as you well know, there are going to be some services that some hospitals deliver and others will deliver other services.

Mrs Boyd: It's pretty important for you to answer these questions, because the Premier this morning said in a scrum, "The key for the Minister of Health is to ensure that services are available to the public, if not in one institution, then another." He went on to say, "The reality and the practical application of the Canada Health Act is that those services are available and people know where they are."

The transfer of services has resulted because of the closure of Wellesley Central. The commission ordered that those services and budget be transferred from Wellesley Central to Toronto East General, and the services at Doctors Hospital were to go to the Toronto Hospital. Minister, has this happened? Can you guarantee that this means the 1,300 or more abortions that were performed last year at the Wellesley will be performed in the next year at the Toronto East General and that 1,700 additional procedures have been funded at the Toronto Hospital?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again, I would just indicate that as we go through the process of restructuring, the hospitals involved in the restructuring process set up committees in order to facilitate the transfer of services from one to the other. In this case, it was a transfer between Wellesley and St Michael's Hospital and also a transfer between St Michael's Hospital and some of the services to other hospitals in the city of Toronto.

Not all hospitals in this province deliver the same types of services. However, these services are available to people throughout the province. These services that are no longer going to be available at Wellesley Hospital, if they're not available at St Michael's Hospital, will be available at other hospitals within the city of Toronto.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): My question is for the Minister of Labour. On Friday, the minister joined me and my fellow colleague the member for Lambton, Mr Beaubien, in Sarnia to celebrate the construction of a new product development plant for the next generation of plastics at Dow Chemical. This is Dow's first new plant in Sarnia in almost a quarter of a century. I am pleased to say this project will create over 400 construction jobs for three years, and 50 permanent, highly skilled, good-paying jobs in Sarnia once the facility is complete.

This is great news for Sarnia, but this should only be the beginning. There are obstacles that are keeping Sarnia from reaching its full potential in attracting thousands of quality jobs. The number one obstacle is Ontario's construction competitiveness. The petrochemical industry can build their plants anywhere in the world. What is the Minister of Labour doing to improve construction competitiveness and encourage the petrochemical industry to build their plants here in Ontario?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I am committed to creating job opportunities by making Ontario more attractive for investors and I was delighted to join the member for Sarnia, and also the member for Lambton, in Sarnia last Friday to celebrate the construction of a new product development plant for the next generation of plastics at Dow Chemical and the next generation of jobs. This announcement is great news for Sarnia and the surrounding area of Lambton.

Construction competitiveness is an obstacle to attracting new investment in jobs. Ontario is losing millions of dollars in investment and all the jobs that go with that investment because some of our labour laws, particularly in the construction industry, are not working for Ontarians. If we can build a framework that will bring contractors and building trade unions together, they will be able to bid competitively for multimillion-dollar global investment and create thousands of jobs in Ontario.

Mr Boushy: I appreciate the minister's commitment to Sarnia and the Lambton jobs for the entire province. The minister's commitment to ensure Ontario is competitive in our construction costs for projects that could bring hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment in Sarnia and Ontario not only tells the world that Ontario is open for business but will bring investors through the doors, creating thousands of jobs for Sarnia and this province. Minister, to date, what steps have been taken towards improving the construction competitiveness in Ontario?

Hon Mr Flaherty: My staff and I and my ministry have met with the building trade unions, with trade union leaders in carpentry, sheet metal and all the other trades, general contractors, subcontractors, local construction associations and provincial construction associations, all in an effort to come up with an industry solution, a solution that everyone at the table knows is essential to bid competitively for investments worth hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

As late as last week the parties were meeting, and I encourage them to continue to make every effort to negotiate a solution. The negotiations have met with some success, but to date a solution has eluded them. For this reason, the government is considering options that will directly address the competitiveness issue while ensuring a productive and stable labour relations environment. New investment in jobs for Ontario is a priority for this government. I am committed to making Ontario more attractive to investors to continue the creation of job opportunities in communities like Sarnia and Lambton county around Ontario.

LANDS FOR LIFE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. In your very short time in this place, you've been able to create a second crisis in your career, this time a crisis with Lands for Life. You've started a war among Ontarians over crown land management with this process. Your let's-divide-up-the-pie approach to management is pitting north against south; it's pitting the forestry and mining industry against tourism and conservationists in this province. It should be obvious to you that the potential breakup of your Boreal West Round Table that is falling apart is proof to you that this process has failed.

Minister, why not a more holistic approach and manage our resources from their prospective values? We can protect, we can even enhance, biodiversity in Ontario if you were to allow some of the new ideas that are being discussed across this country to be considered here in Ontario. Admit today the Lands for Life is not working and that the answer lies in taking a more modern approach to resource management.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): Lands for Life, as the member may or may not know, is a process that has been going on for some time in Ontario. It really is an attempt to involve the public in a conversation about the planning of public land use. This process involves three round tables of people who are committed to the future of Ontario, committed to making sure that we use those natural resources wisely and who have been engaged in a public consultation that has taken literally hundreds and hundreds of meetings with people right across the province to ask them what they believe we should do for the future of the province.

I think it's the right process. It has certainly engaged a lot of very interesting conversation with people who are committed to that future. I welcome it as a public process for public input, to make sure that the public has a say in the use of public lands.

Mr Ramsay: The minister thinks it's the right approach, but the Timiskaming Municipal Association in my riding is discussing the idea of a separate northern Ontario province, an idea that personally I don't like, but that's the type of powder keg you have ignited in northern Ontario with this process. By the way, the last time this idea was discussed, it was your party that was in power here in this province.

You have proceeded with this idea of reducing resource-based economic activity without producing any sort of economic impact statement to tell northerners how their economy and their communities will be affected. You have frozen further prospecting and developing on mining claims without any discussion of compensation. Minister, that is theft. Any sort of confiscation without compensation is theft, not only from those who put their work and money into developing those claims but to all of us because it steals from potential development in our northern communities.

Minister, this is the wrong approach. It is not working. When are you going to take a different approach and tell northern Ontarians they have an important part to play in this province?

Hon Mr Snobelen: If the member opposite is accusing this government of having northerners, the people who, by the way, comprised the membership in the round tables, be engaged in a public conversation, particularly in the north, about the use of the resources in the future, the resources that people, particularly in the north of Ontario, have relied on for many generations, if he's accusing us of having a public conversation about the use of public lands, then he's right, that's exactly what we're doing, asking the public what they want to see on public lands in the future.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I also have a question to the Minister of Natural Resources. In February, Ontario's Divisional Court ruled that your Conservative government had broken the law by allowing commercial logging in Temagami, Out Lake and Upper Spanish forests. The court found that you had violated the requirements of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and breached seven conditions of the class EA on timber management, and the court ordered you, in one year's time, to comply with the act, the EA requirements and the Forest Management Planning Manual.

The Conservative government appealed this decision and argued in court that you couldn't comply because you've cut your staff and forestry expenditures by 55%. Last week, the court ruled against you again. They told you to comply within the prescribed time, and I understand that you intend to appeal this decision now to the Court of Appeal on June 18. My question is this: Why do you think you're above the law? Why don't you do what the court has ordered you to do?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): As the member opposite has indicated in the question, this matter is still before the courts. In respect for those courts, I don't believe I can comment on the matter.

Ms Martel: That's not good enough because this court case makes it abundantly clear that your Conservative government has put Ontario's natural resources at risk because of your deep cuts to the Ministry of Natural Resources. You had your legal staff argue in court that you couldn't comply with the law to protect forestry resources because of the deep cuts you've made to ministry staff. Your government has made the decision to lay off 2,000 staff. That's a decision you have to assume some responsibility for.

Now we see in the estimates for this year that you intend to cut another $41 million from the operating budget at MNR and that will surely mean more staff layoffs. It's irresponsible for you to argue you can't meet the law because you don't have the staff. Why are you and your government putting the natural resources of this province at risk?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to assure the member opposite that we have done nothing that would put the natural resources at risk in Ontario. As the member opposite discussed in the last set of questions, we in fact are undertaking a very ambitious public consultation about the use, the preservation and the conservation of those natural resources, so that is the track record. I can assure the member opposite that with respect to the courts - and this matter is before the courts as she discussed, it is before the courts now - I can't comment on that until they make a judgement.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. We know that Ontario's agrifood sector is getting stronger and a strong agrifood sector builds prosperous communities. By way of example, the strength of both the tobacco and the ginseng export markets strengthens communities like Tillsonburg, Delhi and Simcoe in my riding.

I'm sure the opposition would be pleased to hear that Ontario is one of the most popular locations for attracting investment in the agrifood industry. Minister, will you share this good news with the House?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): To my colleague from Norfolk, yes, Ontario is number one in the food processing industry in Canada and we're pleased to say that some 50% of the food processing and manufacturing is done right here in Ontario.

In 1996, Ontario attracted some $580 million in new investment in the agrifood processing industry alone, and that's more than Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Georgia, Tennessee, and we're nipping at the heels of states like Wisconsin and Texas. Clearly the policies of the Harris government are not only attracting new investment but keeping present investment and acting as a magnet to the agrifood processing industry here in Ontario.

Mr Barrett: From that answer, I think we all realize why Ontario is such a great place to live, work and raise a family.

Minister, in my riding there's an excellent working relationship between the Ginseng Growers Association of Canada, the Ontario Ginseng Cooperative and the Ontario government. One goal is to expand the export of high-quality Ontario ginseng to Asian markets. Can you inform the House about some of the recent successes in Ontario's agrifood industry, including an agreement which will have a positive effect in my riding?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: The honourable member mentioned ginseng. Ginseng has made major inroads here in Ontario, particularly into the Chinese market. I read a headline here that $9 million of Ontario ginseng will be sold to China in a deal inked during the trade mission in March and April, led by Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs officials. The ginseng industry is an outstanding example of how versatile Ontario's agrifood sector is.

"Cambridge Pig Firm Shows How to Compete" - a headline on an editorial in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of May 8. More money again being invested: "Chatham Ethanol Plant Seeing Double," London Free Press, April 17; Ontario's "Wheat Industry Poised to Grow Over Next Five Years," Chatham Daily News; "Frozen Food Company" - I could go on for the rest of the afternoon. However, I think the point is made. Ontario is a magnet for the agrifood processing industry.

PETITIONS

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'm presenting a petition that I've been asked to present today on behalf of Mr Bill Whatcott, who is a resident in Beaches-Woodbine and who is here today to hear his petition being read.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I have informed Mr Whatcott, while I am not in agreement with the content, I'm very pleased to present it on his behalf.

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

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

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

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

"Whereas physicians in Ontario are often pressured to give referrals for medication, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral;

"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 conscience; and

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

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

This petition is signed by hundreds of people from my riding and across Ontario.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): My petition joins thousands of others on the topic of the restructuring advisory group in Ottawa-Carleton.

"Whereas the Ottawa-Carleton Restructuring Advisory Group has prepared a preliminary report for the Ottawa-Carleton Development Services Restructuring Project; and

"Whereas the consultation process was selective and limited; and

"Whereas those who require services are being pitted against those who have services; and

"Whereas service to one group should not be at the expense of another, regardless of age or language; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services' corporate agenda is one of wholesale destruction of the support system for the vulnerable; and

"Whereas this corporate agenda will threaten the health, safety and likely the lives of many disabled people;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to stop this destructive restructuring project and provide adequate funding for quality services for the developmentally disabled."

I affix my name to it.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I'd like to present three petitions today which are the same as the petitions that were read by the member for Beaches-Woodbine and the member for Mississauga East. They were prepared by St Boniface Catholic Women's League in Zurich and The Life Centre in Goderich. They were dropped off to my office in Wingham by Linda Burns and again deal with conscience of health care workers.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a new petition which has arrived at my office and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris is trying to increase the limit on the amount of money that corporations and individuals are allowed to contribute to political parties and individual candidates in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Harris government plans to introduce legislation to permit political parties and candidates to spend far more money during election campaigns; and

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris would like to remove certain campaign expenditures such as polling and campaign headquarters equipment from the spending limits placed on political parties and candidates; and

"Whereas the Conservative government is proposing to abolish the Ontario election finances commission, the watchdog agency policing political contributions and expenditures; and

"Whereas the Harris government wishes to shorten the length of provincial election campaigns and to permit expensive media advertising throughout the entire campaign period, thereby favouring the political parties and candidates with the most money; and

"Whereas the changes to the Election Finances Act proposed by Mike Harris will give undue and unacceptable influence to the wealthiest and most powerful interests in our province and will result in the problems that have plagued the American political system, where money plays a central role;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request that the Harris government abandon its attempt to place more emphasis on money in the election campaigns of Ontario."

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

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I have a petition which I've been asked to read in its entirety.

"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;

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

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

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

"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."

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): As you know, the government is imposing closure once again this afternoon, for the 56th time -

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Read your petition, please.

Mr Gerretsen: - so this petition is very much in order. It states as follows, Madam Speaker:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am in full agreement with this petition and have signed accordingly.

REZONING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 159 signatures from the town of Caledon in my riding. It's addressed to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the town of Caledon.

"We, the undersigned, object to the rezoning of the Rockford property, Old Base Line and Winston Churchill Boulevard, in order that it be turned into a quarry for the purpose of mining the rock that is contained therein."

I have signed this petition.

ABORTION

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I have a petition here that comes from the towns of LaSalle, Essex, Maidstone, throughout both my riding and the riding of Essex South. It's a petition regarding the public financing of abortions and I'm happy to submit that to the table.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas abortion is a lifestyle choice which is never medically necessary; and

"Whereas the Ontario government's injunction against 18 pro-life citizens initiated by the NDP in 1993 is an unwarranted suppression of free speech and of peaceful and lawful activity; and

"Whereas health care workers are experiencing coercion to participate in procedures contrary to their consciences and unfair discrimination for acting according to their consciences;

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

"That public funding of abortion should cease, that the injunction against pro-life witnessing should be dropped and that the conscience rights of health care workers be given new, explicit protection in the law."

I agree with this petition, and I sign my name forthwith.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have a petition signed by 546 from my riding:

"Whereas medical procedures have been cut to the bone for lack of funds; and

"Whereas our emergency rooms are strapped for funds to provide emergency service that is often less than adequate;

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to the use of public funds to provide needless abortions to a selected group at the expense of procedures that all Ontarians are entitled to.

"We trust that you will give this matter your consideration."

I will add my signature to the petition.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further petitions? I apologize for missing the rotation. The member for Kingston and The Islands.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here that deals with some matters that were raised in the House today and yesterday. It states as follows:

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris is trying to increase the limit on the amount of money that corporations and individuals are allowed to contribute to the political parties and individual candidates in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Harris government plans to introduce legislation to permit political parties and candidates to spend far more money during election campaigns than was the case in the past; and

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris would like to remove certain campaign expenditures, such as polling and campaign headquarters equipment, from the spending limits placed on political parties and candidates; and

"Whereas the Conservative government is proposing to abolish the Ontario election finance commission, the watchdog agency policing political contributions and expenditures; and

"Whereas the Harris government wishes to shorten the length of provincial election campaigns and to permit expensive media advertising throughout the entire campaign period, and thereby favouring the political parties and the candidates with the most money; and

"Whereas the changes to the Election Finances Act proposed by Mike Harris will give undue and unacceptable influence to the wealthiest and most powerful interests in our province and will result in the problems that have plagued the American political system, where money plays a central role;

"We, therefore, ask the Harris government to immediately cease and desist from making these rules and implementing them into legislation."

I've signed the petition as well.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I'd like to ask for unanimous consent that to assist Mel Lastman we have an emergency debate on the future of the Spice Girls. I think that's an important issue.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Agreed? I heard a no.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't know if we can get the government to agree to this, they may not, but I would ask unanimous consent for the House not to sit tonight so that everybody can attend the gala press gallery event.

The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? I hear a no.

Orders of the day. Government House leader.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I'm Mr Grinch. I'd like to indicate that I said no to that unanimous consent on the Spice Girls.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move government notice of motion number 13.

I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 15,

An Act to cut taxes for people and for small business and to implement other measures contained in the 1998 Budget, when Bill 15 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill, without further debate or amendment; and at such time, the bill shall be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice;

That the standing committee on administration of justice shall be authorized to meet to consider the bill at its regularly scheduled meeting times on June 8 and June 9, 1998.

That, pursuant to standing order 74(d), the Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice shall establish the deadline for the tabling of amendments or for filing them with the clerk of the standing committee;

That the committee shall be authorized to meet for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill on Thursday, June 11, 1998, from 9 am to 12 noon, and following routine proceedings until completion of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

That, at 4:30 pm on that day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto;

That any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a);

That the committee shall report the bill to the House on Monday, June 15, 1998. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on administration of justice, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That one sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5:55 pm or 9:25 pm, as the case may be, on such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That the vote on third reading of the bill may, at the request of any chief whip of a recognized party in the House, be deferred until the next sessional day during the routine proceeding "deferred votes"; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceeding on the bill, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes.

I want to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Nepean, the member for Durham East and the member for Dufferin-Peel.

Before those members should stand and speak on this motion, it had been our desire that it would not be necessary to go to a time allocation motion. In that case, if we had been able to finish second reading debate and refer it to a committee at an earlier date, we would have had greater time for that committee to meet and consider the bill and report the bill back here.

Unfortunately, Bill 15 deals with many of the matters related or involved with the budget that our finance minister presented early in May, and it's necessary for this bill to pass into law before we rise for our summer recess.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): You should have called it earlier, then.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order, please. Come to order.

Hon Mr Sterling: I guess the intransigence of the opposition to push this government to time allocation on each and every piece of legislation -

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Oh, come off it.

Hon Mr Sterling: Not each and every. I give them the fact that they have given us a few pieces of legislation without having to do that, but very few. In this case, it would have been our hope to get this bill out earlier so that more people could have been involved with having some kind of public hearings.

It's unfortunate that we have to move a time allocation motion on this but that seems to be the way this House is operating at this particular juncture of our parliamentary history and that's the way we have to carry on our business.

At this point in time I would like to turn it over to the member for Nepean, who is a parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Finance and has been doing an excellent job with regard to carrying legislation on his behalf in this House.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to rise in debate. I want to say at the outset of my remarks how disappointed I am that we didn't accede to the demand of the member for Windsor-Riverside. I would have enjoyed the opportunity to back up the mayor of the city of Toronto in his efforts to reunite the Spice Girls.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to a motion to have this bill, which will cut taxes and create jobs, go forward to committee so the Legislature can consider the bill, with the hope of passing it so we can indeed continue to reduce taxes.

Bill 15 is the first budget bill arising from the 1998 provincial budget. It proposes two principal income tax reductions. Basically it's designed to see the complete 30.2% income tax cut take effect by July 1, 1998. It does it in two phases with respect to allowing it to be fully implemented for the 1999 tax year. The basic personal income tax rate would go from 45% of the federal rate to 42.75% effective July 1 of this year for 1998, and then when it's a full 12-month calendar year, in 1999, it would be 40.5%. That's quite remarkable because what we've seen is income taxes in Ontario go from a high of 58% of every federal tax dollar to 40.5%.

There is a clear and inextricable link between the provincial income tax rate and the economic growth rate. If you look at the two powerhouses of job creation and economic growth in Canada this year, you'll see that Alberta and Ontario are the two with the lowest personal income tax rate, so cutting taxes certainly works.

I don't like to simply look at Conservative economists or Conservative members to describe what is a good bill, so I tried to find some other thoughts -

Interjection.

Mr Baird: "Even from the federal government," the member for Northumberland says.

I found a very interesting quote: "They," the taxpayers, "have more money in their pockets, and therefore they have more money to spend. Tax cuts increase domestic consumption." I wonder who said that? It was the Honourable John Manley, the federal Liberal Minister of Industry, the wisest